Loading...
Agenda 02/12/2019 Item # 2C02/12/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.C Item Summary: January 22, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 02/12/2019 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 02/06/2019 9:45 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 02/06/2019 9:45 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 02/06/2019 9:45 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/12/2019 9:00 AM 2.C Packet Pg. 12 January 22, 2019 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 22, 2019 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: William L. McDaniel, Jr. Burt L. Saunders Donna Fiala Penny Taylor Andy Solis ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations January 22, 2019 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Good morning, everybody. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. Item #1A INVOCATION BY RABBI AMMOS CHORNY OF BETH TIKVAH SYNAGOGUE CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like to welcome you to Collier County Commission meeting, January 22nd. And with that, we'll start off with the invocation that will be led by Rabbi Ammos Chorny of Beth Tikvah synagogue. If you'd all rise. RABBI CHORNY: Good morning. As our country emerges from a day of introspection and remembrance for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are reminded that great leaders are those who can point the way and uncover the potential for a people to realize themselves. Great leaders like Dr. King continually teach and inspire, chastise, and cajole people into becoming better and more noble. It is a long, difficult struggle, but as Dr. King said, there is something in the very nature of the universe which is on the side of good people in the struggle against tyranny. And sometimes tyranny is within ourselves. There will be times when we are handed people without heart, when we meet those who have no moral fiber or moral compass who create walls of indifference and callous and detachment from the world, sometimes leaders who are cruel and heartless. All of these stand against what is just, compassionate, and merciful. January 22, 2019 Page 3 At this gathering, when we are called to represent the interests and values of those who have appointed us to be here as leaders and advocates, it behooves us to look back and to reread the words of Martin Luther King, recognizing that the journey to freedom and human dignity is not only a task never fully accomplished but one that requires bravery and determination. The heroes of our day will be those who speak up and turn back the sea of indifference and cruelty so that we, as we work together, can walk dry shod to the other side and continue to preserve the finest traditions of our past by living up to the noblest values enshrined in the teachings of such as of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King famously said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." That is true, but only if we raise our voices. Keep marching into that sea and demand that our leadership speak up against the noble and the ugly. May Dr. King's memories serve us as inspiration and continue to be a blessing for our country and for us all. Amen. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, will you lead us in the pledge this morning. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. OCHS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES January 22, 2019 Page 4 These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of January 22nd, 2019. The first proposed change is to move Item 17C from the summary agenda to become Item 9C on your advertised public hearing regular agenda. This is a Land Development Code amendment recommendation related to your recently approved Community Housing Plan. And that move is made at Commissioner McDaniel's request. I have one agenda note regarding Item 10A. Staff incorrectly identified the station number and location on this item. It should be the Fire Station No. 40 on Pine Ridge Road at Goodlette-Frank Road. That correction is made at the staff's request. Those are the only changes I have this morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. With that, then, let's go through the ex parte. And we'll start down there with Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have no ex parte and no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nor do I. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one ex parte to declare on 17B, and I had emails which are attached regarding this issue. And then also -- this will just -- I need to take the pulse of my colleagues up here because, of course, I can't talk to you otherwise. But as we are continuing, I believe we are continuing the -- oh, we are not. Are we not continuing Conservation Collier? January 22, 2019 Page 5 MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 9B, and it's on your published agenda; that's why I didn't read it into the notes. That item has been further continued to your February 12th meeting. That is the consideration of the ordinance amendments for Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So given that, I'm wondering -- and you'll remember this gentleman's name. I'll never forget. He sat right about two or three rows back. MR. OCHS: Commissioner Taylor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you could get a little closer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Yeah, he sat two or three rows down this side and, for the better half of a day, waiting to speak to Conservation Collier changes, and he is involved with the hunting. I think -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. Wayne Jenkins. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wayne Jenkins. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're really putting me on the spot here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. I'm sorry. He's your neighborhood, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, he's my friend. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So my question is, do we have any interest in having the CCLAC consider the selling of properties that are -- already been acquired by Conservation Collier that may not have proved as fruitful as would have been expected, understanding the sale would go back into Conservation Collier? Do we have any appetite for that? Because that was his whole point. And, in fact, he outlined a couple of properties that he was thinking about. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would highly recommend, I mean, that we have that conversation when staff brings us back January 22, 2019 Page 6 the ordinance. Commissioner Solis expressed some thoughts when we reviewed Conservation Collier's ordinance, I think, at our last meeting. So why don't we certainly have that discussion then when we're actually on that subject matter? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just -- my concern is instead of -- while we advertise it, wouldn't it be better to go back to CCLAC if there was any appetite for that up here? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We could certainly -- and, again, I don't disagree with you, but 'tis not the time and place for that discussion. We can have that discussion on the actual agenda item when we're discussing the ordinance. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because you're bringing up a subject matter that can be rather inflammatory with the original intent of Conservation Collier and its acquisitions and so ons and so forth. And I think it's a -- you know, personally, I think it's a good idea. I think we should have discussions open and honestly with regard to the value and the holdings and the expenses and ongoing upkeep and maintenance, but not now. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. Not now. Do we refer this discussion to CCLAC now before we have it to advertise, which means it's going to be delayed if it comes back here, and then we want it to go back there. That's another delay. So my question is, do we go to CCLAC first with this idea for their discussion and then come -- and then we advertise? Do we do it that way? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make a suggestion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I -- maybe the Conservation Collier staff can give us an idea, is that a concern? January 22, 2019 Page 7 Are there properties that would fall into that category and -- you know what I mean? Because I hadn't thought that there was any issue like that. But if there is, maybe it is something to talk about. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think -- the County Attorney and I have talked about this, and we had this discussion previously with county-owned properties along the way that -- that should be something that can be -- and we can easily add that in and allow those properties to go through CCLAC in the event that there is disposition that is out there that makes sense for us to do. We can do that, but we'll do it on the actual ordinance. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So for now I think if you're okay with that, we'll just have that discussion then. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. That's it. That's all I've got. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no changes and no disclosures. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And nor do I, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let's see. I make a motion to approve the consent and -- today's regular agenda, consent, and summary, and also -- well, we don't even have to approve ex parte because we only had one, right? Okay. Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we accept today's agenda with the current advertised adjustments. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. January 22, 2019 Page 8 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. January 22, 2019 Page 9 Item #3A1 AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: EMPLOYEE 20 YEAR ATTENDEES – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 3, employee service awards. If you'd join us in front of the dais, please. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody put out a memo about the gray suits, except for our County Attorney and Troy. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're pleased to honor several employees this morning with many years of county service. So beginning this morning recognizing one of our colleagues with 20 years of county service, currently working in our Impact Fee Department, Debbie Wight. Debbie? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The rookie chairman left the plaques up there. That shall not happen twice. I remember you. How are you? Haven't seen you in forever. And here you go. Official. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. (Applause.) Item #3A2 AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: EMPLOYEE 25 YEAR ATTENDEES – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Today we're recognizing three employees with 25 years of county service. First recipient, with our Parks and Recreation Department, Rich Degalan. Rich? January 22, 2019 Page 10 (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Good for you, Rich. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Appreciate it. Celebrating 25 years of service with EMS, Paul Passaretti. Paul? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Paul, well done. Congratulations. And our final 25-year service award recipient, with Operations and Regulatory Management, Martha Vellos. Is Martha here? There she is. (Applause.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Commissioners, we have three of our colleagues celebrating 30 years of outstanding service to county government this morning. The first recipient is our director of our Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division, Michelle Arnold. Michelle? (Applause.) MS. ARNOLD: And then can I do the flowers with my employees, please, too, and my husband? He's not going to want to come. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Come on, Wayne. MS. ARNOLD: And all the other people that I've employed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's most of the audience. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's mostly everybody, right? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Michelle, you get up front. January 22, 2019 Page 11 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I think we should make sure Wayne's not on the clock here. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to speak, too? MS. ARNOLD: No. Item #3A3 AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: EMPLOYEE 30 YEAR ATTENDEES – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're also pleased this morning to recognize one of our colleagues for 30 years of service with road maintenance, Danny Dominguez. Danny? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Danny. Appreciate it. Our final 30-year service award recipient representing our Water Department, Rich Lockerby. Rich? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your service. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards this morning, I believe, Commissioners. Item #4 PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT BOTH PROCLAMATIONS Item #4A January 22, 2019 Page 12 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING STEPHEN B. RUSSELL FOR 16 YEARS OF OUTSTANDING SERVICE AS THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PROVIDING THE LEADERSHIP THAT HAS ENSURED THAT OUR CIRCUIT ENJOYS THE LOWEST CRIME RATE OF ALL THE JUDICIAL CIRCUITS STATEWIDE; AND TO WISH STEPHEN WELL IN HIS RETIREMENT AFTER 42 YEARS OF DEDICATED PROSECUTORIAL SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA. ACCEPTED BY STEPHEN B. RUSSELL – ADOPTED Mr. Chairman, that takes us to your proclamations this morning. Item 4A is a proclamation recognizing Steven B. Russell for 16 years of outstanding service as the State Attorney for the 20th Judicial Circuit providing the leadership that has ensured that our circuit enjoys the lowest crime rate of all the judicial circuits statewide and to wish Steve well in his retirement after 42 years of dedicated prosecutorial service to the people of Southwest Florida. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Steve, what do you mean, do you want me to come up? What do you expe ct; you're going to receive it at your seat? Congratulations. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If I was paying closer attention, I'd have stayed down here for this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, this made it special. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Congratulations. MR. RUSSELL: I just wanted to take a moment and thank the Commission for the proclamation and the recognition. Like any organization, it reflects a lot of work with other people over the years. I also want to thank the Commission for the support you've January 22, 2019 Page 13 given to the public-safety arena over the years during all my 42 years and particularly the 16 I've been State Attorney. We've had an excellent working relationship both with the commission and staff through good times and sometimes not so good times economically. And the crime rate that was reflected -- I mentioned here, I think, last year at the budget hearings -- really is a reflection on excellent law enforcement here in Collier County. While I represent and I've been honored and privileged to represent the citizens of Collier County as well as four other counties, Collier County has certainly led the way in lower crime rate, not no crime, but relative to other areas of the state, we have been the lowest for several years, and that really is a reflection on the partnership of excellent law enforcement throughout the county and the cities and with people who respect the rule of law in Collier County. So it's worked well. We've worked well with our partner agencies. And it's been a good run and honor and privilege for me, and I very much appreciate your taking the time with a recognition today. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4B PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NAPLES ZOO FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF MARINE DEBRIS AND ITS EFFECT ON OUR COMMUNITY. ACCEPTED BY JACK MULVENA, PRESIDENT & CEO OF NAPLES ZOO AT CARIBBEAN GARDENS – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation recognizing Naples Zoo for its contributions and concerns regarding the issue of marine January 22, 2019 Page 14 debris and its effect on our community. To be accepted this morning by Jack Mulvena, president and CEO of the Naples Zoo at Caribbean Gardens. Is Jack here? There he is. MR. MULVENA: Good morning, and thank you. On behalf of the staff and volunteers of the board of the Naples Zoo, we're humbled by the proclamation. This is actually a big year for us. This is the 100th anniversary of the property serving as a botanical garden and arboretum and 50th anniversary of serving as the zoo. So nice to get the proclamation on our 100th and 50th anniversary. So thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Mulvena? I want to talk to him, too. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Are you going to share with us about the pictures? MR. MULVENA: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. Behind me are two of our images from Washed Ashore Art to Save the Sea. This is sculptures that have been made entire ly from marine debris by a fabulous artist who originated from Oregon working with hundreds of volunteers to collects tons and tons of debris. So these are all sculptures made entirely of ocean plastic that has been reclaimed. And the artist actually selected marine animals that are impacted by plastic. So, for example, we have a sea turtle at the zoo, sculpture. Sea turtles oftentimes mistake plastic bags for jellyfish. And so all the animals -- we have 11 sculptures. I want to thank the TDC for supporting this exhibit. And we actually have a sculpture up at the airport as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are those pictures of the sculptures? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wait a second. Everybody wants to talk to Jack, so we're going to -- January 22, 2019 Page 15 MR. MULVENA: So this is a trigger fish and a shark. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And, Commissioner Taylor, you had a comment? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I did. I think it would be helpful for folks to realize that these aren't the type of sculptures you sit on your table and how large they are. MR. MULVENA: Yeah. These are quite large. Some are 15, 18 feet. They're throughout the zoo. There's no additional charge. These are really amazing and powerful exhibits and sculptures. And, actually, at each of the exhibits, we prompt kids and their parents and grandparents to see if they can find specific items of trash in the sculpture. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Like? MR. MULVENA: So it might be a flip flop, it might be -- yeah, it's a really interactive and powerful exhibit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Bic lighters, rubber boots, lines of fisherman, lines which, I read and learned -- all the fishing lines; is that how you describe them -- MR. MULVENA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- are all plastic. And so when they break, they stay there, and then they are ingested or whatever. Tops of coolers. It's just amazing -- MR. MULVENA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- what are in these sculptures, and they're quite beautiful. MR. MULVENA: Oh, they are extraordinarily beautiful, which makes them even more powerful. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for doing that. MR. MULVENA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How long is it up? January 22, 2019 Page 16 MR. MULVENA: It's going to be here almost through the end of April. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Good. MR. MULVENA: So we'll have -- hopefully have another great season, and we're enjoying a great season. We had almost -- nearly 6,000 Collier County residents out at last free Saturday, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nice. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. That's all I wanted to ask before. Those are pictures of the sculptures, right? MR. MULVENA: These are pictures of the sculptures. We have 11 on zoo grounds. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How's the relationship with the solar-charged covered parking working? MR. MULVENA: It's great. You know, our visitors -- I think it's beautiful. It's great and consistent with our conservation mission, and they're the first parking spots that get -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're aware of that. I remember voting for that, and I just -- I wanted to put you on the spot and ask you how you like -- how it was working. MR. MULVENA: Yeah. FPL and the SolarNow program, in addition to doing that, has also developed a sponsorship relationship with the zoo, and they're a Zoobilie sponsor, so they've been a great partner. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Thank you very much, sir. MR. MULVENA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's give him another hand. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could get a motion to approve today's proclamations, please. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. January 22, 2019 Page 17 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we accept today's proclamations. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MS. MARLENE SHERMAN REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REPEAL ORDINANCE 2013-43, WHICH EXPANDED THE PURPOSE OF THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU TO INCLUDE THE NORTH ENTRANCE OF THE RICH KING MEMORIAL GREENWAY. PRESENTED; STAFF IS SURVEYING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT FUND THE MSTU; RESULTS OF SURVEY TO COME TO THE BCC AT FIRST MEETING IN MARCH MR. OCHS: Move to Item 6 this morning, public petitions. Item 6A is a public petition request from Ms. Marlene Sherman requesting that the Board repeal Ordinance 2013-43 which expanded the purpose of the Radio Road Beautification MSTU to include the north entrance of the Rich King Memorial Greenway. January 22, 2019 Page 18 Ms. Sherman? MS. SHERMAN: Good morning. My name's Marlene Sherman. I come before you today -- okay. Good morning. My name is Marlene Sherman. I come before you today to recommended action be taken to repeal County Ordinance 2013-43, whose stated purpose is to landscape the entranceway to the Rich King Memorial Greenway. Ordinance 2013-43 is an amending ordinance which changed the scope and intent of Ordinance 96-84, the Radio Road Beautification MSTU, as well as increase the life of this ordinance and its cost to the supporting taxpayers. In a meeting I attended on December 12th, 2018, with Michelle Arnold and Steve Carnell, I asked the question which I've been asking for a long time but probably didn't ask it the correct way, why amending -- amending ordinances to MSTUs are not required to follow the same procedures set forth by the county for creating an MSTU. Ms. Arnold replied, "because there are no guidelines for amending ordinances that are initiated by an MSTU advisory committee." Therefore, in addition to my first recommendation, I also come before you today recommending the BCC direct county officials to establish procedures for all amending ordinances to MSTUs similar to the procedures stated in the county's 1995 policy for creating an MSTU. These procedures would require advertising, holding NIMs, neighborhood information meetings, surveys to the affected property owners asking if they would support an amending ordinance and, finally, provide proof to the Board of the majority of property owners plus one are in support of a new amendment to a standing MSTU. January 22, 2019 Page 19 For your information, the advisory board for the Radio Road MSTU, beautification MSTU, was established under Ordinance 97-52. This ordinance states, "The Board shall consider appointment of members from different subdivisions or communities within the MSTU." This MSTU never achieved this criteria. The current five-member Radio (sic) Beautification Advisory Board consists of one member from Berkshire, one from Briarwood, one from -- with no community affiliation and two members from a small -- the Windjammer Village. Currently, three of the largest communities whose property owners represent approximately half of the 6,566 supporting MSTU property owners have no representation on the Radio Road MSTU advisory board. These communities are Countryside, Glen Eagle, and Foxfire. It can be said that Ordinance 96-84 has morphed into an entirely different set of purposes than those of the original ordinance. This happened because the county did not have established guidelines for amendments. There have been two amending ordinances to this Radio Road MSTU, the beautification one, the Collier County MSTD, which is a district for greater Collier County landscaping, now handles the maintenance for the median along Radio Road. The first amending ordinance was 96 -- to 96-84 was Ordinance 2002-59 whose purpose was to provide median landscaping on a non-arterial road and also right-of-way improvements along property lines of a Publix shopping center and Berkshire Lakes community. The second amendment ordinance which I came to you about asking for repealing added provisions for landscaping the entranceway for the Rich King Memorial Greenway, a bike path and an FP&L easement area; therefore, under the current lack of directives, the county can create an MSTU, later amend an MSTU to January 22, 2019 Page 20 satisfy any project they desire without seeking majority approval from the supporting taxpayers. Now, do you think this is ethical? In conclusion, the master board of the three largest communities supporting members along Radio Road, Countryside, Glen Eagle, a nd Foxfire whose memberships total approximately half of the supporting taxpayers have each passed a resolution that their members are in support of sunsetting Ordinance 96-84, the Radio Road Beautification MSTU. Since no construction has begun on the -- on 2013-43, no shovels in the ground yet, the Rich King Memorial Greenway, I am here to recommend the immediate repeal of this ordinance. Additionally, I recommend the county establish procedures for amending ordinances to MSTUs as is required to create an MSTU. Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MS. SHERMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then -- do you have a question for her, or would you like to speak to me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, just for us. You know, do we want to bring this back for discussion at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and just as a point of reference, my suggestion is we don't typically address those who come to us to speak about agenda items that aren't -- or items that are not on today's advertised public agenda, and I would like to say out loud that if you do, in fact, have an issue like that, that you contact the commissioner of the district within which you are -- have an item and ask that commissioner, whether they care for the idea or not, to bring it forward as an agenda item for the Board's consideration in a proper advertised public format so that the community has an opportunity to speak out with regard to whether or not a suggestion January 22, 2019 Page 21 such as this is viable by our board. How do you like that? You may not like the idea. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't know that we can do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Speak to a commissioner about an item that you would bring to the Board? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not until -- not for and until we're in an open publicly advertised meeting. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But that commissioner -- and my suggestion is, in this particular case, that's Commissioner Taylor's district, and she give consideration to that. If she chooses not to, then it's up to the petitioner to talk to the rest of us, if one of us chose to bring it forward, but that's typically how we manage these items that aren't on our advertised agenda today. MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt. I mean, this item is, in fact, on your advertised agenda under public petition that you've got an established process where the Board either takes no action after they hear the petition, or they direct the staff to bring that item back at a future meeting, and then it becomes, obviously, an actionable item for the Board with proper public advertisement. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's exactly where I was going, County Manager. I mean, this item has been properly advertised as such, but it certainly is -- I mean, it requires a lot more discussion and public input, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I suggested we bring it back for discussion, but I don't know how the other board members feel. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you want to make a motion in that regard, I'll certainly entertain that. We have three -- and -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just ask, is the motion to January 22, 2019 Page 22 bring back for a discussion of repealing this ordinance or bringing it back to discuss policy changes regarding a process for expanding an MSTU? I think she brought up two different issues. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, she sure did, and they're both very interesting. And, you know, I think maybe -- I feel that I would like to discuss them, because that's a good thing about the amendment to it, if it doesn't go before the public and yet they have to pay for it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, you were next. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. As commissioner of the district, I've been intimately involved in this issue for about six months, and there -- I've actually been to meetings, and there is clearly a concern, certainly by Mrs. Sherman and now I understand the master boards of three property owners' associations, but that's not the people that need to vote on an ordinance or not. And it's my understanding staff is in the process of going out to every person or with -- into every of the property owners' associations that are responsible for funding this MSTU now, in the height of the season, to determine if there is any will or not to go and have this ordinance continue and what the purpose of this ordinance is. If it is voted down, then it dies. If it's voted up, then it stays. And so I was waiting for staff to complete what they have told me that they're going to do, and it's in writing and have told the County Manager. I hope I haven't misrepresented anything. I hope that's accurate. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's accurate. We were planning January 22, 2019 Page 23 to be back in front of the Board, I believe, the first board meeting in March with the results of that survey, and we had notified Ms. Sherman of that, but she wanted to come forward at this point. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second question then. What about that adding an amendment without going to the public? MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe there is a process already in place. You know, if the Chair wants staff to explain that now, we certainly are ready to do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I would like to say this issue of not representing all the property owners' associations has come up again, and I've listened to it but, unfortunately, at some point there haven't been volunteers from the -- from the property owners' associations willing to sit on the board. So the world -- you know, it's the old story. You know, the world is ruled by those who show up for meetings and, unfortunately, the meetings have continued and ideas have come forward, and there has never been an objection -- or very little objection to it. So I think we're at a crossroads. I'd like the process to continue. Again, this is not something that's new. This has been going on for me for the last, about, six months or so. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And longer for me. I recall discussions about this last year. And there are -- this is an enormous MSTU from a land mass standpoint and a collection of revenue and expenses as they go. So I -- you know, if -- you've made a motion to have this actually come back. It's been recommended by our -- by the commissioner of the district that we allow staff to finish their current outreach to the members and then have that discussion, I would presume, in early March. January 22, 2019 Page 24 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: First meeting. First meeting in March, sir? MR. OCHS: Confirming. Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. OCHS: First meeting in March was our plan, yes; that way you can deal with all of these items at one time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. With that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, we're bringing it back anyways. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is coming back. It's slated. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we be discussing both aspects? MR. OCHS: You can discuss, certainly, both aspects and anything else you'd like to discuss. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's correct. And it will be advertised as such, then, so that it incorporates both? Because I do believe that they are two different issues. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, they certainty are. MR. OCHS: Yes. And as I mentioned, there are some procedures already in place for amending, and it's not willy -nilly, but we will include that in the executive discussion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So for then we'll just retract your motion, and then we'll hear this in our first meet ing in March, if that's okay. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA – NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS January 22, 2019 Page 25 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, thank you. And that moves us to Item 7 this morning, public comments on general comments not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have no registered speakers under this item. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Really? MR. OCHS: Very good. Item #9A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) AND RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (DEO) FOR REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE, AND TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ANY ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT LANGUAGE FOR FURTHER REVIEW AT ADOPTION. [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE FEBRUARY 12TH BCC MEETING AND FOR STAFF TO GIVE THE BCC ALL COMMENTS FROM GOLDEN GATE AREA AND ANY PROPOSED CHANGES – APPROVED Commissioners, that then moves us to advertised public hearings. The first item is 9A. This is a recommendation to approve proposed amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and related elements of the Growth Management Plan for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and January 22, 2019 Page 26 objections, recommendations and comments response, and to provide direction to staff on any additional amendment language for further review at adoption. Mr. Van Lengen will make the presentation along with Mr. Bosi. MR. VAN LENGEN: Thank you, Commissioners. Kris Van Lengen for Zoning and Planning, the project manager for the four restudies. And we're really pleased to be here today to present the Golden Gate Area Master Plan transmittal. With me today also is Anita Jenkins, principal planner, who will help with any technical questions that may come up that I can't answer. First of all, I just want to give a little bit of overview and context to this. As you know, with all of the restudy planning, we look at land use, economic vitality, transportation, environment with a view towards sustainability and compatibility between those geographic areas, and our Growth Management oversight committee has been very active in directing our outreach in that respect. Here we are at the transmittal phase for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The transmittal phase follows, of course, all of that public outreach that we mentioned during our white paper, the white paper presentation we brought to you in 2018, and we're now looking for the implementing language that has been through the Planning Commission, is now before you. This is a great time for this board to direct any particular changes it may see fit for going forward to go through the process at the adoption phase. An example of that -- and the Chairman may want to speak to this -- is the idea that came up previously to not just bifurcate but trifurcate the sections of goals, objectives, and policies within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is that a real word, or did I make January 22, 2019 Page 27 that up when we were talking? MR. VAN LENGEN: I think you made it up, but I think everybody knows what it means. We're all with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We all understand it, so that's good. MR. VAN LENGEN: So the idea there is that we previously combined both the urban and rural estates areas into one, because they pretty much were of one mind. We didn't see any significant differences in their vision or their attitude toward various potential changes. So we put it into one, but there's also a very good rationale -- and the Chairman may wish to speak to it, I don't know -- but certainly -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He does. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. I will let you speak to the rationale, but I think -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When appropriate. Continue on. MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah. I think the rationale, certainly, is very helpful to the extent that they can be amended more easily when they're separated and segregated in the future. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. Not now. I'll speak at the end after everybody else has had their comments. MR. VAN LENGEN: Okay. Very good. Very good. We heard that suggestion. We weren't sure if it was a direction from the Board as a whole, and that's why we didn't make that change for the first round of public hearings, but we're happy to do so for the second round. Other GMP elements will be affected. They're simply mirror elements that we thought -- for visibility and consistency within other elements within the Growth Management Plan so that not only the Golden Gate Area Master Plan is amended but very specific certain January 22, 2019 Page 28 provisions or policies that you see in this master plan are simply repeated in the Future Land Use Element, in the Conservation Element and the Stormwater Element and Transportation Element. So those things are also in your packet as part of the Exhibit A to your resolution. Come adoption, those will be separate ordinances, but for purposes of transmittal, they're grouped together. And then we'll go over the Planning Commission recommendations -- there were changes to our white paper recommendations -- in a moment. So Golden Gate City land use and economic vitality, emphasis first on the land use part of it, we're really -- our view and the public's view was really to create more consistent land use designations along Golden Gate Parkway. So in the top image you see here, the pink area being the professional office subdistrict and the blue area being the downtown subdistrict, those, we think, are so similar that they -- it would be much simpler to combine those into a single set of density, intensity, mixed-use regulations that just simplifies the entire corridor and brings a little more coherence to it. The bottom slide, the bottom picture i n the slide, just shows some additional areas that are brought into both the activity center and those professional and commercial districts simply to make them consistent based on their current usage. They're used in a certain way that makes them consistent with those areas, and so they may as well be brought in. But the bigger point here is that there is plenty of commercial space within Golden Gate City. There's no need to add additional commercial space, and it's well placed within the center of a thriving community. Land use and economic vitality, emphasis on economic vitality, thanks to the efforts of Commissioner Saunders and this whole January 22, 2019 Page 29 commission and the County Manager's agency, all of these have been launched and implemented to a certain extent. The Economic Development Zone, you passed an ordinance in November to accommodate and incorporate that into the planning that goes forward, particularly providing the TIF funding mechanism for improvements and innovations and incentives for landowners to improve their properties. Opportunity zone designation provides tax advantaged. Private investment, FGUA to Collier County Water/Sewer District is just a great leap forward for the community. And so, according to the utilities implementation plan, that will be rolled out over a period of years. Expanded business opportunities includes, most particularly, in the activity center, which is the center of that corridor that you see there, the activity center needs to include more high-tech types of businesses so that, along with just goods and services, we have job opportunities that, perhaps, are better paying; they're export, they're target industries, they're high-tech industries, and so we wanted to add those particular uses within those areas where today there may be some empty storefronts. And then, finally, the Land Development Code which is something that's already been launched. We have our LDC team looking at doing an LDC overlay for that entire corridor, looking for lot fits, looking for building heights, access points, and even getting in, to some extent, to the public realm, the right-of-way aspects, the landscaping and, perhaps, traffic calming. Those things will be considered and brought to you hopefully at the same time as our adoption hearing. Perhaps it will be at least in a draft form or an outline form so that you'll see the direction that that's heading. Their next meeting is in March with the community. Transportation emphasis, certainly through their vision statement on walkability and bikeability. And so the MPO certainly January 22, 2019 Page 30 currently is undergoing a study where they're going to update the bike and mobility plan within Golden Gate City. Traffic calming is an important feature that we're thinking of, and also protecting alleys from the vacation process where there's at least some potential for future use, and particularly in a pedestrian realm. As far as the Estates go -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second. Kris, if you don't mind, I -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think this was in our packet -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let me -- okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- the presentation, but I just had a question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like to ask staff before we come along if they're prepared to answer questions as you're going along or if you would rather us wait till the end. MR. VAN LENGEN: At your pleasure. MR. OCHS: Let's take them after each element. We're ready, probably, to discuss the Golden Gate City portion of the plan. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we go back to the slide prior to this -- because I don't think this was in our packet, this whole presentation. What is the red representing here? MR. VAN LENGEN: The red are existing sidewalks. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. VAN LENGEN: The dotted lines are proposed or planned sidewalks, and the green are bike paths. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Existing bike paths? MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. January 22, 2019 Page 31 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick comment. I met with some of the folks that are involved in the Blue Zones project, and they've indicated a real interest in the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Tropicana, I believe, was the cross street because of the number of students, kids that are in that area. And I'd like you to -- if staff could reach out to the Blue Zones administrator, they have some grant funds that may be available to make some enhancements to that intersection from that source of revenue. MR. OCHS: Great; will do. MR. VAN LENGEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Anybody else? MR. VAN LENGEN: Moving on to the Golden Gate Estates area. We really wanted to retain and the citizens wanted to retain the rural character of the Estates, and so I think it might be easy to say that we -- as far as land use goes, we tried to use a very light touch. We understood that they wanted very limited goods and services; that neighborhood centers, there was some discussion as to upsizing, and we'll get back to that in a second. Conditional uses, we noted that there was probably a deficit of potential conditional uses out in the future. There may be 10 or so in this part of the Estates and maybe six in the Urban Estates, potential locations -- and given the fact that the Estates is only halfway built out, we think that there will be demand in the future, and so there may be some potential for nonresidential uses such as adult daycare, child daycare, assisted living facilities and, of course, churches or social organizations. So we added the idea that conditional uses could be considered at major intersections where there's a good opportunity to have a different type of land use that is -- it's not incompatible with residential, but it may be a better use to have some kind of a January 22, 2019 Page 32 transitional use at those intersections. So we added that with the support of the Planning Commission. And then in coordination with other planning areas, the public was very, very enthusiastic about the idea of the rural fringe villages, the rural lands towns, the Orangetree development and those commercial areas, because it allows them more reverse trips, shorter vehicle miles traveled, better job opportunities, as well as goods and services. So they were very enthusiastic about that outside of the Estates proper. So we will certainly consider that as an element in those other plans. Connectivity was a big issue, particularly from a safety standpoint. There was a 2008 bridge study. It's already undergoing revisions, so by the time we put this in our plan, that had already been launched. But it's certainly important from emergency service as well as evacuation. And then I-75, we simply expanded the definition of "in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard" by extending that to what would be the -- probably the terminus of Big Cypress Parkway. We don't know the answer. We don't pretend to know the answer. We just leave it in there as a future study and something that we want to keep an eye on with cooperation with FDOT and interchange justification reports. Our future study area, Immokalee curve. This is interesting because very recently you-all discussed the 46-acre property that the county owns, and so we're starting in effect with a study on that because of the opportunity of swapping for various uses. But along that entire curve area, there has been a lot of interest in a lot of different ways, everything from a mega-church to commercial areas to, obviously, transportation overpass. What we thought was the important thing there was to wait and study it in total, if at all possible, once the road studies for Randall January 22, 2019 Page 33 and Oil Well are completed. That way we have a better idea of traffic flow, of future footprint, and the way that those uses could be organized. And, frankly, as part of this study, we needed to make sure that we came back for a more targeted study where we could talk to the residents specifically around those areas, because when we go to the public, we get 50 to 100 people from all over the Estates, and that's not close enough. That's not specific enough for this particular study area. So we call for that in the near future, and we certainly look to your direction to see how we coordinate that with your 46-acre parcel. Environment was a big issue with Estates residents. They certainly were very interested in continuing with the Watershed Management Planning that was accepted by this board several years ago; I believe 2011, if I'm not mistaken. And there's a prioritization within that schedule, but it's according to available funding. So they're interested in moving forward with those things. Golden Gate projects tend to be at the top of that list anyway, and some of them have been completed at least in phases so far. Lot combinations would be added to that list. That's an idea where incentives could be made to include those 75-foot Band-Aid lots with a parent lot so that you're really increasing the low density recharge nature of those Estates, and that was an idea that came up through public interaction. Disperse water management, same thing. Again, it's about recharge. It's about flood water attenuation. A little bit on each property multiplied by all of those Estates properties could make a big difference in terms of both flood protection and recharge and water quality. So that's something that needs to be studied. We talked to engineers from different departments and different entities. We January 22, 2019 Page 34 determined that it was a complicated issue, and there was a lot of decision-making. These would be incentive-based, so we need to determine what those incentives might be for both lot combinations and dispersed water management, whether it's an impact fee issue, tax abatement, direct grants, other possibilities. And then wildfire protection was another big theme. So we talked about funding, which I think you've already addressed, to look at that as an annual budget, but we left in the option of creating an MSTU for that purpose. Staging, at least as of the last year -- Dan Summers indicated to me that staging was not a big issue, so the idea of obtaining a lot for staging purposes may not be an imminent desire, but good to keep that as a possibility in the future. And then education, fire-wise type principles for the community. Perhaps at the -- at the building permit stage, certain literature handed out might be a good idea so people understand, really, the nature of the modern Eastern Estates, because it's quite different as it's continued to dry out over the years. As I mentioned, the Planning Commission took a look at these documents and all 50 recommendations and the way that it was actually drafted and implemented, and it was approved unanimously but subject to some changes, and those changes are incorporated into the version that you have before you. One was eliminating any upsizing of neighborhood centers. We had a modified version of what we initially proposed. They wanted none of it. They felt it should be done by private amendment. Eliminate conditional use availability next to electrical substations. Fairly minor point, but we did do that. Conditional use locations at major intersections, they agreed with that but wanted criteria to suggest that there not be a proliferation of the same type of conditional use at any intersection, January 22, 2019 Page 35 so that language was added in. A huge cry out in the Eastern Estates for more cell towers. Cell coverage is very, very difficult out there. So rather than just anywhere, which is what -- through a conditional use application, they would be available to apply for a place anywhere. The Planning Commission felt that it should really be limited just to the arterials. So we added that criteria to the cell tower conditional use provisions. And greenway paths, they did not want eminent domain associated with any greenway opportunity or construction in the future. So as we mentioned, collateral GMP element changes, those are the elements that simply repeat some of the policy changes that you see in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan simply for consistency purposes. So with Board direction in September, I think it was part of your board communications, you directed us to go back out to the community and take a look at neighborhood centers and make sure they shouldn't be upsized in some way. We did call a mee ting for November 1st. The challenges are certainly right-of-way takings both past and future along with other things: Well and septic are certainly unique to the Estates and takes a certain amount of room; stormwater buffers; preserves. So we had a neighborhood information meeting. We provided some market demand and site analysis information. I say most speakers objected to any change. I would say it was overwhelming might be a more apt description, and the survey yielded similar results. So the idea is that if you can get 10,000 square feet on a four-acre parcel, 12,000 square feet or 15- on a 6-acre parcel, they didn't seem to care, you know, which kind of convenience January 22, 2019 Page 36 commercial would be applied at that location. It's certainly not big enough to do any kind of strip mall shopping center or anything of that nature, so something different would be required in that event. So the minor upsizing didn't make sense to them, and they weren't ready to embrace 10- or 20-acre quadrants at the three locations that are identified as neighborhood centers. So they wanted to leave them small. They begin around five acres a piece; some are slightly larger. But that's basically the foot -- the acreage that's available for those uses. And so the memo to the file is -- that's Item 6 in your packet. Staff recommends to leave the individual subject changes to private parties for a petition when appropriate. So that was -- that's consistent with what the Planning Commission recommended as well. So with that, we ask for your recommendation along with any recommended changes that you have to address by the Planning Commission and by this board through the adoption. In the meanwhile, the package itself with any verbal instructions will go to DEO and other state agencies for their review. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We do have public speakers. Would my colleagues like to hear from the public speakers first before we comment or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, we've one registered speaker. Michael R. Ramsey. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning. I'm Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. This has been a lively topic with our group. We've met with Chris in his neighborhood information meetings, and we've had meetings for this over the last year and a half. And one of the most interesting topics we've pursued that everybody was interested in was January 22, 2019 Page 37 the neighborhood center upsizing, and it was made clear to us in multiple meetings with emphasis, as Chris says, that the majority of the Estates residents do not want any more commercial or any kind of development out in the Estates. They don't want the neighborhood centers to increase. They made it emphatically clear that they don't even want any more. They'd like to reduce it. So they also went along to communicate to us that they don't want any commercial water and sewer lines run up any and down the streets. They don't want anything else. They're afraid of creeping development, and so they would like to take the area, and with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, create a document that will prevent creeping development. So we did have a couple of suggestions in this area. One is the transitional conditional-use issue up against divided four-lane highways at an intersection. We felt that because of the need to move traffic through the Estates because of rural RLSA projects like Rural Lands West, we have -- we're going to have more divided four-lane intersections than we anticipated. So we would like to modify that issue to prevent creeping development from coming into that. The other issue that was important to us -- we've been up here about it a couple times -- is we feel there needs to be more guidelines and regulations as it applies to churches and the sizes of them, because we're getting a lot of really large church operations out in our area, and the public and our group has made it clear to me that issue with quality of life is severely being challenged with that issue. So if we could keep working it as we've been going on this, it's looking pretty good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you have a question for him or a comment? January 22, 2019 Page 38 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Am I first? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness. Well, I just want to say the thing that strikes me the most is -- and I'm not well versed with all communities and all over Florida, but I don't know of any community like this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I believe there is none. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think it's special. And once you change it, once you add to it, once you start planting other things in there, it will never be the same. And if I lived there, and I don't -- but I do have a couple kids that live there. If I lived there, I wouldn't want anybody changing it either, because right now everybody's complaining about density and how much more density and so forth. They're not going to get it back if they change that. So I'm solidly in favor of their efforts. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I do have something else, too, but it's on the city now, Golden Gate City, and that was just a question as far as the TIF dollars come in. Can you use those TIF dollars to, say, for instance, plant landscaping within the shopping centers so it gives it a softer appeal? You don't have to fix the buildings or anything. Just even changing the appearance might make it look better, but I don't know if TIF funds could be used for that. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the way that TIF works in these economic innovation zones is that an applicant would need to bring a plan to the Board. The Board actually holds those funds in a trust account. The applicants bring a plan forward to the Board. If a majority of the Board favors the plan, then you can authorize the January 22, 2019 Page 39 expenditure of those funds. So it's very flexible, Commissioner. So I would say to you if that's part of a plan that's brought forward for by, you know, a potential developer out there to improve the area, this board can certainly -- has that flexibility to spend those funds in that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, you're next. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I was interested in President Ramsey's comments about the community doesn't want sewer lines because they think it's creeping development, and I guess -- I mean, I understand the fear; I understand. And by the way, I applaud your neighborhood. It was so refreshing to see people saying, you know, we're really happy with the way this is, and we do not want these changes and, by the way, we don't want any more commercial out here. I was very happy to see that. But as far as the sewer lines and creeping development, I mean, clearly, we're going to need to star t converting, but my question -- and there's nothing imminent, no plans at this point, but I'm looking into the future. Isn't there a way to preserve this community and the integrity of this community and still allow modern plumbing to come to it? MR. VAN LENGEN: There may be some minor opportunities in the near future. For example, the Estates shopping center, there's been talk about running water and sewer line all the way down from Immokalee Road down Wilson, and I think that's probably about a mile, two miles. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three. MR. VAN LENGEN: Four miles. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think it's almost four from Immokalee down to the Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. VAN LENGEN: So a very expensive proposition. But to January 22, 2019 Page 40 make a shopping center of that nature, of that size, which has already been approved, it's already entitled, to work well, I think that's -- if not a prerequisite, it certainly would be highly desirable. But it's a high-cost feature, so... MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why they don't want the pipes running through their neighborhood. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the cost. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and let me say something here, please. You know, there's already been a big scare that's gone down when we initiated the relocation of the service area for our wastewater and water facilities on social media. There are not going to be any forced connections for the folks of Golden Gate Estates onto our wastewater and water facilities, period. I'm going to say that out loud, for all three of you who are watching today, that's not going to happen. I chaired up the East of 951 Horizon Committee, Commissioner Taylor, when Commissioner Coletta served in this seat, Direct 5, and there was a misnomer put out by somebody at some stage that they were going to connect all of Golden Gate Estates to water and wastewater to the tune of $110,000 per single -family residence as a connection fee, let alone running it to our homes and everything else, with a 30 percent fluff factor. So no with regard to that. Now, as we go forward with the extension of utilities into particular areas, it can be, and will be, protected. As long as I'm the commissioner, there will not be any connection to modern plumbing, as you put it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you only have 12 years, though. I'm not talking 12 years. I'm talking further. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. Well, when it's further happened, then we'll have discussions with regard to that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it's the cost? It's the cost; January 22, 2019 Page 41 it's not -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, it's enormous. I mean, you've got such a rural area with low density, which we want to keep and are going to, as Commissioner Fiala put. So it's an enormous expense associated with those interconnections, so -- and I just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So just as long as I understand this, really, the discussion is the expense, not so much the creep of development. It's really the cost to the homeowner. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Individually, yes. The individual homeowners, it is an exorbitant expense. Then there is this rationale of growth creep, of commercial creep, of when utilities come, then you have the capacities for additional expansions. This is America, and you do have the rights to adjust your property uses according to the will of the neighbors and the like. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that's precisely what I'd like to see addressed, if it can be, that even if down the road sewer and water lines are put out there, that it doesn't open that trapdoor to allow the integrity of this neighborhood to be damaged. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely correct. We had a discussion with Mr. Crown who owns the 40 acres on the northwest corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard, and in order for the success of that 190,000 currently permitted allowed -- not permit, but allowed intense commercial zoning on that intersection, it's a requisite of public utilities to be there, especially because one of the conditions on this conditional use, or PUD, I believe, that he has requires that a grocery store fac ility go there and be there first, and in order to attract a grocery store, he has to have public utility there. Publix and the like, they won't come to that intersection. And when the discussion came about, there was -- now, there are public enhancements that come with public utilities. Potable water allows for fire hydrants and fire protection enhancements that January 22, 2019 Page 42 we currently don't have in Eastern Collier County, so -- but there is no -- as Mr. Van Lengen pointed out, there is no economic viability right now in extending those utilities south. But there was a large concern from our residents with regard to the potential if -- once they go through, that somebody's going to turn around and make them hook up, and that's not the intent at all. So just -- I just -- that was 2006 when that first came out. When I was chair of the east -- and Commissioner Coletta was in this seat and I was the chair of the East of 951 Horizon Study, and it was quite an interesting day that we had. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again, if -- I think your understanding, you know, what safeguards can we give the folks in Golden Gate Estates that down the road, you know, when their children or grandchildren are living in these houses, that they want to live and they have a quality of life that will not be changed irrevocably by adding water lines or sewers. There's got to be safeguards we can put on the lands. There's got to be. And I don't know what they are. Are there? MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, one thing that may be required, and we'll work with our Public Utilities division, is that we may need to modify the ordinance ever so slightly, the public utilities ordinance, that -- depending on whether it's a major transmission line or a service line, there may be requirements for people along that corridor to hook up. So we have to make sure that if that's not intended, then that's not the case. So it may take some kind of an amendment to that ordinance, but we'll check into that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there are not immediate imminent -- you don't even have to ask that question. I happen to own a piece of property on a facility that has those major lines going across the front, and it's not an automatic have to hook up. So we don't even need to have that discussion. January 22, 2019 Page 43 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. But it's not about hookup. It's about zoning, and it's about a quality of life, and it's about density. MR. VAN LENGEN: I see, yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And then the second question I have is -- and maybe this is to you, Mr. Van Lengen, or maybe to Mr. Klatzkow. Can we restrict where cell towers are placed, new cell towers? Can we restrict that? MR. KLATZKOW: You've got very limited ability to restrict cell towers because you've got a preemption on the federal level. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I thought. MR. KLATZKOW: And everybody wants them, except the neighbor who's next to them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And in that regard, there's a lot of technology coming out by the second. We've already heard about solar connectivity on our existing light poles. We've already heard about potential of lease facilities on the utility lines and poles that run up and down. So I think we, as a community, will make every effort that we possibly can to acknowledge the requests of our c ommunity and enhance the capacities of communication. I think that's incumbent upon us as a governing body. MR. KLATZKOW: And I do note we have a cell tower ordinance that we do strictly follow, and we haven't had a problem with it. We've had a couple of people over time not like it because it's close to them, but all in all, the current process has been working. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. That's all. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, all right. Let's start -- I have several comments, if you folks will indulge me. First off, Mr. Van Lengen, will you explain with a little more certainty the process that we're going through here. We're all fairly intimate, but I'm not sure -- I know that a large portion of the public January 22, 2019 Page 44 is not about timelines. The initial GMP amendment started, and we're in the transmittal portion right now. Would you please explain what's going to happen next. MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure, yeah. Once we get into the transmittal phase, we're really beginning the public hearing phase, and it's two phases. One is the transmittal phase. The other is the adoption phase. The transmittal phase requires that we provide these amendments, this package of amendments, both to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for their review, changes, and approval. In between we send it to Department of Economic Opportunity for them to review at the state level to determine if there are any state interests involved. They disseminate it to various agencies. They get back to us with comments, objections, a letter to see if there's anything that we need to change from their point of view. Then we move through the adoption phase, which we think we can probably get to in -- the DEO phase is about 30 days. It takes about 45 days by the time you get through it. So we expect within a month and a half we can start drafting any changes we need to make for the Planning Commission -- that would be the adoption phase -- in the spring, and I think also in the spring we should be able to get back to you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Spring of? MR. VAN LENGEN: Of 2019. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nineteen. This spring. MR. VAN LENGEN: This spring. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I did have a question on the CCPC's recommendations with regard to -- you know, and I certainly concur and heard the public speak with regard to the expansion of the conditional use requests January 22, 2019 Page 45 within the intersections, but there were limitations on the -- that were -- that were suggested limitations on similar uses. MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. If you'd like, I can pull the exact language. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I don't really -- I don't think we need to take a lot of time on that right now, but I just -- actually, it's more of a property -rights issue, is how are we going to impose limitations on real property rights that exist? MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, I think with any conditional use, conditional uses are generally approval within a district where they're allowed, but they're limited as to location and number. That's the whole nature of a conditional use. So one can limit the number of adult daycare centers at a particular location if there's one nearby. So their idea of adding criteria was let's not have four daycare centers at the four quadrants at one intersection. That's, essentially, what they were saying. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we can do that through the GMP? I could certainly see it being recommended as individual applications come along, but I just question the legality of that. MR. KLATZKOW: The whole purpose of the zoning is to reduce your property rights. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is to do what? MR. KLATZKOW: Reduce your property rights. That's the whole point of zoning, so that people can live in residential neighborhoods and not have to worry about something commercial or industrial next door to them or whatever. It's the whole point. And there is a balancing act. Sometimes you can push the boundaries too much and deprive people's rights, but that isn't the main (sic) point of zoning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. MR. VAN LENGEN: I'd be happy to read the language if it's January 22, 2019 Page 46 any help. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I already have, and we're certainly going to talk about this again. As you've already elaborated, we're going to see this move through the -- assuming this passes and goes on for the -- to the DEO, that we're going to get to have some more public input along the way. So is there any idea -- and this might be for Mr. Casalanguida with regard to the traffic study at the Randall and Oil Well study -- when that's coming forward time-wise? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I've discussed it with the department head, Thaddeus Cohen. I think we plan to bring both studies sometime in March to you, the Randall Curve and -- Randall Curve intersection and Randall alignment with Oil Well Road, to the Board. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And I have heard on a regular basis, and I like the language that was adopted in here about the interconnection of Everglades area in the GMP to allow for that alignment of some sort of connectivity to I-75. I have proposed regularly and met with a lot of positive comments about the existence of the already -- ramps, existing ramps at Everglades and I-75, about opening those up and allowing for -- not any further expansion of that intersection, just opening of those current ramps, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: The ones that are locked? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, that are currently locked and only open during time of emergency. Of course, expanding them minimally to allow for safe ingress and egress, but that's met with a lot of public happiness along the way. You mentioned a bridge study. And I want to say, again, and I have said it before, that other than the Eighth and the 16th bridge, I don't want us to be approving any more bridges until we go out and January 22, 2019 Page 47 have another study. That bridge study that's currently being used I facilitated in 2006. And there's been -- there's a lot more people, there's a lot more road expansion, there's a lot more public facilities that have, in fact, been put in place, and the rationale for us to prioritize those eight or 10 bridges that we prioritized 12 years ago, coming on 13, need to be reconsidered and vetted with the new population that has arrived in the past 10, 12 years as well. So it's imperative that before we go out and do any more bridges that we have -- we have at least one or two more public hearings and some public study with regard to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's our plan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Good. I've said it regularly. I just wanted to make sure I was saying it again. And last but not least, the trifurcation. It was suggested during the public -- during the public meetings that -- and this, Commissioner Saunders, you may find interesting. You know, I've asked multiple times for the continuance of the Golden Gate Master Plan on the requisite that there were some adjustments that we were looking to get enhanced in the eastern side, and because there is three different land masses/areas -- we have Golden Gate Estates urban, we have Golden Gate City "the," four square miles, and Golden Gate City -- or Golden Gate Estates rural -- I would like to suggest that we divide these land masses into three, incorporate the same language. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. There are similarities amongst the land masses -- not necessarily Golden Gate City because it's considerably different, but the Golden Gate Estates urban and rural could be segregated -- and utilize 951/Collier Boulevard, as they like to call it now, but I've been here long enough to -- I'll always call it 951. But utilize it as the visual division between urban to the west of the Estates and rural to the east and allow for then individual January 22, 2019 Page 48 adjustments as our residents that live in the east have and want, and they can make adjustments to their current GMPs -- or to their current GMP and allow for those in the urban side, if you will, west of 951 to allow for that, and then Golden Gate City "the," particularly. So that came out regularly during the public hearings and the like, and I would like to see that as an implementation as we go forward. We don't have to, obviously, do it now, but prior to adoption. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we can certainly let staff know if the Board feels the same as you do, and I certainly don't have any problem doing it that way; does that makes sense? MR. VAN LENGEN: If I might ask for a point of clarification. And we have no problem in doing that whatsoever. Is your intention to have separate master plans or simply all within one master plan but separate sections? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We can talk at it at length. I mean, my thoughts initially were you've got Golden Gate Master Plan, which is here in front of us. Take the language and everything that's included here and create three with the same -- three separate land -- three separate GMPs for those land masses. MR. VAN LENGEN: So not just separate sections within the GMP? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. MR. VAN LENGEN: Because it could still be, I believe -- and the County Attorney may correct -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We could talk about semantics. We don't have to take up time talking about -- because you're going to get in the weeds really quick on this. MR. VAN LENGEN: I just don't want to mess up on your -- MR. KLATZKOW: You just want trifurcated. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. I want the folks in January 22, 2019 Page 49 eastern rural, rural Golden Gate Estates, to be able to effectuate adjustments that affect them and not impact other areas that aren't necessarily impacted by those adjustments. MR. VAN LENGEN: And they could do so, I believe, with separate sections within one master plan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's a matter of semantics, as I said, just so we get there, is -- we can have that discussion off-line, sir. And, Commissioner Taylor, you hit your light while I was talking. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, because I just wanted -- my question was why, but now I understand it. But I do think this is planning, really quintessential, authentic planning and visualizing what goes in the future. So I would urge you to listen to the planners, the experts, because I think there might be unintended consequences by having three separate GMPs, but -- and you said you would, so I'm going to hold you to it. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. And I'm okay with that. And, last but not least, our president of Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, Mike Ramsey, did offer up written suggestions to the GMP amendments that are currently in front of us that are being currently reviewed by staff. I would like to ask -- I think -- have my colleagues all gotten copies of those suggestions? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. MR. OCHS: I don't know. I haven't seen them, I don't believe. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Kris, I know you and I spoke about this the other day, and you've reviewed them and, on the surface, didn't really have any issues. I just would like those to be January 22, 2019 Page 50 circulated, and that we let the folks know there will be -- some of those language changes are going to come through to us after the public vetting and in the adoption phase. MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, I certainly would need board direction or part of the motion to effectuate all of those changes. One of the -- one of the replies I would have liked to have made to Mr. Ramsey is that I think he has an understandable concern for conditional uses and a proliferation of additional nonresidential uses, and I totally understand that. Our recommendation really only applies to about four or five intersections within the Estates, and there would be no piggybacking on top of corner lots that would be allowed conditional uses. So you would not be able to piggyback a conditional use next to an existing conditional use at an intersection. So it's not going to start a proliferation of conditional uses, just to make that much clearer. That's what we thought. That's what the Planning Commission felt. I just wanted to make sure that we put that into context. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did the Planning Commission have an opportunity to review his language adjustments? MR. VAN LENGEN: They reviewed that concept. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's not what I asked. Did the Planning Commission have an opportunity to review his comments that I have right here? MR. VAN LENGEN: So the comments you have right there were provided to me on Friday of last week. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So no. MR. VAN LENGEN: So no. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And I'm not picking on you. MR. VAN LENGEN: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I just want to make it very clear January 22, 2019 Page 51 that there are written language adjustments that have come to us late in the process. Mr. Ramsey and I have spoke about these at length. I had asked Commissioner Saunders when we -- back in the fall when we asked for the extension of this, Commissioner Saunders, you recall I wanted this item to be heard in our first meeting in February, and you asked for it to be heard today. And so, timing-wise, those items have not. I just want to let my colleagues know there are some suggestions that are out there that we can review, will be publicly vetted, whether staff concurs with or not, and then heard by the Planning Commission, commented on by the Planning Commission, and come back to us for the actual adoption. MR. VAN LENGEN: I understand. We will do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm not really looking to -- I certainly can't ask my colleagues to comment on something they haven't even seen. I just want the world to, in fact, know that that will be coming at you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do we get those -- that written paper, or whatever, out to residents that even don't attend the meetings? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's going to come through the public-hearing process after we accept/approve the current proposal for transmittal portion to the Department of Economic Affairs (sic). Then this is all coming back to us after their comments with the public process with those adjustments and any others that may, in fact, come along in advance of the final adoption by us in the later part of the spring. MR. VAN LENGEN: And, Commissioner, if you're interested in those sooner than later, we're very happy to send those to all commissioners through the County Manager's Office. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would highly recommend that. January 22, 2019 Page 52 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'd like that. Can I send it to my kids? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Send it to everybody. And that's all the comments that I had. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like -- I'd like to go ahead -- I'd like to make a motion that we accept staff's recommendation with the -- for approval of this for transmittal with the adjustments made by the Collier County Planning Commission, and those -- we didn't formally take votes on any of the other suggested suggestions, per se, but you certainly have enough direction from us to proceed forward. MR. VAN LENGEN: I heard your other directions. You may want to make that part of your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think I'd just turn to the County Attorney. What motion do we need to make so this is clearly directed to the Department of Economic Opportunity and staff has the appropriate direction? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the item before you is to approve these proposed amendments. Now, if you want to make ad justments to that, you could do that by a motion, or you could just approve them all. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So just a motion to approve staff's recommendation to move forward is all that's needed? MR. KLATZKOW: That would work. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's basically what I did. I was going to -- and, you know, really, I wanted to incorporate the adjustments that we had brought up with -- you brought some comments up. And we don't -- I mean, they're not really going to be addressed -- January 22, 2019 Page 53 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, those are just comments. I haven't been at these meetings. Just -- may I digress for a second? I just want to compliment staff and Chairman -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: McDaniel. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- McDaniel. I always -- today I called you McIlvaine, and I know it's not McIlvaine, and I worked with him for five years, six years, so I do apologize. So, no, I really would like to compliment you, because I find -- when I read over this, I realize the work and the participation of the neighbors, and it has a lot to do with your leadership. So I really wanted to compliment staff and Commissioner -- Chairman McDaniel -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- on this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And let's just keep it what came before us and then as we -- we can massage it going forward. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it will be adjusted accordingly once we go through the public process, the Planning Commission hears it again. MR. KLATZKOW: This is the public process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is the beginning of the public process. MR. KLATZKOW: This is the end of the public process. You are asked to approve these proposed amendments. They've gone through the Planning Commission. I just -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, this is transmittal hearing, correct? This is a transmittal hearing, County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Then we -- and then we get comments back from the DEO. We just explained this. January 22, 2019 Page 54 MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. So you want to bring -- you want to approve the proposed amendments and then bring it back and have the Planning Commission hear additional amendments? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, there are going to be additional amendments that come from -- and it is allowed. There are additional amendments that come after transmittal prior to adoption and are properly publicly vetted similar -- a simple conversation with regard to the trifurcation of the land mass. That cannot happen today. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, the contemplated process is it goes to the Planning -- it goes to the state, they come back with comments, we deal with the comments, and then we -- the Board does its thing. What you're asking now is that we take this to the state, whether we get comments or not, we then are going to have additional hearings for additional amendments. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then it goes back to the State again. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's adopted by us. MR. KLATZKOW: We could do that, but -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask a question, because I had wanted to not delay things unreasonably, and that's why I said let's hear this more quickly than what you had proposed a month ago. So we've done that. Now, we have some additional changes that we want to make. None of us have seen those changes, except for the chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Me. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we need to see those changes and decide whether or not we want to incorporate those changes into the plan that would ultimately be sent to the Department January 22, 2019 Page 55 of Economic Opportunity. Why don't we continue this item until the next meeting, have those proposed comments presented to us from the Chairman so that we can advise staff whether or not to include those in the package, and then send the whole package up at one time as opposed to creating some uncertainty here as to how we deal with those proposed changes down the road. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm okay with that as long as the process -- but that's not the process that was explained to us with regard to how -- it was okay for us to make adjustments prior to the adoption hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I'm telling you what the process is. The normal process is -- and we've gone through the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for a very long time -- is that you transmit to the State, and then you deal with the State's comments. But I'm hearing that we've got additional things that we want to change now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so what I'm asking -- MR. KLATZKOW: And continuing it I think's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- is for direction from the County Attorney on how best to handle these, and my, sort of, thought was that what I just said in terms of let's put these together into the package at our next meeting was, I think, where the County Attorney was advising us. If I'm wrong, then let me know, but we need to follow his advice on how to handle -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. I just -- it was contrary to what's been discussed and how we've actually done Comp Plan amendments in the past. There have been adjustments made to Comp Plan amendments after the transmittal, and I understand -- I like the thought process. I certainly would have rather us had all these comments and suggestions in advance of the transmittal January 22, 2019 Page 56 hearing, which we're at today, but we got pushed. So I'm okay with a continuance if you want to. You want to move to continue it or me? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to ask the County Attorney if he feels that that's a better procedure, and if it is, then I'll make that motion. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's a better procedure, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And before you make that motion, may I ask, does it require going, with these additional comments, to go back to the Planning Commission before it comes to us? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't necessarily have to go back to the Planning Commission unless you want the Planning Commission to see these additional comments. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think they should. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make a motion that we continue this hearing until the next meeting; that staff provide us all of the comments that were made from the Golden Gate area association that the manager -- the chairman has, and that at that hearing, we make a final determination on what we're going to send to the State. I don't think we need to send something back to the planning board every time we make a change, and so I don't know what those changes are. If they're so dramatic that maybe we feel that way, then we can make that decision. But I don't want to set up a process now where we delay this for another couple months because it goes back to the planning board. MR. KLATZKOW: And I have not seen these changes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we don't know what they are. So that's my motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm okay with that. January 22, 2019 Page 57 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Unless you want to make the motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. That's -- a continuance is fine. I think we're ending up in the same spot. So it just was -- I don't need to reiterate what was. I'll second it. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're doing the government thing and continuing it again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's a whole bunch of new stuff added, so -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we have to. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Have you seen it? Have you seen it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. It's not a whole bunch of new stuff. There is language adjustments that have been -- that have been added by the Estates Civic Association. I'll be happy for you to have a look at it. I actually personally think -- again, I understand the County Attorney's concerns with regard to that, but I was under the impression that this was not outside of Hoyle with regard to the -- with the process and our system, so -- but I'm totally okay with a continuance as it stands until our next meeting, and we'll have a brief presentation and send it off to the DEO. MR. VAN LENGEN: Very good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll call for the vote. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. January 22, 2019 Page 58 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. And you had your light on. Did you have anything else to say? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I asked it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay, very good. With that, let's take a break, our court reporter, and we'll be back at 10:55. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Folks, if you would find your seat, please. I did say 10:55. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I only talked because you didn't stop. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, is that what it is? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was at my seat, and I got up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then you got up and left. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Item #9C RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO MAKE CHANGES CONSISTENT WITH BOARD DIRECTION, INCLUDING REVISING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFINITION, January 22, 2019 Page 59 UPDATING THE TERMINOLOGY AND INCOME LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING CATEGORIES, AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS FROM 8 TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, 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 ONE - GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.06.01 GENERALLY, SECTION 2.06.02 PURPOSE AND INTENT, SECTION 2.06.03 AHDB RATING SYSTEM, SECTION 2.06.04 LIMITATIONS ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS, SECTION 2.06.05 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS MONITORING PROGRAM, AND SECTION 2.06.06 VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE – MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION – FAILED; MOTION TO RECONSIDER THIS ITEM AT THE NEXT MEETING – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 9C. This was previously Item 17C on your summary agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the Collier County Land Development Code to include comprehensive land regulations related to your Community Housing Plan, and Mr. Bosi will make a brief presentation. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi Planning January 22, 2019 Page 60 and Zoning director. Just to remind you, the item that's before you today is simply the implementation language within your Land Development Code for the Growth Management Plan amendment that was adopted by this Board of County Commissioners at the December 2018 Board of County Commissioners' public hearing. You adopted modifications to the affordable housing density bonus increasing the bonus from eight to 12, as was suggested as part of your Community Housing Plan, and realigned the segment to target populations and levels within your affordable housing process. So this is a procedural change. This doesn't apply to any one particular project. This is the process for how affordable housing density bonus is established, the ranges in which it's target, and how those allocation of density bonuses are provided based upon how much of a percentage that you're providing for within your individual project. But it does -- this is nonspecific. This is changes to the process, and it's simply to align our Land Development Code with the changes that this board adopted back in December. And that concludes my presentation. Whatever questions you have -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good. That was a fine presentation. Well, in my review of this -- and I'm the one that asked that this be moved off the summary agenda. And in my review of this, I read some adjustments that were separate and apart from what I thought we had ultimately approved in the adoption or in the -- in our prior meeting, Mr. Bosi. I specifically -- on Page 13 there was language adjustments that were in a color code with regard to the appropriation of a 30-year imposition on affordable housing density bonuses appropriation only being delineated to rental property, and separate and apart from what I thought we'd originally approved for single-family as well, and January 22, 2019 Page 61 there was explanation in there that talked about that. And so that was one of my -- that was one of my concerns that was, in fact, expressed. Someone's making decisions about market viability and incentives provided for density bonuses. MR. BOSI: One of the concepts that were expressed in the Community Housing Plan was extending the length of the time frame that was associated with affordable density bonus. Currently, as it was, was 15 years. And from that discussion, 30 years was decided as to the appropriate time. Within that -- within that discussion, it was individual allocated that 30 years would be appropriate for a rental property that was going to accept affordable housing density bonus, but if it was ownership, to remain at the 15. If you wanted more specifics in terms of how we arrived upon that, I would -- we could have Cormac provide a little bit more specificity. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, I understand the discussion. It was -- I don't remember that being a part of the language that we approved when this was -- and I didn't approve it, by the way. I'm going to say that out loud. I voted against this on several premises; that I've had issues with the metrics of calculation of the theoretical need. I also proposed that perpetual restrictions be put upon housing affordability, not kick the can from 15 down to 30 on the rationale that the 15-year was an incentive to provide for more density on a shorter term basis. All we were doing was prolonging the time frame from 15 to 30 years for increased land costs, increased construction costs, and increased impact fees. So -- and I thought I read that -- I thought we had originally voted on the 30-year extension of time from 15 to go on everything that received a higher density bonus attributable to affordable housing. January 22, 2019 Page 62 MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, for the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing and Grant Development manager. I believe you're referencing Page 21 of 28, Paragraphs 19 and 20. So in Paragraph 19, which speaks for rental units, yes, we made the change to make that from 15 years to 30 years. There was a new Paragraph 20 added that talked specifically about owner-occupied units, and that still has the 15 years. If it is the pleasure of the Board to make that 30 as well, we would be happy to make that change. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My question, Cormac, is who decided to change it from the time that we approved it last year until it comes before me today? This wasn't part of the original approval that -- per my understanding, this wasn't part of the original approval that we did last fall. MR. GIBLIN: I don't believe we had specific language in front of you last fall that went to this detail. This level of detailed language went through your Development Services Advisory Committee and your Planning Commission a few times, and wordsmithing changes were made by those committees along the way. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is a little bit more than wordsmithing. This is a determination of what necessitates an incentivization for a developer to participate in one particular marketplace and another. And I -- I take -- I contest that. I don't care for that. MR. BOSI: And -- Mike Bosi. Just for clarification, that's the way the amendment process works. The Board of County Commissioners will initiate an idea and a concept. We will take it to the DSAC, the DSAC subcommittee, DSAC, and then Planning Commission. They may recommend policy changes that are different than what that January 22, 2019 Page 63 individual amendment is proposing. Ultimately, they only make recommendations to you. And what I think we could have done a better job is articulating specifically that those changes were made during that process. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Henceforth the reason I pulled it for discussion. I saw one that I felt was an adjustment made somewhere along the line after what we had already approved, and I wanted to call attention to that. I don't concur with that adjustment particularly on single-family homes, so... Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did you get your question answered? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I had a number of questions. I, too, had talked to -- I sent to Leo last night asking him for information, and so he, I guess, had already pulled it off for you. So let me ask you a few things here. One of the things in the summary, it was talking about changing the definition and increasing the maximum density bonus, and so -- and then it says, it includes changing the minimum number of required affordable housing units per development from 10 units to 10 percent of the total housing units. Now, you know, I don't ever remember seeing that before, but is that every development or -- and is that inclusionary zoning? Because if they require 10 percent -- if they require affordable housing from 10 units to 10 percent of the total housing development, that, to me, sounds like inclusionary zoning, and I know that we balked at that. MR. GIBLIN: Yes, ma'am. This amendment in no way is involved in inclusionary zoning. The Board was pretty clear in denying that recommendation. January 22, 2019 Page 64 What that 10 percent is talking about is should someone decide to avail themselves of the affordable housing density bonus program, they would need to, again, decide to do at least 10 percent of their total development. Prior the code read 10 units, and so there is no corresponding benefit in the chart, and that's in the LDC, to give you less than 10 percent bonus if you did less than 10 percent of your development. So that was for consistency with the chart. But, again, this is only for a developer who voluntarily commits to use the affordable housing density bonus program; they would need to do at least 10 percent of their units, not 10 units. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that was more of a scribner's error that was corrected. I did see that correction or that adjustment as well and wondered about it, but that's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It didn't make any sense to me, you know, and I wondered if it didn't mak e any sense to me and possibly you, too, maybe it was possibly done clearly enough. And also, they're lowering the median income from 150 percent to 140 percent, and I don't -- why? MR. GIBLIN: Again, that was -- your housing stakeholder group started meeting in 2015 through 2017. The Community Housing Plan that was brought to you in October of 2017 had these -- that recommendation in it to align ourselves with the affordability percentages that are in state statute. And the reason Collier County was initially at 150 percent for gap housing was that we were trailblazers in this arena. Back in 2004/2005 there was no thought of ever government assistance or incentives going to people above the low-income level or the moderate-income level. We in Collier County recognized a problem for those folks that were above moderate income but could still not afford something in our market. So we invented something called January 22, 2019 Page 65 gap housing, and at that time we chose to assist up to 150 percent. Since then, that concept has been adopted by the State. It's in state statute now where they have a level that goes up to 140 percent, and this amendment aligns us with state statute at 140. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I noticed that you eliminated gap in a number of places as well as median income in places. I was wondering why. MR. GIBLIN: Again, probably more cleanup, but the rental incentives do not apply to moderate or gap income income levels. Those apply only on the homeownership side. So that was an effort to clean up which incentives would apply to which income levels. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is there anything -- I got a note from somebody here that they thought that part of it refers to approval by right. MR. GIBLIN: No, ma'am. There's nothing in here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing in there? Nothing at all in this thing that says that -- maybe the -- I mean, because it doesn't say it in the words, but it could -- MR. GIBLIN: If you look at the last bullet, does not change the public hearing, approval, or notice requirements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay. Also, an odd question for me is, are we building -- or are we requiring affordable housing for season or for out of season? I mean, you know how they build roads, and they build roads not for season, of course, but for out of season. What are we doing here? MR. GIBLIN: It's a requirement that anyone who resides in one of these units be a permanent resident, it be your homesteaded property, or on the rental side, that you be a permanent year-round resident. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Hold on just a minute. There were a couple other questions here. January 22, 2019 Page 66 Okay. With the affordable housing density bonus program, now they want to include the density bonus from eight extra units, that's extra units on top of the four, so now that makes 12 already, right? Plus adding another 12 units, right? So that's 24 units per acre? MR. GIBLIN: No, ma'am. It changes the eight to a 12, plus your base, gets you to a max in all cases of no more than 16. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To add up to 12 extra units on -- the 12 units are on top of what? MR. GIBLIN: Your base density of -- MR. OCHS: Four. MR. GIBLIN: -- four or three, depending on your circumstances. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how does that affect -- we do a lot of affordable housing in coastal high hazard areas where people have to evacuate; we just saw that quite a few times recently, when they evacuate. Why do we let more affordable housing people who have no place to go and can't afford it, why do we build up more density there than in other areas? MR. GIBLIN: There is a penalty, a density penalty for building in those areas, and that same penalty would apply if you're doing affordable or non-affordable. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time, please. MR. GIBLIN: There's a density-reduction penalty that is applied for building in the coastal high hazard area, and that's -- we're not -- again, we're not proposing to change that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we take out one unit, right? MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then we add density because now we're giving them extra -- 12 extra units. So how does that -- I understand we lose one, but we add 12. So how does that -- how January 22, 2019 Page 67 does that help for the safety of these people who have no place to go to? MR. BOSI: The evaluation of the density restriction of the coastal high hazard area weighed against the benefit of providing affordable housing, the past boards that have set the policy have made the decision that the provision of affordable housing, that benefit outweighs whatever negativity would be associated with the evacuation potential for that coastal high hazard area and, therefore, in that evaluation they've said the benefit of providing affordable housing was a greater benefit than the potential negat ive impact and, based upon that, they have made a policy decision and said that the provision of affordable housing in this county is at a level towards where they value it over the concerns of evacuation. Now, every petition that would have an affordable housing density bonus in the coastal high hazard area would have extra evaluation as to the evacuation capacity and capability of that individual segment, what are the sheltering opportunities within close proximity? What type of mitigation would be required for such a proposal? All those would be factors that would be part of the package that the Planning Commission and the Board would weigh. But from a policy standpoint, the Board of County Commissioners, through the GMP, says the provision of affordable housing is at a level that it outweighs whatever concern we would have over the evacuation needs of the population. COMMISSIONER FIALA: At a level -- meaning at a level of need? MR. BOSI: As a level of need. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I go back to what are we building for, season or out of season? I remember when the hospital sold all of the units that they had January 22, 2019 Page 68 over there on Eighth Street, right, because that was their housing for seasonal workers, and it's probably difficult to keep up with the seasonal workers, you know, because when they're gone, you have empty apartments sitting there for months and months, but you still have to pay all the expenses involved with that. And now the hospital is saying we need more housing, but they don't have to pay for it. They want us to provide it. And I think that's rather an interesting thing to just take note of. Okay. Back one more time, it says affordable housing rental unit, and they eliminate moderate -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My mother says she can't hear you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They eliminate modern (sic) and gap in the rental. Why are we doing that? MR. GIBLIN: Again, that's not a change. It has always been that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I wonder why. MR. GIBLIN: Because the associated rents that you could charge to a moderate or gap unit are higher than your market -rate rents. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. GIBLIN: We don't want to give an incentive to someone -- to a developer to provide above-market-rate housing. I can show you on a slide here. The rents that are associated with those income levels -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, this is for one person? MR. GIBLIN: This is for a household of three. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh my. One-bedroom? No, two-bedroom. MR. OCHS: Two-bedroom. MR. GIBLIN: So as you got to the moderate or gap levels, you start approaching or exceeding market-rate rents. January 22, 2019 Page 69 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not by much anymore. Every year it increases, but... COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think that's the -- that's the only ones that I have here at this very, very moment. How many -- how many affordable housing units have we built this year, or how many units -- not only affordable. How many rental units have we built in Collier County this year; do you know? That's covering all price ranges, you know. MR. BOSI: Well, ma'am -- Commissioner, it's January 22nd. I could get some numbers together in terms of the past, looking back at the past calendar year, and provide that information to the Board of County Commissioners in terms of the number of units that have been -- but I think we've talked about it -- we've spoken about it a number of times. There has been a market response to the need for additional rental properties within the community. A number of approvals have gone through. More will be coming before this board in an SDP correspondence. We can get that information. The private marketplace has responded in a manner towards where we are having additional rental communities th at are coming on and will be planned. We'll provide that information to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're really going up right now. I notice that everyplace. And they're all rental rates. So I think that they're filling the need that the market has out there. Is it really necessary for us to increase density more? I ask that because we keep hearing -- all of us keep hearing from the residents, stop increasing density. We hear that all the time. And being that the market has already met the need and they're continuing on meeting the need, do we really need to increase the density as far as incentivizing more density? MR. BOSI: Well, that's a policy question that the Board of January 22, 2019 Page 70 County Commissioners will have to wrangle with, but what I can tell you from the zoning manager perspective and the director of Planning and Zoning, we haven't had an affordable housing density project come through in the past couple years. There has been a private side response. Anytime that y ou have an issue of housing, of housing affordability, it has to be a two-prong approach. There has to be a market-rate response, but there also has to be a portion or a limited governmental restricted rate approval, and we haven't had that. We haven't had that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see what you're saying. MR. BOSI: So that's why we have made the decision to further incentivize that opportunity to hopefully allow for a private venture to -- provider to come in and propose a deed-restricted affordable housing project that we have not received. So we haven't had the balance. We've had the market response, but we haven't had the restricted unit response, and that's what we're hoping to incentivize with this increase from eight to 12. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, as long as the market is meeting our needs, I don't see any need to incentivize more. I just -- it just doesn't make any sense to me, but -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I can help clarify that a little bit more. My division does a quarterly apartment survey of all available rental apartments in the county: Affordable, non-affordable, restricted, non-restricted, every single apartment complex. And what we've found is, yes, that in the recent couple of years the market has been building more market-rate rental units. When we call and poll them of what they're renting for and how many vacancies they have, we find that the apartment complexes on a whole are running about 98, maybe 98 and a half percent full, only about a 1 and a half percent vacancy rate, and that that the rents -- the units that are available are above these rents that would be affordable to people in January 22, 2019 Page 71 these income levels. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's interesting, because just in my own family -- like, for instance, my granddaughter, she and her husband, their new baby and two dogs, very difficult to find any rental place, right? It only took them three days. And that was just a month ago. So that's right in season now. And I think it's interesting because then a nother person who came to town and needed to find something through a job, she found something very easily. People are finding them easily. I understand what your calculations are; I just don't see that actually happening in the marketplace. It seems li ke there are rental places around. And we don't want to build for out of season, I mean, in season. We want to build for out of season. That's what -- I just -- the density is really something that bothers me, so that's just -- that's just my input. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. You all set? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I just -- it's interesting, I asked this same thing with, I think it's Pine Ridge Commons, which is on -- I asked the same question, who are you building for, and what is your rent? Well, it's -- one bedroom is $1,650 a month. That doesn't include tax. That doesn't include any kind of utilities. And we're not -- we're building for people who want to come down in the winter, right? And then they want, instead of -- instead of renting a place for, like, just for seasonal, they'll rent a place for a year. So these are transient people with rents accordingly, which they are pretty -- that's a pretty hefty piece for a working folk to pay for that. It doesn't -- it doesn't address the need in our community. January 22, 2019 Page 72 So the market understands where the market -- in fact, right across the street that's what they're planning on doing, right across the street from our government complex. They're not gearing anything in that development for the people that serve us and help us in our meetings and in the government. They're dealing for market, for people who want to come in, have the nice winter months here, and then go back to the summer. But, you know, it's a lot less money to do it that way than it would be to buy a house. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we were hearing from places like Arthrex, and their people couldn't find any -- because they weren't low income. They didn't qualify for that. They wanted places that were nice to live in. I know they just built -- they're just building. What is that Invest -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't recall. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Over there by Lely. Beautiful place. And they're -- I don't know what the rents start at -- well, I did. I went in there and took a look at the whole thing. It's beautiful; start at 13- and go up to 18-. And I can't remember. What is that name? MR. GIBLIN: Inspira. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Inspira. Thank you so much. Yeah, it's beautiful. And, yeah, they're a decent rate. And they have, you know, the fitness centers and all of that and the cookout things. Anyway, they rent them as fast as they can. So I don't know what else we're looking for, but I think that the -- and my total meaning behind this is I think the development community has stepped up to the plate, and they're doing their thing. They heard the need, and they're meeting it. And they're building, it seems, all classes. I know David Torres just has built one. You can go in there. Another friend of mine that I told you about, she -- they have to find a place to live for three months -- that's kind of hard to January 22, 2019 Page 73 find -- until their new place is finished. They went over there, and they just found a place. And it's interesting. And over there at what -- David Torres -- Milano Lakes, they're all really moderate income. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. Commissioner, perhaps as a service announcement, we do have on our website, the Community and Human Services website, we have that apartment survey. We do it quarterly. We call every complex in town. For example, Inspira, we called, for their two-bedrooms, they were going for $1,830 a month. Milano Lakes was $1,590 a month. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For how many? MR. GIBLIN: For a two-bedroom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Milano Lakes started at 1,300. I was just there. MR. GIBLIN: And they were 100 percent occupied at the time that we called. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But they were continuing to build -- MR. GIBLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because that's where my friend just went, and her husband and their dog. And they have two dog parks there, too, by the way. MR. GIBLIN: But we do have this information on our website if anyone in the public is looking for -- we have the names, addresses, and phone numbers of every complex in town. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And those are complexes, but there's a lot of rental units that aren't in complexes as well -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: True. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that -- actually, you wouldn't -- like, all down Rattlesnake Hammock, all of those condos that everybody rents out. How would you ever get a handle on that? January 22, 2019 Page 74 You can't. You just know that they're there, and you see people renting them. But there's a lot of rental s, and I think that's what might throw it off a little, is a lot of rentals. I live in Lakewood. Boy, people are renting over there, too, and there's just a lot of rentals around, but not in actual complexes, so that adds to the mix, too. Anyway, thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You okay? You had your light -- are you done with your light? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick comment. You know, we sort of made a policy decision, I want to say, going back at least a year ago, that there were certain things we were willing to do to incentivize this workforce-type housing. We didn't want to set up a tax, special tax for that. We didn't want to charge developers 10,000 or $20,000 per unit as part of their approval if they weren't providing that type of housing, so we were eliminating a lot of the different things -- different tools that are used in communities, and I think we did the right thing by eliminating some of those tools, but we did say that there are basically three things that we know we can do that will have a significant impact in improving the issue. One was trying to find land where the county could partner, and we've got one project or one request for proposals out now for some workforce housing on some land that's owned by the county, and we're going to continue to do that type of research. The other was to look at impact fee waivers and deferrals. That's a big number per unit. I think our impact fees are, what, around $20,000 per unit? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twenty-six. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Twenty-six thousand. So if January 22, 2019 Page 75 you have land that's available and you are dealing with the impact fees, that leaves us with a third issue, which was density. And I like the idea that we're looking at 16 units per acre as a starting point. I think our committee that evaluated this was recommending 24 units per acre or 30 units per acre, something significantly higher than this. But if we don't have increased density, we're not going to get the type of housing, because developers just simply can't build it, and that's why there's -- the increase in this density, I think, is important. And this is -- to me, 16 units per acre for this type of housing is really a low number compared to what other communities are doing and compared to what was recommended to us and probably compared to what needs to, ultimately, be done, but this is certainly a good point. So I think the history of that, I think, was important. That we've kind of come to the conclusion, these are the three issues we -- from a financial standpoint that we can deal with. MR. OCHS: And, Commissioner, just not to belabor this, but with respect to your last point on density, this is a completely voluntary program. There's no requirement to build to a certain density. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, Commissioner Saunders very eloquently covered everything I had to say, and as did the County Manager, so I'll turn my button off. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, there you are. He turned his button off on himself. I have a comment or two with regard to the density, and it has to do with something that Commissioner Taylor has spoke about on a regular basis, and that is as opposed to just the bequeath of additional density, we all know that the increase in density is going to ultimately reduce your per-unit expense either in your land acquisition or your construction costs, because you've got a January 22, 2019 Page 76 commonalty of expenses along the way. There hasn't been, in my personal opinion, and something that's been talked about regularly, the transferability of density. So everybody's talking about this population buildout number that we, in fact, are going to have and whether -- and I know our friend Mark Strain has espoused that someday we're going to be anywhere from 800- to a million two in people, and nobody really knows because of the existing land uses and things that are out there, vested real property rights. But rather than us going with -- and, again, we all know that density is a portion of the calculation that a developer needs to have in order to have economic viability. Why aren't we further exploring the benefits of the transferability of these already -existent development rights that are hugely contentious, especially in the eastern portions of our community, so that we're not just magnanimously increasing population because of a particular need that is right now? And my thought processes on that line are the market does respond. Manipulation of the market by the government doesn't oftentimes bode well because there's always going to be a deficiency, and we've seen that in this needs metrics that our staff has brought forward regularly with regard to the -- with the adjustments to the needs that are out there. I'm just curious if we shouldn't give greater exploration as to transferability of densities as opposed to just increases along the way. When you do that, that does, in turn, have impacts on your overall population and, in theory, can deter or have detrimental effects on those that already have property rights that are existent. So I -- it's something that we haven't really all talked about all that much other than expressing concern about -- I remember, Commissioner Taylor, when I first came on board, you were January 22, 2019 Page 77 chairman and we were talking about the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and everybody was kind of thinking that increasing densities in that particular area was a good idea, and you expressed some very viable concerns about -- I think you called it willy-nilly zoning, if I'm not mistaken, of just increasing densities on a willy -nilly basis. So I -- having said all that, I concur with Commissioner Fiala's concerns about this, the overall increase of density. I know from a private-sector side, we have to do it at some particular stage, but I would rather there be a plan associated with that increase in densities and more of an impetus of transferring existi ng real property rights and managing the growth that we are inevitably going to have within the bounds of our county and utilizing those densities that are already existent as opposed to just because the needs analysis says we need to increase density, doing -- MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, I think I can help you with this a little bit is the density issue was really looked at in your recommendations in the housing plan, a two-pronged approach. The first prong is this: Living within our existing codes with the maximum of 16 units to the acre. The second prong was looking, as Commissioner Saunders alluded to, going above 16 units to the acre, how would that work. We mentioned strategic opportunity sites, we mentioned the activity center model, and you gave us direction, I believe it was in November, to move forward with some of those discussions at the staff level and working through the committees to how we can go above that 16-units-to-the-acre threshold, and perhaps transfer of density is one of those mechanisms. But we are looking at how to do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and that comes back around to my final comment before we call for the vote and go forward. January 22, 2019 Page 78 I'm the one that made a suggestion to pull this off of summary so we could have a discussion. But how often do we review this, Cormac? And if this is, in fact, approved today, when can we bring these paramount issues back as far as making necessary adjustments along the way? MR. GIBLIN: You can review a Land Development Code change anytime the Board wishes. There's a process to get us to this point. The other changes that I mentioned that would exceed the 16-units-to-the-acre cap right now in your Growth Management Plan, we're talking years, I believe. We have a time table out there that it's going to take years to get there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you say multiple years? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And that was the committee's basis for doing a two-prong approach: One living within the existing code and o ne for the future. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. You said before, too -- oh, I'm just jumping in. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please. No, nobody else had a light on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked why you removed moderate and gap housing. I don't -- I quite -- I didn't quite hear your answer. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. We didn't remove moderate or gap. Moderate or gap was always not allowed on the rental side. This maybe might clean it up and make it more clear, but we do not offer bonuses for rental housing at moderate or gap, and that's consistent with the way it's always been. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I guess I never realized that before. January 22, 2019 Page 79 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And since we're just -- I mean, but isn't that one of the rationales of where we actually have a need right now, moderate and gap? Are those first responders, government employees, nurses and the like where we truly have a need for providing for the housing? I see all that. I don't -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But that was two years ago. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was two years ago before the median. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And two years from now the marketplace will have adjusted, the units will be there, and the economy will adjust, and outside circumstances are, in fact, in place. Commissioner Fiala's discussion with regard to gap and moderate housing, where that is actually a need right now where, two years ago, again, prior to my becoming a county commissioner, Commissioner Taylor it was announced that we had an affordable housing problem. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The adjustments on the column on the left are determined by the declaration by the State, I believe, or federal what the median income of a county is. That will vary based on our median income. In Collier County it goes up. Last year it was 75,000. I don't know what it's going to be this year. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It wasn't 75-. It was 64-. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that was two years ago. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The median income? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's 75- last year, 75-. That's why these all got adjusted. That's why it puts teachers and firefighters and construction folks and the people that work for us in the government into low, some of the people. Some of the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'll just say, the little words that you throw in here and there, the just changing from 150 to January 22, 2019 Page 80 140, all of those changes your final outcome. And a lot of times things are moved around to design the end product, and so -- and I don't -- I don't know enough to be able to pick all of those things out and see how they would affect the final outcome. I just am concerned with that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the recommendations brought forward by staff just to move this thing forward. I think we're -- we have made some policy decisions in the past. This is just implementing those. I think we need to just vote on this and move forward. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And may I ask -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, sure. You hit your light. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: County Attorney, is this a three or four -- four? So may I ask for a roll call, please? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we -- that we accept the staff's recommendations with regard to 17C. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I guess we don't need a roll call. It doesn't -- we don't need a roll call. It doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's only five of us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. It's not like a committee of eight or 10. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm just reviewing -- just so you know, to approve the attached ordinance, I mean -- well, Commissioner Saunders, did you hit your light again? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I did, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead, please. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a question on the motion. If the motion fails, what is the next step? I'm just curious January 22, 2019 Page 81 as to where we go from there so that the Board understands what the implementation is of the vote today. MR. OCHS: Right. As Mr. Bosi said at the outset, last December you adopted the Growth Management Plan amendment that incorporated these changes into your Growth Management Plan. This LDC is simply codifying the policy changes you made then which were a result of previous board direction when you reviewed the individual elements of your Community Housing Plan. So the bottom line is you'd have a situation where if this failed, your LDC wouldn't match up with your GMP. So you would either have to go back and amend your GMP or redirect us in some way to come back with an LDC amendment that still is consistent with your GMP but I suppose is somewhat different than what's in front of you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And while we're on that subject matter, how many times have I voted for those things? MR. OCHS: Well, again, the GMP amendment in December was on your summary agenda and unanimously approved. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, it wasn't. I actually voted no. MR. OCHS: Sir, I have the recap here, unless the -- unless it was recorded improperly, but I'll double-check for you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. OCHS: Did that answer your question, sir? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I just wanted to see what that would mean. And so in terms of affordable housing/workforce housing, we would -- I assume we'd be somewhat at a standstill in terms of some of these policy issues at that point. MR. KLATZKOW: You could still do your current -- you're inconsistent, but the Comp Plan would still permit the LDC since the LDC is eight and the Comp Plan is up to 12. So it would be business as usual but not what you wanted in the Comp Plan. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. January 22, 2019 Page 82 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which would essentially mean that everything we've done for the last two years -- MR. OCHS: Three years. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- comes to naught; three years. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a process. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, again, Mr. Chairman, the reason I was asking that question, I just wanted to get a good understanding amongst the board members as to the import of this particular vote. That doesn't necessarily mean anybody should change their vote, but I just wanted everybody to understand what the impact was. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understood the impact of my vote. And if there was one push through on the summary or consent agenda that I unwittingly voted for, I have to apologize for that, because I have had issues with this housing plan since it was brought forward. MR. OCHS: I agree, sir, and you've been very consistent in the votes -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, I have. MR. OCHS: -- with your votes on the housing plan. You have voted against those recommendations; yes, you have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, I have. So I apologize to you if one got past me that I didn't actually physically pull off the consent or the summary agenda, so -- and I'm not looking to belabor the point. It's just -- so let's have a vote. There's a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the motion is to approve the staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That is correct. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. January 22, 2019 Page 83 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The motion fails 3-2. I will entertain any other motions before this goes on. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask a question? Because I'm a little curious. I was expecting two no votes on that because I know Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel have raised a lot of issues, but I'm kind of surprised at Commissioner Taylor's no vote. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we see anybody -- do we see Arthrex here? Do we see the hospital here? Do we see Kam Patton here? No. They had no idea this was going to happen. This affects their hearts. This affects their ability to market and to bring workers to Collier County. I want them here, and I'm going to ask that we -- there's a word for it, and it's escaped me now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reconsider. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Reconsider it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, so that's the reason for the consensual vote. Gotcha. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And let them, again, tell us why this is important. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're -- we'll deal with that in accordance to the reconsideration. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Let me ask a quick question because there is a procedural issue here. If you make a motion to reconsider at the same meeting at the same time that issue's taken, you reconsider that motion at the same meeting. January 22, 2019 Page 84 MR. KLATZKOW: If it's the prerogative of the board to rehear this at a future meeting, we can certainly do that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I just want to mak e sure that procedurally -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would the motion maker like to have -- I'm assuming you made that as a motion for reconsideration? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. And, again, the intent is not to put this conversation to waste what we discussed right now, but to allow the stakeholders, the real stakeholders, besides our own government and the people who work here, the real stakeholders to come and again present the reason they need this amendment passed and how it will incentivize, hopefully, and attract the kind of development that will keep their workers housed. Remember, our dear colleague to the north, Lee County County Manager told me, thank you, Collier County, for sending us so many workers. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make a suggestion that maybe the motion be to reconsider this at the next meeting? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would be more than happy to do that, so I withdraw my motion and -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just amend your motion for a particular date. I would assume a time-certain specifically because you're asking for -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I will surprise you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okeydoke. I'm ready. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I've withdrawn it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So you've withdrawn your motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you asked me to withdraw it, or do you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, to amend it to say that we will January 22, 2019 Page 85 reconsider it at the next meeting so we have a date for them to appear. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yes, perfect. I thought I did but, yes, I will withdraw the original motion and make a motion that we reconsider this issue at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Technically, that was an amendment to your motion, so -- and it's been seconded. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll amend my second as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for that clarity. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we reconsider this at our next meeting. Would you like to -- and we could do it at a time-certain as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we're going to reconsider it, and there's a vote for reconsideration, then we set, I would think -- is that -- do we actually discuss it at that time, or do we -- do we have -- do we set the time when we're going to discuss it at a time-certain at another meeting? MR. KLATZKOW: I think the County Manager will work with the Chair to get the time-certain if it's appropriate. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then we can bring -- and we would have what I'm moving for is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And may I suggest, I think it's a good idea to make the -- or invite the hospital and Arthrex and the Sheriff's Office and the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fire departments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, the larger -- fire departments, right. But when we talk about affordable housing, I think we ought to tell them what we mean because so many January 22, 2019 Page 86 times -- like, for instance, the Sheriff's Office will say, well, we need housing, but the thing is, they need housing -- most of their people do not qualify for affordable housing. They qualify for the next step up, the moderate income or gap. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not anymore, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this is just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But you need to hear from them. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, and so they can tell us what maybe price range they need it in or what -- you know, do they qualify for affordable or not? If they don't qualify, what would they qualify for? Maybe there's something that our plan is lacking that we could, then, include them in on. I think that's -- you know, a lot of times we say no so much we don't find out what they really want, and so I think we ought to make it a prerequisite that we find out what they really want, what they really need for their employees. Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I hope that -- I think that's a very good discussion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's the end goal. So that's a motion and a second to reconsider this item at our next stated communication. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) January 22, 2019 Page 87 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. GIBLIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: County Manager, when we contact the major stakeholders, when they come forward, could we get percentages from them in terms of the number of employees that would qualify for low versus moderate income -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- if they're willing to come forward? MR. OCHS: We'll try to do as much of that as we can, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Family -wise, right? MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, would you like to move on? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm ready. Item #10A RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST A PRESENTATION BY NORTH COLLIER FIRE DISTRICT REGARDING THE PROPOSED SALE OF FIRE STATION #40 ON PINE RIDGE ROAD AT GOODLETTE-FRANK – MOTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE DISTRICT BOARD FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS ISSUE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 10A is a recommendation to request the presentation by the North Collier Fire District regarding the proposed sale of Fire Station No. 40 on Pine Ridge Road at Goodlette-Frank Road. Commissioner Taylor brought this item forward. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. This came to light on Thursday. No, it was Wednesday, Wednesday January 22, 2019 Page 88 afternoon. I had a long, overdue luncheon with -- see, it's Monday, right? I had a long, overdue luncheon and learned at this luncheon that North Collier Fire District was planning to move the station on Pine Ridge and Goodlette and that there was no backup information besides the will of the board to do this. And there was no studies of response times and, frankly, I cut my teeth on response times when I came to this commission because of the issues of the safety of people and what response times were and so much with the Fire Department. So I decided to call the chief in the City of Naples because, of course, it affects the chief in the City of Naples and, of course, it affects EMS, and I talked to County Manager Leo Ochs, and no one -- the chief in the city knew about it, but he was told that he was expected to build another bay and actually staff it with their fire engine, and there had been no discussion on the county -- or the City Council because they hadn't heard of it. And when I called County Manager Leo Ochs, he knew nothing of it. So I asked Chief Dimaria, what would you like? He said, I just would like to be able to sit down with North Naples to talk about this. And so, accordingly, Chief Cunningham did send an email to ask whether I wanted to be part of that meeting and, of course, I don't. I think this is nothing that I have anything -- that I can even affect, but I just think it's important that everybody gets together. And it's clear there's, I think, a 60- or 90-day approval period. And where they're moving will affect the response times in Moorings Park, it will affect it in Pelican -- or in Pine Ridge. It's -- it boggles the mind. So I look forward to the report from our EMS but, clearly, I think this needs to be discussed before the deal is sealed, so to speak. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. January 22, 2019 Page 89 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would like to request that maybe we ask the Chairman to write a letter to the district and just suggest to them that prior to the moving or buying or selling of property where there's actually a fire station, that they provide us with some heads- up, at least as a courtesy. I mean, this is the same issue that came up once the district bought some property on Yarberry off of Orange Blossom which caught me and everybody else that I'm aware of by surprise. I mean, it would at least be helpful to know that these issues are being considered and that way we're not kind of taken by surprise. I know we can't require that, but I think, as a matter of courtesy, it would be helpful if they would do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, I agree. I mean, the communication with -- I mean, and that's where I think we run into a little bit of an issue where the fire district is an independently elected taxing authority. We really have no say-so other than our EMS that is -- I think we do keep an ambulance there with regard to this particular -- this particular fire station. We have no say-so other than that lease agreement that we have with the Fire Department there. So enhanced communications is going to do nothing but benefit, especially when they're planning on locating or constructing a new facility and negotiating. I actually happened to speak yesterday at the Martin Luther King Association with one of the fire chiefs in the City of Naples because I had gotten a phone call from Chief Cunningham with regard to this item, and they're -- we're way early on this particular item here in front of the county commissioners other than -- you having the right to put something like this on here, there's discussion going on amongst all of the fire departments along with EMS along the way. And I mean, per Chief Cunningham, they haven't even gone to their own board with appraisals to be able to make determination as to whether this is January 22, 2019 Page 90 a viable opportunity. So I'd be happy to write a letter at this stage. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Excuse me. They do -- I have documents that has an appraisal, so if they haven't gone to their board with it, I've got that appraisal right here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You have -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. They've gone to their board. In fact, they have 90 days from this document, which is the sale of the property, they have 90 days to close it. There's a deposit on it. The purchase price is 1.2, but I do have the appraisal here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, you have an offer to purchase. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I'm just talking about the agreement between Barron Collier and North Naples Fire District. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. That's a letter of intent, and that's how these processes are initiated. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Caroll & Caroll appraised it. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. OCHS: -- you have one registered speaker, I believe, and you also have Chief Cunningham here, so if you're looking for somebody that can speak authoritatively, he's probably your man. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's -- instead of me paraphrasing him, let's go ahead -- let's go ahead -- I think -- and there again, let's -- we have one registered speaker. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. MILLER: Your registered speaker is Caroline Martino. MS. MARTINO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Caroline Martino. I live at 179 Ridge Drive in Naples, Pine Ridge, and I'm also the president of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. January 22, 2019 Page 91 I would be happy to speak after Chief Cunningham. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say first, if that's all right with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're the boss. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, I'm fine with that. MS. MARTINO: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Chief Cunningham, since we have called upon you twice and you didn't sign up -- CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. James Cunningham, fire chief, North Collier Fire Control an d Rescue District. We have had an appraisal already done on the property. That was done quite some time ago, but you are correct, Commissioner McDaniel, that we have received a letter of intent. Once they sign the letter of intent, the time clock starts. The commission has not directed to sign yet. The offer that was provided as a letter of intent has subsequently been counter -offered back to a different price. I have not heard whether or not that price is acceptable or not. There is no contract yet on this property. And just as indicated, I have spoken with Chief Tabitha Butcher, as well as Chief Dimaria. Obviously, they all would be impacted by any changes. But I can tell you that we work closely with our partners in EMS as well as the City of Naples, and what we're trying to do is create more efficiency and more effectiveness looking at a holistic view. Now that the City of Naples is in a closest-unit response along with everyone else in the county, we're looking at all the locations of current fire stations and EMS stations, obviously, when they're impacted within us, to make sure we're providing the best services for the best price to every constituent. Moving .5 or .7 miles down the road could impact other areas and might negatively impact a few but also positively impact some January 22, 2019 Page 92 others. And we're looking at this at a holistic view. Yes, we have offered to have discussion with the City of Naples, but we are, by far, anywhere close (sic) to actually having a formal agreement in place and that the -- what you're hearing is actually the conversations of open communication before any formal action is taken. Thank you. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you tell me if you've been working with the commissioner for that district. I mean, it's good if you could let him know what you're doing, too, because that could kind of blindside him, so... CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Absolutely. So the -- obviously, I talk to several of you quite on a regular -- somewhat regular basis, whether through a phone call or running into you at different events. So I try to keep everyone up to speed as to what is taking place but, obviously, this is something that is very new that the commissioners just in the last couple months started discussing it, and they did ask that we approach the City Council to see if there's any interest from the City Council. If that's a no from city, obviously we can go a different direction. But we're trying to open up the conversation links right now to find out where is everyone in reference to this item. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you're saying if the city says this is probably too expensive, we -- you know, the service is fine right now, you do a great job, you're willing to back away from this, moving the -- CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: I would say -- I'm not going to speak on behalf -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- station. January 22, 2019 Page 93 CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: I'm not going to talk about backing out from doing the station. The station that we're looking to replace is nearly 40 years old. Station 40 on Pine Ridge Road just east of Goodlette was there when Pine Ridge Road was, obviously, much smaller than what the station is now. It's now a six -lane road in front of that station. The station itself is limited as to what we can put at that station now in resources. Just last year EMS had to move out of the bay they were using because the ambulances of today are a different size and can't fit in the bay that EMS had prior used. So we're trying to look at ways to -- without putting a significant amount of money into continuing to upgrade the existing station, we may be better suited, since we have that property just east of this location on Pine Ridge. And something that's of interest that was in your packet, we are not looking to drive through the industrial park for every call for service to get to Pine Ridge. We have property that goes all the way from -- that has a Pine Ridge Road address all the way into the industrial park. There's more than one parcel there that we own, and we would have frontage out to and be able to respond directly onto Pine Ridge Road to go east and westbound. So that information that was provided was not accurate. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number one. Number two, he has -- he has an elected board that sets the policy for what they can and will do. He's an administrator to that elected board who will be making these decisions based upon future information that's going to be acquired from the City of Naples. So I mean, that will -- though a rational question, it really wasn't fair, if the City of Naples were to say, no, they weren't interested, they wouldn't go -- he can't make that determination. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I heard -- I January 22, 2019 Page 94 misunderstood. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: And just also, I would say, I'd be more than happy to come back and show you a formal presentation. We do have a lot of data analytics that goes into these decisions that are being made. They're not being made in a vacuum just with us. We're going to talk to our partners, and we have plenty of data to share with you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think that was my cause for alarm, if I can so say that word in this conversation; that there was any -- there wasn't any data. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it quite frightened me, frankly, because I know clearly, having gone through on the City Council, the annexation of Moorings Park within the city and understanding, and that's where I cut my teeth on response time and understanding the importance of that station and that location for response time for Moorings Park and for Pine Ridge. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I look forward to this, and I look forward to the data. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The place that you're eyeing now to buy -- I don't know that you have bought it or anything like that -- is it on a main thoroughfare, or is it down a street? CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: We currently own property that has a Pine Ridge Road address. The 1900 block of Pine Ridge Road -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. I'm asking you, not Pine Ridge Road access, but is it located on Pine Ridge Road? CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: It fronts Pine Ridge Road. It's right behind where the IberiaBank -- if you know the intersection of Forest January 22, 2019 Page 95 Lakes and Pine Ridge Road, we would be coming out at the existing traffic signal, which is, again, another advantage. We wouldn't have to make any changes to the roadway. We wouldn't need any emergency signal. We would be able to utilize the existing signal with our current ability to change those traffic signal lights with our Opticom. So we would currently have -- we currently have property today. We don't need to buy property. We own property today that has a Pine Ridge Road address that we'd be able to come out right onto Pine Ridge at the intersection of Forest Lakes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when you have to come out, what do you come out of in order to get to Pine Rid ge Road? CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: There's a road right -- that goes around the bank. There's an auto parts store. There's a -- it's a small mini-storage building. We have property -- it's all commercial property right there. It's got a Pine Ridge Road addre ss, but it accesses -- comes right into the Pine Ridge and Forest Lakes intersection. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is it in the -- is it over there by Goldies, because there's an IberiaBank up there. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: No, ma'am. We're east of Goldies. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In the middle of Pine Ridge now. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm trying to -- I don't think there's an actual -- I'm looking at the -- I'm looking at the Google. You know, we have Google, and I'm looking at the -- CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: I'll be able to provide all that for you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't think that there's an actual name on the northside of Forest Lakes Boulevard where the light is accessing Forest Lakes. That's a commercial -- January 22, 2019 Page 96 CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: They're all Pine Ridge entrances. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- similar to Naples Boulevard over where Lowe's and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- those places are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me tell you where I was going. If there are residents right there who would have the ambulances going by and the sirens and everything, if it's down a street -- because you're talking Forest Lakes, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's north of -- CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: It's in the industrial park. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- north Pine Ridge Road in the industrial park where their property is currently at now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's in the industrial park? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. But it's accessed by an unnamed road, per Google, so it has to be unnamed. It's accessed by an unnamed road out of the industrial park at that intersection of Forest Lakes. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: The benefit of this property also is the fact that the -- it has direct access into the industrial park for the calls for service that are in the industrial park; they access that way and not have to come onto Pine Ridge Road. So they would have access both north and south, east and west. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If I may, just -- in some of the material that I read and some of the comments in the meeting, it does seem that the issue of you -- of North Naples responding to Moorings Park is something that is not favored kindly by the North Naples Fire District board. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: I can tell you that we are so far beyond those days. I can stand before you and tell you, as a person January 22, 2019 Page 97 who loves data myself, service, service, service will drive every decision that I make as your current fire chief for North Collier regardless of geographical boundaries and regardless of the color of the truck or the badge of the door. If we're the closest unit to respond to any emergency and we have the appropriate vehicle to do it, we're going to do so. I can tell you that, you know, regardless of when you look at the district boundaries -- and now we have closest unit response time the way it's driven today, the City of Naples is providing us good coverage down in the south Twin Lakes area, when you look at anything south of Alhambra and the Hyde Park -- or the multi-story condominiums. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Highpoint. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Highpoint, obviously, they're providing a significant improvement in our response times in those areas. By working closely with our partners both in EMS and the City of Naples, we're going to provide the best coverage to the most number of calls and geographical area that we can and balancing those two. And so that is our commitment to do that, as well as trying to maintain existing stations. And when you have stations that are of the age of the current Station 40, something needs to be done as that station has significantly changed from when it was first purchased and built nearly 40 years ago. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I can also reiterate, Commissioner Taylor, just how important it is to this particul ar board and the current chief of North Collier. I assisted in the merger of Big Corkscrew Fire Department and North Collier and watched that process and the enhancement for services provided to the folks in the east. I've also -- because, you know, District 5 represents basically all January 22, 2019 Page 98 three fire districts except for -- well, not the City of Naples, but I've watched North Collier work cooperatively with Immokalee, with Greater Naples. Again, Chief Cunningham's comment, it's all about service -- it doesn't matter about the color of the truck or the geographic bounds -- is going to be what guides their decisions. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could ask Mr. Casalanguida to trace out the access and have the Chief confirm the route that he was talking about just so everybody understands where we are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is Forest Lakes intersection. I'm assuming this driveway here, Chief, and then back in. This is the parcel you're talking about? CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then would you go and show us on Google where it exists right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That's a -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the station right now, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: With a flashing light, with the access to the arterial, you know, 10 seconds away. And this is pretty much in the middle of Pine Ridge, this new location? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So -- okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we'd want to probably take that light out. I just -- the Chief is talking to the buyer/seller that this light would probably come out at that point in time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wouldn't have a need for it, certainly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other questions for Chief Cunningham? January 22, 2019 Page 99 CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Again, I'd be more than happy to come back before you, provide you a more comprehensive view of the data, analytics, in the conversations we're trying to have now to build up to that point. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, minimally, communicate with Commissioner Solis -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Please. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- as you're going forward. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. CHIEF CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now -- MR. MILLER: Ms. Martino. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. I'd forgotten her name. MR. MILLER: You're quite welcome. Also, Mr. Chair, I was handed an additional slip once we started the item. Do you want to take that speaker as well? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not opposed to it. Again, other than just the sheer fact that we're not going to be able to take any action on this other than to hear -- other than to hear your comments. MS. MARTINO: That's fine with me. I'll be brief. My points are as follows: I've lived in Pine Ridge for 18 years. I've seen numerous occasions when -- numerous; I should actually detail them. Between 20 and 30 occasions when having the fire station in such an immediate access point has been critical to the assistance that's been offered. And in reference to Chief Cunningham's point, it's hard to get more north, south, east, west than the point that they're at right now. Anything further into Pine Ridge Road, and you're dealing with January 22, 2019 Page 100 traffic snarl-ups. And anyone who drives Pine Ridge Road, we pretty much know that at any point in the day, some worse than others. I would strongly encourage the commissioners to request a presentation by Chief Cunningham, and I would strongly request Chief Cunningham work closely with Commission Solis. I know that District 2 will have a lot to say about this, especially the residences and the residents who are closest to the station. And, on a personal note, in July of 2008, my husband had a heart attack. He was at home. This fire station saved his life. Seconds count. Traffic snarl-ups count for seconds. They were there in a matter of moments, got him to the hospital as quickly as possible, code save-a-life protocol saved his life. He made a full recovery. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. MS. MARTINO: Seconds count. So please, please take this seriously. This is a major decision. Two point however many miles just down the road is not the only consideration. I appreciate the fire station may need updating. The City of Naples has done that at the same location. They're in the middle of doing that right now should that not be the option. Thank you so much, and I'll be seeing you again. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And make sure that you are also communicating with the North Collier Fire Commission with regard to this -- MS. MARTINO: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- because this is their initial decision to -- MS. MARTINO: No, I understand that -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- put this piece of property up and January 22, 2019 Page 101 relocate. Absolutely. MS. MARTINO: And I appreciate that, but whatever you can do to help sway this decision would be much appreciated. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask you a quick question? The EMS is no longer operating out of that particular station? MR. OCHS: No. We -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're still operating. MR. OCHS: We collocate at that station. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean the existing one now? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Because there was something about the ambulances being larger. But everything is still happening from that station? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, your additional speaker is Diane Flagg. MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. North Naples resident, for the record. Just as a point of clarification, on January 9th the North Collier fire commissioners voted to sell the station and the property if the buyer would grant an additional 18 months and pay 1.27 million as opposed to 1.2. So that's where we're at with it. Also -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ms. Flagg, would you please tell us your credentials and what you've done here. MS. FLAGG: I served Collier County for 32 years; 20 -plus years as a licensed paramedic and chief of EMS, transportation, worked on roadways, and then Code Enforcement. January 22, 2019 Page 102 The first slide I'm showing you, right there on Pine Ridge Road is the current station. Kathleen Court is what the fire commissioners discussed, and then there is an adjacent property where you would then go out down a road, down a road, to get to the traffic signal. This one shows you the current access. And as you can see where the fire station is, it has an emergency signal that allows for safe ingress and egress. This -- the emergency vehicles come immediately out, can go down Pine Ridge Road, immediately access Goodlette. It can also go out and go eastbound and access Airport Road, as well as all of Pine Ridge Road so you see that there's immediate access of the emergency vehicles to the 911 calls. The next slide is if the connection is from the location where he's talking about, you will see that this is the road that you have to go down, one road you have to go down. Next slide. Next road you have to go down, and then at the end of this road there's a traffic signal. So this station is not only further east, which there's not a station that's on the west side, but this station is further east and there's -- it's going to take time to come out of the station location, down the one road, down the other road, and then you get to the traffic signal where then you can access Pine Ridge Road. So the other thing I'd like for the commissioners to consider, fully understanding that your purview is EMS, understanding that that's your purview, 1.27 million for a fully constructed station and property on an arterial road is an excellent buy, and that it may be a consideration for the county to look at purchasing this station and property and then working with the city if they also want to do a joint station if, in fact, the fire commissioners decide to move this fire station back and away from the arterial. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. January 22, 2019 Page 103 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It doesn't seem to be the same property -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, you know -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It is the same property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is the same property. There is a letter of intent. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it was only half highlighted. There was the whole property there that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, the other piece to the south. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. And so -- and, I mean, at this particular stage, other than Commissioner Solis' suggestion for this Board to make a -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, the chief was here. I think -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- he heard it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I did, but I'd be happy to write a letter on behalf of this board just to initiate and enhance communication. I think that's all we can necessarily do. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is there any support on the Board to, at some point, make it known that if it is North Naples' will to move to this station, that we might explore buying this property? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can't -- I can't support that right now without a lot more information. MR. OCHS: Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, but maybe to start the process. Go ahead, I'm sorry. MR. OCHS: I don't mean to interrupt, I just want to remind the Board, you adopted your most recent AUIR last November a few months back, and there's two new stations in that five-year plan that aren't at this location that are more in need of improved response January 22, 2019 Page 104 time. So you could do this, but you'd need to juggle around some of your station priorities. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not suggesting we do it. I just thought it might be an interesting presentation to understand -- to keep it on the table, so to speak, if there's any will. Not to do it, but just to explore it and, you know, give us the opportunity to say yes or no before the deal is closed. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're going to have to repeat that. To do what now? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just look at the feasibility of buying that station on Pine Ridge for EMS and for the City of Naples. I think it really might be something that we want to explore. And we may decide not to do it, but I think to put it out there on the table so that we can make an educated decision is very important considering its response time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I suggest that first we see what the presentation is from the district and -- I mean, because there is no contract at this point. There's an offer and then a counter, and -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And they're all on letter of intent. They haven't gone to contract yet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. So I would agree with that, but I think we need to see what the analytics are, what the numbers are, because we may just not even have to, you know, direct staff to even do any work if it's not going to work. And just one other thing. You know, my request, really, for more communication on these kinds of issues, I'd like to direct that to the district board, from one board to another. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This isn't -- you know, this isn't necessarily the chief's domain. This is really a request from one January 22, 2019 Page 105 board to another board to have some better communication. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering, if you've got -- like, the station now they said is 40 years old, so, you know, they really want to buy new property. Can you ever take a station that you feel is now not adequate, and while it's standing, can you build something right there on that same property still conducting your business efficiently while you're building a new building? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think you -- at least the City of Naples didn't do that. They moved to the -- I think the park, which is on the east side of Goodlette -- it's their property -- temporarily, and then they're moving back to the station. So I'm not sure you can do it all on the same -- it depends what you want done. I mean, if you're enlarging it and changing that station to the degree that the City of Naples did, I don't think so. But if we're trying to look at a station that will work for the City of Naples -- because they were taken by surprise at this -- and for our EMS who didn't even know about it, it may be we can work with what's there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So having said that, I'm happy to write a letter from this board to their board with regard to enhancing that communication. I think that's, at this stage, all we can necessarily do. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the attorney for North Naples? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to do the -- do you want to do that as a formal motion, Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I can. I'll make a motion. January 22, 2019 Page 106 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think you should, since it was -- I mean, this is an actual agenda item that Commissioner Taylor brought forward, so... He made a motion for us to do a letter to their board from us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that that letter come from this board to that board. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are, therefore, at lunch until 1:20. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, yes, yes. Good morning -- or afternoon, now it is. Item #11A RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE FURTHER DIRECTION ON PURSUING A-CATEGORY PROPERTIES FROM THE CONSERVATION COLLIER NINTH ACQUISITION CYCLE – MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD ON ACQUISITION OF PARCELS: HACK LIVING TRUST, GREEN & GREEN, BCI LLLP – SANITATION/BETHUNE, I-75 BERMAN TRUST AND January 22, 2019 Page 107 SD CORP/CYPRESS LANDINGS II – FAILED; MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ACQUISITION OF HACK LIVING TRUST PROPERTY, I-75 BERMAN TRUST AND GREEN & GREEN PROPERTY – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We're moving on to Item 11, County Manager's report. Item 11A is a recommendation to provide further staff direction on the pursuit of A category properties from the Conservation Collier Ninth Acquisition Cycle. Summer Araque Brown will present. Summer? That's -- I probably butchered that up a little bit, but. MS. ARAQUE: I'll correct it for the record. Hi, I am Summer Araque, Conservation Collier coordinator, and I started in the position on December 10th. First, I'm going to give you an overview of how we got here and in the last year and what we've been doing, and then I'll get into the details on the properties. On April 24th, 2018, you, the Board of County Commissioners, placed Hack and Gore on the A list. These properties were two of nine recommended by the CCLAC for the A list. The Gore property has been purchased, and as of now the Hack offer was refused, and we can get into more discussion on that in a little bit. On July 10th the Board reviewed the remainder of the recommended A list and approved the rest of the recommended properties for the A list. Normally that means to go forth and buy, but staff was asked and said to come back to the Board with more information, and that's why we're here today. Staff has obtained the following information: Appraisals; environmental studies as needed. Environmental site assessments January 22, 2019 Page 108 are not required on all properties but any properties where there would possibly be contamination; and initial criteria screening reports have been done on the properties. Most all of that work was done prior to me coming on December 10th. Staff is seeking direction on making offers to property owners. Are we good? (No response.) MS. ARAQUE: Okay. I wanted to show you an overview of the properties that we currently own and the properties that we are -- on your Cycle 9 list. So the properties in red are the existing Conservation Collier properties of 4,090 acres, and that does include the Gore property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those teeny little reds are -- that's all we own? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That includes -- that's a total of 4,000 acres. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a big map. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. So, I mean, this is, you know, close to a map of the whole county. You can't see the coastal areas, but yes. And then the blue areas are the areas that are on your list. The reason we wanted to show that to you is so you can see where they are in proximity to existing Conservation Collier properties and also where they are in relation to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. So we do have several -- yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you show me where the CREW is in relation to that. MS. ARAQUE: In this vicinity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I thought it was north of that. MS. ARAQUE: So with that, we do have several properties January 22, 2019 Page 109 that are in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, and some of them do have flowway stewardship areas over them, habitat areas, and water retention areas, and we can get into those details with those specific properties. MR. OCHS: The green, Summer? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. The green are existing conservation lands; thank you. Yes, so areas like CREW, FAC, Picayune, Big Cypress, we didn't break them out specifically. It made the map a little too busy, but the green are all of those areas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason I asked about CREW is I think CREW is donating some money to help buy some properties in that area, so I was wondering, are those properties adjacent to the CREW lands? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The Hammock ones are. There's two of them on our list. MS. ARAQUE: I'm going to have Melissa assist, who's been with the program for a long time. MS. HENNIG: Melissa Hennig, senior environmental specialist. These properties here, they're the Big Hammock Island, they're known as, and those are adjacent to Pepper Ranch, which is adjacent to the CREW lands right here. MS. ARAQUE: Thank you, Melissa. Okay. Are we good with this map before I move on? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So this spreadsheet shows you the estimated values, the appraised values, and the expended costs. To date we have spent $75,000 costs expended for appraisals and environmental site assessments. Those have been costs to Conservation Collier. And you can see that in several cases the January 22, 2019 Page 110 appraised value came back considerably more than the estimated value. Okay. For some of the properties I'm going to show you a location map first because the aerial did not have the crossroads on it. This is the Hack property. It is 28.46 acres, and you can see where it is located in the green portion. And then this is the property overview with the aerial showing you the property. There is currently a conservation easement that exists over the southern parcel, and the entire property consists solely of mangroves and water. One of the concerns with this property is that there's no access, so that's something to consider; however, the property would be valuable for stormwater management and storm surge. Do you have any questions on this one? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's no uplands whatsoever? MS. ARAQUE: No, there's no uplands. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's none. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then why was it -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because the argument is -- well, I'll let Deputy Manager -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to say -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- Casalanguida, who has had vast experience with the development community, respond to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: With respect to the question, sir, on the valuation? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, no. I mean, the discussion started with the Hack property that it was really the only property that was threatened by potential development, and I was kind of under the impression that if that was the case it was because it had some dry area that might have been developed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the engineers looked at it, and January 22, 2019 Page 111 they said it could be developed based on cost. But the delta, I think -- I'm going to try to do this in about 30 seconds or less. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't want to delay things. I just thought -- I hadn't heard it that way, so I don't want to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's zoned. And depending how much money you spend on the property to bring it to a developable state and then you compare it to market, that's the evaluation issue with the Hack property. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So it's all mangroves, okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Combined with the cost of mitigation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I get it. Yeah, I get it. Okay. MS. ARAQUE: So with that, just to get back a little bit, there are five properties that we addressed in your executive summary where staff would like for you to make you aware of certain issues on those properties. All of the properties are on the spreadsheet, and all of the properties are within this presentation, but those that we had specific issues with were addressed in your executive summaries, and those do include Hack, Sanitation/Bethune, Half Circle L Ranch, and the Big Hammock areas, 1 and 2. Do we have any other questions about Hack? (No response.) MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Green and Green is located along Collier Boulevard/951, and it is adjacent to the Shell Island Preserve, which is a Conservation Collier property, and to Rookery Bay. So the connectivity is a positive for this specific property. Do you have any questions? (No response.) MS. ARAQUE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's on the way to Marco Island, January 22, 2019 Page 112 correct? MS. ARAQUE: Correct, yes. Okay. Barron Collier Partnership properties, Sanitation/Bethune is located just -- within the Immokalee area -- sorry about that -- in this area right here. Okay. So that's the general location, and then we'll get specifically to the aerial. Okay. So we'd definitely like to go into some detail with you on this property. There is currently a landfill on the property, and so that is an area of concern. The property is owned by Barron Collier, but my understanding is the property was leased out to the county. So the county still has some liability, but the concern would be that all of that liability would basically become Conservati on Collier's liability with the landfill. That is an 16-acre area. A Phase 1 was done, but there was concern on going back to do a Phase 2, because you really don't want to start digging up things and having exposure; it would actually make things worse. So those are the issues with that property. Any questions before I move on? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Why would a potentially environmentally sensitive piece of land be brought to us to be purchased with Conservation Collier money? MS. ARAQUE: Can you go into more detail on your question? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I can just say it again. I mean, you just delineated that there was previously a landfill there -- MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and that there's potential liability that could flow over to the county additionally over and above the landfill that was there vis-a-vis a lease with Barron Collier Companies, and now it's being brought to us to be bought by Conservation Collier. It seems odd that this has made it through the appraisal process and CCLAC to come to Conservation Collier as a January 22, 2019 Page 113 purchase. I would think that that would be a big no. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah. Being in this position a month, I'm going to have to defer to Barry on that question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Being in this position a month. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, that's why she's asking loaded questions because she -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was it about the end of the month? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. She said she's been in this position a month and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- so at the beginning she said, are you -- are we all good? And I was like, that's a matter of opinion as well. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation director. I think the answer to your question does go back to the process. The program is a voluntary process where if landowners want to provide lands for consideration for Conservation Collier, they bring them forward. There was an assessment done that is included in your packet that talks about the benefit of this particular property. It is a concern of ours as well in terms of the environmental concerns, obviously, but it is a property that was brought forward voluntarily, assessed, and we're bringing it forward today. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry. Commissioner Saunders, you had your -- it doesn't blink at me. It just -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. When you say it's a voluntary program, do we go out and solicit any owners, I mean, for example, if there's an area that we think would be important to us? I realize it's a voluntary program, but do we go out and ask the owner January 22, 2019 Page 114 if they're interested in selling, or do we wait until they come to us? MS. HENNIG: We normally wait until they come to us. The only place we've sent letters would be the multi-parcel Winchester Head and Unit 53, or Red Maple Swamp. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This may lead to another question, because I've had comments concerning the lack of a plan going forward. There may have been a plan initially, but lack of a plan going forward to kind of guide us in our acquisitions. So I think I would make a couple comments. One, I'd like to kind of hear if we do have some kind of a plan, and if we do, what is it? And if we don't, what do we need to do to develop that? And then, No. 2, why wouldn't we pick out areas that we want to acquire and simply ask if the sellers are willing to sell under our program? Why would we have to just wait for them to come to us? MR. WILLIAMS: That's a great question. So, historically, it has been a voluntary program where we've allowed folks to come to us versus us seek them out. We've had a number of conversations with board members about specific criteria that the Board would be interested in. The criteria in the ordinance itself does allow for significant areas, if you will, for selection of properties, and that's part of what CCLAC does when they look at properties that are brought before them. So I do think there is a plan. The question is, is it as focused and detailed, perhaps, to go after properties, say, in an aggressive manner. I would say that it does not include that component. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just -- it seems to me that we should have a program where, if we identify a parcel that we think is valuable from an environment standpoint, it meets our criteria, we should be able to go to the property owner and say, hey, would you be willing to sell under these circumstances? That's still a voluntary program. It's no condemnation or anything. January 22, 2019 Page 115 And so if we do have any kind of a plan, I'd like to see it, and if we don't have any kind of plan, then I'd like to see us develop one. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. If I may -- and, again, very good points. I think the one thing that I would point out is these cycles -- and this is your ninth cycle. So when we open that cycle up looking for folks that are looking to participate in this program, that planning process begins then where people identify these properties. There is some dialogue back and forth in the community, and there are a variety of people that provide input into this program. Obviously, the NGOs that are knowledgeable and supportive of it are part of that process where they identify properties that are available through this program. This ninth cycle, you know, that plan does include us looking at gathering as much information as we can in our assessment of the properties to basically discern whether they, you know, meet that A, B, or C criteria, that listing. These are from that process, the A-listed properties that have been vetted through CCLAC and we're bringing before you. So, again, that may not be -- I think we can always improve. We're always looking to do that. So your advice is good on that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me just make one last comment, then. The potential is that we're going to go to the voters in 2020, and that would be August of 2020, would be my assumption, to re -up this program. So that's 18 months from now. And I'd like to be able to say to different groups, here is our plan for moving forward. I wouldn't want it to be just simply ad hoc where, you know, if you happen to own a piece of property that has a landfill on it, come to the county and try to sell it to us. I don't think that that's a strategic acquisition program, and that's what I'm asking is -- and you've said that we do have some sort of a plan. And I'm January 22, 2019 Page 116 not challenging you on that, because I don't know. If we do have some kind of a plan, I'd like to have it distributed to the Board so we can start to tweak it. And if we don't have that kind of a detailed plan, then I think we need to start looking at developing it fairly quickly. And my own personal view is we should be actively deciding where we want to buy property and then going out and asking property owners if they're willing to sell. There's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it a program that's not voluntary. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, and then I have a comment for you, Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On this particular property, it shows about the Fiberglass tank and the transfer tank and the trailer industry repair, you know, a lot of things sitting on there. But in the backup material it also stated that there was no lining in that landfill so that would be another thing to clean up, and they suspected there was asbestos in there as well, which would be a big cleanup. So it sounds like it's not an advantageous piece of property to buy for us unless we had a lot of money to clean it all up. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Commissioner Saunders, that is -- I believe, Commissioner Solis, when we -- when staff brought forward the Conservation Collier ordinance at our first meeting in January, you expressed wanting some more time to review the ordinance and so on. I've been working with staff for a year-ish back and forth trying to delineate definitions of lands that were of priority for our community. And I think I heard -- and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but I heard regularly that it's a difficult -- it's a difficult pinpoint for our staff. If you read the language within Conservation Collier's ordinance, they basically have the right to buy January 22, 2019 Page 117 anything -- Conservation Collier can buy anything, any piec e of land within the bounds of Collier County, obviously, except for those that are already encumbered by a conservation easement and the like. And because the priorities shift every two years with election cycles and what's a priority to the individual boards as they go along -- if you'll recall, I had made some suggestions working with our Hearing Examiner, Mark Strain, to try to prioritize the purchases of Conservation Collier within the urban area, predominantly. That didn't meet with a lot of successes along the way; had to get past CCLAC and so on. So I think what they -- compliment to staff with regard to the ordinance, they left the language very global with the capacities of acquisitions. But I concur with you; there's nothing wrong with us actually going out and -- you know, the southerly -- the multi-parcel area, the southerly end of Golden Gate Estates, we know there's a panther preserve to the east, and there's a -- the want of an establishment of a wildlife corridor. That's a particular area that can be designated as -- and it doesn't take away from the right of those who have the capacity to develop, build a home and that like. That's an area where we can focus our energies to establish that wildlife corridor in the southerly end of Golden Gate Estates, so... But I think, just to answer your question, the language that was ultimately adopted and adjusted by the amendments to the ordinance became very global, so -- and that maybe then have allowed for us to not have as concise of a plan as to what we're doing with regard to this so... MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chair, if I could -- and, Commissioner Saunders, I appreciate what you're asking us to look at. And we certainly, either with the ordinance coming back in the next couple of weeks, begin to describe some of our planning and those thoughts behind that. January 22, 2019 Page 118 But if you would, if you would entertain us continuing on a description of the properties, we could tell you, you know, a little bit more about the ones that are remaining and just get your direction on how to proceed. So with that, if I could, I'll just turn it over to Summer. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not done yet. Commissioner Solis has a question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, it's not really part of this, but I was just going to say that it seems to me that the staff pursues the properties that are recommended for purchase by the CCLAC, and that then comes to us. It seems like if -- the CCLAC would have to be the one directing staff or something, right? I mean, I think we might have to rewrite -- or make some other changes to the ordinance so that the staff would know what direction at least the CCLAC would want them to go to. Anyway. But we're getting far afield and -- let's just move on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And CCLAC is the review agency or the appointed county commissioners' public liaisons, if you will, that review the properties that are determined by staff to be appropriate for acquisition. It's not the other way around, just as a point of clarification. CCLAC's the -- when it -- these properties right here, the Gore property, wasn't recommended to staff by the CCLAC. It was -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- reviewed by CCLAC. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because the owner applied. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then the CCLAC ranks them, and that's the order in which the staff pursues them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. MS. ARAQUE: You've said what I was going to say, which is January 22, 2019 Page 119 the CCLAC ranked these properties, and there are some c oncerns with this property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So may I ask a question? If there are concerns over the property -- and, you know, at first blush, we all notice that there's a problem with this property -- why would they even rank it? MS. ARAQUE: I can't answer that question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're asking a proverbial "why." MS. ARAQUE: And that's more because it's a history question before I came along, so I'm sorry. MR. WILLIAMS: And, again, the question was, if these -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If they feel obligated to bring forth a property that they may not agree to just for us to say, no, it's not going to happen. MR. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am. And these properties, they do go through this process in the assessments that are part of your packet. They -- initially they rate them A listed, B, C. And so often there are properties that you won't even see or consider if they're in the B or C category. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I guess, why doesn't this fall into the C or D or E or F or Z? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you say why again? You just asked why again. MS. ARAQUE: Let me get back to that slide. I think part of it is that because it is in the urban area of Immokalee, and you would have preserve adjacent to Immokalee. So they're going with your direction in the last year or two to go with the urban. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. That's the balance. That's what I needed. Thank you. That was my mistake that I January 22, 2019 Page 120 didn't make it very clear. Thank y ou. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. This is a small property in Golden Gate Estates compared to the other properties; 2.34 acres, the I-75 Berman Trust. It is next to the Gore parcels which have been acquired by Conservation Collier, and the access would be from DeSoto Boulevard. SD Corp Cypress Landings property is 37.16 acres. The parcels are in the urban area just north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And it would be connected with Serenity Park at the northeast corner, and there is access via paved public road. Half Circle L Ranch is 1,920 acres, and you can see the location of that on your map right here in the blue, so that is east of Immokalee, and this is the property here. The owners are willing to grant an easement for access from County Road 846. The new 1.5 miles of lime rock road would be approximately $115,000 plus permitting, and then a parking lot would be $25,000, the annual maintenance would be approximately $15,000, and the total access development costs would be approximately $180,000. In addition, I would like to make you aware that the property owners in the area are requesting that the county build a fence, and we do have the seller here that they can go into further detail on that if you have any questions. But my understanding is that because you've got existing farms in this area here, they would need to have a fence to protect the farm fields, and that would be -- let's see -- $153,000, and that is in your executive summary. Do we have any questions on this property? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just picking this piece of property, what would be the environmental benefit and the overall benefit to the county for this particular acquisition? Is there some January 22, 2019 Page 121 analysis as to why this is valuable for conservation? MS. ARAQUE: So it would really be for wetlands, to have wetlands preserved in the area. Conservation Collier would be doing that. I'm sure that this area would -- if it were not purchased by Conservation Collier, could ultimately become sending stewardship area if a private developer were to purchase it. So, really, does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I mean, it certainly identifies some of the benefit of this particular parcel, but I'm wondering how that would fit into the overall scheme we have for protecting wildlife and -- MS. ARAQUE: And then I can go back to the overall map for you. It is adjacent to the OK Slough and other SSAs. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: These are SSAs, existing SSAs up in this area here, and then you have got the OK Slough up here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thanks. MS. ARAQUE: But, again, there would be considerable costs going into that to provide access. So, again, these are issues that we just want to make you aware of before we move on. Next, we have Barron Collier partnership, Big Hammock Areas 1 and 2 for a total of 1,034 acres. This is just south of Pepper Ranch, if you-all are familiar with where that is at. So the property is here, and then Pepper Ranch is here. And the benefits with this one is it is adjacent to Pepper Ranch. There's been a Phase 1 environmental site assessment on Area 1, and there are some areas of recognized environmental conditions, a cattle pen and past agricultural uses. Phase 2 environmental site assessment would be recommended for this property. For Area 2, this area is part of SSA No. 13 and has had credits removed. I believe those are in escrow, and an environment site January 22, 2019 Page 122 assessment was not warranted for this property. And the appraisals were significantly higher than we thought the estimated value was. The CREW trust is willing to partner for these acquisitions, offering $10,000 toward the purchase price of Area 1 and $5,000 toward the purchase price of Area 2. Do you have any questions on this property? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Our recommendation is for you to provide further direction regarding acquisition of the properties listed within the A-list category. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Very well said. MR. OCHS: You have three speakers, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So would it be the pleasure to hear our public speakers first? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's do that, and then Commissioner Taylor can lead us off. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Gladys Delgadillo. She will be followed by Meredith Budd. MS. DELGADILLO: Hi. My name is Gladys Delgadillo here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 7,000 supporting families. We understand there are concerns about expending management funds at this time to acquire new Conservation properties. Understanding the hesitation, we urge those concerns to move forward anyways on a number of Cycle 9 parcels. We have asked county staff and have been advised that even if the county were to purchase all of the parcels before you today, there would still be enough management funds to last approximately 15 years. Furthermore, the BOCC decided previously to use these funds to acquire parcels in Cycle 9. Landowners have been waiting for quite January 22, 2019 Page 123 a while, and it is time we honor our commitment to them to let them know whether or not we are going to purchase their property. In moving forward, and understanding our financial constraints, the county should prioritize parcels most at risk for development. Accordingly, and given existing protections, we support acquisition of the following properties: The Green and Green Investments property, the Hack property, the Sanitation and Bethune property, SD Corp of Naples property, and the Berman Trust property. The Green and Green property is composed entirely of sensitive wetland habitats which have exceptional water resource value. The property is also connected to Rookery Bay and Shell Island Preserve. The Sanitation and Bethune property is an attractive acquisition with its tropical hardwood Hammock primary panther habitat connectivity to conservation lands and service and recharging our surficial aquifer. Its location within the Immokalee town boundaries means they can provide valuable flood protection within the town and easily accessible recreational opportunities for residents. The Berman Trust parcel would be a wonderful addition to the recently acquire Gore preserve, and its high water resource value provides flood protection, and helps to connect North Belle Meade to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge. The SD Corps parcel is 82 percent wetlands and is located in an urban area, providing important ecosystem services and quality of life benefits for nearby residents. And the Hack parcel, if the landowner will accept the county's offer, is a great opportunity to save mangrove forests connected to Naples Bay and, thereby, protect the estuaries, water quality, and buffer the surrounding community from extreme weather events. Please move these parcels forward. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Budd. She'll be followed by Brad Cornell. January 22, 2019 Page 124 MS. BUDD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I am here today to express overwhelming support for Cycle 9 acquisition properties today, prioritizing today those that are outside of the RLSA. I've met with many of you and spoke before you at several meetings to express the environmental significance of these properties, and my colleague just did a fantastic job of rearticulating it here today for you for those outside of the RLSA. I do want to touch on utilizing the management funds. While I understand the sentiment of not using it, I do want to note that it was Board direction, albeit not all Board direction -- not unanimous Board direction to open up Cycle 9 using that money and in good faith, as Gladys mentioned, in order to submit those applications. So not only are we getting extreme environmental benefits for these acquisitions, but it is in the best interest, really, of the program to, once again, show that Conservation Collier says that it's going to do something, and it follows through with that action, and that is also great in advance of the 2020 referendum. The management fund is not at risk of being depleted anytime in the near future, as we have heard that staff has given note that we have about 15 years if nothing is done, and we anticipate a very successful 2020 referendum. And then we also have the additional grants that come in through management. I think it was averaged about 75,000 a year that can also go towards management for the Conservation Collier program. So with that being said, while I support acquiring all of the parcels in Cycle 9, even though we don't necessarily have all of the money right now to do that, today I'm asking you to just move forward with those five that are outside of the RLSA that Gladys spoke to just earlier. January 22, 2019 Page 125 Out of the RLSA, we have Big Hammock 1 -- or within the RLSA, excuse me, we have Big Hammock 1, Big Hammock 2, and Half Circle L. I think these RLSA parcels, in particular, will -- potentially could have exceptional environmental benefits for the county and, in fact, could actually give us a net conservation benefit if the purchases are done properly. But there are a lot of nuances and specifics on how purchasing these parcels will impact the RLSA given that the credit system is, one, under review and pretty complicated. And so while I would like to see those parcels acquired, I just don't think today is the right day to move forward with it. And I ask you to continue these three parcels so that we can have a discussion, maybe perhaps even a workshop to talk about how the RLSA, maybe even the RFMUD, could interact with Conservation Collier. How can we maximum public benefit through all of these programs? It's just something I don't think has been fully vetted, and I'd appreciate time to come to speak with each of you and perhaps even do a workshop. But today I ask you to move forward with the five outside of the RLSA and continue those within the RLSA. Thank you so very much. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for this item is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about Conservation Collier. Audubon supports all of these. These are all ecologically important parcels. You have had an exceptional Cycle 9 with participation from the public from landowners applying to sell at your invitation, and the CCLAC review process and staff vetting of these January 22, 2019 Page 126 parcels has been really strong and supportive. I understand the concerns that folks have brought up about the management. I think my colleagues have addressed that, and I want to underscore the situation where you have invited these folks to apply to sell these parcels. I think in -- and they did it in good faith. I think, in all fairness, we need to follow through on finalizing our decision on these. And I would support -- Audubon supports all of these as good ecological decisions. Now, having heard Florida Wildlife Federation, Meredith Budd, raise some concerns about the Rural Land Stewardship and how that intersects with Conservation Collier, I do want to be mindful of some of that complicated nature. And it may be that there is some more information that could be had about that relationship. I do strongly support the Half Circle L and the Big Hammock, especially the upland portion of Big Hammock. That's Area 1; that's the 235 upland acres. And that is within the CREW project. That's a Florida Forever CREW project, and that's what CREW Trust was telling you, we really strongly support the Big Hammock purchase. So those two parcels, in particular, are very important. I also want to point out the Bethune. Audubon of Western Everglades actually owns property in the same wetland slough that comes from Lake Trafford, actually goes to Lake Trafford on the south side of Immokalee in the urban area where this Bethune parcel is. That's a really important wetland habitat system. The fact that it has a small 16-acre landfill, I think -- it's already something that the county owns. You already have that liability. Whether it's in Conservation Collier or whatever it is, that's your landfill. So I don't think that that's a reason not to move forward with Bethune, and that is in an urban area. And -- let's see. My time is short, so how do I finish? I guess I will just say that you can -- if you can do the workshop and January 22, 2019 Page 127 investigate Rural Lands Stewardship parcels within a month, then go ahead and delay that but, if not, move forward with all of these. I think these are really important acquisitions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Brad. And that is the end of our public speakers. MR. MILLER: That was your final speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Taylor, you're first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Well, I'm going to echo my colleague to my right, that I've said this before, and I'm just going to remind everyone of some numbers here. We had a major hurricane two years ago. It cost us -- we submitted $140 million of reimbursement to FEMA. To date we have received from insurance 15 million and from FEMA 11.8 million. Now, we're expecting another 50 million if FEMA agrees to it, but that's barely -- I think that kind of moves it to about 50 percent of the FEMA cost to date we have not received. The second thing I would like to bring out which is, for me, an education, because I'd never realized it. We've heard people say, oh, you've got 32 million in maintenance. You can -- you know, you can afford to buy off cycle, and we can -- you know, without the Conservation Collier there, you can afford to do it. But that amount in there is used -- the interest from that is used to offset operating costs. And I refer you to something that you-all received this morning, which was a handout from Barry Williams, and perhaps Mr. Williams can explain for the public, because you could do a much better job than I do, exactly how it breaks down and what we use that 32 million plus the interest from it, and how we handle that. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, thank you. Just as you say, January 22, 2019 Page 128 the trust fund, the monies that are set aside for perpetuity, operating expenses in perpetuity, generate -- now they generate about $350,000 a year at the current interest rate. So what we are doing every year is we do have a slight attrition that we're taking from that trust fund to pay an annual operating expense of your current 20 preserves that are under management of roughly $750,000 a year. So if you spend that $32 million, what that does, in essence, is takes away your ability to generate that interest to pay for your operating of your current preserves, not to mention the ones that you might be acquiring, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. And then, finally, again, and what you have before you, over a 13-year period -- is it 13? Yes, 13-year period -- we've received a little over a million dollar in grants, and that is also used for operating, I believe; is that correct? MR. WILLIAMS: A couple things. And the Gore property that we did purchase this summer, you did direct us to apply for an FTC grant, which we have done, and we're hopeful that we'll see a reimbursement. That grant's being scored right now, and it's scored quite high, actually, and so we're hopeful for that. But, Commissioner, as you mentioned, the grant monies tha t we receive, roughly, you know, that's about 10 percent of the operating budget, and we get grants for -- to offset operating, but it's only, you know, 10, 15 percent of our total for a year. So it does help, but it doesn't take -- it doesn't take into account all the needs of the program. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so just to sum this up for this commissioner, goodness knowns, anyone who knows me, January 22, 2019 Page 129 Conservation -- in fact, I will refer to it again. The first set aside -- set-aside lands for conservation was my colleague to my left, Commissioner Saunders' initiative so long ago, and I worked with him on this. And, I mean, this is in my heart and soul, but I'm also very cognizant of our finances, and I -- you know, for those reasons, and really only those reasons, I cannot support purchasing any properties at this time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. And I'll -- I think I'd reiterate what Commissioner Taylor has just said. I've got a couple questions. Given the level of funding in the maintenance account right now, if we didn't buy any properties, how long would that maintenance fund last? Do we have an idea on that? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just trying to figure out what the net effect of using -- MR. WILLIAMS: If you didn't use any of the maintenance fund, and you continued the interest generated to operate the program that you had now, you're looking at 30, 40 years. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Plus or minus. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Plus or minus. So the request is to use the maintenance funds, and that would cut it down to 15 years. I would submit that in perpetuity -- I'm going to quote one of predecessors, that's a long time, and it's certainly a lot longer than 15 years. And I can't support -- and I think all these properties are properties that should be purchased at some point. I hope that the referendum is on the ballot in 2020 and is approved, but I just do not January 22, 2019 Page 130 think that it's prudent to take money that we already fund -- money from a fund that we already know is bleeding little by little and is not enough to maintain what we have in perpetuity. To buy more properties and lower that maintenance period to 15 years is just -- I don't think it's a proper risk that we should take with taxpayer funds given the uncertainty in the world, the market, hurricanes, and the whole thing. So I can't support it either. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions and a comment. In terms of the maintenance on what we already have -- and you may have said this, and I apologize if it just went over my head -- how much money are we spending on an annual basis right now for maintenance? MR. WILLIAMS: Roughly $750,000. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right, 750- was the number you said before. And we're going to have -- in that maintenance fund, if we spend that 17 million for acquisition, we'll still have how much in the maintenance fund? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you have a balance, roughly, about 31 million now. So about 14 million left. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple things. First of all, in terms of the Hurricane Irma issue and the reimbursement, what we're talking about here is a totally separate fund. We're not going to be using Conservation Collier funds for any of the Hurricane Irma expenses. It's going to go into Conservation Collier; it's going to stay there. So I don't think it's particularly relevant that we have -- we've had those expenses because, again, we're not going to take money out of this program and use it for something else. We made a commitment, I guess, about a year ago when we January 22, 2019 Page 131 decided to spend that 17 million out of reserves -- I believe it was a unanimous vote. I may be wrong. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was not. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I thought -- was it the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There were several that were not. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Several, okay. Less than three. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Less than three, correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. So we voted, split board, to spend these dollars going forward. I'd like to continue with that. I'm going to ultimately make a motion -- there's two things I'd like to see us do. One is I'm going to make a motion to move forward with this unless somebody makes a motion before that and -- to moved forward on all of these properties that have been identified that are not in the RLSA area. And we also made a commitment that regardless of what happens with Conservation Collier, if it does not pass, we're going to reimburse that maintenance fund out of our ad valorem revenues over whatever period of time it would take to reimburse that $17 million. So we've made a commitment to buy property, but we also made a commitment not to reduce our management funds. And so, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that we move forward with the acquisition on all five of those parcels and, as a second part -- and I'll discuss this after we debate this motion, but I want to talk about developing some sort of a plan of action going forward -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- for future acquisitions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And would you -- and I'm going to -- and if you hear me stuttering, it's because there's a lot of different names given to these parcels along the way. January 22, 2019 Page 132 And if I could, please, I'd like for all of us to go to the Backup Item No. 1, BCC approved Cycle 9 updated as of January 8th, '19, and utilize that list as the discussion points for us to go forward, because there are different names and different pieces of property given to different things. It's the No. 1 -- it's the No. 1 list. We don't need to have maps and pictures and everything. I want us to all be looking at the same -- it's part of the backup data, Barry. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I was just seeing if that helps you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you go. That's the one. It's also on our computer as well. So I want us all to be talking -- I mean, and I want -- and, Commissioner Saunders, it's been moved and seconded that we move forward to participate on a purchase of five properties, but I would like for you to delineate which five those are. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The five that I was referring to are on our executive summary, and it's the -- if someone could correct me if I've got the wrong list here, but the Hack Living Trust, Green and Green, BCI, which is the Sanitation/Bethune, I -75 Berman Trust, and the SD Corp Cypress Landings. Now, I believe those were the five that we were talking about. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're talking about the top five minus the Gore piece, which we've already agreed to purchase. So you're talking about items -- it's over here in the designation for A category priorities. It's listed as 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Are those the ones you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The ones I just read. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not sure if they're the same six, but they're the ones I just read. They're in our executive summary. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I've asked everybody if January 22, 2019 Page 133 you could go to this particular -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Well, let's mark them off, then, just to make sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Hack Living Trust, Green and Green, Sanitation/Bethune, and this is why I was getting confused. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, then that's why -- it's delineated as Barron Collier Partnership here, and it's different than -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I-75 Berman Trust. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And SD Corp, so those five. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then is the seconder -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is the second person okay with that? I see you there, but I have a comment that I'd like to make to you before we go off. We're off into discussion now on the motion and the second. And I regularly, as Chair, wait for you, my colleagues, to speak before I say anything, and I don't hit my button for myself. So we're off into discussion on this motion, but there's a comment that's been made regularly here. Commissioner Solis, Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner Taylor have spoke regularly about this trust fund being an in perpetuity trust fund. It was represented that it was going to be set up to maintain these held properties for quite some time, and it comes back over into the discussion similar but different with regard to the 15-year overlay for low-income properties to 30-year overlay, and here we have a -- we have an -- it's represented to our public and to our people that this was a trust fund in perpetuity for the maintenance. It's not. It's January 22, 2019 Page 134 been delineated plus or minus 30 to 40 years. Tha t's not in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And we have the obligation, if we purchase these properties, to maintain them in perpetuity. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't disagree. I just want you to understand -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I understand. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- when we had the discussion last year, Commissioner Saunders and I going back and forth, with a reduction of the maintenance fund to fulfill the obligations of the acquisitions that were, in fact, out there in the Cycle 9, I thought then that we were fairly clear that we were just adjusting the term of the maintenance fund from a purported 30-year to 15 years, which is still a long time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I disagree. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Sure. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mathematically, I disagree. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and it's certainly neither of which are in perpetuity. So that's the point that I'm trying to make. It was represented that those were funds that were set aside for the maintenance of these purchased properties forever, and it's not. It wasn't. There was a term then. We shortened the term on the premise that there would be a referenda come forward to replenish the acquisition side and/or the maintenance side. We actually had some discussions in the upcoming ordinance adjustments to move more of the purported funds that are collected towards the maintenance side because of the deficits that are -- that we're actually finding out with the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of these properties. So I've said my peace. Commissioner Solis, you had your button on again. January 22, 2019 Page 135 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I did. And not to belabor the point, but I think the taxpayers anticipated that this would be a program that would fund itself and maintain itself, at least that's the way I've always understood it, and even if it's -- if it was 40 years, that's -- there's less risk of having to dig into the General Fund to maintain these properties than if it was a 40-year fund. And the only other thing I was going to add is -- and this was important the last time we discussed this -- was that the only property that I understand -- and the question for staff to make sure that I still understand this correctly -- the only property that is really threatened in any way by development right now is potentially the Hack property. Is that still the case, the analysis? That's what it was before. MS. ARAQUE: Well, I think we would need further information to determine that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I mean, but -- MS. ARAQUE: I don't know if Barry has something else to say. MR. WILLIAMS: A couple, just from historical perspective. These properties -- these are properties we've known for some time. They've been around a while. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: So in terms of imminent development, I would probably agree with you in terms of Hack, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And if that's the case, then, you know, I just don't see the need to deplete the maintenance fund if it's going to be up for a referendum to provide the funding source that it started out with and also had. I just don't see what the -- what the need is to rush to do this if none of them are currently threatened by development other than the Hack property, and that's all I have to say about that, in the words of Forrest Gump. January 22, 2019 Page 136 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just a response to my colleague here. I bring up the hurricane because, unlike other communities, we didn't borrow to put this community back together. We -- cobble is the wrong word. I don't know if Mark Isackson's here, but we put it together from reserves. We -- I use the word "cobble" very carefully with you present, sir, but you masterfully, let's put it that way, made sure that we didn't have to borrow money to make our community right, and that money was taken from reserves. And I'm going to turn it over to you, sir, so that you can explain how you managed to do this. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, you had a three-pronged approach when I had to cobble together $140 million to fight the hurricane. Reserves and deferral of capital projects were the two on the expense side, and then we recognized FEMA revenue, which is funny money. I say that, literally, because that's what it is, until we get reimbursed. It's almost like a reimbursement grant. So those were the three techniques that we used, and if we have to do it over again, we'll do the same thing. Now, I only raise the point with Conservation Collier from a cash standpoint. And we cash flow this; we have a pooled cash approach when we pursue these types of things because budget's meaningless unless I have cash behind it. So the only potential -- and I say that word literally. The only potential problem is from a cash standpoint. But, you know, at this point in time, I'm less concerned about that. I'm more concerned, though, about statements that the fund's going to be replenished and how that's going to be replenished if, in fact, the referendum does not pass. Now, that is a -- that's the bigger concern that I have, frankly. And I would just want the Board to January 22, 2019 Page 137 make sure that we are very clear at some point in time as to how that's going to happen. If you try and do it over time, you're going to lose interest income, et cetera, et cetera, rather than trying to replenish it with either a millage rate increase one time at the time that it would be appropriate to do that, certainly. That would be my preference; get that money back into that fund so that I continue to flourish. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So with that, there's been a motion and a second to purchase the delineated five checkmarked pieces of property. Any other discussion? MR. OCHS: Just for the record, the math on that, it pencils out, I believe, to $7,528,500, those five. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, I'd like to -- if I may, I'd like to make a motion that we pursue the Hack Trust and the I-75 piece. I didn't disagree, Commissioner Saunders, with your -- I couldn't vote on all five of those pieces. The I-75 Berman Trust and Hack Living Trust, I think, are top-line priorities right now, and I could see us moving forward on those pieces. I'm not completely okay with the other ones that are listed in there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. Better to have at least something rather than nothing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just need some clarification on where we are with the Hack property. It was my understanding that the appraisal came in, and the owner didn't agree with our -- the appraised price, and wanted much more, and that's kind of where we're at. Is that actually still an active potentially purcha sable property? I thought the owner didn't want to do that anymore. January 22, 2019 Page 138 MR. LEONARD: Good afternoon. I'm Roosevelt Leonard, senior review appraiser. The second appraisal came in, and it came in at 280,000, and the first appraisal was 260,000. So we typically average the two, and that's how we arrived at 270,000. Now, the 270- has not been presented to the property owner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But the 280-. MR. LEONARD: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No? Well, the 2 -- what, the 260-? MR. LEONARD: Correct, the 260- was presented. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But they wanted over a million, didn't they? MR. LEONARD: Yes, it was -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What was it -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Originally there was some offer of two-and-a-half million. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Two and a half million? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the more recent contract was at 760 million, I believe -- I mean, was 760,000. I believe it was 760,000, but we scuttled that deal because it was more than the appraised value. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if I might, where's the estimated-value column come from here? MR. LEONARD: The estimated-value column, it comes from some of my assessments and the property appraiser's assessments, which, you know, we're working on the inside. We feel that some of the parcels might be a little less than what the outside appraiser's appraising for, but the program typically goes with the outside appraisals. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what the program delineates January 22, 2019 Page 139 is that we get two outside appraisals and average those, and that's what is utilized as the acquisition price that goes to the CCLAC during the review. That's my understanding. MR. LEONARD: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So having -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time. How would we do that? You mean, one guy could appraise it 150,000, another guy could appraise it for 1.5 million, and you go in between the two of them? Is that what you just said? MR. LEONARD: Well, what happens, ma'am, is this. Typically when the one appraiser has his opinion and value, the next appraiser has an opinion and value, and when we get both of those appraisals in, I usually see if those appraisals are 20 percent apart. If they're greater than 20 percent apart, that automatically kicks in the probability of getting a third appraisal, which is what we did on the Green and Green. And with the third appraisal, we take both of the averages that's closer together. (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm curious as to how you came up to those two properties as opposed to the other three that are on that list as well. I'm just -- I want to see if I can understand the logic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, the Hack piece is in the urban area which, as you know, I'm well interested in doing, and the I-75 Berman Trust is a piece that's down there in that purported wildlife corridor in the southerly end that's contiguous to the Gore piece and the like. Those were the two that I came across with. I don't really -- and, again, you know, we can go into debate on the January 22, 2019 Page 140 others. I think that the concerns that were raised by staff with the Barron Collier partnership piece is something that's valid enough for us to give due consideration to its acquisition on. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So then if we move forward with these two, which I'm going to second your motion just -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been seconded, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to support your motion. So we'll go forward with those. After we finish that vote, would you entertain any of the other three? I mean, I put all five of them in there, and you've indicated that that was too many. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Well, those are the two that I'm most happy with. I suppose if -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is there one where you'd be happy enough to vote for another? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not unhappy. It's okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. We'll find out. We'll find out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's like Summer asking me if we're all good. I'm like... Anybody else have a -- do you want to talk about it anymore? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded on the Hack piece and the I-75 parcel. All in favor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask January 22, 2019 Page 141 the representative from the Conservancy or one of the other two environmental folks, whoever would be willing to come up, out of the other three -- I'm just going to see if there's a willingness to expand this list a little bit, because I understand not wanting to do all five, but maybe there's a third one here, because the two that we're talking about are really tiny little pieces. That's okay. I mean, they're important. But out of the three that are remaining, if we were to compromise and acquire one more of those three, which one of those three would you recommend and why? MS. DELGADILLO: It's hard to, kind of, rank, but one of them, the Green and Green property, that's the one that's contiguous to Rookery Bay and Shell Island Preserve, that's composed entirely of sensitive wetland habitats. It's a good acquisition. It recharges the surficial aquifer, which provides our drinking water, provides habitat for several listed wading birds; it was noted on the staff analysis, potentially even the Florida panther. And being contiguous to Rookery Bay, long-term management of this property could be done in collaboration with the state, alleviating excessive management costs to the Conservation Collier program. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Chairman, then -- and I won't make another motion. If this passes, fine; I'm done for the day on these acquisitions. But I'll make a motion that we acquire the Green and Green property as well as based on the comments from the Conservancy: The reduced maintenance and importance of that site, and then I will not make another motion concerning this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you promise to not make another motion, I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I promise. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was joking. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you want to say something, January 22, 2019 Page 142 Meredith? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second it. MS. BUDD: Maybe. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Meredith? You asked any one of -- or all three, so -- and they're all -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If she's going to disagree, then we're going to have -- MS. BUDD: No, I just want to also support. I think the Green and Green property is highly valuable. Again, also, like Gladys has mentioned, it's hard to rank the three or the other -- yeah, the other three. I just want to mention that the other three are actually in an urban area as well as. So I just want to point that out that just -- the other -- they're in the Immokalee urban area, but they are in an urban area, so I just wanted to point that out. But I agree with all the points Gladys made about Green and Green. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. And I seconded your motion on Green and Green. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. So what would be the total amount that we're -- that -- if this vote passes, what would be the total amount that we would be spending out of our maintenance fund for these properties? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Shy of a million; right at a million. MR. WILLIAMS: You know, my math, I'm showing $1,148,000. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we move forward on the Green and Green piece. Any other discussion? (No response.) January 22, 2019 Page 143 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you okay? MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 3-2. It passes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You promised no more motions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I promised no more motions on acquisitions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Oh, that's true. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do want to see if we need to direct staff to develop some sort of a more global plan going forward assuming that we have a new program starting in 2020. If we don't have a plan, then I think we need to develop one. If we have one, that's fine. I'd just like to see it. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that would be my request. MR. WILLIAMS: We can work with the County Manager's Office to bring you what we have, and if we need to continue to refine that, certainly we'd be open to that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it's important. I mean, I don't think any of us have any lack of care or concern for our environment or preservation and conservation of environmentally sensitive lands. January 22, 2019 Page 144 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The first time I met you you told me you were a two-legged environmentalist. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's incorrect. The first time you met me I said my favorite Florida wildlife was the human race. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe that's what it was. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you misinterpreted that between the critter statements of four legs and two legs. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We did talk about critters and the eagles on your property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. My favorite Florida wildlife is the human race, but that doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, need to be entertained as a lack of care and concern for preservation and conservation. Understood? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That will be a discussion later. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, we'll arm wrestle about it some day. All right. I think that one we've been -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We've beat that one to death, I think. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, it's done. Item #11B RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MARCO ISLAND CENTRAL BEACH RE-GRADE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT (SOLICITATION NO. 19-7512) TO EARTH TECH ENTERPRISES, INC., FOR A LUMP SUM TOTAL OF $1,147,000; APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED January 22, 2019 Page 145 MR. OCHS: That takes us to 11B, and this is a recommendation to approve the Marco Island Central Beach Re-Grade Construction Agreement award to Earth Tech Enterprises for a lump sum total of $1,147,000, approve the necessary budget amendment, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Mr. McAlpin can make a presentation or respond to questions from the Board at the Board's pleasure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Make a motion to approve. I think it's a worthy and quite phenomenal project, and good luck. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any discussion? (No response.) MS. COSBY: It's been moved and seconded that we move forward with staff's recommendation. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. And that was an amazing report. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item #11C RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A $2,058,121 CONTRACT UNDER THE INVITATION TO BID NO. 18-7473 WITH QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., “MPS 308 FORCE MAIN January 22, 2019 Page 146 IMPROVEMENTS”, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11C is a recommendation to approve a $2,058,121 contract award to Quality Enterprises USA, Incorporated, for the Master Pump Station 308 force main improvement project and to authorize the necessary budget amendments. Mr. Chmelik is available to present or answer questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll move for approval. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved, seconded, and third before we even get there. Any other further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Another fine report. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lovely presentation. MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11D RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 18-7429, “SECURITY SERVICES,” TO G4S SECURE January 22, 2019 Page 147 SOLUTIONS (USA), INC., FOR COUNTYWIDE SECURITY SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE VENDOR – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That moves us on to Item 11D, and this is a recommendation to award a contract for security services to G4S Secure Solutions USA, Incorporated, for countywide security services, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement with the vendor. And Mr. Rodriguez is available to make a presentation or respond to questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And after hearing that, I'll make a motion to approve. Well, maybe -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe it's already been heard. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? And the only discussion that I have with regard to this -- and we talked about it in our staff meeting on Friday. I believe I have the information coming -- I would like, at some point in the future, to have a conversation about what other communities, municipalities, counties are spending on security. It's a new day. We all are aware that it's a new day, but I think that would be prudent for us to have. MR. OCHS: Underway, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And when we do that, I would encourage whatever counties you're mentioning, that you visit those counties and go into their building, because I don't think I've ever seen as professional and as efficient security as we have here, and it's to your credit. It's not the same -- you can't -- it's very difficult, apples to apples. It's not. They may have security, but their level of January 22, 2019 Page 148 security is very different. MR. OCHS: Yeah, we will do some site visits. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm by no means taking away from the professionalism that's currently conducted by our staff. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no, no, I didn't think you were. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I just thought it was prudent for us to have -- every time I ask a question, the County Attorney or the County Manager says, well, which other county's doing this? And I was like "I don't care. I want to." But I just think it's prudent for us to have that. And I know there was cost containment done during this particular contractual negotiation, and it was an itemized list of things. We talked at length about this. So I just wanted to say that out loud. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Another fine report. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Item #11E RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN OFFER TO SELL THE January 22, 2019 Page 149 GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000,000 TO THE COUNTY; AND SHOULD THE BOARD WISH TO PROCEED, AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, COORDINATING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, TO DRAFT AND SIGN A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1, 2019 – MOTION TO PROCEED WITH DUE DILIGENCE, MOVE FORWARD WITH A CONTRACT, ACQUIRE SECOND APPRAISAL AND BRING BACK TO BCC BEFORE CLOSING – APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PURSUE PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL PIECE – APPROVED Commissioners, that moves us to Item 11E. This is a recommendation to consider an offer to sell the Golden Gate Golf Course in the amount of $28 million to the county and, if the Board wishes to proceed, to authorize the County Manager, in coordination with the County Attorney, to draft and sign a purchase and sale agreement prior to February 1, 2019. Mr. Casalanguida will take you through a brief presentation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, County Manager. Commissioners, I'll just cover a little bit of history, and then we'll talk about what the offer is on the table and an approach, if you want to move forward. I've put on the visualizer the entire 167 acres with frontage on 951 as well as Golden Gate Parkway. As you can see, there's a residential enclave in the middle, a water facility to the northwest, residential to the north, and then at the northeast is some commercial parcels, actually three of them. What you've done is you've asked your County Attorney through the past six months to talk to the Vocisanos, and we did the preliminary appraisal. So we've done one appraisal of the property. January 22, 2019 Page 150 We set up a conversation with them on October 24th. They were interested in talking to us some more. He was going to fly down in December. He came down late December, early January. So we had a face-to-face meeting with them and their representative, County Attorney Klatzkow and myself. Mr. Vocisano was very frank and upfront with us. He's got a couple pending offers, he said. He's not happy about the litigation with the county, but he did appreciate us spending the last several months talking to him and trying to come up with some sort of resolution. He asked that his offer be considered with some haste and that we look at what we have in front of us and that he does not want to be in protracted discussions with the county. With that said, he provided a letter to us with his terms. He would like a purchase price of $28 million. It equates to about 168,000 an acre. Recently we acquired 60 acres for 200,000 an acre for the sports park. This is one of the sites we looked at. We did not pursue it because it was under litigation, and we didn't have, really, an opportunity to talk to him at the time. He would like us to do 90 days due diligence. Now, this is important because during that period if you decide to proceed forward, we will do an ALTA survey, a title search, I believe a Phase 1, and potentially a Phase 2 environmental's been done. We'd want to go forward and look at that, if it has, and include that as part of the purchase and sale. Golf courses are notorious for having, you know, little pockets of, you know, contamination. So we'll appraise that over the 90-day period, and if we need more time, we'll ask for it. Purchase and sale agreements, he's asked to complete that by February 1st, which means you'd have to authorize your attorney and manager to work together and develop that. As part of that, you would have a due diligence period, and there January 22, 2019 Page 151 is a -- I don't want to call it a poison pill. There's the ability for us to work with him over 90 days because the property -- Mr. Manager, on the second page, if I could, that picture. If you look at that exhibit -- and we flip it counterclockwise, if we could. There we go. The property that's in the corner to the northeast of the 167 acres has a combination of combined uses: C4, C3, hotel, and you can see the tennis courts to the west, pool to the south. Those are approaching back and forth. So there'd have to be some sort of cross-access shared-use agreement for a period of time if we move forward on that as well, too. We'd be required to get a second appraisal. If the two appraisals averaged out to the offer or better, then I think that would be in the purchase and sale agreement as well. The property's unique as we looked at it. It's 167 acres in your urban area. It's close proximity to the highway. I don't think there's too many parcels like this that's available, and that's why staff is recommending that we consider this and move forward on it. Of one concern, the appraisal price considers highest and best use, so it's not golf course that you're looking at. It is the end use would be residential on his end to move forward, and if we purchase it, I think we'd be looking at some sort of campus approach to the property at some point in time with a combination passive and active green space as well in there. The frontage along 951 would probably have some of the uses that you considered, such as the VA nursing home, maybe some workforce housing, and other potential uses that we would probably discuss as we did a complete site evaluation. So if the Board is so inclined, we would move forward with developing the P and S, authorize the Manager to sign it, and then back to you before the due diligence period and give you an update on where we stand with the second appraisal before we close, if January 22, 2019 Page 152 things moved in that direction. And with that, we'll entertain any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there is public speakers. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. I have one registered speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to hear the public speaker where before we comment? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MR. MILLER: Your speaker is David Marren. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: A very patient David Marren. MR. MARREN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I won't take long. I think the County Commissioners' manager has done an excellent job of defining the property and defining possibly future uses of the property. I just want to remind you, the first slide that they showed, if you could go back to that, please, the first slide depicting the property in question. Now, if you look at that and all -- I don't know how many of the commissioners have been out to that particular piece of property and viewed it, but our community, Fairways Par One, which I represent as the president of the homeowners' association in there, is actually the doughnut hole within the doughnut. We represent that circle. All of our properties, as you can see, are surrounded by the golf course, and that represents a quality -of-life issue for the residents of that community. And I think if you -- a lot of talk today about density, environmental issues, and so forth, and I think you're broaching on every one of those issues. The density in that neighborhood, as you can see in the surrounding neighbors on the left-hand side of that, is very dense. I think the campus approach -- my first preference would be a golf course. I'm a golfer. But I think the campus approach has January 22, 2019 Page 153 many, many benefits. I think it has benefits for the environmental acquisition of the property. I think it has benefits for the entire community. And I know some of the commissioners -- Donna Fiala I've met with -- and broaching the idea of a VA institution on that property I think would be beneficial to our whole community. So we're not opposed to the fact that it won't be a golf course, but we are opposed to the fact that it could turn into very, very high density living and destroy the quality of life and I think even negatively impact with some of the things Commissioner Saunders from our subdistrict is trying to do with our area, to build it up to be a very viable community. So with that, I thank you for your time, and I thank you folks for your approach to this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, David. Commissioner Fiala, you're first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I had a question. The measure that we approved for the affordable housing earlier in this meeting said that, you know, from when we own the property, 10 percent would go to affordable housing. Now -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't apply to this, ma'am. You would zone this for public use and list a bunch of uses. And if housing was one of them, you would set the density per the plan that you brought forward. Your staff would rezone this property to public use. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If we bought it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we bought it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think she was speaking of if the current owner sold it to someone who chose -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, if we bought; that's what I was January 22, 2019 Page 154 concerned with. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know I was hoping to keep the golf course in. I was hoping also to build a VA nursing home or whatever they wanted to do there, because I felt that that would be needed and that would be great, and that would meet with the community's needs. I wanted to make sure that we, something sometimes we forget to do, work with the community before we make any moves, you know, just to make sure that we're not gifting them with something that they would be opposed to. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, it's going to take four votes to rezone this property. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Whether we buy it or -- MR. KLATZKOW: Anybody else buys it. Yeah, so if -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just voted that other thing in this morning. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't -- but you don't have to have any residential on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you're next. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I want to thank staff for what I consider to be just a fantastic job in terms of at least getting us an offer on the table. I know that wasn't the easiest task, but I think that the work that you did will potentially bear a lot of benefit for the future of this county. I handed out an editorial that was in the Naples Daily News, and there were a couple lines in the editorial that I thought were quite interesting, and then their conclusion. So I'm going to take the January 22, 2019 Page 155 liberty of going through very, very quickly, and then making a few other comments. The editorial goes to say, "Yes, the county's on the verge of a $420 million spending spree." Now, they're referring to the sales tax. "Yes, the county staff has its hands full with a host of park, road, drainage, hurricane hardening, and new facility projects. Still, an opportunity like this" does not come along -- or "comes along rarely." They talk about the value of green space in the urban area, and then it says, "How often will the county have a chance to create an oasis in the middle of one of its most congested area s? Probably never again." COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It continues on, "A variety of uses could be incorporated to draw folks from all around. It has the potential to be nothing short of transformative for Golden Gate and its residents. None of that will come cheaply." And they talk about the price -- they say maybe the price is high, but we need to take a look at that, and that's the appraisal process. And then they conclude, "We encourage commissioners to be visionary, be creative, and be open to the possibility that even though $28 million is a lot of money, purchase of the Golden Gate Country Club property could be a wise investment." And when we passed the -- got the sales tax passed, we had a couple items on there. One was the veterans nursing home. We have $30 million in that, and we already have our lobbying team both at the state level and federal level trying to move that project along because of this commitment of the $30 million. This could be a tremendous location for something like that. Close proximity to the hospital on 951, an area where it would generate a lot of employment, plus there are a lot of veterans in that area that certainly could use the January 22, 2019 Page 156 services of a veterans nursing home. We talk about a mental-health facility that Commissioner Solis has been so actively involved in. Perhaps there's a location there for something of that nature. So I think it's premature to talk about specific uses. We will certainly have a debate as to whether this remains as a golf club or if it's used for other purposes, but I think that we have to have that debate going forward. And staff has made a recommendation. It doesn't bind the county into the expenditure, but I think their recommendation is one that we should follow, and that is to consider the offer at $28 million, to authorize the manager, coordinating with the County Attorney, to draft a purchase and sale agreement prior to February 1, and that will be a fairly standard purchase and sale agreement, and authorize the County Manager to sign that agreement on behalf of the County Commission, to order the second appraisal, and to direct staff to complete the due diligence. That would give us the opportunity to get the second appraisal, to have a contract and have the due diligence begin. We certainly could make a decision later on not to purchase this if we find things in the due diligence that give us concerns, and I suspect under the due diligence period, you usually can terminate a contract for any reason during the due diligence. So I'm assuming that this would not obligate us if we found something that we were not satisfied with. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically not for any reason, sir, but you lay out causes, which would be unsatisfactory title, contamination. And the one item in here that's really open is the partnership agreement with them with property that's there. That has to be developed during the due diligence period. So you've got enough room in there, I think, to work in earnest with the owner and still give you comfort that we'll be back in front of you before this January 22, 2019 Page 157 thing's finalized. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to get to that contiguous property here in a minute. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that would be my request to the Commission, to direct staff to proceed with the acquisition as indicated in their executive summary. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion, sir? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded, and now we're into discussion, and we're not done discussing yet. So, Commissioner Solis, your light is on, and I do have some comments, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, sir. So the due diligence, do you have any idea what time frame we'd be asking for? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're asking to -- going to ask for 90 days. They said they've done some preliminary work already in advance with the buyers. They would provide that. If we needed more time, we would put that in the purchase and sale agreement once we reviewed those documents, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the contract would provide that it would have to come -- it would come back to us to decide to move past the due diligence period and go to closing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think we'd have to, sir, because even in his offer letter, he says that the parties will work diligently together to develop an agreement for the remaining parcel if we go that way. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But you'd have to review the second appraisal, you'd have to get the feedback from the due diligence, and January 22, 2019 Page 158 if there was any issue there, we'd bring that up. And then, obviously, there's a contract between us and the owner for the remaining land as it sits right now. So we'd come back in front of you before we closed. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll support the motion, but I'd like to have a couple things set out very clearly, and I'd ask the motion maker to maybe consider this, that there has to be a Phase 2 at least on the property. I mean, part of our golf course conversion ordinance that we worked on very diligently was the environmental aspect of converting a golf course and what the status of that property is. Second, I am concerned that the opposition from the neighbors was that it would be housing in some form or another and not a golf course or not green space, and I'm -- I'll just say it: I'm a little concerned that we're going to buy -- we're going to be in the same position that the owner is right now with the neighbors -- having understood that the folks in the neighborhood there -- I guess they would rather the county own it than the current owner, but there was a lot of opposition from everybody that -- I think that lived on the periphery of it. And in that regard, while it would be great to have some land to do things in the future, I'm very -- I'm concerned purchasing the property on the hope that the VA hospital would be there -- I mean, I would love it to be there, I mean, I hope it happens, but I'm just saying it up front, I'm very concerned with purchasing it if we don't have a clear answer to that question as to whether or not we're going to get that approval by the time that the due diligence runs. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you okay? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This property excites me to January 22, 2019 Page 159 no end. I just feel that as we see developments continue to be built without a golf course, there are still people coming down who would like to golf. People who are retiring never had a chance to be golfing, and they would love to do that. You've got a sports complex that's going up, and that is going to be bringing sports-minded people here as well. And to have a golf course right down the street, oh, my goodness, that sounds like a wonderful thing. And -- now I'm biased here, but if our county gets ahold of that property, they're not going to just build a plain old golf course. They're going to build a wonderful golf course. I mean, we don't ever do anything half baked. I'm sorry, it's just great. And I think that's what the people are hoping for, too; we would do just as good there as we do other places. Look at that swimming pool they just built. It's just wonderful. So I think that they would be very happy with it. And if we happen to get the VA nursing home, boy, that's just the prize and, yet, they can all operate together, and the people going into the nursing home would even be able to play golf. So I just think this is such a good thing. I'm glad that we talked a little bit about what else it could be, because I would hate to see it change into anything; all of sudden we didn't have the golf course at all. But I think your hearts and souls are in this, and I do believe the other commissioners are, too, because we can see the need. So that's why I feel solidly behind this, and we'll be watching. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A quick question and then a comment. In terms of the Phase 2 environmental, I believe you indicated that they may have already done that, and you needed to look at it. So I certainly have no problem with that. We should do the environmental study that's part of what you're going to do. January 22, 2019 Page 160 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Usually you do a Phase 1. If anything turns up in the Phase 1, you quickly jump to a Phase 2. I've been told that they have the environmental study. They haven't released it. So I'll get with the property staff. We'll look at what's there, and we'll put what's required in the purchase and sale to protect us. So if a Phase 1 is completely clean, I think we evaluate it if we need a Phase 2, but typically a Phase 2 is required on a golf course. I would recommend it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's in the conversion ordinance is that a Phase 2 is required, as I recall. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So we would need that anyway. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I don't have a problem with the Phase 2 environmental, but if it's determined that it's not needed, I don't want to see us go through an expense that's not needed. But if it's absolutely needed, no issue there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, my experience is you probably want to do it because it's a -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood. And then the second thing in terms of pinning the hopes on a VA nursing home, that's not at all the issue here. If we get approval for a VA nursing home, this could be a location for it. If we don't, then, obviously, there won't be a nursing home there. So there are other uses that we can explore down the road, and I was using that as an example. Whether or not this stays as a golf course, that's something that we'll decide later on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. Commissioner Solis, you were next. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And, unfortunately, I had one other thing I wanted to make clear in terms of my support of January 22, 2019 Page 161 moving forward, and that is that if we purchase the property, that we not operate a golf course. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That what? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That we not operate a golf course. And I understand everybody would like to have a public golf course. It's a public golf course now, isn't it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. It's open to the public. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And, you know, it is a great way to lose a lot of money, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I have spoken to the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. There was a fairly large turnout from the condominium association there. I told them that there is tremendous opposition to maintaining a golf course, and I happen to be one of those that's probably not supportive of a golf course because of the expense. We can certainly make those determinations later. The community wants the county to move forward with this even though it's likely to be used for other purposes as opposed to a golf course. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Time will tell. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, this is very interesting, because I thought we were going to remain a golf course. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That will be something for us to determine down the road. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay tuned. And, Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I would remind all of us that the reason we're in court with them is that the current owners of this property doesn't recognize the golf course convergence ordinance that we enacted, and one of the biggest parts of that was the 100-foot buffer around and then also to get the community to sign on. January 22, 2019 Page 162 So I have a lot of trepidation about this issue, because I am concerned that once it is purchased, that we have to determine what is going to go on there, and I'm not so sure that we can't follow our own ordinance, which means we have to get consensus of everyone bordering the property on what is going to go on there. So, you know, I don't support a golf course whatsoever. I support a lot of green space. I support it to be master planned by a landscape architect that understands the potential for walking paths, and ability to explore this area is very important, and to preserve a green area around the people, especially the doughnut. But to make this a golf course and to leave it in perpetuity, I don't support it and yet I support the purchase of this property. I do think it's an opportunity. And I would hope in the process, in the years that we -- and it's going to take years. This isn't going to be something that's done next year -- that the confidence that the community has in our ability to ensure -- in fact, to improve their property values, whether there's housing on this property or not, is -- they understand that we can do this. But I'm looking forward to it in that way. But I, too, sir, have a lot of concerns. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just -- I honestly thought we were going to move forward with a golf course. Now, there's three commissioners saying they don't even want a golf course, and so then what does it become? And I tell you, this makes me -- I don't know what I -- I don't know if I could even vote for it anymore because it sounds like it's not going to be. I knew that if we built it, not only would it be a good golf course, but it would be a busy golf course, and we would never lose money. We just won't. But it sounds like nobody wants a golf course. January 22, 2019 Page 163 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I haven't spoken yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So having said that, one of the things that I would like to suggest to my colleagues -- and if you'll lift up the number one sheet that you have up there. One of the discussions that I had with staff with regard to this is this outparcel that's been created by the seller -- I think there's a song title that goes I Want It All. And I am not interested in commingling or coming up with cross-easement agreements and that sort of process. I would prefer that we purchase the entire piece of property. I think that there's a lot of -- in my prior real estate life, there's a lot of angst that comes with outparcels that are carved out of a piece. And it may mean, by the way, during the appraisal process, that we have to pay more for this, but I think it adds to the entire utilization of the site for, potentially, its highest and best use. So I am in consent of going forward with the acquisition and exploration. I've written tens of thousands of real estate contracts, and you can sufficiently put protection for us within the due diligence period that we have the right to not consummate the transaction for any reason. So please be careful about that obligation as you're going forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like to offer up -- in the perfect world -- this is, Commissioner Saunders, a perfect location. It's main and main for a potential site of the veterans nursing home. It's -- the properties along 951 are there for access of some sort of a residential community. If I had to envision on the prior site plan a municipal nine-hole course that encircles the folks in Par 1 and protects our residential properties over along on the -- are you okay? January 22, 2019 Page 164 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. This drawer just made some noise for some reason. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Kicking the podium. But my thoughts were, this is a -- and we're early on in the potential uses for this site, but I think we may be able to come to a happy medium with, potentially, all of these uses. But for now, we have to go forward with a potential of the acquisition. I would like us to explore the entire site as well. And then, once that dust settles and we come to a realization as to what that is, then we can explore the ultimate uses that could, in fact, come along. I had envisioned this, to reiterate, the location of the veterans nursing home and some affordable -- housing affordability that were out along 951 with a nine-hole golf course, municipal golf course that protected the folks in Par 1 and the residences along the way. That's what I had in my mind. We don't get to talk. I mean, we're not allowed to talk except for when the TV's on and Terri's down there writing down all my misspoken words. So that's -- I'm in support of your motion for now, because it gets us to where we want to go down the road. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And in terms of the other parcel, we can vote on this motion to accept the staff recommendation. We have that motion and a second. I'm not sure if Commissioner Fiala wants to maintain that second. But we have a motion and a second to move forward, and assuming we vote on that, then we can also entertain or direct staff to attempt to negotiate the acquisition of that other outparcel as well. And so I would suggest to the Commission that unless we buy this property, the discussions about golf courses and all of those things are out the window. That's a -- what I tried to emphasize is that's a discussion for a future date. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amen. January 22, 2019 Page 165 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I would urge the Commission to move forward with the motion, and then we'll entertain your second thought. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, and -- let's do it independently then. There's a been a motion -- do you want to maintain your second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't vote for it anymore -- so I seconded it, but I won't vote for it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, let's see if there's -- there's no point in -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to withdraw your second -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Withdraw your second and let's see if there's another second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll withdraw it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala withdrew, and Commissioner Solis seconded your motion. So it's been moved and seconded that we move forward as staff recommends with the acquisition. All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So there you have that. Would you like a second motion to consider the entire tract? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the second motion would be to see if staff can negotiate an acquisition to come back to January 22, 2019 Page 166 us on that outparcel. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's independent of the -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to need to get an additional appraisal. We have an appraisal for the part you just voted on. We do not have an appraisal for that part. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you'd have to go through whatever the statute requires, but... MR. KLATZKOW: We would need two appraisals on that one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we'd want to meet with Mr. Vocisano and see if he's even interested, and if he is, then move forward and give you an update on that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would that be acceptable? Come back at the next meeting, they'll talk to the owner. If he's interested, make a decision to move forward then. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And he needs to be interested; I like that idea. Do you need a motion in that regard, or just -- I mean, you're getting positive head nods and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a motion just to direct staff to reach out to them. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make a motion to direct staff to pursue the purchase of the commercial piece as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we pursue the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's where the hotels are? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, if Mr. Vocisano says no to that piece there, and I think he's going to say no based on the January 22, 2019 Page 167 conversation we had with him, is there still majority support to move forward with this project? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a motion already approved to move forward with the first part. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Supposition. It's been moved and seconded that we move forward on the acquisition of the additional piece. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSION SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you want to vote no on that one? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I won't vote no on that. I voted on the big piece. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Okay. So there you have it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm just broken hearted, I'll tell you, gee. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNCATIONS January 22, 2019 Page 168 MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to, I believe, Item 15, staff and commission general communications. Just a reminder, you have a series of upcoming workshops. You have two on February 5th. One is at 9 a.m. having to do with your transit system, and at 1 p.m. on the 5th, we will talk about our fertilizer ordinance, and then you see March, April, and June . That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Just to note that we have oral argument scheduled with Mr. Vocisano on February 8th. We will be asking the Court to see if they could put that over, which is the reas on I asked, because the Court may have inquired as to that one issue. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. Thank you. Madam Clerk? THE CLERK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How are you, by the way? You've been very quiet today. THE CLERK: I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good to see you. Thank you. And moving right along, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, sir. Just one thing. I was hoping that I could get some support to ask the chairman to write another letter. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, by the way, do I have to write these, or will you do them, Leo? MR. OCHS: We'll do them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was joking. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To the Fish and Wildlife Commission, the FWC, because the bear interactions, specifically in District 2, continue to increase. January 22, 2019 Page 169 And there are some ideas from residents/owners in the area, and I think, as I understand it, FWC, they have meetings around the state periodically, and given the water-quality issues that we've experienced and this growing bear concern that we have, I think it would be good to have them come down here and specifically develop some guidelines and a plan, because if the bear population continues to grow, I mean, at some point, there's going to be an issue, a serious issue if they continue to grow the way it has, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if I might just -- I mean, because I initiated the bear-wise efforts that transpired last year in the summertime, and I have -- we've already had two presentations by FWC. Might I suggest -- and I'll be happy to write a letter. I'll write as many letters as you want, but I might suggest that maybe you draft a letter, send it to the County Manager -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- delineate what it is you're, in fact, looking for. I mean, there's been an enormous amount of information. I know Sue, when she goes to our Golden Gate office out at Wilson, passes out the bear-wise things. We have utilized the billboards in Eastern Collier County, not necessarily in District 2, but there's been an enormous amount of information put out on those. And I'm looking to try to find out what you're specifically looking to do. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I think what people were asking is, okay, the local bear-wise information, all that, and if we can implement some of that is great, but what is -- is there a plan, you know, a statewide plan for addressing this if the bear -- I mean, the bear population, as I understand it, has, like, doubled in the last 10 years. If it doubles again, you know -- and I've also found out that actually we don't -- there's even more bears up in the central part of the state, but there's some real concerns. January 22, 2019 Page 170 And I understand it, that if this continues -- the trend continues, you know, it's going to be -- it won't be a bear every once in a while. It will be a consistent problem, and in these gated communities I think it's a real concern. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's absolutely -- it's absolutely a concern. I share your thought processes. But there was a -- and there is -- and I can make it available through the County Manager. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They climb over the walls? You said gated communities. I was like, how do bears get into -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're crossing I-75. I mean, they're getting all the way to Tarpon Cove on the east side -- on the west side of 41 down by the beach. I mean, they're crawling all over everything. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you know what a fence is to a bear? Nothing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They climb trees. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When there's food on the other side. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that's right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's Yogi and Boo-Boo heading for the picnic basket. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They are everywhere. Thank you. That's all. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So with that, maybe send your intent to the County Manager, and then we'll bring it up for a specific discussion. I'm totally okay with that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll provide that to the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And in between then and now, you know, our friend Lisa Priddy, prior FWC board member, talk with her; she's right on point with the stats and the numbers and January 22, 2019 Page 171 everything. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I didn't have anything. I was just going to say goodbye. But now that you've brought up the bears, way back in the Dark Ages when I first moved here -- I think they invented the trees about then. Anyway. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bears had not evolved yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We never heard of bears down here, actually. We never had a problem with bears, but we did hear all of the anxiety that there were -- all the panthers were gone. There's going to be no more panthers. We've got to increase -- this is in the '70s -- we've got to increase the panther population. Well, lo and behold, fast forward a little bit, they brought in the Texas cougars to inter-mate, and then they had to take the cougars out because there was so much going on. But what we have here -- and everybody keeps fearing about, oh, their environment is gone, the bears -- the animals will have no place to go. That, of course, isn't true. Everybody up here knows that we have 79 percent of all of our land in preservation, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Eighty. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is, by the way, let me call it, a bedroom for the bears and for the panthers, and nobody can bother them while they're in that area, right? And so they continue to go to the bedroom and just continue to make more babies, and they expand and expand. Well, it's going to be interesting to see how we all tackle it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I know what you say about bears. We have a lot of mobile home parks right down in the east end by the -- right near the Everglades, and what they do is they January 22, 2019 Page 172 go -- they'll rip the screens right out. We had pictures in the newspaper where they ripped the screens right out of the screened enclosures to get to the garbage cans inside, because now the people have hidden them inside, inside the screen enclosure. So they can get pretty persistent and pretty demanding, so I'm glad we're going to be having a discussion. And with that, I just want to say have a nice weekend. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am, thank you. I actually had one come through my screened lanai, through the top. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Through the top? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Through the top. He got up on the roof, walked across the top, fell through the screen, landed on the jacuzzi, and then tore the daylights out of my back porch. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No kidding? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. Yeah, it just happened last September, I think. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the panthers are killing the cattle, too, aren't they? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's a whole 'nother discussion. Don't go there. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have one item that I'd like to see if we can, perhaps, get on the agenda in April or May. In the Golden Gate City areas, we have a facility that's operated by Collier Senior Resources. They are leasing the old Golden Gate library building. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, it's right by the fire station. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Exactly, exactly. I was out there about four or five months ago, and they have two needs that I'd like for us to consider in light of the fact that it is a county building January 22, 2019 Page 173 and that they are leasing. One is that if they can get some renovations done to the county building, they can get better use of the facility. And they've got an estimate of what that would cost, and I'll hand out a little thing that I got from Steve Carnell that kind of outlines that. The other is that there's land adjacent to it that's owned by the county that could serve as an addition to that, which would satisfy all their needs for the long-term future. They are providing a very significant service to an elderly population in the Golden Gate City area that is underserved. And so if I get three head nods, counting mine, to bring it back, I'd like to bring that back for just some discussion as to what, if anything, we might be able to do to help out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. Well -- and just as an aside, you know, with the -- what is it that you're creating, the economic enterprise zone or incentive zone? I mean, there's a TIF over there. There's additional revenues that could be funneled in that direction to assist with that community need. So I totally think it's a great idea. That's a viable portion of that community. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. So April, May, there's no urgency, but... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just one? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, you hit the jackpot with me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: First of all, Logan north of Immokalee Road, we spoke about it, and I went back to the neighbors who happen to be close to dear family I have in Lake Park. Anyway, what their concern is is the traffic, the amount of traffic that crosses from Immokalee and goes -- and uses Logan as a cut-through. January 22, 2019 Page 174 So their request is to take a look at that. I guess you'd put counters up there to see if it's as bad. Because it's either widen it to four to let them go like crazy and, you know, or to try to figure out how you can somehow manage that traffic. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Clarification. North of Immokalee or south? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, coming south of Immokalee Road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So between Immokalee and Vanderbilt? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, exactly. Another request for a letter, if I have agreement from my colleagues. I listened to a news story this morning that Governor DeSantis is now going after what he considers a very ill-written ordinance on medical marijuana and that he has gone to the architect, who I believe is a senator, to discuss this with him, and he actually has spoken that he realizes there's some problems with it. If there's an agreement on this board that there is a problem not giving local control to a community of where to place that dispensary -- I'm not talking about the numbers. I'm no expert about where they should go. Let them deal with that. It's the idea that local control was denied us where we could place this dispensary. If there's an agreement, I'd like to send a letter to Governor DeSantis asking him, as he's reopening this whole issue up there, that they specifically address this issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Home rule for Collier County. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Home rule for where we place this dispensary. Very well put. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I would say yes, absolutely. It's been my argument and discussion since the referenda was passed and the electorate was asked about the dispensaries. I actually have January 22, 2019 Page 175 legislative statutory adjustment language to Representative Rodriguez with regard to that both establishing those mandated where we're preempted by statute as to where those facilities can be to establish those as minimums so that the local elected officials -- who knows the communities best but us? So I've suggested that they establish those statutory regulations as to dispensaries locations as the minimums that then can be enhanced by the local authority. And I also have added language suggesting managing the sales tax revenue off of these facilities to come back to the municipalities to assist with substance abuse both education -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mental health and substance abuse. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- rehabilitation. So yes, ma'am, I'm all for a letter. And that language -- I mean, I've talked to Ray about that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, what do you think? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not going to him, by the way. I'll go back and get the name specifically of the legislator that wrote it. He was -- do you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I heard that. What I heard was related to the -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Smoking. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- ban on smoking marijuana. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And also the vertical implementation of it. I mean, they went into it a bit. And I, thought, well, let's strike while the iron's hot. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the discussion being open January 22, 2019 Page 176 with the new governor in regard to a poorly written statute that compromised me, personally, for two years since we've come into office. I'm all -- I'm all over it. I, again, proposed language changes already. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think getting that to our legislative delegation as well -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- would be helpful so that they know where we are. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Maybe most importantly, because they're the ones that would really make sure it stays on the desk. (Multiple speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. I will get to our County Manager the names of the two besides -- or the one besides Governor DeSantis. Poinciana Village. Poinciana Village, if you don't know it, sits in a ditch. It wasn't a ditch until Airport Road was improved. Airport Road is a county road, or -- it is a county road, right? And I believe you raised Airport Road when you did it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, it was before my time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was before Nick. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So could we please start exploring what, if any, liability the county has in the flooding problems that they're enduring? This is not something -- this is not Ridge Street. This is -- well, it is the bowl in Ridge Street; it certainly is. I mean, when you go to Poinciana Village, you go like this literally. If there was snow, you could sleigh down it. And these people flood regularly. They've got the Gordon January 22, 2019 Page 177 River over here on the west, and they've got Airport Road on the right, and it's a perfect storm. And they're frightened. They are frightened. And they could come in and talk to you but, you know, we're sort of at an impasse right now about what's -- we're not at an impasse, but we're trying to develop stormwater issues. But somehow we need to understand if there is a liability on the part of the county. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if I could, I don't think there's any, and I'll tell you why. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And these are my words, not theirs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Your typical arterial is built with humps and sumps. So you might have a section of 200 feet that drains into an outfall. Most of our water is contained within those humps and sumps. So if there was any water that was incidental just to their driveway going in, that would be it. Now, I've reviewed Poinciana drainage when I was the GMD department head. It's just poorly designed at the time and now -- can -- do we have plans to improve that outfall? We do. It's one of the financing issues you have with the stormwater utility. One of the things we're going to have to look at is at the back end of that development where it ejects south to the Freedom Park, through that outfall area, do you put in some sort of pump system that draws the water down quickly as a stormwater capital project. But I don't believe there's almost any liability from us because Airport Road is a hurricane evacuation route. By permit, we had to raise it. Our humps and sump are covered. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So we'll put that to bed. So then if we could, perhaps, address that and maybe even present this to the commission who are not familiar with this area. I think most of us might be, but maybe some of us aren't -- so we can January 22, 2019 Page 178 get it on the record, because I think with the failure of the fee at this point, let's put it in, and the discussions going forward, the fear is mounting, because they could lose their homes. It is that serious. If we have serious downpour, they could lose their homes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a known problem, ma'am. We know it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I know you do, and I know this is -- but the angst -- and just to bring it again to the forefront, I think, would be helpful. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before you go on, Commissioner Saunders and I both have comments regarding that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And you kind of covered it. I was going to say, finding out whether there's liability doesn't really address anything, and so I agree with what you've concluded, that we shouldn't go down that path. But let's have staff take a look and come back to us with some recommendations on what could be done. Nick Casalanguida has talked about some of the improvements. We're going to be getting into our budget in the next month or two for 2019/2020. And so that would be the way to fix this. But we need to get some information so we can move forward. So you would suggest that that would be -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And I'm very comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How would you fix it? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We don't yet. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appropriating funding, directing funding. We've been very good about directing funding away from stormwater in the past, and we prioritize some of the stormwater funding to take care of the particular hot spots along t he way. Just on two notes, I come from sled riding territory, and that hill January 22, 2019 Page 179 down there is not worth sled riding, just so you know. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do I, but you could, especially if it wad icy, you could just go (indicating) and sail down. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just so you know. Number two, I used to live in Poinciana Village, so I'm well area of the hill, I'm well aware of the hill, and it's not worth traversing for sledding, just so you know. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. And then I did attend a Productivity Committee meeting where they discussed the BMP process, and the Productivity -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that process? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Basin Management Plan, when the federal government comes in and says you haven't been taki ng care of your waters, so we are now going to make sure you do and, of course, the cost is on your shoulders. And Lee County has faced $25 million of BMP. And so we do have -- we do have impaired waters here. And so the question was asked of pollution control, do you know what it would cost to repair this and, of course, they said, no, we have no idea, and they're poised to drop the whole issue. I think staff could probably come back understanding where the more serious problems are perhaps with a general cost of what it means because, in my opinion, water quantity is irrevocably entwined with water quality now. So if you could do that, I would appreciate it. And on something a little bit more light and fluffy, has anybody gone down to the second floor -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Light and fluffy? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Light and fluffy. Anybody gone down to the second floor and seen Mary Jo's handy work? Go take a look at the conference room. They have new chairs that are January 22, 2019 Page 180 comfortable and beautiful. And I think we need to bring Ms. Brock up here so she can do the same for us here and also in our conference room. So is there any support to do that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll go take a look right away. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, they're wonderful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if they offer refreshments. MR. OCHS: There's candy there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's very nice. So if there's some agreement, we can have her, because I hear from the County Manager that we couldn't make up our mind. I think the whole search stopped. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We should go down there and just take her chairs. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Trade our chairs out, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Each roll one down. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs, would you have any problem with that? MR. OCHS: Oh, no, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think if this chair gets any lower, I'm just going to have to bring two pillows like my colleague does, because I'm sinking down. And then, finally, when I first was elected to the Commission, I remember listening to a speaker when I was on the Canvassing Board about how the lack of civic instruction is in our schools. They just don't teach children about civics anymore. And from that, and quite by accident, I watched some students almost magically transform themselves when I showed them this room that we work in, and can we go up here? Can we sit? And they, impromptu, created a meeting. They had debate on an issue, and they answered it. And so from that it morphed into having Collier County schools January 22, 2019 Page 181 agree to it. And we've done it now for three years, and this year it's so popular that we've got it twice. Now, I'm not going to be here forever, contrary to my opponent's fear, you know, that I'm going to be here forever. I'm not. But I think this program has a value to our community. And I'd like to see if there's any support of having staff own it and that it continues beyond my time up here, because I think there's real valu e in bringing young minds into a process by which they understand how government works, and hopefully it will inspire them to participate, because that's what is not happening. So I want to see if you have -- and by owning it, I mean -- I mean, our office is always going to organize it, but I'm not going to be here forever, and I'd just like to see it continue. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why don't you just give -- we all know what you're talking about, but there may be some who don't, and that's -- a little bit more of a description of the process that you've gone through. We all -- with regard to the youth serving as commissioners and serving as staff and serving as the attorney, it's actually a rather interesting process. So if you don't mind giving just a brief explanation there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you just did. That's what happens. And we actually have staff members that give their time and do it willingly, in fact, I've been told, actually look forward to it where they actually come and present, from the staff's side, an issue. These issues are decided ahead of time by each of the students in these classes, and then they are -- and the commissioners are picked from each class, and they have a County Attorney and a -- I always call him the master of ceremonies, but I know -- the secretary and the County Manager and the Deputy County Manager, and they come and they argue their issues. And what is really exciting is when an issue is being argued and January 22, 2019 Page 182 another school is there that feels so passionately about it, they start to speak. And there's some coaching involved, but what it does is it brings them to us, but it also lets them see how we work, and it is becoming -- as I say, they're coming back twice this year, which they never did before. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which schools have you had so far? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Immokalee, Pine Ridge, Gulf View Middle, and I think that's it. And we have five schools coming in March. And it's a day, it's a better part of a day for them. So it would require -- the work it would require is that -- to organize just to make sure staff knows what the issues are, and then for staff to prepare for it, and then also to have a commissioner here, which is always great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever happened to that program that we used to have that I haven't seen -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay on the microphone, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that I haven't seen for a little bit where they have the high schools come over; they bring the high school kids, I mean, five from each school or whatever. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I think you're referring to the Know your County Government program? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Did that go away? MR. OCHS: I believe it was on a hiatus, but I believe they're coming back this year. In fact, next month, I think, you may be seeing them here in the boardroom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. Now, it's not at all like the program that you're talking about, and I think that that's a great idea. I think it would be a nice thing to do wit h that. You just meet the commissioner of your own district when they -- know your schools or -- January 22, 2019 Page 183 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, sometimes they cross over, but it doesn't mean that we can't figure out how to get another commissioner here, you know. But I think it's -- I think there's some value to it if this board thinks there's a value to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure there is. You know, these kids are -- they're going to all be our government some day, whether it be here or wherever they move to, and I think it's a good thing -- good start right here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and the County Manager's already canvassing for workers. He's -- because he will come and speak, and he'll talk about staying here, and he describes what government is and all the opportunities you have in government to work from biology, to shoveling, you know, whatever. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Snow. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I mean, it's pets. Yes, I was going to say -- okay, so maybe -- you know, I'm not ready to quite let go of it yet, but I certainly would like to expand. MR. OCHS: Well, when you're ready to hand it off, we're ready to take it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that's great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that was nice. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then this is really finally, I got an email from a -- some Berkshire Lakes folks where fireworks are being continually expended. And the ordinance requires that -- says that you can't -- in the dry season you can't let off fireworks, but it doesn't address the rainy -- which is -- we're wet, right? It’s a rainier season. So is there any interest in this commission bringing back an ordinance so that we can say that within certain times, and I see -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're preempted by state statute. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, we are. January 22, 2019 Page 184 MR. KLATZKOW: Fireworks, firearms preempted. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Another letter to the governor. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't want to get into the fireworks business, ma'am. You get all kinds of -- you get all kinds of complaints from people. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Really? MR. KLATZKOW: It's New Year's Eve. I want to go to sleep at 10. These people -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, New Year's Eve is -- a holiday's okay, but I think it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm saying, if you get rid of the preemption, you'll just be deluged by people. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, all right. Enough said. So thank you very much, and I'm done finally, right? Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have two things. And first off I'd like to offer an apology. I think at our last board meeting I -- or the meeting in December, whenever the 47-acre piece came up, I was told by several of my friends that I showed more emotion during that 15-minute hearing period on the 47-acre Randall Curve than I have in my entire two years as serving as your county commissioner, and I would like to apologize for that. If you were listening while I was throwing myself around down there on that end, I said I know of at least one other person who has expressed an interest in this 47 acres. How many letters of intent have we got so far, County Manager? MR. OCHS: We had one expression of interest and a second offer to buy an alternative piece of property. I'm not sure if that one wants to swap. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two individuals have come forward and expressed an interest, and I received another -- I received another notice that there is a third offer coming from another January 22, 2019 Page 185 individual. And if you'll recall, I had asked that -- and, of course, I'm in the dissent. I'm not quick enough to be jumping over into the yes just so I can call for something to be recalled, but I asked that we give consideration to this piece of property being put up onto the open market while we're exploring the MOUs with the school board and the contiguous property owner and the like, and because of that information, two offers have, in fact, come in, and I'm told a third is on its way. And I would really like for us to give consideration at some stage to offer that property up on the market and ascertain its value and make sure that -- again, as I said during the hearing, there is -- it may well be the public benefit is best suited for the proposed uses, but it may well be that it's not. So I would like to ask the County Manager when we're coming forward with that item again and whether we should have it discussed. MR. OCHS: Well, our plan was early April. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Early April. Okay. MR. OCHS: Because, you know, there's some details and due diligence on at least the two letters of interest we've received. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. So I'm kind of at a loss. I mean, I don't know how to go forward other than to bring forward another agenda item to bring -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Before April? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before April, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because you want us to make a decision before April? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no, no. We're not making any decisions at this stage. It's just offering up the property -- formally offering up the property for sale to ascertain its January 22, 2019 Page 186 highest and best use and its value for the residents of Golden Gate Estates is obviously something that I'm passionate about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for clarity, just because we're working with the property owners. Our intention was when we brought it in April is to bring everything to you, the offers we receive, the MOU we've created, and then see where you wanted to go before we went any further. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is that -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I suppose that will get us to where we want to go, particularly. So with that, we don't need -- I just wanted to bring that up. First up, offer my apologies for throwing myself around as I did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a right to have a little emotion or passion about something. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know, should we accept your apology? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like you to. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not even sure what you're apologizing about. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I was rather disgruntled, to be honest, so I -- having said that, we'll move to the next, and it has to do with backyard shooting ranges. I've received -- I received a letter from chairman of the Naples -- Greater Naples Fire Department with regard to initiatives that we might have. Have you gotten a copy of that? Yes, he did. And I would like to know if you would, as a board, like to receive -- or for me to bring forward an agenda item for us to have a discussion on this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. January 22, 2019 Page 187 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask the County Attorney a question, because the State not only preempted all of this regulation, they did pass a state statute that required you to have at least, I think, an acre of land before y ou could have a backyard shooting range in a residential community, and they also have a statute that imposes substantial penalties, personal liability, and removal from office for city and county officials that engage in the regulation of firearms, so -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're all over it, Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. What was that second one? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Removal from office. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. If you meddle with the statute -- the preemption here is a $5,000 fine and immediate removal from office. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you try to -- what does that mean? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you try to regulate the -- I don't know if it -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make a motion that we leave all this alone. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Maybe that's just me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, please, I'm the one that brought this up. I'm well aware of the statutory preemption, but we have conflicting viewpoints. I have -- I have had constituents tell me that state-elected officials are rendering legal opinions with regard to our capacities to manage these backyard shooting ranges. I have had constituents voice concerns. I have worked intimately with our sheriff with regard to these backyard shooting ranges that are, in fact, allowed, and we are statutorily preempted from. I have some -- from January 22, 2019 Page 188 regulating. We're statutorily preempted from regulating. I have a couple of ideas that I would like to bring forward. If you were of the mind to have an agenda item where we could advertise and get some discussion, I've got some ideas that I'd like to do that might be able to assist. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's a terrible idea. I'm sorry. The State's not -- as Commissioner Saunders said, the State's not only preempted you; they could remove you from the dais. Now, I've never seen a preemption statute quite like that in my life. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know what's interesting about the shooting range, down in the Keys there was a guy on a small lot that would go out in his backyard, and he would start shooting, and all of his neighbors -- he would shoot at night, and the neighbors were going crazy, and there was no way to regulate that. And so the State entertained a bill to prohibit those in -- I believe it was one-acre lots, so that eliminated that particular shooting range. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And opened up Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Everyplace else is open. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This letter says that people have been hit by bullets. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, please, that's a misrepresentation. There have been -- I mean, I could write a book on circumstances that have prevailed around these backyard shooting ranges in Eastern Collier County. I have some ideas. I would like to establish a panel to reach out to the community to have folks come in and express ideas. The Sheriff and I have had conversations with regard to extending th e hours of operation -- what are you looking at me for? MR. KLATZKOW: It's your seat that could get removed, so I January 22, 2019 Page 189 mean, I don't know what to tell you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not doing any -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's great that a State representative says it's a local problem. No, this is a State problem. The State could easily solve it by giving you the power to do what you want to do. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the thing to do would be to contact Kathleen Passidomo and our House members and say, hey, we need to fix this. I'm sure you'll get a good reaction from that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I mean, that's basically what that letter suggests is that we contact our -- we contact our local legislators and look for some kind of a local bill that can be appropriated for us to be able to have a say -so. I am by no means ever talking about anything to do with the Second Amendment. I am by no means looking to get over into that regard. Even my friends who are licensed range instructors, hunter safety course instructors have their own backyard shooting ranges, are in consent that a minimum set of standards with regard to these ranges could assist with public safety and welfare. Education, not regulation, is the premise of what we're, in fact, talking about. We have so many uninitiateds that are taking advantage of this and not utilizing -- I mean, proper safety precautions when they're expiring firearms in their backyard that it's endangering -- it's endangering neighbors. I mean, if you will allow me, I -- early on in my tenure, there was an accident that occurred, a bullet hole ended up in the back of a person's lanai, and it was right behind his chair where he sits at the table, and it was two feet away from where his five-year-old January 22, 2019 Page 190 granddaughter played through a sliding-glass door. And the Sheriff -- and, of course, the investigator went out, and the sheriff investigator called me, because I was on it -- called me and said, it's the safest -- when he went upstream -- he went upstream. He said, it's the safest backyard shooting range he's ever seen. And I'm like, what are you going to do? Well, then I got pictures of the backyard shooting range, and whoever it was that chose to expire that firearm that day put the silhouette target on top of the berm as opposed to down so that the berm could stop the bullet from going through. So our suggestion, and where I'm looking to go with this -- because this is an issue. You know, I'm not going to be able to help the folks who -- at this stage anyway who have animals that are frightened by the sound and that sort of thing, but there certainly can be some educational processes that we could put into place that would assist with this issue and the health, safety, and welfare within our community without violating the preemption that we currently have, but allow for an educational process to come out to better educate the folks that do choose to have these ranges. The liability -- the Sheriff and I talked about it. The liability, if we start regulating the parameters of the backyard shooting ranges and then we assume that liability for an accident -- accidents happen to good people, and so -- but what we're looking to do is minimize those accidents and promote education, not regulation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would also caution that when you start to educate the public about the restrictions, you're also going to be educating a lot of people that might want to have backyard shooting ranges. They're going to find out that they're legal. So we just have to be a little careful, but -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't disagree. I'm just -- it's a well -- and to be honest with you, I was part -- this is well in advance January 22, 2019 Page 191 of my tenure here, but I was part of the group that was behind getting the local ordinance that used to disallow the expiration of firearms. I was part of the group that helped get that local ordinance rolled back. That was back when Commissioner Coletta was a county commissioner, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Our mutual friend, Lisa Priddy, was in her office when we worked together at the Regions Bank building, and a bullet hit her window right next to where she was standing on the third floor of the building -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in the middle of town. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Third floor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The middle of what town? Immokalee? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Naples. The Regions Bank building at the end of Goodlette. No, it's a problem, I think, everywhere. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Accidents happen to good people. And I think communication is nine-tenths of the law, and I just -- I wanted to have a discussion to find out if you folks were interested in an agenda item in the future. It doesn't have to be immediate. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I tell you what, if you don't mind, what I'd be interested in is have the County Attorney give us a memo on what, if anything, we can do with backyard shooting ranges. You know, if we can put in standards and that sort of thing, let's have that information before we have a public airing of it, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't mind. Well, I wanted to bring it up. I got a letter from the Chairman of the Greater Naples Fire District that voted 5-0 to send us that letter. As the chairman, January 22, 2019 Page 192 I'm bringing it to you. I have had this ongoing issue for my entire time in office because the largest amount of these ranges exist in Eastern Collier County, and I -- and there's a lot of discontent amongst those in the legal profession as to what can and cannot be done. It's actually been said that -- by legislators that we can regulate these things by zoning ordinances. And I think your suggestion of something in writing from our County Attorney with regard to what we can and cannot do would be a very prudent move. MR. KLATZKOW: It would be my pleasure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It may be a short memo. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. It may be a short memo, that's correct. With that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does Leo have anything to announce? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Leo -- we went to him first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We wore him out. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Leo's going to bring us some new chairs from downstairs. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think with that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was funny when you said something about, do you have anything about this ordinance, and he just pulls out one, like, sitting right at his desk and -- that was amazing that you had that all ready to go. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, he and I already talked about it. I knew the letter was coming, and I warned him that I was going to ask about it. With that, we are adjourned. ***** January 22, 2019 Page 193 **** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Solis and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR CALUSA PINES GOLF CLUBHOUSE, PL20180003262 – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON DECEMBER 6, 2018, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND – ACCEPTABLE Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, DILILLO PARCEL, PL20170000872 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A PROJECT LOCATED OFF OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD Item #16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR STONECREEK January 22, 2019 Page 194 RECREATION SITE, PL20170001854, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,651.50 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF DECEMBER 11, 2018, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A4 RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF AZURE AT HACIENDA LAKES - PHASE 2, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20180002205) 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 CRANE POINT & BIMINI ISLE, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20180001005) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A6 January 22, 2019 Page 195 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.155, PL20170001434 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH HADLEY PLACE EAST – A DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF DAVIS BOULEVARD ON PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD Item #16A7 AWARDING AN AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 18-7454 “DISASTER RECOVERY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND ROADWAY LIGHTING” ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS TO HIGHWAY SAFETY DEVICES INC., FOR SERVICES REQUIRED IN THE EVENT OF AN OFFICIALLY DECLARED EMERGENCY – TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY ON-CALL CONTRACT TO EXPEDITE SIGNAL AND LIGHTING REPAIR Item #16A8 A PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND (PARCEL 139FEE) NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW DRAINAGE EQUIPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A WEIR ON THE HENDERSON CREEK CANAL. (HENDERSON CREEK ROW PROJECT NO. 60223) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $141,345 – LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND TRAIL RIDGE ROAD Item #16A9 ACCEPT THE 2018 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE IMMOKALEE IMPACT FEE INSTALLMENT PAYMENT PILOT PROGRAM January 22, 2019 Page 196 WHICH PROVIDED FOR INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS OF IMPACT FEES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION LOCATED WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB), APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE FOR BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA FUTURE OFFICE LOCATED AT 2348 PINELAND DRIVE WITH CHRISHELLA III, LLC AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT Item #16B2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB), APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND TENNESSEE JED, LLC AND ROBERT MARCH D/B/A HARBORSIDE ANIMAL CLINIC CORRECTING THE SCRIVENER’S ERROR IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT APPROVED JUNE 12, 2018 BY CHANGING THE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE TO JUNE 11, 2019 Item #16B3 January 22, 2019 Page 197 THE BOARD, ACTING AS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB), APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND NAPLES 2.0 LLC (CELEBRATION FOOD TRUCK PARK), CORRECTING THE SCRIVENER’S ERROR IDENTIFIED IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT APPROVED JUNE 12, 2018 BY CHANGING THE PROJECT COMPLETION DATE TO JUNE 11, 2019 Item #16B4 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC., FOR CEI (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION) SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE THOMASSON DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C1 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE EXISTING FUNDING FROM PERSONAL SERVICES TO OPERATING EXPENSES TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO EVERGLADES CITY AS THE CITY’S CONSULTANT REGARDING MANAGEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES CITY UTILITY SYSTEM – AT THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (“BOARD”) MEETING, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED STAFF TO January 22, 2019 Page 198 PROVIDE REQUESTED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND APPROVED SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING UP TO $300,000 Item #16C2 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT #16-6638 WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., TO ALLOW THE VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE-SACS PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT TO CONTINUE IN AREAS DESTABILIZED BY HURRICANE IRMA – PROJECT NO. 70122 Item #16C3 AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO PURCHASE UTILITY PIPE, VALVES AND FITTINGS IN ADVANCE OF THE “NORTHEAST SERVICE AREA INTERIM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, STORAGE TANKS AND ASSOCIATED PIPELINES PROJECT" (PROJECT NO. 70194) – TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE AND MEET DEMANDS Item #16C4 SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MITCHELL AND STARK, INC./JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. TEAM FOR A CONTRACT RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES #18-7474, "DESIGN-BUILD OF NORTHEAST SERVICE AREA INTERIM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, STORAGE TANKS AND ASSOCIATED PIPELINES" – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY January 22, 2019 Page 199 Item #16D1 ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING FEE WAIVERS GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2018, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2018, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-106 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,515 Item #16D2 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITHIN PARKS CAPITAL FUND (306), FROM COMMUNITY PARK PLAYGROUND MAINTENANCE, PROJECT NO. 80305 TO VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK PLAYGROUND, PROJECT NO. 80402 – FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $175,000 IS AVAILABLE THE IN PARKS CAPITAL FUND (306) Item #16D3 THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FROM FUND (303), FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT RESERVES, TO PARKS BOATING IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL, PROJECT #80398 MARINA FUEL TANKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 – TO REPLACE FUEL DISPENSERS AT THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK MARINA Item #16D4 AN AFTER-THE-FACT ONE-TIME BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 FOR A CUMULATIVE GRANT TOTAL January 22, 2019 Page 200 OF $55,022 FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) FROM THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (CNCS) AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT THE AUTHORIZATION, ASSURANCES, AND CERTIFICATIONS – THE FUNDS WILL NOT PERMANENTLY INCREASE FEDERAL FUNDING, BUT WILL SUPPORT COLLIER COUNTY’S PARTICIPATION IN CNCS’S NEW NATIONAL SERVICE CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK (NSCHC) REQUIREMENTS Item #16D5 (1) APPROVE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY'S U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ANNUAL ACTION PLANS FOR FY2017-2018 AND FY2018-2019, (2) APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE FUNDING AND MODIFY THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TENANT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE (TBRA) PROGRAM, AND (3) APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE FOR AN EXERCISE STATION ACTIVITY IN ANTHONY PARK WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D6 ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FULL PAYMENT OF DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING January 22, 2019 Page 201 UNIT – FOR PROPERTY AT 13610 LEGACY LANE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34114 Item #16D7 ONE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM IMPACT FEE RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,149.98 FOR THE ASSOCIATED OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT WHERE THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL – FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14637 APALACHEE STREET, NAPLES Item #16D8 THREE (3) AMENDMENTS TO DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS EXECUTED BY YOUTH HAVEN, INC., TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH 24 CFR 570.505 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D9 THREE (3) SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,250 – DEPOSITED FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR ELIGIBLE SHIP ACTIVITIES Item #16D10 ONE (1) MORTGAGE SATISFACTION FOR ABLE ACADEMY, A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) January 22, 2019 Page 202 LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $515,000 – THE SUBRECIPIENT HAS MET THE REQUIRED OBLIGATION Item #16D11 PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING INVOICE NUMBER 1239 TO CARTER FENCE COMPANY, INC. (CARTER FENCE) FOR CHAIN LINK FENCE REPAIRS AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK (NCRP) IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,315 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D12 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #19-7546 TO COMPASS CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS RESURFACING PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,156 – TO RESURFACE THE NINE (9) PICKLEBALL COURTS AT EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK FOR THE 2019 US PICKLEBALL OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP Item #16D13 TERMINATING FOR CONVENIENCE AGREEMENT #15-6424 FOR THE SCHEDULING AND DISPATCH MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT PROGRAM WITH MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., D/B/A SOUTHEAST MTM, INC., AND TO APPROVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 15-6424, RELATED TO THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE CAT January 22, 2019 Page 203 FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT PROGRAM WITH MV CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION, INC., PROVIDING FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF THE CUSTOMER SERVICE, SCHEDULING, AND DISPATCHING FUNCTIONS OF THE CAT SYSTEM Item #16E1 AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS, DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO GREEN EFFEX, LLC UNDER AGREEMENT #16-6555 “GROUND MAINTENANCE FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.” Item #16E2 CLASSIFICATION, THE DELETION OF ONE CLASSIFICATION AND ONE RECLASSIFICATION TO THE 2019 FISCAL YEAR PAY & THE ADDITION OF THREE (3) CLASSIFICATIONS, THE MODIFICATION OF ONE CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE BETWEEN OCTOBER 1, 2018 AND DECEMBER 31, 2018 Item #16E3 SELECTING CHRISTINA HARDING-CRUZ AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE 2019 “AGAINST ALL ODDS” AWARD AND TO PRESENT THE AWARD AT A FUTURE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Item #16E4 A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE SERVICE LEARNING AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY January 22, 2019 Page 204 BOARD OF TRUSTEES (FGCU) AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT – THE FIRST OF TWO (2) ONE-YEAR RENEWALS UNDER THE AGREEMENET APPROVED IN JANUARY, 2017 Item #16E5 THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT – ON-LINE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,105.99 FOR SURPLUS EQUIPMENT (NET BOOK VALUE OF SOLD ITEMS WAS $.79 CENTS); $300 TRADE-IN VALUE ON DISPOSED EQUIPMENT AND NET BOOK VALUE OF DISPOSED ITEMS WAS $0 Item #16E6 THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16F1 RESOLUTION 2019-13: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED BUDGET January 22, 2019 Page 205 Item #16F2 A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY – BA #19-219, $25,000, IMMOKALEE CRA FUND 186 – AUTO AND TRUCKS Item #16F3 REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,375.04 TO AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT, LLLP, FOR IMPACT FEES PAID ON JANUARY 28, 2008, FOR CANCELLED BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER 2006063564 FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR FOLIO #22671201708, WHICH PROPERTY WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT LLLP TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER TO SERVE AVE MARIA AND SURROUNDING AREA WITH EMS, SHERIFF AND FIRE SERVICES – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16F4 EXTENDING A SINGLE SOURCE WAIVER AND APPROVE $125,000 IN EXPENDITURES WITH VISIT FLORIDA FOR THE BALANCE OF FY19 FOR DESTINATION MARKETING PROGRAMS AND MAKE A FINDING THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – TO ACCOMMODATE THE COUNTY’S ONGOING PARTICIPATION IN THE ADDITIONAL January 22, 2019 Page 206 MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 Item #16F5 RESOLUTION 2019-14: CERTIFYING THE EARN TO LEARN FL PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL PLANS AND REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE COUNTY’S ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Item #16H1 A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND HONORING DR. JUDITH AND MR. SAMUEL FRIEDLAND FOR THEIR MANY ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS AND CULTURAL CONTRIBUTIONS; COMMISSIONER SOLIS WILL PRESENT THE PROCLAMATION AT A CEREMONY HOSTED BY THE JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ON JANUARY 28, 2019 Item #16J1 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN DECEMBER 27, 2018 AND JANUARY 9, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16J2 January 22, 2019 Page 207 A REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2018 Item #16J3 REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JANUARY 16, 2019 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2019-15 : APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD – APPOINTING JOAN LOUISE HOCHSCHILD REPRESENTING DISTRICT 1 AND REAPPOINTING CONSTANCE L. BERRINGER; BOTH TERMS EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2022 Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2019-16: APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE – APPOINTING JUSTIN LEE EMENS (BANKING AND MORTGAGE CATEGORY); GARY HAINS (LABOR ENGAGED IN HOME BUILDING CATEGORY) AND DENISE MURPHY (FOR-PROFIT DEVELOPER CATEGORY); WITH ALL TERMS EXPIRING OCTOBER 1, 2021 Item #16K3 January 22, 2019 Page 208 AMENDMENT #5 TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATING TO CONTRACT NO. 06-4047, EMINENT DOMAIN LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM FIXEL & WILLIS, EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO APRIL 22, 2021. THERE IS NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2019-16A: THE BOARD SETS THE BALLOTING DATE OF MARCH 1, 2019 FOR THE RECOMMENDATION OF MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD BY RECORD TITLE OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN PELICAN BAY Item #16K5 A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN “AS NEEDED” BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BOY AGNEW POTANOVIC, PLLC AND TO EXECUTE THE LETTER OF REPRESENTATION AS REQUESTED BY HENDERSON FRANKLIN – ALTHOUGH THE FIRM HAS A WIDE ARRAY OF LEGAL EXPERTISE, THE COUNTY GENERALLY REQUESTS SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS IN THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT LAW, CONSTRUCTION LAW, TORT LAW, COMMERCIAL LITIGATION, AND APPELLATE ADVOCACY Item #16K6 A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR FINAL COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,464 FOR PARCEL January 22, 2019 Page 209 406RDUE, INCLUDING STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, AND EXPERT FEES AND COSTS, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GG1 NAPLES, LLC, ET AL, CASE NO. 17- CA-1407, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EXPANSION PROJECT NO. 60145. (FISCAL IMPACT: $25,834) – A NON-EXCLUSIVE, ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, CONTAINING 7,665 SQUARE FEET Item #17A RESOLUTION 2019-17: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #17B RESOLUTION 2019-18: PETITION VAC-PL20180002479 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE PARCEL OF LAND USED AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 120, PAGE 187 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE PARCEL IS LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE SMALLWOOD DRIVE RIGHT-OF- WAY IN CHOKOLOSKEE, FLORIDA IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 53 SOUTH, RANGE 30 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17C – Moved to Item #9C January 22, 2019 Page 210 January 22, 2019 Page 211 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:49 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL _______________________________________ WILLIAM L. McDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK ___________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.