BCC Minutes 06/26/2018 RJune 26, 2018
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 26, 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, Clerk of Courts & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
June 26, 2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
June 26, 2018
9:00 AM
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 - BCC Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., Dist. 5 - BCC Vice-Chair; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
June 26, 2018
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Father Paul D'Angelo of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
B. June 5, 2018 - BCC/Mental Health Workshop Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
Page 3
June 26, 2018
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the County Manager’s Corporate Compliance and Internal
Control Program. (Michael Nieman, Corporate Compliance and Internal
Review Manager)
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 9:15 a.m. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance
which would create the unpaved private road emergency repair municipal
service taxing unit by authorizing a levy of not to exceed one (1) mil of ad
valorem taxes per year.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance intended to protect the public’s
right to access and recreate along Vanderbilt Beach while at the same time
protecting the local tourism industry and the private property rights of those
owners with lands adjacent to the Gulf.
C. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, to require permanent emergency generators at
residential developments with a clubhouse or community center and at
facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living facilities or nursing homes, and
to allow yard encroachments and reduced planting areas for permanent
emergency generators at facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living
facilities or nursing homes, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section
Page 4
June 26, 2018
Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four
- Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01
Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section
4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section 4.06.05 General Landscaping
Requirements; Chapter Five - Supplemental Standards, including Section
5.05.04 Group Housing, Section 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps, adding
new Section 5.05.17 Residential Developments with Clubhouses or
Community Center Buildings; Chapter Ten - Application, Review, and
Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.02.03 Requirements for
Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments thereof;
Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the
Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, effective date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to evaluate the options for the rezoning of lots 88 and 89
West Flamingo Drive from Mobile Home-Area of Critical State Concern
Zoning (MH- ACSC), as requested at the May 22, 2018, public hearing
under agenda item 7, Public Petition and approve staff’s recommendation
that the property owner proceed with a self-initiated rezone. (Mike Bosi,
Zoning Director, Growth Management Department)
B. Recommendation to adopt the agreed upon Interlocal Agreement between
the County and the City of Marco Island in the event of approval of the
Marco Island Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN)
application or consider alternatives for providing a second ambulance to
Marco Island. (This is a companion to Agenda Item #11.C) (Tabatha
Butcher, EMS Chief)
C. Recommendation to deny a request for a Class 1 Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from the City of Marco Island Fire and Rescue
for ALS response and transport. (This is a companion to Agenda Item
#11.B) (Dan Summers, Emergency Management Director)
D. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring back
for public hearing an ordinance which would create the Interchange Activity
Center No. 9 Innovation Zone, to be located at the intersection of I -75 and
Page 5
June 26, 2018
Collier Blvd., to facilitate economic development by establishing an
Economic Development Plan and Trust Fund, setting a base tax year for the
Fund, and reimbursing eligible expenditures as authorized in advance by the
Board for use in encouraging economic growth. (Jace Kentner, Business and
Economic Development Division Director)
E. Recommendation to direct staff to initiate the Growth Management Plan
(GMP) amendment process for the proposed changes to the Immokalee Area
Master Plan (IAMP) and to present the status of four eastern area restudies.
(Kris Van Lengen, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division)
F. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) Solicitation No. 18-7329
Collier County Building G Alterations to DEC Contracting Group, Inc., for
the renovation of Collier County Building G in the amount of $1,027,661,
and to provide for a 10% Owners Allowance of $102,766 for potential
unforeseen conditions, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
construction services contract, and authorize the necessary budget
amendment. (Claude Nesbitt, Project Manager, Facilities Management
Division)
G. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid Number 18 -7314, “95th Avenue
North Public Utilities Renewal" Project Numbers 60139 and 70120, to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of $5,443,920, and authorize the
necessary budget amendments. (This is a companio n to Agenda Item #11.H)
(Tom Chmelik, Engineering and Project Management Director, Public
Utilities Department)
H. Recommendation to approve a $607,453 purchase order to Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., under Contract Number 14 -6345 for Construction,
Engineering, and Inspection Services for the Public Utility Renewal Project
for 95th Avenue North, Project Numbers 60139 and 70120. (This is a
companion to Agenda Item #11.G) (Tom Chmelik, Engineering and Project
Management Director, Public Utilities Department)
I. Recommendation to approve the Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality
Water, Miscellaneous Service Charges and Wholesale Potable Water User
Rate Study and direct the County Manager or his designee to advertise a
resolution: 1) amending Schedules One, Two, Three, Four, and Five of
Appendix A to Section Four of Collier County Ordinance No. 2001 -73, as
amended, titled the Collier County Water-Sewer District Uniform Billing,
Page 6
June 26, 2018
Operating, and Regulatory Standards Ordinance No. 2001-73, as amended,
with an effective date of October 1, 2018; and, 2) adjusting the Collier
County Water-Sewer District Bulk Services Water rates within the
Hammock Bay Service Area, as authorized by the Potable Water Bulk
Services Agreement. (Joseph Bellone, Financial Operations Support
Director, Public Utilities Department)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), terminate
current negotiations with Arno, Inc. as proposed under ITN #17-7169
and direct staff to incorporate the parcels into the redevelopment plan
update to determine the best future vision for the ap proximately 17.89
acres of CRA owned property in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proposed BCC Future Workshop Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
Page 7
June 26, 2018
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Phase 2A, PL20160001891 and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond
in the total amount of $4,000 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the amended final plat of Bent Creek Preserve
Phase 2A (Application Number PL20180000294) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Winding Cypress Phase 3,
(Application Number PL20170003951) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Del Webb Naples Parcel 109,
(Application Number PL20180000500) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country
Club of Naples Phase 5 Parcels “I”, “J”, K1”, “K2”, “K3” and “K4”
(Application Number PL20180000032) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
6) Recommendation to approve the 10-Year Capital Planning document
Page 8
June 26, 2018
for Fund 195-Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance and Fund
185 Program Management and Administration, and make a finding
that these expenditures will promote tourism.
7) Recommendation to award ITB No. 18-7317 Collier County
Landscape Beautification Master Plan “Santa Barbara Boulevard
(Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard) Landscape and
Irrigation Installation” to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc. for
$597,879.27 (Project No. 60207).
8) Recommendation to approve the Collier County Planning
Commissioner request for Board of County Commissioners approval
for payment to attend a function serving a valid public purpose.
9) Recommendation to award Contract No. 18-7307, Livingston Road
Sidewalk Improvements Project #60118, to Infinite Construction, Inc.,
in the amount of $222,490.57.
10) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of $25,000 which was posted as a guaranty for
Excavation Permit Number 60.164, PL20160000096 for work
associated with The Club at Pelican Bay.
11) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate revenue to the roadside
Wall Barrier/Replacement Project (#60130) in the amount of
$600,000 for Fiscal Year 2018 and authorize all necessary Budget
Amendments.
12) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate revenue to the Traffic
Operations cost center, in the amount of $292,800 for Fiscal Year
2018 and authorize all necessary Budget Amendments.
13) Recommendation to approve and authorize payment of Invoice No.
91050383 for $2,936.25 to Argos USA, Corporation for concrete
materials and related items purchased and received by the Road
Maintenance Division that caused the Purchase Order to exceed
$50,000.
14) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Ardaman & Associates,
Inc. for Sedimentation Material Testing Services for the Wiggins Pass
Page 9
June 26, 2018
Channel and Doctors Pass Channel Dredging projects under Contract
No. 13-6164-TE authorize the Chairman to execute the work order for
a not to exceed amount of $8,700 and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism.
15) Recommendation to award the bulk mailing of the Stormwater Utility
assessments to each parcel owner within the Unincorporated Areas of
Collier County for Printing & Copying Services to Strategy Marketing
Group, Inc. d/b/a Panther Printing, and authorize the issuance of a
Purchase Order in the amount of $107,667 (Project Number 51144).
16) Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting (1) the
automation and remote monitoring of Collier County’s Stormwater
structures and facilities, and (2) the development of a local stormwater
management control system at the Emergency Operations Center, to
be used for the joint management of the Collier County Stormwater
System by the South Florida Water Management District/Big Cypress
Basin and Collier County.
17) Recommendation to approve the staff recommended Tourist
Development Council Grant application requests for Beaches, Pass
and Inlet Maintenance, and Fishing Piers from the City of Naples, the
City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-2018-2019 in the
amount of $14,877,200; budget these expenditures; and make a
finding that these expenditures will promote tourism.
18) Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement between the City
of Everglades City and Collier County relating to the administration
of the Florida Building Code, the Florida Administrative Code,
Contractor Licensing, and Code Enforcement as they all relate to
building permits.
19) Recommendation to approve and execute the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services Notice of Grant
and Agreement, the Assurance relating to Real Property Acquisition
and authorize the necessary budget amendments to recognize grant
funding in the amount of $6,476,678.18 with a required match in the
amount of $1,962,629.75. (Project No. 33572).
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 10
June 26, 2018
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting in its capacity as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), approve the attached lease agreement with Southwest Florida
Workforce Board. Fiscal impact: $69,981.18.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), authorize the
Chair to sign the necessary documentation to transfer the Voluntary
Tax Credit Certification No. 287 to Valley National Bank and credit
proceeds towards the purchase price for the 5.27 Acre site within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA as identified in the Purchase and
Sale Agreement with Real Estate Partners International, LLC.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for a Public Hearing, a Resolution amending the Collier County
Water-Sewer District’s Utilities Standards Manual.
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for a Public Hearing, an Ordinance amending the Collier County
Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance.
3) Recommendation to approve an In Building Radio Distribution
License Agreement with Verizon Wireless Personal Communications
LP to install communications equipment for enhanced service at the
Jail.
4) Recommendation to approve a Utility Facilities Quit Claim Deed and
Bill of Sale to JMD Developments and Investments, LLC to facilitate
the legal removal of existing Collier County Water-Sewer District
water lines to enable the redevelopment of privately owned lands.
5) This item was continued from the June 12, 2018 BCC meeting and
is further continued to the July 10, 2018 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to advertise a Resolution expanding the Collier
County Water-Sewer District’s Service Area boundaries to coincide
with the area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida.
Page 11
June 26, 2018
6) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$210,000 transferring funds between cost centers and line items
within the Collier County Water-Sewer District Operating Fund (408)
to cover costs for unanticipated increases in bank fees.
7) Recommendation to award Agreement No. 18-7312 “Printing and
Mailing Services” to Southwest Direct, Inc., to outsource the printing
and mailing of Collier County Water-Sewer District utility bills.
8) Recommendation to approve a $560,618 work order under Request
for Quotation #14-6213-119 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., under
Project Number 70172, “Gulf Shore Drive Asbestos Water Main
Abandonment Phase 2,” which includes abandoning 3,700 feet of
asbestos cement water main and transferring its connections to the
existing 16-inch ductile iron water main, and authorize the necessary
budget amendment.
9) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $890,000 to cover costs
associated with increased service requests and maintenance for county
buildings and equipment.
10) Recommendation to approve a $296,621.99 work order under Request
For Quotation #14-6213-121 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for the
Manatee Road Potable Water Storage Tank - Upgrades Project No.
70187 and authorize the necessary budget amendment.
11) Recommendation to authorize payment of $92,422.43 to Johnson
Controls, Inc., to pay the balance due on purchase orders for work
quoted as lump sum, which was successfully completed and accepted
by County staff.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the Collier County FY2018 -2019 One-
Year Action Plan for U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD) for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency
Solutions Grant (ESG) Programs, including the reprogramming of
funds from previous years and estimated program income; approve
Page 12
June 26, 2018
the Resolution, HUD Certifications, and SF 424 Application for
Federal Assistance; and authorize transmittal to HUD.
2) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Ground Lease
Agreement for Communications Tower with SBA Towers II LLC at
Vineyards Community Park.
3) Recommendation to approve USIC, LLC as a single source provider
in the estimated annual amount of $81,000 to provide locates for
buried electrical network currently owned by Collier County, acting as
the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(“MSTU”), to support the needs of the contractor providing sewer and
water upgrades for the Public Utilities Department in the Vanderbilt
Beach area.
4) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment recognizing
$1,200 in program income under the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG).
5) Recommendation to approve Agreement #18-7365-WV with the Gulf
Coast Adult Soccer League, Inc., as the single source provider of adult
soccer league services.
6) Recommendation to extend contract end dates on nine (9) existing
Service for Seniors’ vendor contracts to December 31, 2018.
7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution Superseding Resolution No.
2016-125 amending the Collier County Domestic Animal Services
(DAS) Fee Policy. (This is a companion to Agenda Item 17.A)
8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign,
three (3) Releases of Lien to release thirty-two (32) separate liens for
a combined amount of $157,104.58 for properties developed by
Immokalee Habitat for Humanity, Inc. that have remained affordable
for the required 15-year period set forth in the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Impact Fee Program.
9) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment recognizing
additional funding in the amount of $196,000 for the State Housing
Initiative Partnership Program for FY 2017/2018.
Page 13
June 26, 2018
10) Recommendation to approve two (2) State Housing Initiative
Partnership (SHIP) Sponsor Agreements between Collier County and
Collier County Housing Authority (CCHA), contract award $300,000
and (2) Residential Options of Florida, Inc, contract award
$160,468.92 for the administration of rental acquisition.
11) Recommendation to accept the annual Retired and Senior Volunteer
Program (RSVP) grant award from the Corporation for National and
Community Service in the amount of $77,888 and authorize the
necessary budget amendments.
12) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact grant request to the
Florida Department of State, Division of Historic Resources for
funding in the amount of $100,000 for architectural drawings, site
development, and landscape plan of the Margood Harbor Park
Historic Cottage site and the Resolution to authorize the submission of
the grant application and designating currently budgeted funds for the
required match.
13) Recommendation to accept and appropriate restricted donations
totaling $10,000 to support the replacement of the East Naples Branch
Library carpet.
14) Recommendation to approve a Right-of-Way Consent Agreement and
associated Memorandum with Florida Power & Li ght Company
(FPL), providing for the construction of ten (10) parking spaces for
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Park and Ride, within FPL’s power-line
right-of- way located at the northwest corner of Immokalee and
Livingston Roads on County-owned vacant property.
15) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Amendment #0001 to the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and
Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant Agreement between Collier
County and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the
corresponding Subrecipient Agreements between Collier County and
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. (DLC), Collier County
Sheriff’s Office (CCSO), and the National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) of Collier County, and approve the amended grant budget
and application.
Page 14
June 26, 2018
16) Recommendation to approve the FY2018/19 Transportation
Disadvantaged Trust Fund Trip/Equipment Grant Agreement with the
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD) in
the amount of $764,438 with a local match of $84,938 , authorize the
Chairman to execute the Agreement and supporting Resolution, and
authorize the required Budget Amendments.
17) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to the Urban County
Cooperation Agreement with the City of Naples, authorize the chair to
sign the approving resolution, and authorize staff to forward the
supporting documentation to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to comply with HUD’s Urban County
Re- Qualification requirements.
18) Recommendation to approve the FY18 Program of Projects and
submittal of a grant application for the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), 49 U.S.C. 5339 FY18 grant funds in the amount of $411,466
through the Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).
19) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 18-7289
“Aquatic Slide Restoration” to Close Construction, LLC in the
amount of $189,500, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
contract and authorize the necessary budget amendment to allow the
Division to efficiently track project expenditures.
20) Recommendation to approve the FY18 Program of Projects and
submittal of a grant application for the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), 49 U.S.C. 5307 FY18 grant funds in the amount of $2,590,120
through the Transit Award Management System (TrAMS), accept the
award and authorize any necessary Budget Amendments in FY18 and
FY19.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal #18 -7263 for Visa
Commercial Card Services with J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., for
Collier County’s Purchasing Card Program and authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached Agreement.
Page 15
June 26, 2018
2) Recommendation to award Group Vision insurance to Vision Service
Plan (VSP) for a four-year period effective January 1, 2019, in the
estimated annual amount of $54,566.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the removal of
7,573 ambulance service accounts from FY 2014 and their respective
uncollectible accounts receivable balances which total $5,325,522.54,
from the accounts receivable of Collier County Fund 490 (Emergency
Medical Services) finding diligent efforts to collect have been
exhausted and proved unsuccessful.
4) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
notification of revenue disbursement.
5) Recommendation to approve a date change for the next sale and
disposal of surplus from June 23, 2018 to June 30, 2018.
6) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a
Resolution fixing September 6, 2018, 5:05 p.m., in the Third Floor
Board Room, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, as the date,
time and place for the Public Hearing for approving the Special
Assessment (Non- Ad Valorem Assessment) to be levied against the
properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and
Benefit Unit.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments to recognize
revenue for the Immokalee Regional and Marco Island Executive
Page 16
June 26, 2018
Airports within Collier County Airport Operating Fund (495) in the
amount of $185,000 and $165,000, respectively, and appropriate the
funding to accommodate increased fuel purchases over budgeted
levels.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval to designate the
Sheriff as the official applicant and point of contact for the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Assistance Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program
Grant (BWC) FY2018. Authorize the acceptance of the grant when
awarded, approve associated budget amendments and approve the
Collier County Sheriff’s Office to receive and expend 2018 JAG
BWC grant funds.
2) Recommendation to approve the rank order for Request for Proposal
(RFP) #18-7387, “Annual Auditor Services,” and to enter into
negotiations with Clifton Larson Allen LLP.
3) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between May 31 and June 13, 2018 pursuant to Florida Statute
136.06.
4) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of June 20,
2018.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Order on Attorney Fees and
Costs in the amount of $750 to Goetz and Goetz appointed by the
Court to represent the interests of Respondent Dahlia Gustard, Parcel
351RDUE in the case styled Collier County v. Bonnie L. Falcon, et
Page 17
June 26, 2018
al., Case No. 16-CA-1317, (Project No. 60145). (Fiscal Impact: $750)
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for a Public Hearing, an ordinance amending Collier County
Ordinance No. 84-37, as amended, known as the State of Emergency
Ordinance, to provide that curfews and other authorized emergency
measures taken during civil emergencies will be enacted via
Resolution.
3) Recommendation to approve the Third Amended and Restated
Interlocal Agreement for the Southwest Florida Job Training
Consortium.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney, coordinating with
Staff, to obtain up to two appraisals in connection with a future
mediation of a potential purchase price for the Golden Gate Golf
Course.
5) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to retain outside
counsel to work with the County Attorney, staff and outs ide
consultants, to negotiate and help draft Developer Contribution
Agreements with respect to the Rural Lands West proposed
development, and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
6) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $35,000, plus statutory attorney’s fees in the amount of
$8,019, and expert costs in the amount of $3,905, for the taking of
Parcel 424RDUE in the pending case styled Collier County v.
Leondese Bichotte et al, Case No. 17-CA-1443, required for the
Golden Gate Boulevard Project, Project No. 60145 (From Everglades
Blvd to the Faka Union Canal). (Fiscal Impact: $36,024)
8) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise an
ordinance amending the Local Preference Policy as set forth in the
County’s Procurement Ordinance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 18
June 26, 2018
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2013-33,
the Collier County Animal Control Ordinance. (This is a companion to
Agenda Item 16.D.7)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
June 26, 2018
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
Good morning. Welcome to the June 26th -- it's the 26th, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is the 26th.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- June 26th Collier County Board of
County Commissioners meeting.
We'll begin with the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance.
And the invocation will be led by Father Paul De'Angelo of the St.
John Evangelist Catholic Church.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we don't see the Father here, so
you'll have to settle for the Reverend Ochs this morning.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Father Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Ignatowski.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Let's bow our heads and pray. Our heavenly father, we ask your
blessings in these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
this: A special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners,
guide them in their deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to
meet the trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens; that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
These things we pray in your name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders, would you lead
us in the pledge.
June 26, 2018
Page 3
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMEBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES;
COMMISSIONER SOLIS ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON ITEM
#16D6 & ITEM #16E6
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of June 26th, 2018.
The first proposed change is to -- is in reference to Item 9C, and
the recommendation from staff is to withdraw the proposed LDC
amendments that would establish new standards requiring permanent
emergency generators at certain clubhouses or community center
buildings.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, can I ask just a
quick question on that? It seems to me -- are we continuing the entire
item or just that one portion of the item? Because it seems to me we
should continue the whole item.
MR. OCHS: It was just that portion. Sir, I did consult with the
County Attorney. He felt it was okay just to recommend a portion of
the hearing be deferred at this point.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My concern is that I'm not sure
there's been enough, really, good public comment and information on
this, and I'm not sure that we're really ready to proceed with it. But
that's just my thought, that we should continue the whole item.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, having gone around and
June 26, 2018
Page 4
documented the lines after Hurricane Irma for gas stations that didn't
have generators and hearing from gas station attendants saying I can't
open because of this and this, I think it's very timely to continue with
that aspect; however, the country clubs, I think, they have very valid
reasons not to go forward. I'd like to bring this -- keep moving on this.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want us to hit our
button?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which I didn't do. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, you did. You jumped
right in there.
Commissioner Saunders, I feel as Commissioner Taylor does. I
read through the balance of this agenda item, and there was some
issues with regard to the clubhouses.
Have you had specific concerns raised that would help us move
this or continue it again?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we did receive some
correspondence from an entity or an individual representing the gas
stations and indicated that there are some legal problems with what we
have.
If the Board wants to proceed with that, that's fine. I may not be
supportive of it today, but I just thought I would raise that issue. So if
we want to go forward with it, that's fine.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we are aware of that
correspondence, and we can address that at the time of the hearing if
you'd like.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: What's everyone's pleasure?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As far as the clubhouses or the gas
stations?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The rest of it.
June 26, 2018
Page 5
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think we're going to hear the
balance of 9C and go through those individually, and staff can then
address the issues that Commissioner Saunders might could have
raised, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wanted to -- I wanted to talk
about SHIP funds, but I don't have all the information yet. And I'm
looking for it, and it goes a lot deeper than what I can ascertain so far.
And it's on the consent agenda. I don't know what to do about that.
Leo has been helping me a little bit search for it. And I can't remember
the number or anything. It's, what, D10?
MR. OCHS: No. Commissioner, I think it's primarily having to
do with 16D1. This is the annual action plan for your CDBG, HOME,
and Emergency Solutions Grant Program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this the one that went before the
advisory board that I was talking to you about?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Perhaps we could move it to regular
agenda, and we could talk about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It's going to be hard until I
get the rest of the information. I guess I could always reconsider it.
MR. OCHS: Well, why don't we just continue it to the next
meeting --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. OCHS: -- and then we meet and talk about it some more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think it's important for all of
us to -- especially for me. If I'm wrong, I want to know it before I bring
it before anybody. If I'm right, I'm going to just bring it to you, and
then we'll decide what we're going to do about that. I don't want to go
any further than that, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which one are you asking to
continue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was a little bit later
June 26, 2018
Page 6
down, but it's 16 --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 16D10.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- D1 --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Didn't you say D10?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. 16D1 is the item that I think the
commissioner is referring to. That's the list of the projects that were
recommended --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- by the Internal Review Committee as they do
every year, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And it lays out each project and the funding
between CDBG and HOME and the NESG.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well -- Commissioner Taylor, do you
want to say something?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What is the time frame on that? I
know that, you know, we have one more meeting, so I think -- where
are we with all of this?
MR. OCHS: We can continue it to the July meeting. I don't
believe we should continue it beyond that. So if there's concerns, I'll
just put it on the regular agenda, and we'll go through it all. Fair
enough?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is everyone comfortable with that?
MR. OCHS: Kim -- I'm sorry. Ms. Grant's walking in the room.
Any problem with continuing 16D1 to the July meeting?
MS. GRANT: No, we can continue it to that meeting.
MR. OCHS: So will that work, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that I'll have that information
within the next week anyway.
June 26, 2018
Page 7
MR. OCHS: You'll have it -- you got most of it last night, and I'll
give you the rest of it today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then I have to --
MR. OCHS: Yes, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- investigate it a little bit further.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So that's the consensus is we'll continue
that. Do we need a vote on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be part of your overall vote.
MR. OCHS: We'll just add it to the change sheet as a staff
request to continue 16D1 to the July 10th meeting.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I should mention, one of the
things I'm concerned with with SHIP funds are there are so many
places in need of them, you know, sidewalks, and the street-lighting in
crime areas and so forth, and we don't seem to put the SHIP funds
where -- you know, into those categories, and so that's why I'm looking
a little bit deeper and seeing -- and looking into some things.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. We look forward to addressing that with the
Board.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So we'll make that change on the
SHIP funds item, but we need to get back to 9C and get a decision on
whether or not we're continuing the whole thing or we're just going to
proceed with everything but the provision that relates to the emergency
generators on the community clubhouses and things like that. So
what's the consensus on that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you have two other items related
on that item. You have the fueling station issue and then the nursing
home backup power issue.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. I thought there was a
consensus to move it forward and then have discussion from staff with
June 26, 2018
Page 8
regard to Commissioner Saunders' concerns.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: You can still continue it after you hear it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think we should hear it and then --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then if those concerns --
not that they're invalid, but if they are worthy, we can -- you know, we
can continue that portion of it and maybe move through on the other
two, so...
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Very good. Any other changes to
the --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I do. There's also a request from both
Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Fiala, separately, to move
Item 16K5 from the County Attorney consent agenda to the County
Attorney regular agenda. It will become Item 12A. This is a
recommendation for the Attorney to retain some outside counsel and
outside consulting help on Developer Contribution Agreement
negotiations.
And then we have two time-certain items, Mr. Chairman: Item
9A will be heard at 9:15, or roughly 9:15, and Item 11B and 11C will
be heard together at 10:40 after your morning break.
That's all the changes I have.
County Attorney, conflict and disclosures?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's time for conflicts now.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Disclosures on the consent agenda.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was just wanting to see --
because you went the other way last time --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I know. I'm trying to keep --
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- I wanted to make sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You should have skipped him this
June 26, 2018
Page 9
time.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Trying to keep everybody on their toes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I have no changes nor
anything to declare.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I have no --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- other changes. Nothing to
mention. On the consent agenda, I have no disclosures and nor on the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. I have nothing to disclose as far as
ex parte communications. I will abstain from voting on 16D6 and
16E6 just out of an abundance of caution.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one thing to disclose on the
consent agenda, and that is on 16A4, which is the Del Webb Naples
parcel. I received emails on that. It's all recorded.
I also would --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm so sorry. Could you get a little
closer to the microphone.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Of course. Because I'm talking to
myself, not -- I apologize. Okay. So would you like me to repeat that,
or is that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We heard you, but I don't know
about anybody else.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So one thing to disclose.
16A4 on the consent agenda, the Del Webb Naples parcel, I have
received emails.
And then I also would like to make a small adjustment on the
summary agenda, and hopefully we can do it here, which is to, on Page
-- it is Item No. 17A, and it's the Collier County Animal Control
Ordinance. On Page 22 of that ordinance, I would like to pull out No.
2A through D because it's redundant. It's already covered by Florida
June 26, 2018
Page 10
Statutes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's just way out of Hoyle.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We're -- I mean, do we have to pull that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we pull it to the regular agenda
and then just have a quick discussion. Just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll put that in your hands, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just for clarity.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Let's pull that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to do this, but, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And just remember also,
Florida Statutes do change. Every year the legislature has that
opportunity, so we may want to keep that in our ordinance anyway.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Probably -- we'll have that
discussion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But we can have that
discussion.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that -- Item 17A would move, then,
to your public hearing portion of your agenda and become Item 9D;
9D as in David.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And that's it. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No changes and no disclosure.
And if it's appropriate, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and
the consent agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and second. All in favor,
say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
June 26, 2018
Page 11
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries. It's approved.
June 26, 2018
Page 12
Item #2B
BCC MENTAL HEALTH WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
FROM JUNE 5, 2018 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is 2B. This is
approval of the BCC mental-health workshop meeting minutes from
June 5th, 2018.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion and second. 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: Approved.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5,
presentations.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER’S CORPORATE
COMPLIANCE AND INTERNAL CONTROL PROGRAM –
PRESENTED
Item 5A this morning is a presentation of the County Manager's
corporate compliance and internal control program. Mr. Mike
Nieman, your director of this division, will make a brief presentation --
June 26, 2018
Page 13
begin the presentation.
I've been looking for an opportunity to inform the Board about
some of the work we're doing in this area, and I thought it was timely
with the budget workshops just past and the fact that we have a state
auditor in town right now working on the performance audit that's
related to your sales tax initiative.
So if Mike could take a few minutes and take you through this. I
know, Commissioner McDaniel, this will be a little repetitive for you,
because you saw it at the Productivity Committee meeting recently.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Repetitive is not a good word.
It's really, really amazing, things that we're doing. This report was
given to us. I am, you know, the liaison for the newly created
Productivity Committee and saw this presentation, and it's really
something.
MR. OCHS: Michael.
MR. NIEMAN: Thank you, sir.
Mike Nieman, compliance counsel for the County Manager.
This is an abbreviated presentation, Commissioner McDaniel.
We have 10 minutes, and we're going to fly through it as best we can.
I just want to start by describing what we've been doing the last
few years. The County Manager asked me and Mr. Tracz to develop
an industry-leading, world-class compliance program, and so by doing
that we took a pilot program that was being looked into by Mr. Tracz
and Dr. Yilmaz over at Public Utilities, and the goal was is to recreate
that countywide, which was quite an endeavor.
I'm happy to say that we're halfway through implementation. So
we're ahead of schedule and underbudget on this program. And it's
generated some positive results throughout the county. The feedback
has been overwhelmingly positive.
We have our staff here today who are highly professional -- I'll
introduce them later in the presentation -- who have, by a person, been
June 26, 2018
Page 14
recommended and applauded by the division directors and department
heads as they've left their engagements with them.
So, just briefly, let me describe what the compliance program
really is. It's two parts that are related. The first part is ethics and
antifraud. That's -- essentially county staff will contact me, and myself
and Amy Lyberg from Human Resources will assist them in the maze
of the code of ethics, CMAs, and the ethics ordinance. And in relation
to the County Attorney's Office, I get the help from Ms. Colleen
Greene as well in that endeavor.
We also -- about a year-and-a-half ago I drafted an antifraud
procedure which is in our CMA, which is a very detailed procedure in
dealing with suspected fraud that the county staff can utilize to contact
me, then our office will investigate, and if we find it to be a criminal
act, we will turn it over to law enforcement. Again, we work in
conjunction with the County Attorney in that endeavor.
The big one is the second part, which is the internal control
program, and that's what Mr. Tracz is here to speak about in more
detail, briefly. But it's a very robust program that has rigor that will, I
think, impress the auditors, the external and Ms. Kinzel's office, when
they examine our controls, because we use a state-of-the-art software
that, again, our team helped design with a company out of Texas that
houses all the controls for each division. And it's email-based, so it's
transferable. So if someone were to transfer to another department or
division, they sit down in the chair, and, as Mr. Tracz will say, they
will have the controls already there for them so they know what to do
to be in compliance. So in a nutshell, that is what the program consists
of.
And, briefly, why and who is responsible. Well, this is a nice
quote from Vanderbilt University which, in the middle of it you'll see
-- or it says, "Furthermore, every employee plays a role in either
strengthening or weakening the internal control system. And that's
June 26, 2018
Page 15
what's very important. Because Mr. Tracz will tell you that the
employees are who control these controls. It's their day-to-day
operations. So they're responsible for them, and that's what's
important. And we drive that down as we engage these divisions from
our first day of engagement until the last day, which could last
upwards of six months.
The why. The bottle of it, we want to streamline operations,
create efficiency, reduce duplications and, thereby, save taxpayer
money. That's the main mission, and also to promote transparency,
productivity, and accountability. That's the what the County Manager
instructed us to do, and that's what we're in the process of doing.
But at the top of it you'll see CS or HB11, which is a bill that's
been introduced twice in the last two sessions in Tallahassee, and it's
very close to passing. It passed the House, I believe, 101-1, and it got
stole in the Senate committee. But what that will do, it eventually will
mandate state -- our local governments, state attorneys, courts, and any
other institution to have a system of internal controls that will be
required.
Well, we're ahead of the ballgame, because we're halfway done
with implementation, and by January of next year, we should be fully
implemented, which will lead us to do other things which
Commissioner McDaniel and I have talked about.
And that will be -- the next slide is a great illustration of the
shared responsibility we have with Ms. Kinzel's office. And I couldn't
say it any better than how it's said in this quote from a report from, I
believe, two years ago or last year. It is management's responsibility to
implement these controls and develop them, but it's the Internal Audit
Department, Mr. Molenaar, to test them to make sure that they're
functioning properly.
And we welcome that because we believe that once we're done
with that implementation, we will have a very robust system that I
June 26, 2018
Page 16
believe Mr. Ochs will be very proud of in the end of this.
This is just simply a slide of how we get to where we get. It's a
three-line defense model which says management has the controls, the
second line of defense is staff itself on the day-to-day operations to
implement these controls, and the third line of defense is the internal
audit. And then if you see the very far right, that's the external
auditors, too. This is all geared to protect county assets and to make
sure the County Manager's operations are running smoothly.
And the next -- briefly on the next slide, there are a lot of myths
associated with internal controls. When we rolled this program out,
people were skeptical of this. They didn't know what it was for. And
so these are some myths that we encountered as we went to the
divisions and started the process.
They're a waste of time and unnecessary. That's simply not true.
As you can see, it actually increases staff productivity when we're all
said and done. I'm too busy to do this. Well, we'll find out that your
job is easier once we're done implementing these controls because the
duplication of efforts will end and, perhaps, communication across the
divisions and departments will be better so there's not one side doing
this and one side doing that. They're actually working together in
concert.
And the other -- the third one is, we've already spoken about; it's
there's a shared responsibility. We have the responsibility to
implement these and make sure they're acting properly, and then Ms.
Kinzel's office is there to test them and make sure that they're working
as they should.
And that's just a quote I believe in. I put that in there because it
says it all. If you don't have a process, you have no idea what you're
doing, and that's what we do.
And this is, quickly, the org chart. And you'll see, I report
directly to the County Manager, which is very important because that's
June 26, 2018
Page 17
where the accountability is.
So beyond me is Mr. Tracz, and you'll see Mr. Tracz has multiple
certifications. He's experienced in this area. He's spent a career doing
this. And below that, we have three managers, all of you will see have
a master's degree and then multiple certifications themselves, and then
the analyst below them, and that's how we are structured.
And each team -- there are three teams -- will go into a division
and start the engagement and hopefully finish within six months.
Some a little bit longer, depends on the complications; some even
shorter.
And so I just want to introduce the team here. Four of them are
here. The other two are on preplanned vacations. So we have Nancy,
Roger, Rose, and Darren, a very professional team.
And, again, we are very proud of the work they are doing. I think
all the feedback has been positive. And it was, at the beginning, a little
bit difficult to get the buy-in from leadership, but I'm happy to report
that Mr -- Dr. Yilmaz, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Price, Mr. Carnell have all
bought in, and their leadership has been truly a testament of how this
thing has been successful, and without them it wouldn't have been.
And so I'm going to turn it over briefly to Mr. Tracz to go into a
little bit of detail of what the program is.
MR. TRACZ: Thank you, Mike.
Good morning. My name is Larry Tracz. I'm the senior internal
control manager. I'm going to walk you through a little bit of our
program here.
The first slide here is, quickly, our mission and vision, and there's
a few things that are really important here. As far as our vision is
concerned, we really wanted to establish a high-quality internal control
system that really focuses on operations, reporting, and compliance
today and into the future.
And you'll see in there that the words "operations," "reporting,"
June 26, 2018
Page 18
"compliance" will be repeated later on in the actual framework itself.
Our mission was to establish -- because there was not an internal
control system here -- implement, and manage the system of internal
controls using the COSO internal framework. That was the gold
standard, it's known worldwide, and it was a really good decision to
use that particular framework for the agency to achieve its objectives
and mission.
Part of the benefits that we've -- that we're actually obtaining with
this, Mike mentioned it briefly, is the continuity. So now that we have
a internal control system, and the controls that were existing or that
there are new or that are enhanced, have a place where they're actually
housed and they're transparent.
What is internal control? I always like to kind of bring this up
briefly, because a lot of people have different ideas of what internal
controls is, so I'd like to just kind of frame it out a little bit of what
internal controls is. Internal controls is the activities, plans, attitudes,
policies, and efforts of the people of the organization, and that's the
part that I really want to emphasize. It's not our group that's doing this.
We're really facilitators. We're really providing -- you know, being
consultants to the operation here. But it's really the people of the
organization that actually do the internal control piece here, and it's
working together to provide the agency reasonable assurance that they
will achieve their objectives and mission.
What framework do we use? We use the COSO internal control
framework. Some important things about this: It's known worldwide.
COSO is an acronym. It's basically an umbrella of organizations.
These listed here are some of the organizations that are within this
COSO internal control framework.
The AICPA, the Institute of Internal Auditors, Association of
Certified Fraud Examiners, and they all have come together to really
define where the internal controls were. Prior to this there were
June 26, 2018
Page 19
different organizations that said, this is what their idea of internal
controls was, and this was their idea of what internal controls was.
This group came together and worked, basically, 10 years to put
this together, and this is the gold standard now. When
CliftonLarsonAllen comes in here and they do their letter to the Board
here for internal controls, this is exactly what they're looking for. They
are looking for the COSO internal control framework, which is what
we've started and what we've implemented, what we have going here.
So the letter to you folks was actually a great letter, because we've
worked with the different areas, including grants and stuff, to get them
exactly where they should be to be within this framework.
This also aligns with the U.S. Federal Government. The U.S.
Federal Government is also called the green book -- use the COSO
control framework.
Briefly here -- I won't get into this very much, but this is one
snapshot of what the internal control framework looks like at its most
simplistic level. The top three items there are what were the
objectives, so the objectives are operations. So if it's a parks division,
it's the parks; if it's IT division, it's the IT operation; reporting, and
reporting -- a lot of people think reporting is just the financial
reporting. It's nonfinancial and financial, and it's internal and external.
So some of those things that happened, for example, up in
Michigan where they had the lead in the water, this should have been
catching this because it was nonfinancial external reporting.
And compliance, compliance with applicable rules and
regulations, county ordinances, whatever may be applicable.
What is our strategy for internal controls? Right now we want to
complete the COSO internal control implementation. We're
approximately 60 percent complete with that. We anticipate that when
we are completed, we will have approximately 1,800 controls to certify
on an annual basis.
June 26, 2018
Page 20
To date, we have come up with 123 process improvements,
working through the divisions that we've been in. We are now
establishing quarterly divisional reviews for the certifications that are
completed. We're keeping the contact with the divisions going to do
different updates.
We're looking at a three-year recertification cycle. So, for
example, Parks and Rec was the first division that was done about a
year-and-a-half ago. They'll be on a cycle to be recertified on a
three-year annual cycle, which is about right to refresh it.
We're also enhancing the fraud risk assessment. The eighth
principle on the COSO framework is to do with fraud, and they
enhance that, and we're enhancing our program in that regard, too, and,
also, the creation of best practices.
This next slide shows the four departments within the agency.
The dark green are the divisions that we are completed in, the light
green are the divisions that we are currently working in and they are in
process, and the white-colored divisions are ones we haven't started
yet. So we've completed approximately 60 percent, and we're looking
to be complete sometime the first half of next year.
How many controls do we have? This is a graph of building out
at the control that we have. We're looking to have approximately
1,800 controls when we're completed.
These break out to four different departments by color, and it
shows the divisions that are completed and the various process
improvements that have come up with. And, again, this is not that
we're coming up with -- we're working as consultants -- but this is
really the people of the organization are coming up with these things to
connect the dots to see how it controls one area. Like HR connects to,
you know, a different division. What is their control? How far does it
go? How far does the division control go? Make sure the dots
connect; make sure there's no duplication of efforts, eliminate those,
June 26, 2018
Page 21
and get a best practice to get it done as best as possible.
Here is a brief list of some of the process improvements. Again,
these process improvements are really from the people of the
organization. When they sit down with us and go through things and
see what a different division is doing, what they're doing, what
somebody else is doing, we have consulting discussions and things,
and we come up with some really great ideas, some different
spreadsheets, some different checklists, some different, you know,
methodologies, work flows to really streamline and gain efficiencies.
By the way, process improvement is a by-product of internal
control. So while we went in this for internal control, if you look at the
textbooks, you look at all the information on the COSO internal
control framework, it will tell you that process improvement is a
by -product of going through the internal control process.
So that is exactly what's happening here. But the by-product
we're getting -- and we're working on it -- we're actually moving more
toward enhancing that process as this process improvement part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean productivity? Does
that mean productivity, process --
MR. TRACZ: Yes, it does. It definitely does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. TRACZ: We are -- we have started to do quarterly reviews
with the divisions that are completed in, so we're looking at the
timeliness of their certification of their controls. We look at their
documentation that they do. We look at the process improvements, the
status, what we can do to help them. We look at any type of
remediation actions that they can do. We look at the frequency.
Normally the controls are either on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual
basis that the people of the organization take a look at it and review,
and we enhance -- make any enhancements on a quarterly basis
depending on if there's any changing of operations, if there's any
June 26, 2018
Page 22
change in personnel or various business needs.
And what we're coming up with now -- when we first started out,
we didn't have this, but we had a vision that we would get to this point,
and now we actually are at this point. We're actually having agency
best practices, which is something that I know, you know, Leo is
looking forward to and Nick, as well as Mike, that we're having best
practices. So once we get into these various divisions, they're all doing
things a little different. We can take those things, we can analyze
them, and we can talk them out, and we can see what is the best that's
out there and then bring that best practice to the other divisions and
share that with them. And we give those divisions credit for that. Boy,
you guys had the best payroll operation. Somebody else may not have.
So we try to bring the best one over to the ones that maybe need some
help with that.
A P card operation, who's got the best P card operation. We get
that, we kind of find that, pull that out as a best practice, and then use
that as we go into another division to help them along and help them
develop in the areas where they need some development.
This also helps very much in continuity, because when some
people maybe rotate from one division to another, they have the same
software system there for internal controls. They can walk right into
position, and all the controls are laid out in a format that they're
familiar with, and we're using the best practices within the agency. So
that helps with -- not only with rotation of staff, but also for new hires.
And, lastly, what are our next steps? Our next steps really are to
complete the implementation process, but we also are really focusing
on the process improvements, because we're really finding out that --
going through this whole process of internal control implementation,
we're really hitting on a lot of areas for process improvement. So we're
kind of starting to focus on that a little bit more when we go in there,
we talk to the Process Improvement Committee.
June 26, 2018
Page 23
And we're also looking to monitor the internal controls on an
ongoing basis so when they come up they go through the division, and
we take a look, we give them feedback as far as how they're doing as
far as their checks and monitoring it.
And we're also looking to -- the COSO organization recently
enhanced their fraud mitigation on Principle 8 regarding the risk
assessment for fraud. And we know fraud is a big issue that we want
to be on top of within the agency, and so we are enhancing our fraud
risk assessment going forward.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let the ladies go first. I'll go
last.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor's --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor's light was on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You answered this question.
But I do -- yes. One thing, if we go back to the slide that had the
different columns, different-colored columns with the different -- it's
probably 10 or behind. Right there. What am I looking at here?
MR. TRACZ: This is -- on the bottom here it's actually listed out
by -- the colors are by department.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. TRACZ: So, for example, the first color there is the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Administrative services.
MR. TRACZ: -- administrative services. So for the
administrative services, you have procurement, HR, fleet, and risk
management. Those four divisions were complete; we were complete
in there; and those were the number of process improvements that we
got in each of those divisions, and so forth for the other three
departments.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I needed to know.
June 26, 2018
Page 24
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders, you were
actually next.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions.
First of all, this sounds like an incredibly good process that the
county's been going through, and I know industry does this all the
time.
My questions really are to kind of see where we are compared to
other counties. We are a relatively small county, but we seem to be
way ahead of our other counties around the state on a lot of issues.
And I'm curious, has there been any kind of an analysis or indication of
what other counties are doing, for example, Lee County or Dade
County just -- and then I have one more question after that.
MR. NIEMAN: Commissioner, I think -- when we started this
program, I did research, and I couldn't find any counties in the State of
Florida doing this type of program.
Clearly, we all have internal controls, and we had internal
controls before we started. What we're doing is we're -- the uniqueness
of us, of our program, we're combining these controls into one
warehouse, one framework so it's interchangeable.
I couldn't see any other county that has undertaken an endeavor
such as this. And to support that, when we were looking for a software
system to utilize, there wasn't -- really wasn't one out there. So, you
know, we were able to take a raw system that was developed, and the
team was able to develop that into our own unique software system, I
guess.
MR. TRACZ: That's correct.
MR. NIEMAN: So my understanding, there probably is --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I suspected that, and that leads
me to the second question, which is, in terms of developing the
processes that you're utilizing, the system that you're using, the
June 26, 2018
Page 25
software, did you turn to industry for that? Where did you come up
with --
MR. TRACZ: What we did, Mr. Saunders, is we have a pilot
program in PUD, and we used some software over there, and we got
our feet grounded as far as how we wanted to handle it within the
agency here. And then we had put it out for procurement. We only
had two vendors out there that put bids in, and neither one of them
really had the software that, really, we wanted, because we were really
on the cutting edge of this.
So the software company that we did select, I had to work with
them and actually develop the software, you know, for six months to
actually get it where we wanted to go. But it's a top-of-the-notch
software to do exactly what this is.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry to interrupt, but to further
elaborate, Mr. Tracz worked in the private sector in this industry.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was my next question.
MR. OCHS: We stole him from the private sector. He came over
with his credentials and knowledge of this system and has adapted it to
our public agency.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So we have a system that has
been tested and tried in industry and seems to be working very well
here, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Good job. Anything else? Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Both of you look
like detectives, by the way. Is that kind of what you're doing is like
detective work for us?
MR. TRACZ: Well, I am a certified fraud examiner, and I have
put people in jail, and I have worked for various state's attorneys, the
FBI, CIA, different things in my career, because I was with Zurich
Insurance, which was a major -- like, third largest insurance company
June 26, 2018
Page 26
in the world in charge -- and I was in charge of their forensic fraud for
the North America, so I have had a background in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You look like one, too.
MR. NIEMAN: I'm a former prosecutor, so I spent 13 years as a
prosecutor, so, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, they really look important
just looking at them. So I figured -- and I didn't even know we had
this. So it's great to know that you exist.
When -- if somebody has information, can they come to you, and
is it then handled confidentially?
MR. NIEMAN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you do investigate it, then?
MR. NIEMAN: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Great steal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This is a --
MR. OCHS: Two of them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- wonderful thing. And, of course,
you can also blow it to smithereens if it's not anything, right --
MR. NIEMAN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and put it to rest? Good. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and my first question is
for Michael. And you and I had a brief discussion about this when I
saw the elongated presentation at the Productivity Committee, and that
is our capacity to quantify these improvements departmentally to a
dollar amount. And do you believe that that's actually going to be able
to be effectuated?
MR. NIEMAN: On some level.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: At some level, of course. I
mean, it's not going to be to the penny.
MR. NIEMAN: Right.
June 26, 2018
Page 27
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But it's -- and as you folks will
remember, I started a bank back in 1999, and I've said on a regular
basis your best friends are your internal auditors. And this is a process
for us to be moving all of these departments that had their own set of
internal controls and their own set of sometimes even accounting
methodologies to one uniform place to allow us to be able to move
forward on a much more efficient basis and work cooperatively,
because everybody's doing the same thing, with our internal auditors
across the board.
So I was really -- like you, Commissioner Taylor, I didn't know --
I didn't know this existed, and they came and made a presentation to us
at the Productivity Committee, and I'm just elated --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- that this is going on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know that was there. I could
have called you guys.
MR. OCHS: You still can.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for the time
-- and I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: One more question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just wanted to compliment you,
County Manager Ochs, and your -- I guess it's compliance division.
You are taking a huge step into the future because you're not
siloing things. You're making sure that the communication is heard by
every division and that there's a standard you're setting, and you're to
be complimented on that. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: It's our pleasure, and we appreciate our leadership
team making this happen.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Being at the forefront in the state is a good
thing.
June 26, 2018
Page 28
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Especially in this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Catching it before anything happens.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Not in reaction; proactive.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
Item #9A
AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD CREATE THE UNPAVED
PRIVATE ROAD EMERGENCY REPAIR MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT BY AUTHORIZING A LEVY OF NOT TO
EXCEED ONE (1) MIL OF AD VALOREM TAXES PER YEAR –
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE SECOND MEETING IN
SEPTEMBER, 2018
Mr. Chairman, we have a 9:15 time-certain that we're late on. It's
Item 9A, and this is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance which
would create the unpaved private road emergency repair municipal
service taxing unit by authorizing a levy of not to exceed one mill of ad
valorem taxes per year. This item was brought forward at the last
meeting by Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Good morning. And just
to repeat a statement that I just recently heard, this activity is for
allowing us, on a proactive basis instead of a reactive basis, to take
care of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of our
community that reside on or access their properties via a private dirt
road.
So this issue's been going on within our community for a
millennia. There are literally health, safety, and welfare issues that
have transpired in our community. The exorbitant expense that the
June 26, 2018
Page 29
county and the residents that are suffering from this, because of the
proactive -- or, excuse me -- the reactive state that we have to actually
effectuate any kind of maintenance on these roads is five and six times
that of what can be accomplished if it's managed on a proactive basis.
So, I mean, I -- when we worked with staff to develop this, we set
this up to be reviewed annually by the Board of County
Commissioners -- by your Board -- you did that on purpose, didn't you
-- by your Board of County Commissioners based upon actual
expenditures from our road and bridge and maintenance department so
that we were, in fact, dealing with reality.
So -- and if I can make one suggestion, it was staff's
recommendation to limit this to a maximum of one mill. And I think
we can get along quite happily with a maximum of a half a mill. I
would like to make that adjustment moving forward should the
ordinance be passed.
So other than that -- I did ask several people to come and speak to
you today just to share with you their thoughts, and I think there are
some others as well, so...
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: We have five registered speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioners, your lights are on. Do
you want to hear the speakers first?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question of
Commissioner McDaniel.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In speaking to our County
Attorney, he's recommending not an MSTU but an MSBU because
some of the properties on these roads are not taxed because they're
with the -- I guess the homestead exemption coming in, the value
requires that they will not be taxed. They're exempt. And then if it
passes again, then it kind of makes it important that everyone
June 26, 2018
Page 30
contributes.
So I don't know if you have any objection to that, but it seemed
great good sense to me.
MR. KLATZKOW: What we'd like to do is -- and Michelle
Arnold over here -- our deadline is December anyway to get this
because it has to go to the Tax Collector.
Our thought process is to go through, see what this would look
like as an MSTU and see what this would look like as an MSBU --
there are many, many properties along these roads that we'd have to
look at -- and then come back to the Board and say which is your
preference, to do this as a taxing unit or as a benefit unit.
The advantages of the taxing unit is that it's easy. It's just one
millage assessed to everybody. The advantages of the benefit unit is it
captures everybody. We don't really know what the outcome of that is.
We'd have to do this survey, but that's what the summer is for.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala, do you want to hear
from the speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are you suggesting that we
adjust the language in this proposed ordinance today?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm suggesting that we need to wait until
December anyway. Well, we have until December, anyway, to get this
to the Tax Collector, and what I'm suggesting is that from financing
this MSTU, it might be better for the Board to finance this as an
MSBU.
So we're asking the Board, do you want this to come forward?
All right. It doesn't matter if it's an MSTU, MSBU, the ordinance will
go forward, and then staff can come back and say the best financing
mechanism for this is, and then give it to the Board to say, okay, we'll
do this as an MSTU or MSBU.
June 26, 2018
Page 31
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we need that allowance
adjustment today, assuming this goes forward --
MR. KLATZKOW: It would be a direction to staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- to be able to make that
direction to staff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is Michelle going to get up and tell
us the difference between BU and --
MR. KLATZKOW: The benefit unit would be that everybody
would -- it's a special assessment rather than a tax. The thought
process is we do it by frontage on the road, though we'd have to look
into that, so that everybody pays whether they're a resident on the road
with an expensive house or a resident on the road with an inexpensive
house or a non-resident with just undeveloped property there. It would
be based on the actual length of road that's in front of your house.
The MSTU would just be a straight tax on everybody, but a lot of
people fall outside the straight tax because their homestead basically is
more valuable than what they're living in.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There could also be ag exemptions, could
there not, on some?
MR. KLATZKOW: We'd have to look into that. I don't think --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When this originally came
forward, the staff's analysis said there was about $290 million worth of
assessed valuations that were impacted by this MSTU, and that a
maximum of one mill would generate about $290,000, which is one of
the reasons -- and there is 105 miles of roads within our community
that are private dirt roads that folks utilize to access their properties, so
-- and this is strictly for emergency vehicle access.
If you'll recall, it's stated here that only Sheriff or the Fire
Department has the capacity to investigate a road and give direction for
the reparations to allow for emergency vehicular access, so...
June 26, 2018
Page 32
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I don't want to use my time yet
and I have to. You talked about ag, and you talked about emergency
roads. I have a farm in my district. It's a big farm. And they have
problems with their roads.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the mike, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. They have problems with
their roads occasionally, and I'll get a call. And so then I send the Fire
Department out -- and this has happened twice already. The Fire
Department goes out. They can't -- it's impassable also for them.
So then they've called the owner of the farm and, actually, the
owner has come out and fixed it. And so I'm -- maybe they didn't
realize how bad the road was until we got a complaint. They've always
followed through and followed through right away. Would that then be
an MSBU, or being that it's their own private property -- it's not just a
private road. It's their own private property -- they wouldn't be taxed
for that, right, or would they?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They would be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ag property.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They would be.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, except the ag exemption would
apply, so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. It would be at whatever
their assessed valuation, in fact, was.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We've got some other lights, but I've just
got some questions, and I think I expressed my reservations about this
last time.
This relates to properties that are adjacent to or have access from
a private road. What if there's access from both the private road and a
public road? Because, I mean, these situations actually exist.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, sure.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: How would they -- would they be included
June 26, 2018
Page 33
if they had access from a public road as well? And -- that's one
question I have. The other thing that I'm concerned with are some
unintended consequences. For example, if I'm a landowner and I have
recently maintained my road and then this MSTU/MSBU, whatever it's
going to be, is created, why would I ever maintain my road again?
Because I mean, it just seems like everybody would just wait for the
county to do it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And if that's the case, then I think we're
talking about maintenance as opposed to emergency situations, which
we already have a process for, and the law is clear that we can't use tax
dollars, public tax dollars, to improve private property.
I mean, I understand what we're trying -- and this is an issue. But
right now we have a process where if something's impassible, an
emergency's declared, the county will go in and fix the road and then
create an MSTU for that road -- that's the process now -- and then the
funds are recovered from the owners adjacent to the road regardless of
if anybody wants to pay for it or not, and the county recovers that.
I'm just concerned that by doing this we're going to create a
situation where nobody is going to have an incentive to maintain the
roads anymore. They're just going to be paying it and waiting for them
to get really bad, and then the county will go fix it. That's -- I mean, I
understand the intent, and it's a good one, but this public/private road --
public versus private roads is, I think, a problem because, I mean,
people choose to live on private roads for reasons, and they make that
decision when they buy their property. And going in they have to
know that it's incumbent upon them to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, can --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've got a couple -- just a
couple of things. And this has a lot to do with where you live and
June 26, 2018
Page 34
where you go and what you do.
I'm president of the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association,
and I think -- he's not here right now, but I think there's -- 40-some-odd
miles of roads of these private roads exist in the Sanctuary area.
And the inequity that, in fact, evolves here, Mr. Chairman, is the
-- and you're going to hear from people. There's a gentleman here
today that lives over off of Markley down in behind our landfill. The
inequity that, in fact, evolves is some of the residents do participate in
their maintenance and some don't, and some do and some don't, and
then the roads become impassable because some do and some don't,
and it's the similar process if you're paying to maintain your road and
your neighbors are driving it and not contributing to the maintenance.
How long are you going to be incentivized to continue to maintain the
road?
And we have created, because of a reactive state that is -- we are
prohibited by statute, you are correct. We are prohibited by statute to
expend public funds on a private property except for emergency
circumstance.
And so we, on a reactive basis, have only been able to go in and
fix these roads. This is a path stipulated for emergency access only
that we can provide on a reactive -- not a reactive -- a proactive basis,
the access for emergency vehicles.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And that's my question. If we're allowed
to use public funds if there's an emergency, how can it be proactive
and not be maintenance? I mean, it's got to be an emergency.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The ordinance stipulates that if
there is a perception that the road could become impassible, then we
have the right to go in and expend --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not for maintenance. This is not for
maintenance.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is not for maintenance.
June 26, 2018
Page 35
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: But you're saying that if there's a
perception that the road will become impassable -- it's not impassible
yet but there's a perception that it will be, then we're talking about
maintenance. I mean, that's the line, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But there's where -- and there
is a very specific line which we are not crossing over into from a
maintenance standpoint.
This is a proactive opportunity for us to be able to maintain these
roads to be able to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents who live on these roads. I shared an example a couple of
weeks ago, sir, with a friend of mine who was suffering from a heart
attack off of Platt Road on Fawn Lane and the washout on Platt got so
bad that our emergency vehicles could not get to him.
What are you two doing?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're discussing personal
items.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not related to county business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm over here having a
discussion, and those two are sitting down there talking.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We were listening.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
The long and the short, I mean -- and, Commissioner, I respect
your opinion. You know, I have worked on this for in excess of a year.
I was actually in the process of amending the statute to allow us to do
something in regards to this to be able to provide for the necessary
health, safety, and welfare.
I mean, to me this stuff's not brain surgery. It's costing us between
10- and $12,000 a mile to fix these roads on a reactive basis, and it can
be accomplished for less than 2- on an emergency-access only.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. But, I mean, if it's an emergency,
June 26, 2018
Page 36
then it's always -- this is the part that I don't -- and I really don't
understand how it can be proactive if it has to be an emergency for it to
be done.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Why don't we ask our County
Attorney to explain that again.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, it's very clear in here
that this is being done for emergency vehicular access dictated by the
Fire Department or the Sheriff's Department. If they go look at a road
-- that gentleman sitting right there lives on Markley. Mr. Blackwell
that sent me the email last week complimenting us on a fix of Blue
Sage -- Blue Sage washed into the canal. Those are -- that gentleman's
there's wife had to be carted out in a four-wheel-drive vehicle to get to
a place where the ambulance could, in fact, pick her up.
These -- by having it for emergency vehicle access someone can
go -- the Sheriff's Department or Fire Department can go look, that
road requires attention and, boom, it's fixed. It's not a maintenance.
That's very, very important that folks understand that.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And my other question would be, is there
a reason that we wouldn't do this the way we do other MSTUs, and
that is we set up kind of a referendum that we do in the area where the
MSTU's going to be? I know they've -- I mean, we have MSTU
presentations almost on a meeting-by-meeting basis. It seems like,
generally, we put this to a vote of the owners that would be affected as
to whether or not they want to create one. And that -- those are my
concerns.
And, again, I'm not arguing that there's an issue, and I'm not
arguing with the intent of it. I'm just concerned with the legality of it
and whether or not we're going to be crossing the line as to, you know,
being proactive as opposed to responding to emergencies is really my
--
June 26, 2018
Page 37
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was very, very careful and
asked our County Attorney to very specifically assist with regard to
this so that we didn't cross that line, and we stayed on the emergency
access by how the roads are, in fact, repaired in the event that they do
become impassable. Very careful; very careful.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I believe Commissioner -- I think
Commissioner Saunders is next. Were you next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was, but I wanted to hear the rest --
I wanted to hear the audience, or the speakers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I had a little bit of
concern as well concerning the legality of this, but I'm going to rely on
the County Attorney. If the County Attorney advises this board that the
way this is drafted meets all of the standards, legal standards, and he's
satisfied with it, then I'm going to accept that. He's our legal counsel.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is an expansion of our current policy.
Our current policy's on a road-by-road basis.
And when the roads would come in, there would be a fire district,
for example, we say that it's impassable. The County Manager's now
authorized to do emergency repairs to the road, and then set up an
MSTU.
This creates a dedicated funding source that everybody kicks into
who are along private roads, and it just expands the concept from that.
It's still based on a determination, an independent determination
by one of the fire districts, and they're all independent, or the Sheriff,
again, independent, that I can't get down this road, okay, for
emergencies. It could be fire related; it could be flood related.
At that point in time we have a dedicated funding source, and we
send out whatever trucks we need to to fix that road. But the concept
is the same as we currently have. It just creates a better funding source
for it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of whether this is an
June 26, 2018
Page 38
MSTU or an MSBU, I realize that have until December to approve
this, because then it goes on the tax rolls starting in January of next
year.
And what I'd like to suggest, to hear the speakers, but I think this
should be continued so that staff can do some analysis, come back and
advise us whether this should be a benefit unit or a taxing unit based on
taxable values within this area.
With that information, if you still feel that this should be a taxing
unit, this is your district -- these are folks that you deal with on a daily
basis. I'm assuming that you've had contact with the neighbors and
that you have received communication concerning this. And if you
feel that the community really wants this, I have no problem going
forward with it.
But I would like to have some assurance that there is more
community involvement, information about it, and then I would like to
have information from the staff as to whether this should be a benefit
unit or a taxing unit. Then you can make a decision as to what you
think is best for your constituents in that area.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I, as well, am a little surprised,
to be candid. Today is the first -- this minute's the first time I've heard
the word MSTBU (sic) at all. And so that is a bit disconcerting.
But be that as it may, I would like to hear from the public
speakers. I did ask a lot of important people to come and speak with
you today to share the necessity of this. The technicality of an MSTU
or an MSBU is irrelevant to me. There is a need in our community for
this. This does have to do with health, safety, and welfare, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, what I think the staff is
saying is they want to come back to you to tell you what is the best
mechanism so that you can accomplish your goal. It may be a benefit
unit; it may be a taxing unit. So even though it's come up today, it
certainly is not too late because we have plenty of time.
June 26, 2018
Page 39
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no. And, certainly, it isn't
too late. It just is not new news. So let's move on.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We now have six
speakers for this topic. I'll remind the speakers to use both podiums.
Your first speaker is Jorge Aguilera. He will be followed by Wayne
Martin.
MR. AGUILERA: Good morning. For the record, Jorge
Aguilera, assistant chief with the North Collier Fire Control and
Rescue District.
Obviously, we're here to support any initiatives that positively
impact the health, safety, and welfare of our residents and, obviously,
accessibility -- safe and rapid accessibility to emergencies is a primary
part of our responsibilities.
And we do have issues on some of these private roads where,
through washout or just through time, they've become almost
impossible to navigate.
And one of the worst times to figure that out is when you're
actually responding to a call and you get to a point, and you just can't
get there because, for whatever reason, the emergency happened, the
road became inaccessible sometime during the last time you actually
went through it.
So however this is resolved, it is an issue that needs to be
addressed. We appreciate the commissioner to bring this issue to this
body and hopefully you can find some sort of way of addressing it.
Because accessibility, not only for the residents, but for emergency
vehicles, is critical. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Wayne Martin. He'll be
followed by Dr. Joseph Curione.
MR. MARTIN: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Martin, deputy director with the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District.
June 26, 2018
Page 40
And on behalf of the district and Chief Kingman Schuldt, we'd like to
express our concern and need for good access for all emergency
vehicles.
When a road is impassible, the first responders are delayed and,
on occasions, they have to walk into a home to access a patient or the
incident. That delay, as they transverse it, may create damage to
vehicles, and it has in the past, which creates repairs.
So the district sees this as a community health and safety issue,
and we thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Joseph Curione. He'll
be followed by Guillermo Perez.
DR. CURIONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
your time.
I think pretty much mostly what needs to be said has been said. I
live on Della, and I was, unfortunately, in a position where I
experienced a problem years ago, 2012. At that time my fiancee was
very ill, she had cancer, and I needed to call an ambulance, and by the
time the ambulance finally got to the end of Della, she had lost
consciousness, and she passed away later on. So this is something that
really needs to be considered.
And, you know, the repairs that are needed, we need to look at it
as a prophylactic measure so that we don't wait till the last minute and
something like that happens.
So I'm in full support of everything that they've said, and I hope
that you take this into consideration for this issue and for the repairs.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Guillermo Perez. He'll be
followed by Kelly Ramero Bettridge.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you.
Last year -- I go now to a school to speak English. I try again.
Let me try my language, but she help me.
June 26, 2018
Page 41
Last year happen too much problem in the area where I live,
Immokalee Avenue. My home is the last home/house over there. My
wife and me live in there, but she gone. She have panic for the last
year when come it the hurricane, the storm, and then the fires.
The police and the Fire Department, let me tell, have incredible
department, Fire Department, and the rescue for many times going
there is impossible, the car going to my home. The street is destroyed.
The neighbors, nobody fix it. Nobody help you over there.
For some time I go and try for fix my area, and the people
destroy, and nobody help me. I calling to the neighbors; nobody put
nothing over there.
Not important for these people live in --
MS. de JESUS: Hello. Maria de Jesus from communications and
customer relations. I'll be translating.
There's people that he feels that don't feel like they want to better
their life, the residents' lives. He wanted to mention that when he came
to the United States, he was in Miami, and he realized that at that time
there was roads that were unrepairable, and he saw that area prosper,
and now he's seeing the same here in Naples. He's seen that Naples is
prospering.
He's got a lot of medical issues, heart issues. He's proposed
himself that hopefully, if he does pass, that hopefully he gets to see the
city grow as well in those areas. And he's asking for you guys, you
know, to help.
They voted for you guys, and, Commissioner McDaniel, he says
you're great, and Commissioner Donna Fiala, the same. And,
Commissioner Fiala, I guess you got a chance to see his area, and he
did mention to you the amount of debris that was there and if there was
a fire, that it would be an issue. And the fire did come, and it was huge.
I guess the firemen were there. They were able to save his home.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You can't make him stop.
June 26, 2018
Page 42
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No. I understand.
MS. de JESUS: He just wanted to let you know about the
hurricane. He had a difficult time in this time, so he wants to make
you full aware of his situation and to help.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maria, let him know his time's
up.
MR. PEREZ: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kelly Ramero Bettridge,
and she'll be followed by Tabitha Butcher.
MS. BETTRIDGE: Good morning. I'm going to -- I first want to
address something that Commissioner Solis had said, because I'm a
schoolteacher on summer break, and I might not hold it in my brain
that long.
So first I want to address what you said about the emergency
repairs and how there might be some question of legality, and maybe
the attorney would back this up.
But the way that I was understanding this ordinance to be is that
this isn't just, okay, wait for an emergency and do it; it is to allow -- to
put this in the hands of the emergency responders to be able to
determine where the emergency is taking place. Because, really, like
Commissioner Fiala said, repairs are not going to be made to this road
for an emergency purpose according to the already existing policy
unless somebody calls or unless an emergency happens.
So my understanding is is that the people who spoke today are
going to go and make a determination of what roads are impassible and
then approach those. But we know that most of the roads are, at some
point, going to have some fall into disrepair.
So I want you to consider -- like, to me, when I heard the
emergency MSTU, I wasn't thinking, okay, we'd go out in the event of
an emergency. It's looking at, okay, where is our emergency? Because
the emergency is already occurring in many places, and that is also true
June 26, 2018
Page 43
on my road, which is Della.
And, I mean, I think that what you've seen on the news and what
other people have presented -- I know that I've sent emails to you with
photographs of what's happening on our road. And we have residents
who are totally with, you know, great intentions to make repairs to
those roads, but even those repairs aren't to the safety, benefit, and
wellness of individuals.
I mean, right now on my road, there are, you know, sharp shards
of things covering gigantic car-sized potholes with nails sticking out
and, you know, foam insulation and all kinds of things that -- like, my
children can't walk down the street.
So there's more than just, you know, an emergency of a vehicle
coming down my road. There's an emergency of people walking down
my road, okay.
And in that case, I mean, I was very lucky. Shortly after we had
an emergency MSTU done to our road a few years ago because it was
impassible. Shortly after that -- thank goodness we had that, because
there was a fire on my property that was able -- we were able to pass
and get that.
And I also spent many months trying to get residents on my road
to pass an MSTU on our own. I spent months doing this. And I wasn't
able to get it done. And I found out that it probably won't get done,
and it doesn't appear to me that this ordinance doesn't take away
residents' property, it doesn't seem to go out and violate any, you
know, laws that I could see, and it is more of an enhancement of what
your already existing law is. It's still an emergency, same as old policy,
but it's a look at -- oh, I'm running out of time. Okay. It's to look at
going and seeing where the emergency's existing. The emergency is
already there, we know that it's there, and so we need to address it.
Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker on this item is
June 26, 2018
Page 44
Tabitha Butcher.
CHIEF BUTCHER: Good morning, Commissioners, Tabitha
Butcher, chief of EMS.
My comments are going to reflect the other first responders that
have spoken today. EMS is in support of an initiative to improve
roads, because access to these residents has been a challenge for us in
the past, and so we do support any initiative to improve roads. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. Chairman, my friend,
Lieutenant Martin, didn't realize he had to fill out a speaker slip.
Would you like to say a few words, Lieutenant? Forgive me. I asked
the Sheriff --
LIEUTENANT MARTIN: If it pleases the Board.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Can he fill one out after the fact? Because
I think we have to have one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. MILLER: We'll take care of it, Chairman, when he's done.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's his first time.
LIEUTENANT MARTIN: Good morning. Lieutenant Gary
Martin on behalf of the Sheriff's Office.
I am the District 4 commander for the Sheriff's Office, which
encompasses the district also known as the Estates district, so much of
these roads fall into the Estates.
The Sheriff's Office is supportive of any initiative that would
make roads passible to emergency services' vehicles and would take
part in the notification process to let the Board know that roads have
become impassible.
Several people here today have roads which fall within the district
that I'm responsible for. Markley is at the southern end of the district.
A good example of Markley, if a patrol deputy is dispatched there, that
deputy, no matter where they're at within the 300 square miles of the
June 26, 2018
Page 45
Estates district, has to respond back to the station on Immokalee Road,
retrieve a four-wheel-drive vehicle, a high-water truck to respond
down there. So that does limit our response time there quite a bit.
The lady before me that just spoke about Della Drive -- I was on
Della Drive this week. There are holes on Della Drive that are as wide
as from me to the Board and a foot deep. With no water in them, you
know, you can navigate that.
I think it would be impossible for a fire truck or an ambulance to
navigate. Patrol vehicle, it's still kind of difficult.
Some of the residents there have decided to take the broken tiles
from roofs and fill those holes. That's why there's a lot of sharp things
there. That's what the potholes are being filled with. One of them had
a granite countertop in it. So there are things of that nature that are
being done for repairs to try to aid in getting up and down the road.
Commissioner McDaniel spoke of Platt Road earlier. Platt Road,
if you're on it today, it's great; it's nice and level, and it's smooth. The
problem there is there's no ditches or culverts or anything on either
side. So when it rains, the road itself then becomes the way for the
water to evacuate the areas, and then it becomes impassible. And, of
course, you're not going to drive a law enforcement vehicle, a fire
truck, or an ambulance down the road at that point.
Any questions from the Board for me?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: These are the guys that are out
there every day. Thank you.
LIEUTENANT MARTIN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And ladies; forgive me,
Tabitha.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I have a few
questions. A lot of these roads, nothing at all like, of course, in
Commissioner McDaniel's district, but I have a lot of these dirt roads
June 26, 2018
Page 46
in my district as well, and so some of them become a problem; some of
them they just put up with.
But I have two questions that I have here. Now, it says in this
thing someplace where you can opt out --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and not be a part of this program.
So say, for instance, you live on Della Drive; we'll choose that. And
on Della Drive Mr. A and Mr. B and Mr. C say, I don't want a part of
this. You know, I like it the way it is even with the big holes, so I opt
out. And then the emergency people come in and say, you've got to do
something with this road. This plan should kick in.
Okay. What happens to the guys that have opted out? Do they
have to pay anyway, or does everybody else have to pay even though
they won't?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think you should ask the
County Attorney that question. He and I discussed --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm asking everybody, but the
County Attorney will hear it, I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, he's the one that helped
with that aspect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we need to iron that out to
make sure that everybody knows what's expected and what isn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The opt-out clause is for those
property owners -- it's usually just one property owner involved -- who
regularly maintain their roads, and there's never been an issue with the
roads. And it's up to the County Manager to make that determination
that, yes, this road is suitable to being opted out, because there's not a
real likelihood we're ever going to have to be there and actually do the
emergency repairs.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So there has to be a stated record
of maintenance?
June 26, 2018
Page 47
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. It talks about a written
five-year maintenance plan. And if it fails, then that maintenance plan
is no longer valid, and they are opted back in.
Am I correct, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's up to the County Manager, ultimately.
I'm sure he's thrilled with this, but it's up to the County Manager to
make the determination that this road really doesn't need any county
oversight to it; that the property owners have been responsible property
owners and have been maintaining these roads and are likely to be
maintaining these roads for the foreseeable future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I don't know if we all have
that answer down pat, because that's a good question.
The second thing is, like a private road, I mean, it's owned by
somebody and the road is bad, but a lot of workforce have to ride over
that road, and it's difficult, if not impossible, not to lose your car in
some of the holes, right?
Okay. We would -- would we go in and fix that with an MSBU
or TU even though it's their private road? Although, in the case that
I'm talking about they've fixed it. But there might be other places also
that have a private road. I know on Cope Lane they have a private
road. They just fix their own road.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they want to do that. And, fine,
they've got the equipment over there amongst the neighbors, and they
all just do that together.
But maybe there would be something that's a private road that
people have to drive on, yet none of them have ownership in it, just the
one guy. Do we go out and fix that road anyway?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Only when it's determined that
emergency vehicular access --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
June 26, 2018
Page 48
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- is not accessible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: At that point, that's when the
maintenance --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then we tax --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- department -- excuse me.
Just let me finish. Not maintenance, but the Maintenance Department
from the county goes and makes it passible for emergency vehicles. I
want to be very clear that this isn't a maintenance process. This is for
emergency vehicular access.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's where it gets cloudy, and
there is no provision for us to do this on private property on private
roads with public funds. This is for emergency vehicular access.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And your folks on Cope Lane
are a perfect example of those that I thought of when we talked about
the opt-out provision. Another road is Oil Grade Road; it goes from Oil
Well Road all the way up to Immokalee. Collier enterprises owns both
sides of it. They could provide a five-year plan to the County
Manager, maintain the road, and they could opt out of the MSTBU,
BU, as the case may be. Cope Lane folks could do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's honorable. It's a great
project. I know that you're trying to help a lot of people, and we all
really want to feel the same way. We don't want anybody to be in
jeopardy for anything. I just wanted to make sure we put some of
these on the record so that it doesn't come back and bite somebody, so
that we already have a plan in place, and that's why I mention it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I applaud you for
bringing that up, because there are a lot of misconceptions with this.
Folks could perceive that this is a maintenance process. It is not. It is
June 26, 2018
Page 49
still your responsibility to maintain your own road and take care of
your properties along the way.
This is for emergency vehicle access solely, to provide for the
necessary health, safety, and welfare for the residents and folks within
our community. It's -- can't say it any different than that.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We've got some time with this.
I'm just -- I'd like a little more clarification on the process of how we
go about identifying these roads, and do we identify -- do we depend
on emergency -- our wonderful emergency folks to come to the County
Manager and say, this road I know is impassable. The example I think
was given of Platt Road, that in the sunshine without rain it's passible,
but when it rains, it becomes a river that no transport or no truck
should go across. It needs ditches on the side. Is this the degree of
which we proceed, because --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not putting ditches -- we're not
paving, we're not putting ditches, we're not putting in culverts. We're
just going -- once upon a time what used to happen is somebody would
make a phone call to the local commissioner, then a truck would go
out, gravel go in, and that would be the end of it. That's the way we
used to do business throughout all of Florida.
We don't do business like that anymore. This sort of takes the
place of that. Now we have a dedicated funding source. It's
transparent. And, you know, when you get a crater-sized hole in a
private road that nobody can -- that a fire truck can't get down on, now
we've got the ability to go out there and put the gravel in. Same
process, but this -- same ultimate process, but this is far more
transparent.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's not to bring roads up to
county standards, which would be the ditching and diking and culverts
and that sort of thing. This is strictly for emergency vehicular access
June 26, 2018
Page 50
when our folks, who are our first responders, require it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, you know, this is a tough issue for
me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I respect the intent of it and all, and I
think it's something -- these emergency situations of are concern,
because we don't want to have situations where people are at risk and
their lives and safety are at risk.
You know, it's your -- as Commissioner Saunders says, it's your
district and, you know, I respect that -- I hope we all respect that in our
respective districts we know what the people want. And, you know, I
just -- I have some grave concern about some of the unintended
consequences of some of this.
But, you know, if the majority's going to vote for it, I mean, I'll
support it, but I, like Commissioner Fiala, wanted to make sure it was
on the record that I think there's some issues, and we'll be revisiting
this probably in the future.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to
suggest, you know, this is your item, and it sounds like the staff has
made a rather reasonable suggestion that we continue this to come
back with some information for you, so I would suggest that you do
that. But if you want to proceed this morning with the MSTU, I'm
going to support you on that, but I think that the best approach, since
we have time -- we're not going to see anything happen until 2019
anyway in terms of tax collections -- that setting up the MSBU might
be the best way to go, and I think you should have that information
before we proceed.
So I'm going to suggest that you continue this to get that
information, continue it to the second meeting in September when
June 26, 2018
Page 51
we're finished with our budgets, and then move forward with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can make a motion that it's an MSTU,
Commissioner, or we can continue it. It's up to you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we can't adopt it or pass it
with the staff's recommendation to do whichever is better, MSTU or
BU, to make that recommendation, or does it have to be approved as
such?
MR. KLATZKOW: It has to be approved either as an MSTU or
an MSBU.
MR. OCHS: Or an MSTBU.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. Whatever the actual
language is.
MR. OCHS: We have one in Pelican Bay, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We do.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You didn't make that up?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just checking.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then I'm going to make a
motion to continue it until our first meeting or our second meeting in
September.
I don't want this to go through and not be proper. I cannot --
we're going to go to the 10:30 break, so I'm going to make a motion to
continue to our first meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you do the second
meeting? And the reason I'm suggesting that is we're going to be
dealing with budgets the first two weeks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, first, second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It won't make any difference.
June 26, 2018
Page 52
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Actually, it's irrelevant, like
you said. It's not going to kick in until the ensuing tax year anyway.
So there was a potential for it to be included this year. Had this
ordinance been adopted we could have had it included, but it's okay.
It's okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It would have been included --
MR. OCHS: No, wait a minute. No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. It was always going to be
-- it was always going to be for the following years, correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And as long as you adopt this ordinance
before the end of this calendar year, it still will be.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you can see we all really
want to work with you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and work with the people in the
community. We just have to get it right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it needs to be right, and it
hasn't been a secret. So with that, I'm going to move to continue it to
our second meeting in September.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second.
Commissioner Taylor, your light is on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just, if -- Commissioner
McDaniel, if you agree, I'd like to understand the process. And what
sticks in my mind is the testimony of Platt Road. In sunshine it's
perfect; in the rain it's not. That's an emergency issue. We're not --
and then what the County Attorney said, we're not going to take care of
ditches. How are you going to correct that when it's a low-lying road,
obviously, without proper drainage? We need to understand --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's going to have to be the residents of
June 26, 2018
Page 53
Platt Road. If they want to bring that road up to the county standards,
they've got the ability to set up their own --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's just --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- MSTU.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- where it's safe. Where it's safe.
And it's a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if I might, I can share with
you, when the road becomes in such disrepair and excess rain, Platt
Road specifically -- I was there. I was going to see my friend who was
suffering from heart issues over off Fawn Lane. The road becomes in
such disrepair that any additional rain exacerbates what's going on.
The county went out, spent $10,000 to fix that washout, and it
hasn't washed out since. It's been almost six, seven years. So with a
proactive step, based upon our emergency vehicular -- or emergency
first responders, we're going to be able to not let a wallah turn into a
washout.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't hear it was a washout. I
heard it was flooded.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. It was an actual washout.
That's what happens --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- is a lot of these private roads
become a dike or a levy --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- that don't allow for proper
transition of surficial water.
So this is -- and these are circumstances that prevail. So I think I
shared with you on Blue Sage that we recently spend $12,000 on to fix,
I spoke to Mr. Blackledge last year.
We have a county park, Nancy Payton bird sanctuary's up there,
county employees drive that road. It's a private road and the washout
June 26, 2018
Page 54
-- the holes were 18 to 24 inches deep and, as Lieutenant Martin said,
quite large. And we didn't fix it. It didn't get fixed. And then with the
excess of rains, it washed into the canal. I said crick last -- two weeks
ago when we were talking about it, but it washed off into the canal and
became totally impassible to the expense of $12,000. So that's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again, I'd just like to
understand what the process is. Who identifies the roads?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the process is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When do they identify them? It's
no good to identify them in the emergency. It needs to be more
proactive. I just would like an understanding of it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This entire ordinance is set up
to do that by the Fire Department and the Sheriff's Department on a
proactive basis. And it's important. It's not for maintenance. We're
not taking people's property. There's no condemnation going on.
Those things all need to be said as well.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. I know that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, when you start
talking about ditches and culverts, that's when people get concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It will probably all be written out for
the September meeting anyway.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would imagine.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. Can I just make a suggestion that
maybe one of the things that needs to be included is some definition of
what it would be or what it would not be, the work that would be done.
It might --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It might be helpful because, I mean, I
think this example of Platt Road that the lieutenant gave -- yeah, I don't
know. It might be helpful to try to define what the work would be and
June 26, 2018
Page 55
the extent of the work. But, anyway, I think we've -- so there's a
motion and a second to continue this item to the second meeting in
September; is that the motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. 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: It's continued.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And thank you for your
indulgence.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, it would be appropriate for the court
reporter break. We have a time-certain hearing at 10:40; reconvene at
that point, sir.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Items #11B – Heard with Agenda Item #11C with one vote taken for
both items
AN AGREED UPON INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND IN THE
EVENT OF APPROVAL OF THE MARCO ISLAND
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
(COPCN) APPLICATION OR CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR
PROVIDING A SECOND AMBULANCE TO MARCO ISLAND –
June 26, 2018
Page 56
MOTION TO APPROVE A COPCN CONDITIONALLY WITH
APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BY THE
VOTERS ON THE REFERENDUM AND NO CHANGE TO AD
VALOREM TAXES – APPROVED
Item #11C – Heard with Agenda Item #11B with one vote taken for
both items
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CLASS 1 CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FROM THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND FIRE AND RESCUE FOR ALS RESPONSE
AND TRANSPORT – MOTION TO APPROVE A COPCN
CONDITIONALLY WITH APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BY THE VOTERS ON THE REFERENDUM AND
NO CHANGE TO AD VALOREM TAXES – APPROVED
Commissioners, we move to our morning time-certain hearing.
This is Items 11B and 11C on your agenda. These will be heard
together.
I think we're start first, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, with
11C. This was a recommendation to deny a request for a Class 1
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Marco --
excuse me -- City of Marco Island Fire and Rescue for ALS response
and transport.
Mr. Summers will present, and then we'll follow that up with a
discussion about 11B.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services.
We bring back to you today a continuation of our
recommendation for denial of the COPCN. As you recall from the last
meeting, on this topic you asked staff to go back -- Chief Butcher to go
June 26, 2018
Page 57
back and look at some of the interlocal options and discussions that
came up as, basically, as a prelude or as part of a terms and conditions
of a COPCN.
So unless you have any questions, that's all I have. And Chief
Butcher is here to discuss with you the interlocal agreement option that
you asked staff to go back and take a look at.
Okay. Thank you.
CHIEF BUTCHER: Good morning, Commissioners, Tabitha
Butcher, chief of EMS.
As Mr. Summers had stated, at the May 22nd meeting, you did
ask us to go back and work with Marco on an interlocal agreement.
We did do that. We were also asked to include the conditions that the
Emergency Medical Authority outlined in their majority report. We
did include all of those conditions in our initial draft to Marco.
When Marco came back with their changes and edits, they did
strike two of those conditions, one of those being that they would
utilize the county Medical Director that would oversee an assistant
medical director that they may hire, as well as not asking for
reimbursement of ad valorem taxes. So both of those were struck.
The other items such as closest unit response participation and the
referendum passing were included in this interlocal agreement.
We also felt that it was very important to draft at least a baseline
operational plan that we also included in your packets. That's
important because this process is going to ultimately affect operations
and how we work. So we felt that it was important to outline some of
these things up front if this were to be approved.
However, with the recommendation to deny the COPCN based on
it not meeting the conditions of the ordinance, we outlined a few
alternatives for you that we could look at to still provide Marco with a
second ambulance. Those alternatives were outlined in the executive
summary. We do recommend that we take a look at some of those
June 26, 2018
Page 58
alternatives, because those will provide a second ambulance to Marco
and also cost the taxpayers of Marco much less money than them
adding their own system.
So I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have on
this.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Questions? Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On the medical director, I can
understand why the City of Marco would want to have their own
medical director. I don't really have a big problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is having a service there that has
different protocols than we have in the county. Did the city -- would
the city agree to at least have the same protocols even though they
would have their own medical director?
CHIEF BUTCHER: The city did not agree to have the same
protocols. That doesn't say that they wouldn't take a look at that, but
that specifically was not outlined in this interlocal agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As far as you know, would
they be having different protocols, or do they understand or --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we have all kinds of representatives
from the city here. Maybe they could --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll ask the same questions.
MR. OCHS: -- answer some of those questions for you, instead
of us trying to speculate what they would say.
So the -- I know the interim city manager is here, Mr. Polanco. I
know that Chief Murphy is here, and there are several city councilors.
So if and when you're ready to question them, sir, I'm sure they're
available.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Chief, could you please
outline the three alternatives that would be, in your opinion, saving the
taxpayer of the City of Marco a lot of money.
June 26, 2018
Page 59
CHIEF BUTCHER: Absolutely. So currently the way that we
operate on Marco Island is we have a Collier County ambulance there
that is staffed with one of our Collier County paramedic firefighters,
and Marco provides a paramedic firefighter to work as the second
person on that ambulance. It is a swap program. So while they give us
a second person to work on our ambulance, we also provide them with
a county employee to work on one of their fire engines to provide ALS
service in the event that the ambulance is out.
So one of the options, Alternative No. 1 would be to do away
with that swap program and actually staff a second ambulance with our
person. Marco also at times gives us a third person to put on the
ambulance, so our proposal is to take our person off the engine, put it
on an ambulance, and then take the third person that they provide to
the ambulance and staff a second ambulance, essentially. So both
ambulances would be staffed with one county paramedic and one
Marco paramedic.
Alternative No. 2 would be to maintain that ALS swap program
in Marco as it is today but hire an additional paramedic to staff a
second ambulance. So, basically, we would have an additional
ambulance on Marco while still maintaining the swap program.
The third alternative would be to cost-share an additional unit.
So, again, we would put up an ambulance, and we would both staff it,
and Marco would provide cost-share in that.
The other alternative would be that the county would support
paying for an ambulance just to add a second ambulance to Marco. All
of these alternatives, 1 through 3, would ask that Marco pay at least all
or some portion of adding these ambulances, and the fourth alternative
would actually have the county paying for it.
So any other questions on that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. So they would buy -- the
county would buy an ambulance and put it on Marco, and we'd be
June 26, 2018
Page 60
staffed by?
CHIEF BUTCHER: County employees.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHIEF BUTCHER: And so of all of these alternatives, the
highest cost would be about $550,000 versus potentially 2 million that
is proposed for them to add their own service.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Annually?
CHIEF BUTCHER: Yeah. Well, actually, not annually. It
would be an accumulative. So that would be to buy the equipment and
the ambulance, and then the continual cost would be to pay the staff.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So that's a one-time
cost, the 500-?
MR. OCHS: Part of it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Part of it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. In review of the interlocal
agreement, there was the discussion about zone coverage. And I was
under the impression that our zone coverage -- in the event that Marco
does, in fact, vote favorably on the referenda and they do get their own
COPCN, whether it's granted by us or not -- they have the capacity of
doing both -- what would be your preference with regard to the zone
coverage? In order to have two ambulances active, they have to -- I
think have to have one in reserve; is that correct?
CHIEF BUTCHER: Well, we would actually propose at least
two or three in reserve, because there are times that maybe an
ambulance gets in an accident and one has to go down for
maintenance, they're going to need those backup services.
In regards to zone coverage, our proposal to them was that they,
of course, have the two ambulances that they're proposing to put in
service, and then if both of those ambulances are busy, that they would
put their surge unit, which they do mention in their application, they
June 26, 2018
Page 61
would automatically put that ambulance in service. And if that surge
unit became busy so all three of their ambulances were gone from the
island or committed to calls, at that point we would send zone
coverage.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHIEF BUTCHER: They had come back and stated that they
cannot put that surge ambulance in service all the time and request that
once their two ambulances are busy that we automatically send zone
coverage.
The county's proposal would be that if there's a third call that
drops and we're the closest unit, which we would be if both of their
ambulances are committed, that we would automatically respond to
that call and not provide automatic zone coverage.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and the trick is --
because they are participating in our closest-unit call processes. So if
there's an ambulance that's in a transport mode up off of the island and
a call were to come in, their ambulance would respond to that. And so
that's where I'm trying to understand the balance of our zone coverage.
Because the rationale is is that they would be assisting us, and the
ambulances, by them having their own ambulance service, would free
up our services to do other work in the community. But it almost
sounds like the requisite of the zone coverage would force us to orient
units in a particular area because oftentimes both units do become
busy.
CHIEF BUTCHER: Correct. So we would still have to account
for that. If we were going to be automatic zone coverage, we would
have to make sure we would have resources near to send down there.
While, yes, they would be participating in closest-unit if they
were returning from the hospital, we would also be participating in
closest-unit by responding to a call that dropped in their area if we
were closer. So we would both equally participate in that.
June 26, 2018
Page 62
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Just another quick
question in reference to protocols. Can you give me kind of an
example of the types of issues that might arise. My understanding is
that the big issue would be the utilization of certain drugs. So when we
talk about protocol, I am going to ask those questions. So what are we
talking about?
CHIEF BUTCHER: So our protocols now, all fire districts, as
well as EMS, operate under the same protocol, and we operate under
the same training. And that's important because if the fire districts were
to provide care prior to us getting there, we're familiar with what
they're doing, because we all operate under the same policies.
If Marco were to establish a separate protocol on maybe drugs or
equipment that we do not carry and, say, we had to assume that patient
for whatever reason, maybe there was a mass casualty or if we had to
assume the patient if we called the helicopter, they may have done
something or given something that our paramedics may not be familiar
with.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, in reference to when the
patient arrives at the hospital, I assume that the hospital folks are
familiar with the protocols in terms of what drugs would be
administered.
CHIEF BUTCHER: Yes. The hospital -- we have to provide
copies of protocols to the hospitals.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But if there were two different
protocols, one from Marco Island with different drugs and a different
drug was administered, that potentially would create some confusion at
the hospital; is that fair to say?
CHIEF BUTCHER: It could. But, like I said, the protocols are
left with the hospital staff. But it would cause more confusion at the
June 26, 2018
Page 63
road level.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I see. Okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a question. Because it's
very, very difficult, no matter whether you're in an ambulance or not,
to get off the island and down to a hospital during season, because
those roads are full, and they just don't move at all. And people don't
move aside for an ambulance. I tell you, I've seen that more than once.
So many times they have to resort to a helicopter in order to -- in a
terrible emergency to get them off the island and over to -- over to the
hospital.
How are we working with that, or -- they don't need their own.
They work with us, or how does that work?
CHIEF BUTCHER: We actually do not utilize the helicopter
based off of distance from the island or because we can't get off the
island because of traffic. The helicopter is utilized for trauma patients
to transport patients to a trauma facility, which our closest one is Lee
County. So -- and we ask that they follow those same protocols so that
we can make sure we maintain our helicopter for the rest of the county
for trauma transport.
MR. OCHS: And the city has agreed to that in the interlocal
agreement, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They did.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It still doesn't sit well, does it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I can hear it in your voice.
CHIEF BUTCHER: And on a couple of our concerns, even
though the city has agreed that we will cooperate on zone coverage, it's
still -- there's still a lot of wiggle room there. They have also agreed to
participate in closest-unit dispatch; however, there's still concerns over
June 26, 2018
Page 64
them possibly wanting to prioritize what they respond to so they can
get back to the island, which is a concern of mine, as well as, you
know, making sure that our field supervisors understand what they're
supposed to do with zone coverage. It's very broad the way that it is
written in the interlocal agreement.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other questions for Ms. Butcher,
Chief Butcher?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. We have three registered speakers for
this item. Your first speaker is Janet Vasey, who's been ceded three
additional minutes from Dennis Vasey, who I see is present, and she
will be followed by Dr. Jerry Swiacki; I think I'm saying that correct.
Now, the speakers for both 11B and C.
MS. VASEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Janet
Vasey, and I've been on your Emergency Medical Authority and its
predecessor, the Public Safety Authority, for over five years.
Today I'm providing the minority position of the EMA, which is
to recommend denial of the Marco Island COPCN request.
Your county ordinance states: "The Board of County
Commissioners shall not grant a certificate unless each of the four
standards has been met." I will address the standards that have not
been met.
Standard number one, public necessity; that the proposed service
is needed to improve the overall EMS capabilities of the county. The
response times both annually and during season show that Marco
Island Zone 50 has excellent ambulance response times and has
exceeded the eight-minute goal for years.
The current quality of service is outstanding, as demonstrated by
the excellent results of the Marco Island's own customer service survey
which was based on the current county EMS system. The proposed
June 26, 2018
Page 65
service is not needed to improve overall EMS capabilities.
The next requirement is the effect on existing EMS services with
respect to quality of service and cost of service. There will be a
negative effect here. Marco COPCN does not provide sufficient
ambulance service to operate independently. They need substantial
support from county EMS, requiring the county to retain the unit
currently assigned to Marco to support them when their two
ambulances are off the island.
During season, Marco can have five to seven transports a day.
Now, how can two ambulances possibly handle that?
Additionally, Marco would divert between 700,000 and $1
million in revenue from Collier County, while EMS would still have to
retain the former Marco ambulance for daily backup.
Standard 2, applicant's sufficient knowledge and experience to
operate the proposed service properly. To meet this standard, the
Marco COPCN application emphasized the ability and extensive
experience of their now former city manager in operating an integrated
EMS system. The current interim city manager does not have that
experience. The fire chief has previous integrated experience, but his
deputy does not. So Marco Island is one person deep with the
experience to run an integrated fire EMS system.
Standard 4, proposed service will have sufficient personnel and
equipment to cover the proposed service area adequately. The
COPCN proposal does not have sufficient staffing for two ambulances.
For two ambulances, you need 12 positions staffed on a 24-hour basis,
365 days a year. Marco plans to hire only 12 people to staff these 12
positions, but at least 15 or 16 people would actually be needed;
otherwise, the 12 people would have no vacation days, no sick time
off, no holidays, no Kelly days or training days away from the
ambulance. So Marco would start with three or four people -- three- or
four-person shortage.
June 26, 2018
Page 66
Last year the Marco Island Staff Organization Climate Survey
found that only 12 percent of Fire Department employees thought their
department was appropriately staffed. Adding the transport function
that has three to four people understaffed would certainly exacerbate
this problem. Add that to the fact that Marco Fire Department works a
48-hour shift. Do you want to be the person receiving a complicated
medical procedure during a medic's 46th hour on duty after he's run 12
or 13 calls already? By comparison, county EMS paramedics are on
24-hour shifts.
Marco representatives assume that they would automatically
provide higher-quality, better medical service than county EMS, but
that assumption should be carefully evaluated. With serious personnel
shortages, probably new and less well-trained and less-experienced
paramedics, the 24-hour fatigue factor challenges, I would say this
proposed COPCN would most likely result in a reduced, not improved,
level of care.
Two ambulances and a third surge vehicle that will only be used
in certain circumstances will not adequately cover the proposed service
area as stipulated in Standard 4.
So Ordinance Standards 1, 2, and 4 have not been met, so the
Marco COPCN application should be denied.
There's one other issue that I think supports denial. To approve
this COPCN that doesn't meet the conditions of your own ordinance
would set a very bad precedent. When the next entity comes and
applies for a COPCN to transport, how can you make them meet an
ordinance standards -- meet the ordinance standards that haven't been
applied to Marco? Approval of the Marco Island COPCN represents a
significant threat to the future of countywide EMS. If other fire
departments and independent fire districts want their own COPCN to
transport, it would totally fragment and destroy the current outstanding
consolidated EMS system.
June 26, 2018
Page 67
I strongly encourage you to deny this COPCN. Thank you. And I
have two seconds left.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nice job.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker registered for this
item is Dr. Jerry Swiacki. I hope I'm saying that right, sir.
DR. SWIACKI: Dr. Jerry Swiacki, like in hockey.
MR. MILLER: Sorry, sir.
DR. SWIACKI: Needless to say, I disagree with the previous
speaker.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I am sure that you have reviewed the interlocal agreement which
was created in a cooperative effort by staff of Marco Island and Collier
County. These are the operational matters of which you were
concerned.
It appears to me that by adhering to this agreement, the citizens of
both Marco Island and Collier County will benefit. Marco Island
citizens want to use their paramedics and fire rescue personnel to the
full potential. This will result in enhanced services and improved
transport capabilities for our community.
By having our own COPCN, we will be better able to use our
resources and to be more efficient in doing so. A fully integrated fire
rescue department of dual certified firefighters/paramedics improves
organizational and operational efficiencies by providing maximum
utilization of personnel for the benefit of patients and community.
By agreeing to the interlocal agreement, the City of Marco Island
has shown that it is willing to work cooperatively with Collier County
in addressing the medical needs of all of our citizens. The
recommendation to give a second ambulance in lieu of granting us our
own COPCN begs the question of home rule. If a second ambulance
was available, it would still be controlled by Collier County. It still
would be under the direction of Collier County's Medical Director, and
June 26, 2018
Page 68
the citizens of Marco Island would still be paying for something that
they have no control over.
Seeing that consolidation of the fire districts in Collier County is
on the horizon and, ultimately, the control of emergency medical
services, it is of great concern to us because we, as a city, would have
no input. That would be taxation without representation.
With the interlocal agreement, we see that the operational side of
the question can be accomplished. What needs to be decided is the
policy side of the question.
Marco Island City Council has decided that it will not give up its
rights regarding the ad valorem taxes. The citizens of Marco Island do
not want to pay twice. I am sure policy decisions could be made in
which services rendered by the county would be appropriately
reimbursed by the city. Also, by having our own medical director who
would work in cooperation with the county's medical director, we
would be better able to utilize our personnel in a manner in which our
citizens deserve and want.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You know, I was remiss. We were going
to hear from the city officials, but Commissioner McDaniel's light is
on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was to ask Chief Murphy to
come up, so if he doesn't mind.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: From the city, you want to come up.
CHIEF MURPHY: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike
Murphy, fire rescue chief of Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Morning, Chief.
CHIEF MURPHY: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You've got a long resumΘ in
first responders and the like and come from an area where there was
individual fire departments and ambulance services and the like.
June 26, 2018
Page 69
How did they function with the protocol with the level of care
and, based on your experience, did you -- how did you feel operating
in that environment? I mean, there's a large discussion here from our
staff which makes it very difficult for me personally. My staff's telling
us about the lack of fragmentation of my EMS system countywide
base, so on and so forth, and you come from an environment where
that's already been done. So how do you feel about that?
CHIEF MURPHY: Sure. First of all, my experience is 47 years
in fire rescue service, and I've been a paramedic licensed in the state of
Florida since the original testing back in the '70s.
First of all, I don't believe there is an issue with the concern of
what we are talking about in protocols. The system I came from had
over 22 departments that were providing EMS services through
municipal and county organizations. They collaboratively worked
together in reference to a lot of the base protocols being common
protocols that were -- all the medical directors would get together and
talk about those protocols and come to some sort of agreement.
The system did function very well because there are specific
needs within communities that aren't addressed at county levels. You
can't have -- if you have a high elderly population, your drug needs
may be a little bit more or different types of drugs for those specifics,
just as EMS has certain drugs they carry on the helicopters, because of
a different type of mechanism.
We did not see the problems that are being anticipated here. It is
all about continuum of care for the patient. The two medical directors
will work together in reference to their protocols. If there is -- if you
wanted to say there was a totally disjointed system, you couldn't,
because even on the East Coast you may have seven different cities
responding to an emergency or emergencies and then reporting to
hospitals, and the variation of the protocols wasn't that dramatic. And
the patient -- and the bottom line is the patient.
June 26, 2018
Page 70
I will tell you right now that even in your 2007 master EMS plan
the system here was considered to be fragmented because you're not
utilizing engine company paramedics to their full capabilities. It's very
difficult on a paramedic and difficult on a patient when you have an
individual arrive on the scene seeing they're able to do something but
not having the ability to do it or not carrying that specific medication
they've already been trained on and not being able to give that patient
that drug. And right now that's exactly how the system is operated and
continues to operate since 2007.
Our proposal puts all drugs on all trucks. Our medical director
will determine the medications. As I explained to you the last time, we
intend on partnering with our community health providers, because we
are an island, with our local doctors, and watch trends and get into
community paramedicine which may advance our capabilities of flu
shots and other things we're capable of doing out in the field.
And it's not a service, necessarily, that the entire county can
afford to do or might want to do. So we're very specific to our needs.
And in addressing your issue that -- it doesn't even exist one county up.
Lee County does the same thing. They have three separate agencies in
their system that provide services, and the protocols aren't necessarily
identical to the needs of that.
You also issued a Class 1 license to a provider within your own
county who does not have the exact same protocols that are being
utilized, and yet on one particular day, they ran a trauma alert right
outside their jurisdiction, they transported that patient to the hospital,
and you didn't hear about they didn't use the same protocol or they
didn't use it.
I think it is an advantage to the patients, and I think the two
medical directors will be able to work all those issues out
cooperatively. And, who knows, maybe our medical director will
bring something to the table that might be beneficial to the entire
June 26, 2018
Page 71
county.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think you've addressed the
protocol issue pretty sufficiently, and I appreciate that.
CHIEF MURPHY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of training and other
issues that our medical director is involved in, how would you see that
going? Would there be the same training for these operators as we
have in the county?
CHIEF MURPHY: Actually, I believe there'll be more intense
training, and we are afforded that luxury right now. I mean, we have
three individuals assigned, one each shift, that trains our personnel, and
our personnel hours are exceeding what the county's requirements are
right now. And we do participate in the medical director's training,
and I would hope, cooperatively, we would work and we could provide
additional training as we explained during the operational procedures.
If we have a training drill going on on some specialty item on the
island dealing with protocols, new drug therapy, MC -- mass
shootings, if we have that going on, we would invite the county units,
just as we do on the fire side, to transition across the border and to
provide a joint service that way. And we do intend on training
continuously with their helicopter crews and everything else. So if
there's any differences at all, the transition will be smooth and in the
best interest of the patient care.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask one more question,
if I may.
CHIEF MURPHY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's assume that this is
approved by the voters on Marco Island in August, and you're issued a
June 26, 2018
Page 72
CON from the state. Let's just say on September 1 you get a license
from the state. How long would it take you to be prepared to take over
those operations?
CHIEF MURPHY: Well, first of all, the steps are that upon your
approval of the COPCN, we would use that COPCN. We're going into
a budget year, which means October 1st we would begin our hiring
processes, purchasing processes. As I've explained to county staff, we
would anticipate actually being operational and in the street
functioning by May or June. It will take us time to hire 12 paramedics
and also do the promotions we're doing, and plus all the equipment we
would have to buy, and it's a significant investment on the part of our
citizens, which I do believe they realize will give the improvement of
care.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would you agree -- obviously,
if you get your CON and you start advertising for positions, obviously,
there are going to be some county employees that might consider that.
Would you agree not to solicit county employees?
CHIEF MURPHY: We have already removed that item. And the
objection wasn't -- I don't believe anybody restricts employees from
moving from one department to another or you can do that legally.
And in the past we have hired some extremely qualified paramedics
who have chosen to put their application in, and some of them it's
because of our work schedule.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I understand that. I
wouldn't try to keep somebody from moving to what would be
perceived a better position, potentially. I just wouldn't want to see
Marco Island representatives actively soliciting county employees.
CHIEF MURPHY: No, sir, we're not. We will advertise for the
positions. Actually, the last two individuals we hired, one is from
Marion County, and one is from outside this county.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
June 26, 2018
Page 73
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
Thank you, Chief. I'm sure you read the EMA majority report,
and I'm referring to Page 4, which says that Marco claims that the
EMS transport services it seeks to provide will meet or exceed the
county's standards of performance. Marco -- but it says, of course, this
remains to be seen. What we do know is that historically Marco's
firefighter first responder time to the patient has failed to achieve the
county's four-minute standard, and then there's a list of the responses
from, I guess, the year of 2017.
Can you speak to that, please.
CHIEF MURPHY: Oh, absolutely. First of all, if you look at
that statistic or chart that you are looking at, you will see that within
eight minutes, Marco's at 96 percent. And if you look at the
comparative chart, which indicates EMS, I believe they're at
80-something percent meeting that four-minute or six-minute travel
time.
The four-minute travel time is a very interesting thing. Number
one is Marco Island has police officers that respond to all EMS calls.
They are dispatched to every one. That does not include their time. So
you are not seeing a true statistic.
If you also look at that statistic, I believe if you run down that
column, you will see that we have the second highest BLS response for
Collier County and fire units within the entire county. So that's not
being addressed within there.
So between our police, which we engage with and train with, and
you give Phoenix awards to these individuals all the time, yet they're
not an included statistic on BLS.
I would remind the county that Marco Island is a licensed ALS
provider under the county license. So all of our vehicles are ALS, not
BLS vehicles. So it's sort of mixing a statistic to use a four-minute
June 26, 2018
Page 74
response time as a BLS response when you're not including all the
responders. And police do meet the NFPA definition of response.
So I believe our statistics will be very high if you included those
statistics. And I will also remind, the fact that BLS refers to -- and this
is always touted within this county that you need somebody there to
start CPR on somebody and do that within the first four minutes
because of the fact of brain and life. But the interesting statistic there
is the fact that ALS does make a difference; the provision of ALS does
make a difference, and the four-minute BLS on Marco Island is less
than .94 percent of all calls which deal with cardiac arrest or that were
called in as cardiac arrest.
There is 99.6 percent calls that may fall within an ALS category:
Respiratory, falls. A patient with a fall is -- a critical patient is your
fall victims, which we run a lot, and yet we don't have medical to give
for pain for a fall victim upon arrival.
I hope I answered your question. But police statistic are not
counted in there, and they should be counted in there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And then it's been stated
that the county has -- and I'm not sure that you would be the person to
ask. Maybe it would be Chairman Grifoni maybe.
CHIEF MURPHY: I'll step out of the way if it's his question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe. Thank you very much.
CHIEF MURPHY: Thank you. Any other questions for me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I'll wait until Commissioner
Taylor's finished.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: Good morning, Commissioners. Jared
Grifoni.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. So the county has
offered three and perhaps even four alternatives to a path that the
Council is undertaking here, and it clearly would save Marco taxpayers
June 26, 2018
Page 75
a considerable amount of money. Why are you not taking that up?
COUNCILMAN GRIFONI: Well, last year I sat down with
members of the county staff and had a discussion with them about
possible alternatives to a COPCN application process. We exchanged
some ideas, and we were told no. So that jump-started the COPCN
application process both in front of you and in front of the state
legislature.
Some months after, when it became clear that the state legislature
was going to take action to advance our local bill for the COPCN,
which is HB1395, we got a follow-up communication from the county
which expressed three alternatives to the COPCN.
Those were brought in front of our council. We did have a
discussion on those. There wasn't any action taken to advance those,
because at that time we had already committed to a binding
referendum for the citizens of Marco Island on the COPCN
specifically; local control. And that's really what the alternatives failed
to address: Local control. They failed to address the possibility of
consolidation going forward.
And, you know, I think to suggest that the costs in Alternative 3,
for example, are going to be the maximum costs, we don't know what's
going to happen with the county control issue. Is that going to result in
an increased millage on Marco Island residents either now or in the
future?
So the question for Marco Island residents come August 28th is
going to be, how do you want to spend this money? Who do you want
to control the purse strings? Do you want the accountability at the
local level or do you want, perhaps, a lack of accountability or less
accountability at the county level?
So the citizens of Marco Island are well educated at this point and
continue to be on what the COPCN would mean for them if they do
decide to vote yes or they do decide to vote no.
June 26, 2018
Page 76
And as a council, we're committed to a binding referendum for
the citizens of Marco Island. And if they vote yes, then, you know, of
course, we intend to move forward with the COPCN for local control.
If they vote no, you know, the County Commission could agree to, you
know, put their faith in Marco Island voters right now and say, well, if
you vote yes, then you have a contingent approval for the COPCN. If
they vote no, then we'll go ahead and we'll give you the Alternative 3,
and the county will pick up all the costs, and that's something that, you
know, I'd be happy to discuss with the City Council, if they would
consider that.
But, you know, at this point the alternatives keep us in,
essentially, the status quo, and they do not address the overriding
concerns of many Marco Island voters, which is, how is this going to
be operated? Who's going to control it? Are we going to have the
ability to change our drug protocol to offer additional drugs? When
someone places a 911 call and Marco Island fire apparatus arrives first,
they still have to wait around and wait for a county transport, and that's
a tremendous issue for the citizens of Marco Island that we've
discussed before.
And, you know, at the last BCC meeting we had this discussion
as well, and I think, you know, at this point it just seems a little bit
confusing because at the last meeting a lot of questions were, well,
how would the system function with an interlocal agreement? And we
want to -- the county wants to see what that interlocal agreement
would look like.
The county staff and the city staff have worked diligently to
provide that to you and to provide that to the citizens of Marco Island.
It was agreed to by the county staff. It was recommended for approval
by the county staff. The EMA recommended approval, conditionally,
of the Marco Island COPCN application.
So it seems like we're maybe at this point talking about two
June 26, 2018
Page 77
different things. The interlocal agreement is ready. The staff, the fire
chief, they're completely comfortable with it. It was presented to the
City Council at our last meeting, and we had unanimous consensus on
that interlocal agreement. So I think we're very much on the same
page. Now it's just a matter of will the county advance the COPCN or
will the citizens of Marco Island have to, you know, exercise the local
bill and go to the state? So at this point, I think that's really where we
stand.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. You know, I think there's
a lot of unfortunate politics involved in this, but I found it really
curious that clear cost saving to your taxpayers' ideas on what the
county presented are being sort of filed away with this cry of local
control. So it becomes a local control issue rather than a taxpayers'
fiscal conservancy issue.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: I don't know if I would agree with
that, Commissioner Taylor. The citizens of Marco Island are going to
vote on this. They are voting on August 28th. If they vote no, then it's
going to be because they were unsatisfied with the ad valorem tax
issue and how much it was going to cost and the local control and
everything else that it didn't -- that the balancing act was not there for
them to vote in favor. If they vote yes, then they're going to do so
because they're aware of the costs associated with that, which was
$100 per $500,000 of taxable value for the citizens of Marco Island.
So it's really -- we put our faith in the voters. And if the voters
say yes, it's going to be because this is what they want. And if they
feel that there's another option out there for them or a better option out
there for them, then they will vote no.
Marco Island voters pay quite close attention to everything that
goes on in our City Council and at their county level as well.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Fiala, you were next.
June 26, 2018
Page 78
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marco Island is my district, or is in
my district, and I have to tell you that up front. And what I'm here to
do is serve the Marco Island people.
And the Marco Island people, because they are an island and
they're set aside, a lot of times feel a little misunderstood because
people don't see what's going on. They don't even drive that far. Oh,
well, that's so far. I think it's pretty close, actually.
But anyway -- and that has led them to feel that home rule is
terribly important to them, as we all feel in the county. We believe in
home rule as well, and that's what Marco Island is really asking for.
You probably heard it resoundingly through to the comments from
people, and so I make a motion to approve Marco Island's request for a
COPCN.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second that for discussion,
but I would like to call the chairman back up. I didn't have my light
on. I don't know if it stayed on or not.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You're next.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For discussion purposes, I'd
like to ask the chairman to come back up.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. There's a motion and a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Jared, you and I spoke about
this, have spoke about this on multiple -- excuse me -- on multiple
occasions. And you may have -- when Commissioner Taylor asked
you about the transition of events that came about to lead you to go to
the state to ask for your own certificate of need, you may have gleaned
over it a little bit. But you -- I want to clarify the statement that you
made, that I heard you say, and that is, you talked to county staff with
regard to additional service for the residents of Marco Island and were
June 26, 2018
Page 79
told no.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: Yes. I met with --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is it that you were told no or
you were told something that you didn't like?
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: No. We were told no. We received
an email communication from the county staff after we had requested
followup to our meeting, and I think it was last July, early July, with
the interim city manager, Mr. Polanco, as well as Chief Murphy,
myself, Len Price, Chief Butcher, and there may have been one or two
other members of the county staff who were in and out of that meeting.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. If I may, as I recall that discussion, the
proposal from Marco was we want a second ambulance, and we want
the county to pay for all of it, and to that we replied no. So he's
accurate, and that's the background.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I just wanted to clarify
my recollection of the conversations of what, in fact, transpired.
COUNCILMAN GRIFONI: Well, the city had offered to pay for
the difference in the costs for the second ambulance as long as the
county agreed to maintain its level of service, the FTEs for the
temporary, and then we would have offered to cover the rest to make it
a full-time unit. And so that was the offer that was on the table at that
point, and it, you know, didn't go anywhere.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. OCHS: I believe that's our Alternative 2.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is. And that was part of the
discussions last year. And thank you, Jared, I appreciate you clarifying
that for me.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just would -- if I may, on the
second of Commissioner Fiala's motion, I just -- I'm in a -- I feel like
we're in a compromising position because of the necessity of home
June 26, 2018
Page 80
rule, and I know how strongly the folks on Marco, in fact, feel about
that, and the failure of negotiations to or fro last year with regard to the
additional services that Marco was asking for. They went and got
permission to get their own COPCN, and because of the specific
wording on the application for the COPCN -- because I actually even
discussed about delaying this decision until after the August vote and
-- but the way the application is actually stated, it's an unapproved
application for a COPCN; allows them to go get their own irrespective
of whether we grant it or not.
And so my inclination is to grant it with the conditions that are
outlined in the interlocal agreement. And I hope that was part of your
mission -- or your motion. That is my inclination, to approve the
COPCN with those conditions that are stipulated in the interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask. Could I --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It depends on what the motion was.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's exactly what I was
going to say. The interlocal agreement also had a couple of the items
that Marco did not agree to and they're removed, right? And, so, do
you mean with or without? Because I didn't even put that in there, but
I would say that the -- including the agreement except for the parts that
Marco feel they cannot abide by. I think one of them was the medical
director. And what was the other one?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Protocols.
MR. OCHS: No. The --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The interlocal agreement -- as I
understand it, the interlocal agreement that we have in front of us is the
agreed-upon interlocal agreement.
MR. OCHS: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it now? Okay. Well, then, the
June 26, 2018
Page 81
agreed-upon interlocal agreement would be, then, a part of my motion
as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't have an agreed-upon
agreement.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We don't have an agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a position of the
county, and we have a position of the City of Marco Island, and they're
not the same.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we have to vote on the
interlocal agreement first and then the COPCN? Because they
switched orders on us.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No. I think that's a good question. Which
one should we do first, logically, so we know?
MR. OCHS: I think the motion where the commissioners were
going is the correct motion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And that -- if the motion was to approve the
COPCN conditioned upon the acceptance by the city of the interlocal
agreement, that's the companion item to this issue.
Now, the staff has recommended that interlocal agreement despite
the fact that there's some things that we would prefer but we didn't get,
but that's the nature the negotiation. Sometimes you compromise,
sometimes you make concessions.
So the interlocal agreement in your packet is one that the staff is
recommending if you decide to issue the certificate to the city.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what the city is
understanding as well. Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Logistically, are we doing this
properly?
June 26, 2018
Page 82
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I've got a couple
questions or a couple issues that we need to address. One is that -- and
the only way I'll support the issuance of a COPCN is if there are two
things that are contained in the agreement. One is that it's subject to
approval of the voters so that there will be a referendum and there will
not be a COPCN if the voters do not approve it.
And, number two -- and the reason that I think that's important is,
number two, I'd want this agreement to say -- or a condition of the
COPCN to say that this does not alter our ability to continue to charge
our ad valorem taxes as currently structured.
Now, as a commission, we can always change that, but I want the
voters on Marco Island to understand that they will still be part of a
countywide system. They will still be dependent on the backup from
Collier County. There will be times when there will be multiple calls
on Marco Island, and there will be times when the vehicles on Marco
Island are being repaired or subject to some damage, and so -- and
there will be times when residents of Marco Island are off the island
and they're dependent upon a countywide system. There will be times
on Marco Island where they'll be calling for the helicopter.
So for me to support going forward with this, two conditions I
require, or I'll vote no -- and you may not need my vote -- I want the
taxation issue addressed as a condition of a COPCN so that the voters
on Marco Island know that, personally, I'm not going to vote to reduce
their millage rate for EMS and then, number two, the voters have to
approve this in a referendum on August 28th.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I address him with those
statements, or do you wish to?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask a question, but go
ahead first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My question to you, sir, two
June 26, 2018
Page 83
things. My understanding of the application for their COPCN that they
have themselves is requisite upon an affirmative vote on the referenda.
That's part of their application with the state. Number two -- that's my
understanding. Somebody correct me.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The legislation requires a vote
of the electors, and if it's approved by the electors, then the state can
issue a COPCN.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But if we approve a COPCN
this morning and don't say it's conditioned upon the approval of the
voters --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you for the clarification,
because that was my understanding, that it had to be either way, even if
we issued it this morning; so, thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I think we can impose
conditions, and I think those two conditions would be reasonable.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And my second point is --
Well, Leo, I'm sorry. You're sitting over there on the edge of
your seat. You okay?
MR. OCHS: I'm fine, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. OCHS: To Commissioner Saunders' two points, the first one
regarding the referendum, I will point out that in the "whereas" to the
interlocal agreement, the first whereas -- it's not in the body of it, but it
is in the whereas, sir. It says, "Whereas, this interlocal agreement shall
be contingent upon approval by a majority of those qualified electors
residing within the City of Marco Island of a referendum supporting
the issuance of a COPCN and the associated funding to be held on
August 28th."
So I believe if you grant the COPCN conditioned upon the
approval of this interlocal agreement, that specific issue is covered.
June 26, 2018
Page 84
Your other one is not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I understand that, but
that's not contained in the agreement. That's --
MR. OCHS: Whereas.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- a statement of intent, but I
don't know that that's part of the agreement. I think if we had a
paragraph in here that said that the whereases are incorporated in the
agreement, I would feel more comfortable, because right now I don't
see -- I don't agree that that's part of the agreement.
MR. OCHS: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then, number two, is I'm
not aware that we can, other than expressing our -- expressing our
feelings -- and I share yours with regard to the ad valorem issue -- that
we could stipulate in a motion to bind future boards on the decision
with regard to that ad valorem taxation. It's up to the individual Board
of County Commissioners. If the residents of Marco come back and
want us to reimburse them for their extraordinary expenses regarding
the ambulance service, we can say no. I don't know that we can
include that in the motion to bind future boards.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, this is a question for the
County Attorney.
If we issue a COPCN, it's for one year, and every year it has to be
renewed. So if we have a condition on the renewal or the issuance of
it, then my understanding would be that when this comes back to the
Board a year from now, two years from now, that that condition could
be removed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to understand what you're
saying. In other words, they still have to pay an MSTU for EMS for
the EMS service they're not getting from us. Is that what you're
saying?
June 26, 2018
Page 85
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. What I'm saying is that
they will be getting EMS services from us and that they should
continue to pay for those services. That's what the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a portion of their regular ad
valorem.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what's in the MSTU or
the taxing base of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On top of what they have to pay for
their own EMS? As though we still had these ambulances on there,
except we don't. We have the reciprocal, but that's it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be accurate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't sound fair at all.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, it's exactly like a municipality
that receives Sheriff's Office support but also has their own municipal
police department. They pay for the cost of their own police
department, and they pay a tax to the county for the Sheriff's service.
As Commissioner Saunders said, we will still be providing EMS
services from county EMS to Marco residents when they're off the
island, when we come on the island for zone coverage. If they need
the helicopter for medevac service on the island, that will be provided
by the county. So there are costs to our service to continue to extend
those services to City of Marco residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is it a modified cost, being that
we're taking into consideration they don't have full service?
MR. OCHS: Well, they have full service. They absolutely have
full service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have any -- will we have any
ambulances parked there?
MR. OCHS: On occasion we will when they need zone coverage,
which may be quite frequently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or like during the summer when we
June 26, 2018
Page 86
don't have any on there because they don't need as much zone
coverage, right? See, it's not hitting me right at all.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, I'm looking here at the
Emergency Management Agency's majority report, who recommended
COPCN. They said over a four-month period, Collier County EMS,
mainland based EMS resources were summoned 623 times to Marco
Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, that's very nice, but
I don't ever believe numbers from anybody anymore because they all
say what they want you to believe, and they add them together, and,
you know, they're, you know, based on things that possibly could be
construed that way. I'm afraid I don't ever believe that stuff.
But, anyway, I do not want to include that portion in there that
they continue. I think that there could be a modified portion that
would cover any zone coverages if we have to take over or whatever,
but I don't think that they should be fully -- paying full EMS MSTU
for not having full service. And you say "full service," but if we don't
have any ambulances on there, they're not getting full service.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify. There is no
MSTU millage for county EMS services. EMS is supported from the
county's General Fund in addition to the fees that they charge and
collect for transport services. So when you levy your millage for your
countywide General Fund, some of that money is transferred to the
EMS fund to help pay for the costs of the services to all of the citizens
of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I heard MSTU up here --
MR. OCHS: There's no such animal when it comes to EMS
service. It's just -- it's part of the General Fund just like the sheriff and
the parks and the libraries.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess what I was trying to
say is that we have -- we determine a budget for EMS.
June 26, 2018
Page 87
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that budget is reflected in
the millage rate. And what I'm suggesting is that we would not adjust
our millage rate for the residents of Marco Island to reflect that there is
-- that they have their own service; that the taxpayers on Marco Island
are going to continue to pay --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Whatever they pay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- just as they are right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever they pay now. Do you-all
know that? Were you-all aware of that? Not you, them.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Isn't that the same situation that the City of
Naples --
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: Commissioner Fiala, yes.
You know, the citizens of Marco Island are well aware of their
taxable obligations to the county. But I think the issue of the ad
valorem refund or rebate is a bit of a red herring. I mean, it's not part
of the ordinance. It has nothing to do with the coverage or whether or
not Marco Island's going to be able to operate ambulances
appropriately and get people to and from hospitals and give them the
care that they need and to work cooperatively with the county and the
county Medical Director. City of Marco Island has agreed in the
interlocal agreement to cover Goodland for free.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The chief is right behind you.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: We've agreed to cover Goodland for
free. The move-up statistic that was mentioned, I'm sure a lot of that
had to do with the fact that we only had one ambulance on the island,
so we needed the move-ups more frequently. So this COPCN, if this
vote is approve it and you approve it, we'll reduce that significantly
because we'll have additional units on the island controlled by the City
of Marco Island.
June 26, 2018
Page 88
The ad valorem issue also isn't part of your agreement, your Class
1 agreement with the Seminole, so I'm not sure why that would be a
condition on Marco Island.
The City Council has talked about this issue quite a bit. We're not
willing to give up the rights of our citizens either temporarily or in
perpetuity to petition their local government on an issue of taxation,
regardless of whether it has to do with EMS or anything else that the
county provides or that the city government provides.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to interrupt you, but boil down
what you were just saying. Just tell me exactly what you're trying to
say, okay.
COUNCILMAN GRIFONI: Sure. The ad valorem issue should
not be part of this approval of the COPCN, and the City Council feels
that that's inappropriate. And, look, we have no plans at this time to do
anything with respect to ad valorem, but we can't, you know, commit
to that on behalf of future councils or the citizens of Marco Island. It
would be inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we had mentioned in here -- in
this backup that we were going to be losing 700,000 to a million
dollars a year with the loss of Marco Island, but if we're still -- if
they're still paying into the EMS, we're not losing anything either.
We're gaining a couple ambulances, right?
MR. OCHS: Well, no, ma'am. That was fee-based revenue, not
the ad valorem tax portion of the budget.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, I know Marco Island's an
island, but we consider them part of the county, so they need us. We're
going to be there. We're not going to say, wait a minute, you wanted
it. You take care of it. We'll never turn our back on Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. They want to start
their own service because they want to make sure --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
June 26, 2018
Page 89
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that they get the service that they
want, and I understand that, you know, and they're willing to pay for it.
I just want to make sure the citizens know they're still going to be
paying for that service and our service, which I was not aware of, to be
perfectly honest with you.
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: With respect to the fees, the city
would be collecting 700,000, approximately. The city would be
collecting that because we'd be providing that service. We'd be doing
the transport. So we'd be billing; we'd be getting that money back.
That's why it wouldn't be going to the county anymore. So if you're
not -- you wouldn't be providing that service, so you wouldn't be
getting the fees associated with that service.
If the rest of the EMS budget is perfectly justifiable, then I don't
understand where the ad valorem issue is even coming up. I mean, if
you're providing services to the city, committing to the city, backing up
the city as you've mentioned, and the fees associated with that that are
collected from the city are, you know, reasonably connected to those
duties, then we don't have anything to talk about with respect to that
issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So everybody's then
prepared. They understand what we're doing and what we're voting
on, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, except for Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I know there's a motion
and a second. I don't know what is actually included in that motion at
this point in time. So I would need some clarification, or I'll just
simply vote against that motion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. And before we get to the
clarification, I'd just -- and I'm recalling now that I think I brought this
up last time.
June 26, 2018
Page 90
Looking at our ordinance, the ordinance says that "the Board of
County Commissioners shall not grant a certificate unless it shall find,
after public hearing and based on competent evidence, that each of the
following standards has been satisfied." I mean, we've got a standard
that we're supposed to be applying, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And in looking at the report, doesn't the
majority report even say that some of the standards wasn't met? I
mean, is this something that we can overlook?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's the basis for the staff
recommendation of denial; that they don't meet your ordinance. But
it's for the Board to determine whether or not they met your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And home rule is not one of the
standards.
MR. KLATZKOW: To be fair, I think the ordinance didn't
contemplate a situation such as this in that this is outside the entire
statutory framework of the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I mean, this is a legal -- I mean, this is a
question for the County Attorney. Do we need to amend this ordinance
to do this? If there isn't evidence that they've met all of them, the
ordinance says we can't approve it. I mean --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we could. I mean,
understand that there are standards, and staff has taken a position and
the City of Marco Island has taken a different position, and we're the
ultimate arbitrator of whether or not they've met the standards. And so
I think we could make whatever findings are necessary.
But we have a very unique circumstance. This is going to go to
the voters on August 28th. If we do nothing, if the voters approve it,
then they get a COPCN from the state with no conditions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right.
June 26, 2018
Page 91
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so the majority report
indicates that even though they don't think that this should be granted,
that we're in a better position to grant it with conditions then we are to
simply let it go to the voters with no conditions.
And so if one of our conditions is that it has to be approved by the
voters and we clarify that in the agreement, that this is not a valid
agreement if it's not approved by the voters, then we're not really
giving up anything, because we still have to get voter approval.
My concern is, I want the citizens on Marco Island to know that
when we levy our millage on Marco Island, we're not going to
willy-nilly reduce it by any amount to reflect the fact that they are
providing their own two ambulances. That's why I want something
placed in this as a condition.
Commissioner Fiala does not want to do that. She has a motion
that doesn't do that. And so I will be voting against her motion and
there, perhaps, could be a second motion if that fails.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And the question is, was the second to the
motion as has been clarified or -- because I thought that the second had
some conditions to it as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, no. The second was just
to include the --
MR. OCHS: Interlocal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- the interlocal. Thank you, sir.
But I do agree with Commissioner Saunders on the first part with
regard -- because I assumed, because the whereas included the positive
referendum, that it was all -- I figured -- I thought that was all part of
it. But I'm kind of on the fence with regard to the ad valorem. I would
like the message to be sent that --
COUNCILOR GRIFONI: On the ad valorem, the referendum
that the voters are going to be voting on on August 28th is very
specific. It's $100 for a $500,000 taxable value. It makes no reference
June 26, 2018
Page 92
to ad valorem from the county, nothing. The citizens of Marco Island,
if they vote yes, they are going to be covering the cost for this entire
system based on that assessment that the city will be levying on the
residents.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. But that has nothing to
do with the prices of chicken that we're talking about. This has to do
with you, the city council, representing your electorate coming back
and saying, well, we're already voting to raise our taxes. We're already
paying for -- if you'll recall two weeks ago when we talked about this, I
said out loud, if the folks on Marco want five ambulances and they'll
pay for it, give it to them.
And so Commissioner Saunders expressing a concern that you
won't later on come back and say, well, we're taxing ourselves, we're
taking care of our own ambulances, and reduce our ad valorem on a
commensurate amount that is charged by the county, and that's what
he's, I think -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's my
oversimplified expression of what you were saying.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm trying to
express. I mean, I may not be very --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And I don't -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm trying to
express. I may not have said it properly, but that's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no. Well, that's what I
understood you to say, but he was heading down a path of the
referendum vote with regard to the taxation and the like, and I share
your thoughts.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My rationale simply is I don't
want any taxpayer outside of the City of Marco Island to be impacted
in any negative way because we approve a COPCN on Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good point. And as long as
June 26, 2018
Page 93
Councilman Grifoni said that they already are aware; that their
referendum is just going to say that they want their own COPCN. It's
not going to talk about any taxes with the county, not taking any of that
money back or anything, and now -- and we're saying as long as they're
not trying to take any of the money back from EMS because we still
have to provide support, well, then that -- we should all be marching
together, it sounds like; that we're all on the same page. Does
everybody agree with that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And he realizes that even if we
stipulate that -- on the condition of the COPCN, that there isn't the
right to come back and ask, you always have the right to come back
and ask.
COUNCILMAN GRIFONI: Right, which I think is the reason
why it shouldn't be included as a condition to begin with.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand why that is the
case, but you also see which way this is heading as far as --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think it's heading in the right
direction because now Commissioner Saunders had said what he wants
to include, and you're right about that. That was important to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- talk about it right now and make
sure that everybody's knowing. And I tell you, it doesn't look like
many of us really knew anything about what all the little ramifications
were.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And talk is good, but it's not in
your motion, and unless it's in your motion, I'm going to vote against
it, and I'm going to ask the others on the Board to vote against it until
we have a motion that includes it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Includes?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Includes the issues that I've
raised in terms of --
June 26, 2018
Page 94
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The referendum vote and the
tax.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- specific line-item condition
that says it's conditioned upon approval of the voters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, but that's -- okay. We
certainly have to include that because that's what we're doing anyway.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And that there's
language in there that indicates, as a condition, that this does not -- at
least in this first year of the COPCN, does not affect any taxation that
the county will have countywide for EMS services on Marco Island;
that we're not going to reduce --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, those are both -- they're okay.
That's fair, because they've already agreed to that.
So I would like to then include those two things in my motion so
that it covers -- and it makes it more clear to everybody what we're
doing.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So there's an amendment to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And the second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the second is fine with
that. I like those.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not -- I like them.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders, your light is
coming off or --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just to wrap up. I'm going to
vote for this. I do not like the concept of fracturing our EMS service. I
think that having a countywide service is very important, especially as
we go forward. But our legislative delegation has put us in a position
where if we don't approve this, we're in a weaker position than if we
do. So that's my reasoning for supporting this.
June 26, 2018
Page 95
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We said that early on, but I
concur 100 percent.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor, your light is on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and just briefly, I'm very
concerned that we're not following our ordinance, so I cannot support
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. There's been an amendment to the
motion and an amendment to the second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now on to the voters, right?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: On to the voters.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To the voters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Time for lunch, sir?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes, sir. Why don't we break for lunch.
We'll come back at 1:00. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we're back in session.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
June 26, 2018
Page 96
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
We move back to Item 7, Commissioners, which is public
comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have seven registered speakers
for this item. Your first speaker is Susan Dunn. She'll be followed by
Alexis (sic) Popoff. And I'd like to ask the speakers to use both
microphones, please.
Oh, you all want to concede (sic) to Shannon Livingston, all right.
My apologies. I do see that on some of these.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we want to really give her
that much time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Start all over again, would
you.
MR. MILLER: We will have seven registered speakers, six of
them ceding time to Shannon Livingston, who will have 21 minutes of
time.
MR. OCHS: Are those speakers all present?
MR. MILLER: I was getting to that, sir. Caroline Covone?
MS. COVONE: I also concede (sic) to Ms. Livingston.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. I just need to know that you're present.
MS. COVONE: Yes, sir.
MR. MILLER: Steven Halper?
(Raises hand.)
MR. OCHS: Present.
MR. MILLER: Jason Shook? Present.
Leola Shook.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Wait. He just raised his hand twice.
MS. LIVINGSTON: Jason Lee and Susan are coming back from
lunch. But I'm not speaking for 21 minutes. So the conceded (sic)
time from those present is fine for me.
June 26, 2018
Page 97
MR. MILLER: All right. Alex Popoff?
MR. POPOFF: Yes, present. Not Alexis. I know my
handwriting --
MR. MILLER: Sorry, sir.
MR. POPOFF: No problem.
MR. MILLER: Is Susan Dunn present?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's on her way back from
lunch.
MR. MILLER: So I have four. That would be 12 minutes. Is
that going to be --
MS. LIVINGSTON: Absolutely.
MR. MILLER: Hold on. Let me adjust my clock. And whenever
you're ready.
MS. LIVINGSTON: Okay. Thank you. I promise not to take all
of the time. I did ask other patients to concede their time to me
actually to respect our time here.
Good afternoon. My name is Shannon Livingston. I have lived
in Collier County for 11 years and have been very involved in our
community, particularly with charities. I started my own charity, the
Livingston Foundation, to provide cannabis education.
There is so much stigma around the cannabis plant that people are
afraid to have a conversation. They're afraid to ask questions. They're
certainly afraid to attend a public televised meeting to show their
support.
I am here today not as the foundation but as a patient myself and a
representative of other patients, caretakers, and citizens of Collier
County that are waiting for change to our Land Development Code to
allow zoning for dispensaries.
While this issue is not on your agenda, it stays on ours. The
Board agreed at best to wait for six months to vote to have the
June 26, 2018
Page 98
opportunity to look at research and get guidance from the state. I'm
unaware as to what research you were referring, but there is plenty of
existing data on implementation, and this board has had ample time to
research it.
There is no further guidance coming from our state legislators in
the next six months. In fact, when I recently spoke with two of our
state representatives, they told me there was no guidance coming
because they, and the state, think that they have already provided
sufficient guidance, which has been evidenced by the fact that other
cities and counties, most with less talent and resource than Collier
County, have solved zoning issues to allow for dispensaries.
The board has expressed concern over developing Land
Development Code for dispensaries, for it might allow a flood of
recreational shops when adult-use legislation is eventually passed.
Capitalism, basic economics, and local ordinances have protected us
thus far. Collier citizens are confident that our county staff can handle
the challenge.
While I want to stay focused on the issue of voting, on changing
the Land Development Code, we must not forget why we need safe
local access to medical cannabis. During the weeks of your inactivity,
we watch every day, every hour while people suffer. We watch our
epileptic children seizing, our spouses with Parkinson's losing their
ability to feed themselves, and veteran neighbors with PTSD taking
their own lives because they don't have a consistent supply to their
medicine.
And, no, they can't just get it delivered. Because of the vertically
integrated market and limited players, supply is a huge issue, and
distribution is very problematic. I have been a patient for over six
months, and I haven't been able to get my medicine delivered once. I
need capsules that are rarely in stock. They don't stay in stock long
enough for me to schedule a delivery, as I am required to be home to
June 26, 2018
Page 99
personally accept it, and dispensaries will not hold products for you.
In an environment of first come, first served, delivery puts patients at
the very back of the line.
I am lucky to be more educated on the products and the process
than most people. New patients don't know what to order just by
looking at a website, especially when most of the products listed aren't
in stock and patients are piecing together what they need sight unseen.
Patients should be able to see what they are buying. Medical cannabis
is expensive and complex. Trial and error is necessary, and the time
and money that takes -- that takes could be mitigated with on-site
product education.
Education happens in the dispensary because most doctors don't
have the time necessary to walk a cannabis-naive patient through
details like the methods of injection or terpene profiles. And, of
course, delivery fees are cost prohibitive for some patients.
The ongoing moratorium keeps physically and financially
exhausted citizens struggling more than they should. It also diminishes
the help that medical cannabis can provide to those trying to replace
opioids. The Rand Institute conducted a study with the National
Institute on Drug Abuse and found that medical cannabis can help
lower opioid addiction and overdoses, but only when cannabis is
accessible. Higher regulation on brick and mortar dispensaries leads to
a decline in that association.
Most of what I have said to you today you've heard before. While
we citizens have placed calls, written emails, and made emotional
speeches to the Board -- and we continue to do so -- it is now our
primary focus to educate the citizens of our community. We want to
encourage, through this public forum, other citizens to get informed
and get involved and to remember the patients that are suffering while
the Board takes no action.
We want Collier citizens to understand the lawsuits that are
June 26, 2018
Page 100
starting across the state and think about the position the county has put
itself in by extending a moratorium and refusing to vote on necessary
Land Development Code changes.
We want our fellow citizens to understand the government
processes that stand between them and the constitutional amendment
that they voted for, especially with the upcoming election. This board
was elected to serve the citizens of Collier County and follow the will
of the people. The people have spoken, 71 percent of them statewide
and 65 percent in Collier. Those are real numbers.
That means cannabis has a higher approval rating than any one of
you commissioners. We, the citizens, will continue to show up and
speak up for those that cannot fight themselves. Stigma will not rob us
of our rights.
Thank you for listening. I hope you heard me.
MR. MILLER: And that is all of our speakers for public
comment, sir.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, that moves us
back to advertised public hearings.
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2018-31: AN ORDINANCE INTENDED TO
PROTECT THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO ACCESS AND RECREATE
ALONG VANDERBILT BEACH WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
PROTECTING THE LOCAL TOURISM INDUSTRY AND THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THOSE OWNERS WITH
LANDS ADJACENT TO THE GULF – ADOPTED
Item 9B is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance intended to
protect the public's right to access and recreate along Vanderbilt
June 26, 2018
Page 101
Beach.
Mr. Klatzkow has prepared this at Board direction.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I'm here to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Some discussion? I'm not sure why we're
trying to fix something that's not broken, but...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're following the City of
Naples.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is that what we do?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was the entire premise of
this, just a show of solidarity.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'm just going to put it on the record.
I think we've gotten along on this matter. We've got a couple of
incidences where some owners had tried to block off the beach, and we
asked them to play nicely, and they have.
My concern is that by doing this, which in my opinion legally
doesn't really do anything, we're going to start a standoff that we
haven't had until now. But if that's the will of the Board, then I guess
that's what we'll have.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A quick question for the
County Attorney. I assume by passing this ordinance we're not really
doing any harm in terms of the rights -- position of the county or
citizens of the county dealing with customary use.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no harm.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I agree with the Chairman
that this does very little, but as long as we're not doing any harm and
this may be of some benefit, I think it's worth the effort. I don't really
think that property owners are going to see this as a rallying cry to --
June 26, 2018
Page 102
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- start putting up barriers,
but...
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think so. I do. What is -- and I'm trying
to understand the benefit. What's the benefit?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I brought this forward at the
Board's direction.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: All right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that -- but don't you think
the horse is out of the barn? Because this whole thing was passed on
the state level. So I understand there was a fence put up in front of a
home in the City of Naples. Word gets around. I don't think we're
doing anything else but reaffirming what the law says.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: But this only applies to, as I understand it,
along Vanderbilt Beach.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Not the city.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no, I know. But I'm just
saying we're -- even though the city is the city and the county's the
county, it's still one. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a rallying cry
at all. I think that was -- that was last year when this whole thing was
passed, this whole law was passed. What I'm saying is I'm not sure
we're throwing gasoline on the fire, so to speak. You're worried that
we are?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I feel fairly certain that we are just based
upon my conversations with folks on and off the beach.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, my.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't quite understand how. I
thought we were trying to keep the beaches open to the people --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with this.
June 26, 2018
Page 103
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I would suspect that, you know, the upland
owners along the beach are going to feel threatened because there's
now going to be an ordinance that purports to potentially affect their
rights. I mean, I don't think it does anything legally, but I just think it
sends a message of, you know, we need to start protecting ourselves
instead of going along the way we have, which has been perfectly fine
until now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Until the Pandora's box was open.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It wasn't our doing --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- but, you know, I just think that -- I had
to say that because I think this is going to change the atmosphere, and
we'll be along for the ride.
Commissioner McDaniel. Oh, I'm sorry. Were you done?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Just the one -- there is --
there's been a long-running dispute on Vanderbilt that is only seasonal
in nature, and by the -- it's always been able to be handled in a
gentlemenly way.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. And this won't affect that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. In fact, it underlines why it
was done year after year after year after year, because it is the upland's
beach.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I, likewise -- you know, I
was the one that actually brought this up a couple of weeks ago when I
saw the move that the City Council was making with regard to the
customary beach access and the like.
I don't -- it's a difficult process. It may stir a pot that doesn't
necessarily need to be stirred but, then again, it may not. Time will
tell.
You can agree or disagree, sir, but the reality is is I think this is a
June 26, 2018
Page 104
show of solidarity for us. It establishes -- the difficult part with beach
access for the public at all is these nefarious lines that we use through
-- well -- that we use with beach nourishment. There are two
distinguishable lines on the beach for my friends from Pennsylvania
that come here once a year. That's the vegetation line and the
high-water mark. Nobody knows about this coastal irrigation or --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Erosion line.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The coastal erosion line that
moves, and we actually move it by nourishing the public beach.
So it's -- and the statute -- my perception of the statute is it
relegates off to the court system in determining these public rights,
private rights, and the like. So I think by doing this -- the legal
consequences are yet to be determined, I don't disagree, but I think for
us it's an opportunity to work with the city maybe to get out in front of
this just to have those lines distinguished.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: A question for the County Attorney is, this
would be to recommend to staff to bring back -- well, to advertise the
ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: This is the ordinance; I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had that July 1st deadline.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: This will be the first reading of the
ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the only reading of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The only reading of the ordinance, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It has to be done before July
1st when the new law takes effect, sir.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And so, again, the law takes effect July
1st. I just don't know why we're fixing something that ain't broken but
-- very good. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
June 26, 2018
Page 105
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
Aye. There we have it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm glad I'm not the Lone
Ranger this time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we're not going to decide it
anyway. It will be decided in the courts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
Item #9C
ORDINANCE 2018-32: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES
THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO REQUIRE PERMANENT EMERGENCY GENERATORS AT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH A CLUBHOUSE OR
COMMUNITY CENTER AND AT FACILITIES WITH FUEL
PUMPS AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR NURSING
HOMES, AND TO ALLOW YARD ENCROACHMENTS AND
REDUCED PLANTING AREAS FOR PERMANENT
EMERGENCY GENERATORS AT FACILITIES WITH FUEL
PUMPS AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES OR NURSING
HOMES, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS;
SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE,
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER FOUR - SITE DESIGN AND
June 26, 2018
Page 106
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.05.04 PARKING SPACE
REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 4.06.05 GENERAL LANDSCAPING
REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.05.04 GROUP HOUSING,
SECTION 5.05.05 FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS, ADDING
NEW SECTION 5.05.17 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH
CLUBHOUSES OR COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS;
CHAPTER TEN - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-
MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.02.03
REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, SITE
IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND AMENDMENTS THEREOF;
SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION
FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE
– ADOPTED W/CHANGES: SECTION 5.05.04 GROUP HOUSING
– APPROVED; SECTION 10.02.03 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT, SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND
AMENDMENTS – MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS; SECTION 5.05.05 FACILITIES WITH
FUEL PUMPS – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE FALL –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 9C is a recommendation to approve an
ordinance amending and adopting certain land development codes
including an LDC amendment that expands the on-site generator
capabilities for licensed healthcare facilities, an amendment for
strengthening the emergency generator requirements for commercial
gas stations, and an amendment that would create certain new
exemptions from certain design standards for existing facilities with
June 26, 2018
Page 107
fuel pumps, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes that install
permanent emergency generators.
And Mr. Summers will make the presentation.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the
record, Dan Summers, director of your Bureau of Emergency Services.
We have quite a long list here of things to go over with you today,
and we're real excited. This is my first opportunity in the emergency
management realm to bring something to you in terms of disaster
resilience through the LDC, and I thank you for that. I think that's a
really positive step as we looked at the items that you directed us to
take a look at following Hurricane Irma and some corrective actions.
There's some things that we went through that were quite difficult
during that period.
I'm tag teaming today with Mike Bosi and his entire team who's
spent an enormous amount of time researching, putting together these
LDC amendments for you.
If you -- I have -- I'm not sure my batting order on these items is
the same as yours. If you would like to talk about maybe group
housing first, which is our nursing homes and assisted living facilities,
we'd like to go ahead and make just a few comments on that one, if
that's how you'd like to proceed.
Of the post-Irma LDC amendments, as I mentioned, when we did
after-action with you, you asked us to come back before the summer
recess and talk about the nursing homes and rest homes and the
challenge that we went through with them primarily with those
facilities where the generators were failing or they were running out of
fuel.
Tragically, if you'll remember, there were the multiple deaths that
occurred in the nursing home in Hollywood, Florida, along the same
timelines of Irma from the absence of generator regulation and
engagement from the Agency for Healthcare Administration and the
June 26, 2018
Page 108
Department of Elder Affairs at the State.
If you'll recall, shortly after that the governor put in an emergency
order. That was challenged in the courts and then, ultimately, the
legislature and the governor signed legislation on March 26th requiring
an emergency environmental control plan for nursing homes and rest
homes.
That is to be further administered by AHCA, and part of that
effort of the Licensed Facilities Annual Emergency Plan has to be
approved by my office. That's part of their annual licensure.
We're bringing to you most of the concept -- all of the concepts in
that legislation but, as you would expect, there were a few important
items missing in that legislation and, primarily, part of that was
reporting to us their first-floor and second-floor elevation as it related
to evacuation and storm surge concerns and, finally, a much more
aggressive generator testing process and a third-party attestation to the
reliability of that generator.
Incidentally, it expands the amount of fuel necessary for these
generators. Lauren Bonica on our staff is our human services program
manager. Lauren did, I think, a phenomenal -- made a phenomenal
decision to put an emergency power plan template together for all of
the facilities in Collier County for this legislation. She has held a
webinar with the nursing home and facility managers and operators as
well as a workshop, and in all cases we had very, very positive
response from all of these facilities.
She has 100 percent compliance with the emergency power plans,
which I'm very -- speaks well of the providers here and speaks well of
the staff's effort to engage with that.
So we would like to bring that -- this LDC amendment to you for
these facilities. It provides a much more aggressive generator testing
policy and procedure, which is good. They can rely on NFPA
standards, which is already part of national standards. We have a great
June 26, 2018
Page 109
working relationship with these facilities.
And if you'll remember, the concern here is that not only do they
have to have an evacuation plan, but if something does go wrong with
that evacuation plan, if I have more information about their generator,
we're more likely to be able to shelter them in place. The last thing we
want to do is move these clients because of the decompensation that
can occur during movement.
So that's all I have to say about 5.04 -- I'm sorry -- 5.05.04, group
housing, and, again, that particular effort, I think, is very successful for
us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to vote on these
individually --
MR. OCHS: That would be my --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- Mr. Chairman?
MR. OCHS: That would be my suggestion, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second on the
group housing provision.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I really don't want to interrupt.
One of my --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's right. We have speakers.
MR. MILLER: -- speakers lists does say to speak about
communities with the clubhouse. The other one does not differentiate,
so I thought maybe we should call the speaker before we voted on any
of the sections.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I think we ought to hear from the
speakers, because we don't know what they're going to --
June 26, 2018
Page 110
MR. MILLER: Yeah, okay. Your first speaker is Ned Bowman,
and then he'll be followed by Larry True. Those are our only
registered speakers for this item.
MR. BOWMAN: I'd like to wait until the convenience store one,
if that's okay.
MR. MILLER: And then I know Larry True has marked -- he
wants to talk about communities with the clubhouse, I think.
MR. OCHS: That's not being heard today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not there. It's not there
anymore.
MR. OCHS: That's been withdrawn.
MR. MILLER: So if Larry True is here, we're not hearing that
today, sir.
MR. TRUE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
staff a couple questions?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure. Well, Commissioner McDaniel,
were you done? That's all you wanted?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's all you wanted, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to make a motion
for approval. But you know what, I think it's a good idea that we
actually go through a high-level -- what we're actually doing here just
for discussion, because a lot of folks are asking what we're doing,
because we're back in hurricane season again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, but they might have
just tuned in to their television, and they don't even know what we're
doing. So it's a good thing we're doing each one separate.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think anything we do
today is going to impact this hurricane season.
June 26, 2018
Page 111
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I'm curious as to what type
of response you've gotten from the life-care communities, what kind of
public outreach has there been, and what kind of review has there been
publicly of these proposed changes.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. Well, again, this went -- this really
started at Tallahassee with the Governor's implementation of the bill
that set this framework up. We're following that framework, but we've
had two enhancements to it, which I just mentioned, the base floor
elevation -- pardon me -- the base floor elevation and as well as
additional third-party testing of their generator.
And the occasions where we did the webinars as well as the
meetings with the owners and operators, their plant managers, they
were all in agreement with this. They understand that they need to
bring this more to a hospital level of reliability, and a lot of facilities
we have a couple of pictures, I believe, have rented equipment until
such time that -- because the marketplace is rather tight for generators,
they have rented equipment for the season.
So I think we have a strong commitment on their part. We've had
a great working conversation with them about that, so we feel really
good about the direction we're going.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How much time do they have
to be brought into compliance with this?
MR. SUMMERS: They had till June 1st, but they also have a
waiver period. And they can file for a waiver for up to one year; in
that one-year waiver, they still are required to maybe provide a rental
generator, temporary air-conditioning. And part of that one-year
waiver also is that -- because the demand on generators is so high right
now, as well as if they need to go in through major construction -- I'm
sorry -- major renovation, major design, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you haven't run into a
June 26, 2018
Page 112
whole lot of opposition with the way we're proposing it?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir; no, sir; no, sir.
And we've been working with them. We continue to -- you know,
part of this is education. There is turnover in that particular
marketplace with plant managers and operators. And we've had a
close working engagement with them. And in many cases these
facilities have offered to help us with some temporary placement of
some critical clients during times of emergency.
So I think the partnership is there.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other questions? You want to move
to this next one.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, I just want to get a plug in -- I'm
sorry.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You want us to adopt one at a time?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So there was a motion and a second
on the group housing. 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: That one's approved.
MR. SUMMERS: Good. Thank you.
Let me segue to the last one, if I may, which is 10.02.03, and that
is a design standard. And if you'll recall or if you can envision where
some of these generators need to go in -- and, again, this could be the
gas stations, it could be nursing homes, assisted living facilities. The
staff certainly wants to encourage these generator installs.
June 26, 2018
Page 113
So the language here provides for a little bit of flexibility in that
permitting and minor adjustments to a site development plan to
encourage and to allow these generators to be installed so that we don't
have excess delay or excess review.
So I'd kind of like to segue into 10.02.03 for your consideration.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's critical. I would make a
motion to accept staff's recommendation. I mean, we learned
firsthand, up close, real time how important that was. So, yeah, I
would agree. Make a motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel, your light's on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. That's -- I'm going to
second the motion, but I would like to ask if I can make a suggestion
minimally for staff's review for some -- because I didn't see anything in
this particular ordinance with regard to residential homes.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because there are folks that are
in a mad rush to be able to get permanent generators installed on their
homes that don't oftentimes meet the requisites of side yard setbacks
and the like. And I would like to -- for us to -- I would like for staff to
address that as soon as possible to move people through the system
who wish to have their own generator installed at their home.
I'm in complete favor of this one, I mean, as far as this goes from
a commercial aspect, but I know that we're running into issues at the
Permitting Department with the side yards not being large enough, and
I think some kind of administrative exception for a generator is
certainly warranted.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we can't do that now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, we're not doing it. I just
want to make that note.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That would have to have a full
June 26, 2018
Page 114
vetting, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
MR. OCHS: If you want the staff to bring back a proposed LDC
amendment that accomplishes that, we'd be happy to do that with a
majority.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you folks think it's
warranted, it's --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well, I mean, I think we probably should
hear what the issues are. I mean, is it a fire issue? Is it just strictly a
setback -- because it probably depends on how far apart the houses
actually are as opposed to just the setback from the property line,
right?
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon. For the record, Jamie French,
your deputy department head for the Growth Management
Department.
Yes, sir, it's exactly that. This doesn't cut both ways, for lack of a
better term, meaning that when we look at some of our master planned
communities, you may only have a five or eight-foot setback between
the structures. Generators are currently allowed to be treated just like
an air conditioner, so they can go three feet into the setback; however,
some of the requests that we're seeing is that they'd like the generator --
because they may have maybe more than one air-conditioning on the
home, so they're going with a 20kW, 20,000 kilowatts of energy to
power the entire house. It may be larger than a 200-amp service, so
they need all of that space to go all the way to the property line.
The code does not allow for that. If they could go through the
variance process -- but they would have to show a hardship in order to
qualify for the variance. But currently they are allowed to put
generators in the rear yards or, if three feet is enough, they can
certainly use that space.
But on some of these larger generators, the manufacturer will not
June 26, 2018
Page 115
install them because there needs to be a certain amount of clearance
between the generator for heat, also for fumes. But if you run that all
the way to the property line, we would have no way to even put noise
attenuation along the neighbor's property lines.
So we've got some concerns but, certainly, if that's the Board's
direction, we'll be happy to look into it and bring back some
alternatives.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I think it needs to be
studied.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was the premise of -- that
was the premise of -- if we're in -- if we're in the mood, then have staff
look into it and do some public vetting and bring back some
recommendations to enhance what we already have. I mean, in certain
instances, obviously, common sense says that if you're going to put a
generator in that goes all the way to the property line and you can't
properly vet -- or protect your neighbor when you're up on there, then
you're just going to have to put it in the backyard and inconvenience
yourself.
But I have heard of several occurrences where people were
running into issues that could have easily been administratively taken
care of that weren't.
MR. FRENCH: Or, perhaps, both neighbors both wanted to set a
generator on the same side of the property and run it all the way to the
property line. So we'd have to properly vet that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you might even have to think
about -- I don't know about anybody else -- about theft. I mean, if
you're having it outside the home, which you have to do, you have to
also put it in a place where somebody can't come in and steal it, so
that's another thing.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am, that amongst maintenance. We
would have to look into that, but we're happy to do that if that's the
June 26, 2018
Page 116
Board direction.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that the Board's direction?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think that would be good to at least hear
the alternatives.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'd like to see that.
MR. OCHS: Do we have a motion or a second on that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think we voted on it.
MR. OCHS: I don't think we had the vote, though.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We don't have a vote yet.
There is a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Just a -- for
clarification, what is the motion at this point?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's to accept staff's
recommendation regarding generator placement on --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Number 4 on the executive
summary, and it's --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 10.02.03.
There's a motion and a second to accept that recommendation.
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: It's approved.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, we're onto 5.05.05, facilities
June 26, 2018
Page 117
with fuel pumps. This one is the -- certainly has a lot of things to
discuss.
Again, back on Irma, back to your direction to bring back, very
quickly, an idea about bringing additional generators to fuel retail
stations.
And if you'll recall, we went through some pretty challenging
times there associated with fuel. It's our contention that we had fuel in
the ground, but because of the absence of electrical power, that fuel
could not be dispensed.
There was an enormous amount of challenges, as you would
imagine, in the state of Florida with 37 counties being impacted. I
think the State Emergency Operations Center did the best that they
could with bulk fuel and the particular demand, and I will also say, in
fairness, that this is the first time in Florida's hurricane history that we
had a track of a storm that impacted two ports of entry for our fuel,
Port Everglades and Port Tampa. So with both of those being closed or
impacted, certainly had an impact on us, and we all wanted additional
fuel as well. So just to kind of refresh your memory on setting that
stage.
The purpose and intent here is to bring forward -- in your
amendment to bring forward the emergency generator process here for
stations. We have some maps, and we have also looked at this from
what the state statute provided. State statute required gas stations
within a half mile to have a generator transfer switch, so we use that
term GTS or that acronym GTS for generator transfer switch. But not
in all cases the stations with a generator transfer switch have a
generator. And there is no local enforcement for that activity. So while
it's statutorily required, the state nor the county has any enforcement on
these generators being deployed for retail sale.
I also think it's fair to mention that we are aware that -- as you
know, we do point of sale at a fuel pump, meaning we put our credit
June 26, 2018
Page 118
card in. That is an Internet connectivity. So you could have a scenario
where you have a gas station that has a generator that may not be able
to conduct a sale because of the absence of Internet connectivity for the
point of sale.
Additionally, we have not put any mandates on these stations as
to when they would open or that they have to be open during curfew or
that we expect them to ride out the storm at the fuel station. We're not
driving that. We're looking for that window of opportunity where the
power may not be up. We may be during daylight hours. We're not
affected by a curfew, but we're able to dispense fuel.
I know that you've had some discussions possibly about
preemption with the state statute, and I think the County Attorney can
make some comments along those lines. And, again, staff, here, has
some additional GIS information if you'd like to take a look at that.
So let me stop and see what questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: County Attorney, on the preemption issue,
is there any issue at all?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a preemption issue. I do think that
this particular provision probably should be further vetted.
One of the things that we do as a staff to get to the development
community is to talk to DSAC, and they're outstanding as far as getting
the feedback. But DSAC's not the gas industry, and we really didn't
have any feedback from the gas industry on that, and we're starting to
get it now. And I think some of that feedback might -- and I think
you're going to be hearing some of it. Some of that feedback may be
helpful in re-crafting this ordinance so that it's better for everybody.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
Actually, Commissioner McDaniel's light was first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just would like to hear from
our public speakers, and then we can -- I'll make my comments after
we're done with that.
June 26, 2018
Page 119
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions.
We all received a letter from the Guilday law firm talking about
some issues that -- some of which I think have some merit, some of
which do not, but it raised a couple concerns that I have.
First of all, in terms -- and, County Attorney, I'm glad that you
said what you did in terms of further outreach.
My first question was, in terms of working with the industry and
with the local fuel dispensers, I guess would be the right word, have
you been able to work with them? Have they signed off on this?
What's the current status with the fuel distributors?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, we have not. We brought this through
the process with the Development Services Advisory Group. We
brought this discussion to the Planning Commission. We made sure
that the state EOC was aware that we were taking a look at this. But in
terms of other outreach or consensus or is there other planning that we
are to discover if there's any additional planning to expand the
generator capability, no, sir, we have not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, if we adopted this today,
would this have any impact at all on the current hurricane season?
MR. SUMMERS: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So we do have a little bit of
time to discuss this issue?
MR. SUMMERS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And one of the other concerns
I had was this applies to all distributors no matter how many pumps
they have.
MR. SUMMERS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I could understand where
we might want to have some requirements on the very large
distributors, one with, you know, 12 pumps or whatever number would
June 26, 2018
Page 120
make sense. But for a small 7-Eleven with two pumps or four pumps,
I just think that this is a bit of an overreach, and I think that that
interaction with the industry is very important before we proceed with
this.
MR. SUMMERS: And I agree. We're sensitive to that. We had
a very lively discussion with DSAC along those lines in terms of
smaller operators versus larger commercial operators, but they could
not come to a consensus on that particular concept.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: I would also mention, too, just for clarity, if
we could go to the visualizer, Mr. Ochs, that one of the things here
that's kind of a gap, in my opinion, from the legislation from the state
is that if you'll remember what we went through was an absence of gas
and fuel in the urban parts of Collier County.
The state statute mentions state or federal evacuation routes.
Well, our major corridors, 41, Livingston, Airport-Pulling Road,
Goodlette-Frank, et cetera, they are part of those evacuation routes.
They're clearly stated in the South Florida Regional Planning Council
evacuation documents.
So, again, that urban corridor -- and I sort of attribute this to an
absence of enforcement at the state level. It's the urban corridor where
some of these stations don't have this resource that's exactly what we
needed to do.
So we have some rust on the state legislative side at this point. I
think the industry was attempting to assist, as I mentioned earlier. But,
again, you have some pockets here that certainly need to be addressed.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, stated another way, if you look at
this map, there's three or four stations in the whole county that
wouldn't be impacted by this LDC amendment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which speaks volumes for a
county of 300,000-plus people.
June 26, 2018
Page 121
MR. OCHS: Well, again, it goes back to Dan's comments about
the evacuations routes that are designated here.
MR. SUMMERS: And I'm not sure I mentioned the number. I
think this is a little easier to look at. As we presented in the After
Action Report, nine retail stations currently with on-site generators, 34
retail stations with a generator transfer switch. I can't tell you which
ones brought a generator in and which ones did not but, overall, 61
retail fuel stations with no provisions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, maybe I'd ask
one more question, if I might.
One of the things that happened during the Hurricane Irma event
was that when stations were open, there were fairly long lines there.
Law enforcement had to have a substantial presence at each one of
those because fights were breaking out; people were getting somewhat
heated in their -- as they were waiting for fuel.
If we had a requirement that all of these stations were open, I
think law enforcement may be stretched a little thin as well. So I
would urge you, as you're going through this, have some conversation
with law enforcement as to what kind of impacts may be there as well.
MR. SUMMERS: We certainly would. And one of the
assumptions I would say for us as a planning assumption is that as
there's more supply available, there's less tension to get that supply,
and everyone is a little more cooperative. So it's does -- it's a
double-edged sword, without a doubt.
And, again, part of this is, we were pretty nervous during Irma,
and we all wanted to keep our tanks topped off. There was
unprecedented demand, and our retail fuel is basically just-in-time
delivery. So there are a lot of factors there in the marketplace as well
as disaster demand.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it was the small stations, the
smallest stations that were serving the public, not the big boys. True. I
June 26, 2018
Page 122
mean, in your district, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. I didn't realize that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And mine.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have one question for Dan,
and that just is, what are -- you know, it -- what I read in here just
seems like there's a lot of discretionary decision-making by staff as to
who does what. What are the penalties if someone doesn't conform to
this ordinance?
MR. SUMMERS: I would defer to Deputy Director Jamie
French on this one in terms, but when we're able to put it in our court,
so to speak, it gives us an opportunity to address nonconformity or to
address enforcement. But, again, part of that would be part of the CO
process as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, and it also arises with
some of the stipulations of folks that can't conform if -- you know, the
point-of-sale information, Internet connectivity, and the like. By the
strictest enforcement of this, someone could be held exposed if they
were to fail to comply.
MR. SUMMERS: And I would say, too, and -- yes, sir, I would
agree. And I would also say there are opportunities where a cash sale
is okay. There's opportunities where maybe they don't want to do a
cash sale and would have to rely on point of sale.
Jamie?
MR. FRENCH: So the power requirement would be simply to
run the point-of-sale system and the fuel pumps. It would not be
required to run the entire location or the store.
The enforcement piece would be handled, most likely, through
our special magistrate process where we would allow for 30 days or
some relief for them to be able to come into compliance.
June 26, 2018
Page 123
And for those that are outside of the hurricane evacuation route,
that would be beyond the one-half mile, they would only see this
requirement come forward if they were to do a remodel or to build a
brand new gas station. So if they exceeded 50 percent of the improved
value of the property, that's the only time that this provision would
apply.
But those would be those units or those stations that were outside
of that half mile, which there's not going to be many. But that would
only apply to those.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are there any gas station companies,
major companies, that require gas stations to have a generator?
MR. FRENCH: So the state legislation changed some time ago
after Hurricane Wilma that did require that they either choose a
generator or -- but the big issue was they had to have a transfer switch.
So we do have a good number of where those transfer switches are, but
we would not be able to tell the service capacity, the service load, or
what the requirement would be or even the type of switch that each one
of those generators or each one of those service stations would have.
So that is a state effort, as Dan has responded to the question
before. But, yes, there are some with generators. We know where
those are based off of the permits. But, no, ma'am, not all of them
have generators.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So no particular gas company, Shell
or something, requires it? Okay.
MR. OCHS: No. Not that we're aware of. That was your
question. Thank you.
MR. FRENCH: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have a speaker.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Your speaker is Ned Bowman.
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you. I'm Ned Bowman. I'm the
June 26, 2018
Page 124
executive director of the Florida Petroleum Marketers Association.
We represent about 97 percent of the gasoline that's sold in this state.
You have approximately 7,000 convenience stores that sell
gasoline; approximately 10,000 stores that are convenience stores.
A couple of things that we have as an industry is, one, is if you
have a generator on site, you have to have an employee there. The
minute that the power goes out, your generator goes on. There's
nothing about that to put -- as far as putting a load on your system,
you're going to put a generator in that covers the whole store because
you're selling food. You have to run your refrigeration and your
freezers; otherwise, you're going to throw all your food out.
Our members, whether it's a three-phase system or a single-phase
system, the generators are going to be upwards of $100,000. Now, if
you multiply that out, that's a lot of money throughout the state that
needs to be done.
But the number one issue that we have as an industry is the safety
and security and welfare of our employees. And the minute you
require generators to be put in the properties, you're requiring
employees to go to work and be put in harm's way. That's the biggest
concern that we have is the safety and security of our members and our
members' employees.
We went through this down in the Keys when they actuated the
Keys. Dionne Oil down there evacuated out of Key West. They were
the last ones going out. The closest hotel room they could find was
Daytona Beach. Turned around, he spent the night, he got up, he got
back down in line for the evacuation reentry process that we did.
I spent five days in the emergency operation moving fuel
throughout the state working with West Mall and his team up there that
did an outstanding job.
We go back to the one point is the safety and security of our
employees. And you put generators in the gas stations, someone has to
June 26, 2018
Page 125
be there, and it doesn't matter if it's a grocery story or what.
The fuel issues that you ran into down here were catastrophic.
We had 14,000 power crews that came down for Florida Power &
Light trying to get the infrastructure back up. The critical
infrastructure is convenience stores. They feel that -- the power
companies feel that after the hospitals, that if you can rebuild a
convenience store, you can get your communities up and running as
fast as possible.
Some of the issues that are going on at emergency manager (sic)
right now is they're doing a mapping program to map each and every
gas station, tank sizes, what their transfer switches are, what their
generator needs are, where the fill locations are, and what their burn
rates are for the convenience stores. That's the biggest issue we run
into up there. We are working very hard and diligently with EOC.
The other issue you have is the communication. Down here in
Naples, the Racetrac had plenty of fuel. There was a Shell station
down the street. We had a two-hour wait at the Racetrac, and we had a
zero-hour wait at the Shell station, and they were both open. How do
you communicate that information out to John Q. Public?
The Internet's down. What we tried to do is something with Gas
Buddy, and they're working on a proposal to try to get that up and
running.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if he needs
some more time, I think that his testimony is very important. So if you
need a few more minutes, I'd ask that you -- that we grant that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: He's representing all of these
gas stations that we're going to be dealing with.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's fine.
June 26, 2018
Page 126
MR. BOWMAN: Our industry works very closely with the
emergency management people. Moving fuel throughout the state --
and to correct one issue is that you do also pull fuel out of Manatee.
So you have Tampa, Manatee, and Everglades.
The biggest roadblock that we're finding now that the DOT is
coming out with a study that should be out in the next couple of days is
at the ports. The terminals have loading positions for each truck. It
takes about 40 minutes to load a truck. It was taking up to four hours.
If we can cut those lead times down to two hours, we can get 1.2
million gallons of gas back out onto the street pre-storm.
The other issue we had was we had 2,100 gas stations out of fuel
statewide. That equates to about 19 million gallons of gasoline. The
gasoline shortage was not an issue. Trying to get the fuel to where it
needed to be and get it out of the terminals is what we ran into.
This was an unprecedented storm, as you said. It came right up
through -- some of the storm predictions that they were looking for for
storm surges were astronomical. We ran into that down in the Keys.
As it was spoken earlier, we ran into a lot of problems because about
90 percent of the gasoline sold now is credit cards, and people don't
have cash to go in and buy gasoline. And if your system is down, you
can't accept credit cards. It's that simple.
We had a system for one of our members down in the Keys, and
he got backcharged from Master Card and Visa $86,000. The average
transaction was $10. He had to go back in and rebuild each of those
transactions to resubmit them. So there's a lot of other issues than just
we're going to drop a generator in, and that's how it's going to work.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
MR. BOWMAN: Do you have any questions?
(No response.)
MR. BOWMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope somebody has his card. Do
June 26, 2018
Page 127
you have his card, Dan?
MR. OCHS: I have it, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think there was a recommendation, at
least from the County Attorney, that maybe we vet this some more and
--
MR. KLATZKOW: Come back during the fall.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- come back during fall.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we'll have a better product that the
industry and Mr. Summers will be very happy to --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a motion to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion to continue
to the fall.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. 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: It's continued.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, if we could, I
asked for one item on the summary agenda to be pulled. County
Manager, if --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's the next item.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it is.
MR. OCHS: Yes, it's 9D.
June 26, 2018
Page 128
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Very good.
Item #9D
ORDINANCE 208-33: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2013-33,
THE COLLIER COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: And it was previously 17A. That's a
recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending the Collier County
Animal Control Ordinance, and I know Commissioner Taylor had a
comment at the beginning of the meeting, and I think she's done a little
more research.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I've done my research, and if I'd
done it before the meeting, I probably wouldn't have pulled it. I'm very
content with the way it's written, and so I move approval of the
summary agenda Item 17 -- well, 9D, as written and proposed by staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to discuss something
on that. That's the Rural Lands West?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. That's the Animal Control Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, oh, oh. I'm sorry, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two things, but that was the one I
pulled first thing this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
June 26, 2018
Page 129
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11A
EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR THE REZONING OF LOTS 88
AND 89 WEST FLAMINGO DRIVE FROM MOBILE HOME-
AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN ZONING (MH-ACSC),
AS REQUESTED AT THE MAY 22, 2018, PUBLIC HEARING
UNDER AGENDA ITEM #7, PUBLIC PETITION AND APPROVE
STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER
PROCEED WITH A SELF-INITIATED REZONE – MOTION TO
APPROVE THE OVERLAY ON PLANTATION ISLAND
W/COUNTY TO ABSORB COSTS – CONSENSUS
We move now to County Manager's report, Item 11A. This is a
recommendation to evaluate the options for the rezoning of Lots 88
and 89, West Flamingo Drive for a mobile home area of critical state
concern zoning as requested at the May 22nd, 2018, public hearing,
and recommendation further that the property owner proceed with a
self-initiated rezone petition.
Mr. Bosi will make the presentation.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning
director.
We're going to have to revise our recommendation in the sense
that that's the traditional manner for an individual who wanted to
rezone the property when the current zoning doesn't provide for the use
that they're seeking. The problem with the recommendation is the size
June 26, 2018
Page 130
of the parcel. The size of the parcel is only .2 acres. It's below our
threshold for what a rezone would -- a requirement requires 40,000
square feet, and they would not meet that. They could seek a variance,
but they would have to seek a rezone with a variance, so it becomes a
little bit more complicated.
These parcels of land zoned mobile home area of critical state
concern do not provide for the opportunity for a traditional home
construction.
The recommendation that -- from staff would either to do nothing
or direct staff to develop an overlay that would allow for the
construction of a single-family house within that zoning district, create
a zoning overlay to allow for that type of a -- that type of additional
residential use.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm going to let him finish.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. BOSI: But with that, I wanted to put on the record the
revised recommendation because of the size issue related to the
rezoning requirement. And if the Board was to direct to allow for the
construction of a traditional stick-built house, we could do that, but it
would be based upon an overlay to allow for that to -- a zoning overlay
over neath (sic) the entire zoning district.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's exactly what I was
going to suggest here. I didn't understand, other than size of the
property and being in -- the size of the property and then the state's
area of critical concern, why we weren't necessarily doing an overall
map for the entire island, knowing that it was going to have to be
vetted, applicable to all of the residents that own property there, size,
shape, color, how big and where, and what you can and can't do and
the like.
It's always been my thought that that would maker -- make more
June 26, 2018
Page 131
sense. I think the folks in Copeland have a similar allowance to be
able to request individually for a single-family home to be constructed
on a mobile home lot as well. So I would prefer that we -- that that's
the path that we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Single-family home on a mobile
home lot?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To allow for that request to be
done and do it in a whole for the entire overlay of Plantation.
MR. FRENCH: So, traditionally -- I'm sorry, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're also doing that on Bayshore,
you know. With the trailers that we'd moved off years ago, they're
putting single-family homes now on those little trailer lots.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am. We are visiting that zoning. There
is an approach that we're taking through the Bayshore CRA.
In this particular case, however, there would be a charge for this,
as identified within your fee schedule. That fee schedule -- it's a
$6,000 application fee and $25 per acre -- and the overlay would affect
the entire area of Plantation -- so you've got about 140 lots in there that
it would affect, and then on top of which it's about a six- to nine-month
process because it must go through advertising, public hearings, it
would go to your Planning Commission as well, and then to you for
final consideration.
But because of the 2005 agreement that we have with the state,
because this area is considered an area of critical state concern, there
was a 45-day appeal period that the state would maintain after the
Board made its final decision.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: County Manager, you know, this
is post-Irma days. We all know what happened down in Plantation
Island. We know what happened in Everglades City and that whole
area down there.
June 26, 2018
Page 132
I'd like to see if we could have some consideration of putting
through an overlay without charges to folks who are trying to rebuild
their lives and rebuild their homes. I don't expect you to make a
decision right now, but I'd like to see what we could waive and also to
expedite the process.
MR. OCHS: Sure. I don't waive those fees, but I can come back
with recommendations to the Board.
I would like Mr. Bosi just to talk about the area of critical state
concern and how that may either complicate the project or add some
additional requirements.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Leo.
The area is designated area of critical state concern, meaning any
permit, any activity has to be signed off by the state as well. There's
development restrictions in terms of how much square footage of any
individual lot can be impacted, and that's regulated by the state as well.
The one question and concern that I would have is we are going
to -- by allowing for the construction of a traditional single-family
home, we're going to be increasing the value of structures placed in an
area that we know is prone to storm surge. So there may be issues
with the state. We'll have to further communicate and elaborate what
we're doing with the state, and they will have to sign off on any
proposed rezoning action.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think that's fair. I do
understand that. I'm understanding from the folks that would like to do
this is that the state is saying that they don't think there's very much --
they need to review it, but it's not as serious as it's been portrayed. I
guess we'll know in the end.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's go through the process --
the entire motion -- I mean, the entire -- go through the process. Find
out what the state says, deal with what the state says as opposed to
hypothecating what they might say. So do it as a map change.
June 26, 2018
Page 133
Now, Jamie, were you saying that it's 6,000 per lot for us to do a
map change, or is it 6,000 in aggregate for the hundred-and-some-odd
owners?
MR. FRENCH: No. It's a $6,000 application fee, and then it's
$25 per acre.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For us to do a map change?
MR. FRENCH: That's -- so this is an Enterprise Fund.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. FRENCH: So if you were -- whether a church, you were a
new business coming forward, so that you not burden the taxpayers
with this benefit that you'd receive as a private property owner, that
cost is basically paid by the property owner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Per lot?
MR. FRENCH: Not per lot, sir. Per acre. So it's $25 per acre on
top of --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, what's the $6,000 fee
for?
MR. FRENCH: That's the application fee, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's for us, the county, to
change the entire Island of Plantation?
MR. FRENCH: That would be to rezone any property, sir. It's a
set fee.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Per lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per lot.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not per lot.
MR. FRENCH: No, sir. It would be for the application, and then
the $25 is based off your size of the property.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Size of the property. And so,
basically, the county is the one -- if my understanding is correct, the
county would be the one that would bear that expense of 6,000 plus 25
per acre to re-map or make the map adjustment to Plantation Island
June 26, 2018
Page 134
itself.
MR. FRENCH: That's a policy decision of the Board, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: We do this all the time. The Board often
will ask -- will direct a zoning change somewhere.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it comes out of ad valorem. The
Enterprise Funds gets, you know, their payment from the Board, but
this happens all the time.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We do zoning overlays.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, all the time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're working on one in
Golden Gate City, as a matter of fact, and we're not charging anybody
for the overlay, and I think that's all we're talking about now is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think maybe
Commissioner Taylor might have misunderstood. We weren't talking
about laying a $6,000 per lot expense on the homeowners. It's a
zoning overlay. That's what I was talking about when I said the map
change. That was what I suggested that we do do, allow for the --
allow for the property owner to ask permission to build a single-family
home.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don't forget, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'm going to call on you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, you are? Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
So, County Attorney, we spoke about this on Friday, and it's my
understanding that you said that nothing will be -- when it's an overlay,
it doesn't make the mobile homes that are existing nonconforming; is
that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Look, I think we can structure this so
June 26, 2018
Page 135
nothing becomes nonconforming.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if folks want to stay with a
mobile home, they can. If they want to build a home, they can.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's what this community
needs, is that freedom.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're just enhancing the
property rights of the people that are there.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only comment I was
going to make -- and I support moving forward with this. You
mentioned that one of the lots is .2 acres, which I think is 8,600 square
feet. I don't know what kind of house you can build on -- so I assume
that the overlay's going to have some minimum lot sizes. I mean, at .2
acres for a single-family house would be pretty tight.
MR. BOSI: Well, there's no doubt. And they currently have
development standards, and we'll look at the current development
standards and the minimum lot size, and that will be part of the
overlay.
MR. FRENCH: So, Commissioner, the way the agreement reads
is they can impact up to 10 percent of the overall property square
footage with a minimum impact of 2,500 square feet of developable
space. So they cannot develop on a .2-acre lot. You would not be able
to develop. So even if you were .1, you would still be subject to up to
2,500 square feet, and that's inclusive of developable space, not just
roof line, not just impervious. But that's the developable space, and
that's per the agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Does that include the piers for the boats,
docks?
MR. FRENCH: No. Thank you. So those are considered
primarily because they're suspended. So long as there's not concrete
June 26, 2018
Page 136
underneath of a walkway, it's not impervious; it's pervious surface. So
we do not attribute that as part of the 2,500 square feet of developable
space; however, if you had to put in a sanitary sewer such as elevated
septic, big driveway, roof line, things like that, those all go into that
consideration.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Very good. So the recommendation is that
staff would bring this back with the recommendation for an overlay?
That's not what we're -- what is staff looking for now?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Overlay.
MR. OCHS: No, that wasn't our recommendation, but we're
looking to get the guidance now that the Board does want to direct, and
I understand it's to --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- provide an overlay for the entire island of
Plantation Island to allow for the construction of single-family homes,
and you want to do that at the Board's expense.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. I would have made
that as a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs made the motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we want to hear from our
June 26, 2018
Page 137
public speakers on this item?
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: I've just got one thing to add, if you don't
mind.
MR. MILLER: Can I have you come to the -- you're Gary
Johnson, Jr.
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Grady Johnson.
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. Grady Johnson. That's what it says.
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: I appreciate you guys doing what you just
did. It's very important. And I want you to know, the reason there
ain't other people from the island here today is the way it was put on
the agenda. It looked like it was for me personally, but it was an issue
for the whole island.
And also, I'd like to bring to your attention -- and I just got a
phone message from Tallahassee, and I want to get them the lady's
name right, so excuse me for a minute. Let me look at my notes. I've
done a lot of legwork on this, Commissioners.
Ms. Barbara Powell from Regional Planning Administrator of the
area of critical concern, she oversees the Big Cypress area, which we
fall under. Not only does Plantation Island, but Copeland does. She left
me a message and said that she supports this 100 percent; that it only
makes sense because it's going to limit liability for the state and the
federal government in the future for disasters, because if we can build,
she called them, site built homes or stick built homes, it's going to be
better construction and less destruction and less cost in the future for
us.
So I appreciate you guys looking at this, and it's -- from me to
you-all, thank you. It was well needed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for being here and
bringing it to our attention.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's one more issue before we
leave this. Is there any way, County Manager, that we can move this
June 26, 2018
Page 138
along a little bit?
MR. OCHS: Well, we'll move it along as quickly as we can,
ma'am --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: -- without jeopardizing the public hearing process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. All right. No, I don't want
that jeopardized.
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Johnson, Sr., Grady, also registered to speak.
Did you want to speak, sir?
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, sir, if I may. Thank you.
Again, I want to back that up. My son's done a lot of legwork.
And I've had quite a bit of experience with that through my
commissioner and the other county. And you're right, it's just sort of --
everybody that he's talked to, I've talked to, and just what -- Ms.
Taylor, I thank you so much. Just makes sense, and there shouldn't be
-- and that's where I appreciate them -- there shouldn't be any obstacles
to this, like you said, the map overlay and stuff like that.
And I understand the size of the property. That's all in it with
those folks up in Tallahassee, every bit of it, the 2,500 square feet, all
that, their kind of thing.
So I'm glad we're beyond this, and hopefully that we can get this
thing and get it done where my son can -- he's very important in my
life. But guess what, he's also got some grand-youngins for me. Those
grand-youngins, now that means a lot to me.
And so, again, for whatever that's worth, I thank you for your
time. So this will be moving forward then? And it looks like they
will, not only him, but each and everybody down there will have an
opportunity to build?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: An overlay for the entire area.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, sir.
June 26, 2018
Page 139
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But he just made a statement
that I want to correct, because you said that each and every owner will
be able to build, and --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: If they so desire.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The concern -- all I'm saying is
that if an owner has a .2 acres or .1 acres --
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that may be a problem, so --
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- don't go back and say, hey,
everybody that owns a small lot out there will be able to build.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Well, no, I agree.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't know that yet.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: That way you don't -- and exactly. And
that's something --
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: We currently can build on those lots,
Commissioner. We can build a mobile home or a modular home
currently under the zoning. And the lot that I personally have that I'm
trying to build my new home on had a mobile home existing on it.
And we're well versed on the regulations. The only difference
we're talking about here is currently, with us to meet the new FEMA
guidelines with elevation and everything, I'm going to have to build a
permanent concrete block foundation to put whatever structure I'm
going to stick up on top of it. I have to build that foundation to meet
the code.
So whether it's a mobile home or a modular or a stick-built home
or a brick, concrete -- I personally want concrete block and metal roofs
just like we got in our schools. We build our schools for our children.
They're our number one resources, and they're also our hurricane
shelters. So I want my home to meet the same standards as one of our
June 26, 2018
Page 140
schools and our hurricane shelters.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for carrying your hat. I
thought that such a gentlemanly thing of you to do. I just had to
comment on that.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Yes, ma'am. But beins you brought that
up, if I may, Ms. Fiala. I think you've sat (sic) here 44 years. Where is
the hat rack that was in here in 1969? Sixty-nine and '70, numerous
times we was in here all the way up to little eight date (sic). We had a
hat rack. Is it all right if I bring you a set of bullhorns or something we
can put --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Thank you so much. Thank you,
gentlemen. Thank you-all.
MR. OCHS: Just to clarify, nobody can do anything until the
overlay is approved by the Board.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right. And staff's going to bring back
some specifics as to what that's going to mean and the dimensional
standards and all that.
MR. OCHS: Yes. After it goes through the public hearing
process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so just because I'm going to
continue this discussion about time, which you're shaking your head
because I always do, what do you think is your best guess?
MR. OCHS: Nine months.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing less?
MR. OCHS: Eight months.
MR. FRENCH: Yeah. Don't forgot you've got a 45-day period.
And although we appreciate the conversation that happened at the
June 26, 2018
Page 141
DEO, they've gotten more information out of them than I've gotten out
of them in 15 years.
So I would only tell you is it's -- typically we send an application
to the state. They have a 45-day appeal process, and it's yes or no.
There's not much conversation about it. This there is an appellate
process. But I also wanted to put on the record that the regulatory
standards with regards to the developing in this area will not change.
It's just going to allow for a different type of construction. So this is an
AE flood zone that is considered a high hazard for coastal surge. It is
-- the elevation of these properties are just under one foot above
NAVD, so they have to be built at 10 feet to the Florida Building Code
no matter what, and the wind load category within this area is exposure
of 2, so it's about 165 miles an hour of sustained winds, not 30-second
gusts.
So we follow the Florida Building Code no matter what type of
structure you put there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, of course, of course. But
what about the lot size now? What about the -- is that not our
regulation? That's not the state?
MR. FRENCH: That's our agreement from 2005 with the state
that basically says that you're allowed to impact that site up to 2,500
square feet. So that means you can clear vegetation. If you were
going to assemble a lot -- so in this particular case, as Commissioner
Saunders pointed out, each lot is about a tenth of an acre. So if you put
together 10 lots, you would have an acre, so that's about 800,000
square feet, or 80,000 square feet. So you could apply the 10 percent
principle so that you could impact that site 8,000 square feet.
But these are typically 2,500-square-foot areas of development,
and that's what we stick them to.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just as a point, these will
all be vetted when they bring back the actual overlay, the parameters of
June 26, 2018
Page 142
the overlay, the side yard setbacks in construction and the like, so, I
mean --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. But if there's any wiggle
room that we can assist a community trying to rebuild after Irma to
make it more storm tolerant, I think we would be well advised, if
there's a consensus up here, to do it legally, but to maybe work with
them as much as we can, if there's a consensus to do that. Is there?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think the analysis will include what the
restrictions are based upon the agreement and, I mean, we have to look
at all of that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And it isn't going to
happen any quicker than what, in fact, it can happen. It wouldn't
happen any quicker if Mr. Johnson came to us and did his own
application, did his own rezone, variance request, and the whole thing.
The whole process would take --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe we can -- maybe you can
give the name of that lady that you talked to up in Tallahassee to Mr.
French.
MR. JOHNSON, JR.: Yes, ma'am, I just did, but I can do it
again. It's Ms. Barbara Powell, the regional planning administrator.
And my wife actually spoke to her, and she actually left a message on
my cell phone while I was sitting here in the commission meeting, and
that was her response to me. She's 100 percent behind us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wonderful. That's great.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: And the only other thing -- I know you
already know this. It's fascinated me doing the background, doing a
little work in trying to get to the bottom of where we understood. But
when you have as many areas as you've already got, you've got
Bayshore Road over here right now. Right down there there's houses
being put up alongside mobile homes. You've got Chokoloskee,
Goodland, Everglades City. And, by the way, Copeland, as I
June 26, 2018
Page 143
understand it, my son's got it, is in the same district as foundation --
Plantation with all this area of critical concern but yet they can build
something out there and Plantation can't.
So I know -- and I think before -- some of you-all have already
made it clear, and it is. And when you get into it, all of it, and
everything, you talk to everybody, it just don't make no sense.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sir, I think it's moving forward and --
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Right. But that's what I'm saying. I
appreciate the overlay, because everybody we talk to, and going back
on it, that's the very thing they said. This is not all that difficult. Yes,
there is some -- you know, the overlay is the thing.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And staff is bringing it back, so we'll be
here, and we'll consider it. Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON, SR.: Well, thank you so much.
Item #11D
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND
BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE
WHICH WOULD CREATE THE INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY
CENTER NO. 9 INNOVATION ZONE, TO BE LOCATED AT
THE INTERSECTION OF I-75 AND COLLIER BLVD., TO
FACILITATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY
ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
TRUST FUND, SETTING A BASE TAX YEAR FOR THE FUND,
AND REIMBURSING ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES AS
AUTHORIZED IN ADVANCE BY THE BOARD FOR USE IN
ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC GROWTH – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11D. This is a
recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
June 26, 2018
Page 144
back for public hearing an ordinance which would create the
Interchange Activity Center No. 9 Innovation Zone to be located at the
intersection of I-75 and Collier Boulevard to facilitate economic
development by establishing an Economic Development Plan and
Trust Fund, setting a base tax year for the fund, and reimbursing
eligible expenditures as authorized in advance by the Board for use
encouraging economic growth.
Mr. Kentner is available to make a presentation or respond to
questions from the Board at the pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good report.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Well done.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Good job, Jace.
Item #11E
DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN (GMP) AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THE PROPOSED
CHANGES TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
June 26, 2018
Page 145
(IAMP) AND TO PRESENT THE STATUS OF FOUR EASTERN
AREA RESTUDIES – APPROVED
Item 11E is a recommendation to direct your staff to initiate the
Growth Management Plan amendment process for the proposed
changes to the Immokalee area master plan and also to present a status
to the Board of the four eastern area restudy projects.
Mr. Van Lengen will present.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kris
Van Lengen, project manager for the four area restudies.
Today we'd like to start with Anita Jenkins, our principal planner,
with a discussion on the Immokalee Area Master Plan. She'd like to
bring you up to date and, following that, ask for your direction to move
forward to transmittal.
Following that, I will give you a brief update on the other three
master plans, the area plans in Eastern Collier County, followed by our
department head and division director who will want to make some
comments for clarity and context.
So we'll start with Anita. Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon, commissioners. It's Anita
Jenkins with your Community Planning section. And we wanted to go
through with you today what we have been doing with the Immokalee
Area Master Plan and, again, as Kris mentioned, ask you to provide
direction to prepare the Growth Management Plan amendments for
transmittal for the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
So we're going to go through what we did for our public outreach
process and then share with you our primary recommendations which
you'll be -- see coming back before you in the Growth Management
Plan amendment cycle.
So, first of all, on our public outreach process, we had over six
public workshops in Immokalee. We had them in both evening and
June 26, 2018
Page 146
morning meetings throughout the community to make it easy for
people to access. Those meetings were advertised in English, Creole,
and Spanish for the entire community to be able to understand what
was going on.
We also participated in CRA advisory board meetings, the
Immokalee MSTU Advisory Board meetings, the Chamber of
Commerce meetings, we met individually with both residents and
business owners of the community. All information is on our website.
And we also have an email address specifically for people to contact us
in regard to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Through this process what we did was we reviewed with the
community the goals as they exist now in the Immokalee Area Master
Plan, and we also reviewed with them the goals that were established
in the time period through 2006 to 2012. There was a significant
public process to update the Immokalee Area Master Plan. There was
a referendum that went along with that. And so that was well
supported by the community. It did not make it through the adoption
process. But we started with both those documents for the public to
understand what's adopted now and what was proposed at that time.
The consensus during the workshops were that they appreciated
and wanted to continue with the goals that were established during the
last restudy process. Those goals were substantially the same intent of
the adopted goals as they are now; they are just more concise in their
wording and reorganized a bit. But the community did have consensus
in carrying forward with the goals as they were written during the 2006
to 2012 period.
As we did with the Golden Gate Master Plan, we established a
vision with the community to make sure that their vision is reflected in
the updates that we make to this master plan. And the vision for
Immokalee is that it's a family-friendly-oriented community that
supports a healthy lifestyle, it is attractive, environmentally
June 26, 2018
Page 147
sustainable, and offers a full range of housing, recreation, education
opportunities to meet all residents' needs. Immokalee has a safe,
well-connected network to walk and bicycle about town, as well as a
roadway network needed to support the transport of goods and
services.
Businesses and job opportunities flourish in trade and
distribution, agribusiness, and ecotourism.
So as the community matures, this is the vision of the residents
and business owners for the Immokalee community. So when we
devised those policies going for you for your consideration, we want to
make sure that it is furthering this vision for the community.
One of the differences between the last update and this update, the
community was very interested in defining and establishing and
naming neighborhoods. Many of these neighborhoods are not well
known in Immokalee. So when we look at the master plan as it's
written now, it talks a lot about safe and sanitary housing. We wanted
to elevate that to the complete neighborhood, not just only looking at
housing, but we want to look at the neighborhoods and how they
complete it not only with housing, but is the stormwater management
sufficient? Are the streets, play areas, and waste management
sufficient?
So when your staff is in any one of these neighborhoods looking,
for instance, at water management, is there an opportunity to also
address any street needs, sidewalks, lighting, things like that, so we can
collocate and manage projects in neighborhoods to get them to where
they need to be?
So this is an example of the neighborhoods as they've been
defined by the community, and we'll take that forward in the Growth
Management Plan amendments for you to look at at that time as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just for the record, that area
designated north of Arrowhead called Fruit Basket had no community
June 26, 2018
Page 148
participation whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's a name -- one of the
neighbor -- Anita -- or this area that's just above Arrowhead, just to the
west of Lake Trafford -- the names are kind of blurry. You can't
hardly see it. And I'm making a joke because there was quite a bit of
discussion during the community processes about who came up with
these names, and I just wanted to clarify that the community had
nothing to do with calling that Fruit Basket, so -- that was Anita.
MS. JENKINS: Or some other members of the public.
On our policies going forward with land use and economic
vitality, what we're doing is, again, similar to what we looked at in
Golden Gate City, the past land use master plan, as you can see what
was proposed on the bottom illustration here, it better defines the
commercial areas and the residential areas, industrial areas.
So there are a few changes that are made that affect the land uses
here. One of them is an increase in the recreational tourism district of
200 acres. And if you remember, that's part of their vision is to
enhance ecotourism in Immokalee. So this RT district is that green
area that abuts Lake Trafford area.
So there's an idea that if we expand the uses in there to allow for
recreational tourism, then that can better support the lake and also
Pepper Ranch which is enjoying ecotourism as well.
There is a 5 percent reduction in residential designated land uses,
and some of those land uses are converted to industrial. A few of them
are converted to commercial uses, but there's a conversion, and there's
also an increase of over 400 acres of industrial land use. All of these
land use changes are all supported by an economic study that was done
by FGCU during the last update, so they're well supported.
I'm going to pause right here to put another map up on the plan
(sic) addressing a land-use change. It's an important item, and it's
June 26, 2018
Page 149
something that is not reflected on our recommendations with the white
paper. We're just getting the cart before the horse a little bit, but it's
important, and I want to give you an opportunity to discuss it a little bit
further.
So the area of interest is just east of the airport, and it shows up in
a very light gray stripe here. And what you're looking at is the master
plan changes from the existing land-use plan to the proposed land-use
plan. And from the 2006 to the 2012 plan, there was an expansion of
the urban boundary of 103 acres east of the airport, and that was to
support the airport expansion of a runway.
So at this time you're also undergoing an airport master plan that's
going to come before you in September or October. Now, that airport
master plan, as I read it, says to accommodate the full 10,000 foot
runway, you need more than 103 acres; you need up to 184 acres. So
that airport master plan and that boundary change can be accomplished
if it's what you desire to include in the master plan, but I think that you
need an opportunity as the airport authority to hear that master plan
and consider that and all the changes there before we change it on the
future land use.
We're going to be going through a couple of months of getting the
amendments and transmittal form, so we can add this boundary in at
any time before adoption with your direction. But until you have a
chance to hear the Airport Master Plan, we're premature right now to
add that boundary in there without your consideration and direction to
us.
Do you have any questions on that; comments?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. If I can just make a
comment. I spoke with Leo and Nick about this yesterday and
expressed concerns, because this map change was the one -- this map
was the one that was used through the public hearing process, but it
really doesn't sufficiently delineate the requisites for that expansion of
June 26, 2018
Page 150
that runway should the airport authority desire to do that.
So I just wanted to make sure that what Anita's bringing to us
today is what is mirrored to what the old master plan says and what the
recommendations for the GMP amendments for Immokalee, in fact,
are. And we still have time -- if in the fall we convene the airport
authority, review the old master plan, and determine the requisites of
that boundary, we still have ample time to make those adjustments
prior to the submittal to DOE -- or DEO.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is great that you're doing that,
by the way. You know, we had such a great plan, and then it all fell
apart, and so it's great that you're bringing that back to life and getting
everybody energized again.
MS. JENKINS: Good. One of the other areas that we focus on in
these master plans is transportation, and we just spoke about the airport
that you'll get to consider independently. But this is similar to the old
master plan in considering the needs of Immokalee transportation. And
what we found through our research is that 47 percent of Immokalee
walks or bicycles to work. So there's a transportation need in this
community, unlike other areas, to support walking and bicycling, and
we certainly went a good ways in doing that with the recent TIGER
grant that was received with the help of Transportation Planning. So
we need to continue to focus on that.
Also, there was discussion in the public workshops that there's a
need to look more closely at the grid system of Immokalee. There's
areas up in the northwestern part of Immokalee around Lake Trafford
where there's a lot of dead ends. Transit buses can't get in there and
turn around, so service is limited, you know, and access is limited for
transit, walking, and bicycling.
So we'll be having a policy in there that would address that to
look at a transportation plan to finish that grid on a local street and
June 26, 2018
Page 151
collector street basis and plan for that. And then, of course, always
coordinating with FDOT as we go forward on the state roadways, and
we've come a long way to do that.
Lastly, the environment. The major environmental consideration
for Immokalee is the slough that runs from the southern area of
Immokalee here all the way into Lake Trafford. That is the major
environmental resource of Immokalee. That boundary was
reconfigured to more closely mirror the boundaries of the actual slough
in the master plan.
We would like to look at a program to incentivize development
rights out of that slough, so we'll be looking at other programs to be
able to accomplish that.
And then through the last restudy there was a policy in there to
look at amending the Land Development Code to establish
best-management practices for the slough and other areas that impact
Lake Trafford. So those are land development codes that would come
following your Growth Management Plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you point out the slough on
there?
MS. JENKINS: Yes. So the slough is this area right here, and it's
defined in this boundary, and it goes to this area right here. And this is
one area where water does not move south. It moves west. So a little
bit different. But that's the area that we need to make sure that we're
looking at closely so all of the funding that was spent to clean up Lake
Trafford was well spent, and we keep it as clean as possible.
So, briefly, that will be our recommendations that will be
included in the transmittal. I'm happy to answer any questions that you
may have. But today we're asking for a recommendation from you to
prepare the transmittal to the Growth Management Plan amendments
that will come back before the Planning Commission, will come back
before this board twice.
June 26, 2018
Page 152
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So recommended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That was a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. And a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We've got some discussion and some
public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes. I have one public speaker, yes.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, forgive me. I don't know if that's
about --
MR. MILLER: Probably for eastern planning, Nicole, yeah. Not
for Immokalee.
MR. OCHS: Sir, I was going to suggest maybe after this vote we
could take our court reporter break, then come back for the balance of
the item, because it may be a more lengthy discussion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Very good.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. On your list of
recommendations, you have an increase of 462 acres of industrial
design designated lands. This is for the runway, right, or for areas
around the airport to have it as a --
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. It's areas around the airport, not
specifically for the expansion. The airport -- or the runway expansion.
That is not industrial land uses. That would be specifically to protect
the runway in a buffer area and runway only.
The expansion of the industrial uses happens down south and then
surrounding the airport here, as the pointer is showing you here, but it
does not go east here.
June 26, 2018
Page 153
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So who owns -- private
ownership of this land. You're just designating it differently, right?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So because the county doesn't
own it, it's a county airport, there's not the restrictions of building on
this industrial land that there would be if you were building on airport
land; is that correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. Some of the land within the airplane is
designated industrial to support the airport needs, and then some of it
surrounding is industrial.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. But the land, you can't buy
it --
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- you know, there's a lot of
restrictions if you're building on airport land. I just want to make sure
those restrictions aren't carried out into the Immokalee regional airport
subdistrict.
MS. JENKINS: You're correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Very good. So there was a motion and a
second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 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: It carries.
June 26, 2018
Page 154
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Breaktime.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't we have a speaker?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's on the next item, so we were going to
take a break for the court reporter and then come back and talk about
that.
So we'll be back at 2:44, 2:45.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Good afternoon.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Good afternoon, once again. Kris Van
Lengen, project manager for the eastern area restudies.
What I'd like to do is just give you a couple brief slides, just quick
updates on where we are with the other restudies and where we're
going, and then from there, as you requested at your last commissioner
communications, we'll be talking a little bit about the RLSA.
So the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, as you see on our arrow to
the right, we're probably farthest along on this one. We had about a
year of public outreach, including surveys, distribution list. We vetted
all the recommendations that came out of that year-long public
outreach.
And the preferences, as they were stated, really came down to
mostly redevelopment and economic vitality in Golden Gate City and
safety environmental issues in the Estates.
You took a look at our white paper last -- just this past January
and directed us to move forward, so we did do that. We drafted the
specific amendments. We vetted them cross-divisionally within our
organization.
And so we're ready to go now. And we have a date with the
Planning Commission on July 19th. We hope to be before you, then,
in September of this year with a transmittal hearing. It goes to the state
June 26, 2018
Page 155
and, as you know with any Comp Plan amendment, there's a second
series, so we go through an adoption cycle. So you'll see it a second
time.
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, I know this is a topic dear to
your hearts. We did do a fair amount of public outreach, quite a bit,
for a year and a half. We actually started with this particular one, as
there was a lag time between each commencement of each eastern
restudy.
And we had broad public support. We got to the public
workshops, which we did in 2017. We had three separate workshops.
It was difficult to get consensus on some issues, but we did, in fact, get
-- we made progress. There were 18 separate issues that we got
consensus from you and direction on you, which was great. We're still
looking for direction, and we need to get back to you with additional
data and analysis.
So we're talking about receiving-land density. We heard you;
you're concerned about -- there are questions about density, questions
about population. What we'll be doing is bringing back more data and
analysis along with revised recommendations along those lines.
And I might mention at the same time that this summer in July
we'll have the CIGM, the county intergovernmental -- integrated,
excuse me. Thank you. County integrated growth --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Collier Interactive Growth
Model.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Thank you. The Collier Interactive
Growth Model. Our Version 3 will be coming off line or in our hands
in July. So we're happy about that. It gives us the opportunity to do
some scenario planning so that you'll be able to see that as a tool when
we bring those recommendations forward.
Sending lands was another issue. Our crown jewel, the North
Belle Meade, certainly needs some TLC. There was a question about
June 26, 2018
Page 156
ownership. And it's important for a whole lot of reasons. Most
recently I think you received correspondence from the Southwest
Florida Land Preservation Trust, and they're interested in perhaps
playing a role. They're not sure what role. So we look forward to
seeing if they can -- with their input and your direction, whether they
can be a voice and perhaps a player in that effort, because it certainly is
an important issue for them if there's the idea of rehydration and
diversion of water that would end up eventually in Naples Bay.
September is when we plan to get back to you with those things,
and we'll be drafting amendments, if you let us go forward from there
so we can get to the transmittal stage. At that point we'll be in a public
hearing stage, and we can further vet these same ideas and notions.
So, obviously, we don't have to have 100 percent concurrence or
direction. We need direction but not 100 percent concurrence on all
the issues when we go through the white paper. It's definitely a very
complicated plan, as is the next one. But we just hope to get your
feedback on our revised recommendations and move forward from
there.
Rural Land Stewardship Area: As you can see from the graphic,
we're at the very, very beginning of the process. We've had five public
workshops. We have them monthly. We started in January. We'll have
a bunch more. And the point of those public workshops really at this
stage of the game is mostly educational. We're all trying to learn from
each other, and I think we're doing that in good order.
You'll hear very shortly about the history of the rural lands in
terms of final order, assessment committee, the adoption in 2002, and
the five-year review.
So next steps on the rural lands, we really want to get back out.
We heard a lot of questions and comments about infrastructure. So we
want to talk about different types of infrastructure, what are the
implications, who pays for what? What does it mean to be fiscally
June 26, 2018
Page 157
neutral? And at what time does that happen? So we want to provide
some information along those lines so that there's a better community
understanding of those components.
Water resources in terms of aquifer health, consumptive use,
watershed planning. We'll be bringing information to our public with
that as well.
Then we get back to the built environment, what we call Group 4
and 5 policies within the Growth Management Plan and the rural lands.
It has to do with the design characteristics of towns and villages and
other non-towns and village places, so we'll be looking at that.
Following that, we actually need a couple more meetings, I think,
to circle back, get back to the idea of credit system, which was really
where we began our process. And then, finally, get to a point where
we can understand and we can have consensus among everyone in
terms of what are the potential changes, if any, to the existing plan. We
believe that it's very important to preserve property owner rights and,
therefore, without consensus from the landowners of any potential
changes, we believe that only incentive-based changes would be
appropriate.
With that, we hope to get that through the early 2019, probably
the first few -- first couple of months, excuse me, and then bring to you
in the spring of 2019 a white paper. Hopefully that's not too
optimistic. We think we can do it. And we look forward to working
with you.
So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Thaddeus Cohen, our
department head.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If I may, just one question, Mr.
Van Lengen.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I wasn't aware that the dictionary
defines "fiscally neutral" in two ways.
June 26, 2018
Page 158
MR. VAN LENGEN: You could enlighten me. I'm not sure it
does either.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- because you said you
were going to -- "fiscally neutral" means fiscally neutral. And you said
that one of your meetings was going to explain what fiscal neutrality
means, and I just thought there's just one thing it means. It means
there's no money by the taxpayers.
MR. VAN LENGEN: No, I don't think that's -- that is not what it
means.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh, okay.
MR. VAN LENGEN: So I'm glad you asked. It's really a
continuum, and it's an idea that you have to look at over a period of
time, and that's what I want to make sure people understand. It's not a
snapshot in time. Fiscal neutrality has to do with a timeline, and
almost any development, whether it's urban, suburban, or rural, is
going to be fiscally negative in the early years and positive in the later
years. And we need to look at that and see how that works.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was interesting.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, Kris.
Thaddeus Cohen, department head, Growth Management, for the
record.
And that's an interesting segue, because this is a complicated
issue. There's a lot of passion in these issues. Staff has done a great
job to get two of the four restudies done in the first two years. My
experience is that it usually takes about five years or so to work
through this process, so it's exciting to see the timeline that they've
been on and the amount of work that they've been able to accomplish.
At your last meeting, Mr. Chair, you had asked us, how do we get
to where we are? There has been a lot of information that's been
June 26, 2018
Page 159
circulating as to what happened in the past, decisions that were made,
how they were made, what was the level of transparency that was
provided to those various inputs.
So what we want to do is just kind of take a step back. And I
want to introduce Mike Bosi, director of planning, to kind of take you
through what that history was, how we were able to get to where we
are, address some of the issues that I here that you may have just
recently received as far as the decisions that were made, and I think
what you'll see at the end of this is that this has been a very
deliberative process, a very exciting process, an award-winning
process that does the things that the state had asked us to do back in
1997.
And it's interesting I say "us," because I wasn't here. But I was
also at the state level at some point in time. And you'll see that a lot of
the boxes that needed to be checked over a period of time have actually
been done.
And I think as we move forward as we talk about the RLSA, as
we talk about the various developments that will then come forward, I
think you'll have a better appreciation and perspective as to what
context in which we look at these developments, what we are today,
and then the process that we're going through in order to determine
what our future is going to be.
So, with that, I'd like to have Mike have you go through how it is
that we've gotten to where we are. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Thaddeus.
Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
It all started back in 1997. Our Growth Management Plan was
going through an Evaluation and Appraisal Report. During that period
of time there was a challenge to our GMP that was initiated from the
Department of Community Affairs. It was joined by two
environmental groups, Audubon and Florida Wildlife Federation.
June 26, 2018
Page 160
And, basically, the state made a determination that the county was
not doing an adequate job of preserving the natural resource habitats
and also preserving the premature conversion of agricultural land to
urban development.
The county derived a solution; it was the assessment committee,
and they met from 1999 to 2002. And it was a coalition of business
professional, land developers, environmental nongovernmental
organizations, civic leaders, academic, and growers. It was a
cross-section of individuals within these specific fields.
What came about from that three-year period was the adoption of
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, which we spoke of earlier, which
is your transfer of development right program with your traditional
sending and receiving lands, and then also your Rural Lands
Stewardship Area was the other program where, based upon that
concept of sending and receiving, but a little bit more complicated
based upon a natural resource index, land-use layers being stripped
away, credits generated to entitle compact urban development.
And what was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in
2002 was, essentially, a credit system that would yield for right around
40,000 -- 40,000 acres of compact urban development. And it was
based upon that -- the 1 to 5 agricultural density rate, and that was
expected to be clustered down to 16,800 acres. There was an --
early-entry credits that were added to the system, because within --
between our -- between our transmittal and our adoption process, the
Department of Community Affairs asked, how are you going to
jump-start this program? Because it's a voluntary program.
Early-entry credits were needed to be able to get participation within
the program.
And, finally, there was restoration credits that were added. The
restoration credits were added to provide for better environmental
outcomes within the most sensitive areas.
June 26, 2018
Page 161
The total footprint of the parameters was just over 40,000 acres.
And I would suggest for any one of the Board of County
Commissioners, if you had a question as to whether -- what the Board
adopted, did they know what they were adopting, the type of -- amount
of development that they were permitting with the adoption of that
language, to speak to your Hearing Examiner.
Mark Strain was on that Planning Commission. And at the
adoption hearing he showed me a picture or a spreadsheet that he
estimated there was 355,000 credits, basically could entitle about
44,000 acres of land. He publically discussed that. He said -- and I
personally spoke with him. And he said he spoke with the
commissioners about it, raised the issue.
So when the adoption process was going on, that there was an
awareness of the amount of acreage that could entitled, and that comes
from one of the -- your Hearing Examiner who has been the Planning
-- a Planning Commission chair for the past decade and has been on
the Planning Commission for almost, you know, 18 years now.
And at the time it was supported by the Assessment Committee,
by the landowners, by the Planning Commission, by the Board of
County Commissioners and, specifically, the groups -- the Florida
Wildlife Federation and Audubon, the groups that were suing us, they
were in participation, and they were in support of the program that we
adopted in 2002.
And the results of that, the results of that 2002 program, the early
winner of that program was the environment. And why do I say that?
To date, we have 5,000 acres of SRA that comprises Ave Maria.
MR. OCHS: 50,000.
MR. BOSI: Today we have 5,000 of SRA development which is
Ave Maria.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MR. BOSI: The SSAs, out the gate, 50,000 acres were set aside.
June 26, 2018
Page 162
And if you look at the SSA mapping, this was the area that the
environmental community had long insisted that we needed to put the
most protection upon.
So who was that early winner? It was the environment, but it
wasn't just the environment. It was also the taxpayers of Collier
County. And why do I say that? Well, if we know when we're talking
about the North Belle Meade area for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District -- and we're having a problematic area with that because we
can't find a governmental agency to take ownership and manage that
land.
Well, these SSAs, they're privately held. They're privately
maintained. They do not cost the taxpayers any -- any expenditure.
And that, to me, is one of the underlying values and strengths of this
program is we have environmental protection being -- being
shouldered by the property owners for that maintenance moving
forward. So in that regard, the program yielded a tremendous amount
of environmental benefit.
And then we fast forward. Within the adoption of that 2002
program, we had a component. We said, in five years we want to look
and see how we're doing with the Rural Land Stewardship Area. It's a
pretty complicated regulatory scheme. We wanted to make sure that
we're doing it right.
What happened, there was -- and one of your -- one of the
commissioners was part of the Five-Year Receiver Committee,
Commissioner McDaniel, and it was a series of individual meetings of
all the cross-sections of the NGOs, of the landowners, of all the
infrastructure providers, and it was a broad-based set of
recommendations that came from that Five-Year Review Committee.
Now, we never moved them forward to the Growth Management
Plan amendment process because of an issue at the time. The
recession was going on. The Board of County Commissioners said that
June 26, 2018
Page 163
they weren't prepared to financially support those amendments, so
they've sat ever since.
But those Five-Year Review Committee recognized that the credit
system needed to be adjusted, because when we adopted, we had three
scales that we were really trying to balance. We had environmental
protection, agricultural protection, and property rights.
And the Five-Year Review said, you know what, environmental
protection received a good status, the property rights were well
respected, but maybe ag, maybe we didn't do an adequate job of really
preserving agricultural activity, and that was one of the things and one
of the recommendations that have came from the Five-Year Review
was to create an agricultural protection so we can ensure the
continuation of agribusiness within the county.
And there was also a suggestion for panther wildlife corridors to
be able to be better identified and create credits for that identification.
There was also some adjustments to the credit system.
But from that, there was specific recommendations that were
made that we will, during the -- during the update of the RLSA as we
move forward, will pick those up to see where we can find those
additional consensus.
And, by the way, looking at -- with the Collier Interactive Growth
Model but also utilizing the MPO's population numbers, we expect by
2040, by 2040 the RLSA is estimated to have -- about 45,000 people
will be within there by 2040.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Forty?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forty.
MR. BOSI: And that ends the presentation.
Any questions that you may have?
MR. COHEN: I'm going to do a prerogative and ask Mike to go
back to that first slide. The issue that we hear and where -- and I don't
want to say that there's confusion, but I guess where the contention lies
June 26, 2018
Page 164
is what happened from the time in which the first conversation was had
about the developable footprint and how did we get to where we are
today. And, Commissioner, that is the question that you were asking.
And I would like to have Mike just go back through why it is, again,
how we arrived at 40,000 compared to the 16- so that you have a clear
understanding as to what the credits mean, how did that translate into
development, and then how did that translate to population.
Because what we're here saying -- you can correct me if I'm
wrong -- is, yes, there is an increase in population. That's true. And
there was an increase in the amount of acreage. Yes, that's true. But
we're going to explain to you, when you approved it, how you
understood -- at least at that time that board, how it is that we got to
where we are, because I want to end where we started, because that's
where the question lies.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And just to make sure that I understand it,
those increases related to the increase in the credits --
MR. COHEN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- that were -- and the increases in the
credits, as you're explaining here, there were reasons that everybody
involved thought increases in credits to incentivize participation in the
program, that was the reason that the credits increased.
MR. COHEN: You should be on this side, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. I just -- I want to be clear about
this, because there's a lot of --
MR. COHEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a lot of things out in the
community that I think -- I want to make sure we set the record straight
on what the facts were and what the history really is.
MR. COHEN: Because what was asked by the DCA was, you
have a voluntary program, as Mike says. How do you jump-start that
program? The response to that ORC report was we have 16,800 acres,
June 26, 2018
Page 165
and we're not going to increase the population, which was the original
submittal. So if I had been there, I would have said you had not
answered that question.
Staff, however, working with assessment, landowners, others,
said we do need to find a way to be able to do that, and they said
early-entry credits. That's an opportunity.
The other question that the DCA asked at that time was, well, you
have a policy about restoration, but you don't have a criteria and you
don't explain how it is that you're going to handle that restoration. The
response to the ORC report was we have 16,300 acres of footprint, and
we're going to do compact development, which is no more than what
they had presented originally.
Staff says, we need to be able to solve that problem when we do
the implementation. So let's work and talk in terms of how it is that we
can create a credit system that's already familiar with to be able to do
that restoration aspect of it.
And as you then see on the next slide, this is what you get is that
early protection of 50,000 acres of stewardship land. So, yes, there's a
difference between that initial conversation of quote "sold to the
community" and the implementation that needed to go forward that the
Board of County Commissioners then approved.
So from my perspective, coming here today, I don't have a
problem with the fact that it's 40,000 acres, because in order to get this
to work from a voluntary standpoint, not a mandatory, to be able to
provide opportunities for landowners to protect their property, to have
that agriculture be able to be more of a component, then you have to
trade what it is that you're looking for in order to get the system to
work.
And you have density on one side, which is population, credits on
the other side, which is what it is that you're trying to preserve, and
then how do you find that balance to be able to make the whole thing
June 26, 2018
Page 166
work. And so, yes, when it was approved, you wind up having more
density, more credits, more preservation.
So, again, as we said as we started, we can check those boxes to
be able to say that you have a well-balanced program. And what our
restudies will do, then, is to start to fine-tune that even more with the
additional input that we can get from the community. But I think it's
important for us to start and end at the very same place.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And just as was
mentioned by staff, I served on the Five-Year Review Committee, and
I think that that was one of the misunderstandings as we came through
that process. We all started off knowing that the potential
development footprint was approximately 40,000 acres and that there
were deficiencies in the adopted plan with regard to the preservation
and protection of agriculture. And so how can we enhance the
preservation of agriculture? Which is a form of habitat along the way.
And so the balance was to incentivize for agricultural protection,
a credit generation system for the protection of that, and then we also
increased, as an offset, the requisites for development credits in the
SRAs to help offset that. It did increase the acreage to, I think, 47,000,
and then we came back to a happy medium and recommended to the
Board then a footprint of not-to-exceed 45,000. So that was one of the,
you know -- and it's important to note, you know, everybody goes to
the bottom line of 40,000. There's a fungible number there, which is
the second one for restoration credits, which is 20,000 acres, and those
are -- those are credits that are derived when you enter into the
restoration program. You don't just get those credits for showing up.
So those are -- I guess it's a -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but
those are potential developable acres based upon the issuance of
restoration credits.
MR. BOSI: Well, where the restoration credits would be coming
June 26, 2018
Page 167
from are the most environmentally sensitive areas within the SSAs,
and they most certainly do yield credits, and it's the credits that entitle
the acreages of lands.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's a specific requisite that
you have to -- you enter into, and a management plan --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and upkeep and so on and so
forth. You don't just get those.
MR. BOSI: No. And that will be part of -- that will be part of --
during the restudy or during the refinement process, we will look at
and see some of the recommendations that came from the Five-Year
Review.
And thank you; County Manager Ochs had me point out one of
the most important components of the Five-Year Review was the cap
upon the credits and the cap upon the acreages so we can have specific
definitive areas that -- you know, that we can say in terms of the
ultimate amount of development that could be allowed for.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one more quick question,
if I may. How many restoration credits have been issued so far? Do
you recall off the top?
MR. VAN LENGEN: I could get those to you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a pretty small amount.
MR. BOSI: I would be hesitant to put a percentage upon it, but I
don't believe it's more than 15 percent --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- of the current credits that have been generated to
date.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And how about the early-entry credits?
MR. BOSI: Well, the early-entry -- the early-entry credits were
specifically capped at 27,000 --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
June 26, 2018
Page 168
MR. BOSI: -- during the 2002 adoption.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I don't -- thank you very
much for your presentation but, I mean, this is the best-kept secret for
the public. The public is expecting 90,000 people. Now we're hearing
it's over three five hundred thousand (sic) in Collier County.
The public expected that development would pay for roads. Ave
Maria proved it didn't. We ended up in a situation -- and that's
probably what we've talked about, fiscal neutrality, but, yes, there was
a recession. But, frankly, the money that went to build Oil Well Road
was taken from other roads because of the needs of the size of that
road.
So there is a tremendous amount of misinformation. Today, if
you talk to people who followed it, they had no idea there were going
to be this many people in the area, and it's created a specter of distrust,
and I think it's not healthy for the process. And so I look forward to
righting the wrongs.
I don't think anybody up here expects a taking of the developers'
land. I don't think anybody expects that we are going to somehow put
the long arm of government and force this. But speaking as a resident
of the City of Naples, I am deeply concerned about the kind of sprawl
that I'm seeing or I'm hearing about coming in that takes land that
could be left open for recharge and putting houses on it. This is not
what this was about.
So I look forward to the process, but I am keenly concerned about
what is coming before us.
Thank you.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Sure.
MR. COHEN: Part of gaining that trust, I think, is to be able to
be as open as we can. And you have mentioned, there's conversation
June 26, 2018
Page 169
about Ave Maria. And as I sat through an MPO meeting and others, I
think it kind of colors what it is that was done and how we think about
other projects as they come through.
So I'd like to introduce Amy Patterson who -- impact fee (sic)
who can kind of talk to you about what that process was for Ave
Maria. I've sat, as far as the water-quality issues, with our staff and
others as we're looking at the North Belle Meade, for example, as to
how it is that we can do water-quality issues there and so that it doesn't
impact further Naples Bay.
So part of what you're going to see is it's been a comprehensive
process, like I started. It's a difficult one. It's a complicated one. It's
unfortunate that there may not have been a clearer understanding of
what it took to jump-start a program or what it took to be able to do
those restorations and what those trade-offs were, but I think now that
we understand where we are, I think the next step is to be able to have
Amy come up and talk in terms of, again, a past project that's been
used as a benchmark to be able to think in terms of how it is that we
make decisions going forward.
And I think it would be helpful to be able to understand, at least
from our perspective, what occurred during that time to help inform
you as you see other initiatives come forward, how it is that we'll be
taking a look at those.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Before we start, there's a couple of lights
on. Do you want to hear this?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I'd like to hear this.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders, you want to
further --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, Amy may answer the
question, but I was going to ask Mr. Casalanguida, the payments for
Oil Well Road, we keep hearing that the county paid for this, that there
was a -- it was a gift to the developer, that was a bailout for the
June 26, 2018
Page 170
developer, and I'm not so sure that that's accurate.
And we just heard the issue that was just raised by righting the
wrong. I think the wrong, if I'm not mistaken, that Commissioner
Taylor was talking about was that we gave a road to the developer, and
the developer didn't pay for it.
So what really happened with Oil Well Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, interestingly enough,
Commissioners -- Commissioner Saunders, Commissioners on the
dais, I came here in 2004, and the agreement was just being finalized.
And one of the comments I had is we didn't have a clause in there to
handle milestones or a recession, and that when the recession hit, we
moved forward with the road project.
But, interestingly enough, working with the developers, they were
able to relinquish some of the requirements to build the road and
prioritize money in other areas. I remember, you know, Crystal and
Dwight did an audit. And I remember speaking in front of the Board
about that audit. And I said, I've gone through an extensive review of
the DCA and the expenditures, and I can't find anything legally done
wrong. Everything was done in compliance.
And the developer didn't cause us to pay for the road. The one
thing -- issue I found was that we had built the road a little bit early,
and that we had to maintain that road a little bit early, and we didn't
have a clause to cover that.
But Oil Well Road was planned to be widened, and we widened
it to the extent that the Long Range Transportation Plan was allowed.
The developer provided the drainage, the fill, the right-of-way that was
along the road and, you know, we moved forward with it with a
project.
We also went forward and received $6 million from the state for a
TRIP grant with that application because the developer and the county
applied together for it.
June 26, 2018
Page 171
So I think from the public's perspective, there was a lot of
discussion about the road being built prematurely, and because of the
recession, it probably was. And that was the only thing I think I found
wrong was that, you know, the recession caught everybody off guard,
both the developer and the county.
But I didn't find anything wrong with the way the agreement was
structured. The county wasn't paying for anything that it wasn't going
to pay for eventually anyway.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't mean to assume or infer
that you did anything wrong or that anybody did anything wrong. I'm
just saying this is an example of a road in this area that basically was
paid in advance of when it was needed. And the impact fees that are
supposed to be paying for it are still not there to pay for it. And you
had to borrow from impact fees in other areas, and now we're
maintaining and refurbishing a road that was premature.
So I think as we move forward, given the creative ideas of the
developers of where they want to put villages and towns and the
amount of infrastructure, not just roads, all the infrastructure that's
required to support their dreams, we need to be very forthcoming about
what this is going to cost the taxpayers of Collier County.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, Ms. Patterson will probably
make a good clarification. But we always, for regional facilities,
borrow from one area to the other. In other words, you prioritized
Vanderbilt Beach Road and you took money from other districts that's
a regional facility and funded that road. You did Immokalee Road the
same way; so no different.
I think the only thing that -- in the Ave Maria developer
agreement that caught us all off guard was the recession. That was it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And on a happy note on that, if
I may, what was the price per yard that the developer provided us fill
June 26, 2018
Page 172
for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: About $2.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: $2.50, to be exact, in a market
that was in excess of 6 and $7 a yard. So there was -- there were
equities of scale there. I mean, because we all know what I used to do
-- well, I still kind of do it. But, I mean, I remember we spoke
specifically about that. I think you called me and asked me if that was
a fair price per yard --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- for the developer to be
supplying this material for.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But this is the first time -- I may
be wrong -- and Mr. Casalanguida can help me with this. This is the
first time in the history of Collier County that we are actually
considering issuing debt for a road, and that road is Vanderbilt Beach
--
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, you're wrong.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- Road. Prior to that we've paid
for roads through impact fees; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. We borrowed 225 million
of gas tax to get caught up on roads that we let fall behind.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When did you and Tom and
Coletta do that? I mean, there was an inordinate amount of debt for the
roads when you first came on line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we first came on --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When we first came on in the year
2000, roads hadn't been built in five years.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right.
June 26, 2018
Page 173
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so we were in such a backlog,
and we needed a whole barrel of money --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to go, and we just promised the
community we would continue to push ahead until we caught up. So,
you know -- and I don't know that impact fees did that very much in
the road system at all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. Your impact fees covered
a good chunk, but you borrowed 225 million ahead in your gas tax.
We pay about 14.5 million a year in debt service till out to 2025 to get
caught up. And we will, probably once that gas tax is paid off, be in
front of you to reissue debt again, because the impact fees will not be
able to cover all the costs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you made mention also of the
recession. And just as a little -- as kind of like see what happens when
we didn't know what was going to happen, and that was -- Treviso Bay
was building their project right then and there, a magnificent project,
better than we'd ever seen it before, and they paid a lot of money,
poured a lot of money into it, and they finally had all their ads ready to
go, they opened the door, and the recession walked in, and they lost the
whole thing. It's not like you plan for that loss. Same with the road to
Ave Maria. It was planned to be everything we thought it was
supposed to be, and then the recession came upon us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And one more quick clarification: The
western section of the road, Oil Well, that was going to be done
regardless of Ave Maria. It was the eastern section and not -- we didn't
do the middle section yet. And the developer did give us an out. They
basically said, we know we're in a recession. You know you have to
prioritize money to other areas. We did an amendment with the
June 26, 2018
Page 174
developer to allow us to take impact fees and apply it to Golden Gate
Boulevard because he knew that was a higher priority.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Amy.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I just want to make sure, Commissioner
Saunders, your -- were those your questions?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And my concern was
that I just didn't want to leave it sounding like we gave the developer
of Ave Maria a huge benefit by providing a road at other taxpayers'
expense, because I don't think that happened.
MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, for the record, director
of Capital Project Planning.
I'm going to just walk you quickly through the Ave Maria
Developer Contribution Agreement. We have four slides of detail but
basically an overview slide here that's going to get your points.
Let me touch on the borrowing amongst funds really quickly,
because this is a subject that comes up a lot.
So you have impact fee districts. Transportation is one of two
types of impact fees that are divided by district, and there are very
specific rules and requirements in order to use money from one road
impact fee district in another. They either have an adjacent-district
rule, meaning they touch each other, and if there's a finding of benefit
and a nexus, then impact fees from one district can be used in adjacent
district; however, there are limitations.
And we go through the AUIR and the CIE, and we look at all of
those projects and make determinations not only on what impact fee
districts can be used but to the extent that they can be used. So you
can't just take impact fees from the coast and divert them out to the
eastern projects.
The other way that impact fees are used for multiple districts is on
a regional road, and that is something like County Road 951 most
recently, but that's because that road and the completion of that road is
June 26, 2018
Page 175
a benefit to the entire network.
So that's a couple of things that we do. And so I wanted to clear
up the idea that somehow these funds are just being moved around,
because that's not the case.
On the Ave Maria Developer Contribution Agreement, they
provided right-of-way, stormwater drainage fill, and funding for design
and permitting of Oil Well Road. The value of the donations and
contributions exceeded the impact fee credits that were granted. They
were also, Ave Maria, different than any other DCA. And we have a
whole lot of these agreements that we administer for impact fees.
There were additional requirements imposed on the timing and the use
of the impact fee credits.
So Ave Maria was required to pay in $6 million in impact fees
before they were ever allowed to utilize their first credit on building
permits. The other thing is they're still subject to our certificate of
adequate public facilities, our concurrency program, and they're only
allowed to draw down their impact credits at 50 percent where all other
DCAs in the county are allowed to draw them down at 100 percent.
So those are additional requirements that were placed on Ave Maria.
And as Nick had mentioned, there was an amendment done a
couple of years ago to loosen the requirements to prioritize all impact
fees from specified road impact fee districts to the Oil Well Road
project to within a one-mile radius of Ave Maria, excluding Rural
Lands West until the fund balance -- we're segregating those funds,
and once that balance reaches $20 million, we'll make a decision on
moving forward with that road segment, or if we are able to enter into
agreement with another developer or the situation changes.
But the developer came to the table willingly to do that, to make
that change. We worked with the Golden Gate Estates folks to be able
to make that change, and that was positive because it allowed -- it freed
up funding for other road projects.
June 26, 2018
Page 176
So the idea -- and if you're interested -- or I can provide this to
you -- each one of these slides goes into the really specific information
on what was entailed in this contribution agreement and, in retrospect,
what a good deal it was for the county. Understanding that we
forwarded a road into the -- into a our -- into our capital projects, but
we got things that we did not have to give impact fee credits for and
now has allowed that facility to be there and open to the public.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like to get a copy of
that.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I would like that as well. And, certainly,
good deal for the county is not what I've heard lately. But it's -- I
would like that as well.
So your light's on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It might have been from
before, but I was just looking at that last footnote there on fill, and that
$3 a yard, 2.50 a yard that we originally negotiated fell right in off of
my brain, so...
Well, I mean, it was nice for me to be able to remember. I mean,
my goodness, that was 15 years ago when we were having that
discussion; fifteen years ago.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't forgot things that easy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I have one registered speaker on this
item, Nicole Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And, Chairman Solis, I liked the phrase that you used earlier,
"just the facts," because that's really where the Conservancy is coming
from on this.
June 26, 2018
Page 177
And I appreciate the admission by you, Commissioner McDaniel,
that 15 years ago, my gosh, how am I supposed to remember that. I'm
with you on that. Sometimes I can't remember last week, so, you
know, it's a long time ago.
And so when I went back to look at what the Conservancy
thought the intent of the RLSA was -- because we were involved
before it was even called the RLSA. Went back and looked very
meticulously through the public records. We were part of the
committee. I sat through almost all of those committee meetings out
at, I believe it was Immokalee High School. And in looking at what
that intent was, it actually never changed. It was always supposed to
be taking the existing population that could have occurred on one unit
per five acres and consolidating it down.
Now, what happened between transmittal and adoption, that's
really the big thing. That's where those additional credits got
specifically added into the program, but when you look at the adoption
hearing packet, no such indication of those additional credits,
additional development was there.
In your BCC adoption packet, it still talked about 16,800 acres. It
still said, it's believed that the adoption and implementation would not
result in an increase in the total number of allowable dwelling units or
population. And when you look at the DCA Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report that was crafted by -- it was
a WilsonMiller document, and I think the county also added some
information in there, same thing. It said, yes, we're going to be putting
more credits in the program, but DCA's concern about how will this
curtail sprawl, it again talks about the fact that the population to be
accommodated under the overlay, same population as would have
happened without the overlay. So in support of adding these additional
credits, it was still stated that it would be the same underlying
population.
June 26, 2018
Page 178
There had been talk about all of this being understood and
mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing back in, I guess it was,
October of 2002 at their adoption hearing. I've heard that the Hearing
Examiner, then Planning Commission Member Mark Strain, did bring
that issue up. I believe he was told no, no, no, you're wrong. That
didn't happen that way. Unfortunately, the county doesn't keep those
tapes, so we can't go back and see, and there are no transcribed
minutes. I asked for the tapes, and I was told that the county didn't
have them. It would be great to hear that.
Regardless, some staff remembers that at the Planning
Commission there was talk about this explosion in credits and potential
development. Well, why did staff not, then, update the BCC adoption
amendment packet for something that important? They just cut and
pasted the old information? I don't believe that. I believe everyone
understood the intent.
So, anyway, Conservancy's intent -- we've done some extensive
research, and I'm going to hand that to the court reporter and pass it out
to you for your perusal at your leisure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did they call that report,
RUDAD (phonetic)? That was back in '89, wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Does staff have any response?
MR. BOSI: Staff stands by the presentation as the facts of what
was adopted by this Board of County Commissioners. Those adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners in 2002 provided for credits
that would entitle around 40,000 acres of land.
And as I think the statement was, those were the facts of the
matter. How the staff conducted and conveyed those messages, I
admit that they were -- it was sloppy. It could have been improved.
But the intent of the program and the recognition -- if you're adding
credits and credits entitle acreage, and if you're adding additional
credits and not think that that's going to provide for an increase within
June 26, 2018
Page 179
the acreages, that's illogical to me.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Was it -- did you -- did you
understand that, that the population would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know, I tell you --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- fivefold?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I was two years old and --
mentally, really. I hadn't ever been around anything like that.
They were first doing the Growth Management Plan -- and that
was back in the late '80s, it was called RUDAD at that time, wasn't it?
George Varnadoe was at all of those meetings, I remember, Dudley
Goodlette, and they were having them in different places, and then
they moved forward, then they came up with this. We were involved
already when they started doing this. We got on the commission in the
year 2000.
But I had no idea what all those acreages really were and how
much you could put in them really, because I was so young at this job
yet. I just didn't -- I didn't understand the immensity of it at all. But
when it was pointed out to us and as the picture was painted, it
sounded wonderful because they did so much to preserve the
environment. I really liked that. I was really enthralled with that. I
thought that was good.
It seemed that the community was also very much involved, and
they opened the doors to everybody and anybody, and they came out.
So it looked like a really good plan.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted to say, you know,
Commissioner Saunders, you brought it up, and there's been
representations made of things that the community's done for benefit of
one particular developer or another, and I want it to be said, these folks
aren't doing these combinations and relocations of development rights
June 26, 2018
Page 180
for free. There's money. They don't do developments for fun. They
are making money at this. And I don't want us to be fooling ourselves
to think that there isn't a benefit when you're associating or transferring
development rights from one particular area to another.
I think there were a lot of misconceptions. I recall specifically,
Commissioner Taylor, the notion of fiscal neutrality, and you brought
it up when Mr. Bosi was speaking earlier. Because to me there's only
one definition of fiscal neutrality. It is or it isn't. Not in this definition.
This definition -- well, please, Commissioner Taylor. It's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What is the meaning of "is"?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To us it is or it isn't. The
definition, when it's -- in regard to here -- and I had to educate myself
on this in that Five-Year Review process, because it is -- it necessarily
is a blended rate over a period of time. It's not automatic as the novice
would necessarily perceive it to be.
And so, specifically, understanding the acreage that comes along
with the credits, knowing that those credits are fungible to an extent
with regard to those that actually participate in the restoration program,
knowing the actual definition here in the RLSA of what fiscal
neutrality actually comes to is -- takes an understanding process. It's
not just something you can pick up and read.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Saunders' light's right on in
there.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not that I want to prolong this
meeting any long than necessary, but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Past 3:00.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- I think there's a lot of
frustration on this board dealing with some of these issues that we've
just addressed. The problem is, or at least I perceive the problem is,
that this is a process that started 16, 17 years ago. I don't know what
the Commission did or what they were considering when they made
June 26, 2018
Page 181
these changes or accepted these credits, but we've inherited that.
And I suspect -- and this may be something for the County
Attorney at some point to advise us on. But I suspect that property
owners have at least some vested rights in what the Commission put in
place 16 years ago and that has resulted in development plans being
submitted to the county and the expenditure of probably millions of
dollars in promoting their development based on these things that the
Commission did. Not this commission, but going back to 2002.
And so I'm not so sure that there's anything we can do at this
point in terms of credits and that sort of thing, and that will be,
perhaps, something the County Attorney needs to --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's extraordinarily difficult to reduce
density. Easy to increase it; happens here all the time. But it is
incredibly difficult to decrease density without being subject to a Bert
Harris claim.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's --
MR. KLATZKOW: This is what it is. It is what it is. These --
the Board acted this way in a public hearing, there was nothing secret
about it, and you've got these acres that are vested.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And there were amendments from the
2009 review. I mean -- I'm sorry. There were revisions that were
suggested.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Suggested.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Suggested.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Board heard them --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and pretty much agreed to them, and
the issue was who would pay for them.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Proposed. Proposed revisions.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That went through a similar process,
June 26, 2018
Page 182
public process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two years.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: But they -- right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two years.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You remember those.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was the presenter. I
remember.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: So there are suggested revisions that at
least were proposed but were never fully adopted by the Commission
over a dispute over --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Who pays.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- who pays for the transmittal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They adopted -- they moved to
adopt the recommendations of the two-year committee, and then a
discussion came -- or the five-year committee, and the discussion came
out as to the $100,000 expense to effectuate the GMP amendments,
and it never got done. That was back in --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The recession hit as well, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was back -- and I
remember specifically, because they were talking about, similarly, at
the East of 951 Horizon Study about the past-due GMP amendments
for Golden Gate Estates, and it was going to cost 200,000 for those.
And I remember you saying, oh, the recession -- I, just -- oh, the
recession has hit. We just don't have the money right now. And I'm
going, oh, talk about expensive with the lack of planning, because if
you don't plan -- Commissioner Saunders, you brought it up best. I
mean, the RLSA, as it is here in front of us, is already approved
irrespective of the understandings, but it is.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And am I correct that some of those
suggested revisions included caps on both acreage and population?
MR. OCHS: Yes. Both.
June 26, 2018
Page 183
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Both.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, just to -- the
rationale was we'd already been informed that the cap was -- or that the
number was 40,000 to be entitled to. And there was a deficiency in
our first five or six years of execution of the plan and preservation and
protection of agricultural land. And so the enhancement to preserve
and protect agriculture, which also provides for habitat --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: More credits.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- increased the credits, which
then increased the developable land, and so we pulled back from what
it could be to what was recommended and then also increased the
credits requisite to develop from eight credits to 10 to help offset that.
So there was an increase by the Five-Year Review Committee,
but it was in an effort to preserve and protect agriculture.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, you know, and just as an
aside from someone who's looked at -- I think we go back to when you
were on the Commission, and the county received it --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How's your memory?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- went to California, and the
county received an award for their Growth Management Plan and for
the environmental aspect of the Growth Management Plan, and then
less than 10 years later we're being sued by the State of Florida
because we didn't follow it, and now we have a plan that's supposed to
put aside agricultural land and take care of the environment, and we're
looking at it again in 2008 because it's not taking care of agricultural
land. Would you say there's a pattern here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, no. And that's
misconstrued.
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We were taking care of
June 26, 2018
Page 184
agricultural land. That's a large portion of what we were taking.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What we're studying right now;
we're studying now. But there's a need for more agricultural land.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was already studied then.
The deficiencies in the plan of the original adoption of the RLSA didn't
put as much emphasis on preservation and protection of agricultural
lands, and we in the Five-Year Review Committee saw that and
brought it forward and made those recommendations.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And we had a Growth
Management Plan that we didn't follow, and then we have another plan
that we didn't take care of in terms of -- we didn't address adequately
agricultural land. I'm just saying there seems to be a pattern in this
county, and I think there's a reality of the public that they don't want to
repeat the pattern anymore.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I suppose we're all entitled to
an opinion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't concur with that. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The pressures of development are
enormous in this county. We have a lot of land that has yet to be
developed that is privately owned, and we have to honor the rights of
those folks that own that land, and I respect that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We have followed the plan that was
adopted.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I mean, is there -- is there --
MR. VAN LENGEN: The original adopted plan is still in effect.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's in effect.
MR. VAN LENGEN: We've been following it ever since. The
June 26, 2018
Page 185
idea that there may need to be a rebalance was something that was
envisioned in the original plan. So that restudy that first came around
was something that was actually part of the original plan.
But it's consistent with what we do with the EAR process that
when you talk about long-range growth management planning, you
want to look out 10, 20, 30, even 40 years out, but you need to change
that outlook every five years or every seven years for the EAR. That's
the whole nature of growth management planning. So I don't think it's
wrong to revisit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not static. Right, it's not
static.
MR. VAN LENGEN: It's not static.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And so we're not revisiting it because we
didn't follow it.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Right.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I mean, the revisit was built -- and this is
the way you do this work. It's planning work. You're constantly
revisiting because conditions change, markets change, the economy
changes.
MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. No one could have
envisioned -- I mean, even -- Commissioner Taylor, even when we
were speaking with Mr. Bosi on the initial presentation of the CIGM
and then Vice Mayor Councilwoman Penniman spoke about the
expenses associated with Ave Maria and the construction of Oil Well
Road. We also at the time, in the advent of Ave Maria, didn't envision
a 300,000-square-foot high-tech medical manufacturing facility out
there and the benefits that that's actually given to our community from
a reversal of the bedroom community traffic patterns that we have and,
ultimately, a reduction in the overstressed infrastructure that we have
in the urbanized area.
June 26, 2018
Page 186
That was just back in February, so it wasn't 15 years ago of
memory, but January or February is when we had those discussions.
So it's -- it is an evolving process. And understanding the precepts of it
are imperative. And there's a lot of misconceptions. There's a lot of
misconceptions that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, as it's been admitted by
staff, it was a sloppy process back then, and people remember what
was promised to the public, and the public was promised the
population wouldn't increase, but it's going to.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Fourfold or more.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I wouldn't say that.
MR. VAN LENGEN: At the risk of one too many rebuttals, in
the 2002 plan, the actual adopted language in the Growth Management
Plan was all of 24 pages. The idea that only one environmental NGO
didn't have time to read those pages strikes me as being a little bit
incredulous.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow.
MR. VAN LENGEN: That certainly was read and understood by
the other environmental groups.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And supported.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm afraid it wasn't. They just -- I
always felt that because Florida Wildlife and Audubon were very
important in terms of bringing this issue of not following -- Collier
County not following the Growth Management Plan to the state -- and
they became very involved in it. They also became very invested in
making peace, and that didn't apply to the other environmental groups.
And I would request, County Manager, when we have a
presentation like we had on the RLSA update, I would -- and maybe I
didn't get it, but I didn't get any record of this here in my packet. So I
would hope going forward that I would have an opportunity to look at
June 26, 2018
Page 187
it before the meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe they could send us all one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And maybe that would be
great to send us a copy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think he sent us an email -- I
think you sent that to all of us, didn't you, County Manager, with the
synopsis of the original premises of the RLSA?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. The presentation that we
had just now. I have the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I see that on your
picture.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I didn't get the other one.
Maybe I should have gotten it, but I didn't. Maybe that's my problem.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You sent it in an email.
MR. OCHS: We will make sure that we email all of the
presentation materials that were presented for the record today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The email that you sent out,
though, I think, came to all of us, didn't it?
MR. OCHS: No. That I sent to you because I know you were on
the Five-Year Review Committee, and if I wanted to see if your
recollection was the same as ours.
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had more information than
you, okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's no need --
MR. OCHS: No action.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- for a vote from us or direction or
anything?
MR. OCHS: No, that was a status report.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you. Speaking personally, that was
June 26, 2018
Page 188
helpful to understand.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My goodness, yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: We could do that once a month and it not
be enough just because it's a complicated process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it certainly would help
clear it up.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Thank you.
Item #11F
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID (ITB) SOLICITATION NO. 18-
7329 COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING G ALTERATIONS TO DEC
CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., FOR THE RENOVATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING G IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,027,661, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A 10% OWNERS
ALLOWANCE OF $102,766 FOR POTENTIAL UNFORESEEN
CONDITIONS, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT,
AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11F, the
recommendation to award a construction contract for the renovation of
our Building G on the campus.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve,
unless there's some questions.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. This is a competitive bid awarded to the
lowest responsive bidder.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So the burning question of the
moment is, how many showers are we going to have so that when we
June 26, 2018
Page 189
do all this cardio exercise over there we don't come back to the office
dripping wet?
MR. OCHS: I knew we forgot something.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sweat towels.
MR. OCHS: Low bid.
No. How many showers?
MR. NISBET: Bob Nisbet with Facilities Management,
Commissioners. You'll have two showers, one for the men and one for
the women.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Good. That's a great idea.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Blue Zone thanks you.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: There's a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Approved.
Item #11G
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID NUMBER 18-7314, “95TH
AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL" PROJECT
NUMBERS 60139 AND 70120, TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC.,
June 26, 2018
Page 190
IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,443,920, AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11G is a recommendation to award a construction
contract for the 95th Avenue North Public Utilities renewal project to
Douglas N. Higgins in the amount of $5,443,920. Again, a
competitive bid recommended award to the lowest responsive bidder.
Mr. Chmelik can present or respond to questions from the Board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Would you --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Please. I'll second it yesterday.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, we'll let
him make the motion.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: 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.)
Item #11H
A $607,453 PURCHASE ORDER TO STANTEC CONSULTING
SERVICES, INC., UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 14-6345 FOR
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT
FOR 95TH AVENUE NORTH, PROJECT NUMBERS 60139 AND
June 26, 2018
Page 191
70120 – APPROVED
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion carries.
MR. OCHS: 11H is the companion item to this construction
award. It's the construction, engineering, and inspection services
contract related to that contract award.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: You're not going to let me do one, are
you?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, go ahead. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let the record reflect that
Commissioner Saunders jumped in front of the Chair.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll withdraw that motion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: No, I'll second it. I'll second it. That's
okay. A motion and a second. 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: It's approved.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #11I
WATER, WASTEWATER, IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER,
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE CHARGES AND WHOLESALE
POTABLE WATER USER RATE STUDY AND DIRECT THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE A
June 26, 2018
Page 192
RESOLUTION: 1) AMENDING SCHEDULES ONE, TWO, THREE,
FOUR, AND FIVE OF APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-73, AS AMENDED,
TITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
UNIFORM BILLING, OPERATING, AND REGULATORY
STANDARDS ORDINANCE NO. 2001-73, AS AMENDED, WITH
AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1, 2018; AND, 2)
ADJUSTING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT BULK SERVICES WATER RATES WITHIN THE
HAMMOCK BAY SERVICE AREA, AS AUTHORIZED BY THE
POTABLE WATER BULK SERVICES AGREEMENT –
APPROVED
And 11I is a recommendation to approve the water/wastewater,
irrigation, quality water, and miscellaneous service charges for your
Collier County water/sewer district. Mr. Bellone is ready to present or
--
MR. BELLONE: Is ready to present or respond to inquiries from
the Board. Pleasure of the Board.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion. I think
it's very reasonable given the fact that you're a business and you have
to improve and you're building. I think it's a very reasonable rate
increase.
MR. BELLONE: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Motion and a second. All in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
June 26, 2018
Page 193
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12A – Continued to later in the meeting
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN
OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY, STAFF AND OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, TO
NEGOTIATE AND HELP DRAFT DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RURAL LANDS WEST
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
That moves us to Item 12A, which was previously Item 16K5
under your County Attorney consent agenda. This was a
recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to retain outside
counsel to work with the County Attorney and the staff and outside
consultants to negotiate and help draft developer contribution
agreements with respect to the Rural Lands West proposed
development, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Fiala both asked that
this item be moved for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Commissioners -- I mean,
County Manager, I just asked our chairman if we could possibly put
the CRA --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Stay on the microphone,
please.
June 26, 2018
Page 194
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if we could possibly put the CRA
first, because we've got CRA people sitting here. I don't think there's
anybody from Rural Lands West. But, you know, I thought, in the
sake of time. Whatever -- it doesn't make any difference.
MR. OCHS: The pleasure of the Chair.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: How many people from the CRA are
there? There's two, and there's one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Debbie's there, too; Deborah.
MR. OCHS: We have our staff.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And our staff. I mean, I have no objection
to that if that's what the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- everyone else would like to do, that's
fine. We'll hear that one first.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I didn't mean to –
Item #14B1
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB),
TERMINATE CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARNO, INC. AS
PROPOSED UNDER ITN #17-7169 AND DIRECT STAFF TO
INCORPORATE THE PARCELS INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN UPDATE TO DETERMINE THE BEST FUTURE VISION
FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 17.89 ACRES OF CRA OWNED
PROPERTY IN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - MOTION TO TERMINATE AND
INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY INTO THE CRA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN – APPROVED
June 26, 2018
Page 195
MR. OCHS: That would be Item 14B1 on the agenda. This is a
recommendation that the Board, acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board, terminate the current negotiations with
Arno, Inc., and direct staff to incorporate the parcels -- the 17-acre
parcel into the redevelopment plan update to determine the best future
vision for that land.
Mr. Klatzkow, do we need to convene the CRA board for this
item?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's no need for formality.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But CRA Chair should take the gavel.
MR. OCHS: CRA chair should take the gavel.
MR. KLATZKOW: Chair should take the gavel.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're the gavel.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: The gavel is yours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA board -- or CRA is now in session
for one item, 14B.
MS. FORESTER: Thank you. For the record, Deborah Forester,
CRA director.
Today we're here to bring back the 17.89-acre site that is located
on Bayshore Drive within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Area.
I think you're all familiar with the history of this. The CRA has
owned these two pieces of property since 2008.
It has a current zoning on it right now of a mixed-use PUD with
the maximum of 40 residential units, up to 48,500 square feet of
commercial, up to 84,000 square feet of parking, 350-fixed-seat
performance theater, and a maximum height of four stories.
Staff was directed back in 2017 to help facilitate the sale and
redevelopment of this property. So in April of 2017 we issued an
June 26, 2018
Page 196
invitation to negotiate. That was published in August; proposals were
due. We received three proposals.
We worked through those three proposals and, in February, we
had one remaining proposal that was brought forward to you. That
was through Arno, Inc.
You directed us at that time to issue the 30-day notice as required
by Florida Statute. That gave any other developer an opportunity to
come in within that 30-day period to offer us an alternate proposal.
That solicitation period ended in March. We did not receive any other
development at that time.
We continued to negotiate with Arno, Inc., with the goal to bring
back to you a purchase and sales agreement that had a secure financial
commitment to it.
Just to refresh your memory, what Arno, Inc.'s proposal included,
a range between -- yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I hate to interrupt you, but all
we're doing right now is terminating the negotiations. We know that
that has to terminate.
MS. FORESTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then redirecting staff and
the CRA board to kind of evaluate what the next step is, and so --
MS. FORESTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's where she was going.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And so I would make
that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let -- I think -- don't you have
something else to explain to us about that?
MS. FORESTER: Well, I just wanted to, I guess, point out that
we do have with us our financial consultant from GAI who came in,
and what I wanted to just sort of reflect is that -- what the current
zoning is currently on that site and what the proposals were that we've
June 26, 2018
Page 197
received to date really don't compare, so the market is not showing us
that the current zoning is what the market would like to see happen
there.
And so if you direct us to terminate this proposal and then move
forward to incorporating it into the redevelopment plan update, that
would be our goal today, to get you to do that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I knew that she was going there. I didn't
mean to -- but, anyway, yes, and I know we have speakers. How many
speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: I have one registered speaker for this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I made a motion to follow staff's
suggestions and incorporate this property -- to terminate Arno and to
incorporate this property into the CRA redevelopment plan update.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't usually like to take a second or a
motion or anything until we've heard from the speaker. But I have a
motion and a second. Okay. Then let's hear from the speaker.
MR. MILLER: Your speaker is Dwight Richardson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Being that he's been sitting here the entire
day.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All day, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Got to give the guy a chance.
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, it's certainly a very enjoyable
afternoon and morning.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's like watching paint dry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Dwight sat on our Planning Commission
for a long time.
June 26, 2018
Page 198
MR. RICHARDSON: Dwight Richardson. And I was back there
in 2002 with we passed that. I didn't realize it was so complicated.
Fortunately, Mark was there guiding us on. But to move forward...
I certainly understand what Arno and the CRA have gone through
and the prior applicants. I'm saddened by the amount of staff time and
efforts and collective input that's gone into this, which should tell us
something. It may mean that, as well meaning as we were and the
CRA to put out that ITN, it may have been a little bit too complex to
get the result that we all wanted.
Let me just drop back really quickly and say, I'm here, we're all
here for the highest and best use of that property. We vested the CRA
and the advisory board which represent that area to help define what --
the highest and best use of that property that they own.
So in that process, they came up with the idea of a whole bunch
of things they'd like to see. Mixed use, like to see more commercial
there. They wanted to just have this cultural element. And we just
couldn't get it put back -- put it together between the nonprofit side,
which I represent with CAPA and/or the various commercial interests.
So here we are; we're starting all over. And talking to Deborah
and Tim, they've asked to open it up again, and we certainly agree with
that because we -- we, the CAPA, we've been a common element
throughout. We're the cultural element, which they very much need
and I think the entire area will prosper by. And that is, in our minds,
part of the highest and best use.
So we just have to figure out how best to bring in the right
combination of commercial with our non-profit piece. And, you know,
we've got some ideas. But let's just say for sure CAPA wants to be
part of that, and we will be part of it, so we'll be back to see you as this
progresses and hopefully be a part of the bringing the cultural art
districts into fruition.
Okay. Thank you.
June 26, 2018
Page 199
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's such a good plan. I
just hope and pray that you guys are successful with it, because that
could be a great asset to that whole area.
And Deborah, now, is going to lead us in the right direction.
Deborah, would you like to come back up to the podium, please.
Thank you.
And the motion is to...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To accept staff's recommendation
to terminate Arno and to incorporate the 17 acres into the
redevelopment plan -- master plan for the CRA district, which is
ongoing, and it's very exciting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second agrees? You're the
second. Okay, fine. Any questions from other commissioners?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not on the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 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: Good. CRA meeting has ended.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, don't -- I have a
comment, if I may, while we're under this subject matter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can we reopen --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have to open it back up?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. You're the Chair. You can
do whatever you want.
I just would like to say this: Would it be -- or the question I had
June 26, 2018
Page 200
for my colleagues up here is should we give some direction to staff as
to how to move forward with this -- with the advertisement for the
availability of this property?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, because it's going to be
incorporated in the master plan. And I've had at least three calls about
this property since they learned that Arno's contract was being
terminated. I don't think we need to worry about that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're just hoping, just as Dwight said,
Deborah said, we're hoping to see a new component brought into this
area: The cultural and performing arts center; commercial, we don't
have much of commercial there; and parking so that people can park
along that corridor, and I think that's what they're looking for.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, Dwight and I spoke
about this during the lunch break, and if you'll recall when this item
came before us last year, I expressed some concerns about the
restrictions put upon the RFI of what could and couldn't be developed
on this particular site, and it limits the amount of developers and then
what they can, in fact, pay for a piece of property because of those
constraints.
And I wanted to put a bias on the recommendations of the CRA
and the community development plan as to what the community wants
to see, but allow it to be available for its highest and best use.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what do you think the community
wants to see?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's up to the community. I
mean -- and if we've already accomplished that in putting it back into
the plan, then I'm fine.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, because they're taking --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'm fine with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's actually live time for this plan.
June 26, 2018
Page 201
I mean, the community is participating in going forward, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Needed that clarification.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The plan review will do that
hopefully.
MS. FORESTER: Yes. What we're hoping to do is we're in
negotiations with Tindale Oliver to develop a separate scope to look at
this piece of property so that it can take in the public comment, talk to
the Conservancy about that easement that's located next to it on
Sugden Park, talk about Sugden Park to see how that all can come
together.
So those would be open conversations/dialogue that we'll have
with all the partners, and then -- and be incorporated into the
redevelopment plan, and that would be brought back to you. Our
schedule for that would be sometime late this year or early next year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I pray we're not going to put any housing
onto that. It would be nice to use it for something different so that we
can have a catalyst rather than same old, same old, same old. Is that
what you're planning on doing?
MS. FORESTER: Well, I think that cultural component is still
very important. I hear that from the community all the time. So I
think that's really going to stay as one of the top priorities for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When you said the Sugden again, I
thought, uh-oh, there we go. Starting to put housing in there again, and
that's not good.
MS. FORESTER: No, just that connection, you know, that has
also been a dream, I think, of that community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA's trying to do that, aren't you?
MS. FORESTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're trying to -- down Jeepers?
June 26, 2018
Page 202
MS. FORESTER: Well, no. This would be the connection off of
this piece of property into Sugden. That was one of the goals that we
were trying to achieve with the developer at this point. So I think that
continues to be a priority for the community to maintain some type of
connection into Sugden. So we will be bringing that back to you in the
near future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
Item #12A – Continued from earlier in the meeting
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETAIN
OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY, STAFF AND OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, TO
NEGOTIATE AND HELP DRAFT DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE RURAL LANDS WEST
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – MOTION TO
WITHDRAW ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us back, Mr. Chairman, to 12A. And,
again, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Fiala had asked for
this to be moved for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm looking for my other book. It's a
big book. Okay. That's just 12A, right? Let me just say we'll try and
go ahead. Maybe Mike will hear me and bring it out someplace.
Anyway, that was the RLSA -- no, this was the rural lands. And
what I -- I have it all marked up, and I'm sorry I don't have it with me
right now. But, anyway, what they -- they had a great plan, everything
was wonderful, except that they have no affordable housing. And
June 26, 2018
Page 203
when I looked at that, they had -- that's right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. This is about -- 12A is
about hiring --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A lawyer.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- an outside state attorney to
assist --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was trying to talk about the
rural lands. I thought that was 12A. I'm sorry -- not 12A --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, you're both right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. That's nice.
MR. OCHS: The item is about hiring out -- yeah, the item's about
hiring outside counsel, but in the body of the executive summary that
the County Attorney prepared, there's some discussion about how the
SRA economic assessment works and, as part of that, there wasn't a
reference to affordable housing. And, Commissioner Fiala, I believe
that's what you wanted to reference in that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was only the rural lands that I had
on there. Is that --
MR. OCHS: That was the item. That was it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What I noticed was it says
that they don't have to -- in essence -- I'm boiling this down -- when it
comes to the affordable housing component on this property, they can
move it to another area and get credit for it, and it's just like --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. Mike is trying to pull it
out for me right now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 16K5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No wonder you can't find it; 16K5. I
thought that was the same one. Is it?
MR. OCHS: It is, yes, ma'am.
June 26, 2018
Page 204
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
So what it says in here was, it says, "The BCC may grant a waiver
to accommodate affordable housing," which is something -- what that
says is we don't have to build it on our property. We can build it
someplace else, and that's what's been happening all along. We keep
saying the affordable housing, or at least I say, should be distributed
around the county. It would be nice to have it close to where they need
it instead of across the county again.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, maybe I can help you out with
that. It's -- Jeff just cut and pasted a section of the code. And it doesn't
refer to this document that they will do that. It just reads that in the
code that they can apply to the Board to do that.
So I think that's the confusion is we -- in the item he just
cut/pasted a section of the code that says that, but that's not my
understanding that -- anything we're talking about with them yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would like to make sure that
it doesn't change that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because I've seen one
presentation. I explained to Leo and you in my office --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- when they came before the MPO
board, the developers for this property, and when it was asked -- and
this is a joint MPO meeting with Lee and Collier Counties. And when
asked about the affordable housing, they said, "We're not going to
build any on this property."
They've said it a number of times, right flat out. I mean,
everybody could hear it. And I'm thinking that that isn't really -- well,
that's something for all of the board members to decide, not just me. I
just brought it up because it's a concern of mine, because here's more
going into the same place all over again, and we continue to stack it up
June 26, 2018
Page 205
in one place, concentrate it in one place, and I don't think that's a good
thing to do, especially when we've got all these new places coming up,
and housing could be closer to these people, and we could -- if we
want affordable housing there, you can design it so that, you know, it's
something that that's -- something to be proud of in their community,
and we should be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just would like to say
this: What you just said is not what I've heard when I have spoken
with this developer. There's actually been discussions with our staff
about locating housing affordability units within this project. So if
that's what you understood, that's completely contrary to what I have
had discussions with them about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, discuss it again.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because I -- and I like it,
don't get me wrong, and I think they're building a great project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Again, it has nothing to do with
like or dislike. It's just more along the lines of --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's fair is fair, and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And they have development
criterium --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, this has
nothing to do this particular item.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right, other than information.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's in the executive summary, though.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand. But the item is
whether or not we're going to --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- hire outside counsel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you brought that issue up.
So I was kind of glad that it got pulled. I wanted to see how you felt
June 26, 2018
Page 206
about the actual issue itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I brought it up because that's
what I was reading, and that's a concern with mine (sic).
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. But it's not an issue for
determination today. The only issue here is the issue of whether or not
we're going to permit staff to hire outside counsel and experts to assist
in the development -- in negotiating developer agreements for that
particular project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As to the proposed development,
and that was part of the proposed development. Okay. So if I'm
wrong --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, you're not wrong. I'm just
saying that that's not the issue that we're addressing today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay, then.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think what the summary is saying is that
those are some of the issues that will be negotiated and the
recommendation, or at least a proposal was from Commissioner
Saunders, to allow staff to hire outside counsel to assist in that process
to give a certain amount of objectivity.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I don't see why the County
Attorney can't hire anybody he wants to if he feels he needs to. And if
he doesn't want to, then he wants to do it in-house, do it that way. He
always makes those decisions anyway, and he makes a good decision.
We never crab about it, so I think we should just let him run his
department the way he wants to run it, is my opinion.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. I'm sorry. There are lights on, and
I have no idea who went first. Let's -- and we do have a public speaker.
So do we want to hear the speaker first?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Let's hear the speaker.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay.
June 26, 2018
Page 207
MR. MILLER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have two registered
speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Nicole Johnson. She'll be
followed by Donna Reed Caron.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, again. Nicole Johnson, here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
In reviewing your BCC communications from two weeks ago, it
appears that this concept stems from concerns by the public voiced at
the MPO meeting about the inclusion of Rural Lands West roads, and
could the county, should the county, is the county staff able to
negotiate these developer contribution agreements, and if we somehow
have outside legal counsel to help, then that will assuage community
concerns.
I can only speak for the Conservancy, but our concern wasn't that
staff was unable to negotiate a developer contribution agreement. Our
concern at the MPO was we believed it was premature to be adding in,
specifically, Big Cypress Parkway into the Long Range Transportation
Plan.
I thought that one thing that Nick brought up at the MPO meeting
as a good solution is that these DCAs are worked out between staff and
the applicant. Wouldn't it be great if there could be periodic updates,
monthly updates to the Board, to the MPO as to the process of that.
That's probably the best away to keep these things in the public eye.
So from the Conservancy's perspective, I don't think we need outside
counsel on that.
And just -- I'm going to end with this thought: We kind of got a
low blow during the last RLSA discussion, and so I want to really
emphasize if the Conservancy is guilty of anything, it isn't that we did
not take the time to read the 23, 24 pages of the RLSA policies when
they went forward to adoption. If we're guilty of anything, it is
believing in the analysis done by county staff and WilsonMiller as to
that ultimate capacity of the program, because we looked at what was
June 26, 2018
Page 208
in that executive summary, and it was very clear.
The public needs to be able to rely on that executive summary.
The idea that somehow something is hidden somewhere and, therefore,
if the public doesn't go back and research that, it's on them. I think we
need to really take a look at how this happened and understand that it
was, as Mike says, sloppy.
So, anyway, with that, thank you for your attention, and we look
forward to working through this process in the, I guess, years to come.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker on this item is Donna
Reed Caron.
MS. CARON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Donna Reed
Caron, for the record.
When I saw this item on the agenda today, I thought it was rather
strange. As you've heard from Amy Patterson, we have many, many
of these DCAs, none of which have required outside attorneys to
negotiate them.
And if the staff is to be believed about the Ave Maria one,
apparently staff kicked butt on that one, and we got a hell of a lot for
our money.
So I'm just wondering why we need to be spending money on an
outside counsel. I mean, are we saying we can't be objective with rural
lands -- with the RLSA and Rural Lands West? I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: That's the implication.
MS. CARON: So that was why I wanted to bring it up, and
thanks for your time.
MR. MILLER: And that was your final public speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. Commissioner Saunders' light is
on.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I brought this up because I felt
that these are very important agreements. They're negotiated all over
June 26, 2018
Page 209
the country, they're negotiated all over the state, and that if we had
some assistance, perhaps that would be a benefit.
I discussed this with the County Attorney and with the County
Manager. No one seemed to have any particular problem with it; that
perhaps that would provide not only some additional expertise but also
perhaps insulate staff a little bit from the criticisms that we have been
subjected to in terms of some backdoor deals and -- I don't want to use
the word "fraudulent" activities, but some of the members of the public
have gotten fairly close to that. And that was the purpose.
Now, if this is problematic, I'll just withdraw the suggestion and
let staff continue to negotiate this. And if it's -- you know, if it's a good
deal, it will be a good deal.
I have no problem with staff negotiating these things. Staff is
very capable. I just thought that these are so important that there may
be some new things out there that staff may not be aware of.
MR. KLATZKOW: And just to chime in, I couldn't be more
indifferent. I'm happy to work with outside counsel. I'm happy to
work with just Nick. I mean, Nick and I must have put together, what,
25, 30 of these. But I'm happy either way. If the issue is perception of
the public, we should have outside people, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'll just withdraw the -- I
had made that suggestion. I'll just withdraw it, with the permission of
the Board. I mean, it's on the agenda so I can't, on my own, withdraw
it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to withdraw
that item from consideration.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second -- third. And my point
was --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel, your light's on.
June 26, 2018
Page 210
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted to defer to
Commissioner Saunders. I spoke to staff about it as well, and I wanted
-- my allowing it to go through and not pulling it when Jeff and I spoke
about it yesterday was in deference to you.
I saw, in the MPO meeting, the concerns that were raised about
some of the allegations about us and/or the staff along the way. And
my entire deference was to you. But if you're -- I think we don't need
anybody else. We're good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the motion, to withdraw
it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: And I'm the same. If the public's fine, and
we don't need to do this, let's not do it. Save the money.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record, I use
outside engineering. I have since the beginning to -- and firms that
have no affiliation with the developers in the county. So they provide
me analysis and feedback on, you know, traffic impact. So I've been
doing that for 10 years.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. So there's a motion and a second to
withdraw this item. 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: It's removed.
MR. OCHS: Sir, that takes us to 15, staff and commission
general communications.
June 26, 2018
Page 211
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
I have nothing for the Board today, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nor do I.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Madam Clerk?
CLERK KINZEL: Hi. Thank you, Commissioner.
I mentioned briefly in the budget workshop but, again, I just
wanted to wrap up. It's only been a couple of weeks. We've been
through a lot as a department, and we really appreciate the outpouring
from the public. We appreciate the support from county staff. It was
instrumental in successfully getting through the last couple of weeks.
And I can't say how appreciative of Troy and the County Manager and
all the staff at the county being very helpful to us during this difficult
time. So I just wanted to put that on the record again.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a bunch, but tiny things. I
just wanted to tell everybody that Del Ackerman has been in the
hospital again.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he specifically said to say hi to
Burt Saunders and to say hi to Penny Taylor and tell you from Del
what a great job you're doing, and he's so proud he backed you. So
I've told you those messages, okay.
The second one is Myra Daniel's birthday was yesterday; just a
special Happy Birthday to Myra Daniels. I told you they're simple.
Third thing is, is anybody else going up to Orlando for the FAC
meeting?
June 26, 2018
Page 212
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm going up there. So I just
wanted to know if I was going to be joined.
Let's see. The fourth thing was -- oh, yeah. They were talking
about Plantation Island, and they were talking about what to build that
material from. I just -- for the first time in 44 years, I've got termites in
my house. Not in my house, because I've got a block house, but in the
beams on the patio. And I thought, oh, my goodness, don't build
wood, you know; don't build wood. So I was going to say that. But,
anyway, in case anybody has communication with them, you might tell
them to try and avoid the wood. The termites are alive and well.
And the last thing I wanted to tell you was the sweetest story.
You know, our pool isn't officially open, but it's open anyway. The
kids have found it. How they found it so quickly, I'll never know, but
they sure did. While the workmen were out there, the kids were
playing. They never noticed the workmen. All they saw was water.
And one of the staff members was telling me the other day about
400 kids were out there, what did you say, Wednesday or Thursday or
something like that last week?
MR. CARNELL: Friday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the place was just filled.
And there's diving boards. Little kids, little six-year-old, she's
jumping off the diving board for goodness sake. I was amazed at what
they were doing. But one of the -- and it was just thrilling to all these
children, many who have never seen a swimming pool before in their
lives.
One little boy got out of his car -- this was Saturday when I was
going by. And they -- and they couldn't swim that day because -- well,
at that time because the rains were already coming, so you could see
all the clouds. But they didn't realize it, and they were unloading their
car. And this little kid, he was between 10 and 12, right? Of course,
June 26, 2018
Page 213
they're manly. They don't ever show any emotion by the time they're
10 or 12.
This little kid was so thrilled, his whole little body was shaking,
excited to get there. And I thought, you know, we did right in
spending the money to build a pool for these kids, because they've
never had one.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, ma'am. You're one of
the greatest promoters and Energizer Bunnies to do this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, you drove us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did it; you did it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Not to so light and fluffy,
but something that I am concerned about, and I'm going to pass out an
email that we all got, and it's from Grady Johnson regarding a
conversation he had with a staff member. I am very concerned about
what I read here, and I'd like to see if there's consensus here just to
have this investigated by our County Manager.
What is alleged that was made, it borders on self interest, and I
don't think we want that to happen in Collier County. Again, I say it's
written by one person, but I think it raises enough doubt in my mind
that we need to address it.
You were away. So if there's consensus, I just --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's no consensus yet on
this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: This isn't --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think that this is
appropriate for us to even discuss.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I would suggest that we
June 26, 2018
Page 214
not discuss it.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: This is within the purview of the
Manager's Office, I think, and staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I don't think we can.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's -- I got the same email,
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes. It was addressed to all
of us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a conversation with
Grady. I have to say, in that telephone conversation with Grady, I
went to the edge of my seat twice just because of his opinion on how
things ought to be going and how things are going.
And I spoke with Jamie with regard to this, and I just -- well, it's a
matter -- you've made it a matter of public record, so let's just say what
it is.
The reality is this needs -- this is already being handled, can be
handled, has been handled, and really doesn't even need to be brought
up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, obviously, I disagree, but at
this point, you know, if there's not a consensus, that's fine. Leave it as
it is.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that's it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Two quick things.
First of all, I want to congratulate Crystal Kinzel on getting the
appointment from the Governor. I know that that's not something that
you wanted to happen --
CLERK KINZEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but it did, and it takes a lot
June 26, 2018
Page 215
for -- to get the appointment from the Governor, so I just want to
congratulate you on that. You've been great at all these meetings, and I
just want to wish you luck in your campaign that's coming up.
CLERK KINZEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's going to be great working
with you.
One other thing: We have a community park, Sugden Park, that
has a beach, and back in the days when that was a little bit better kept,
there were tremendous number of people that would go to the beach,
and it was really a great amenity, and I think it will be again, sailing
and water ski shows and all that kind of stuff.
Rural Lands West has a significant number of fairly large lakes,
and I just had the thought that we should require them and direct staff
to perhaps have a conversation with them that one of these lakes
should be turned into a really nice beach area, good swimming area.
That's not hard to do. It's just a matter of sloping and putting some sand
out.
And the rationale is you're going to have, over the years,
thousands of people living there that are going to want to go to the
beach, and maybe this will take a little pressure off the beaches on the
coast by having a really nice beach facility for those residents.
So just -- if there's a consensus from the Board to maybe direct
staff to at least have the conversations, I think that could be a nice
amenity for those folks and perhaps take a little pressure off the coast.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You get another star. You're doing
good.
MR. KLATZKOW: We could put it in a DCA -- we could put it
in a DCA if you'd like, Commissioner.
No, a county park. That's what you're talking about, have a
county park developed there that has beach amenities.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's actually -- it's actually
June 26, 2018
Page 216
becoming quite popular. The freshwater beach areas are quite an
attractant for the public to attend, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd just like to see staff work
with the developer as we go forward to add that as an amenity.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sounds good.
CLERK KINZEL: Commissioner Solis, I was remiss. One other
thing that I failed to mention.
The Board was gracious in funding the Eagle Creek reopening to
service the Southern Marco and East Naples areas. That opening is
tomorrow at 1:00 p.m., and so all of the commissioners, I hope, got an
invitation either -- through your aides. And so we will be entertaining
the public and hope that they'll use that service center and maybe take
a little pressure off of the county complex.
And so we're finally grand opening -- we've been open a little
while to practice run, so hopefully everything will go smoothly. But I
did want to mention it to the public and hope that they'll join us
tomorrow at 1:00 at the new Eagle Creek opening of the Clerk's
section. We're joining the Tax Collector, Property Appraiser down
there, and so consolidated service.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Great.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And may I say, even before you say,
we have this grand opening also, the ribbon cutting on Friday at 10:00.
I hope all of you can come and see it. It's really -- it's really a nice little
park. I know it's pretty far away for some of you, but please try and
come anyway. That would be wonderful.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Okay. That's it?
A couple things. You know, actually -- and thanks for reminding
me, Madam Clerk. The -- I think these joint facilities are an amazing
thing. They're a great thing.
I have an office at the Orange Blossom facility, and that is an
incredible facility. The number of people that they service through that
June 26, 2018
Page 217
office, the Tax Collector, the Clerk's Office, is an amazing --
amazingly efficient process.
I mean, when I go to sleep sometimes I hear "now serving No.
25."
But it is an amazingly efficient process. I think that's a great
development for the county, so I hope --
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. We're actually looking to replicate
that at some other county-owned land. Most notably you own seven
acres right in Heritage Bay there on 951 at the intersection. That's the
proposed site for the next joint-use facility.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Or put into the DCA agreement
for Rural Lands West.
MR. OCHS: That's another one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis, I mean,
just to -- I think we all have them, but I know that both my Immokalee
office and my Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard office have joint
offices with the Clerk and the Tax Collector. Now, we don't have as
many customers, so I don't hear in my sleep numbers being called out,
but --
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: It's relentless over there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's hysterical.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I actually get emails. I mean, we get a lot
of emails, right, and most of them have a certain view. I actually get
emails talking about how efficient that facility is, so it's a great thing.
On kind of a sad note, and I don't know if anybody received the
email, but Lydia Galton --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: -- passed away.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who did?
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Lydia Galton.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She did? Oh, my goodness.
June 26, 2018
Page 218
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I think just yesterday or the day before.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't think she was even sick.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. So she was a real active person in
the community, and I feel remiss in not having had a moment of
silence at the beginning of the meeting, but --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's not too late to do it now.
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: Yeah. Why don't we do that?
(A moment of silence was observed.)
CHAIRMAN SOLIS: I got to know her on the Opportunity
Naples study and a real -- whether you agreed with her or not, she was
a great community leader.
So on a positive note, on the July 10th agenda, we're going to
have a proclamation for Nancy Payton, who is retiring in July. And I
thought it would be a nice thing to have a proclamation for Nancy
Payton Day for all the years that she spent fighting the fight for the
environment and for conservation and that she will be missed.
So I hope you can let everybody know that would be interested in
coming and showing support for her, because she's certainly been a
pillar of the community as well.
And that's all I have. Adjourned.
**** Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner
Taylor and carried that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted (Commissioner
Solis abstained from voting on Item #16D6 and Item #16E6) ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 2A, PL20160001891 AND TO
June 26, 2018
Page 219
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION
TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIAL/WORKMANSHIP
WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF
ON MAY 9, 2018 IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF BENT CREEK
PRESERVE PHASE 2A (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20180000294) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WINDING CYPRESS
PHASE 3, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170003951)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY –
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF DEL WEBB NAPLES
June 26, 2018
Page 220
PARCEL 109, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20180000500)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY –
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF THE ESPLANADE GOLF
AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES PHASE 5 PARCELS “I”,
“J”, K1”, “K2”, “K3” AND “K4” (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20180000032) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
A 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR FUND
195-BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE
AND FUND 185 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE
EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE TOURISM – THIS
DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY USED FOR PLANNING. ALL
GRANT REQUESTS AND EXPENDITURE REQUESTS WILL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, AND THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16A7
June 26, 2018
Page 221
CONTRACT NO. 18-7317, COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN “SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD (RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD) LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
INSTALLATION” TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION, INC., FOR $597,879.27 (PROJECT NO. 60207) –
TO COMPLETE TWO (2) MILES OF MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN
Item #16A8
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER REQUEST
FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A9
CONTRACT NO. 18-7307, LIVINGSTON ROAD SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 60118, AWARDED TO INFINITE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $222,490.57 –
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SIDEWALK ALONG THE WESTERN
RIGHT OF WAY OF LIVINGSTON ROAD FROM PROGRESS
AVENUE TO THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL
Item #16A10
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $25,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY
June 26, 2018
Page 222
FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.164, PL20160000096
FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLUB AT PELICAN
BAY
Item #16A11
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE TO THE
ROADSIDE WALL BARRIER/REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(60130) IN THE AMOUNT OF $600,000 FOR FY18 AND
AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16A12
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE TO THE
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS COST CENTER, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$292,800 FOR FY18 AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – FOR USE IN ACQUIRING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AND SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Item #16A13
PAYMENT OF INVOICE NO. 91050383, FOR $2,936.25 TO
ARGOS USA, CORPORATION FOR CONCRETE MATERIALS
AND RELATED ITEMS PURCHASED AND RECEIVED BY THE
ROAD MAINTENANCE DIVISION THAT CAUSED THE
PURCHASE ORDER TO EXCEED $50,000 – AN ARGOS’
REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THERE WAS A COMPUTER
MISHAP THAT OMITTED THOSE INVOICES FROM THE
BILLING PROCESS; STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE BACKUP
DOCUMENTATION, AND THE INVOICES WERE APPROVED
June 26, 2018
Page 223
FOR PAYMENT
Item #16A14
A PROPOSAL FROM ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
SEDIMENTATION MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR THE
WIGGINS PASS CHANNEL AND DOCTORS PASS CHANNEL
DREDGING PROJECTS UNDER CONTRACT NO. 13-6164-TE
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $8,700 AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM
Item #16A15
AWARDING BULK MAILING OF STORMWATER UTILITY
ASSESSMENTS TO EACH PARCEL OWNER WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR
PRINTING & COPYING SERVICES TO STRATEGY
MARKETING GROUP, INC. D/B/A PANTHER PRINTING, AND
AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $107,667 (PROJECT NUMBER 51144) – AS
REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE, THIS ITEM REQUIRES
TRIM NOTICES AND/OR DIRECT MAIL NOTICES SENT OUT
TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE AUGUST 2018
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2018-105: SUPPORTING (1) THE AUTOMATION
AND REMOTE MONITORING OF COLLIER COUNTY’S
STORMWATER STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES, AND (2) THE
June 26, 2018
Page 224
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER, TO BE USED FOR THE JOINT
MANAGEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY STORMWATER
SYSTEM BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT/BIG CYPRESS BASIN AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A17
STAFF RECOMMENDED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTS FOR BEACHES, PASS AND
INLET MAINTENANCE, AND FISHING PIERS FROM THE
CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY-2018-2019 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$14,877,200; BUDGET THESE EXPENDITURES; AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE
TOURISM – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A18
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES CITY AND COLLIER COUNTY RELATING TO
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE,
THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CONTRACTOR
LICENSING, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AS THEY ALL
RELATE TO BUILDING PERMITS – THE AGREEMENT WILL
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE CITY TO PERFORM
BUILDING PERMIT AND RELATED SERVICES FOR
STRUCTURES REGULATED BY FLORIDA’S BUILDING CODE
Item #16A19
June 26, 2018
Page 225
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICES NOTICE OF GRANT
AND AGREEMENT, THE ASSURANCE RELATING TO REAL
PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE
GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,476,678.18 WITH A
REQUIRED MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,962,629.75.
(PROJECT NO. 33572) – TO RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING
FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NATURAL
RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICES; NOTICE OF
GRANT AND AGREEMENT AND CONTINUE STORM
RELATED DEBRIS REMOVAL EFFORTS IN COLLIER
COUNTY WATERWAYS
Item #16B1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC), ACTING IN
ITS CAPACITY AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA), APPROVE THE ATTACHED LEASE
AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE
BOARD. FISCAL IMPACT: $69,981.18 – THE TERMS OF THE
NEW LEASE ARE FOR 2-YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO
RENEW; THE NEW LEASE AREA WILL PROVIDE DIRECT
ACCESS TO CRA OFFICE SPACE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Item #16B2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB),
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTATION TO TRANSFER THE VOLUNTARY TAX
June 26, 2018
Page 226
CREDIT CERTIFICATION NO. 287 TO VALLEY NATIONAL
BANK AND CREDIT PROCEEDS TOWARDS THE PURCHASE
PRICE FOR THE 5.27 ACRE SITE WITHIN THE BAYSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA AS IDENTIFIED IN THE
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, LLC
Item #16C1
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND
BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, A RESOLUTION
AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT’S UTILITIES STANDARDS MANUAL
Item #16C2
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND
BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES STANDARDS
AND PROCEDURES ORDINANCE
Item #16C3
AN IN-BUILDING RADIO DISTRIBUTION LICENSE
AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS LP TO INSTALL COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT FOR ENHANCED SERVICE AT THE JAIL – AN
INITIAL 5-YEAR TERM TO INSTALL EQUIPMENT WITHIN
THE INTERIOR AND ON THE ROOF OF THE JAIL
Item #16C4
June 26, 2018
Page 227
A UTILITY FACILITIES QUIT CLAIM DEED AND BILL OF
SALE TO JMD DEVELOPMENTS AND INVESTMENTS, LLC
TO FACILITATE THE LEGAL REMOVAL OF EXISTING
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WATER LINES
TO ENABLE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATELY OWNED
LANDS – THE NEW LINES WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE
DEVELOPER AND CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY
Item #16C5
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 12, 2018 BCC
MEETING AND IS FURTHER CONTINUED TO THE JULY 10,
2018 BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO ADVERTISE A
RESOLUTION EXPANDING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT’S SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES TO
COINCIDE WITH THE AREA PERMITTED BY CHAPTER 2003-
353, LAWS OF FLORIDA
Item #16C6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,000
TRANSFERRING FUNDS BETWEEN COST CENTERS AND
LINE ITEMS WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408) TO COVER
COSTS FOR UNANTICIPATED INCREASES IN BANK FEES –
INCURRED FOR ALL PAYMENTS INCLUDING LOCKBOX
(CHECKS SENT VIA THE POSTAL SERVICE), CREDIT CARDS,
BANK DRAFTS, AND OVER-THE-COUNTER CASH AND
CHECKS; BANK FEES WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT
BUDGETED FOR FY18 BECAUSE PAYMENT OF FINAL FY17
June 26, 2018
Page 228
BANK FEE INVOICES OCCURRED IN FY18 DUE TO DELAYS
CAUSED BY HURRICANE IRMA AND LARGER THAN
ANTICIPATED INCREASES IN THE CUSTOMER BASE AND
PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS PAYING VIA CREDIT CARD
Item #16C7
AWARDING AGREEMENT NO. 18-7312 “PRINTING AND
MAILING SERVICES” TO SOUTHWEST DIRECT, INC., TO
OUTSOURCE THE PRINTING AND MAILING OF COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UTILITY BILLS – WITH
FY19 COSTS ESTIMATED AT $119,500 AND FY20 $121,000
Item #16C8
AWARDING A $560,618 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST
FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-119 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES
USA, INC., UNDER PROJECT NUMBER 70172, “GULF SHORE
DRIVE ASBESTOS WATER MAIN ABANDONMENT PHASE 2,”
WHICH INCLUDES ABANDONING 3,700 FEET OF ASBESTOS
CEMENT WATER MAIN AND TRANSFERRING ITS
CONNECTIONS TO THE EXISTING 16-INCH DUCTILE IRON
WATER MAIN, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT – LOCATED ON GULF SHORE DRIVE FROM
LE DAUPHIN (9790 GULF SHORE DRIVE) TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD, VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM GULF
SHORE DRIVE TO GULF SHORE COURT, AND VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD FROM SOUTH BAY TO VANDERBILT DRIVE
Item #16C9
June 26, 2018
Page 229
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $890,000
TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED SERVICE
REQUESTS AND MAINTENANCE FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS
AND EQUIPMENT – TO SUPPORT THE DIVISION’S GOALS
OF PROVIDING SAFE, CLEAN, AND WELL-MAINTAINED
FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYEES, RESIDENTS, AND VISITORS
Item #16C10
A $296,621.99 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR
QUOTATION #14-6213-121 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA,
INC., FOR THE MANATEE ROAD POTABLE WATER
STORAGE TANK - UPGRADES PROJECT NO. 70187 AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT – THE
MANATEE PUMP STATION PROVIDES WATER SERVICE TO
APPROXIMATELY 35,000 RESIDENTS IN THE SOUTHERN
SERVICE AREA, INCLUDING THE ISLES OF CAPRI
Item #16C11
PAYMENT OF $92,422.43 TO JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., TO
PAY THE BALANCE DUE ON PURCHASE ORDERS FOR
WORK QUOTED AS LUMP SUM, SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY COUNTY STAFF –
BACKUP DOCUMENTS INCLUDING JCI PROPOSALS,
PURCHASE ORDERS, RELATED REQUISITION AND BILLING
DOCUMENTS, AND A SUMMARY SHEET REPRESENTING
THE REMAINING UNPAID SUM FROM JCI’S LUMP SUM
PROPOSALS; PAYMENT ON THESE PURCHASE ORDERS IS
WELL OVER SIX (6) MONTHS TO 1 1/2 YEARS PAST DUE
June 26, 2018
Page 230
Item #16D1 – Continued to the July 10, 2018 BCC Meeting
(Per Commissioner Fiala during Agenda Changes)
RECOMMENDATION TO TRANSMIT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FY2018-2019 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING THE REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS FROM
PREVIOUS YEARS AND ESTIMATED PROGRAM INCOME;
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, HUD CERTIFICATIONS, AND
SF 424 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE; AND
AUTHORIZE TRANSMITTAL TO HUD
Item #16D2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITH SBA TOWERS II LLC
AT VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK – THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT EXTENDS
THE LEASE TERM AN ADDITIONAL TEN (10) YEARS,
INCREASES THE FIRST YEAR’S RENT TO $51,840 WITH
ANNUAL THREE (3%) PERCENT COMPOUNDED INCREASES
AND PROVIDES THE COUNTY WITH A ONE-TIME CASH
CONTRIBUTION OF $50,000
Item #16D3
PROVIDES USIC, LLC AS SINGLE SOURCE PROVIDER IN AN
June 26, 2018
Page 231
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $81,000 TO PROVIDE
LOCATES FOR BURIED ELECTRICAL NETWORK
CURRENTLY OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY, ACTING AS
THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT (“MSTU”), TO SUPPORT THE NEEDS
OF THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDING SEWER AND WATER
UPGRADES FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN
THE VANDERBILT BEACH AREA – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $1,200 IN
PROGRAM INCOME UNDER THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
Item #16D5
AGREEMENT #18-7365-WV WITH THE GULF COAST ADULT
SOCCER LEAGUE, INC., AS THE SINGLE SOURCE PROVIDER
OF ADULT SOCCER LEAGUE SERVICES – THE ONLY
LEAGUE IN SWFL AFFILIATED WITH THE FSSA
Item #16D6 – Commissioner Solis abstained from voting
(During Agenda Changes)
EXTENDING CONTRACT END DATES ON NINE (9) EXISTING
SERVICE FOR SENIORS’ VENDOR CONTRACTS TO
DECEMBER 31, 2018 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
June 26, 2018
Page 232
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2018-106: SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO.
2016-125 AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES (DAS) FEE POLICY (A COMPANION TO
AGENDA ITEM #17A)
Item #16D8
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, THREE (3) RELEASES OF LIEN TO
RELEASE THIRTY-TWO (32) SEPARATE LIENS FOR A
COMBINED AMOUNT OF $157,104.58 FOR PROPERTIES
DEVELOPED BY IMMOKALEE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY,
INC. THAT HAVE REMAINED AFFORDABLE FOR THE
REQUIRED 15-YEAR PERIOD SET FORTH IN THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) IMPACT FEE
PROGRAM – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D9
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $196,000 FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM FOR
FY 2017/2018 – AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE IRMA,
ADDITIONAL DISASTER RECOVERY FUNDS HAVE BEEN
MADE AVAILABLE TO COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY THE
STORM
Item #16D10
TWO (2) STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
June 26, 2018
Page 233
SPONSOR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
(1) COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (CCHA),
CONTRACT AWARD $300,000 AND (2) RESIDENTIAL
OPTIONS OF FLORIDA, INC, CONTRACT AWARD $160,468.92
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF RENTAL ACQUISITION – TO
CONTINUE TO PROMOTE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
STRATEGIES FOR LOW-TO MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS
Item #16D11
ACCEPT THE ANNUAL RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER
PROGRAM (RSVP) GRANT AWARD FROM THE
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,888 AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – CO-SPONSORED BY
THE COUNTY SINCE 1990; RSVP PLACES VOLUNTEERS IN
VARIOUS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND COUNTY
AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SUPPORT & COMMUNITY SERVICE
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 2018-107: AFTER-THE-FACT GRANT REQUEST
TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$100,000 FOR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, SITE
DEVELOPMENT, AND LANDSCAPE PLAN OF THE
MARGOOD HARBOR PARK HISTORIC COTTAGE SITE AND
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF THE
GRANT APPLICATION AND DESIGNATING CURRENTLY
BUDGETED FUNDS FOR THE REQUIRED MATCH
June 26, 2018
Page 234
Item #16D13
ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE RESTRICTED DONATIONS
TOTALING $10,000 TO SUPPORT THE REPLACEMENT OF
THE EAST NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY CARPET – TWO
ANONYMOUS DONORS CONTRIBUTED $5,000 EACH TO
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY WITH A REQUEST THE
MONEY BE USED TOWARDS THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
EAST NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY CARPET
Item #16D14
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED
MEMORANDUM WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY (FPL), PROVIDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TEN (10) PARKING SPACES FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
(CAT) PARK AND RIDE, WITHIN FPL’S POWER-LINE RIGHT-
OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
IMMOKALEE AND LIVINGSTON ROADS ON COUNTY-
OWNED VACANT PROPERTY – PURSUANT TO TERMS OF
A GROUND LEASE, OAKS FARMS, INC. IS REQUIRED TO
CONSTRUCT PARKING SPACES, ASSOCIATED DRY
DETENTION WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, LIGHTING,
AND LANDSCAPING TO FACILITATE CAT’S PARK AND
RIDE
Item #16D15
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AMENDMENT
#0001 TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND
SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
June 26, 2018
Page 235
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF) AND CORRESPONDING
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.
(DLC), COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (CCSO), AND
THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS (NAMI)
OF COLLIER COUNTY, AND APPROVE THE AMENDED
GRANT BUDGET AND APPLICATION – TO MAINTAIN
COMPLIANCE WITH DCF GRANT REQUIREMENTS
Item #16D16
RESOLUTION 2018-108: THE FY2018/19 TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED TRUST FUND TRIP/EQUIPMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (CTD) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $764,438 WITH A LOCAL MATCH OF $84,938,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENT AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION, AND
AUTHORIZE THE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D17
RESOLUTION 2018-109: AMENDMENT #1 TO THE URBAN
COUNTY COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
NAPLES, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE APPROVING
RESOLUTION, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO FORWARD THE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TO
COMPLY WITH HUD URBAN COUNTY RE-QUALIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS
June 26, 2018
Page 236
Item #16D18
THE FY18 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND SUBMITTAL OF
A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA), 49 U.S.C. 5339 FY18 GRANT FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $411,466 THROUGH THE TRANSIT
AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) – PROPOSED
PROJECT FUNDS INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF
WARRANTIES FOR VEHICLE LOCATOR SOFTWARE, NEW
SOFTWARE FOR PARATRANSIT VEHICLES, AND PURCHASE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUS SHELTERS
Item #16D19
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 18-7289 “AQUATIC SLIDE
RESTORATION” TO CLOSE CONSTRUCTION, LLC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $189,500, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE
DIVISION TO EFFICIENTLY TRACK PROJECT
EXPENDITURES – TO RESURFACE AND REPAINT SLIDE
FLUMES AT GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC CENTER AND
REPAINT EXTERIOR SLIDE FLUMES AT THE SUN-N-FUN
LAGOON AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK
Item #16D20
THE FY18 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND SUBMITTAL OF A
GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA), 49 U.S.C. 5307 FY18 GRANT FUNDS
June 26, 2018
Page 237
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,590,120 THROUGH THE TRANSIT
AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS), ACCEPT THE
AWARD AND AUTHORIZE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN FY18 AND FY19 – FUNDS WILL BE USED
FOR CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS
Item #16E1
AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #18-7263 FOR VISA
COMMERCIAL CARD SERVICES WITH J.P. MORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., FOR COLLIER COUNTY’S PURCHASING CARD
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT – P-CARDS ARE ASSIGNED
TO SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES TO TRANSACT PURCHASES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE,
PROCUREMENT MANUAL, P-CARD MANUAL AND CMA
5808
Item #16E2
AWARD GROUP VISION INSURANCE TO VISION SERVICE
PLAN (VSP) FOR A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2019, IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT
OF $54,566
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2018-110: AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF
7,573 AMBULANCE SERVICE ACCOUNTS FROM FY 2014
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE BALANCES WHICH TOTAL $5,325,522.54,
June 26, 2018
Page 238
FROM ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE OF COLLIER COUNTY
FUND 490 (EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES) FINDING
DILIGENT EFFORTS TO COLLECT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED
AND PROVED UNSUCCESSFUL
Item #16E4
AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT – BROKEN ASSETS AND THOSE THAT
HAVE NO USEFUL VALUE, ARE RECYCLED OR TRASHED
AND REPORTED ON THIS REPORT
Item #16E5
A DATE CHANGE FOR THE NEXT SALE AND DISPOSAL OF
SURPLUS FROM JUNE 23, 2018 TO JUNE 30, 2018 – DUE TO A
DELAY BY THE AUCTION VENDOR, ROYAL AUCTION
GROUP, IN OBTAINING THE NECESSARY PERMITS
Item #16E6 – Commissioner Solis abstained from voting
(During Agenda Changes)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL – FOR FIFTEEN (15) MODIFICATIONS
AND CHANGE ORDERS TOTALING $109,729.02
June 26, 2018
Page 239
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2018-111: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2018-112: FIXING SEPTEMBER 6, 2018, 5:05
P.M., IN THE THIRD FLOOR BOARD ROOM, 3299 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, AS THE DATE, TIME
AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES
WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
AND BENEFIT UNIT
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AND MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORTS WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT OPERATING FUND (495) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$185,000 AND $165,000, RESPECTIVELY, AND APPROPRIATE
THE FUNDING TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASED FUEL
PURCHASES OVER BUDGETED LEVELS – TO RECOGNIZE
AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE TO CONTINUE THE
PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUELS AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORTS
June 26, 2018
Page 240
Item #16J1
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL TO DESIGNATE THE SHERIFF
AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT AND POINT OF CONTACT
FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF
JUSTICE PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
BODY-WORN CAMERA POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION
PROGRAM GRANT (BWC) FY2018. AUTHORIZE THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, APPROVE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RECEIVE AND
EXPEND 2018 JAG BWC GRANT FUNDS – IF AWARDED, THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL PROVIDE $589,714.40
IN BWC GRANT FUNDS AND CCSO WILL NEED TO MATCH
50% OF PROJECT FOR A TOTAL OF $589,714.40 FROM THE
OPERATING BUDGET (SALARIES AND EQUIPMENT)
Item #16J2
THE RANK ORDER FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
#18-7387, “ANNUAL AUDITOR SERVICES,” AND ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP – TO
SECURE AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR TO CONDUCT
ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDITS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018,
2019 AND 2020 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE 218.39
Item #16J3
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
June 26, 2018
Page 241
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN MAY 31 AND JUNE 13, 2018
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J4
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND
PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JUNE 20, 2018
Item #16K1
A STIPULATED ORDER ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $750 TO GOETZ AND GOETZ APPOINTED
BY THE COURT TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF
RESPONDENT DAHLIA GUSTARD, PARCEL 351RDUE IN THE
CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BONNIE L. FALCON, ET
AL., CASE NO. 16-CA-1317, (PROJECT NO. 60145). (FISCAL
IMPACT: $750) – REQUIRED FOR WIDENING GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD FROM 20TH STREET EAST TO EAST OF
EVERGLADES BOULEVARD
Item #16K2
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND BRING BACK
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-37, AS AMENDED,
KNOWN AS THE STATE OF EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, TO
PROVIDE THAT CURFEWS AND OTHER AUTHORIZED
EMERGENCY MEASURES TAKEN DURING CIVIL
EMERGENCIES WILL BE ENACTED VIA RESOLUTION
June 26, 2018
Page 242
Item #16K3
APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM – CHANGES TO THE
EXISTING INTERLOCAL TO MEET WITH CHANGES IN THE
FEDERAL STATUTE
Item #16K4
COUNTY ATTORNEY, COORDINATING WITH STAFF, TO
OBTAIN UP TO TWO APPRAISALS IN CONNECTION WITH A
FUTURE MEDIATION OF A POTENTIAL PURCHASE PRICE
FOR THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE – AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K5 – Moved to Item #12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2018-113: APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO
THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD – REAPPOINTING
JENNIFER W. WILLIAMS AND APPOINTING KERRY DERA
TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING ON JUNE 25, 2022
Item #16K7
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$35,000, PLUS STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,019, AND EXPERT COSTS IN THE AMOUNT
June 26, 2018
Page 243
OF $3,905, FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 424RDUE IN THE
PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LEONDESE
BICHOTTE ET AL, CASE NO. 17-CA-1443, REQUIRED FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT, PROJECT NO.
60145 (FROM EVERGLADES BLVD TO THE FAKA UNION
CANAL). (FISCAL IMPACT: $36,024)
Item #16K8
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LOCAL PREFERENCE POLICY
AS SET FORTH IN THE COUNTY’S PROCUREMENT
ORDINANCE
Item #17A – Moved to Item #9D (During Agenda Changes)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2018-114: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-18
ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
June 26, 2018
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:32 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:
CRYSTAL KINZEL, CLERK & COMPTROLLER
r . C .
Attest as to COI _' 1rt'
signature only.,
These minus approved by the Board on1 j j 170W , as presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 244
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE
Andrew I. Solis Collier County Board of County Commissioners
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 WHICH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF:
CITY COUNTY ❑CITY di COUNTY U OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
Naples Collier NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
Collier County
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
June 26, 2018 MY POSITION IS: of ELECTIVE U APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority,or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAs)under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 1
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
Andrew I. Solis , hereby disclose that on June 26 20 18
(a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ;
inured to the special gain or loss of a client of my law firm by
whom I am retained; or
inured to the special gain or loss of ,which
is the parent subsidiary,or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
On June 26, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners will consider Agenda Item 16-D-6, a recommendation to
extend the contract end dates on nine(9)existing Service for Seniors'vendor contracts to December 31, 2018.
One of the vendors,AccuCare Nursing Services, Inc., is a client of my law firm and in an abundance of caution, I
will abstain from voting pursuant to Section 286.012, Fla. Stat. to avoid any perceived prejudice or bias.
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of th terest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict.
June 26, 2018
Date Filed Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000.
CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 2
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.
FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR
COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS
LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE
Andrew I. Solis Collier County Board of County Commissioners
MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON
3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 WHICH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF:
CITY COUNTY ❑CITY [if COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY
Naples Collier NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION:
Collier County
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED
June 26, 2018 MY POSITION IS: d ELECTIVE U APPOINTIVE
WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B
This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council,
commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of
interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes.
Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending
on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before
completing and filing the form.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES
A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which
would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on
a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained
(including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a
relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAB)under
Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited
from voting in that capacity.
For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business
enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation
are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ELECTED OFFICERS:
In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict:
PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are
abstaining from voting; and
WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPOINTED OFFICERS:
Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise
participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,
whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction.
IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE
TAKEN:
• You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the
minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2)
CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 1
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.
APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued)
• A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency.
• The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING:
• You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating.
• You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the
meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the
agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed.
DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST
Andrew I. Solis hereby disclose that on June 26 20 18
(a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more)
inured to my special private gain or loss;
inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,
inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, ;
inured to the special gain or loss of a client of my law firm by
whom I am retained;or
inured to the special gain or loss of ,which
is the parent subsidiary,or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me.
(b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows:
On June 26, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners will consider Agenda Item 16-E-6, a recommendation to
approve the Administrative Reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval.
Environmental Express, Inc., a vendor listed in the Administrative Reports, is a client of my law firm and in an
abundance of caution, I will abstain from voting pursuant to Section 286.012, Fla. Stat. to avoid any perceived
prejudice or bias.
If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer,
who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the natur- • the interest in such a way
as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. i
June 26, 2018 /
Date Filed Signature
NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE
CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT,
REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A
CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000.
CE FORM 8B-EFF.11/2013 PAGE 2
Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.