Loading...
Agenda 09/11/2018 Item # 2A209/11/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.A.2 Item Summary: June 26, 2018 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 09/11/2018 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 07/13/2018 9:30 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 07/13/2018 9:30 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 07/13/2018 9:30 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 09/11/2018 9:00 AM 2.A.2 Packet Pg. 21 June 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 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 Page 244 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 __________________________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected ________________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.