BCC Minutes 03/26/2019 RMarch 26, 2019
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida,
March 26, 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
Andy Solis
Penny Taylor
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
Page 1
March 26, 2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
March 26, 2019
9:00 AM
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 - Chair; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Vice-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
March 26, 2019
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Dr. Bob Scudieri of Peace Lutheran Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
B. February 26, 2019 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
1) 20 YEAR ATTENDEES
Page 3
March 26, 2019
a) Andrew Brown – Information Technology
b) Carol Buckler – Parks and Recreation
c) AnnMarie Mitchell – Parks and Recreation
2) 25 YEAR ATTENDEES
a) Bruce Gastineau – EMS Operations
3) 30 YEAR ATTENDEES
a) Gregory Harrison – Road Maintenance
b) Rudy Luna – Water Department
c) Eloy Rodriguez – Road Maintenance
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
1) Presentation of the February 2019 Employee of the Month, Mike
Stone, Senior Field Inspector, Growth Management Department.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating April 7 - 13 as National Library Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Steve Carnell, Public Services Department Head,
Tanya Williams, Library Division Director and Library Division Staff.
B. Proclamation celebrating the 70th Anniversary of the Swamp Buggy Races
and recognizing the historical, cultural and economic contributions it brings
to our community. To be accepted by KC Hornbach, President, Swamp
Buggy, Inc., Jessica Baldwin, Treasurer, Swamp Buggy, Inc. and Directors
Randy Johns, Ron Jefferson, and Bobby Williams.
Page 4
March 26, 2019
C. Proclamation designating April 2019 as Water Conservation Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Dr. George Yilmaz, Steve Messner, and
Howard Brogdon.
D. Proclamation designating April 2, 2019 as National Service Recognition
Day in Collier County, in recognition and gratitude to those who serve in the
Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). To be accepted by Dawn
Whelan, RSVP Coordinator, and volunteers from RSVP.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation on the work and mission of the Florida Humanities Council.
To be presented by Steven M. Seibert, Executive Director, Florida
Humanities Council. (Commissioner Taylor’s request).
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item was rescheduled from the February 26, 2019 BCC Meeting .
Public Petition from Tom Despard to propose measures to improve sound
dampening in new multifamily dwellings (not more than three stories in
height) built in Collier County.
B. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Public Petition from Dr. Lisa
McGarity, representing the Lely Golf Estate Home Owners Association
(HOA) Board, requesting that the county-owned property located 343 St.
Andrews Blvd. within Lely Golf Estates, be sold to the Lely Golf Estates
HOA or its designee, and that any alternative location considered for a lift
station and/or other utility infrastructure be in a non-residential area.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This This item to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Recommendation
to approve by Resolution the single Petition within the 2018 Cycle One of
Growth Management Plan Amendments for an Amendment specifically
Page 5
March 26, 2019
Proposed to the Future Land Use Element to Establish the Livingston
Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict for
Transmittal to Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for Review and
Comments Response. (Transmittal Hearing) (PL20170004419/CP-2018-1)
B. Recommendation to approve an ordinance to modify Ordinance No. 96-84,
as amended, to amend the boundaries and incorporate provisions to improve
the look and usability of the public areas within the Radio Road
Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) boundaries .
C. This item to be heard immediately following Item #14B1
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan. (This item is a companion
to Item #14B1)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution which (1) repeals the existing
property assessment clean energy (PACE) program, replacing it with a new
PACE Program limited to commercial, industrial and multi -family rental
apartment buildings, thereby eliminating those residential property owners
who could be targeted by unscrupulous contractors from the Program, and
(2) approves a new standard form membership agreement with PACE
providers also limited to commercial, industrial and multi -family rental
apartment buildings. In addition, recommendation to direct staff to (1) send
written notice of termination of all existing membership agreements with
current PACE Providers, and (2) offer the new standard form membership
agreement to all existing and other interested PACE Providers. (Jamie
French, Deputy Growth Management Department Head)
B. Recommendation to accept the report and suggestions from the Tourist
Development Council for next steps in regulating Short Term Vacation
rentals in the unincorporated area of Collier County. (Jack Wert, Tourism
Division Director)
C. Recommendation to approve the second amendment to agreement No.
17-7198 for Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) contract Phase 1A –
Page 6
March 26, 2019
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) No. 2 Horizontal and Vertical Work
Package to Manhattan Construction for the next phase of the Sports
Complex and Events Center (SCEC) in the amount of $30,757,765. (Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager)
D. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance effective
April 1, 2019 in the estimated amount of $3,542,310. (Jeff Walker, Risk
Management Director, Administrative Services Department)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency
Board (CRAB) adopt a Resolution recommending to the Board of
County Commissioner’s approval of an amendment to the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Area Plan. (This item is a
companion to Item #9C)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Proposed Future Workshop Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Page 7
March 26, 2019
1) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Greyhawk at Golf Club of the
Everglades Phase 4, (Application Number PL20180002724) approval
of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of City Gate Commerce
Park Phase Three Replat, Application Number PL20190000350.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for All Seasons, PL20170002720, accept
unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water and sewer
facilities, 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 $24,909.94 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Oyster
Harbor at Fiddler’s Creek Phase 2A, PL20160001312 and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation
Bond in the amount of $4,000 to the Project Enginee r or the
Developer’s designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Suncoast Credit Union (Pine Ridge Branch),
PL20160003554, accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the
potable water and sewer facilities, and authorize the County Manager,
or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS)
and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $11,928.03 to the
Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent.
6) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $388,440, which was posted as a
Page 8
March 26, 2019
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.121, PL20140000667 ,
for work associated with Warm Springs.
7) Recommendation to accept an Access Improvement Agreement with
RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. to fulfill a condition of approval pursuant to
Hearing Examiner Decision No. 2018-14, concerning a new access
point on Shadowlawn Drive closest to U.S. 41 for the RaceTrac at
Shadowlawn redevelopment project.
8) Recommendation to recognize carry forward funding for the Collier
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the amount of $8,877,
earned from the FY 2017/18 Transportation Disadvantaged Planning
Grant, and to authorize all related necessary budget amendments.
9) Recommendation to approve a Change Order to address redesign
changes and add 112 days to the final completion date for Agreement
No. 18-7316 “Collier Boulevard (Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road) Landscape and Irrigation Installation” (Project No.
60206) and to reactivate the Work Order (and the Agreement), which
had an expiration date of March 4, 2019.
10) Recommendation to approve Amendment No.1 to the South Florida
Water Management District Agreement #4600003762 for the West
Goodlette- Frank Road Area Joint Stormwater-Sewer Project (60142).
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) acting as the Community Redevelopment
Agency Board (CRAB) approve the First Amendment to the 2018
CDBG Subrecipient Agreement between Collier County and the CRA
for the installation/improvements of sidewalks within the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Area in Immokalee, Florida.
2) Recommendation that the Board accept the 2018 Annual Reports of
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency for the two
component areas: Bayshore Gateway Triangle and Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Areas (CRA) and publish the public
notice of the filing.
Page 9
March 26, 2019
3) Recommendation that the Board, acting as the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB), approve an Access Easement
over property owned by the Community Redevelopment Agency in
the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay, and authorize the
Chairman to execute the easement so long as the legal description and
sketch generally conforms to the exhibit provided .
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreement to Pure Air Control
Services, Inc., for RFP #18-7403, “Indoor Air Quality Testing,” for
Countywide indoor air quality testing services.
2) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with South Florida
Water Management District for space on the County-owned
communications tower located at Naples County Barn Road.
3) Recommendation to approve a Bare License Agreement with Capri
Community, Inc. for the installation of a welcome sign on Collier
County Water-Sewer District property.
4) Recommendation to award an Agreement for Invitation to Bid No.
19-7510, “Hibiscus Irrigation Quality (IQ) Assembly Access
Improvements" (Project Number 70166), to Heritage Utilities, LLC
in the amount of $152,477.
5) Recommendation to approve a purchase order to Simmonds Electrical
Inc., under Agreement No. 18-7311-1, for the “South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Electrical Reliability
Project” (Project Number 70069) in the amount of $439,192.34, and
to authorize the necessary budget amendment.
6) Recommendation to approve the addition of $250,000 in allowances
to Agreement No. 16-6638, Vanderbilt Drive Cul-de-sacs Public
Utility Renewal Project (the “Project”), with Mitchell & Stark
Construction Company, Inc. and approve a purchase order
modification for $307,024 to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
(Agreement No. 14-6345) for CEI Services on the Project.
Page 10
March 26, 2019
7) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services
#18-7249, “Domestic Animal Services Building Design Renovation”
(Project 50145), to ADG Architecture, LLC for professional
architectural services in the amount of $209,253, authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached contract, and authorize the
necessary Budget Amendment.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with
Richard Franklin Berman, Trustee, of the Richard Franklin Berman
Revocable Trust of 2012, for approximately 2.34 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $19,500.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairmen to sign the
First Amendment to the agreement with the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency (Immokalee) for the
installation/improvements of sidewalks in Immokalee, Florida .
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Southwest Florida
Workforce Development Board, Inc. for the delivery of the 21st
Century Learning Centers swimming skills and drowning prevention
“Miracle” Program in Immokalee.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement to Purchase Vended
Meals from Another Approved School Food Service Facility with the
District School Board of Collier County (School Board) to sponsor
and operate the 2019 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) at
designated recreation camps with unitized meals provided by the
School Board and authorize all necessary Budget Amendments. (Total
anticipated Fiscal impact $170,064.60 with a Federal Share of
$138,114.60 and a local contribution of $31,950).
5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an FY2018/19 grant
application for Federal Highway Administration Flexible Funding in
the amount of $286,180 for the purchase and installation of additional
bus shelters through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit
Page 11
March 26, 2019
Award Management System (TrAMS).
6) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an FY18/19 grant
application for Federal Highway Administration Flexible Funding in
the amount of $545,068 for the purchase and installation of signal
priority equipment on transit vehicles as well as electronic fareboxes
for paratransit vehicles through the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).
7) Recommendation to apply for a Florida Animal Friends grant in the
amount of $24,850 to help support the mission of Domestic Animal
Services by offering free spay or neuter procedures for large breed
dogs and community cats.
8) Recommendation to accept and appropriate a restricted donation of
$500 to benefit the Marco Island Branch Library and authorize the
necessary Budget Amendment.
9) Recommendation to accept and appropriate a restricted donation of
$1,000 to benefit the Vanderbilt Beach Branch Library and authorize
the necessary Budget Amendment.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement with GC
II, LLC to provide for the extension of the option closing deadline for
the 2.5 +/- acres that would increase the base footprint of the future
Sports Complex.
Page 12
March 26, 2019
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve an agreement authorizing the Collier
County Supervisor of Elections to accept federal election activities
funds with a 15% matching contribution and to authorize the Board of
Collier County Commissioners' Chairman to sign the Certificate of
Equipment for Casting and County Ballots and Certificate County
Match to Federal Grant Trust Funds under the Help America Vote
Act.
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06.
3) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of March 20,
2019.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Growth Management
Oversight Committee.
2) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
Page 13
March 26, 2019
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget.
B. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 97-8, as
amended, the Collier County False Alarm Ordinance to allow for service of
warnings and citations to be made by text message or electronic mail.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
March 26, 2019
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please come to
order. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, good morning, sir. Good
morning, everyone. We're happy to see you here.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you would, please, rise with me.
We're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance and the prayer.
Commissioner Saunders, will you lead us in the pledge.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Reverend Ochs, will you please
give us the invocation this morning.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these
proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask this, a special
blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their
deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this
day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County
and its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all
citizens and be acceptable in your sight. These things we pray in
your name, amen.
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
March 26, 2019
Page 3
COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) –
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of March 26th, 2019.
Mr. Chairman, I have no staff-initiated changes to today's
agenda. I will note a couple of time-certain items that are set for this
morning.
At 10 a.m. you're scheduled to hear Item 6B; this is a public
petition request from the Lely Golf Estates Homeowners'
Association. And at 11 a.m. this morning, you will hear two
companion items, Items 14B1 immediately followed by Item 9C;
these are both items relating to the consideration of an update to the
master plan for your Community Redevelopment Agency.
And then the final time-certain hearing to be heard no sooner
than 1 p.m. is Item 9A, and that is an item approving a 2018 Cycle 1
Growth Management Plan amendment.
Those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
All right. Commissioner Solis, we'll start down there with you. Any
additions or corrections?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No additions, no -- and nothing to
disclose on the consent agenda or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No changes, no additions, and
no declarations for the ex parte.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like me to repeat that.
MR. OCHS: Please, ma'am.
March 26, 2019
Page 4
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We got it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he said "please."
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We got it okay.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no changes to the
agenda and no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes to the agenda; no
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I am the same as well, so there
you have it.
With that, we'll go to the meeting from February 26th, 2B.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if you'd like to take a motion to
approve today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can do that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve today's agenda.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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. Sorry
March 26, 2019
Page 5
about that; I forgot to get it.
MR. OCHS: No problem, sir.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 26, 2019
Time Certain Items:
Item 6B to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 14B1 to be heard at 11:00 a.m. with Item 9C to be heard immediately following
Item 9A to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.
4/11/2019 3:06 PM
March 26, 2019
Page 6
Item #2B
FEBRUARY 26, 2019 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: 2B is approval of the minutes from the Board of
County Commissioners' meeting of February 26th, 2019.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve the minutes from our 26th meeting. All in favor of?
COMMISSIONER 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 #3A
EMPLOYEE AWARDS AND RECOGNITION – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to our service awards this morning,
Commissioners. If you'd be kind enough to join us in front of the
dais.
Commissioners, we're pleased this morning to have the
opportunity to acknowledge the long service of many of our
outstanding employees. We'll begin this morning acknowledging
three of our 20-year service award recipients.
March 26, 2019
Page 7
The first recipient from Information Technology, 20 years of
service, Andrew Brown. Andrew?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
Completing 20 years of service with our Parks and Recreation
Division, Carol Buckler. Carol?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I look shorter when I'm standing
next to him?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Also completing 20 years of service with Parks
and Recreation, AnnMarie Mitchell. AnnMarie.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have the opportunity to
acknowledge one of our associates has completed 25 years of service
with our EMS division this morning, Bruce Gastineau. Bruce?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who is older; you or him? He's
older. They grew up together.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Finally, Commissioners, this morning we have the
opportunity to acknowledge two of our colleagues that have
completed 30 years of service with county government. The first
gentleman this morning from our Road Maintenance Division,
Gregory Harrison.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: And our final 30-year service-award recipient this
morning, also from our Road Maintenance Division, Eloy
March 26, 2019
Page 8
Rodriguez. Eloy?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes our service awards this morning.
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #3D
THE FEBRUARY 2019 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, MIKE
STONE, SENIOR FIELD INSPECTOR, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 3D on this
morning's agenda. This item is an item to recognize Mike Stone, our
Senior Field Inspector in the Growth Management Department, as
your February 2019 Employee of the Month.
Mike, if you'd step forward, please.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for being with us that long.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The most important part, and then
the plaque. Everybody gets a plaque.
MR. OCHS: Mike, stay right there while I tell the audience a
little bit about you. I know you love this part.
Commissioners, Mike's been with the county since 1999
working in our Road Maintenance Division. He's worn many hats
throughout the years, but no matter what his official position, he's
always willing to be called upon to provide his knowledge and
experience, and he willingly steps up to assist in whatever capacity is
needed.
This past season, due to some staff turnover, Mike was called
upon to act as our warehouse manager to ensure that our asset
inventory was complete and accurate, and he did an outstanding job.
March 26, 2019
Page 9
Although officially the safety coordinator from Road
Maintenance from 2004 through 2017, Mike continues to assist the
new safety staff in identifying all the safety issues and making sure
that any concerns are covered. He works with the staff and in Risk
Management as well to ensure the safety of all of our employees in
making sure that our contractors are also in compliance with all of
our safety regulations.
He's always offering his assistance to others and happy to share
his knowledge and skills with anyone that needs support or a helping
hand. Mike's a true asset to our organization and truly deserving of
this award, Commissioners.
It's my honor to present Mike Stone, your 2019 February
Employee of the Month.
Congratulations, Mike.
(Applause.)
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 4. This morning
those are your proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 7 - 13 AS NATIONAL
LIBRARY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
STEVE CARNELL, PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT HEAD,
TANYA WILLIAMS, LIBRARY DIVISION DIRECTOR AND
LIBRARY DIVISION STAFF – ADOPTED
March 26, 2019
Page 10
Item 4A is a proclamation designating April 7th through 13th, as
national library week in Collier County. To be accepted by Steve
Carnell, Public Services Department Head; Tanya Williams, Library
Division Director; and the Library Division Staff.
Come on up. Don't be shy now.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations.
MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, Tanya Williams, Library
Director.
I just wanted to take a real quick opportunity to say thank you to
the Board for your leadership and your continued support of the
library division.
Last year 1.2 million visitors walked through your public library
doors, and we circulated over 2.3 million items both physically and
electronically.
So your public library system is a critical social infrastructure
that advances the resiliency of Collier County, and I just wanted to
take a moment to say thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ma'am, thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just say, Tanya, one of the
things -- you don't have to come back. But I just want to tell you, I
get letters from people tell me how much they love the libraries and
the program. I'm so surprised because, you know, who ever writes
about programs? But I'm sure if I get them, they all get them, too.
So that says you're doing a good job. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
March 26, 2019
Page 11
PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE SWAMP BUGGY RACES AND RECOGNIZING THE
HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC
CONTRIBUTIONS IT BRINGS TO OUR COMMUNITY.
ACCEPTED BY KC HORNBACH, PRESIDENT, SWAMP
BUGGY, INC., SWAMP BUGGY, INC. DIRECTORS: RANDY
JOHNS, RON JEFFERSON, BOBBY WILLIAMS, GARY SMITH,
DAVE BREWER, AND REESE GARNER – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation celebrating the 70th
anniversary of the swamp buggy races and recognizing the historical,
cultural, and economic contributions it brings to our community. To
be accepted this morning by KC Hornbach, President of Swamp
Buggy, Incorporated, and Directors Randy Johns, John Jefferson,
Bobby Williams, Gary Smith, and Dave Brewer. And Reese Garner.
All right. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Where's the swamp buggy?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We've got some more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: More of the troops have landed.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wait, wait, wait. You've got to
say something about what you do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And before you go away, we want
to know who the best official flag waver is.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Penny Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was cute.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Tell us a little bit --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Give you a ride in the buggy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that was the most incredible
experience I've ever had. I mean, I want to race these things. But I
March 26, 2019
Page 12
was told very quietly at a meeting we had that there was another
commissioner that used to race, but this commissioner used to race on
lawnmowers. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lawnmower races with Kyle.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Back in the day.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lawnmower races with Kyle,
yes.
Do you want to just give us a quick summation of what this
means and what's 70 years and that kind of thing?
MR. HORBACH: Thank you, Commissioner.
KC Hornbach, president of Swamp Buggy, Inc. We're one of
Naples oldest non-profit all-volunteer organizations, and swamp
buggy racing is a sport that's unique to Collier County. We've been
bringing visitors from, obviously, locally, but all over the state of
Florida, the country, and we've had visitors from Germany, South
Africa, France, New Zealand, Australia, and that's just in the last five
years.
We've been a benefit to the community since 1949 when we had
our first swamp buggy races, and the prize was a shotgun.
Thank you very much for your continued support of our 70-year
tradition.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about that?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2019 AS WATER
CONSERVATION MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY DR. GEORGE YILMAZ, STEVE MESSNER, AND HOWARD
BROGDON – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating April 2019
March 26, 2019
Page 13
as Water Conservation Month in Collier County. To be accepted by
Dr. George Yilmaz, Steve Messner, and Howard Brogdon.
Gentlemen.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2, 2019 AS
NATIONAL SERVICE RECOGNITION DAY IN COLLIER
COUNTY, IN RECOGNITION AND GRATITUDE TO THOSE
WHO SERVE IN THE RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER
PROGRAM (RSVP). ACCEPTED BY DAWN WHELAN, RSVP
COORDINATOR, AND VOLUNTEERS FROM RSVP –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation designating April 2nd,
2019, as National Service Recognition Day in Collier County in
recognition and gratitude to those who serve in the retired senior
volunteer program. To be accepted by Dawn Whelan, RSVP
Coordinator, and Volunteers from RSVP. If you'd all please step
forward.
She is going to speak for us.
MS. SONNTAG: Good morning. Kristi Sonntag, Community
Human Services Director, for the record.
Commissioners, I just want to say thank you very much for your
ongoing support of the RSVP program.
Just to let you know, we have 117 volunteers who serve
annually. These volunteers provide 7,176 hours back to our
community for a total dollar value of $177,182.
So I just want to say thank you again for your ongoing support
for the program.
March 26, 2019
Page 14
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I can get a motion to approve
today's proclamations, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept today's proclamations. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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 #5A
PRESENTATION ON THE WORK AND MISSION OF THE
FLORIDA HUMANITIES COUNCIL. PRESENTED BY STEVEN
M. SEIBERT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA
HUMANITIES COUNCIL – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 5A on this
morning's agenda. This is a presentation on the work and mission of
the Florida Humanities Council. To be presented this morning by
Steve Seibert, the Executive Director of the Florida Humanities
Council, and Commissioner Taylor brought this item forward this
morning.
March 26, 2019
Page 15
MR. SEIBERT: Good morning, good morning.
MR. OCHS: Good morning.
MR. SEIBERT: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
ladies and gentlemen, my name is Steve Seibert. I've got the
privilege of being the Director of the Florida Humanities Council.
Our first -- well, first of all, let me say something about
Commissioner Taylor. For six years she served on our board of
directors and was a respected and very, very influential and effective
member of our board. I'm very grateful for that, and I'm grateful for
this opportunity that she made possible.
So the humanities are often hard to define. My predecessor in
this role was once asked to give a speech to an environmental group
in Saint Petersburg, and she stood up and started to talk, and about a
minute into it the host stood up and said, he said, Ms. Farver, I'm so
sorry. We misunderstood. We thought you were from the Florida
Manatees Council.
And that is, you know, reflective of the problem we often have
in defining the humanity. I think they're critically, critically
important, and I'd like to explain why.
My definition is this: The humanities are the stories of our
human experiences. They're the stories of our human experiences
told through the study and discussion of history, of jurisprudence, of
philosophy, of ethics, of literature and poetry, of religion. These are
the things that give us values and help us understand both ourselves
and other people.
I had one person once explain to me, they said, the humanities
introduce us to people we have never met, to places we have never
visited, and to ideas that may never have crossed our minds.
All right. Let me find my magic thing. There it is.
So this is our mission, but what we are, the Florida Humanities
Council is the state arm of the National Endowment for the
March 26, 2019
Page 16
Humanities. You might have heard of the NEH and what they do.
There is a state humanities council in every state in this country and
in five territories, and our job is to provide access to the humanities
and the statute says to people of all backgrounds wherever located.
So our goal, in large part, is to particularly try to serve those
communities that are underserved and under-resourced.
So in large part we work through grants. We are a granting
agency. We're not a giant agency. We're pretty small, but it's pretty
amazing what a $5,000 grant can do for a small historical museum in
Belle Glade or Clewiston or in a variety of other communities across
Florida. And, remember, we are statewide, so we have to serve
everybody from Pensacola to Key West.
These grant-funded programs in this area -- there have been a
number of them over the years. We have funded speakers series at
Rookery Bay. We've worked with -- and speaker series at the Fort
Myers Beach public library in this region. We've brought the
Smithsonian through our MOMS exhibit -- MOMS stands for
Museum on Main Street. We brought that to the Marco Island
Historical Museum.
Probably the most powerful piece, and Commissioner Taylor
had a lot to do with this, we brought a group of veterans on stage to
tell their stories in a program called The Telling Project where they
were interviewed, they told their stories to a playwright, the
playwright took what he heard, put it into about an hour-long play,
and then the veterans told their own stories. It wasn't actors. It was
them. And the power of that was pretty amazing. And, actually,
Penny made that possible.
We also have special initiatives and programs. I've got a couple
here on the screen. Let me just hit two of them. Particularly in the
middle you see the blue piece, the Boca Grande. We started this a
couple of years ago, but these are walking tours that you can
March 26, 2019
Page 17
download for free on your phone. So there are now -- by the end of
this month we'll have 35 communities in Florida that have walking
tours, and people can look at them. You can be in London, England,
and say I'd like to come to Boca Grande. Tell me about it.
And so these come from the communities. The content typically
comes from either cities or counties or historical societies. They
provide us the content. We put it in a format where anyone on the
planet can download them. It's wonderful, it's free, and it lives
forever. These are the stories of the communities from the
communities themselves.
I'd like to mention Poetry Out Loud. This is -- I love this
program. This is a high school competition where young people
memorize poetry. They compete. It's part -- it's part oratory, it's part
theater, it's part memorization. You can imagine what it's like for
these young people, how much self-confidence they gain from this
process. You see it in many areas. There are history and oratorical
competitions, but this is poetry, and this is magnificent.
Interestingly enough, we had most of our high schools -- and
they're all private schools. But most of our high schools from one
county actually came from Collier County. Seacrest County Day
School, Community School of Naples, and Village School of Naples
all participated in the state finals a couple of weeks ago in Saint
Petersburg. The cool part about this is whoever wins goes to
Washington, and they compete for a $20,000 scholarship. So it's
actually pretty meaningful stuff.
And the last thing I wanted to mention to you is Forum
magazine. I think you have copies of it. I think we've got some
extras. And, ladies and gentlemen, I would -- if you haven't seen
Forum magazine, I hope you'll take a look at it. You can order it
from us online, and we'll send you the first year for free. Forum's
been around for about 35 years. It is the only statewide periodical
March 26, 2019
Page 18
that celebrates Florida's history and culture, and it's pretty
magnificent, and it's wonderful, and we hope that people have it
around a lot.
I have -- this is what it looks like. This is what it looks like, and
it's important.
So it was interesting we started this day celebrating the libraries,
which are our key partners always, and I was thinking the swamp
buggy races, which to me is absolutely a humanities exercise. It is
the culture of this community and been around for 70 years. I would
say that both of those would be wonderful partners, are wonderful
partners in the humanities world.
Let me close with just one thought. I think as we think about the
humanities, there are two pillars. One is what we've talked a little bit
about; the fact that when you engage in a study of history or
philosophy or literature or poetry, you gain an understanding of
yourself, and you gain an understanding of others. That's one critical
pillar, this human understanding.
The second part, to me, is one that moves me deeply is that we
can't function as a free society without the humanities. There is a
democracy element to all of this. The foundations of western
democracy, which include a basic set of values and beliefs that
include individual liberty, the rule of law, property rights, civil rights,
free markets, free elections, the free exercise of religion, they must be
learned, and they must be practiced over generations.
The foundations of western democracy are not found in big data
or algorithms or even in STEM. That's not where they come from.
Those are very valuable things, but they teach us something different.
It's the humanities that provide us the values and the ethics and
discussions of justice and freedom. Those are discovered and honed
over time by the humanities, and they are not assured to last for all
time. We can forget them. We can lose them. And so I would argue
March 26, 2019
Page 19
to you the importance perhaps of some of our work is not just what
we do in communities but it is perhaps supporting this broader notion
of the future of democracy, and I think that's critically important.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will thank you very much for
this opportunity to talk a little bit about what we do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Steven. Thank you
very much.
MR. SEIBERT: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Your passion is very much
evidenced, sir.
MR. SEIBERT: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thanks, Steve.
Commissioners, we move on to your public petitions.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY TOM DESPARD PROPOSING
MEASURES TO IMPROVE SOUND DAMPENING IN NEW
MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS (NOT MORE THAN THREE
STORIES IN HEIGHT) BUILT IN COLLIER COUNTY. MOTION
DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING FORWARD A REPORT AT A
FUTURE BCC MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCH: The first public petition this morning is Item 6A.
It's a petition from Tom Despard to propose measures to
improve sound dampening in new multifamily dwellings built in
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, County Manager, do we want
to just reiterate the rules with regard to the public petitions and how
folks can -- and what the expectation of the petitioners should be for
our board and, ultimately, what the public can expect as well as far as
March 26, 2019
Page 20
being able to participate.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Public petitioners have up to 10 minutes to
present their petition to the Board. The Board takes no action at this
meeting on the petition but merely decides whether they want to take
no action or whether they want to direct staff to come back at a future
agenda to address this particular petition.
Also, by rule, there are no public speakers allowed as part of the
public-petition process.
So those are the rules, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good, thank you.
MR. OCHS: So we could call on the petitioner, and they can
step forward and make their petition, please.
MR. DESPARD: Good morning. I didn't know there was so
much interest in sound dampening and noise protection. Thank you
for coming.
I'm not as good a presenter as Mr. Seibert. I will have to read
this, because I -- if I didn't I would forget half of it, so just bear with
me. I'll ask a series of questions, then I'll provide the answer.
Who am I? I'm Tom Despart. I received a Civil Engineering
Degree from Vanderbilt University and was a Registered Professional
Engineer in Pennsylvania for 40 years.
I have been a design engineer, a commercial contractor,
residential builder, a real estate broker, developer, and investor. I
have served on numerous government and nonprofit committees and
boards and have authored four business books.
My wife, Gail, and I live here nearly half the year and enjoy it
very much. We moved into our new villa-style home in East Naples
in September 2016.
Why am I here? We love everything about our community and
Collier County except for one thing: We can hear far too much noise
from our neighbors through our mutual party wall, and they can hear
March 26, 2019
Page 21
us. They are great neighbors, and it's not their fault or ours. Our
master bedroom walls match up, and my wife and I often had to sleep
in our guest room due to the noise.
In January of 2017 she said that if something wasn't done, she
wanted to sell our house and move.
Honey, she asserted, what are you going to do about it?
What did I do about it? I communicated with my neighbors and
others living in multifamily homes, my builder, the staff at Growth
Management, the commissioners, and an acoustical engineer, three
technical representatives of sound dampening, material
manufacturers, an architect, and several realtors.
I have reviewed every scientific report I could find about sound
transmission and sound dampening through party walls and floors. I
studied charts that provide Sound Transmission Class, STC, rating
for other -- for various types of sound through party walls and floors.
I made a 15-minute presentation to the Department of Services
Advisory Committee, DSAC, which has several builders on it.
At our 13-foot-wide bedroom party wall, we removed the
drywall and 2x2 furring, painted the block wall, installed 2x4 studs
not touching the block, nailed the electrical boxes to the studs, not
block wall, installed three-and-a-half-inch soundproofing insulation
used to surround music rooms, and replaced and painted the drywall
all at a cost of $2,000.
Our builder could have soundproofed the 72-foot-long side of
our party wall with three-and-a-half-inch Fiberglass insulation and
insulated 2x4 wood studs in lieu of 2x2 furring for $600, the same
cost as crown molding in a bedroom, a carpet padding upgrade, or a
change in paint color, and our home could be there for 100 years.
What did they say? My neighbors and others living in similar
homes said that they, too, hear a lot of noise through their party wall,
including TVs, dogs barking, vacuum cleaners, talking, laughing,
March 26, 2019
Page 22
sneezing, snoring, music, and bathroom and kitchen noises. They are
upset but believe that this is -- there's nothing they can do about it
and have to live with it. One couple has a party-wall neighbor who
turns up her TV and has it on most of the day.
My builder was very responsive and indicated there they build
party walls with the detail commonly used in Collier County of an
8-inch block hollow core block, 2X2 wood furring nailed to the
block, and half-inch drywall attached to the furring on both sides of
the wall.
After many interactions with me and customer complaints, my
builder decided to change the way they build party walls to include
isolation of studs from the block walls.
The staff at Growth Management reviewed the applicable
building codes with me and indicated that Collier County exempts
multifamily dwellings three stories and less from any
noise-protection requirements. The commissioners would need to
and could adopt rather than exempt sections of the Florida residential
code that address sound transmission through party walls and floors
in these dwellings.
The commissioners, whom I have emailed a lot of detailed
information on the subject, thanked me, expressed concern, but have
yet to take any action. An acoustical engineer told me, and I quote,
applying drywall with wood studs or furring directly to a block wall
with no insulation or sound insulation clips and a minimal air space is
an absolute no-no because the drywall acts like a vibrating
springboard that actually pushes the sound through the wall. An STC
rating of 50 is minimal and definitely less than desirable, end quote.
The three technical representatives of sound dampening material
manufacturers all agreed with this analysis and one stated, your wall
with drywall attached to furring strips over bare block is likely to be
somewhere around STC 33. Concrete blocks are porous, so left
March 26, 2019
Page 23
unpainted they will transmit sound fairly well.
The other problem is the small space created by the furring
strips, since that space will be resonating badly.
Furthermore, the Sheetrock has no resilient or decoupled
connection to the furring strips, allowing the resilience in the cavity
to transmit through the drywall and into your room, end quote.
The architect said that he completely agreed with me and has
expressed concern on this issue to no avail.
Realtors have told me that noisy party walls are an issue in
multifamily homes three stories or less. One recently shared with me
that was one of his major problems. A client sometimes blames him
for not disclosing that there is noisy party walls or floors in the home
they just purchased.
The one homeowner even told me last year that they had to sell
their townhouse because the party wall did not dampen the sound
nearly enough.
The scientific reports I studied supported these narratives and
provided the information to complete my analysis. One report I sent
to staff and the commissioners stated that, I quote, the mass to air to
mass residence frequency is that where two layers of material
separated by an airspace resonate somewhat like the skin of a drum.
In the case of a block wall with gypsum board added, vibrational
energy transfers from the gypsum through the air into the cavity of
the block wall more effectively than it does through the block wall
alone. In other words, the block would be better without the drywall
on it for sound protection.
Another report stated that Fiberglass or rock wall insulation
convert sound energy to heat energy and, therefore, are the only way
to effectively and efficiently protect against noise transfer.
The DSAC listened, commented on both sides of the issue, but
took no affirmative action.
March 26, 2019
Page 24
Our newly sound-insulated bedroom wall doesn't say anything;
however, other party walls in our home are still not protected from
unwanted noise.
I'm almost done.
Where is Collier County now? The commercial code provides
for noise protection for new multifamily dwellings more than three
stories but not new multifamily dwellings not less than three stories --
excuse me -- not more than three stories.
The result can be a lack of privacy, unwanted noise, sleep
deprivation, friction among neighbors, and lower real estate values.
The Sound Transmission Class, STC, rating for the party wall
specifications commonly used in Collier County for multifamily
dwellings not more than three stories, the 8-inch block wall, 2-inch
furring and so on, is between 30 and 35. An STC 30 rating permits
loud speech to be understood fairly well, normal speech can be heard
but not understood.
An STC 35 rating permits loud speech that is audible but not
intelligible.
Where does Collier County need to be? The Collier County
Commissioners can and need to mandate noise protection by
adopting appropriate sections such as Section 1207, sound
transmission, of the Florida residential building code for new
multifamily dwellings not more than three stories which will provide
for a minimum STC rating of 45 where, quote, loud speech is not
audible; 90 percent of statistical population is not annoyed.
This STC rating will require isolation of the studs from the
block walls, Fiberglass or rock wall insulation, and possibly painting
or otherwise sealing the block as part of a party-wall assembly.
Even an STC 45 rating is too low, so an investigation as to whether
or not the county can mandate an STC 60 rating for multifamily
dwellings not more than three stories where most sounds are
March 26, 2019
Page 25
inaudible needs to be conducted.
In closing, understanding the problem is half of the solution, and
I hope I have clearly laid out the problem as well as provided
solutions. This petition is about consumer protection, health and
quality of life in Collier County, as per your mission statement, and
leveling the playing field for builders to build an acceptable
specification for noise protection in all new residences.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Thomas. Thomas?
The most important question: What part of the great state are you
from?
MR. DESPARD: East Naples.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know that. Pennsylvania, the
great state.
MR. DESPARD: Oh, Lancaster County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sir?
MR. DESPARD: Lancaster County, home of the Amish.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding, outstanding. When I
heard you were an engineer from there, I just needed to know that.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just real quickly. I know --
it's not a question for the speaker, just a comment. I know we don't
take any action on this, but this is an issue I've never even heard of
before, but it makes some sense. I'd like to get a report back from our
CBIA and from our staff on what, if anything, we should do about it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about a quick motion to direct
staff to bring it forward in a future meeting and get a full report both
from the CBIA, along with the building code, along with
improvements that we might be able to go?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make that motion, and you
can tell your wife that you did a great job.
March 26, 2019
Page 26
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You did something; exactly. Tell
her you did something.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we bring that forward on a future agenda item.
Thank you, Thomas. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question on that, though. I
had, when I read -- of course, we just had a brief reading on this, and
I thought it was referring to apartment buildings and condo buildings,
but I was corrected and said, no, it's single-family attached. And I
thought it was buildings when they said three stories and stuff, but
are -- I think when they bring it back, maybe they could clarify that,
too, because --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And they will. That's the whole
process of bringing it back --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- because, I mean, folks have the
right to come to us and speak on these public petitions, and though
Thomas is a very nice man, we can't necessarily accept verbatim
everything that comes along, so we want to hear from our staff as
well, so that's a good way to go.
March 26, 2019
Page 27
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY DR. LISA MCGARITY, REPRESENTING
THE LELY GOLF ESTATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
(HOA) BOARD, REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY LOCATED 343 ST. ANDREWS BLVD. WITHIN
LELY GOLF ESTATES, BE SOLD TO THE LELY GOLF
ESTATES HOA OR ITS DESIGNEE, AND THAT ANY
ALTERNATIVE LOCATION CONSIDERED FOR A LIFT
STATION AND/OR OTHER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE BE
IN A NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA - MOTION DIRECTING STAFF
TO COME BACK WITH FURTHER INFORMATION AS A
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, your next public-petition item is
scheduled for 10 a.m. time-certain, but I know the petitioner is here,
and most of the representatives of the community are here, and --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to go early?
MR. OCHS: If they don't mind, we could take them right now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody write it down that we
are ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's all in the
interpretation.
DR. McGARITY: Did hell freeze over and no one told me?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is Item 6B, and it's a public
petition from Dr. Lisa McGarity representing the Lely Golf Estates
Homeowners' Association board requesting that the county-owned
property located at 343 St. Andrews Boulevard within the Lely Golf
Estates be sold to the Lely Golf Estates HOA or its designee. And I'll
let Dr. McGarity begin.
March 26, 2019
Page 28
DR. McGARITY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow
commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to be here,
and I would like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity.
I first spoke before you April 24th, 2018, almost one year ago.
It came to our board that a major sewage lift station was planned for a
residential lot in the middle of our subdivision. It was quite a shock.
There had been no public hearing, public notice, public rezoning
hearing for any of that.
After my bringing it up to this board, Commissioner Fiala kindly
set up a small committee meeting with wastewater management
folks, and we met in the commissioner's boardroom and had some
negotiations; some excellent things came from that. Thing No. 1,
wastewater management said, we won't put the lift station on that
property. We will overhaul the current one, footprint of 16 square
feet, sixteen, one six square feet. Wanted to make that clear.
We will overhaul that limping-along lift station, but we need a
location to put a generator to run it if power goes out. This is not
your little Honda generator you plug into your, you know,
refrigerator, you know, when the power's out. This is a footprint of
7 feet, 5 feet long. It's big.
We found a suitable location, so wastewater management got
their generator; we got the lift station, the old one current one
overhauled.
Then I asked that residential property be sold back to the HOA
or its designees, because as long as the county wastewater
management has that property, there is a threat of this going into our
neighborhood.
There was a town hall meeting held November 13th, and that's
when it was announced that that piece of property in the middle of
our subdivision next to homes, next to condos, actually 130 yards
from 204 residences, that property would be retained in the inventory
March 26, 2019
Page 29
of the county, and its use would be revaluated in five years.
This was not acceptable to us; not in the least. It almost created
its own nightmare. Homes went up for sale in that area almost
immediately. People are living in fear that this is going to be put into
our residential division.
So this petition was borne. This petition is asking you to sell --
not only sell that property back to the HOA or its designees, but there
are three adjacent properties to it, and we're asking that those not be
purchased under circumstances to put in a sewage lift station.
So, Mr. Ochs, if you could put the first image up on the
document camera. Thank you.
This is an image of rendering of the lift station. It is a
2,200-square-feet footprint. The footprint of the one it's supposed to
be replacing is 16 square feet. Twenty-two-hundred square feet is as
big or bigger than the homes in this middle-class subdivision. It's
quite large.
When you see the gentlemen working on this, these pump
stations, they're wearing protective masks and protective gear. The
trucks used to service these stations are multi-ton, 12 huge tires. In
fact, if you look closely at the rendering, you'll so that in the
rendering the road had to be altered because this is a residential road.
The utility truck can't fit there. Just another reason why this does not
belong on a residential lot right next to homes.
If you could show the next couple of photos.
So what we did is we staked out a 16-foot -- square foot imprint
so you could see what the current lift station looks like, and that's
located in the median on St. Andrews, not next to a home, and then
the larger area you see is the 2,200 footprint, and that is the actual
property it would be located on.
Yes, continue to show the slides. You can see how close it is;
within 130 yards of 204 residents. You almost couldn't pick a worse
March 26, 2019
Page 30
place that impacted more people than that lot. It's near
condominiums, residential homes. It's right at a bus stop, by the way.
I'm sure that would be moved; I would hope.
Moving on. If you could follow through to the map at the end.
Thank you.
I have contacted 10 civil engineers. I'm actually a professor, and
I teach civil engineering students; however, I'm not a civil engineer.
We were told that this 2,200-foot lift station is the same -- would be
the same capacity and do -- service the same number of homes as the
16-square-foot lift station. Okay. Well, my understanding of physics
doesn't allow that to compute with me.
So I asked civil engineers, and one who is actually retired from
Collier County told me that 2,200-square-foot lift station is about 30
times larger than what is necessary for your servicing your
subdivision which is 35 years old and has not changed in population.
So that brings to question: Why do we need a lift station so
large for a subdivision that has not changed? Are we flushing our
toilets 30 times more a day each person? I'm thinking not. However,
there has been some growth. The Isles of Collier preserve is near by,
Treviso Bay. That brings to question, is that servicing them, too.
Perhaps it is. I mean, we need lift stations. When you flush your
toilet, you want it to. So do I. We all do; however, these utilities do
not belong next to homes in residential subdivisions.
If you show the map, you can see I've circled the lot on the map.
This is an actual map. The road you see is St. Andrews Boulevard,
and it ends at 41. So, essentially, four blocks away commercial
property, U.S. 41, appropriate for a utility like this; four blocks away.
Wastewater management engineers told us we can't put it there. This
is why I contacted the civil engineers. I said, what do they mean they
can't put it there? And, basically, all 10 said to me, well, they're not
really saying "can't." What they're saying is "won't."
March 26, 2019
Page 31
What it would require probably is new sewer lines dug and put
in, reconfigured, and they aren't willing to do that.
Well, my answer to that is, the devastation to homeowners.
There is not one person, not one in this entire room, in this entire
county that would agree to have a 2,200-square-foot sewer gas lift
station next to their home. Imagine yourself barbecuing, a family
barbecue, perhaps a birthday party or out on your lanai, and the smell
of sewer gas wafts across to your party.
We have ventilation systems in our homes. You'll smell it in
your home. They try to mitigate it but, frankly, you can't mitigate
sewer gas. They sometimes put out a flowery lavender-smelling
chemical, so then you have lavender-smelling sewer gas. It really
doesn't change it. It doesn't -- it doesn't help.
It has been estimated by several realtors that we met with about
$20 million in property depreciation would occur; 20 million. That
also means revenue for the county. If the property is worth 50 or
60 percent less than it is now, you're not going to get the property
revenue out of it.
Some of these people have told me they were unaware of these
plans that were -- began about eight or 10 years ago. They were
unaware when they purchased their property, and a property value
drop of 50 to 60 percent would put them under water on their
mortgage.
I cannot tell you how many homeowners told me, we'll walk
away from our mortgage, and we'll have a blighted neighborhood.
We'll have abandoned homes.
In closing, I would like to tell you my father was a Marine, and
his troops told me at his funeral -- many showed up. I didn't even
know them. They said, he was a great leader because he never asked
us to do anything that he would not do himself.
So I ask you, don't do this. Allow us to purchase the property. I
March 26, 2019
Page 32
thank you for your time. I have petitions to give to the court reporter
signed by many citizens of Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Dr. McGarity.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I know we're not supposed to make decisions on this, but
I did meet with our staff, and they indicated that they were looking at
holding the property for some other potential use. And as I've
thought about it, I don't really think that's fair. If it's going to be used
for this purpose, then I do think that we should go ahead and sell it.
Now, I know that --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I know that, you know, there
may be some issues, some uses down the road. We talked about
some of them, and it really just didn't fit that well. We talked about,
you know, a little park and that sort of thing. And if I was in the
community, I don't think I would believe it.
I'm not saying staff's being disingenuous, because that's not the
case at all. I think staff is being protective of the county's interest in
terms of making sure we don't dispose of property that we may need.
But at the same time, you know, as I look at the map and the
discussion, it just seems to me that the right thing to do here is to
alleviate the pressure on this neighborhood, direct staff to come back
and really either convince us that we need this property for something
or to go ahead and do a request for proposals or a competitive bid for
the property.
So that -- Mr. Chairman, I would make that in the form of a
motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's several speakers.
March 26, 2019
Page 33
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no. Several of us wanted to
speak.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. I'll hold of on
making a motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then we'll go to a motion, I
think, once we all have a minute to speak.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I would have loved to have
made that motion, but I don't know that I could have ever been as
eloquent as Commissioner Saunders. He's absolutely right.
And as you can see it's well in the neighborhood. They have a
lift station right down in the neighborhood. I don't think it's but a
mile away. And we have problems with the smell of that all the time.
Poor Beth gets my phone calls regularly because the thing is stinking
again. You can't do that to a neighborhood. You just can't do that,
and I would support you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please, please, please. We all know
why you're here, and I think we're heading in the right direction, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's good to hear the support.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just want to second Burt's
motion even though you said he can't make the motion yet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I didn't say he couldn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll let her make the motion; how
about that, Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no. That's all right. He did
a great job.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Taylor.
March 26, 2019
Page 34
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I think it's -- I was going to
suggest that we have another hearing where we hear from staff. And,
certainly, if I was in this neighborhood, I would be right there with
you.
So it's my understanding it's an upgrade. But I think we need to
hear the facts, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and then make our
decision accordingly.
I'm always a little reluctant to sell county land because of the
future. You know, today is one thing, but 20, 30 years from now,
what about it? Why is this lift station being improved, supposedly?
Why is this work going on in the neighborhood? Is it part of a bigger
picture? What is that bigger picture? What are the consequences if it
doesn't go through, if there are any? I mean, I have a lot of questions.
So, in that vein, I would support the motion, and thank you for
making it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to say -- and that's
good. It's very, very thoughtful, and you should ask those questions.
We asked them when we had our meeting with the staff members,
and we said, is there anything that you see that's coming forward that
you need a bigger station? Well, no. Well, we'll -- Isles of Capri,
because they're -- I mean, I'm sorry --
DR. McGARITY: Isles of Collier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isles of Collier. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is she speaking from the audience?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
And would Isles of Collier be using it? No. They said it
wouldn't. How about Treviso Bay? No, it wouldn't.
So I said, so there's no reason that we're expanding it? I said,
can you fix it where it's at? Well, yes, but we need a generator. The
March 26, 2019
Page 35
people found land to put the generator on. And so -- and they're
upgrading all of the things to bring them up to present day. I can
understand that it's, like, 35, 40 years old, and so they did need to
change the components, but it's still sitting right there working just
fine now that you get new components and everything. Why would
you do that to a community?
When -- and, you know, something I didn't ask, when the
gentleman who first exposed it to all of us -- you might remember
when he did that, and he said, and you voted for it -- that was me
because you guys weren't even here then. You voted for it. And --
for us to buy the land. And I said, I don't ever remember that.
Later on he came to tell me, he said, well, it didn't ever say it
was for that purpose or anything. It just said plat number. And, you
know, we didn't know what the plat number was or anything. It was
rather disguised, and so I can understand why none of us knew what
was coming. And that was the gentleman right there; raise your
hand, yeah. He did the research for us.
So I feel that we don't want to do that anymore. We want to let
these people have the land.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think that's a certain
direction that we can pass on along -- I'm assuming that's the motion
maker's intent with this. And I concur with Commissioner Taylor;
it's important for us to hear everything. This is certainly an essential
service. Even Dr. McGarity shared that these are needed facilities for
our entire community and we need to, as a governing board, explore
all alternatives, cost-benefit analyses for relocation and things that
our municipality's going to have to do.
So I'm in full support of the motion to bring it back and have a
hearing on it. So thank you for bringing it to light again.
It's been moved and seconded that we actually have a hearing on this
in an upcoming meeting.
March 26, 2019
Page 36
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One other comment. I used
to run with Mr. McGarity on the beach. When I say "I used to run
with him," he would run 10 miles or so. I'd come down to the beach
and say, hey, you want to run a little more? I'd run a couple miles,
and he'd run those with me and made me feel like I was totally out of
shape. So I just want to let him know I remember those old days.
MR. McGARITY: Times have changed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amen to that. Well, thank you all.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 7 on this
morning's agenda, public comments on general topics not on the
current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we've three registered speakers
on this topic. Your first speaker is Michael Dalby. He'll be followed
by Rae Ann Burton.
March 26, 2019
Page 37
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And each one of these public
speakers will have three minutes. If you would please move to both
podiums. There is a timer up there.
Good morning, Mr. Dalby.
MR. DALBY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There is a timer up there to let you
know where you're at in your process.
MR. DALBY: Thanks. Good morning, Chairman; good
morning, Commissioners. Michael Dalby with the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce. And today I just wanted to take a moment
and introduce Melanie Schmees. Melanie is our new director of
business and economic research for the chamber.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Michael, hang on one second.
Michael.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you are, in fact -- ladies and gentlemen,
if you are, in fact, leaving our chambers, please do so in a polite
manner, as was offered to you for the folks in front of you.
I'm sorry. I broke your train of thought, didn't I?
MR. DALBY: Sorry. So, again, Michael Dalby with the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, and just get an opportunity
here to welcome Melanie Schmees who's now on our staff as the
director of business and economic research.
If you remember Kristi Bartlett, who was on our staff, Melanie
is taking her position, and we're fortunate to bring Melanie on. She's
an FGCU graduate and also did an internship with Lee County
Economic Development.
So I'll let Melanie say a few words, too.
MS. SCHMEES: Thank you, Michael.
Good morning and thank you, Commissioners. I'm really
excited about the work I'll be doing. I'm still connecting with our
local businesses, and we also have some exciting new projects and
March 26, 2019
Page 38
research in the pipeline.
I have met with Jace, Sean, briefly met with Mr. Ochs, and I'd
love the opportunity to meet with each of you individually, discuss
my initiatives in further detail, and discuss how we can continue to
collectively engage our businesses and our local community. So
thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nice to have you, Mel; Melanie.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rae Ann Burton, and she
will be followed by Michael Goodwin.
MS. BURTON: Good morning. My name is Rae Ann Burton.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did I skip you two weeks ago, Rae
Ann?
MS. BURTON: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did I skip you two weeks ago? I
think we didn't even give you -- you were here but I didn't give you a
chance to speak.
MS. BURTON: No. I don't come unless I have to.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MS. BURTON: Unless you guys make me mad, but I do have
an urgent matter.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course.
MS. BURTON: Out there at Golden Gates we are nothing but a
black hole surrounded by cell towers. Yesterday my landline, which
I have to have because my cell phone doesn't work, worked at
9 o'clock, but when I got home at 7:30 it didn't.
I had no phone, no Internet, therefore, I had no modem, which
means no cell phone. I couldn't even get service at my
neighborhood's house.
I asked a cell phone company why there were no cell towers out
there in our area. He says, oh, don't worry. When you got developed
more, we'll build them. Really? We need them now. We've got four
March 26, 2019
Page 39
brand-new homes -- developments coming in, and we don't have cell
phone.
What if there had been an emergency and I couldn't get across
the street to my neighbor's? What if there had been a fire? Even
those emergency devices that you have, they're based on cell phone
wireless, so we need a cell phone.
Also there was another issue that I'd like -- besides putting all
the money in building our medians and beautification, why not make
the tax -- tourist tax pay for that? It's for their benefit anyway, not
ours.
Then I also had one issue is that we need better secured places
for the kids to meet their buses. We lost another child yesterday in
our area because the streets are too dark, and there wasn't a four-way
stop, and a pickup truck hit her and killed her.
Where they're going to have buses have to pick up kids at
6 o'clock in the morning, we need a lighted area for them to meet, or
either make the time not as early.
Oh, my last thing, Randall Curve. Why not -- a suggestion here.
Why not sell it to the Shy Wolf Preserve? I'm sure -- we would love
to see a preserve across the street instead of a bus barn.
So I have 49 minutes -- seconds left. I'll give them back to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, thank you very much. Just so
you know, Rae Ann, under commissioner comments, which we do at
the end, I actually have a discussion point I want to bring up with our
colleagues with regard to the cell service and whether it needs to be
deemed as an essential service or not. There's such a transition -- and
I'm not going to take time now, but it's coming up later.
MS. BURTON: Well, if you look at the map, we're dead center,
and it's like the Indians surrounding us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not going to comment on
that. Next?
March 26, 2019
Page 40
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker and final speaker
under public comment is Michael Goodwin.
MR. GOODWIN: Thank you very much for your time.
I'm a new resident in a community called Artesia, which is over
behind Eagle Creek.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, we know where that is.
MR. GOODWIN: Okay. So I question -- I had a friend of mine
who was in the business of landscaping, and he told me that they are
planting oleander plants right next to the houses. So I did some
research on oleander plants, and I spoke to a couple of professors and
things like that, and I wanted to make you guys aware of this, that the
oleander plant is considered by many the most poisonous plant in the
world. All parts of the oleander plant contain poison, several types of
poisons. Two of them that are the most potent are the oleandrin and
then the nerium, known for their most powerful affect on the heart.
These plants can kill dogs immediately, they can kill little
children, they can also kill an adult just by eating any part of this
plant, including the flowers and anything else. Also, oleander
caterpillars feed off of these, which are also highly poisonous.
So then I went onto your website of restricted plants that are not
allowed to be put on public property, and there it is, nerium oleander.
You do not allow them to be planted on public property. So why are
they allowed to be planted in private property and private, you know,
big complexes that, like, Lennar was building?
I don't understand why that is allowed as part of the landscape
for every single hone. And I spoke to Lennar, and they're not going
to do anything about it. They're not going to remove them nor are
they going to stop. They're still putting them in in newer homes that
are being built into this complex.
I just don't understand the whole purpose of it. If you want to
have safety for your people and you want to have safety for your kids
March 26, 2019
Page 41
and your dogs and everything, why do they have -- why are they
allowing this in private settings? Especially in large communities,
and this plant is not native to this area, not at all. This plant was
brought in.
That's my comments.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
MR. GOODWIN: And what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to get
a -- you know where you have it on a public reason not to have it
here, because of the poisonous, to get it on a private scale so you
don't allow it when you approve landscaping for new facilities and
new communities.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good. Thank you, sir.
MR. GOODWIN: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That was your final speaker under Item 7.
Item #9B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO
MODIFY ORDINANCE NO. 96-84, AS AMENDED, TO AMEND
THE BOUNDARIES AND INCORPORATE PROVISIONS TO
IMPROVE THE LOOK AND USABILITY OF THE PUBLIC
AREAS WITHIN THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BOUNDARIES -
MOTION TO DENY STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we move now to Item 9B. This is a
recommendation to approve an ordinance to modify Ordinance
No. 96-84 to amend the boundaries and incorporate provisions to
improve the look and usability of the public areas within the Radio
Road Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit boundaries.
March 26, 2019
Page 42
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So what you're telling me is all
these red shirts aren't here in support of my birthday yesterday and
my red tie?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Ms. Arnold will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. For the record, Michelle
Arnold, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division
Director.
I'm here, as Leo pointed out, to ask you all to consider the
adoption of an ordinance to allow the MSTU -- Radio Road MSTU to
continue and do projects.
We've been to you several times, so rather than reiterate all of
what we've talked about before, I'd leave it to the public to comment.
But I do have one letter. We had our Radio Road MSTU regular
meeting yesterday and, unfortunately, the committee members are
either busy with family or work, and they were unable to come. One
of the committee members, however, did provide a letter that I told
them I would read into the record, so I'll do that and then leave it to
the floor.
It says, Dear Commissioners, I'm sorry I can't attend the meeting
on Tuesday, March 26th, but needless -- I wanted to share my --
some thoughts with you. I've lived within the Radio Road MSTU
boundaries since its inception and voted for its approval and will
continue to support its goals.
As you know, originally it provided for landscaping of Radio
Road and even through -- even though this was a county road used all
residents -- although this was a county road used by all the residents,
I'm willing to tax myself to see its beautification while the bulk of the
county residents did not pay this tax.
Since then, the county has taken over the roads -- the Radio
Road portion for landscaping, leaving the MSTU with a smaller list
of responsibilities, and I still fully support the MSTU.
March 26, 2019
Page 43
It seems like today we are at the same crossroad with a group of
citizens requesting all county residents pay for activities that the
MSTU provides versus the citizens within the Radio Road MSTU
agreeing to pay for -- pay a few dollars to ensure beautification
projects close to their neighborhood are funded and therefore
completed.
The Rich King Memorial is included in this list of
close-proximity projects, yet it seems to have struck a nerve. My
family and I have used this linear park, and I fully support additional
beautification and actually some limited vehicle parking at the Radio
Road entrance. The MSTU is an ideal source of funds and oversight
for this project even though benefiting the entire county.
I also would like to see other projects completed within the
boundaries of the Radio Road MSTU and let us decide what is best
for our neighbors -- our neighborhood.
As a few -- as a followup to my comments, I want you to know
that I recently applied to the MSTU advisory committee to fill an
opening and was accepted. Regardless of joining the committee, my
thoughts have not changed and, if anything, I am now in a better
position to further see the MSTU further continue its effort to
enhance the Radio Road corridor and neighborhoods with an
assortment of projects.
Thank you for your time today. Sincerely, Frank Cooper.
And if you all have any questions of me, I'm here for that, but I
turn it over to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How many public speakers do we
have, Troy?
MR. MILLER: Twenty-five.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twenty-five. I was wondering if
my colleagues -- and I don't want to take away anyone's time. I
mean, you all came here to have your three minutes. But I was
March 26, 2019
Page 44
wondering if my colleagues and I might like to deliberate a moment
to see if we could come up with a solution to this that would be
acceptable in advance of the 25 public speakers and still allow those
to speak who chose to.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So that we don't mute the public,
maybe we could ask how many of the folks here want the MSTU to
end.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How many are here to ask
whether the MSTU continues but doesn't include the expansion of the
boundary. Maybe two questions --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- with a show of hands.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. And then with a show of
hands for me, please -- and go slow, because I'm not a fast counter,
how many would be interested in seeing the MSTU be extinguished?
(Show of hands.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How many was that,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: A pile. A few. A pile.
How many would be interested in seeing the MSTU adjusted in some
form or format to get us to where we're, in fact, going?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Don't put your hands down
yet; we're counting. Hang on. We're almost there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And just so you know, I mean, one
of the thoughts -- and we had some discussion about this at our last
meeting, and one of the thoughts that I had -- because there is some
validity in the existence of the MSTU. I was quite surprised in the
March 26, 2019
Page 45
large reserve that had been accumulated in there, and one of the
thoughts that I had was to leave the MSTU in place, move the tax rate
to zero until such time as an acceptable reserve amount was
accomplished, basically, in my mind, two years' worth of ongoing
operations and not to be exceeded by that, and that would give us
four or five years to review the accomplishments, not expand the
bounds of the MSTU nor any of the expenditure and programs for the
MSTU. That's kind of the way I'm leaning.
So how do you all feel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Everybody -- there's a lot of silence
up here. I'll go to the 25 public speakers if you want, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to do that anyway.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
Okay. So with that, Commissioner Saunders, did you have
anything to say? I see you flinching.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was just trying to -- I'm
a little surprised there haven't been more comments from the
Commission. I understand your proposal.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't have a whole lot of
options. One is to go forward with the ordinance and one is not to go
forward with it today.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, obviously, this group of
folks, they don't want us to go forward with it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So listening to them for the
next hour isn't going to change their minds. I'm not sure it will
change our minds. I'm not sure what the Board's thinking, that's all.
That's why I was just kind of curious as to why we --
March 26, 2019
Page 46
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And before we go to the public
speakers, we are going to give Terri a break, because we'll get into
the middle of that. Our scheduled break is at 10:30, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's not in my district, and so I
tend to try to listen to the commissioner from the district.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. That's what we did
two weeks ago when -- that's how we got to the point where we are,
so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know if that's changed
her mind in any way, and maybe we could have a little dialogue.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She has her light up, so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you want to have a break
now and then come back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do that. We'll go back at
10:32.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Come to order, please.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, folks, for indulging us
there. Ms. Terri's fingers get tired pretty quick, and I've been known
to not let her have a break.
So with that, I'm going to call upon a couple of my colleagues to
speak. And, Commissioner Taylor, if you would please go first.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
County Manager, I'm a little confused. I know these folks think we
can sunset the MSTU, but we can't because they've got expenses that
will not be borne countywide going forward, and unless they want to
rip out what they did in Devonshire, it is what it is.
March 26, 2019
Page 47
However, I do respect their concerns about the -- their expense,
but I can tell you, I've talked to many, many people in the
neighborhood, neighborhoods, because I've been kind of following
this now for probably, what, a year and a half -- who kind of
whispered in my ear, I mean, I don't care about the $20 a year. It
works. Why don't we do it? So I'm very, very confused.
Number one, I need it verified one way or another whether or
not we need an MSTU. Number 2, I need it verified what projects,
because it was brought forward that certain projects were put on hold
because of the understandable concern of the neighbors who are here
about the expenses. What are we not doing right now that we could
be doing with the money there? Because it's a large sum of money.
And then I need to understand about the millage, and you can
help me with that. So I'm going to turn that over to you, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Let's start with the last question first.
Each year, as part of the Board's budget deliberation, primarily
during your budget workshops with the staff in June, you review all
of the county budgets, including the MSTU budgets, and on based
that review, you'll make a decision on what tax levy you want to send
to the Tax Collector in August that will go out on the TRIM notices
for the MSTU.
You can set that millage at zero; you can set it at a rolled-back
millage rate, a millage neutral rate, anywhere you want to set it. If
the Board, as the Chairman said earlier before the break, is of a mind
that you would like to burn down some of those reserves next year
and not levy a millage but still keep the MSTU intact as it exists
today without the expansion of the boundaries into the balance of the
Rich King Memorial Greenway, you can certainly do that.
I think that's, frankly, a reasonable position to take. It allows
our staff and you, Commissioner Taylor, to go out into the
community and spend some more time doing public outreach, if
March 26, 2019
Page 48
you'd like, to learn more about particular interests from the citizens
and individual projects, including, you know, the potential expansion
into that greenway to provide maintenance for the balance of the
greenway.
But it also gives the Board the latitude to work through some of
those reserve funds, move forward with any of the regular
maintenance that's in the budget already within the MSTU, and I
think that sounds like a reasonable compromise that I believe you're
suggesting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I mean, Radio Road
MSTU was initially created for the beautification of the medians; is
that correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who pays for the maintenance
of that right now?
MR. OCHS: Right now all of the citizens in the unincorporated
area of Collier County pay for the maintenance of the Radio Road
median beautification.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So why can they not
pay for Devonshire? Why cannot this go to the general -- everybody
in the county?
MR. OCHS: The Board has set a policy in their median
landscaping program that they -- the general taxpayers will pay for
the main arterials and main collector roads that are improved, but
only those roads in that. Other roadways that citizens have an
interest in beautifying have to be done through an MSTU.
Staff's concern is if you make an exception for one, then you
need to start making exceptions for others. Think about Vineyards
Boulevard, Pelican Bay Boulevard, other MSTUs where if you
remove that requirement for the Radio Road MSTU as it relates to
Devonshire, then you're going to have all the others lining up asking
March 26, 2019
Page 49
you to do the same thing. You can do that from a policy standpoint.
We wouldn't recommend that as a staff to you at this time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just a clarification. I think you
asked one other question that I didn't hear a good answer for, and it
wasn't -- I didn't hear an answer, and that was about the
extinguishment of the MSTU. Is that within our realm to do at this
particular juncture?
MR. OCHS: Sir, you can certainly do that. You can initiate that
today. I'm going to turn to Michelle to go through the process of
extinguishing an MSTU.
Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: The Board has the ability to rescind or sunset
an MSTU. Part of the evaluation process would be to determine
whether or not there are any continuing operating costs and then
determine who is then going to be responsible for any recurring
operating costs. And we've done that evaluation for you, and there is
continuing costs associated with this Radio Road MSTU.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: About 125-, $130,000 a year at
your current expenditures.
MS. ARNOLD: Currently, yes; currently. And they -- there is
no association that's willing to take that on, that responsibility on.
Your options are then the General Fund to take on that responsibility.
MR. OCHS: In terms of the formal mechanism to do that, sir,
I'm going to turn to the County Attorney. I don't know if that's a
resolution or an ordinance sunsetting or what.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We would bring back an ordinance
repealing the MSTU.
MR. OCHS: So that would require an advertisement and a
public hearing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Another process.
March 26, 2019
Page 50
MR. OCHS: Two-step process on --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. If the Board directed to rescind the
order --
MR. OCHS: Okay. Yeah, one meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: One-step process. We'd advertise and
bring it back.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So what projects? And that's the
Part 3 of that question. What projects have you not been doing that
you normally would have done -- I'm not talking about new projects.
What isn't being done right now by these taxpayers' money in the
MSTU?
MS. ARNOLD: The only project that has been put on hold is
the beautification of the greenway, the Rich King Greenway
entrance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Which is not part of the MSTU.
MS. ARNOLD: It is currently a part of the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, it is.
MS. ARNOLD: What this amendment is looking at is
incorporating the southern half down to Radio Road --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The balance of the --
MS. ARNOLD: -- I mean Davis Boulevard, yes, so that it
would be a complete project, not just the entrance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why would we not be doing what is
within the bounds of the MSTU already? Why has that been tabled?
MS. ARNOLD: Because this board told us to stop doing
projects, and we have not done anything for a year.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think someone misinterpreted
what I was saying. I did not approve the authorization of the
expansion of the boundaries nor the additional expenditures, but
certainly within the bounds of the MSTU I would have thought that
that would have continued to go on.
March 26, 2019
Page 51
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I'm understanding that there
are sidewalks within this area, within the MSTU that are looked at or
have been scheduled or have been reported that need repairing, is that
correct, or did I mishear that?
MS. ARNOLD: No. There aren't any sidewalks currently that
is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: -- slated for repairs.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I do think we should hear
from some of the people in the audience, even though there's a lot of
people. Maybe they'll say, you know, somebody else just said it, and
I can skip over. But I think that -- I know if I were living there and --
I wouldn't want the maintenance to stop, because we can see what
some of the places look like that aren't maintained. And they've got
the money in the account; I would continue to keep it on. If I were --
and just if it were me, I probably would reduce the amount if they
don't want to do any extras, but I think that they would want to get
anything within the MSTU landscaped and maintained, but they
wouldn't mind maybe -- I know they don't pay much anyway for a
year, but maybe they want to reduce that a little bit just so that they
feel that they're a part of it.
But I think we have to hear that from the audience to tell us that
for sure, right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can you tell us -- it's come up --
what is the annual assessment per household in the Radio Road
March 26, 2019
Page 52
MSTU, or does it vary?
MS. ARNOLD: It varies, and the average is about $20, but we
have --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A year?
MS. ARNOLD: For the year. We have some people paying as
low as 4 and some people paying as much as 40.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: The millage rate is .5 mills.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. Point 5 is the cap; .1 is the current
millage.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it's per 100,000 of assessed
valuation.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So it varies with the assessed
valuation of the properties within the MSTU. So it's a taxable -- it's a
tax rate on the assessed valuation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you, again, repeat what I
think we discussed at our last meeting. I think I asked you that
question; how many -- the amount of rooftops in the MSTU area has
maintained -- has been fairly steady. There hasn't been a tremendous
amount of new growth over the last, what, 20 years; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: There hasn't been a lot of -- there were a lot of
rooftops already existing at the time that the MSTU was created.
Maybe -- I don't know, I can't remember because I don't have the
information in front of me. Maybe there was, like, 600, 700
additional units that were built in the last 15 years.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And how many -- can you give
me approximately what -- how many homes contribute to the MSTU?
MS. ARNOLD: There's about 6,500.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Six hundred difference?
March 26, 2019
Page 53
MS. ARNOLD: Sixty-five hundred --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know, but 600 difference in the
last 20 years; that's incredible.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It really isn't a lot of growth.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it says a lot for the stability
of the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just as a final point, I did a little
math on my calculator here, and with the current reserve that the
MSTU has accumulated at the operating expense of average 130,000
a year, there's about 5.7 years worth of reserves that are within this
particular MSTU right now; just as a point of interest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to know what they
have in reserve?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know what they have.
Approximately $750,000, and I divided that by the estimated 130,000
a year, and it's about 5.7 years of operating right now that they
currently have in there -- in their reserves, so -- and that was why I
was suggesting earlier that we -- and whether we do it now or
whether we do it at the budget process; leave the MSTU in place,
allows for the maintenance and ongoing upkeep and such, don't
expand the bounds, don't expand the programs of expending, but set
the rate at zero then until the MSTU committee can come back to us
with a policy to establish a proper reserve, if there is one, and then --
and then go forward. So that was what I was talking about earlier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does Commissioner Taylor
feel?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Again, I'm going back to my
interaction with the neighborhood, not at a major town hall meeting,
but I'm thinking that might be something that we -- I know the staff
has gone to some associations and master associations, but I'm
thinking that it might be helpful for me to have a meeting or a town
March 26, 2019
Page 54
hall meeting or even go individually, I don't care.
But I just want to hear -- I mean, you take your time. You're
here. I'm not negating that. I just need to understand the people that
aren't here, the people, you know, that -- I need to reach out again.
So I'm thinking, I would really like that period of time to
maintain the MSTU the way it is to address it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hey, please, ladies and gentlemen.
We will not be doing that. Do you understand? We will be calling
upon the public speakers to speak, and you will afford them the same
courtesy, period.
Please continue.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then we address the millage
rate at the time that we're -- which is our budget, which would be
June --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- which, frankly, is about nine
or 10 weeks away from now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Got it. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
I just want to say, everybody's entitled to their opinion, and they are
certainly varied based upon this room, and it's important that we
maintain decorum. We're not always going to agree. You are here to
express your opinion, and you will be afforded that opportunity, but
speaking out of turn is improper.
So with that, I would like to suggest that we go to our public
speakers. If, in fact, someone who comes each -- there's two
podiums. Troy's going to go through the process. There are two
podiums. If someone has said what you are already going to say, you
are welcome to wave your hand and say, I don't need to speak. And I
also want it to be said there are a lot more red shirts than are sitting in
here. I think there are overflow rooms that have them as well, staff
told me earlier on, so...
March 26, 2019
Page 55
MR. MILLER: All right, Mr. Chairman.
Speakers, we will be using both podiums. I'll call two names.
The first speaker will speak. The second name will wait at the
second podium.
Your first speaker is Tony Scanzillo, who will be followed by
Larry Franzen.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. SCANZILLO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name,
once again, is Tony Scanzillo, and I do live in Countryside.
While president of Countryside's master board of directors, at our
February 2018 meeting there was an MSTU discussion. At that time
the nine directors representing 1,133 homes voted unanimously to
work towards sunsetting the MSTU.
In addition, it is my understanding today that our neighbors,
Glen Eagle and Foxfire, support such an effort. The three
communities collectively represent approximately 50 percent of the
MSTU tax base.
Many years ago the MSTU was formed to address a need to
develop a funding mechanism. The result was a Radio Road
Beautification which benefited all, not only the taxpayer, but who
traveled -- all who traveled Radio Road.
Fast forward to today. Unlike the initial MSTU concept, the
proposed boundary expansion is the opposite. Now there is a funding
mechanism in place and an MSTU in search of a need. That classic
tail wagging the dog or a quenching of the thirst.
There are worthwhile taxes when data reflects a project will
have a beneficial impact for the majority within the area and its
visitors. The proposed MSTU expansion does not achieve a good
balance between benefit of tax dollar versus benefit of tax -- I'm
sorry, benefit and tax dollar as the Radio Road Beautification projects
did.
March 26, 2019
Page 56
In addition, one must ask, first, is looking for ways to continue
the MSTU existence via an expansion to do things that were never
intended to do an abuse of the original MSTU? And, second, has the
advisory board taken on a life of its own?
Finally, I ask, Countryside asks, do not expand the boundary but
sunset the MSTU.
I thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Larry Franzen. He has
been ceded additional minutes from David Lynch. Mr. Lynch, could
you raise your hand to indicate you're here.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. And by Agnes Lynch. Can you
raise your hand?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: He will have a total of nine minutes, and
Mr. Franzen will be followed by Marlene Sherman.
MR. FRANZEN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views this morning to
you on this proposed amendment, and I'm going to focus on the
amendment that's proposed to you today, not on the whole MSTU,
although I strongly support eliminating it.
I recognize that the Board of Commissioners have a number of
major projects to address almost monthly and that this amendment is
rather small in comparison to those weightier matters; however, to
the over 6,000 property owners who live within this MSTU district,
the subject of this MSTU and its ongoing, never-ending amendments
and expansion have become a real thorn in our side that we feel
strongly needs to be stopped.
We're not concerned about the small millage rate that's there
now. We're concerned about the major expansions that keep coming
and keep coming, and that rate is going to keep going up if they're
March 26, 2019
Page 57
ever going to do the major projects that they have included in their
list.
The original purpose of this MSTU of landscaping the median of
Radio Road from Airport to Santa Barbara was welcomed and
supported by the property owners involved. The goal was narrow
and focused and completed by the early 2000s; however, that wasn't
the end of this MSTU, as it should have been.
It has continued to grow in both scope and funding and has now
gotten into areas that make it difficult although, as we've heard
before, not impossible for you to terminate.
I have yet to find a property owner who supports this MSTU
once they learn the background of it and the taxes they continue to
pay with little benefit to them.
Last month you had the opportunity to at least roll back some of
these amendments, but you chose not to. This month you are handed
an amendment for your approval that is an unbelievable change of
purpose and scope that pales in comparison to the original MSTU
language. If you approve this, you have essentially added more land
to the MSTU and given them carte blanche to undertake any project
they come up with no matter how wild and ridiculous it may be.
Let us take a quick look at some of the items that are included in
the wording, the Rich King Memorial Greenway, not only the
entrance enhancement and maintenance, but also one mile of the
greenway as well. Pretty soon we're going to have the rest of the
greenway as part of that, I suspect.
This greenway was put together by the Transportation
Department and handed over to the Parks and Recreation Department
who administer and maintain it today. Why on earth does the Radio
Road MSTU need to get in the middle of it? If beautification needs
to be done, let Parks and Recreation take care of it.
Traffic-calming procedures. I am pretty sure that traffic
March 26, 2019
Page 58
engineering is not going to permit speed bumps on Radio Road.
Now, however, I hear they're talking about roundabouts on
Devonshire and, of course, traffic engineering is looking for this
MSTU to pay for them also; hardly a brilliant idea.
Drainage and sidewalks. These areas are also handled by other
county departments and don't really need interference from this
MSTU.
Burying of power lines. Really? If MSTU -- if FP&L feels
maintenance and reliability require burying power lines, they will
take care of it, and they won't just bury three miles within this MSTU
boundary. We don't need to spend our tax money burying lines at
over a million dollars a mile.
I hope you can begin to understand why we, as property owners,
look as this amendment as a real slap in the face.
Now, you may say this proposal comes to you as a blessing of
the five-member advisory board. That board has five members that
basically represent themselves. They don't look for input or consult
with any of the communities that make up the MSTU, and they don't
live in the most populated communities. And since they have all this
tax money saved up, which is approaching a million dollars, as we've
talked about, they do not say no to any idea brought to them,
principally by county officials.
Please note that the master boards of the three largest
communities, as Tony has said, representing over half the properties
within the MSTU, have all passed unanimous resolutions requesting
termination, not expansion, of this MSTU.
I urge you to listen to them and the people here today and reject
this unbelievable expansion resolution and look more favorably on
developing a way to terminate this Radio Road MSTU.
Thank you for your service to all of us and for your no vote on this
amendment proposal.
March 26, 2019
Page 59
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marlene Sherman. She's
been ceded additional minutes from Howard -- I'm having trouble
with the last name -- Rainey -- are you here?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. And also from Jean (sic) Rainey.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: She will have a total of nine minutes, and
Ms. Sherman will be followed by Carl Hicks.
MS. SHERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Marlene Sherman, and I'm here today to recommend you not approve
Agenda Item 9B, a proposed ordinance amending the Radio Road
Beautification MSTU.
The proposed ordinance will amend MSTU boundaries
established 23 years ago and authorize numerous projects for
completion with MSTU funding.
I am also here requesting sunsetting of 2013-43 which was an
add-on to the Radio Road MSTU for landscaping the entranceway to
the Rich King Memorial Greenway. And the reasons for asking for
that sunset, I was here before this board on January the 22nd with my
petition for that.
The new proposed ordinance adds a number of additional
projects to be accomplished with MSTU funding providing,
essentially, a blank check, which was stated, for county officials to
transfer projects they would normally fund to an MSTU.
The additional proposed projects have nothing to do with the
original requests supported by the majority of the homeowners in
1996 whose only request was to landscape the medians along Radio
Road, no right-of-way, no other things. That was it. Okay. That was
completed in 2002 and has taken over and actually no longer -- we do
not maintain it with the MSTU funds. It's maintained by the MSTD,
the district, and that we pay taxes into both, by the way, all our
March 26, 2019
Page 60
residents.
The proposed expansion of the MSTU boundaries will add about
100 feet of the Rich King Memorial Greenway, a bike path within an
FP&L easement area. Hereafter I'm going to refer to that as the bike
path.
This area of the bike path was bounded on the west by Foxfire
and the east by Moon Lake community. The Moon Lake
community's only entrance is on Davis Boulevard; therefore, they
were not required to be part of the Radio Road Beautification
MSTU -- MSTU originally.
The question I would like to ask is, if the additional 100 feet of
bike path is to be included within the borders of the Radio Road
MSTU, why, then, was the adjoining community of Moon Lake not
included as in the proposed ordinance?
The bike path is three miles long, which you seem to be only
talking about the entranceway. Agenda item, if approved, would
add -- only one-third of the total bike path would come within the
borders of the MSTU.
The bike path was constructed and approved by the Florida
Power and -- with the approval of Florida Power & Light by the
former county transportation division and is well maintained. It is
sodded, and it has a paved pathway.
During a county reorganization, responsibility of the -- for the
maintenance of the bike path was turned over to the county's Parks
and Recreation Division.
In a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Garby, who is a
supervisor for maintenance and with the recreations and park
division, I learned that they contract out for grass mowing. A
member of their office walks the entire three-mile path daily to
inspect for any issues that would impact FPL. Objects are removed
when required, and this office provides for weekly trash removal.
March 26, 2019
Page 61
Mr. Garby informed me he was not aware of the 2013 ordinance
to landscape and maintain the Rich King Memorial Greenway, as his
office had not been notified by the Collier County Public
Transportation and Neighborhood Enhancement Division. That's
2013.
Let's talk about the timing of this 2013 add-on ordinance to
Radio Road. It was forwarded to the Board for approval. It
happened to be during the month of June, not on a high-season
month, is when there's not a full complement of supporting MSTU
taxpayers residing in Naples.
I can confidently state that 95 percent of the 6,566 MSTU tax
supporters were not aware of Ordinance 2013-43 until the MSTU
advisory board held their first neighborhood information meeting in
2018. The county records of the June 2013 meeting should support
this fact.
Had the 6,566 supporting taxpayers received notification of the
proposed 2013 ordinance, there would have been a number of
speakers sign up to express their opposition to expanding as well as
changing the intent of what was then a 15-year-old ordinance.
This MSTU advisory board seems to base all their
recommendation projects on the word "beautification" as is in the
given name of this MSTU.
County managers have stated numerous times, any areas within
the boundaries of this MSTU can be beautified by projects such as
traffic calming, streetlighting, drainage, providing for burial of power
lines, and adding sidewalks. These are infrastructure items and not
projects to be funded in a well-developed area by a neighborhood
MSTU.
Who benefits from the changes proposed in this ordinance? The
answer is clear. It's the county. They get to spend MSTU tax dollars
for frivolous projects like landscaping one-third of a bike path and
March 26, 2019
Page 62
adding exercise stations. This comes at a time when the county has
put a pause on landscaping medians and taking other measures to cut
back their expenses.
This 2013-43 should be immediately sunset before shovels are
put in the ground and the MSTU becomes responsible for
maintenance again. Right now we're only maintaining one area, and
that's Devonshire in 2002, which should have never been added, and
they invaded (sic) the right-of-way so that there's lush landscaping
along Berkshire Lakes and also along the shopping center, Publix
shopping center.
And they've negotiated an agreement with the Publix shopping
center to maintain the hedges that this MSTU paid for, but they've
never gone to Berkshire Lakes and asked them to maintain all the
lush hedges and trees that they planted along their property line on
Devonshire. Okay.
In closing, I recommend you do not approve this proposed
frivolous ordinance and request this board take action to sunset all
ordinances tied to the Radio Road Beautification MSTU.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Carl Hicks. Mr. Hicks will
be followed by John Rogozenski. I hope I'm saying that right.
MR. HICKS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My wife and I have lived in Countryside Golf Club and paid taxes
since 1992, mostly about seven months a year.
I am here to express to all of the commissioners to close out this
MSTU. I understand the original work of this MSTU have been
completed several years ago. Now this MSTU wants to rebuild
several bus stops, I believe around 17, and landscape an entrance to
FP&L easement with no input from over 6,000 supporting properties.
Part of your mission statement reads: To meet the needs of our
residents, visitors, and business today and tomorrow.
March 26, 2019
Page 63
Commissioners, in closing, I ask, or I should say, we all ask
your consideration in sunsetting this MSTU 86-84 and its
amendments.
Also, Ms. Taylor, you said something about a meeting in June.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, sir. No, no. Not a
meeting in June. We would have -- we would make a decision -- we
would start the decision-making about the millage in June. Not in
June, sir.
MR. HICKS: But the idea is most of, like, Countryside --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely.
MR. HICKS: -- clears out. There's no one here. So if you kick
this down the road, kick it all the way back to October when
everyone's here, and that would be fair to everyone.
Thank you for my time to say this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, sir, would you -- what do
you think is the ideal month? Would it be October, November,
December, January, February, March? What would it be?
MR. HICKS: I think January, February, March, something.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the height of the season,
right? Okay.
MR. HICKS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.
MR. HICKS: And one other thing: Donna Fiala, thank you for
your vote on this before. I really appreciate it.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Rogozenski. He will
be followed by Bob Hinzmann.
MR. ROGOZENSKI: Good morning, Board.
My name is John Rogozenski. My wife and I live in
Countryside Golf community. We live at 7320 Province Way.
We've been at Countryside seasonally over the past 15 years.
I'd like to review a few points that our committee and myself
March 26, 2019
Page 64
really want to state to not amend the current MSTU and to support
the request to sunset this MSTU as soon as possible and stop the tax
on the residents in the area.
First, Radio Road improvements are complete. Approximately
two years ago, might be further than that, the landscaping and other
design improvements were completed. Further evidence of this, that
the work is complete, is that the county has taken over the
maintenance of this landscape area designated as an MSTD.
Second, the majority of homeowners along Radio Road have
indicated that the MSTU should be terminated. There are a 6,566
residents or rooftops in the area. Countryside has about 1,177
residents; Glen Eagle, 1,234; Foxfire, 926. That represents 3,337,
which is about 51 percent of the 6,566 rooftops in the MSTU area.
These three communities, additionally, their master boards in the last
year or so have voted unanimously to rescind -- to stop this tax and
sunset the MSTU.
Third, our understanding is there is between 750- to $800,000
left in the reserve account. This money should only be used for
appropriate projects that need improvement to improve the safety of
vehicular or pedestrian traffic along Radio Road. There is no need to
continue assessing taxes on the residents along Radio Road. Just
spend the remaining funds wisely on appropriate projects.
In conclusion, I'd like to restate the request to not amend this
MSTU and to sunset the current Radio Road Beautification project
and stop the annual tax assessment as soon as possible.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you have a question,
Commissioner Fiala, or are you just mounting up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Hinzmann. He'll be
followed by Roy Anderson.
March 26, 2019
Page 65
MR. HINZMANN: Thank you. My name's Bob Hinzmann, a
20-year resident of Countryside.
Now, when the Radio MSTU was approved, the voters approved
to be taxed only for the median landscaping of Radio Road between
Santa Barbara and Airport-Pulling. Then Devonshire median
landscaping was added to this MSTU without voter approval. Radio
Road landscaping is now being maintained by the MSTD.
Now, Devonshire Boulevard should be also maintained by the
MSTD since it was done under the umbrella of the Radio Road
MSTU. The taxpayers only voted for landscaping of Radio Road and
nothing else. To add anything else to this MSTU is not what the
voters approved back in '96.
Radio Road is complete, and it's time to stop the tax and to
sunset this ordinance.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Roy Anderson. He will be
followed by Wayne Sherman.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm Roy Anderson from Countryside.
Thank you for the opportunity.
I just wanted to reinforce the statements of the others, and I
think it all comes down to the fact that there's trouble right here in
Collier County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sure there was a joke that went
along with that, wasn't there?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: His shirt even says it, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's why I was saying that.
MR. ANDERSON: It starts with trouble -- it's trouble, trouble.
It starts with T and it rhymes with D, and it stands for Devonshire.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It says "trouble right here in Collier
County"; is that what your shirt says?
MR. ANDERSON: Right there in Collier County.
March 26, 2019
Page 66
I would like to point out -- rather than reiterate everything that's been
said, I just wanted to point out a serious error in the executive
summary. Right at the outset it indicates that -- it implies that King
park was part of the project, part of the scope right from day one. If
you read that, that's the impression staff is trying to convey, but I'm
sure everyone understands now that that is inaccurate. And I just
wanted to state that for the record.
Thank you for your time, and we look forward to future
resolution.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Wayne Sherman. He'll be
followed by Rebecca Paratore.
MR. SHERMAN: Honorable members of the Board of County
Commissioners, my name is, of course, Wayne Sherman. I've been
here before. I'm a resident of Countryside Country Club.
And we believe that -- we and two other communities along the
south side of Radio Road believe that we are being subject to extra
property taxes both unwanted and unneeded, especially since the
work on the original Radio Road MSTU was completed in the early
2000s.
With this perspective, I ask you to please do not approve the
new proposed amendment to the Collier County 96-84, because it
adds significant new missions to the MSTU that were never part of
and absolutely nothing to do with the original ordinance and would
both extend the life and significantly increase the cost to the 6,566
taxpayers without their approval.
It may be legal, according to county legal staff, but I believe it's
totally unethical, and I hope you would feel the same way as county
commissioners.
So-called addition calls for, in particular, adding streetlights,
responsibility of the MPO, and the county traffic management, not
the MSTU. It also authorizes burying power lines, which is the
March 26, 2019
Page 67
responsibility of Florida Power & Light Company, not the MSTU.
In addition, it significantly broadens the terms of the original
ordinance without placing any limits in what these changes mean to
the cost of the taxpayers.
Also, the advisory committee, which has proposed these
additions, does not represent a cross-section of the affected taxpayers
as called for in the state MSTU statutes and doesn't desire to,
apparently, because the next speaker, Becky Paratore, was absolutely
rejected when she tried to get onto the committee instead of this
individual person that was on it.
And I -- I think that they're trying to just fill their agenda with
people that agree with them and not for hearing a cross-section of the
people that live in the MSTU.
In addition, all the other previous additions to the original
ordinance were already being increased: The scope, the cost of the
life of the original MSTU, again, without taxpayer approval. In
particular, the ordinance that added maintenance to the MSTU for
Devonshire Boulevard was not properly vetted to see if the
maintenance could be turned over to the MSTD.
I have another paper here, which I don't have time to present,
but it tell us -- I think it's a good argument for turning over -- being
able to turn it over to the MSTD.
Instead, the advisory committee is treating it as their private
garden and also the beautification of Rich King Memorial Greenway,
including the entranceways, should have all along been the
responsibility of Parks and Recreation.
Thus, I reiterate the new proposal ordinance is entirely
inappropriate, unethical, should be not -- should be disapproved. I
also believe the whole Radio Road MSTU has run its course, has now
become a controversial embarrassment to the county, and should be
terminated now, not later.
March 26, 2019
Page 68
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rebecca Paratore. She has
been ceded additional time from five speakers. If I could get you to
raise your hand.
Sally Powers?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
Dan Waniger? I'm having trouble reading this. Is it Don or
Dan? Dan? Are you here?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Oh, I see you now. Sorry.
Michael Romano?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
John Baxter?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And Marie Schirripa?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Yes. She will have a total of 18 minutes. She
will be followed by Brenda Reichard.
MS. PARATORE: Good morning, everybody. Good morning,
Commissioners. And I'd like to thank everybody here for turning out
and for your dedication in doing your research and doing the
presentation here. It's been phenomenal. I think you've presented
well, so thank you for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, please?
MS. PARATORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Rebecca Paratore.
Yesterday I attended the MSTU committee meeting along with
Marlene Sherman. I was surprised at some of the things that
happened there and that was said there.
March 26, 2019
Page 69
One of the things I came to understand after the meeting was
that the staff reports to the committee what they believe the
committee should hear, and they don't report the whole entire story.
And the reason I'm saying that is because I know that Michelle
Arnold reported to the committee that she had been to several HOAs
and talked to them. She had mentioned Countryside, which I am a
board member at Countryside, and she said she had talked to them,
and they're all favorable with all of these new projects and all the
new -- I was a little concerned about that, because I didn't see her.
I asked her which HOAs that she had spoken with. I said I've
never seen a list. I know people keep talking about how -- that
they've talked to HOAs and everybody's in favor, but I have yet to
hear an HOA be named. So I'm concerned about reporting without
backup.
So with that being said, one of the committee members, I ask
about -- and this is during the comments section, I asked about the
burying of the FP&L cable. The committee member Maria said, we
didn't vote for that, and that's not on the ordinance. And I said, yes, it
is. So I said my -- and she said -- she argued and said, no, it's not.
Michelle Arnold stepped up and said, yes, it is. My concern is
that how can you vote for an ordinance if you don't know what's in it?
So I'm also looking at the committee members, there's one
absent, the chairman was absent, and I don't see them as a sampling
of our -- a true sampling of our community. I have five people
making decisions for us without asking our opinions, without being a
good sampling of our areas. I see all these different -- all these
different projects coming up.
So with the MSTU meeting aside from yesterday, I would like to
go into the projects. The projects I've heard so far is -- and then
today we mentioned parking, so I had not heard about the parking
situation before. So today it was mentioned -- and you can find out
March 26, 2019
Page 70
when the transcript comes out that maybe they'll put some parking
there at the entrance.
Well, it was said before that there was no parking so that
everybody who comes there is all local. Well, they all ride bikes.
Some of these people go 30 and 40 miles, so it can't all be local
people who are going there. So you're asking us to support this
funding for the improvements for a bike path potentially used for all
of Collier County.
We'll also talk about the 4,000-plus. At first I said 3,000.
There's 3,000-plus new units coming into our area from Radio Road
to Santa Barbara to Davis, everywhere. Where is the impact fees
going for that? There's more funding available to support this
improvement, if you want to make it, upon an FP&L easement.
So not only are you getting the impact fees, but you're getting the
future tax base from all these people who are going to be paying
taxes.
Next, nobody mentions anything about what the tax rate is for
Publix. So let's talk about Publix, and let's talk about all of the
different commercial areas who pay taxes to this MSTU. Who do
you think they pass that along to? Us. We pay all of their extra
taxes.
I've also heard now that -- with these projects that initially there
was an -- that they wanted $3 million to start the projects because of
the nature of the projects.
So with that being said, I wonder where all that money was
going to come from. And maybe they're saving up for it, and that's
why we have 700,000 in the kitty right now.
Also I heard today, and I did hear this at the committee meeting
yesterday, there's $130,000 to maintain Devonshire. That's not true.
It's 116,000 if I believe the MSTU committee meeting yesterday, and
that they have a surplus every single year, but they've been adding to
March 26, 2019
Page 71
it. So it's 116,000, not 130,000.
So they're saving all this money up --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was close. I was only off by --
MS. PARATORE: But that's what they reported to you. My
thing is that they report to you what they want you to hear, okay.
Another thing is, we're talking about expanding boundaries. If
we hadn't expanded the boundaries in the first place and added
Devonshire, we wouldn't be here right now. We didn't choose to add
Devonshire. Devonshire was added without our knowledge. So now
that we're paying maintenance fees, we're locked into that, so to
speak. We're locked into that. So adding more maintenance fees isn't
going to make us any more freer.
So in my research on the county website, I find two maps of the
Radio Road MSTU. This map shows an added northern boundary of
104 parcels. I would like to -- I didn't create it. I would like to know
who's expecting to add this northern boundary of 104 parcels.
Now, with that said, there are 104, two of them owned by the
county, three of them are owned by businesses, and have the rest of
them -- multiple parcels are owned by the same owner. So let's take
it down to like -- let's say 90. So there's 90 parcels that could be
voters. So 46 people could vote to add this in, and it gets added to
our MSTU.
I want to know why the county's proposing to add the northern
boundary or how it appeared in your documents, and I have a list of
where it is.
Here is the current -- here is the current map. It does not match
this one. So I would like to know that. I have -- I have a summary
here of the parcels. Now, next projects. So what are we going to do
to beautify that area all of sudden?
I also don't appreciate that there's not a mechanism for once an
MSTU is created for it to be sunset and/or modified and/or -- it's all
March 26, 2019
Page 72
loose. You get to make a decision about whatever you want to do.
You don't need our vote, period, end. So once we go into the
Cadillac dealership and we buy a Cadillac and we go to pick up our
car and they pull up and says, no, you're buying a Maserati instead
because we need the money, and you've got to pay for it and drive
away. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that philosophy.
Sixteen bus stops. We're going to -- we're supposed to improve
these 16 bus stops. This is not my document. It's a county document.
So all these 16 bus stops.
There's other revenues for this. And what I'm saying is that
we're growing. East Naples is not the same. We're going to be
Miami before very long, or Niami, I should say.
We're getting way too big, but I think these people need to come
in and help to pay for this, not just us. It's not going to stop with
Davis Boulevard. I can see that expanding these boundaries, which
has already been done once, expanding these boundaries to Davis is
the start, because there's the rest of the Rich King Greenway. Well,
this looks too shabby. Let's just go ahead and add that. Let's take it
all the way to Rattlesnake, which is where it goes, but let's not tax
any more people. Let's just let these three main communities pay for
all of it.
So I have a problem with that. I don't think it's -- I don't think
that any of us would like to have somebody come in and tell us what
we're going to do with our money and that they're going to pick and
choose what they get to do with it. I know that's how taxes run, but
not like this.
We're paying for the MSTD, all of us, but we're being double
taxed for the whole entire project by paying for the MSTU as well.
The roundabouts; let's talk about the roundabouts they
introduced yesterday as a calming device for Devonshire. The
roundabouts; who in the world would put a roundabout on three
March 26, 2019
Page 73
streets? There's two of them that they propose for Devonshire, two
roundabouts that they want the MSTU to pay for.
Number 2, Devonshire will never be accepted as an arterial
street as long as people continue to make it un-user -- unfriendly to
the user. So people will avoid the street. We're changing it. You can
no longer turn left into the shopping center coming off of Santa
Barbara. You know what? Thanks for making is so un-user friendly
that nobody wants to use it so it will never be an arterial street. Put it
back the way it was. Let people use it. That's what we pay for. It
will become an arterial street if you it leave alone.
I just can't believe some of these projects that they're coming up
with, and these five people are making decisions for us, and they
don't even truly represent our communities. And I have a problem
with that because they don't even know what -- they don't know
what's on the ordinance when they vote for it. I have a problem with
that, too.
Anyway, the meeting yesterday was a little bit exasperating
because I realize that, you know, number one --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Klatzkow, please remind her to
breathe.
MS. PARATORE: I did not get on the MSTU even though I
tried. I was trying to take Dan Dopco's (phonetic) place. And he
lives in my building, so I thought it was a slam dunk that I'd get in,
but I also knew it was a slam dunk that I wouldn't get in because I'm
too opinionated for that kind of a committee.
However, I will say this: The person who took my spot, I like
him. He asks questions more than anybody. He did not agree with
county staff on everything. Harry Sales (phonetic) was kind of -- I
could tell he really wanted to push through a few things. And this
person's name is Frank Cooper. And Frank wanted more
information.
March 26, 2019
Page 74
So I see county staff leading this committee, and that does not
sit well with me, because I went to the March 2018 public
informational meeting; Penny Taylor was there. I was actually asked
by Michelle Arnold to let somebody else speak, if you guys can
imagine that, and someone in the audience said, no, she's asking good
questions. Go ahead and let her go.
So whatever it was I was asking -- at the end of the meeting I
went up to the committee to talk to the committee. At the time I
believe it was Maria Schoenfelder that I spoke with. She told me she
could not believe I could talk to county staff that way because she
was afraid of them.
That gave me another pause. And that was in March of 2018.
So here is a person who is afraid to stand up to county staff who's
making decisions for my money and doesn't know what's on the
ordinance when she votes yes.
So there's several concerns I have about the makeup of the
committee. I really wish that you would be able to look at that and
decide what these people's credentials are, why they're on the
committee, how they get on the committee, who they really serve.
That's important to me. There is absolutely no vetting for these
people on the committees.
You don't -- I think there should be a certain representative. It
doesn't have to be me. I know you guys don't want to deal with me
all the time, so it could be anybody.
But I think each of these communities -- there's five people.
There should be one from Foxfire, one from Glen Eagle, and one
from Countryside. And I'll personally take it upon myself to
campaign to get people on those boards if you guys can put
something in place to make sure that this committee properly
represents us and that staff does not come in and instruct them how to
vote and what's important and what's not important and tell them
March 26, 2019
Page 75
things that I don't think are factually true.
So with that said -- I know I've got seven minutes left, but I
think that's probably about it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You can quit now. We got it.
MS. PARATORE: And I appreciate what you do, I really do,
and I don't -- you know, I'm passionate about this, but I'm not angry.
So I just want to let you know that I appreciate what you do.
Please sunset this. I believe that there is a mechanism to sunset
this. I do believe you can sunset this. And also, if you would leave
Devonshire alone and let it become an arterial street, then you can
maintain it.
So leave it alone. Let it be what it is. Thank you, and vote no.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Ms. Peratore, are you sure you don't need more
time? I found two additional slips ceding you time, so you have more
time if you need it. I just wanted to acknowledge these slips.
MS. PARATORE: Well, I still have six minutes.
MR. MILLER: I know, and you still have six more.
MS. PARATORE: So I still have 12 minutes?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all good.
MS. PARATORE: What else do you want me to talk about?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Larry True. He will be
followed by Brad Boil.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before you go there -- before you
go there, please, one second.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. A question for staff:
In the way that we create MSTUs -- now, I know this was done in
1996, I think, was the original creation. But what is the process that
we go through to create an MSTU? My understanding is that the
March 26, 2019
Page 76
community comes in and asks for it and then we move forward with
it, but what's the process that we --
MR. KLATZKOW: The county has two processes. The first
process is generally called a voluntary MSTU. Generally it starts
with a public petition, and then staff will go out, will get -- poll the
residents, and if you get a certain percentage, usually more the
50 percent, the Board will enact the MSTU.
The second is typically called an involuntary MSTU. That's an
MSTU that's imposed by the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Do you recall or does
anyone recall how this MSTU came into existence? Was it a
voluntary MSTU or involuntary?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If you look down at the end of
the dais --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't think --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, Crystal Kinzel was a
first member of the MSTU. She can tell you.
THE CLERK: There was a vote of the abutting and adjoining
properties that generated this. And so there was a concept, and it
wasn't generally for Radio Road stopping at Santa Barbara. And that
was the initial process that they used to create it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This was created as a
voluntary MSTU based on a vote of the people that were within that
boundary of the MSTU?
THE CLERK: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the reason I ask that is,
shouldn't we use the same process to amend the purpose of the
MSTU?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please. We know why you're here,
and it's not celebration of my birthday yesterday. We already got
March 26, 2019
Page 77
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm still waiting for
everybody to raise their hands that are in support of expanding the
boundary.
Again, the reason I ask that is it seems to me if you've got a
voluntary MSTU, and you want to expand the scope of their purpose,
then you should have a voluntary MSTU vote on that.
So in this particular ordinance, it seems to me that this is a fairly
dramatic increase in the purpose. Providing traffic-calming
improvements, streetlighting, drainage, and sidewalks within the
MSTU, and for the burial of power lines, all of that, along with the
Rich King Memorial Greenway being added in terms of the
maintenance of that, when you look at the original purpose -- let's see
what it says for the original purpose: For the purpose of providing
hardscape, watering facilities, plantings, and maintenance to the
entrance of the Rich King Memorial Greenway.
It seems to me that that's a fairly limited purpose which the folks
voluntarily came in and said, please tax us, and now we're looking at
an ordinance that would be involuntary. That greatly expands that.
So I have a hard time voting for this ordinance based on that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's the reason why we set it
aside last year when they came to with us the proposition of
expansion of the boundaries and the programs within which could be
spent.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then one other
question, and it's been talked about, was the Rich King Memorial
bikeway. I've never gone out there to take a look at it, but is that a
bikeway that is -- I know it's got to be used by the general
community. How do we generally deal with bike paths and
bikeways? Are they generally built through impact fees and through
ad valorem taxes?
March 26, 2019
Page 78
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Parks and Rec.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. No, I understand it's
Parks and Rec, but how do we usually pay for those? Just an ad
valorem?
MS. ARNOLD: I think it varies depending on the facility.
This I'm not sure that this was proposed or constructed with impact
fees at all. I think it was probably a Parks and Rec, and there was
agreement with FP&L, you know, so it just depends on the particular
facility.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: General ad valorem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not impact fees.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And I just wanted to make a correction what
you were reading was not the original when it was --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MS. ARNOLD: -- created. There's been amendments to it since
then. So it's not specific to the greenway was added in 2013, as
Ms. Sherman --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the original was actually
more narrow than what I just read?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that doesn't alter my
concern about -- because I wasn't here when Rich King was added to
it, but I do have a concern about adding -- expanding the purpose --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- of a voluntary MSTU
without having a vote.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How did he get ahead?
MS. ARNOLD: And the vote --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You called on him.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And forgive me, because I let you
March 26, 2019
Page 79
go first, and Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I saw that I was number two
on here, and I really appreciate you --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And Commissioner Fiala's down
here giving me the elbow because I let you go first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hate to go in front of the six left --
I mean the speakers that are left.
But, you know, it's like -- Commissioner Taylor mentioned
before something about a town hall meeting. It's like we're holding
one right now. And, you know, my town hall meetings I always have
a good attendance. You guys have a huge attendance right here. I
bet there's at least 150 people here, and everybody's singing the same
chorus.
Now, maybe people are afraid to come in because they don't
want to -- they don't want to give a differing opinion, but they've had
plenty of opportunity to write to us also, and I've only gotten one
differing opinion; that was it. And so, to me, I think this is a
no-brainer. I think we need to step up to the plate, dissolve the
MSTU, and move forward, you know.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if it wasn't so clear, but it's
clear.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Might I make a suggestion with
regard to that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And Commissioner Taylor wants to
go first.
I mean, here today we're to vote on the staff's resolution in front
of us with the expansion of the bounds and the programs within
which the MSTU can and cannot spend. We can deal with the
extinguishment of and the actual tax rate during the budget processes
March 26, 2019
Page 80
that are coming forward, but here today, we can -- we are here to vote
on the resolution that's, in fact, in front of us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So your recommendation is to deny
staff's request per the resolution today with the expansion of the
bounds and the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't say to extinguish it at all, I
mean, or to eliminate it or --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would support a motion
to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to sunset it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would support your motion
not to move forward with the ordinance. I will not support a motion
to extinguish it, because we can't do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So make that motion, and I'll
second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I will make that motion then.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we deny staff's recommendation for the expansion of the bounds and
the programs within the MSTU.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And just for the record,
Mr. Chairman, my vote against this is because I think that if the
community wants that purpose expanded, they should come to us and
tell us that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. And that's absolutely the
case. I mean, there's a lot of representations with regard to our staff,
and if you all recall, a year ago when this came forward to us, we
were having trouble coming up with a quorum with the membership
of this MSTU. Look how many people are involved in it now.
March 26, 2019
Page 81
I've said this on a regular basis. I believe our forefathers
considered it to be government of and by and for the people. Your
interest and representation here is going to be imperative for this to
go forward. Did I say it wrong?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, you said it right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That is a representative of
government. We have a representative government.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely, of and by and for the
people. So stay there.
Up until this point we were having troubles with quorums. Up
until this point oftentimes staff is relegated to give direction to the
committees to -- in order to enact these committees and so ons and so
forth. So your representation, your participation in this is going to
provide it with success. What did I say now?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, you didn't. No, you
remembered -- and I remembered staff talking about it was very
difficult --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- that folks wouldn't -- there
was this lack of interest in the advisory committee.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I saw the same thing in Immokalee
when I first started -- when I first started going around there as well,
so yay.
It's been moved and seconded that we -- and I hope no one's
offended that I'm not going to let you speak.
MR. MILLER: Yeah, I do have five remaining public speakers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about if we raise hands. If
you'll raise your hand and wave that you're in consent with our move
forward here, we won't have to go through that.
MR. MILLER: Would you like me to read the names?
March 26, 2019
Page 82
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please.
MR. MILLER: Larry True?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You can with that.
MR. TRUE: Yep.
MR. MILLER: Brad Boyle?
MR. BOYLE: Yep.
MR. MILLER: William Cote?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Good.
William Hanson?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: He's good. And Ann Hetter?
MS. HEFFER: Heffer. I'm good with it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. It's been moved and
seconded that we deny staff's recommendation in the resolution
today. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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. There you go.
(Applause.)
(Happy Birthday was sung in unison.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you all very much.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's interesting that he's not hitting
the gavel on that.
March 26, 2019
Page 83
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I find that to be interesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was cute.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to -- ladies and
gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, as you're exiting our chambers,
please, we need to continue --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think they can hear you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, they can. We need to -- if you
all would please just quietly exit as you go. Thanks for coming back.
Come back again when you can stay longer.
Where'd our county manager go?
MR. OCHS: Right here.
Item #14B1
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB) ADOPT A
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN - MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS ITEM UNTIL THE APRIL 9TH BCC MEETING –
APPROVED
Item #9C
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - MOTION TO
CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE APRIL 9TH BCC MEETING
– APPROVED
March 26, 2019
Page 84
MR. OCH: Mr. Chairman, we move to our 11 a.m. time-certain
hearing, the companion items beginning with Item 14B1, which is a
recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency Board
adopt a resolution recommending to the Board of County
Commissioners approval of an amendment to the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Area Plan, and the companion Item 9C,
which will also be heard in conjunction with 14B1 as a
recommendation to adopt a resolution approving an amendment to
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. County Attorney, do you want to vote first on 14B1, or can
we make the staff presentation and then do the votes?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we should take both items at the
same time.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Ms. Forester will begin the presentation.
MS. FORESTER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Debrah Forester, CRA Director.
Today we're asking you to consider an amendment to the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Plan. As you'll recall, in 2000
the Board established the CRA, created one agency with two
component areas: One for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle and one
for the Immokalee area.
You also established local advisory boards. We have several
members of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle advisory board today.
I'd like to thank them for their time and involvement over the past
year as we were preparing for this amendment.
In 2000 you also adopted the plan. That plan contained a
Section 4, which focuses on the Immokalee area; Section 5, which
focuses on the gateway area. That plan was found consistent by the
Collier County Planning Commissioner (sic) to be consistent with the
Growth Management Plan, and the plan has a 30-year time frame
March 26, 2019
Page 85
which takes that plan to 2030.
Our proposed changes today for one is the Section 1, which is
basically an update for consistency with the Growth Management
Plan. It also incorporates changes that were adopted in 2004 which
expanded the Immokalee CRA boundary, and the proposal is
suggesting that we extend the life of the plan for another 30 years.
We will have further discussion on that later in today's presentation.
In Section 4, we're just updating the Immokalee Redevelopment Area
Plan maps to be consistent with the current Growth Management Plan
and also the boundary.
And then, finally, we did some figures, updates in the
appendices to reflect historical conditions and current regulations.
We are asking you today to make a couple of revisions in the
plan document itself. We are requesting that you replace Page 5-6 --
5-3-6 which reflects the changes that were discussed at the Collier
County Planning Commission meeting on March the 21st. I'm going
to place this on the visualizer so that you can just see the change
we're requesting.
And you'll note Commissioner Strain at the meeting had
suggested that we clarify what was allowed in the mini-triangle
subdistrict, and so we have actually referenced the ordinance that was
adopted in 2018 and reflects the density and intensity allowed in that
section.
The CCPC did find the plan to be consistent with the Growth
Management Plan. They further made a recommendation that the
CRA remain at the 2030 duration for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
area and to extend the duration for the Immokalee area the additional
30 years.
Our focus today is really on Section 5 which highlights the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area. Unfortunately, as we were
finalizing this plan, we realized that in Section 5.6 there were some
March 26, 2019
Page 86
inconsistencies with the tables. These do -- any changes here do not
change the substance of the plan but only add consistency throughout
saying that the date of the TIF projection starts in 2019 and completes
in 2048, which is a 30-year tax-increment calculation.
I have each of those pages if you'd like to see them, on the
visualizer, before we proceed, or we can go through it at a later point
in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you go back to the last page?
I wanted to ask a question, yeah, to clarify the allowable densities
listed in the mini-triangle catalyst site.
Tell me what that really means.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The next page.
MS. FORESTER: In our plan originally, we -- this page in the
document talks about densities. And so what we previously had in
there, that in that mini-triangle they could allow up to 70 units per
acre, but it wasn't clear that it didn't reflect the whole mini-triangle
site. That 70 units per acre is only for the piece that was currently
rezoned that the CRA owns, so the commissioner at the Planning
Commission asked that we change that. So we felt that the best way
to do that was to actually reference the ordinance that was adopted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So is that increasing the density in
that particular area? I'm not --
MS. FORESTER: It was from the 12 units per acre, which the
rest of the site has. So when they went through their rezoning
process, they were able to change -- both small-scale plan
amendment was approved and the zoning was approved. So that
allows for that increased density.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So let me -- I'm sorry I'm
still questioning, but -- so that's where the hotels and things are going
to be so -- is that right?
MS. FORESTER: It's only for our piece that we own. We did
March 26, 2019
Page 87
not change the zoning on what previously was referred to as the Trio
site or the London of Naples site today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. That's really what I
wanted to clarify. Okay.
And then the second thing is, for this particular site, the increase
in density is because the building is going higher than we had
thought? I mean, before it was ever rezoned or anything or even
wanted to be rezoned, we -- I guess we were thinking everything was
10 stories in that area initially, right? And so this is just allowing
them to build what they've proposed?
MS. FORESTER: And what we're doing here is, really, we
have no regulatory authority in the redevelopment plan. All of that
regulations and zoning code changes, that all deals with the Board of
County Commissioners.
What our task is, is to make sure that our amendment to the
redevelopment plan is consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
And so to get that consistency, we wanted to clarify what the
allowable density and intensity is in this particular site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So just to be clear, so in other
words, what you're adding here is just what's in the ordinance
already.
MS. FORESTER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the approved PUD?
MS. FORESTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: PUD, right. The ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to -- you know,
sometimes you read things into things, so I just wanted to make sure I
read it correctly.
MS. FORESTER: Yes. This plan does not change any of the
intensities or densities.
March 26, 2019
Page 88
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order. Are you
speaking to the CRA?
MS. FORESTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We need to change the chair,
right, or do co-chairs. I just want to make sure that you're speaking
to the CRA, and then this will be referred to the Board of County
Commissioners. Thank you.
MS. FORESTER: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wait.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just real quickly, I have a
concern with the increase in the duration for -- maybe not so much
for the Immokalee, but -- and the reason is, as you know, for the last
couple years, there's been an effort in Tallahassee to eliminate CRAs,
and there's an effort this year again to crack down on CRAs. There's
been a lot around the state that have not operated within the limits of
what they were supposed to do. I'm not suggesting that at all here.
But when we start talking about going from the current date to
2049, I get a little concerned about this particular Bayshore CRA
because, I mean, obviously, there are a lot of projects that need to be
done. Bayshore is taking off, the mini-triangle looks like it's going to
be taking off, and we're talking about 40 years -- or 30 years from
now. I'm wondering why we wouldn't hold off on the extension of
the date because we still have, what, nine or 10 years left.
MR. OCHS: We have 11 years left.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have 11 years left. Come
back and let's talk about this when it becomes a little bit more timely,
you know, three or four years from now or a couple years from now,
but I'd like you to focus for a minute on why are we extending that
boundary to 2049. Or not the boundary. I mean the --
MS. FORESTER: The time frame.
March 26, 2019
Page 89
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
MS. FORESTER: I think as we were approaching this as a
long-range plan and, as you just mentioned, the statute constantly
changes. So when we adopted this plan in 2000, we had the ability to
have 30 years and then followed by another 30-year extension.
We know that the statute is constantly changing, and right now it
might be terminated at, I believe, 2038.
So we recognize that it has an impact on the General Fund.
When we started this process, we looked at it at a long-range plan and
to say that we have a number of projects that we would like to see
accomplished. We did the tax increment that far out.
But as you'll see as we go -- and we can go right to that section,
if you'd like, now, we've given you some other options to consider.
One, to maintain it for the current time frame. Also to relook at this a
year from now when we come back, we hope, with the
redevelopment update for the Immokalee area or, two, to keep it at --
the current thought here to extend it the 30 years.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the Option 2 was the
option that I thought was appropriate, just based on my thinking, but
I've not talked to staff about that. I don't know what the Manager's
thoughts are in terms of the potential impact on our budgets when we
start talking about 30 years out at this point.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. My personal recommendation or
professional recommendation is that you do not at this time need to
extend the life of these CRAs out to 2049. I think you have 11 years
remaining.
As Debrah said, we're working on the plan update for
Immokalee next year. We plan to refresh these plans every five
years. So even if you wait five years to the next update, you still
have time within the current time frame to make those decisions. So
I would support not extending to 2049 at this point.
March 26, 2019
Page 90
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I'm
not sure if it's Madam Chairman or Mr. Chairman on the CRA.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Madam Chair, Mrs. Chair -- or
Madam Chair and Mr. Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two madams. Wait a minute.
How does that sound?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, Birthday Boy and
Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Are you the chair of the CRA
now?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no issues with any of
this other than that particular one, and so when we get to the final
decision-making, I'll --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm with you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I agree with Commissioner
Saunders and our County Manager. I don't say -- we're not going to
end the CRA at all, but let's look at it in five years.
This document that I've read pretty closely is an extraordinary
vision statement for the area. It is also so well divided into what
needs to be done with projected income during that time.
I think we are safe to look at this in five years but also to see
how well we're progressing, especially with the TIF money coming
in.
There is something, though, in this document, the plan amendment,
that I'd like to address. If you'd like to finish your PowerPoint, and
we can do that later. It's entirely up to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it was my error. If you
have -- is there a question that you have for her? Because
Commissioner Fiala wanted to speak.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. On Page 4 and 5 of this
March 26, 2019
Page 91
plan amendment, I'd like -- I believe the word is struck. We have --
I'm to understand from Mr. Calahan, and I'm not sure I understand
why it's in there, but we have references to an urban designated area,
which I understand was designated within the, what, future land use;
is that correct?
And it's outside of the CRA boundaries, and it talks about
Immokalee, Copeland, Plantation, Copeland, Chokoloskee, Port of
the Islands, and Goodland, in addition to the Greater Naples area.
And so what it is, it's highlighting urban designated areas, which it
would be a hard stretch to look at Copeland as urban, or that people
would even want to come from East Naples to live in Copeland. Not
that Copeland's a bad place, but it's halfway to Miami practically.
And then the other thing, which was the most fascinating part of it --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It depends on where you start.
Halfway is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, yeah, when you start at
Everglades City, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump.
But then the other question is, talking about a redevelopment
plan between -- on Pine Ridge between U.S. 41 north and
Goodlette-Frank Road, another redevelopment in U.S. 41 North in
Naples Park, another plan, and then a Bonita Beach Road
development between -- redevelopment between Vanderbilt Road
and west end of the Little Hickory Shores subdivision, which I'm
sure, Commissioner Solis, brings you a lot of surprise, as it did me.
It may be out there. I just don't think it should belong in this
document.
MS. FORESTER: And, Commissioner, if I might, when we
were going through this section, which is Section 1.3, consistency,
with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, we took the
sections. And if you'll notice, that underlying piece is exactly what is
in the current Growth Management Plan today when this references
March 26, 2019
Page 92
Copeland, Plantation Island, and you'll notice that Marco Island is
struck through here, because it's no longer part of the Growth
Management Plan as we have today.
So where it seems like we're overreaching what this is about,
when we go through consistency with the Planning Commission, we
wanted to update that and just reference what is actually in your
existing Growth Management Plan, similar to the section that
references these other redevelopment areas. That's currently in that
Growth Management Plan today.
So, again, in 2000 when we wrote it, there was language that
was not consistent with where we are today, so we struck through
that language, because that references a 1997 Collier County Growth
Management Plan, and we put in what is the language today. So
when the Planning Commission reviewed this for consistency and the
staff from the Growth Management Department reviewed it for
consistency, they agreed with that language.
MR. OCHS: It doesn't mean we're planning to open up CRAs
all over the county, if that's the concern. It was illustrative but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Other areas may be considered.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it doesn't mean you can't take it out
either.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's take it out. It just doesn't
need to be in here. Okay. I think it greases -- you know, greases the
slide.
MS. FORESTER: And, of course, we can go ahead and delete
that at your pleasure and just end it at the point of maybe "by the
Board on June 13th, 2000," period, and then delete the part about
other specific areas if that's your pleasure, your recommendation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I've got an idea in a minute.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do I have three nods for that?
March 26, 2019
Page 93
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm going to make -- we're going to
talk about it in a second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to see that on the visualizer.
I'm having a hard time. I can't pull up the revisions here for some
reason.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I just set this aside for a
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we're way far beyond it, and
they're in the middle of another. I'll have to come back to it after so
that I don't work -- you know, change the train of thought.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I just want to see what --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's how it reads.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Commissioner Taylor's proposing
to take out.
MS. FORESTER: So on the visualizer in front of you is the
language that we've added that reflects the current Growth
Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MS. FORESTER: And the language, I believe, that's being
requested to be eliminated would be that last sentence starting with
"other specific areas," and then those three items that are listed there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And these are -- this is language
that's also taken from the Growth Management Plan, right? I mean,
these are areas listed in the Growth Management Plan as potential
redevelopment areas?
MS. FORESTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If the question is whether or not this
plan is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, does that make
it inconsistent that it not be in there?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You don't have to copy the Growth
March 26, 2019
Page 94
Management Plan. You just can't be inconsistent with it. Taking it
out would still be consistent with it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then if we can go to -- on
Page 4, Section 1.3 -- well, it's Section 1.3 and show my colleagues
that. And I have it here if you'd like -- you've got it.
MS. FORESTER: Is that the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MS. FORESTER: And that is the section in the urban
designated areas; right there. And, again, that is listed in the Growth
Management Plan. So again we just copied that language from the
Future Land Use Element and had it in here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you're interested in not seeing
that in there either?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. I mean, I'd certainly
define urban designated areas, but I would --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I saw that as well, Plantation Island,
Chokoloskee, so on and so forth. I mean, there's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And another one that had been
asked to be considered at some point in time was Naples Manor as
they try and --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Redevelop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I just -- it may -- I don't mean
to make it inconsistent. I just -- I would feel more comfortable if we
could drop that last sentence, the urban designated area.
MS. FORESTER: Yes. We'll want to maybe includes -- which
includes Immokalee --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Immokalee, period.
MS. FORESTER: Okay. I'll make note of that change in
your --
March 26, 2019
Page 95
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If there's agreement here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'm --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And don't go first, please.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm a little bit out of the order, but
I'm going to -- because I skipped over Commissioner Fiala.
And we're heading down a path right now -- one of the
suggestions that -- in my notes was is that we continue this item. Do
we need to vote on this today?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, we have a workshop
next Tuesday with both of our CRAs. We could have discussions
with them with regard to these bounds, with regard to these
expansions, with regard to these language changes, and then -- and
maybe get some refinement at that workshop with participation from
the members of our CRAs.
I have concerns, as Commissioner Saunders does, with regard to
the extension of the life of the CRAs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to talk
about before.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you said, well, why do
we have to extend it? And that makes perfect sense, except -- except
with the state legislature now doing everything they can to remove
home rule from all of our counties -- they don't want us making our
own decisions. They want to make it for us -- I think the effort to try
and make sure we have something secure -- and I think that's what
the extension was all about is to make sure that we have it there so if
they say it has to -- it has to be removed, well, then, you know, we
get the -- we lose getting the extension. We could always change it
later on, but I think as long as they're hell bent for leather on
March 26, 2019
Page 96
eliminating home rule, we ought to extend our time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the conversations that I had
with the County Attorney yesterday was the fact that we -- if we were
to extend it, we have the right as the Board to extinguish these CRAs
on an annual basis if I understood you correctly.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, the only qualification to that would
be, for example, if you bonded revenues, that will be problematic.
But as long as you haven't done something like that, yes, it's an
ordinance, and you can always rescind an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if we haven't voted for it, then
we lose the ability to do it if this legislature says you can't --
MR. KLATZKOW: Your concern is that there would be
legislation abolishing CRAs but grandfathering existing ones.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We don't know what the
legislation's, in fact, going to do, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but if we've got it in place,
maybe we can secure it. I'm just -- I'm just really afraid that we're
going to be biting off the hand that needs to feed us.
And then when they say, well, we wanted to extend it, too late,
the legislature would say we've already taken control and you lose.
And I'm not sure that I'm real happy with all of their ambitions to
remove it.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's a possibility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is possible. That's just what
he said.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, I heard him.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm in agreement with the extension
of the time frame, and there's no need at this point to do that, but I'm
not in favor of taking out the language that gives -- all it says is that
the Board of County Commissioners can or may consider whether to
March 26, 2019
Page 97
adopt redevelopment plans for existing, commercial, or residential
areas, and then says, other specific areas that may be considered. I
mean, taking it out, I think, just gives us less flexibility, and I'm not
in favor of this.
This doesn't create CRAs. It just mirrors what's in the Growth
Management Plan and provides some flexibility for us in the plan.
So I wouldn't be in favor of just deleting that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You wouldn't be in favor of just
deleting it?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither, so I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It doesn't lock us into anything.
Why would we want to give --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- ourselves less flexibility?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why eliminate our opportunities?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think for my concern is, is it
really doesn't have anything to do with the Bayshore/Immokalee
CRA. And, frankly, being aware of what is going on in Tallahassee,
I just think it's -- it kind of -- it's creating a -- it's creating an interest
in an area that probably has never, ever been designated. I don't
know where this came from. I thought it was fascinating that it was
there.
When you talk about urban designated areas that will
accommodate the majority of population growth and that new
intensive land uses be used to -- located within them, and you're
imagining Plantation Island? Chokoloskee?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Port of the Island has thought of it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, Port of the Island is
different. But Copeland? The majority of the population is going to
move there? It's going to grow there? We're going to grow eastward
March 26, 2019
Page 98
to Copeland? I just -- I just found it fascinating it was there, and I
just don't think it was appropriate to be there.
As far as the other one, again, I think it's greasing the skids. I
don't think it's appropriate to be in this plan.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So the question of the day is, do we
want to endeavor to amend this on the fly or continue it for some
refinement and bring back after we have had our workshop?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not sure what refinement
you'd have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I mean, you're looking to
make specific adjustments to the recommendations.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two things. Two things.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And then Commissioner
Saunders is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- is -- in regard to the extension of
the life of the MSTUs or the CRAs.
So I'm just looking for a little direction. My inclination is to set
this aside for two weeks, come together with some actual
recommendations in writing to our staff so that we can all have a look
at it and have our workshop next week with our board members and
then vote on it -- God bless you, by the way -- and then vote on it,
because there's a lot of items in -- two different agenda items, there's
a lot of things that are included in here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make a motion that we continue
this till the first meeting after the CRA workshop.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion to dismiss.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Third.
It's been moved and seconded we continue this item to our next
communication. Any other discussion?
March 26, 2019
Page 99
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I do have three registered
speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, we want to hear from
our -- are our registered speakers okay with our ideas, or do you want
to -- it's up to you. I'll hear the public speakers if you wish.
MR. MILLER: Kara Laufer. She'll be followed by Donna
McGinnis.
MS. LAUFER: And Donna did have to leave, so I'm reading
her statement.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the Botanical Garden.
MS. LAUFER: Thank you. I'm with Naples Botanical Garden,
and I want to thank you all for the investment of time and budget in
developing the plan for the Bayshore area and for doing it in a way
that genuinely listened to the citizens and the organizations in the
area.
We greatly appreciate the time and the effort invested by the
Bayshore CRA advisory board and by Debrah Forester and her team
at the county. Bayshore is lucky to have engaged citizens and
corporations that are working collaboratively with each other.
And just a note, Naples Botanical Garden has grown
significantly since the last plan for Bayshore was developed in 2000.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MS. LAUFER: So we're 170 acres of display gardens and
restored Florida native habitat. We have nearly 250,000 visitors to
the garden each year. 12,000 households are family membership
holders to the garden.
More than 100 staff and 500 volunteers support our vision, and
we have an annual operating budget of $10 million.
The new Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area plan
is helpful to all of us who have a stake in the long-term strategy for
March 26, 2019
Page 100
the area. The plan will allow the garden to better strategize internally
for our next major investments and programs and events that will
continue to build our audience and for our next capital projects.
Thank you for your consideration of the plan, and we look
forward to many more years as a collaborative partner with you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Bob Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere. I just had a brief comment on the addition of this language.
I wouldn't want anyone to read that and have the impression that
what the Board approved was all of those items without restriction:
377 multifamily, 228 hotel, 150 assisted living. Those are all subject
to a trip cap. So if you build 377 multifamily, you cannot build all of
the rest of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. They're mutually --
they are allowable uses.
MR. MULHERE: So just to be sure that no one gets the wrong
impression in reading that, perhaps an additional phrase could be
added or another bullet that said all subject to a p.m. peak hour.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that's the entire -- that would be the
entire document. Everything is subject to the LDC and the Comp
Plan.
MR. MULHERE: I agree, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: I know you're focused on that one
paragraph for your client, but it's all subject to existing LDCs and
comp plans. We could put that proviso through in 30 different
references.
MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Jeff, all I'm saying is that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I know what you're saying. You
cannot amend the LDC with a policy document.
MR. MULHERE: Isn't this the LDC? This is the CRA plan,
March 26, 2019
Page 101
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. MULHERE: I'm just suggesting -- I mean, there's probably
some other language that would work, but the point that I'm
suggesting is that you -- in fact, the development plan allows those
uses, but you can't get all those uses. You know, maybe my concern
is not valid, but I just wouldn't want somebody to get the wrong
impression. I think there's some language that could be added to that
to reflect that. Maybe it's a maximum of, Jeff. Development plan --
MS. FORESTER: And just to clarify -- and we can certainly
work with Bob Mulhere between now and when we come back to
you to make sure that his client is clear on this language as well.
I'm sure that ordinance itself identifies what the maximums are, so
just referencing that ordinance hopefully will cover it.
MR. MULHERE: Actually, that might be better.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what I would suggest.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: That, actually, would be better.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It certainly clarifies things. We are
all in an understanding what you're saying, but it's certainly a
clarification.
MR. MULHERE: Actually, maybe just referencing the
ordinance would be fine. Appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Take all the rest of it out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
seconded that we continue this item till our first meeting -- I believe
it will be our first meeting in April.
MR. OCHS: April 9th, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
March 26, 2019
Page 102
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You've got to go to lunch, don't
you?
Same sign, same sound?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. We will be back at 1:10
for the 1 o'clock time-certain.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good afternoon, everybody.
County Manager, you and I were talking right after the lunch break,
and I think -- are we going to try to do a couple of those other
agenda -- I mean, because the Allura project is to be set no later
than -- or no earlier than 1 o'clock, and I think there are a couple
other things that we're going to endeavor to address first; is that
correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. At the pleasure of the Board, I was
hoping to take quickly Item 11D to let Mr. Walker get in here and get
his property insurance renewal considered.
So if that's the pleasure of the Board, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
Item #11D
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY INSURANCE EFFECTIVE
APRIL 1, 2019 IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $3,542,310 –
March 26, 2019
Page 103
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11D.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I move we approve that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just what I was going to do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve the request for the insurance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because it was such an outstanding
performance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, it was, Jeffrey. You did a very
good job.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Jeff. By the way, you do a
great job back there. You really do.
MR. WALKER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: So then, Commissioners, the balance of your
items, particularly 9A, which is the GMP amendment item, also the
PACE item, 11A, and the short-term vacation-rental item, which is
11B, I think all have fairly significant public speakers.
MR. MILLER: We've at least five on 11A and 11B, and then 50
for 9A.
March 26, 2019
Page 104
MR. OCHS: Okay. So that's what you're looking at over the
course of the remainder of the day, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I know there are specifically
some folks that were here all morning long in the early session to
speak with regard to the short-term rental issue.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And PACE as well. Why
don't we do those two, and we've got 50 speakers, we're going to be
here until --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: A while.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- fairly long.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Let's go ahead.
As long as those folks are here, you know, I gave that one fellow my
word that we would not -- because he's got -- he's a professor, and he
has to go teach tonight, and I told him that I wouldn't -- I'd continue
that item in the event that he wasn't able to speak, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which item is that?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The short-term rental circumstance.
So let's --
MR. OCHS: Do you want to do PACE or short-term?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do the PACE.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH (1)
REPEALS THE EXISTING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CLEAN
ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAM, REPLACING IT WITH A NEW
PACE PROGRAM LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL
AND MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS,
THEREBY ELIMINATING THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO COULD BE TARGETED BY UNSCRUPULOUS
CONTRACTORS FROM THE PROGRAM, AND (2) APPROVES
March 26, 2019
Page 105
A NEW STANDARD FORM MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT
WITH PACE PROVIDERS ALSO LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL APARTMENT
BUILDINGS. IN ADDITION, RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT
STAFF TO (1) SEND WRITTEN NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF
ALL EXISTING MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS WITH
CURRENT PACE PROVIDERS, AND (2) OFFER THE NEW
STANDARD FORM MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT TO ALL
EXISTING AND OTHER INTERESTED PACE PROVIDERS -
MOTION TO REJECT PROPOSED RESOLUTION AND HAVE
STAFF WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP NEW
RESOLUTION THAT ADDRESSES CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND BRING BACK TO THE 4/23/19 BCC MEETING –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Okay. So the PACE item is Item 11A on the
agenda this afternoon. And based on the direction that we received at
the last Board meeting, this recommendation seeks to adopt a
resolution which, number one, repeals the existing Property
Assessment Clean Energy program ordinance and replacing it with a
new PACE program that's limited to commercial, industrial, and
multifamily rental apartment buildings thereby eliminating the
residential property owners' participation in the program.
Number 2 would have the Board approve a new standard form
membership agreement with PACE providers with the limitations that
I just outlined and also, in addition, there's a recommendation to
direct the staff to send written notice of termination of all existing
membership agreements and offer the new standard form
membership agreements to all existing or other interested PACE
providers.
Mr. French is here to make a presentation or respond to
March 26, 2019
Page 106
questions from the Board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, are we in requisite of a
presentation, or do we have questions? Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. French, it's my
understanding that the -- and I think from our County Attorney also
that it would be more -- easier, maybe the word is, and maybe that's
the wrong way, or the proper way to dissolve the program completely
and then bring it back, the parts that we want. For instance, the
PACE for commercial; is that correct?
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name's Jamie French. I'm the Deputy Department Head
for Growth Management.
Commissioner Taylor, to answer your question -- and thanks to
County Attorney Klatzkow. He and I worked on this for some time
after receiving Board direction at the March 12th meeting.
We felt like that was -- and, Jeff, please correct me if I'm wrong,
but we felt like that was probably the cleanest -- that would be the
cleanest action, to dissolve the program and then bring back future
agreements that would only allow for those PACE providers to
provide service and offerings to the areas identified, which would be
absent of residential. And I believe, Commissioner, you also
mentioned you did not want condominiums.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I understand that I need to
make a change to that one because condominiums would be
considered business because PACE has been a lender to
condominiums for roof replacements. Please help me, because I
think I'm quoting you, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I guess the question is, do you want
to include condominiums in your new program?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But if -- again, we're trying to
protect the consumer here.
March 26, 2019
Page 107
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, this is just Board policy. I mean --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then I misunderstood you.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The question is, just for clarification,
does the Board want to include condominium units in the new
program?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would that be a condominium
association versus individual condo owners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'll bow to my colleagues
on my right and my left for that one. I'm open to some kind of
discussion on that one, because as an attorney -- as two attorneys
here, you're probably more familiar with the bright line that separates
condo owners from condo associations.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, condo owners can't -- I'm not
a lawyer, but condo owners can't obligate the association for a
common-area process for the roof over the condos. The association
could in aggregate, but not an individual condominium owner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick is shaking his head yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So that didn't require --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think I would include
condos.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We had a direct appeal at least.
MR. KLATZKOW: We would make it clear.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And is that all your questions?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, that's it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, I was concerned when
March 26, 2019
Page 108
we started looking at this that we could be doing away with an option
which is available to some people that is -- that actually is of benefit
in order to address a problem that's not related actually to the
financing. I mean, if the problem is unscrupulous contractors that are
up-selling people or not disclosing, you know, or not disclosing how
much a project -- the construction's actually going to cost or don't do
the work properly, you know, that happens outside of the PACE
program, and that doesn't -- and doing away with the PACE program
won't solve that problem. I mean, that's a different kind of a problem.
It happens every day in -- with conventional financing.
Banks, if you get a construction loan to do work on your house,
they're not supervising who you're hiring as a contractor. They're
probably not even checking whether or not they have a license. I
mean, this is -- and what I've looked at, at least the data I've seen --
and the fact that there's any problems is, obviously -- we don't want
this to be a program that creates more problems than it solves. But I
really think that we could be throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, as they say.
Because, for example, if you don't pay your PACE payments,
right, what you're actually doing is not paying your tax bill, then you
haven't paid your taxes. In order for -- and if the concern is that
people could lose their property, in order to lose your property for not
paying your tax bill, it's a minimum of three years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If it was a conventional loan, you
could lose your property in 90 days.
So, you know, I just -- it seems to me that maybe coming up
with revisions to and requiring the PACE providers, which are
already doing, from what I've seen, more oversight of the contractors
than conventional financing sources do, I just -- I think we're going to
be doing a disservice overall, because the number of complaints and
March 26, 2019
Page 109
actual foreclosures, if we call them a foreclosure, because of a PACE
loan compared to the total number of these loans that have been used
is, like, less than 1 percent or something.
So I'd like to have a discussion about that, because this does
provide an avenue for some people that can't get conventional
financing to make improvements to their home.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
I took a hard line on this at the last meeting because we had
gotten some complaints. I'm familiar with the program, and as I'd
mentioned to this board going back a year ago, I used to represent
Ygrene. And for the record, just so everyone understands, I had
represented Ygrene I think it's probably been about two years ago or
now since I had any involvement with them, and I terminated that
relationship so I could vote to support bringing the PACE program to
Collier County. And so that issue hasn't changed. It's still -- I have
no involvement with the firm at all.
And I took a hard line even knowing what Ygrene in particular
did in terms of protecting its customers. I felt that we had complaints
and we needed to air those complaints and make sure that we're doing
everything we could do to protect consumers.
I agree with Commissioner Solis, quite frankly, that if we have a
problem with unscrupulous contractors, that's where we need to focus
as opposed to necessarily eliminating the program.
So I wanted to -- I took a hard line because I wanted the PACE
providers to come to our meeting and explain to the public and to this
commission what they do to protect their customers. And at the end
of the day that explanation, if I'm satisfied that they are doing what
they need to do to protect their consumers, their customers, then I'm
going to support continuation of the program.
So I'm kind of leaving it up to them to make that case. I've read
March 26, 2019
Page 110
all the materials. I've looked at all the complaints. I'm pretty
satisfied that they're doing a lot. Commissioner Taylor has a
proposed ordinance that may enhance that. Mr. Raphael Perez
provided us an email where he suggested maybe there's some
enhancements to that very ordinance.
And so the folks that at least I've been talking to are very much
interested in protecting their consumers. I agree with you that they
do more than the bank would do to protect their consumers.
And so I'd like to hear what they do. I think the public should
hear that. And then we can entertain how to proceed. But I want the
Board to know that I've got an open mind to this. Just because I took
a hard line two weeks ago doesn't necessarily mean that that's my
position going forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It could be argued that -- and I
think the loans you were talking about, Commissioner Solis, that
folks take out that are unrelated to PACE for improvements on their
home, I think it could be argued that those loans aren't clothed in the
green.
You see, the pitch of these PACE providers is we will save you
money. All you need to do is buy this type of air conditioner or you
buy this solar panel.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The contractors are selling the
equipment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not the PACE providers. The
contractors.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, they train these
contractors. You can't separate them.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's hear what they do.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's hear how it works.
March 26, 2019
Page 111
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that's the bright line.
You know, your bank -- you go to the bank and he says, you know,
you want to put a -- a new air -- you have to get a new air
conditioner, or you go to the air conditioner company. They're not
telling you you're going to save money to do this. You make that
decision.
Now, you might have done the research, but when you have a
mortgage on a house that goes from 1,500 a year to, you know,
thousands and thousands of dollars --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Happens every day, Commissioner.
I'm sorry, but -- and the up-selling of equipment happens,
unfortunately, every day because there's unscrupulous contractors
that do it. It's not related to the financing is the issue. It's not related
to the financing. It's related to unscrupulous business practices of
people that misrepresent things.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the suggestions that I had --
I actually had in my notes here with regard to this was that we -- and
I'm -- I concur with my colleagues on each end that there's a
tremendous amount of good that can come from this program, but I
also said two weeks ago that if there is one person damaged by this,
that that's necessarily one too many. So what can we do to enhance
the program to provide better protection, consumer protection?
Commissioner Taylor, two weeks ago you brought forward an
ordinance. One of my suggestions was that we establish a
stakeholder committee to come back, review that ordinance, and
enhance the consumer protection provisions that are already being
put forth by the PACE providers: Someone from Habitat for
Humanity, someone from the construction industry, someone from
the PACE providers as well to be able to talk to us.
But I know I talked to some -- the lady from Ygrene with regard
to suggestions that you could, in fact, be put in place to help protect
March 26, 2019
Page 112
consumers with the escrow issue, with the -- more of an onus put
upon the capacity to repay the debt as opposed to the securitization
that travels along through an independent line item on their tax bill, a
limit on the borrowing capacity.
These are things that can necessarily -- should be talked about
without just eliminating a program that potentially has a lot of good
that can help a lot of people that can't just walk into a bank, can't just
go buy a new air conditioner, get a new roof, that don't have the
means that a lot of us, in fact, do. So that was my suggestion, so...
With that, I think we'll -- we should go to public speakers. How
many do we have here?
MR. MILLER: We have nine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We have nine. Okay.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Ryan Bartkus. He will be
followed by Mark VanZanten. I believe I'm saying that correct.
MR. BARTKUS: Good afternoon. My name is Ryan Bartkus,
and I am the PACE Program Manager for the Florida Development
Finance Corporation. Our office is located in Winter Springs,
Florida.
And we are the managing administrator for the Florida
Resiliency and Energy District, and we have underneath our umbrella
multiple R-PACE and C-PACE providers or what we call
administrators.
The district does not provide funding but provides the
mechanism to allow PACE assessments to be included on the tax roll.
I believe in our position this allows us to provide an unbiased review
of all the projects after the initial consumer protections are afforded
by our administrators.
So they do consumer protections to begin with, which include
the 100 percent calls that happen with these consumers. They look at
their projects and review them by price, but we do a review behind
March 26, 2019
Page 113
that, and then that also encompasses, within that review, not allowing
a notice to proceed by the contractor until we review and sign off on
that review process.
So I wanted to kind of give you just a little bit of an overview of
how we work through that process. Our initial review is of the parcel
and the property information along with the property and pricing data
from our program administrators that are received. This data is then
split and reviewed individually to ensure that our program guidelines
are met.
The first thing we do with these property details, they're sent to a
third-party assessment administrator who reviews and confirms that
the applicant is the property owner and that the property is located in
an eligible area.
Second, my team reviews pricing data against pricing models
that were developed with help from an independent -- excuse me --
engineering firm for each one of these products.
Third, my team reviews the products to make sure that they are
eligible and that they make sense for the property. An example
would be, like, on an HVAC system our calculations look at the
under-air square feet of the home and determines a recommendation
on the tonnage and whether or not the number of units for that
property makes sense.
So in some cases we've caught -- and it wasn't maybe the
contractor being unscrupulous, but it was a smaller home, and they
had two HVAC units on one home that required one. In that case we
go back to our providers or administrators, and we ask them to
provide us information or a scope of work as to why that's required.
And if they don't provide us the accurate information at that point in
time, we would not sign off on the finance agreement, which would
not allow that deal to move forward. So not only do you guys have
protections, you know, by these administrators, but then you have the
March 26, 2019
Page 114
districts behind them that are creating another -- doing another
review.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Could I ask a question?
MR. BARTKUS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's the contractor. There's
the PACE provider, Ygrene or one of the --
MR. BARTKUS: Yeah. We call them the administrator.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The administrators. That's who the
administrators are.
MR. BARTKUS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then your district office is over that
and is also reviewing --
MR. BARTKUS: That is right. There's multiple districts, so
Ygrene is not underneath our umbrella --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. BARTKUS: -- to give you guys an idea. But we each
have, you know, providers underneath our umbrella from the district
side, and each one of our districts are doing a separate review from
what the providers are doing in their consumer protections.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I just have one other question,
and this is --
MR. BARTKUS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because if it's a conventional
financing and there's a default, a lot of times or hopefully most of the
times the owner can go back to the lender, and there's some ability to
work out, you know, a different payment plan or something.
Is there that kind of flexibility built into the PACE program if
it's on a tax bill? Can that happen?
MR. BARTKUS: To actually adjust the payment?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. BARTKUS: I mean --
March 26, 2019
Page 115
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And maybe that's not a question for
you.
MR. BARTKUS: I'm not the provider. So what I can tell you
from our end, if there's an issue with a consumer and they come to us,
we go back to the provider, and we say, you need to resolve this
situation. So we've done that before. You know, it's a scenario
where we don't sign off on that finance agreement. The contractor's
not getting paid until the finance agreement is signed by us.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. BARTKUS: And then on top of that, you know, the
consumer also has to sign off on a document that says the project was
installed correctly and they're happy with it. At that point in time --
and any of the providers can correct me on that. But, I mean, you've
got multiple scenarios in there where there's consumer protections
that I don't think you guys -- you know, not that you don't fully
understand it, but it's a little bit complex and there's, you know,
multiple facets to it. So I just wanted to make sure you guys had an
understanding.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you have a question of them or
just a statement?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'm asking my colleagues.
We heard testimony at our last meeting regarding a homeowner and
Habitat for Humanity that I think by the time the improvements in
that house added to the tax bill, it was $40,000. Now, clearly, that
was approved. So what you're telling me doesn't give me a great deal
of confidence in your process.
MR. BARTKUS: Well, what I would say to you is -- and I can't
speak for every district. But for --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, there we go. There we go.
MR. BARTKUS: I understand, but let me just say this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So now we're --
March 26, 2019
Page 116
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So tell me which district you're
speaking for.
MR. BARTKUS: For the Florida Resiliency and Energy
District.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The entire state of Florida?
MR. BARTKUS: Yes, but what I can say to you is that together
as a group we try to work to improve these consumer protections. So
in a case like that, we're discussing that. After this -- after that article
came out and after we learned about it, we get together as a group
and we try to make improvements. You know, I mean, you can't start
a program and be perfect from day one. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the consumer's the one that's
being hurt here. They're the ones that have this incredible lien on
their house. You'll take their home.
MR. BARTKUS: Well, first of all, we can't take their homes. I
mean, that's something --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We take their homes.
MR. BARTKUS: -- we can't do.
And, second, just so you understand, the lien that's placed on
their house is the annual assessment amount. So let's say that they
didn't -- their full project amount, their assessment was $20,000. If it
was an $800 a month -- excuse me -- $800 a year in their assessment,
then that's the only lien that's placed.
So when my FRED board signs off on the final assessment
resolution, that is the lien that gets placed on the house.
So let's say that they default on the taxes. That $800 is the only
thing that's in front of the mortgage company.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What you're saying is that the
whole debt doesn't get accelerated like a mortgage would.
MR. BARTKUS: That's right.
March 26, 2019
Page 117
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. And the issue that came
up there was the escrow period for lenders has to happen without an
entire mortgage modification that comes through the primary lender.
They have rules that they can't adjust the payments except for during
a very brief period of time after the tax bills have come out for the
escrow adjustment period.
So an accrual of an indebtedness that occurred before that
adjustment period is what can jeopardize a homeowner after that
adjustment because they have to not only accrue for the ensuing year
but the prior amount that was out in front for the adjustment period.
They're not going to go out and adjust/modify their mortgage
willingly. They have the rights within their mortgage to do that at the
adjustment period, which can then put someone, Commissioner Solis,
in --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- jeopardy, as the one lady.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Suddenly their -- that's how their
payment goes up double in a year.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- brief period of time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's for a year, right.
MR. BARTKUS: And we make it -- just so you guys
understand, we make sure to disclose to the consumer they need to
reach out to their mortgage lender, explain that their taxes are going
to be raised so that the escrow, you know, difference can be made up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The issue with that is is your
expectation is the sophistication level of the borrower has the
capacity to reach out to somebody in nowhere land Bank of America
who doesn't care because their mortgage says the adjustment period
is September 1st, and don't talk to me about anything in advance of
that.
March 26, 2019
Page 118
MR. BARTKUS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And so there's no -- there's really no
protection.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because that issue happens with
conventional financing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you didn't pick up your --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- whatever, your insurance or your
taxes or something, then that happens in a --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The lender has that right to go in
and make those adjustments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So it's -- there's certainly room for
enhancements to the program, so...
MR. BARTKUS: And we're open to those. So I appreciate
your time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, two quick announcements before
our next speaker. Please silence your cell phones.
Also, if you are standing, we have overflow seating on the fifth
floor if you want to be more comfortable until Item 9E begins.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is there a TV?
MR. MILLER: Yes, you will be able to see the meeting on the
fifth floor. This will be streaming on the television up there.
Your next speaker is Mark VanZanten. He will be followed by
Elena Mola.
MR. VanZANTEN: Mark VanZanten. I'll cede my time to
Jeremy with my company.
MR. MILLER: Elena Mola. She will be followed by Mark
Dussault.
March 26, 2019
Page 119
MS. MOLA: This is for the next performance, so...
I thank you for your time.
I'm disappointed about what I'm hearing about the PACE
program, frankly. Lisa Lefkow came and told you that at least 29
Habitat homeowners had been approached and unscrupulously sold a
PACE project that they did not need.
Again, the purpose of the PACE project is to make a home more
energy efficient, okay. There is no requirement, no certification by
the contractor. And it's not just unscrupulous contractors or lenders
that says that whatever project is proposed actually be energy
efficient.
So you have the elderly and the disadvantaged being sold solar
panels that they're told that they will no longer have to pay an electric
bill because now, you know, they have $20,000 worth of solar panels.
What they're not told is in order for them to make the cost-benefit
analysis, that they're going to have to wait 20 years to get the benefit
of that project, okay.
Now, you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. Chairman (sic) Solis is a
lawyer. We don't have to second guess what is needed to make the
PACE program viable and protect the consumer. We know that this
is loans that are made without even determining whether the lender --
the person who is taking out the loan has the ability to pay.
Commissioner McDaniel, you said that you were in Washington.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was.
MS. MOLA: This is all public information. The proposals here,
require assessment of ability to repay. If a homeowner wants a
particular project or air system and can't pay for it, well, the
contractors say, okay, you can get this credit card and, based on your
ability to pay, this is how much you can pay over five years, okay,
but not give them a proposal and a contract which they can't even
read because they're signing on an iPhone, that will take their home
March 26, 2019
Page 120
away.
I mean, when we were here last week, we went back through
about 20 or 30 different steps that you could take in order to make
this a viable nonpredatory lending program, which is what it is at this
point.
With respect to you, Commissioner Taylor, COAs, even though
they are technically associations, each individual resident has the
ability to contract for air conditioners and stuff like that, so I would
revisit protections for all residentials.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We can't separate. They're not --
MS. MOLA: Exactly, you cannot. And unless you're building
one major system for one building, but, I mean, where residentials
were -- they have the ability to buy their own units and stuff like that
I would ask. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They can't obligate for the whole
association, but they can for their own unit.
MS. MOLA: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But once it's in, it's in. The
program's in there, it's in there.
MS. MOLA: Exactly.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mark Dussault. He would
be followed by Mike Schumann. Mike Schumann?
MR. VanZANTEN: Mark is no longer here.
MR. MILLER: Mike Schumann. He will be followed by Guy
McClurkan.
MR. SCHUMANN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Schumann, would you
please identify your involvement with this program and how long
you've been involved with it and why.
MR. SCHUMANN: I initially was talking to the Board of
County Commissioners back in -- about 10 years ago when I was a
March 26, 2019
Page 121
volunteer for SCORE about establishing a PACE program. This was
when Jim Coletta was a commissioner.
And at that time we were in the midst of a major, major
recession. We had construction workers that were all out of work,
and the vision was that PACE would be a way to make it possible for
homeowners that were underwater who had absolutely no opportunity
to get any kind of financing to make energy improvements in their
homes and as a way to kickstart the economy and get contractors and
construction workers back to work.
The program that we envisioned at that time, which the people
that put PACE together nationally was envisioning was that
governmental entities like Collier County would issue low-interest
general obligation bonds that would be protected by the PACE
assessments and then take that money and loan them to homeowners
at very attractive interest rates in order to make that possible.
What we're talking about today is not what we talked about 10
years ago. What we have today is a system that some Wall Street
loan sharks have taken advantage of and have basically gone out and
have created an environment that is not just attracting predatory
contractors and unscrupulous contractors, but it's actually predatory
lending.
If you look at these loans, these PACE loans, these are Triple A
loans. These are the most secure loans that, as a bank or as an
investment company, you can possibly make, okay.
Typically, loan to value, you're talking 20 percent loan to value.
You are an assessment against a property. You are ahead of even the
first mortgage. And on top of that, as the lender, you don't even have
to collect the money. You don't have to service the loan. And if it
goes into default, you don't have to hire an attorney to do a
foreclosure. The county's going to do it for you, okay.
In the old days when we had loan sharks, you know, the mob
March 26, 2019
Page 122
used to have to hire guys with baseball bats to go after people who
default. Now, under this program, the county tax collector is the
enforcer, and, you know, they just take your house.
Now, if the PACE lenders were charging a reasonable interest
rate based on the risk scenario of that loan, that interest rate should be
lower than a prime first mortgage on the property, which right now is
probably in the 4 percent range. If you're looking at a 20-year loan,
you're talking about 3-and-a-half to 4 percent.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second. Can you wrap up in a
minute?
MR. SCHUMANN: Potentially.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Please, I'm going to give you
another minute, because Commissioner Taylor led you down a path
where you were really -- weren't within your three minute guise, so
go.
MR. SCHUMANN: These PACE loans are 7-and-a-half to
8 percent. They're double what the market rate should be. They're
Triple A loans. So we're not just talking about predatory contractors.
We're talking about predatory lenders here.
And if you want to keep the PACE program, okay, the way it's
originally intended, there are ways to do that. You could put caps on
the interest rates. You could put caps on what the maximum
assessment is, okay.
We've got people at Habitat, homeowners, that had -- their
property taxes went from $300 a year to 3,000. So if you want to put
a cap and say, okay, you can't do a PACE loan that increases your
property-tax assessment more than 50 percent, I mean, there's a
bunch of stuff you could do to try to resolve the program. But
something has to be done. You know, this is a program that's out of
control.
Thank you.
March 26, 2019
Page 123
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Guy McClurkan. He'll be
followed by Raphael Perez.
MR. McCLURKAN: Thank you, Commissioners, for the
opportunity to speak in support of the PACE program, and also thank
you for your dedication to consumer protections. I think we're on the
same page.
My name, again, is Guy McClurkan. I represent an organization
called Clean PACE, which is a 501(c)3 Florida non-profit
organization who's dedicated to the protection of PACE consumers.
So I think we're on the same page.
Uniquely, I am also addressing you as a PACE client, a PACE
consumer. I recently purchased a home in Broward County with a
50-year-old roof. I'm now re-thinking that decision but, moving on,
I'm utilizing PACE as my financing arm to replace the roof on that
home.
And so I am not wealthy. I am not poor. I am solidly in the
middle class. And I utilize PACE as one of the financing options that
I have available.
You know that I have a mortgage on my home, I have home
equity lines of credit that are available for other large purchases, and
then I have to go out of pocket for some as well, but PACE -- my
point in telling you this is that PACE is an important tool that
consumers have at their disposal to finance home improvements.
And to highlight the fact of some of my previous colleagues
who have spoken, these are not just energy improvements. These are
not just energy efficiency home improvements. These are also
hurricane protection home improvements. These don't just increase
the value of the home, but they also protect it. They protect the
people inside it.
PACE finance protections are also applied to wind mitigation, so
March 26, 2019
Page 124
roofs are included, windows impact glass is included, doors are
included, shutters, things that really truly protect individuals and in
some cases are very expensive projects to undertake, and without a
financing option available, they may not be available to every
consumer out there, every homeowner out there. So I think it's
important to sort of set the stage there as well.
Back to my role at Clean PACE. We began Clean PACE, really,
again, to focus on consumer protections. Our mission is carried out
through audits of PACE providers, the administrators that the
gentleman spoke about earlier. We do an on-site annual audit which
focuses on six areas. One, and most importantly, consumer finance
protections; the second is contractor controls and training; the third is
underwriting; fourth, marketing and advertising guidelines; fifth,
governance; and, sixth, program capital; are the programs able to
sustain themselves.
When we complete these audits, we're not only looking at
policies and procedures, what is the process that's established within
the company's organizational standards and guidelines, we're also
looking at individual random case reviews to see if these guidelines
were followed to a T.
And in every case that we've had the opportunity to review thus
far, the guidelines employ rigorous consumer protections, there are
rigorous contractor guidelines in place, and to the extent that we have
been able to view the documentation of every single record that we've
reviewed to date, they've all been in compliance.
So I would agree with some of the early comments that PACE is
a viable program. It's a viable option. It's not the only one. We all
know that, but I think it's important that consumers have the
opportunity to access PACE financing when they're well educated
and informed.
I'm happy to go through a few of the consumer protections for
March 26, 2019
Page 125
the record that are built into PACE financing, and those include
several speed bumps, if you will. Opportunities for consumers to
question. Opportunities for consumers to understand and then
positively affirm both in writing and verbally that they understand the
terms and conditions of the financing agreements. Those are required
to be done in a welcome call for the particular company that we
audited, and that welcome call is required before financing can be
released. It is required -- not a recording. It is a recorded call
between the person accessing financing and the person -- the
representative from the administrator.
And the things that that call goes through, the specific items,
first of all, identification verification. Second, the fact that that this is
a recorded line. They verify that the client has a copy of the finance
agreement which, again, they've already signed at this point, and
they've agreed to the terms and conditions and also the disclosures
contained therein. They review each of the finance terms with a
positive affirmation that the client understands. They review the total
amount financed, the interest rate, the term of the agreement, the
estimated annual payment, which will be added to property taxes, and
also a disclosure that if the homeowner escrows property taxes, that
they should -- they also give them a monthly calculation that they
should save in order to prepare for that payment.
They also offer that they are not tax advisors, that they should
consult their professionals for tax advice, specific tax advice.
Also, there's a very clear description of how the tax assessment
works and how taxes are paid, and a discussion, again, of the escrow
and recommendations for contract lending.
And in addition to many other disclosures, that was the most
important thing for me. And I go back to the fact that I'm also a
PACE customer, and I actually have audited my own file. But I've
recently gone through this step-by-step process, and it is a confusing
March 26, 2019
Page 126
document, so is every other bank loan, so is every other home equity
line of credit.
There's a certain amount of complexity that it does take to
understand, and I will tell you that above and beyond any other loan
I've ever had, I have had the opportunity to ask questions and
understand all the key elements of this -- of this particular program,
and I still chose to do it.
When I undertook the project that I'm undertaking in Broward
County, I needed multiple avenues to finance that project. I need
new windows, doors, a roof. I need new bathrooms. And a lot of
that's going to come out of my pocket, but there's no way I could
finance this entire project without some different options available,
and I think it's important that we sort of blend that into this overall
conversation.
The PACE finance -- consumer finance protections that we've
reviewed in detail do provide multiple levels, again, of input and
feedback and speed bumps, and I believe that the PACE providers
that we've spoken to and have made comments earlier are open to
additional protections as well.
But I would just close with the -- with the request that you
consider continuing to allow residential PACE financing for the
residents of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
Before you go, Commissioner Saunders, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'm curious as to, are
there any other communities where this PACE program for
residential use has been terminated after it's been started?
MR. McCLURKAN: To my knowledge, there are none in
Florida.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are there communities
where -- obviously, there's going to be fraud and misrepresentation
March 26, 2019
Page 127
and bad actors everywhere. Are other communities dealing with
protecting their consumers in these programs, as far as you know?
MR. McCLURKAN: You know, I believe -- and Commissioner
Solis mentioned it earlier, I believe. It's more about the management
of the contractors and the unscrupulous nature of contractors who
may approach the lenders -- or the borrowers, I'm sorry. But I'm not
aware of any other local governments that are addressing directly
changes to the PACE program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sarasota.
MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance that came before was based
on several ordinances in Florida; Palm Beach County being one of
them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sarasota. Thank you, sir.
MR. McCLURKAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, Mr. -- he had
been ceded six additional minutes from two other gentlemen that
were here, so your final speaker will be Jeremy Huntman -- Hutman,
who has been ceded additional time from Mark VanZanten for a total
of six minutes.
Jeremy?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody's got to come up here.
Which one of you is Jeremy? There you go.
MR. HUTMAN: That would be me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He has six minutes.
MR. MILLER: Six minutes, sir.
MR. HUTMAN: Well, I'll hopefully only take three and then
hopefully some other representatives in the PACE industry can speak.
Good morning, honorable Commissioners. My name is Jeremy
Hutman, and I'm with Renew Financial. The administrator of the
March 26, 2019
Page 128
Renew PACE Financing Program.
The founder of our company created the first PACE program
when he worked in local government in 2007. Because of our local
government roots, we've always been committed to local
governments in the communities that you serve. We were surprised
to hear the conversation about PACE at the March 12th board
meeting because the program that was being described didn't reflect
our program and the positive impacts we're having in the community.
We're extremely proud of our track record serving your
constituents. We've only financed 21 projects in the county. It's a
modest number, but it speaks to one of our core values. We're not
just aiming to sign up every homeowner we can, and we certainly
don't let our contractors act that way. We want to leave every
homeowner satisfied.
We view PACE as our program because we invented it, and we
run things the right way. Out of the 21 projects we've financed here,
we haven't received any financing-related complaints.
Renew PACE is a voluntary program that's providing all of the
expected benefits of residential PACE without any of the drawbacks.
That's because our focus is on the homeowner. Since the very
beginning, we've worked with policymakers at every level of
government to set a high bar for the PACE industry. In Florida we
offer consumer protections that go above and beyond what's required
by state law or offered by traditional home-improvement loans.
Our protections include an ability-to-pay standard based on the
homeowner's income, written disclosures that are similar to the
mortgage industry's know-before-you-owe form, confirmation calls
to make sure that homeowners understand the terms of the financing,
a three-day right to cancel and, unlike other forms of credit, the
contractor doesn't get paid until the homeowner confirms in writing
that they're satisfied with the work.
March 26, 2019
Page 129
You heard from people in the community who made claim about
insufficient PACE program rules and how contractors exploit the
system. It's concerning to us because the program they described is
simply not our program.
What you're being asked to vote on today is a permanent
decision that will have a direct impact on homeowners who are trying
to prepare for the next hurricane season or control their rising electric
bills.
You're also being asked to make this decision with incomplete
information and potentially remove at least one program that hasn't
received any complaints.
Today I'm not asking you directly to support PACE. I'm asking
you to delay the vote until you can get all of the facts and understand
how our program really works from the perspective of the
homeowners you're trying to protect. Perhaps an ordinance will be a
solution to this issue.
We're happy to work with staff to get them all documents and
supporting material. That information isn't in front of you today
because this process happened so quickly.
There are also more homeowners who'd like to share their
positive experiences with PACE but couldn't attend today also
because of how quickly everything happened.
Please make an informed decision when you're ready. Thank you
very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's less than six minutes,
Jeremy. Very good.
MR. HUTMAN: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I was handed two additional
slips on this item: Kate Wesner, and she will be followed by Devesh
Nirmul.
MS. WESNER: Hi, Commissioners, Chairman. Kate Wesner,
March 26, 2019
Page 130
Ygrene Energy, Florida. We're based out of Miami, Florida, so we're
a Florida company. We have 100 employees. They do underwriting,
customer service, a number of the different functions of this program.
But I just wanted to provide you-all with some data. I know you
asked for it at the last commission meeting.
We have done 30,000 PACE projects in the state of Florida.
Three hundred eighty-one of them are in Collier County. Our
customer satisfaction rate is 97 percent, and 87 percent of those
homeowners would recommend Ygrene again.
We have had no defaults. We have had .01 delinquency in the
statewide number. I know that was important to a number of you.
And then I got a number of testimonials from homeowners. We had
50 of them that provided us additional feedback on our program, and
I wanted to just share that with you. So if you'll just bear with me.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, could I
suggest --
MS. WESNER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Take your time. I'm going
to -- perhaps she could have a little bit more time just so she can go
through this testimony. I don't want her to have to rush through that
because it's important stuff.
MS. WESNER: Well, I'll just pick out a few key ones. But
there's -- I sent them to all of you. There was 50 of them that
provided additional feedback with their comments. Can you hear
me?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We hear you just -- we're talking. I
mean, I think you've already provided this information.
MS. WESNER: Yeah. I just wanted to share it with the public,
because there's a number of homeowners that said they couldn't have
done their A/Cs, they couldn't have done their roofs without the
PACE program. They said that they are very satisfied and they
March 26, 2019
Page 131
would recommend us. They said they're satisfied with the financing.
They're satisfied with the contractors. They said that they thought
this was a fair way for people to get by.
So I think some of those comments need to be taken into
consideration because there's a lot of people who would love to be
able to do that roof right before hurricane season or impact windows
or HVAC in the middle of summer, and they may not have that
upfront cash to be able to pay a contractor 50 percent upfront, right?
But the PACE program allows them to pay it over installments,
whether that's through a five-year assessment, 15-year assessment. It
makes it more manageable of a payment and so, because of that, this
program is working.
And I urge you to reconsider terminating the residential
program. We know this program is working. It's essential public
policy, so we'd ask you to please keep it.
Any questions? I'm still --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis, did you have a
question for her?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do. The gentleman that just spoke
before -- and he -- I thought he said that the contractor doesn't get
paid from the loan --
MS. WESNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- until the project's complete?
MS. WESNER: The homeowner signs a certificate of
completion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And the homeowner -- so
the homeowner is confirming that it's complete and that they're
satisfied with it.
MS. WESNER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then the contractor gets paid?
MS. WESNER: Correct.
March 26, 2019
Page 132
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the -- so the contractor's
essentially floating whatever the construction is until the end?
MS. WESNER: Yes, sir. Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So none of the interest starts
or anything until the job is complete. Like a construction loan, I just
remember mine as a construction drug on, you know, the interest had
already started as the funding went to the contractor. In
conventional -- I'm just saying a conventional construction loan.
MS. WESNER: Sure. When this project is completed and we
file a record --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Closed at the end.
MS. WESNER: Yes, correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. WESNER: Then it would start. And there was a few other
questions you had, and I just want to make sure I address them. It
was about how you could set up the payments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, yeah. My question is, you
know, with a conventional loan, if there's an issue, there's a default,
and the owner goes to the lender and tries to work out, you know, an
arrangement with the lender to avoid a foreclosure, this happened --
you know, I probably couldn't even count how many times it's
happened in the recession -- the lender then would -- you know, they
would work something out rather than end up with a foreclosure.
Can that be done in terms of a PACE assessment --
MS. WESNER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- that's on somebody's tax bill?
MS. WESNER: Property owners can contact their servicer or
mortgage provider.
Let me -- please let me finish.
And they can -- they can schedule how they're going to increase
those payments. Additionally property owners --
March 26, 2019
Page 133
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They decrease the payments,
whatever the case may be?
MS. WESNER: -- have an option -- correct.
And, for example, my escrow analysis shows up right around the
holidays every year, and they say you're getting back $50 or you owe
another $1,000. That is with PACE or without PACE. Your escrow
analysis is done on a yearly basis, and it fluctuates, right, depending
on property taxes, ad valorem or non-ad valorem.
And with that, the property owners either can pay in full to
become current with what's past due or you can set up a payment plan
with your servicer. So instead of paying them $400 a month, I could
pay them $500 a month. So they give you ample time to do that.
And I'll let my colleague speak more specifically to that.
But I wanted to mention, for property owners without a
mortgage, that they could set up quarterly tax payments with the Tax
Collector. That's available to property owners today that pay their
own taxes. You could set that up so that it allows you to pay that in
quarterly installments.
I spoke with a homeowner yesterday in Immokalee who asked
me this question, and so I thought that was important to make sure I
let you all know that.
And in the state statute it clearly says that PACE can be used for
anything that's energy efficient, renewable energy, or wind
mitigation. So there's over 200 types of property improvements that
can be used that qualify for those different things, as my colleagues
previously said, impact windows, impact doors, roofs, solar,
electrical vehicle charging stations, on and on.
So it's not just A/Cs, I think was what someone was saying.
And there is maximum amounts that property owners are allowed to
borrow under the state statute. So it says 20 percent of your just
value, which is your assessed value, not the market value; 20 percent
March 26, 2019
Page 134
is the maximum you could borrow without proving that there is an
additional energy savings through an audit to offset that cost.
So there is limits imposed. There is caps on interest rates.
There's a number of other things, and so we would urge you and your
staff to take a look at the programs, our policies, and vet us
thoroughly, because we would love to be part of this community and
serve your constituents.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One other question. Are there -- are
there credit checks or whatever? Are there reviews of the people's
ability to pay back the PACE loans?
MS. WESNER: So your credit score is not a factor. Depending
on how long you finance for that determines your interest rate. So it
democratizes the interest rate for all people. Regardless of what ZIP
code you live in or your credit score, you're going to get the same
interest rate as someone in Broward County or Miami-Dade County
or Brevard County. You'll have the same interest rate depending on
the term. So the shorter the term, the shorter the interest rate, and
that's how that works.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The answer is no.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The answer's no, but in terms of
using somebody's credit score -- because this is an alternative to not
being stuck in the traditional financing box.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MS. WESNER: Correct. And we've got an average profile of
our customers, and their showing that their credit scores are, I think,
698 for Collier County. Give me one second, and I'll pull it out for
you. Average FICO 4 for Collier County, 693 for property owners
that participate in the Ygrene program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you did say, just to reiterate --
because when this all started coming at us last month, I deployed
March 26, 2019
Page 135
staff -- Jamie, wherever he went -- and we had record of 180, 190 or
so PACE loans that were within our system, and you're up to 190 --
MS. WESNER: Oh, we've done 181. It's because the tax cutoff
line. So after, you know, I think July is when we submit all the
information to your tax collector, so there would be a number of
other assessments placed on there. But to date we've done -- let me
give you the exact figures. We've done 381 projects on 351
properties; 349 of them are residential, and two of them were
commercial. So I think that speaks to the demand of the program is
for residential.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MS. WESNER: And this program is working.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Ms. Kate.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one last speaker, Devesh
Nirmul.
MR. NIRMUL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Devesh
Nirmul.
I did share with the entire Commission data on our program. I
represent the Florida PACE Funding Agency. We have roughly
probably 20-plus projects on the residential side. We have a strong
commercial program, and I did mention in my emails to you about
some of those commercial projects that are underway either in Naples
or maybe possibly in unincorporated.
I wanted to address, I think -- my background is in energy and
sustainability work. I'm a certified energy manager. I'm a lead AP.
And there's been some criticism around the manager
performance or sort of the performance side of this whole program.
And looking back, when the state enabled PACE in 2010, there was a
clear, compelling public purpose to try to get private capital to move
towards energy efficiency and wind mitigation.
We had a failed property insurance market in the early 2000s.
March 26, 2019
Page 136
We had an energy code that only appeared in our building stock
much later than a lot of our homes were built, and the idea was to get
those improvements done.
As you know, Bay County recently had a hurricane. We got a
call from a storage company that said, we don't ever want our storage
facility to be blown down again. We need to use PACE to fix it. We
need PACE enabled in that jurisdiction.
So the question now, looking eight years, nine years later, what's
the result? There's been a recent study done by the University of
Southern California which talks about the benefits to Florida on an
augmented GDP assessment, which include the nonmarket value of
solar production, social cost of carbon, avoided disaster relocation
costs that amount to about 750 million for Florida.
And the point being, a lot of the public burden that comes with
our situation in Florida with hurricanes, et cetera, PACE can help
mitigate that, and there's a lot of resiliency issues and a lot of
planning going on to focus on that.
What are we seeing on the ground? So while there is definitely
estimates of insurance savings, when we look at homeowners that
live on the coast, they typically see 50 percent insurance savings on
their premiums, 25 percent on the more inland communities.
We only can finance those products and improvements that
actually meet the state wind mitigation credit qualifying criteria.
That means when you get the inspection done and you call your
insurance company, there's no reason why you should not quality for
those discounts.
And, once again, that's -- part of the consumer protection is
product performance requirements. We have minimum criteria for
product performance. So if you are being sold that new HVAC, it
has to meet the minimum Department of Energy standard, and same
with the wind mitigation, as I mentioned.
March 26, 2019
Page 137
So I just wanted to make sure folks understand that there is --
there are benefits being accrued to communities. This is a good
preventative way to handle our future disaster situations.
And as far as the investment behind this, our commercial side of
our house, there's a publicly-traded greenery. All they can do is
invest in green infrastructure. And this is a way for them to get into
the building level and make a difference.
So thank you. Happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You said that you only sponsor
or put forward products that do what?
MR. NIRMUL: That either reduce the wind risk --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
MR. NIRMUL: -- improve energy efficiency based on the
product performance as tested by third parties, and create renewable
or clean energy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are you over the PACE
providers? Who are you?
MR. NIRMUL: So I represent the Florida PACE Funding
District. I represent the district, and we're also an administrator
counterpoint which is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How many districts?
MR. NIRMUL: There are four districts in the state.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you're in this district?
MR. NIRMUL: All four districts are statewide. So I'm in one
of the districts that provides PACE. So the county opted into all four
districts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Because I understand that
generators are now the great thing to sell to folks, and I don't think
that falls into any category that you just described.
March 26, 2019
Page 138
MR. NIRMUL: I think the mandate for generators came down
because of the issue with assisted living facilities in Irma where they
did not have good enough backup power. We got verification from
the PACE providers that we could actually finance generators.
They're going to have to be the clean versions. They can't be --
they're going to have to be clean fuel. We have those energy
standards that come into place there, too.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You need to modify what you
tell people, then, as your PACE providers need to do. This was a
misrepresentation on your part. This is what -- this is exactly what
you do. You go into the home, the private home, and you sit down
on the couch, and you tell them that you handle wind mitigation,
energy efficiency. Then I bring up generators. Oh, yeah, we can sell
generators, too.
MR. NIRMUL: I'm talking about commercial here. This is --
we deal with ALFs and nursing homes on generators.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Private generators are
being sold under the PACE program in this community.
MR. NIRMUL: They have to be clean energy fueled, not just
any generator. That's the standard that has to be met with that. It's a
resiliency piece and it's an energy piece on that one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You didn't mention resiliency.
MR. NIRMUL: That's why the state did it, because when the
storms hit and the electricity goes out, these facilities are left with the
most vulnerable people in the community not having --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At nursing homes I get it, but
privately, privately. Private homes are being --
MR. NIRMUL: I'm not -- I have no knowledge of our funding
of private home generators.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I'm specifically talking
March 26, 2019
Page 139
about -- not commercial. Goodness knows, we went through with
Irma. I know and I respect that. Fine, thank you.
MR. NIRMUL: Okay. You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If, in fact, resiliency is a portion of
it, then in a generator on the single-family home's not a bad thing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not -- that's not what
they're selling. That's not what they're saying. They're saying that if
you buy a higher efficiency, higher efficiency unit whatever it is, or
do things to your roof to moderate the climate, or, you know, if you
get greener, you can save money, and you don't even have to -- we
can just add it to your tax bill, and all you have to do is pay it off over
a period of time.
As you so well put it, we do not have as -- our community is a
fascinating community, and it isn't always the most sophisticated
buyer that buys these PACE products.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you reading my notes?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You said --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think she is. She sits over here
and reads my notes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I make notes by what he said,
and I repeat it back to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is that what it is? Okay.
So having said that, Commissioner Saunders, your light was up.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to clarify the
issue of the generators. You provide funding for commercial
generators but not residential. Are residential -- and you may not be
the right person to ask.
MR. NIRMUL: We have a residential arm of the district, but
I'm not sure they've done any generator work. I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But a residential generator
would fit into --
March 26, 2019
Page 140
MR. NIRMUL: I'm going to --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's all I'm trying to find
out.
MR. NIRMUL: There's someone that could speak to that real
quick.
MR. PEREZ: Good afternoon. Raphael Perez with Ygrene.
Yes, you could do generators as resiliency. It protects the home.
I am a general contractor. If a home ever loses power, the
moisture and stuff could really damage the home. It protects the
consumer.
And we have partnerships with Home Depot, and Home Depot
sells generators. And there's no efficiency in generators. It's a
stand-alone generator. Now, you could get more kilowatts, but
there's no efficient ground for generators, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's strictly a portion of the
resiliency part of the statute.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, since Mr. Perez took
the microphone to answer that question, I do have -- I did have a
couple questions for him --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- because he did provide
some information on the proposed ordinance. And, perhaps, if you
would spend a minute talking about what you do to protect
consumers, what is contained in the ordinance that Commissioner
Taylor put together, and then your suggestions to strengthen that, I'd
appreciate that.
MR. PEREZ: Sure. I'll walk you through a journey. But just
quickly to answer some questions.
So when a contractor or we -- 60 percent of our customers call
us directly and get approved. So we make the initial sale. We tell
them about this type of financing, then we ask them to go and seek a
March 26, 2019
Page 141
contractor. A lot of people use Home Depot. We do a lot of work
with Home Depot here locally.
When -- the contractor understands, Commissioner Solis, they
don't get paid. I'm a general contractor, and the way that -- if I went
to your house and sold you windows, you have to give me 50 percent
up front, 40 percent delivery on the product, then I get 10 percent
when the project is done.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. PEREZ: Our contractors do not get one cent up front until
the work is not (sic) complete. And just so you know, our partners
are the Building Department. They have to pull a permit. They're
required to pull a permit.
So the Building Department also, for an earlier question about
two A/Cs, the Building Department's not going to let two A/Cs go
into a house that only needs one, because they do an energy
calculation. You have to provide that.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down a little.
MR. PEREZ: I'm so sorry. I'm a Pentium 7, so I'm sorry. I
apologize.
So the Building Department will look at that. Additionally -- I
lost my train of thought. But in order for the contractor to get paid,
they have to provide a permit, and they have to provide a closing
statement, a certificate of completion or a closing doc by the property
owner that signed.
But just to walk you through the process, Commissioner
Saunders, when a property owner signs up with us, before they could
unlock a finance agreement, they have to do an IDC, an identification
verification. They have to answer three questions out of five to
confirm their identity. So now we know who they are.
The finance agreement has no portfolio. It goes into every
single fee, everything detailed, APR, every single document. In that
March 26, 2019
Page 142
document in multiple locations it says, the energy savings are not
guaranteed by the district or by the contractor.
Additionally, in that documents there's a rights and
responsibility that says, have you gone to your bank first? I've never
heard of any other industry that tells you, hey, go to the bank first.
And it says it clear. It's a document we sign. I think we provided it
to you. Have you gone to your financial institution first to see if
there's a better option? We want the consumer to go to their bank or
somewhere else if possible.
Then the confirmation terms call. The confirmation term call
says, we're not a government agency. Your contractor is not a
government agency. It also says the savings of insurance or energy
are not guaranteed by your contractor or the district. So that's the
second time we let the property owner know.
At the end, after they provide a permit, the property owner gets a
certificate of completion or a closing statement, we call it. Once
again, it says, have you been -- you're responsible to pull all the
permits required. The energy savings are not guaranteed. Make sure
you've closed out all your permits and all that. So that's a third time.
So when that transaction's done, then that's when we send it to
the Tax Collector, and then we send a reminder email, and then we
send a reminder postcard so the property owner's prepared for that
next year when their first tax bill comes.
So we've done 30,000 transactions. I remember coming here
and meeting with Mr. Cas --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Casalanguida.
MR. PEREZ: -- Casalanguida and Jamie French a long time
ago, and we had done $25 million in projects. This is maybe 2016.
I'm very pleased to say we've done 637 million. We're in almost
every community. Home Depot gave us a national partnership
contract. They have hundreds and hundreds of lawyers that looked
March 26, 2019
Page 143
into this deeply.
And we understand that we need to strengthen the
(unintelligible). There is bad players. I asked as a general contractor
for us to work with your Building Department and identify them. I
mean, you have also -- I can't pull a permit in Collier County unless I
come to you, provide you workers' comp, general liabilities, and have
a clean record. You would not give me a permit.
So we need to work together to strengthen. And we're in
support of the ordinance, and we're in support of doing additional
measures as the welcome call. Any additional measures that will
strengthen the consumer production, we're for, and we'll be here to
help you or assist in any way possible.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away. Commissioner
Taylor's got a question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you be willing to change
the way you do business to allow five days prior, a homeowner prior
to entering into financing, that you provide them and their lender with
an estimated total of the homeowners' debt, including amount
financed fees, fixed interest rates, capitalized interest, and the effect
rate of interest charged?
MR. PEREZ: Commissioner Taylor --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Prior.
MR. PEREZ: -- the state law, 163.08 says 30 days before entry
into a contract you have to notify the lender and 30 days before entry
into -- an executed contract by both parties, so that's already in the
state law.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was something that fell
through the cracks, then, with the Habitat for Humanity, because
there's no way Habitat for Humanity would authorize a full disclosure
to allow one of their homeowners to go from 300 or 400 to $3,000 a
year. They wouldn't do it. Something's missing here.
March 26, 2019
Page 144
MR. PEREZ: So just to touch upon the Habitat for Humanity,
when I looked at it, we sent two notice to lenders. One to Habitat and
one to Collier County Government. I would check with Collier
County Government if they got it. If they got it, then it was sent. We
use a third-party vendor that sends that for us.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You said notice to lenders.
You're talking about --
MR. PEREZ: I'm sorry. Notice to lien holder. It's a
requirement by the state law.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You were really confusing
me there for a second. I just wanted to make sure everybody
understood.
MR. PEREZ: Sorry, I apologize. My construction.
It's state law requires you to send a notice to lienholder, which we
sent one to Habitat, and we sent one to the Collier County
Government for at least the couple transactions that I saw with
Habitat.
So something was received by the -- hopefully, if you -- if the
county government here received something, they stamp it or
something. But it's a requirement. If our bonds -- if we try to sell
these units, these projects and we don't comply with state law, they're
invalid. So we make sure we look into it, and we use a third-party
vendor to make sure that this is done correctly.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: One of the advantages of a local ordinance,
it gives you the ability to compel it locally. We do this in other
places where states might have rules, but they're not enforcing them
because they simply don't have the manpower. So the fact that there's
a state regulation on something, in anything, whether it's water
quality or this --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Cell phone tower resiliency, proper
March 26, 2019
Page 145
power, resiliency in HVAC units for ACLFs. Those are all state
mandated --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that fell through the cracks
during the hurricanes.
MR. KLATZKOW: It allows you local control, local
compliance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You make it sound good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry. Did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I was just telling you what I
was saying. Yes, I do have some things to ask.
How many of you live here in Collier County?
MR. PEREZ: Ma'am, I don't live here. I used to live here. My
colleague lives in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who?
MR. PEREZ: My colleague lives in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You live in Collier?
MR. PEREZ: Lee County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Nobody lives in Collier then.
MR. PEREZ: Unfortunately, we have one representative that
represents --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I was wondering
how many of you would be familiar with us. And, you know, when
you say all you have to do is contact us, but then if you don't live
here, it would be a little more difficult.
MR. PEREZ: So we have an operations center in Miami, and
there's 100-and-something employees. We travel the state. I woke
up this morning at 6:45, and I got here. I mean, whenever you need
me or if you need me at that stakeholder meeting, we're here. We
want to make this work.
March 26, 2019
Page 146
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm just trying to talk about
the guy who's got the loan and you say all he has to do is come and
talk to us about it, except they can't if you're living in another county.
That's where I was going with that.
And that's one of the things that was said quite a bit earlier. And
then, do you sit down with the client and actually explain to them
what they're signing? I mean, those things -- I just have a high school
education, and if you gave me a whole long list of three, four, five
pages or something to read and it's all about loans and I don't even
understand what it's saying, you probably don't point the bad points
out: Well, this could really hurt you. You probably just tell them
how good it is for them, and I worry about that, too, because I think
other people maybe have as much education as I do. And I worry
about what's going to happen to them.
And then you -- you have some that don't even speak the
English language very well. And I'm afraid that they're almost like a
sacrifice, you know; they want to do the best for their home, they
want to do the best for their family, but then they don't understand
what the loan application even says, and I don't know that anybody's
taken the time to say, well, here's the problems that might catch you.
You know, we could take your house, but we won't take your house.
We don't ever take your house. You don't bother to mention that the
county will take your house. And so those are the things that bother
me.
MR. PEREZ: Commissioner, just to -- if you'd like me to
respond.
So my father's 78 years old, so I understand. He doesn't speak
great English. But our standards are above. If you went to get a car
loan or bank loan or something, you could just sign something online.
We do have our welcome call in Spanish, Creole, any language you
want, and the documentation is also in Spanish. It's not required. A
March 26, 2019
Page 147
bank loan is never in Spanish. It's only in one language, English.
But we try to take every step possible to make sure. We have
that welcome call, recorded call that we go. We train our customer
service reps, if you hear anything weird, if the property owner is
elderly or whatever, or whatever the case is, and you feel something
weird, stop the call, and let's look into it.
We don't want to be here. We want to be here only to tell you
the good stuff that's happening. We want to make sure we protect us.
So hopefully that answered your question, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So here we are. We've
come to the end of the public-speaking process. So, Commissioner
Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I'd like to see what the
consensus is to follow the motion made by Commissioner Saunders
at our last meeting to dissolve the program and then to reconstruct it
for commercial.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It sounds like that might be a
question directed to me. And as I said at the beginning, I have an
open mind to this. I've read all of the audit reports, and I've looked at
all the information that's been provided by the providers.
I'm not convinced today that we should do away with the
program. Now, I am convinced today that we need to take up
Mr. Perez's offer and the other individuals' offers to work with our
staff to help develop an ordinance that will provide additional
protections as needed.
And I know, Commissioner Taylor, you've put together an
ordinance that has some things in it. I didn't feel that it went far
enough, but we can make that work, I believe, but then I would say to
the industry that if we do that and we continue to have complaints,
then I'm willing to revisit this. But I'm not willing to terminate the
program today. I'm willing to work on trying to help improve an
March 26, 2019
Page 148
ordinance to help protect consumers and then see how that works.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, Chairman McDaniel?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I am in concurrence with
Commissioner Saunders. I would -- you know, if you wanted to -- if
you wanted to move this along, I'd like -- I mean, we have a
resolution today. We're here to vote on the recommendation of staff
for this particular resolution, and I cannot concur with what's being
proposed in this resolution or in this executive summary and
recommendation from staff today.
Now, my question that I have for the County Attorney is if --
what happens interimly? What has happened in the last two weeks?
Since it was determined then that this program be adjusted as is being
proposed today, what's happened in the last two weeks of the
program as it existed before?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And so if we reject the
recommendation that comes today -- and I am in the thoughts that a
stakeholder committee should be established to review the necessary
enhancements to the program. Is there a suspension of the program
residentially that we can act immediately, or are we better off just to
let it go on and come up with a stakeholder committee and those
recommendations to us, to -- because Commissioner Taylor brought
forward a resolution, as Commissioner Saunders mentioned, that I
felt didn't go far enough in certain areas, went too far in certain areas
with regard to obligations and responsibilities of PACE providers and
the like.
So -- and as I said, I do know there are certain enhancements to
this program that we can offer up through a local resolution that will
better provide for protection of consumers in our county.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's board policy. I mean, if you want to
suspend the program until we come up with an ordinance, the Board
March 26, 2019
Page 149
could direct us to move --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't want to suspend the whole
program. And I'm just -- I'm having a discussion here. I want to
know what the ramifications are of a short-term suspension and a
stakeholder committee with regard to -- with regard to the existent
program.
MR. KLATZKOW: The ramifications would be you would
have no PACE loans until you had an ordinance that was approved by
the Board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, would
you allow me to ask County Attorney Klatzkow what research you
did to develop what we looked at two weeks ago.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I am not ashamed to admit that I
had to look at other people's ordinances and tried to take the best of
everybody and put it together into one ordinance. That's what I
generally do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Plagiarization.
MR. KLATZKOW: I plagiarize like heck.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I actually -- I think I've
said what I needed to say in terms of moving forward. I would like to
just reiterate that my position today is let's create some kind of a
stakeholders committee, let's investigate the ordinance that we've got
an initial draft on, and we have some suggestions on how to, perhaps,
improve that. But I don't think we should suspend the program. I
don't think a temporary suspension is really the best alternative. I
think we keep the program going until we -- and we come up with
this ordinance and see how that ordinance works.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we have a time frame for the
stakeholders committee? When do they have to get their work done
March 26, 2019
Page 150
considering you have an ordinance two weeks ago that was gleaned
from other committees who probably had stakeholder committees.
So are we reinventing the wheel, or can we not bring this to --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not so sure that we
actually need a formal stakeholder committee. I do believe that
getting input from the industry, getting input from consumers to help,
perhaps, refine that ordinance. In terms of a time period, you know,
that's just a matter of how long it takes staff to come back to us.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you have pretty much everybody in
this room right now that would be part of those stakeholders. I think
that the ones interested could give Jamie their business card, and
Jamie can get with them, and we can get back to you within two
meetings.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to suggest that we
try to get that done by the end of April.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Within a month -- basically, that's
30 days for us to come back with a resolution that we can all have a
review on to see if we can enhance the program.
You had your light on, and so did you, so I don't want to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm looking at Commissioner
Fiala, because I'm waiting to hear from her.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I wonder, there's one
simple thing that we might do in this interim, and that is taking their
proposals that they take to people to have them sign onto the
program, but have our legal team go in there and point out things that
could bite them in the butt so that -- you know, clean those -- let the
people know, here's what's going to happen to you if you sign this or
here's what you can do and, you know, it will be a clean recorder or
something. Is there something -- some way to do that so that we can
March 26, 2019
Page 151
protect the consumer?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Interimly, not really.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am. Jamie and I will sit down and
look at provisions, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that we can just coach them a
little bit anyway. Well, don't sign this until you see this or, you
know, sign this knowing that they're going to take away your house
or whatever so that, you know, they're protected, because right now
they're going in, and I don't think they're protected.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So let's, from a thought-process
standpoint, Commissioner Saunders -- and I don't want to put words
in your mouth. If you want me to, I'll make the recommendation or
I'll make the motion to reject the recommendation of staff and the
proposed resolution and adjustments to the resolution.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And could I add to that
motion then, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I didn't know if I needed to
make a second motion for the new resolution.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I was going to add
some language to your motion, because I think staff has heard what
our concerns are. They know who the players are, and they know we
want this brought back in about 30 days.
So I would ask as part of that motion that staff be directed to
work with the stakeholders, which includes consumers as well as
providers, and work with Commissioner Taylor to refine the
ordinance and bring a draft ordinance back to us within that 30-day
time period.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if she doesn't want to work
with them, I will -- but we use the resolution that she already
developed last month to be enhanced, yes, if that's okay with you.
Yes.
March 26, 2019
Page 152
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The motion is to reject the adoption
of this resolution as proposed by staff today and develop a new
resolution by our last meeting -- second meeting in April to enhance
the consumer protection portion of this for residential.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. Any
other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Same sign, same sound. So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I keep remembering,
too, what this lady -- her name was Elena, but I don't know the last
name -- and Mr. Mike Schumann had to say, and -- but, of course,
they weren't making any money on this. They didn't work for the
company. They were giving you the opinions of people who have
dealt with this. Oh, there; there's Elena.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know what, when they're
not making any money on it and they don't have anything to benefit
by, I have to hear their vice loud and clear. And I --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it was. I mean, it was. So
with that, we've had a motion and a second. Let's move on.
MR. OCHS: Where would you like to go next?
March 26, 2019
Page 153
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you ready for -- what time do
you need a break? Are your fingers tired?
Okay. We will take a 10-minute break. Be back at 3:44 -- excuse
me, 2:43.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ladies and gentlemen, would you
please -- if you could, please, take your seats.
Okay. We have our County Manager back and Commissioner
Saunders. We're ready to go. I think we're going to do the short-term
rental item first.
Item #11B
REPORT AND SUGGESTIONS FROM THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR NEXT STEPS IN
REGULATING SHORT TERM VACATION RENTALS IN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION
TO ENFORCE OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE LIMITING SHORT
TERM RENTALS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes. Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11B,
which is a recommendation to accept the report and suggestions from
the Tourist Development Council for next steps in regulating
short-term vacation rentals in the unincorporated area of Collier
County.
Mr. Wert will make a brief presentation.
MR. WERT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jack Wert, for
the record, your Tourism Director.
Very quickly, a little bit of history here. In January, as many of
you know, the Tourist Development Council made a recommendation
that we look at the transient lodging rentals six months or less in
March 26, 2019
Page 154
Collier County, and looking specifically at some things like the
history of that activity here in Collier County, how many of those
vacation rental units are advertised for use around Collier County,
looking at some other Florida counties and what they were doing to
address the issue, and then bring back some recommendations to the
County Commission, which we are doing today.
We took back some preliminary research to the TDC in
February, and that's what -- the basis for what you're going to see in
the next few minutes.
As far as the history goes, really, the Land Development Code
here in Collier County is really what has and contains most all of the
language related to short-term rentals here. There is a provision in
the LDC that prohibits short-term rentals of six months or less in
certain parts of the unincorporated parts of our county.
That six-month rental period is provided with the definition --
within that definition of destination resort hotel, and this really has
been the basis for how we have described short-term rentals within
the county.
Unless a particular zoning district has transient lodging as a
permitted use, then anything six months or less would be a prohibited
use of that property. Our RT zoning is the only residentially zoned
area in the county that permits transient lodging.
And what I have next here is just an excerpt from the Land
Development Code that specifically deals with this R2 zoning which
is residential transit and is -- you can see there that there are certain
uses, conditional uses, in many cases, for the permitted use, and you
can see hotels, family dwellings, family-care facilities, timeshare
facilities, and townhouses.
The map here shows where those are to (sic) zoning areas are.
Excuse me, RT. I meant to say that; RT. And the dots in red are
really the only places that RT zoning does exist. So a few up in the
March 26, 2019
Page 155
northeast part of the county up here and some out in the 951 area and
41.
We also looked at the history going back three years just to look
at what the hotel, our lodging tax, tourist development tax revenue
has been for the different types of accommodations we have here in
the county.
So hotel and motel is our primary provider of that tax, and you
can see the other two that we looked at were the realtors section and
also the individual and apartment and condo. And I think you can
pretty well determine that the realtor and the individual apartments
and condos are those -- are representing short-term vacation rentals in
Collier County.
The next slide here is showing, first of all, in the left column
how many web listings, website listings we were able to determine
are listed on the largest of the vacation rental online providers, and
that would be Vacation Rental by Owner, VRBO; HomeAway;
Airbnb; and Craig's List, and that totals a little over 14,600 units that
are listed on those sites.
Obviously, they don't just list on one. So there are multiple
listings in here. So the actual number of listings, perhaps, we can be
helped a little bit more by the Tax Collector's records of in the -- in
different types of accommodations. Condos, for instance, 7,951
collector records that the Tax Collector here in Collier County has
registered to collect our tourist development tax.
The next highest amount there is single-family homes, 2,612,
and then you look down there a little bit further, and you'll see 77
hotel and motel. Those are lodging establishments that are registered
to collect the tourist development tax.
So as I said, of those 14,650, a single unit might be listed on one
or all of those different websites. One clue that we have, I think, as
to how many there might be specifically in short-term vacation
March 26, 2019
Page 156
rentals, in 2018 a research paper came out from our Florida
Association of Counties that reported 7,310 of those short-term
vacation rentals here in Collier County at the close of 2017. That's
the latest information we currently have.
We looked at all of the various beach communities. Those are
the ones we really do compete with for our visitors and so forth. So
we looked at the 35 counties that do have beaches. We also looked at
some of the inland counties as well, like Osceola County, which has a
tremendous number of short-term vacation rentals in Orange County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Wert, let's go back to 7,310.
So when we go back to the slide that -- the history of vacation rental
business, the 7,000 plus 2,000 would be the same -- you're including
condos and single-family homes in that 7,310 figure?
MR. WERT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. WERT: Yes. They are all in there, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Good.
MR. WERT: So looking at those 35 counties plus the three
inland ones as well, we found that all of those 38 counties, all of them
have short-term vacation rentals listed. VRBO seems to be the
largest, but the majority also have listings with Airbnb.
And in terms of just the tax collection that might be coming
from those short-term vacation rentals, we looked at Miami-Dade, for
instance, and just last year they collected over $10 million in tourist
development tax from vacation rentals specifically from Airbnb.
Broward County reported $5.2 million in taxes also from Airbnb.
And also 34 of those 38 counties actually had specific
ordinances on their books that relate to short-term vacation rentals of
six months or less. And just to be clear, what our involvement with
that is just in our Land Development Code. We don't have a specific
ordinance on the books for that.
March 26, 2019
Page 157
So how are some of the other counties around Florida enforcing
short-term vacation rentals? We looked at the City of Miami Beach,
for instance. They seem to be one of the highest in terms of fines. If
you rent a property without a county license, it's a $20,000 fine.
Their short-term vacation units are only allowed in multifamily
districts. So that's one way that some counties look at it.
Miami-Dade has -- you can see their offenses running from the first
one of $100 to 2,500.
We looked at Flagler County, and that's a county that we
brought their ordinance back to the TDC a couple of months ago and
looked at it. It's pretty comprehensive. They have a -- they handle
registrations for both single-family homes and multifamily homes as
well, and they have building inspections, and they have fire
inspections built into their particular ordinance.
There are lots of different ways that counties are doing it. Some
differentiate between the entire house or just a single room within the
house; single-family versus multifamily. Some require registration
and inspections, and some have then specific policies for registration
and enforcement as well.
One of the things that TDC asked us to do was go back and get
some documentation from our code enforcement group here in
Collier County of how many complaints related specifically to
short-term rentals they had received over the last couple of years.
And you see in the left-hand top of that slide, 38 in '16, 44 in '17, and
90 just this past year. The vast majority were for prohibited use.
That was a neighbor saying I think somebody's renting next door to
me.
The complaints related to loud music, parking, litter, and trash
were pretty small in number in comparison to that first category.
Incidentally, we also asked law enforcement, and they were not, at
least on the short notice that we had to ask to bring back this
March 26, 2019
Page 158
presentation, they were not able to tell us specifically what the
number of complaints related specifically to short-term rentals were
through the Sheriff's Department. We will continue to work with
them to try to get some figures for that.
The Tax Collector here in Collier County does believe in --
they've been to our TDC meetings a couple of times. They feel that
they are collecting the majority of the tourist development tax that's
out there. And I think you could see that in that earlier slide how
many of the properties are registered to collect the tax, and it's about
10,000 there and about 14,000 total units out there that are being
advertised for sale. So I would say that certainly a good majority are
already collecting the tourist development tax.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of the registered people.
MR. WERT: Of the registered people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ah.
MR. WERT: That's correct. So what that says is -- and that was
one of the questions, as you may remember, is how many are
licensed, registered properties and how many are not. The majority
are registered. They are not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you know that the majority
of homes that are renting out are registered?
MR. WERT: Based on what we see online of who's actually
advertising out there. So we're seeing that total number, and then
how many the Tax Collector has registered, and that's what we're
showing are indicating that -- the majority, anyway. Not everybody.
Now, we know that's not everybody, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think too obvious.
MR. WERT: I would never say that. But I think certainly --
also, one of the things that I'm sure you're aware of, the Tax Collector
has not been able to come to an agreement with any of these online
companies, and the primary reason is they're looking for
March 26, 2019
Page 159
transparency. And, frankly, I think that's very smart. We want to
know who's paying the tax and who isn't because obviously there's an
audit opportunity at that point.
One of the facts is that high-season vacation rentals -- and this
time of year every one of them are full, and really a fair number of
our visitors are staying in those short-term rentals. So they're in all
those different types of accommodations that we're showing you.
I just put this in here because I thought it was interesting that in
our own Naples Daily News here VRBO is indicating to homeowners
here that they can be earning up to $1,000 a month renting their
homes, and that's -- that's just what is out there in the marketplace.
The legislature is certainly weighing in heavily this legislative
session. And when I first put this together, there were -- in fact, I
think the executive summary maybe only has four. There are now six
bills up there that are related to short-term vacation rental both in
the -- on the Senate side and also the House side.
And if we could, let me just put that up here, because I want to
highlight two of these, because I think they're germane to what we're
talking about.
The -- so the first one here is House Bill 987, which actually has
a hearing tomorrow in Tallahassee. Currently -- and you know how
Tallahassee goes. Everything's amendments on top of everything.
So, anyway, these two, I think, could bring this vacation-rental
discussion to the state level, and one of them does preempt that 2011
state -- let's see -- that would be a bill that was -- that would actually
take away that preemption, that we wouldn't have to deal with that
anymore, and the other one is more dealt with advertising. If you're
advertising your place for sale, you've got to put your registration
number into the ads, which I think is certainly a smart thing to do.
Okay. I think that will do it. Thank you, Nick.
So back to -- okay. Here we go. We've talked to Code
March 26, 2019
Page 160
Enforcement, and there are certainly some things that they could
assist us with if we find a way to be able to regulate this type of
accommodation if that is the feeling of the County Commission.
An online registration -- and we certainly have tried that before.
We have had registration in the past, but we think -- and they agree.
They could put together a program that you would -- it would be a
one-stop registration for your business tax receipt, DBPR registration,
register to collect the tourist tax and sales tax. They'd have to sign
online on an affidavit that indicated that they would comply with
applicable building and fire codes.
Spot-check compliance would certainly be a part of what Code
Enforcement could do, and, of course, as you see, they do also open a
case every time that there is a complaint of some kind, and then
establish some penalties for noncompliance.
So it comes down really to here are some decision points, and
this is what the Tourist Development Council recommended. First of
all, it was to get those added statistics related to the complaints that
Code Enforcement might have received and to also determine the
number of licensed versus unlicensed vacation units.
Another thing that we talked about was the possibility of the
Board of County Commissioners clarifying the definition perhaps by
policy or determination of just what is short-term vacation rental.
And right now we are at that six-month level. That's anything six
months or less and any -- most anyplace in unincorporated Collier
County is prohibited.
Incidentally, the City of Naples does have a separate ordinance
on the books, and it's pretty specific as to 30 days rental and more
than three times a year. That's what their ordinance is. And the City
of Marco Island did have an ordinance, but they have repealed it.
So one possibility might be just to shorten, perhaps, that time
period down to three months, maybe even one month of rental, and
March 26, 2019
Page 161
then -- so anything less than that would be prohibited; anything over
that would be permitted. That's a possibility.
Whatever the Board decides to do, our recommendations
certainly would be -- and the TDC certain was strong on this -- we
need public meetings, we need input meetings with stakeholders,
with realtors, vacation rental agencies, and certainly visitors as well.
So I'll stop there and ask for questions or comments.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if I'm going to sum up your
presentation, what you're saying is there is a value to short-term
rentals because there is, obviously, tax being collected, but -- and
that's from the tourism side.
MR. WERT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. But from what I've been
hearing from the homeowners' side, and certainly what we see, is that
the change in the way neighborhoods are evolving is frightening, and
it is very destructive, and it causes a great -- it causes a loss in
property values.
So what I'm understanding, this is the tourism side, and I guess
they want to go back in tourism stakeholders, but I wouldn't support
that. I think we have -- we don't even -- according to a letter from
Mr. McLaughlin, who I just passed out to my -- and you've read that.
MR. WERT: Yes, I have.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Code Enforcement Office,
cannot enforce a zoning violation because the government does not
consider advertisements for short-term rentals on Airbnb website
sufficient evidence of zoning code noncompliance.
So we've got a legal issue of -- and, Mr. Klatzkow, County
Attorney, if you'd like to see this, what he's saying, but basically
we've got a legal issue of we've got a six-month on the LDC that you
can't rent your home less than six months, and it's not being enforced.
March 26, 2019
Page 162
We've got Code Enforcement saying they can't enforce it, and we've
got the Tourist Development Council saying why don't we just try to
get something so that we can keep collecting tourist tax.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's an interesting paraphrase.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But, I mean, that's where we're
at with it. So are we going to -- with short-term rentals, do we
support them and what is the definition of "short term." Right now
we have laws on the books that are not being enforced.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh. That's right, my light is on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did I wake you up?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Commissioner Taylor, were you
done?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And I keep asking this
question, and maybe it's just me and it's late in the day, but we're
currently prohibited by state statute from doing what?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In terms of regulating short-term
rentals.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me put it on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: So right now we can't do anything --
anything currently to prohibit vacation rentals, but there's a
grandfather clause there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. This paragraph does not
apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before
June 1st. So the only thing we have is this --
MR. KLATZKOW: Zoning ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- vague reference in the LDC.
March 26, 2019
Page 163
MR. KLATZKOW: And let me put that on the visualizer,
because it is vague.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it certainly -- I wouldn't even
call it vague. It's an interpretation of the zoning code for RT.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So in terms of saying --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you make that a little
bit larger. There you go. That's good. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I was doing the same
thing.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so it's anything less than six
months --
MR. KLATZKOW: Is sort of a backhand definition of a
transient lodging facility, and transient lodging facilities are not an
allowed use in most residential zoning districts. That's the argument.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. Okay. So it's really a
transient lodging issue. That's not allowed in most single-family -- or
residential areas, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So if that's what -- that's
what we're limited to.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it's your legal opinion, then,
that -- I mean, we can't say that nothing -- we can't change that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not without being subject to a potential
challenge.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. What's the downside to the
county if we adopt a more strict ordinance regulating short-term
rentals and then it's found to be --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Preempted.
March 26, 2019
Page 164
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in violation of that -- the
preemption, yeah. I mean, what happens?
MR. KLATZKOW: When you're saying -- are you getting at
duration or just regulating the industry?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's start with duration.
MR. KLATZKOW: The downside in enacting an ordinance is
that you run the potential problem of a court throwing out everything.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then -- it throws out
everything. Then that would be bad because then there's -- then that
wouldn't even apply?
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ouch.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We have 15,000 registered
participants that are outside the code.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And in the meantime, there's three
pending bills that preempt it even more to the state, right? I think
Jack's got these three --
MR. KLATZKOW: Every bill I've looked at the last couple of
years preempts the entire industry to the state, pretty much.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, my gut feeling is, if
there's three bills that are going to take it out of our hands even more
and even do away with the grandfathering, why are we going to run
the risk of doing anything until the legislature's over? That just
doesn't make any sense to me, but...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I could add something to that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's also a bill pending
this session that if a local government enforces something that turns
out to have been preempted, then we have to pay all costs and fees of
the party that challenged that preemption.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What kind of a state government do
March 26, 2019
Page 165
we have, for goodness sake?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It used to be pretty good.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Way back when, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When you were there, yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Exactly, when you were there. And
their reaction is oftentimes to extremities that are happening to other
parts of the state that have, ultimately, a negative impact on us, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And this -- I mean, this is a
big issue. It's -- you know, in District 2 --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've got personal property rights.
You've got the --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, and the closer to the beach
you get --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- short-term rentals that have been
occurring here for a millennia --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- the worse it gets.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- huge amounts of revenue.
There's a whole -- there's a litany of things.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's even a deeper problem
here, and the deeper problem is we all know what it is to have a
vacation home, but now we have investors that want to buy four, five,
six, vacation homes in neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And what it's doing is not only
destabilizing the neighborhood, but it's also adding to, you know,
more rooftops, more rooftops, where it becomes one big hotel, and
we can't sustain that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, you had your
light on and very patiently waited. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what happens to everybody's
March 26, 2019
Page 166
neighborhoods? You can't ever tell who's moving in and out next
door. You don't even know, as people are coming and going, who's
moving next to you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And your neighborhood, you could
have a drug dealership going on right there, and there's nothing you
can do about it. And so, you know --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, if they're dealing drugs, you
can do something about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. All you have to do as
identify, I guess.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. You've got to call the police.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they will come in because --
we know that. But, still, you don't know for a while that they're
dealing that because they're just coming and going as transient
visitors, and that's the problem.
Your neighborhood, your motels -- I mean, not your hotels -- not
hotels, I'm sorry -- condominiums, your apartment houses, everything
is -- nothing is sacred anymore.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and it really impacts the
older -- the older areas that don't have homeowners' associations or
condominium associations that -- you know, the Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even when you do have those
things --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mini Shores (phonetic), River Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they violate it anyway.
And so, I mean, what good does -- what good does it do to have the
HOA declare no transient violations, and then people do it anyway,
and the state preempts everything? It's such a shame. I don't know
what we can do to protect ourselves or our -- or our constituents, and
that's what's so important.
March 26, 2019
Page 167
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, let's go to our prior legislator
who's very patiently been waiting as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I wanted to ask a question,
because this is -- every year for the last three or four years there's
been legislation, and then they repeal it or change it. But at one point
in time you could engage in the regulation of short-term rentals as
long as the regulation applied to all rentals.
So, for example, you couldn't say, well, if you have a short-term
rental you have to have a sprinkler system unless you required
everyone that rented their property for six months and more to have a
sprinkler system.
And so what some communities started doing is putting
limitations on the number of people that can be in a transient lodging
facility -- or short-term rental facility. For example, two times
number of bedrooms plus one or some number that they could also
apply to someone renting their home or their apartment on an annual
basis.
Can we still do that? Because if we could do that type of
regulation, then we could -- that applied to everybody, then we could
impose some restrictions that perhaps would make some sense.
So, for example, I think, you know, some of these rentals they're
renting two or three rooms in a home, like a small motel room, to two
or three different groups or families or individuals that aren't related.
Can we do that type of thing where we impose restrictions that apply
to everyone?
And then the other issue is a lot of the complaints deal with
parking. If we can impose a fine on not only the person that is
renting the short-term rental, because those people don't care whether
there's a fine, but have that fine apply to the property owner, that's
$250 a day, repeat offenders, that's $500 a day. Can we do those
types of things that at least will, perhaps, calm down some of the
March 26, 2019
Page 168
types of violations we hear about?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I believe we can do both,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How many public speakers do we
have?
MR. MILLER: I have seven registered speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Kathi Kilburn. She'll be
followed by Ray Placid.
MS. KILBURN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kathi
Kilburn. I have an unusual position on this, because not only am I a
licensed realtor -- I got licensed in 2009, and I ended up in property
management and rentals with Coldwell Banker for three years.
If you remember where our market was, nobody could sell, so
they were renting just to capture income. I saw this out of control for
vacation rentals specifically because nobody was registering to
charge and collect taxes.
Nobody wants to pay taxes. It was a mess. I came to some of
the commissioners, and they understood my plight, but it grew, and
now here we are 10 years later.
Interestingly enough, I bought new construction four years ago
in Bayshore, a redevelopment district, which I love. It is amazing. I
encourage everybody here to come over and visit if you haven't been
there.
Unfortunately, I now have a vacation rental next to me. Let me
rephrase that. I have a hotel next to me.
My rezone is residential single-family, and I just learned what a
zoning verification letter was. I paid and bought that and learned that
there was nothing less than six months.
So having a hotel next to me has affected my way of life. It's
affected my property value. So as a realtor who has an interesting
March 26, 2019
Page 169
portfolio of vacation rentals, I know that there's a place for this.
Naples has a place for vacation rentals, but we have zoning, we have
land-use restrictions that should be put in place.
It's a complex, very complex topic. And I don't see that this is
going to change overnight. It didn't happen overnight, but from what
I understand, I'm hearing that we can't enforce our laws right now
because of. We can't enforce the codes right now because of. I'm
sorry, that's unacceptable to me, okay? I should not have to live next
to a hotel. They know it's wrong.
The HOA actually inserted in their declarations two weeks, 12
times a year and then amended it a year ago, probably because they
knew it was coming, to seven days, 52 weeks a year, and now they're
doing daily rentals.
So, you know, I'm not a happy person right now. I bought new
construction, and my value, I can't sell my house, you guys. Why?
Because I have to disclose what I know. I can't honestly, as a realtor,
sell to somebody and say, oops, forgot to tell you there's rentals next
door. That wouldn't be nice. I'm sorry, that's unethical and would
not even enter my thought process. I know I'm past due, but I hope
you will enforce.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's your buzzer. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ray Placid. Excuse me,
Ray Placid has been ceded additional time from Henry Ferris. Can
you indicate you're here, sir?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And also by Deborah Ferris.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: He will have a total of nine minutes and will be
followed by Maarin Heybras (phonetic). I hope I'm saying that right.
Mr. Placid.
MR. PLACID: Okay, folks. You need to listen to this, because
March 26, 2019
Page 170
I live next door to one of these.
My point is micro motels and single-family neighborhoods,
I'm -- from hearing from the Commission, I had no idea I had the
support that I had -- I have, but I'll tell you right now, this is not fun.
I live on the water in North Naples. These homes are a million five
up. We have five -- well, we have four for sure, five soon to be, that
are micro hotels. My neighbor rents their house on a daily basis,
daily.
I was out of town last week. My son calls me up and says,
what's going on with the neighbor's house?
I said, I don't know. What's going on with the neighbor's house?
He said, well, there's about five cars and a big four-wheel drive,
Ferraris, you name it, three cars in the street. He said they were
pulling beer cans out of cars. They've got liquor bottles, and there's
about 18 people in the house.
I got home. There was only about seven, but I checked it, and it
turns out the realtor that rents this -- and I called Code Enforcement
about it -- they said -- well, it's advertised you can -- they'll hold up to
eight people in this house, and Code Enforcement says, well, that's
okay.
I said, well, what about the statute that -- or the ordinance we
have?
And they said, well, we've been told we can't enforce it, which
I'm going to get into in just a second.
My other neighbors have to deal with this. One of them was in
the back -- our houses are 15 feet apart, by the way. These are not set
up for motels.
So our neighbor in the back, she -- you know, five houses down,
she's in her backyard, and they've got a bunch of people, 10 people in
that house, and they're taking pictures of her. And she wanted to be
here today, but has to work.
March 26, 2019
Page 171
So this is a very serious problem. And I just got into this 10
days ago and researched as much as I could, and I don't particularly
agree with what Jeff says, but I don't know enough to -- he's an expert
in this area.
But I -- the Collier County website clearly says we have a
six-month short-term rental ordinance, and you're not supposed to
rent for less than six months. That's what it says on the websites, not
the statutes, but that's what it says.
Now, if you interpret that otherwise, so be it. I used to live in
the City of Coral Gables, and I called City of Coral Gables' attorney,
who I know, and said, what you guys doing about this? He said, we
don't tolerate it. Airbnb sued us, and we tried to enforce our
ordinance, and took them to court, and they settled. And what
Airbnb does for City of Coral Gables, they post a zoning ordinance
on the Airbnb website and it says, please be aware that you might be
violating this ordinance, and then you get fined.
Call the City of Miami Beach. Airbnb has five lawsuits with
them right now. They're suing them.
Airbnb sued the City of Miami. They just lost a big case
December 16th. City of Miami said, we're going to enforce the
short-term rental rule, 30 days, you can't rent for less. Airbnb took --
they lost in the Third DCA December 16th. Published opinion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who lost?
MR. PLACID: Now Airbnb is up in the legislature.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who lost; Airbnb?
MR. PLACID: Airbnb.
Now, I called the legislature. Senate Bill 824 is on the board,
but I don't know why we're playing defense here.
Senator Diaz from Pinellas County introduced that bill. He's got a lot
of short-term rental activity in his county. But why is he allowing
them to take home rule away from us? Why don't we get together,
March 26, 2019
Page 172
call John Mullins, tell him to get up there and lobby this
commission -- this legislature. That's what we should be doing. This
is crazy to play defense. Let's play on offense.
I've talked to half a dozen city attorneys on the East Coast, Fort
Lauderdale, City of Miami, City of Miami Beach, City of Wilton
Manors. I've got them on board with me. I spoke to the League of
Cities. Let's play offense. Let's get this 2011 statute, 509.07.3 -- it's
509.032(7)(b). Let's repeal it. Get rid of it.
I don't want to sit here and worry about, oh, my God, they're
going to repeal the grandfather clause. I want home rule. I want to
decide my fate.
Now, let me get to my presentation, because this is -- I'm just
livid. I'm just -- you know, I'm trying not to get emotional, because
I'm a landlord.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I spent an hour with him on
the phone last week.
MR. PLACID: I'm a landlord.
MR. KLATZKOW: Me, too.
MR. PLACID: I am a landlord. I've been a landlord for 35
years. My tenants have lived in those homes for seven years. They
are as much a part of that neighborhood. I would never do this to my
neighbors, but live next door to one of these things.
I've got two objections to it, and -- can you explain to me how I
can get this -- there it is. I just told you what I was going to talk
about, but let's move on.
Let's talk about who Airbnb is, because I didn't know. They are
the largest -- they are the largest hotel renter in the world. If you took
the sixth largest resort, Marriott, the six largest hospitality chains in
the world and put them together, Airbnb is bigger. That's what we're
up against.
And it's not just Airbnb. And it's VRBO. It's all the other
March 26, 2019
Page 173
chains. They are bigger. And, boy, they don't hesitate to sue local
governments. They don't hesitate to get in the Florida legislature and
lobby.
We need to get together as a group and lobby. You can worry
about this apartment complex, but this is a big issue, because if this
apartment complex gets built, you're going to have Airbnb in the
middle of it.
(Applause.)
MR. PLACID: Okay. Let's talk about the Airbnb business
model. Airbnb has not built one hotel, they haven't built one
building, but they can convince a real estate investor to use their
website and turn a single-family neighbor into a motel. I call them
micro motels, and that's what they're doing, right under our noses.
All right. What's a micro motel? Well, some refuse to admit it.
And I don't want to play with words here. You can call it short-term
rentals, but this is transient rentals. That's what this stuff is. This is
rental by the day. That's what my neighbor's doing. They rent their
house by the day; two or three days at a time. All right. So this is
nonsense to call it short-term rental. It's transient rentals.
Why am I here? Because I live next door to micro motels, and
there was about -- once again, there was about four.
And I heard just the other day right across from Hank's house
they put a set of spring breakers in the house and had a good time for
five days in a million five home on the water in North Naples. It's
nonsense.
And it's not that care -- I don't care about the value of the home.
I'm trying -- this is not me. We need to save Collier County for
future generations. This is not about us. This is about future
generations.
(Applause.)
MR. PLACID: Okay. The big problem I'm having here is
March 26, 2019
Page 174
micro motel signs. The realtor next door advertises vacation rentals.
She's got a 4-inch post, sticks it in the ground, never takes it down.
It's up 24/7/365. I call Code Enforcement. How can you leave a
business sign up for a micro motel 24/7/365, and zoning said, we've
got to look it up; see if we can enforce it.
We filed a complaint. We got a call back Friday that nothing's
wrong with that sign. It stays up.
I got a call right now in to Mike Ossorio trying to figure out,
Mike, what in the world happened. We need to regulate these signs
and get them down.
They don't put up with this nonsense in Coral Gables. You put
up vacation rental sign in a single-family neighborhood, they're going
to fine the homeowner. They put a stop to it immediately. This stuff
is open in the toys (sic). Go to Naples Park. Unbelievable.
Now, this is what I mentioned earlier. Home rule versus central
rule, guys. Get home rule back. Let's get John Mullins up in
Tallahassee. You guys need to write your Senators, write your
House, and get these people to change this 509.032(7)(b). Get rid of
it. That's what took away home rule in the first place, and now
Senator Diaz from Pinellas County is trying to do it again by killing
the grandfather clause. Don't sit here and play defense.
City of Coral Gables has the same kind of ordinance we have,
and they enforce it. City of Miami Beach enforces it. They're not
worried about whether this home rule stuff's going to get repealed.
They're enforcing the rules.
All right. The past. The Founding Fathers of Collier County
had the foresight to create separate zoning districts for business
activities and separate districts for single-family housing.
You heard Jack Wert. There's 2,600 single-family homes that
are up for rent as micro motels; 2,600. And I'm one of them.
This is the $8.3 million question: Last year, $24 million of bed tax
March 26, 2019
Page 175
was collected from legitimate hotels. Realtors and people that were
renting for less than six months paid $8.3 million to Collier County in
the form of a bed tax. That's according to Jack Wert's slides.
We can certainly raise revenue -- raise my taxes. I'd rather pay
more taxes than live next to a micro motel. I know most people don't
want to hear that, but I'll do it. We don't need the 8.3 -- 40 percent of
$8.3 million budget goes to lure tourists down here anyway. The
other portion goes for beach renourishment, about $3.8 million of it,
or I forgot the numbers. So we can live without this send, so to
speak.
And I want to say -- here's my question: If we do have an
ordinance that says we can enforce short-term rentals for less than six
months -- and that's my interpretation of what I read on the Collier
County website, and Jeff can correct me. And he knows much more
about this than I do.
So in some instances, Collier County is collecting the taxes. Are
we profiting from illegal activity? That's the question we should be
asking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. PLACID: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Maarin Heybras (sic). He
will be followed by Jesse Purdon.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who is next?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Heybras. Ms. Heybras?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maartin Heybrook?
MR. MILLER: Heybro, okay, if that's what that says.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's not here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's not here.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Jesse Purdon will be followed by Peter
McLaughlin.
March 26, 2019
Page 176
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Peter, if you would head for the
other podium so we know you're here. Go ahead, sir.
MR. PURDON: Before I get started, I just want to say, I'm not
exactly sure what the folks in red are here for, but I'm with you. I'm
rooting for you, so I just wanted to get that out there now before I talk
on this topic, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're going to regret saying that.
I'm just saying.
MR. PURDON: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my fellow Collier
residents, and the folks listening at home, I wanted to talk to you
about the short-term rentals, too, and I'm doing it from a more -- I
don't know, a more optimistic approach, I guess you might say.
I want to say that -- who do I represent? I represent the Naples Area
Board of Realtors. We're about 7,000 commercial and residential
realtors here in Collier County. One of our primary --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Slow down.
MR. PURDON: -- objectives is ensuring that you have a --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Jesse, slow down.
MR. PURDON: Okay. Gotcha. I'm on a time limit here.
Okay.
So a couple things with this. Number one, I just want to
reiterate that, you know, the transient visitors, at one point were we
not all transient visitors before we became snowbirds and/or moved
here? I know I was. I've used Airbnb, and I don't think I've ever
done any drugs in the Airbnb.
So I would say that some of the things that have been thrown at
these folks are not exactly fair. But with that being said, I don't
represent them, and I'm not here for that. I just wanted to throw a
couple things out there.
Number one, private property rights are a fundamental right to
our constitution, and I'd like you to consider the fact that if we get rid
March 26, 2019
Page 177
of short-term rentals or hotel -- whatever the verbiage was we were
using before, you're closing out the market to Southwest Florida to
people who can't afford to go to the Naples Beach Hotel for vacation.
I know growing up that wasn't an option for me. But you know
what, I didn't live in a million-five house on the water. But I still
would have loved the things that Southwest Florida has to offer. And
I think by closing out that market and making it too difficult for
people to actually get here, that's something we have to be cognizant
of moving forward.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't regulate it. We should regulate
it because, you know what, there's bad actors. Just like in PACE,
there are bad actors. We need to address it, yes, but we need to be
careful in how we do it, and we can't pull out the torches and say that
we're going to close up town to anybody who wants to come here and
visit if they can't stay at the Naples Hilton. It's just not right.
Now, as far as what the Tax Collector said, they're saying that
we're getting the majority of TDC tax. I want to make sure I got that
correct. He's saying that there's been no activity from the police
department. I want to make sure I got that correct. He said that the
hotels are completely full during season. I wanted to make sure I got
that correct.
So, now let's move on to the numbers. If we're talking about 90
complaints for 2018 -- if I could have a little bit more, I'd appreciate
it. If we're talking about 90 complaints for 2018, one of those per
month is for nefarious activities related to short-term rentals.
So you're talking less than one call on over what they're saying
is 14,650 properties. So that would mean the amount of complaints
that you're getting is less than -- less than a point percent. It's
nothing. It's minuscule comparable to the amount of people that we
have.
So my question is, are we creating an issue, or are we fixing a
March 26, 2019
Page 178
problem?
With that being said, there's 38 days left of session. Here's the
most important thing. This is actually the point that I want to make
to you. There's 38 days left of session. Senate Bill 284, which he
talked about, actually, Manny Diaz is from Miami-Dade, but neither
here nor there. That bill will get through first session today.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Enough.
MR. PURDON: Okay? And that session, if it's preempted, if
it's preempted, we as a county shouldn't be allocating time and dollars
to something that in 37 days from now the state legislature's going to
tell us we can't do it.
And I'm not in favor of that. I'm a home-rule guy. I'm just
saying, they're going to tell us what we can't do in about 30 days, and
we should wait and see what that is so we can evaluate it in a
post-legislative session.
Thank you all.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker is Peter McLaughlin.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I make a point of order,
please?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, sir.
MR. MILLER: Mr. McLaughlin.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good afternoon. Peter McLaughlin. I've
been here about five hours and learned a lot. The first thing is, I
never want to be a commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You and me, too.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I think we're all here for the same
purpose, and that's the quality of life in the neighborhood that you
live in. There is no way to mandate that, but you can enforce the
existing regulations that cover it.
We live on Cypress Woods Drive, which is in 34103. It's off 41.
We're in a single-family home. We've been residents in the state of –
March 26, 2019
Page 179
in Collier County for 24 years. We were downtown for 21 years.
And when we pulled the plug on up north, I said, if there's one
thing I want, it's to no longer be in a condominium or a homeowners'
association. I want to be in a single-family home in a single-family
neighborhood.
We employed a realtor. She took us to this neighborhood. We
found a house that we liked. It's very nice. She said something kind
of in passing that said, oh, by the way, this is residential single-family
zoned. There's no short-term rentals with that zoning zone -- it being
in that zone.
I came home one day, drove up Cypress Woods Drive, and in
one of my neighborhood's yards there was a sign that somebody
wanted to rent their hoe -- rent their room in their home on a daily
basis if need be.
So I looked up the Land Development Code. And I'll have to
read it from there.
MR. OCHS: Hold on. Let me give you a hand-held mike.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Okay. This is zoned -- this LDC. I think
the Land Development Code; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Guesthouses, which were very prominent
in Olde Naples where I lived, were abused mercifully (sic). I didn't
realize that there was actually a code on the file where it addressed
not just the guesthouse -- because here they qualify the definition of a
guesthouse is no guest accommodation facility in the single-family
residential district whether a free-standing guesthouse or a guest
accommodations which are structurally integral into the main
dwelling, may be utilized for commercial purposes. Leasing or
renting a guest accommodation facility shall constitute a violation of
this LDC.
March 26, 2019
Page 180
With that information I thought, oh, get the zoning board to, and
then I got ahold of the zoning Code Enforcement people, and they
told me no, no. Our County Attorney has told us we can't enforce
that. We have no rights to enforce that.
So if you want to take a message out of here today is we need to
clarify what the rules are that covers the houses and the properties
that we live next to and around and make sure that those codes and
zoning restrictions are enforced.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Peter.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, County Attorney, you're
suggesting that even though we have these laws on the book, we can't
enforce them; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have always enforced them since I've
been here. Last -- let me take a step back.
Code Enforcement is a complaint-driven vehicle. And in the
years I've been here, we've had very few complaints on short-term
rentals, and usually they've been resolved by Code Enforcement
going and speaking to the owner, and that's been the end of it.
It's only been very, very recent that we've had an upsurge of
complaints. We knew that this matter was coming to the Board of
County Commissioners, so before starting a slew of code
enforcement actions, we wanted direction from the Board as what do
you want us to do on this issue understanding that our zoning code
was written prior to the age of Airbnb. It just doesn't contemplate
this sort of business.
March 26, 2019
Page 181
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, as one commissioner, I
don't support going and talking to stakeholders because, frankly, the
homeowner is the stakeholder that I'm more concerned with. The
people who own and invest in their properties that want to live in
neighborhoods are critical, and they've spoken out again and again.
I'd like to see -- again, plagiarizing -- going to other
communities and seeing what they're doing and see if we can't craft
some rules and regulations that are enforceable, including fines. I'm
kind of a friend of fines here. And if it's working in Miami Beach,
why wouldn't it work here?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're reading my notes again.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Miami Beach has a very clear
ordinance on this issue. You saw what our ordinance looks like.
Having said that, we're happy to enforce your six-month rule. If you
want to -- if you want to come forward with regulations on the
industry, number of people per dwelling house, smoke alarms,
whatever, that we can do also. Staff and I have been looking forward
to direction from the Board as to what you want to do with this
growing issue.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think it's important -- and
we have two attorneys on this board and, you, sir. I think it's
important that we proceed in a prudent way, but we need to move on
this. It's enough. We don't need more meetings to figure out what to
do. We've got a problem, and it needs to be solved.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I haven't said anything
for a minute, but, you know, we're --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a long time for you, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is.
You know, there's 14,650 people that are out there advertising
right now that are outside of our LDC in some form or fashion and
some sort of short-term rental. As you all know, I'm a huge advocate
March 26, 2019
Page 182
of real property rights, but I'm also a huge advocate of your quiet
enjoyment of your space.
So I truly think we need to make some adjustments to our
regulations. I come from an area where what happens within your
property bounds is your business as long as it doesn't interrupt my
quiet enjoyment of mine.
And so -- and I literally -- I think you were reading my note
because my notes say, hold landlords accountable, severe swift
punishment with regard to it, and then take into consideration the
repercussions of the current statutory preemption. We have to be
careful of that to not liable our community for reactions to a
circumstance such as this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and let me comment on
that. At some point you kind of have to -- you kind of have to stand
up and decide that if you are going to come in crosshairs of a
preemption, that at some point it's enough.
And there are other communities and counties throughout this
state that probably feel the same way. And I think in tandem with
looking at this issue, we probably -- it would -- it would bode us well
to communicate with other counties to see if they're willing as
some -- a speaker said, stand with us, because we cannot allow this to
continue.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, Jack actually said that there's
34, 36 communities that already have some ordinance in place with
regard to this enforcement, and I would certainly like to have that
plagiarized as much as is possible. I'd like to see some kind of
restriction come in with regard to this that is plausible that doesn't
just -- and, I mean, and if you'll recall, when this came up several
months ago, we had a lady come to -- I mean, we had a lady come to
speak with us. She lives in her home with her elderly mother. She
does have a bed-and-breakfast thing and supports her elderly mother
March 26, 2019
Page 183
in the house through the income that's generated through these
bed-and-breakfast guests that come into her home, she cooks and
cleans and takes care of.
So, I mean, there's quiet enjoyment, there's property rights. This
is -- someone said earlier, there is -- this is a complex circumstance.
There's a huge, huge revenue that comes to our community, not just
the -- not just the 8 or $10 million in TDT tax. There's ancillary
revenue, there's sales tax dollars, the restaurants, and the hairdressers
and the clothes, oh, my, and the money that these folks spend in our
community that needs to be addressed.
So at the same time, the protection of the quiet enjoyment of the
neighbor, and that's one of the suggestions that I'm proposing is a -- is
severe swift punishment, accountability for the landlords, those that
do choose to rent them out, so that we disincentive these corporations
from coming in and buying up homes and doing the daily rentals and
those sort of things that are negatively impacting the residents that
are already there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So...
Commissioner Solis' light is up.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think you raised a good point.
And one of the issues, as I understand it, is just the method of
enforcement. Right now we would enforce this through a regular
code enforcement. It's not an allowed use. It's a code-enforcement
issue. It falls under the regular code enforcement notice of a
violation. You've got 14 -- 10 days, whatever it is, to cure it. The
people leave. It's cured. You've got to start over. I mean, is it -- is it
possible to come up with a different, more expedited process, or is
that all driven by statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we can enforce this -- we can force
this through Code Enforcement if that's what you want, all right. I
March 26, 2019
Page 184
mean, you know, the landlord either did or did not, you know, rent it.
Whether -- the fact that the renter's gone doesn't matter. We can
enforce this against the owner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So doesn't the owner in a
code-enforcement situation have an opportunity to cure the problem?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know how you cure this other than
stopping it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. They leave.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But now he's still got an
advertisement going on for --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's my other question. My
other question is, I've always found it interesting that you can put a
sign in your front yard saying I will violate our zoning -- the Land
Development Code. Please call me and join me in violating our Land
Development Code. I mean, is that -- and maybe there's other ways
of at least minimizing the violation of what are validly enacted
zoning laws.
MR. KLATZKOW: Here for direction. Again you've --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, so maybe there's something
that's a little indirect or that will have some effect on how this goes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the policy question
that we have to answer is, do we want to enforce the restriction that
prohibits short-term rentals, rentals of less than -- is it six months?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's six months, which, by the way, captures
many of your season people who are here three or four or five
months.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Now, I think you had
indicated that we could reduce that number from six months to, say,
one month or --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three one-month rentals, similar to
March 26, 2019
Page 185
what the City of Naples did quite effectively to help regulate. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, I mean, the policy
question that we have to answer is, do we want to prohibit short-term
rentals in the residential communities pursuant so our existing
ordinance? If the answer is yes, then the next question is, do we
reduce that six-month period to one month?
MR. KLATZKOW: Understanding you have a preemption
statute.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this is the whole problem
with the -- we can't change the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- time.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- question. Does that
preemption apply to that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it does. In fact, I can show you a
bill that specifically would allow us to do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. You're talking about the
current preemption that's pending?
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're talking about existing
preemption --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- prohibits us from enforcing
restriction that's been on the books before --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. We can enforce our restriction
of six months, but we can't amend it to a shorter period of time.
We're preempted from -- we're grandfathered, and we can't change
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So we're at six months or
March 26, 2019
Page 186
more, period?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I mean, that's --
perhaps that's the policy question.
MR. KLATZKOW: So the real policy from my standpoint is do
you want Code Enforcement to actively --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. How about --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- go out to six months, or do you want to
try to regulate this some other way?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: How about we enforce that
ordinance but we go after the shorter terms first because those are the
ones that are the most disruptive? We can't enforce it against
everyone at the same time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The daily rents?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Daily, yeah, exactly.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And have folks call in, because
that's the issue. We need calling in, calling into your commissioners,
right?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Andy looks perplexed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the answer was in the
question. I mean, there's probably some lawyers out there that are
smiling right now thinking selective enforcement of a --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I'm not so sure that's
selective enforcement. You've got to --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely selective.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You've got a law that
prohibits a certain type of activity. And there are going to be actors
that are worse than others. And so you go after the worst actors first,
and once those are gone, you go after the next ones.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And in the meantime, we --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
March 26, 2019
Page 187
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think that's selective
enforcement. I think that's smart enforcement because you have to
deal with the worst offenders first.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're a complaint-driven -- Code
Enforcement's complaint driven. If they get a complaint for
somebody who's for four months, they're going to have to -- they're
going to have to enforce that. You're more likely to get the
complaints for the daily or the weekly. I would guess that that would
be the vast bulk of the complaints.
But the one thing I've learned about Code Enforcement is
neighbors use it to get their other neighbor.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we've had that issue going as
well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm not so sure selective
enforcement is invalid anyway. I mean, that's just always the case.
You've got --
MR. KLATZKOW: I call it prosecutorial discretion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. You've got police
officers that are doing speed control, and they decide they're going to
stop the guy that's going 100 miles an hour but they're not going to
stop the guy that's going 80 miles an hour.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that could be the direction from the
Board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And as you said, Chairman, that
in the meantime we could develop --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And bring in stakeholders, bring in
folks from the realtor group, bring in private property owners that are
actually utilizing the bed-and-breakfast scenario. There are folks that
are actually making their mortgage payment from revenue that comes
from short-term rentals.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And people don't even know they're
March 26, 2019
Page 188
doing it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's true.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's where I said, with that
resolution, with that regulation process, accountability for the
landlord. Strict, severe punishment for those that are in violation of
the quiet enjoyment of the neighbor; the people that are in close
proximity to that. Those landlords have to be accountable.
You know, the fellow that was here speaking -- I don't know
where he went. He's a professor. He had to go -- he had to go teach
a class tonight but, you know, he shared with me -- when I said that I
talked to him last week for an hour, he owns rentals all over the
place. He lives in our community. He would be a responsible
landlord, but -- and he's currently acting within the guise of our LDC.
But there are those that are not. There are those that want to
take advantage of this type of circumstance, and we've been
managing it as best as we possibly could.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So could we get a
motion? Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm not sure what the motion would
be is the problem.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. I'm reading the executive
summary here, and staff led us right to the trough and didn't tell us
anything.
The recommendation's to accept the report -- we got the report --
and then make recommendations for staff's future action.
And, you know, again, my concern is I'm not opposed to the
developing a resolution to regulate this in a different form or format,
but I don't want to liable our community from a preemptive
standpoint, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, quite frankly, only a
March 26, 2019
Page 189
judge could tell us if we're preempted then.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, let's do it. Let's develop a
resolution and provide with it for input from the community for the
stakeholders that are here, the residents, the business community, the
neighbors, the like, and come up with a resolution. We can do that in
a fairly short order.
MR. KLATZKOW: Look at staff, not at me, for that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We can do that in a fairly short
order.
MR. OCHS: We can draft a resolution, yes, sir. What do you
want it to say?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a legitimate question.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, what I would like to do
is I would like to plagiarize those that are already out there. I would
like to have a look -- Sir Roger's the only guy in the room with a
badge that does the enforcement within the City of Naples. I heard
him speak to the TDT when they brought this issue up; talked about
the enforceability of those resolutions, or the resolution that the city
has in place -- and what are you shaking your finger for?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not. I'm thinking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, okay. Okay. You're thinking.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Look out.
MR. OCHS: You're talking about a policy or -- not a
resolution?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If we do it by resolution, it's open,
it's advertised, everybody has a chance to come and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: An ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: An ordinance. Well, we do it by
resolution and ultimately roll it to an ordinance. So we do a
March 26, 2019
Page 190
resolution first.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need an ordinance if you're going to
enforce it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, ultimately it goes, but...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just straight to an ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Straight to an ordinance.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get right to the subject, and we
want to limit short-term rentals, right? And we want to operate
within the law, but we don't want to have any flexibility. We want to
protect neighborhoods from short-term rentals when their bylaws say
they are prohibited with -- our own rules here in Collier County say
six months, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The eloquent speaker's about to
make our motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'll be quiet. Mr. Eloquent
Speaker.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know about eloquence
here, but I'm going to make a motion that will get us off the dime. It
might get us in a lot of trouble; it's probably going to cost us a ton of
money. But the motion is that we enforce our ordinance that
prohibits short-term rentals in residential communities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Simple as that. I second that
motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Simple as that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Double
second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what we're saying. How can
he do that all the time? Eloquent. I hate that when you're always
eloquent. I'm just kidding. I'm glad for it.
March 26, 2019
Page 191
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
seconded we enforce the existent LDC regulations that we currently
have.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed?
Aye. Passes 4-1.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, staff's going
to have to come back and tell us -- I mean, obviously, they need to
develop a strategy for that, and so -- and they've heard all the
conversation. They know that the daily rentals are the most
obtrusive. The rentals where there's three or four individuals --
different individuals and different bedrooms is intrusive, and so we
want you to go after the most intrusive first.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think staff understands that without
having to come back to the Board, for the record.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'm just going to say that I
voted for it, but -- well, staff's going to come back with an ordinance.
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You have not directed us to do that
March 26, 2019
Page 192
yet.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're going to force what we have?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, six-month rule.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm going to bring back an
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not the motion. And it's
also almost 4 o'clock.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We voted. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're going to have 200 people
talking on the budget night. We've had these people here since
1 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we're ready for the
next item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm ready. Let's go.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're ready to do the --
MR. PURDON: I've got to listen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's go.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2019-54: SINGLE PETITION WITHIN THE 2018
CYCLE ONE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS FOR AN AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY
PROPOSED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
ESTABLISH THE LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS
MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL
SUBDISTRICT FOR TRANSMITTAL TO FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW
March 26, 2019
Page 193
AND COMMENTS RESPONSE – ADOPTED; STAFF TO
CONTINUE TO WORK W/DEVELOPER TO ELIMINATE
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY, NO BUILDINGS ARE TO
EXCEED 3 STORIES W/APPROVAL TO TRANSMIT TO DEO
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 9A. This is a
recommendation to approve by resolution the single petition within
the 2018 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan amendments for an
amendment specifically proposed to the Future Land Use Element to
establish the Livingston Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard East
residential subdistrict for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity for review and comments response. This is a
transmittal hearing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is 9A.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, as an update, we have 60
registered speakers.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were upstairs.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: More red shirts upstairs.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The court reporter's okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell them to come on down.
There's chairs available.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I hope they fed you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You look very good on TV.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's go.
MR. OCHS: Petitioner will begin, sir.
MR. MULHERE: Legislative; no swearing in?
Good afternoon. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of
the applicant. Also with me this afternoon is Keith Gelder with Stock
March 26, 2019
Page 194
and Chris Johnson also with Stock Development; Rich Yovanovich is
our land-use attorney; Ted Treesh is our Transportation Consultant;
we have Katherine Cordova, but maybe not for too much longer
because she has to pick up a child from school so -- and Chris
Mitchell is our Civil Engineer.
I have a presentation, which I'll go through as quickly as I can
but do want to make these points, and we'd like to reserve time for
rebuttal.
So the subject property, I'm sure you know where it's located at
this point, but is located at the intersection of Veterans Memorial
Boulevard and Livingston Road depicted on your visualizer right
now.
The surrounding properties are residential zoning, except for to
the south, which is still agricultural zoning. There's a five-acre parcel
right here which is ag zoned, and there's a little commercial five-acre
commercial parcel on the corner. The entire area is zoned urban
residential. It's in the urban area.
The property is 35.57 acres in size. It presently has two zoning
districts on it. It's zoned PUD, which is the De La Rosa PUD, and
the balance of the property, about 20 acres, is zoned A ag.
We started out requesting 420 units, which was the equivalent of
11.8 units per acre. We reduced that -- after meeting with our
neighbors, we reduced that to 350 or 9.4 acres. We also enhanced
landscape buffers and reduced the building height, after meeting with
our neighbors, on those buildings closest to Barrington Cove.
There is a companion PUD that's in the review process. As you
know, this is the transmittal hearing. You would have another
hearing for adoption, and the PUD would come forward at the same
time as your adoption hearing assuming you transmit.
The CCPC voted to forward this petition with a recommendation
of approval, but that recommendation reduced density further from
March 26, 2019
Page 195
the 350 we were at down to 304 units or 8.55 dwelling units per acre.
The existing De La Rosa PUD, which is 15.38 acres, allows for 107
multifamily dwelling units, it allows for a building height of 50 feet
zoned and 69 feet actual.
This is the actual language. This reflects both the CCPC
recommendation as well as the staff revisions to reflect appropriate
nomenclature from the staff's perspective. It's a relatively short
amendment. It has the 304 units. It requires a transit shelter, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities with connection to the abutting commercial
property to the west, and vehicular interconnection also to the
commercial property to the west and that those are in place prior to --
those connections are in place prior to certificate of occupancy.
This is, I think, from our perspective, a fairly important slide.
The development that's shown in red or, excuse me, in blue, shows
the proposed De La Rosa PUD which had an approved SDP which
included four-story buildings exceeding 50 feet in height, and if you
can see this building right here -- are you proud of me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, I am.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you -- which is closest to the property
line with Barrington Cove was -- the PUD allowed a 20-foot setback.
That building was actually 26 feet from the Barrington Cove property
setback.
Now I'm going to try to erase that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, for goodness sake. You're
good.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's really an important slide
because if you also -- if you look at this, there's a couple of things
that we have implemented to address concerns by the neighbors and
some things that we simply implemented at initial design.
So you can see that we have a minimum 125-foot setback from
the eastern property line. And you can see we designed the
March 26, 2019
Page 196
stormwater lake here so that the folks that are adjacent to that would
be minimally impacted, if at all, and that we've relocated our
buildings further away, which you can see those in red, from our
neighbors. We moved them closer to the right-of-way. And these
buildings here were reduced to three-story buildings. These are the
closest buildings to Barrington Cove right here.
This is a -- this is a copy of our proposed master PUD/master
concept plan. It just shows you, again, the same configuration.
Residential tracts are over here, moved away from our residential
neighbors. This is a very -- a fairly large preserve. It exceeds
15 acres in size. And so we've moved the impacts away from the
neighbors as much as possible. And this is just the same exhibit but
overlaid on an aerial. It shows the preserve area.
So there were some -- a number of, I would say significant
issues, that have been raised by folks that have been concerned,
raised in our meetings with those folks. We met a couple times with
representatives of Barrington Cove and Mediterra and with their legal
representatives.
There were a number of issues: Density was one issue. At 8.5
dwelling units per acre, this PUD is fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and it's comparable with adjacent and nearby
development. You know, we started out at just under 12 units per
acre, and this has been now reduced to 8.55.
Under the Comprehensive Plan there are opportunities, being
consistent with the plan, to request that higher density through infill
development. We could separate this into two projects with a
connection between the two and achieve a higher density than the
304 that the Planning Commission recommended.
We could also come in under your new affordable housing
provisions and achieve higher density under those provisions as well.
And those were just recently changed while we were in process.
March 26, 2019
Page 197
As far as compatibility -- and I want to spend just a minute on
this, because I really -- I want you to understand what your own code
allows for now.
Your LDC provides standards to ensure compatibility between
uses, and those are setbacks and landscape buffers. That's what you
put between uses to ensure compatibility other than prohibiting
certain uses in certain proximity to other uses. Industrial uses in
proximity to residential, for example. Residential to residential is not
incompatible. Multifamily next to single-family is not incompatible.
Your own code provides a table, and that table is depicted on your
visualizer.
And if you look at No. 3, it's residential, multifamily. What
should be the buffer between residential multifamily and
single-family? I've circled it for you in red. Right here. So it's a B
buffer. What is a B buffer? A B buffer is 15-foot wide and has
various plantings. It's listed for you there.
It's a 15-foot-wide buffer with trees spaced no more than 30 feet
on center. So according to your code, multifamily development is
perfectly acceptable next to single-family with a 15-foot landscape
buffer.
What about setbacks? Well, the setbacks are for RMF12, and
we're not at 12 units per acre. We're less, at 8.55. But the closest
zoning district would be RMF12, and that also allows a building
height of 50 feet, which is -- we're asking for 50 feet and 40 feet
zoned heights.
So if you had a 50-foot-tall multifamily building, according to
your Land Development Code, you're required to set back those
structures 50 percent of the building height. That's 30 feet -- 25 feet,
sorry. I've got to do the math. Half of 50 is 25 feet.
So you have a 15-foot landscape buffer and a 25-foot setback;
whereas, we're providing 125-foot setback from our closest
March 26, 2019
Page 198
residential neighbors. So it's considerably more.
As I said, our zoned building height is 50 feet and 40 feet
nearest Barrington Cove, so we have -- we are actually asking for less
height where we're closest to our neighbors, and three stories. I
wanted to just point out that there are a number of existing
developments throughout Collier County where you have multifamily
adjacent to or in close proximity to single-family.
What you have on visualizer right there is a development on the
southwest corner of Livingston and Immokalee. There's
single-family development right next to multifamily development.
You also have, on Airport Road, Victoria Park south of
Immokalee, you have multifamily right here. Three-story buildings
right next to single-family right here, immediately adjacent.
And there are many examples of low-rise or single-family
development in close proximity to high-rise. These are just a few.
Pelican Bay -- both of these are Pelican Bay. Over here is Pelican
Marsh, multifamily next to single-family.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before you go to awfully far there,
I'm not getting data up that I thought I had. Did I hear you say a
portion of this project is three stories instead of four?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. And I can -- do you want me to go back
to that slide? I can do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would you please, just quickly. I
tried to go there. I had it in my -- well, I'm on my data, not his.
MR. MULHERE: So these two buildings right here that are the
closest to this portion of Barrington Cove right here, we've reduced
those to three-story buildings. These buildings remain at four-story.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. I thought I
heard you say that, but it wasn't what I had recalled, so...
MR. MULHERE: This is an excerpt from our PUD which is --
you know, won't be before you until the adoption hearing, assuming
March 26, 2019
Page 199
you transmit, but we want you to understand, remember what I said
that -- from the eastern perimeter boundary we would have a
minimum separation of 125 feet versus the typical requirement of
50 percent of the building height, which would be 25 or 30 feet.
And you can see right here that we have three-story and
four-story buildings, and those three-story and four-story buildings,
the three-story are closest -- the ones closest to Barrington Cove.
So this just summarizes the outcome from our meeting. I think
I've already said what we offered to do, that we reduced from 420 to
350, which was further reduced at the Planning Commission to 304;
that we reduced the buildings closest to Barrington Cove from three
stores -- from four stories to three stories, and we reduced the zoned
height to 40 feet as opposed to 50 feet for the taller buildings.
Remember, the De La Rosa PUD is approved at 50 feet zoned
and 69 feet actual and actually had that Site Development Plan
approved for buildings pretty close to that height.
We also committed to continue to work with the neighbors
between transmittal and adoption to further enhance our landscape
buffers and other provisions that might be acceptable to the
neighbors.
So with respect to the landscape buffers, which is one of the
ways that you ameliorate or minimize the impacts of one
development adjacent to another development, particularly as we
know in Collier County where there's a lot of extensive landscaping,
this is a master exhibit. It just shows you with those different colors,
when we're talking about a landscape buffer, as I go through these,
where they're located.
So, for example, you can see right here this yellow area is
immediately adjacent to an ag zone parcel along Livingston, and
that's a Type A buffer that's required.
This one is the buffering adjacent to the commercial and
March 26, 2019
Page 200
adjacent to the stormwater lake and adjacent to the fire station right
here, south of us. And that is a Type B buffer, basically, with some
additional elements such as this decorative fence right here.
This buffer is significant, because it's the buffer between our
neighbors here in Barrington Cove as they would, from their lots,
look towards our development, and this is an enhanced Type B buffer
by having a three -- three types of plantings. The code requires trees
spaced 30 feet on center. We're including a hedge row as well as a --
sort of a mid-story palm at 12 feet, and then, of course, the decorative
fence as well.
And this is the Type D buffer that -- you always have a Type D
buffer required adjacent to one of your public rights-of-way, really
any right-of-way, and the width of that buffer depends on the width
of the right-of-way. This is a 200-foot-wide right-of-way on
Veterans Memorial, so that's a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer. And,
again, you can see the depiction of the types of plantings as well as
the decorative fence.
This exhibit here -- I apologize, it may be a little hard to see. I'd
like to walk you through it -- kinds of shows you the perspective. So
"A" is right here. So that would be from Mediterra looking towards
this project across the Veterans Memorial, and so if you were an
individual standing right here, you -- on the Mediterra property there
is a berm which has an approximate elevation to the top of the wall of
30 feet and then vegetation on top of that. You would be looking
over that berm, wall, vegetation, and you would see very little, if any,
of this project, perhaps a little bit of the roof.
In between you have that 200-foot right-of-way, you have a
couple of travel lanes within the right-of-way, and then the property
line for the Allura project would be right here beyond which you
would have landscape buffer, internal travel lanes, and these
single-story parking structures.
March 26, 2019
Page 201
Now, if you look at this one below, B is this perspective from
Barrington Cove looking towards our project. And, again, if you
were standing here you're finished-floor elevation is 17 --
approximately 17 feet, and then you have a slight berm here as well
as landscaping on Barrington Cove. I don't think there's a great deal
of landscaping there, but there is some.
And then our proposed enhanced landscaping, then these
parking structures here, then some distance here. So, again, looking
that way, you will see a little bit of the roof structure, but you will not
see, from a pedestrian speculative, the majority of the building.
And these are the other perspectives from different views also
from Barrington Cove. D is looking sort of straight across, if you
were in Barrington Cove here, toward these buildings right here.
They're further set back than these buildings. And then C is looking
sort of on an angle, because some of those lots, they're kind of
angled. So looking into the project that way. That was requested,
that site orientation, and we prepared it.
The other significant issue -- we talked about density. We
talked about compatibility. The other significant issue is always a
significant issue is traffic, and this site is -- I'm going to continue, but
try to concentrate.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. MULHERE: The site is located within the northwest
TCMA. At 304 units, this project meets the link-by-link analysis. It
doesn't trigger the 85 percent threshold that you have described in
Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element.
The intersection analysis conducted at Livingston and Veterans
Memorial will operate at an acceptable LOS both with and without
the projected trips from the projects in weekday a.m. and p.m. peak
hours.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
March 26, 2019
Page 202
going to ask you -- you folks for the first time -- this is the second
time I've had to say this today. With respect, you're entitled to your
opinion, though they are obviously different, and I will require the
same from others.
MR. MULHERE: So the traffic analysis did not rely on either
Veterans four-laning which is now moving forward because of the
new high school; it's sort of been expedited -- you have your own
transportation staff here that can speak to that issue -- west of
Livingston, or Logan Boulevard extension connecting to Bonita,
which is under construction expected to be open prior to the end of
the year. It still meets the county requirements that you've
established without those two improvements.
So I just -- this is just an example that shows the Livingston
extension up to Bonita Beach Road right here -- excuse me -- Logan
extension up to Bonita Beach Road. Thank you.
So I want to ask Ted Treesh to come up. He's going to -- we did
some additional studies because issues were raised with respect to
using the ITE trip generation manual, and I want Ted to walk you
through those, and then I'll come back up and wrap things up, and we
might get to Katherine before she has to leave. I don't know, so...
MR. TREESH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ted Treesh
with TR Transportation Consultants.
The traffic study we did was prepared in accordance with your
guidelines. We prepared the methodology, submitted it to staff in
Growth Management, and answered questions that were raised. But
at the Planning Commission there was questions raised regarding the
trip generation of the type of product, the multifamily product that
was being presented.
And as with every traffic study that we've done -- I've been
doing traffic studies in Collier County for about 18 years. And,
again, your codes require us to develop a methodology with staff,
March 26, 2019
Page 203
which we do, and we develop a trip generation for that use, whatever
the traffic study is looking at, and we utilize the Institute of
Transportation Engineers trip generation report, which is a very
common document that's used all around the country in estimating
traffic for future developments.
But at the CCPC there was questions raised regarding the
validity of that document. So what we did was we actually went
out -- between our final hearing in front of the CCPC and today, we
went out and actually did some traffic counts at some existing
multifamily developments in Collier County, and those are listed here
on the screen.
We did the counts for three separate weekdays during the week,
and then we averaged the rates. We looked, and then we compared
the trip generation of those facilities to what the ITE trip generation
report was estimating, what we utilized in our analysis to conduct the
analysis on the roadways in the intersections. And those counts were
just conducted recently, so they were done within peak season.
What this graphic shows is the comparison. On the top table is
the trip generation for now what we're asking in terms of the 304
dwelling units. And I circled the p.m. peak hour, because that's what
we utilize here in Collier County to analyze the impacts of a project
on the roadway network. It's what your AUIR report is developed
upon.
So utilizing the ITE report, you can see circled in red 134
projected p.m. peak hour trips. Utilizing the trip rate that we
developed from our surveys is in the second table, and you can see
it's very close. I mean, we're only at 141 trips. And when estimating
trips and traffic, you know, that, in my opinion, is an inconsequential
difference between the rate that's in the ITE report and the one that
is -- was based on the survey.
So the conclusion of the survey was that the ITE data is actually
March 26, 2019
Page 204
very close to what this type of use generates in Collier County during
the peak season months.
I'll be available for questions at the end, but this slide just shows
the trip rates. Again, the top slide was based on our surveys and
shows the trip rates during the p.m. peak hour and the a.m. peak hour,
and then the bottom slide is on the ITE. So, again, very close in
terms of the p.m. peak hour to the ITE rates.
MR. MULHERE: Just a few more slides. I just want to
reiterate that there remains a strong market demand for apartments in
Collier County. The rental rates have steadily increased since 2011,
demand exceeds supply, which continues to exacerbate those rental
rates. Additional supplies, basic economic law of supply and demand
will stabilize those rates.
Right now occupancy of existing projects is close to 95 percent.
That's considered full occupancy. Now, the estimated for market rate
rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units.
Do you want to come up? This is Katherine Cordova.
Katherine works for Greystar, which is the management company.
They're a large national -- but I'll let her speak to the issues. We
wanted to talk about how it's managed.
MS. CORDOVA: Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. As they
said, my name's Katherine Cordova. I've been in the multifamily
rental industry for 14 years now. I've had the opportunity to work
with Stock Development on both Spectra, the initial multifamily
development that they did, as well as Inspira currently, and we're
about halfway through there, and am looking to also be the
management on site for Allura.
Additionally, which some of you know, some of you don't, I
actually reside in Barrington Cove as well. I have children that go to
school at Veterans Memorial Elementary, as well as North Naples.
They'll continue to move up. And so I have certainly a lot of
March 26, 2019
Page 205
experience in the industry as well as vested interest in the community
as a whole, especially right there at that little corridor.
As mentioned, today's renters and the demand for renting has
been steadily increasing year over year. Southwest Florida remains
among the nation's fastest growing areas in the United States. That's
not going to stop anytime soon. So, yes, the change and the growth,
it can be painful, but it's coming regardless.
We are not what -- the very enthusiastic gentleman for the
previous topic, we do not do any type of short-term housing.
Minimal lease term is seven months up to 12, at times 15. Just
depending on how, you know, the process is going.
All of our residents are fully vetted, which meaning -- for
anybody who doesn't know, no one is permitted to lease at any of our
communities without a minimum of a seven-month lease term.
Over the age of 18 is subject to criminal, you know, screening,
background check, income requirements at minimum of three the
monthly rent. Credit -- as I said, credit and criminal checks are done
on everybody over the age of 18.
And, you know, I think that, you know, there's a lot of different
issues and a lot of emotion tied into this project but, as I said, I think
a lot of the growth and different things that are happening are not
related necessarily to Allura, but a lot of blame is being put on the
community. It's not -- whether it's built or not built, it's not going to
diminish the traffic that we're having there. It's really not. I mean,
that traffic is rough, yeah. I drive it every day. I get it. I live right
there.
I think that there's things that we can do to kind of help that
process right there as the new high school's being built and things
like a bike-share program or, you know, some type of crossing guards
and assistants to have more walking and utilization of the public
school bus system. You know, yes, it's dangerous right now, but
March 26, 2019
Page 206
who's to say we can't improve that a little bit more?
There's a lot of different things that are being tied into this and
kind of put on Allura, which I don't think is necessarily fair. I mean,
do we want to have -- you know, it's approved and something's going
to be built there, right? That's how the world goes round. And it can
be something with shorter-term tenants, you know, people who are
renting out who aren't getting backgrounds checks. It could be a
not-so-nice-looking development, you know, not so nice berms and
different things that, you know, the developer and Stock and
management who -- by the way, I will be on site seven days a week.
That's how our management team works. We are on site. We have
an over 45-page document, lease document, that has all different
types of rules and regulations, anything from parking to, you know,
what they can put out on their patio, different things of that nature,
and we have staff on site seven days a week to ensure those things
are, you know, regulated and enforced.
Both -- at Spectra we had a similar development HOA, and
condo association that really was against Spectra initially because of
all the same reasons you folks are against it.
Same thing at Inspira. We had Lakoya who was very against it.
By the middle of the projects, both of them, I had homeowners
coming over to see if they could purchase an amenity pass to be able
to come over and use our amenities. I had people in the Spectra
development, you know, where they'd be bringing over their pets and
utilizing our pet park. So it's not what most people commonly think
of what -- who rents apartments. Today's renters are renters by
choice.
You know, Freddie Mac actually published a couple different
surveys recently about renters. They rent because it's a lifestyle; it's a
choice. You have three main groups: Your baby boomers, ages 53 to
71; your GenXers, 38 to 52; and your millennials, 21 to 37. That is
March 26, 2019
Page 207
going to be the primary rent -- people in the United States that are
renting apartments, 63 of which are satisfied with their plan to rent
and will continue to do so.
The demand for high-end, you know, luxury apartments is not
going to change, because as there's more competition in the market,
everybody wants the newest, the biggest, the best, the nicest.
The renters that are renting at our communities are good people.
They're not criminals. They're not bad people. They're not trying to
hog up the roadways. They're just like you and I. That's about all I
have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
MR. MULHERE: I just want to reiterate, because it was
mentioned, you know, Airbnb, previous discussion. That is
prohibited or anything like Airbnb is prohibited and, of course,
vacation rental by owner doesn't apply here. These are not owners,
so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think we just agreed to
enforce our existing zoning regulations, so there you are.
MR. MULHERE: So, you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. Could I ask a
question?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She was mentioning --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, you know what, Andy's
light's been on for a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MULHERE: I'll be done just a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a simple question. She was
mentioning about traffic. Aren't you supposed to extend Veterans
Parkway?
MR. MULHERE: Veterans Memorial will be four-laned from
March 26, 2019
Page 208
this intersection to the west to Old 41.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Old 41.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you suspect that that will --
MR. MULHERE: It's two lanes now. It will be four lanes when
it's widened.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- kind of ease traffic a little bit?
MR. MULHERE: Oh, it will for sure. Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please, no outbursts. Please.
MR. MULHERE: It doesn't require rocket science to know that
a four-lane roadway has more capacity than a two-lane roadway.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not when you build what you're
planning on building.
MR. MULHERE: I'm moving forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please no more.
MR. MULHERE: So these are some pictures of Inspira, which
is existing, as you know. I think many of you have seen this
development, but I wasn't sure if everybody had seen it, so we put in
some pictures to show you the quality of this development, which
will be the same quality that we will -- that Stock will put into Allura.
So these are some exterior -- although we will have three-story
and four-story. This is all four-story.
But you can see those are some of the exterior drone photos.
These are the amenity -- the area around the swimming pool.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: These are actual, aren't they?
MR. MULHERE: Yes. These are actual photos, yeah. I think
maybe there's some artistry with the photography that I don't have,
but --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's embellishment there.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MR. MULHERE: This is looking at, again, central, looking
March 26, 2019
Page 209
towards the amenity package, the swimming pool, some more. These
are the interiors. You can see they're really nice, very well designed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They are really nice.
MR. MULHERE: Some more interior photos, and then some of
the internal amenities, meeting space, recreational space, gathering
space, the fitness center on the left, and more gathering space for
folks to get together, socialize, and a pool view from the balcony.
So, in conclusion, our request is consistent with the GMP and
compatible with the adjacent nearby development. Staff and CCPC
recommended approval, and we know that you'll have some
questions. And I'm going to step away and let Rich come up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. Rich Yovanovich on
behalf of the petitioner. To show my lack of -- Vegas takes a bath.
I want to focus a little bit on this slide right here, which is the
existing zoning slide. And in the blue is the De La Rosa PUD which
has been approved since, I want to say, around 2007ish. I did that. I
don't remember the exact year, but I have it with me. The De La
Rosa PUD, which is in blue, Bob mentioned is currently approved for
107 units with buildings that can get as close as 20 feet from the
property line at four stories not to exceed 69 feet.
What is -- what I wanted to point out is the De La Rosa PUD is a
multifamily PUD that specifically authorizes apartments to go on that
15-acre parcel of property. What it doesn't allow is single-family. It
does not allow single-family development to occur on that property
today. And through some of the comments that we've heard through
the public is we'd like that to be single-family and, two, who would
buy next to an apartment complex? It's some of the comments we've
seen through the emails that I think you've received and we've
received copies of.
Well, everybody in Barrington Cove, that was zoned later than
the De La Rosa PUD. I have it with me. I think it was somewhere
March 26, 2019
Page 210
around -- you know what? Let's be exact.
Barrington Cove was approved in 2014. So Barrington Cove
was approved with a range of housing options which ranged from
single-family to multifamily and, ironically, the height of their
multifamily for Barrington Cove is taller than what we're asking for
on the three-story portion of this proposed project.
Now, it got developed as single-family, but Barrington Cove
came after De La Rosa and was developed knowing that a
multifamily apartment complex was going to be next door.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I can --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I want to make sure I heard that. So
Barrington Cove, in the current Barrington Cove PUD it allows for
multifamily?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. It allows for
multifamily at 50 feet, three stories zoned, and actual height of three
stories, 55 feet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The currently zoned -- they're
building single-family, though.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They ended up building single-family,
but it was permitted to be built as multifamily in 2014 next to
multifamily. It was also allowed to be single-family next to
multifamily. So that compatibility analysis was already done to
determine that -- it's actually called the Brandon Residential PUD,
but the project is known as Barrington Cove.
So that compatibility analysis of single-family being next door
to 69-foot-tall buildings was already made and already determined to
be compatible, and it had predated by -- I was right, it was '07 -- by
seven years the approval of the De La Rosa PUD.
So I think that's important that we understand that. Now, when
you look at this proposed site plan, what we're proposing to do is --
March 26, 2019
Page 211
this is the master plan, and you can see what was previously
buildings is now going to be wetland preserve next to those people
who could have been within 20 feet, and we're going to be a
minimum of 125 feet away when you go back a slide. Whoops, went
the wrong way.
So I don't want it to be lost that we spent a lot of time talking to
the leadership of both Mediterra and Barrington Cove to try to
address all of the concerns that were raised other than go away and
please don't develop the property.
Now, Stock Development owns the De La Rosa PUD today.
They own it. They have an opportunity to purchase what's in this
area right here. They don't have an -- they have the ability to buy this
and go forward with it. And we've proposed what I think to be quite
a nice project. We put Inspira up there, and I just wanted you to
know where the 304 units came from for this particular project.
Inspira is a 304-unit apartment complex in Lely Resort on about
20 acres; am I right? We're proposing that same 304-unit apartment
complex on 35 acres. So we will have even more preserve and
buffers than currently exists in the Inspira project, and we're very
proud of the Inspira project, Stock is, and this will be every bit as
nice if not nicer than what already exists.
So it's not -- we have two choices here. If we don't get -- if we
don't get transmitted, we'll have to make an evaluation of what the
next step is. One of the next steps could be just develop De La Rosa
like it is with four-story buildings 20 feet away, but that's one of the
options, and Stock has no choice on that option because that's what
they bought knowing that's what it is.
We're committed to working with our neighbors to -- if the
landscaping's not enough, which we think the landscaping we've
proposed, as you've seen, is quite impressive. If that's not enough,
they want some more landscaping, we can talk about those issues.
March 26, 2019
Page 212
One of the comments was is they wanted maybe to talk to us
about maybe some of the architecture of how the buildings
themselves would look. You know, we're amenable to talking about
some reasonable changes to the architecture, but we have -- we have
been responsive and have made changes, especially the change being
in the red area here to go down to the three-story.
So when you're talking about a 50-foot zoned height building a
minimum of 125 feet from our property line, that's greater than any
setback you'll ever find in your Land Development Code and
probably in most of the PUDs that come through.
So with that, I just wanted to supplement a little bit of what Bob
said to show you how we have worked with our neighbors. We
believe we're compatible with the surrounding community and
keeping in mind the history of the zoning in that area before the
public speaks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis, were you
done?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. Any questions for the team?
We're happy to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis was first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I'd like to reserve
until we hear from some of the speakers, but I just want to make sure
that I have correctly some things that were said; that the De La Rosa
PUD as it stands right now, the density is seven units per acre.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And Allura's asking for 8.55?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A difference of 1.55 units per acre.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The -- and there is -- there is -- they
have an approved SDP for -- there's an approved SDP for the De La
March 26, 2019
Page 213
Rosa --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, the De La Rosa had an approved
SDP. We're going through the process with both the Corps and the
Water Management District, but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But, I mean, De La Rosa,
there was an SDP at issue or approved.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see it, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This area right here was the approved
development area for the De La Rosa PUD consistent with the PUD's
guidelines; it's since expired, but we have no reason to believe we
couldn't go back and reinstitute that because it would --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- be consistent with the approved PUD.
You know, you understand what development standards exist today,
and this is consistent with the approved development standards, and
we would expect to get that same SDP approved.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. We're going to take a
10-minute break. Give our court reporter a rest. Listen, we have
business to conduct. We will conduct it in an appropriate manner and
give our court reporter a 10-minute break and be back at -- what
time? Forty-eight and a half. 4:48 and a half.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Everybody groaned about the
10-minute break but enjoyed the visit, didn't we?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, that's our presentation. If
you have any questions for us now or if you want to hear from the
March 26, 2019
Page 214
public first.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think it's -- Commissioner Solis,
you're still lit up. Do you want to wait till the public?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's go through the process.
Mr. Troy?
MR. MILLER: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
First, one reminder: Please silence your cell phones. And also,
when you start speaking, make sure you state your name for the
record. We'll use both podiums.
Your first speaker is Kady Wrede, if I'm saying that right,
although she does have a note here saying she had to leave at four, so
I'm imagining she might be gone.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number two, before he goes any
further, if you have -- if you hear someone else say something that
you're going to say, you're welcome to waive. That's obvious, the red
shirts, as to what we're up to. But if there's somebody -- there's no
point in going up here for three minutes and saying the same thing
over and over and over and over again. You've been relatively
patient, and we appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Relatively.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, relatively.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I would say to have a
1 o'clock time-certain and not start till 4, these folks have done a
fantastic job.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And I would --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if I can actually correct you,
ma'am. It was not to be before 1 o'clock. It was not at 1 o'clock.
MR. OCHS: It was not a time-certain. It was just to be heard
March 26, 2019
Page 215
no sooner than 1 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was on our approved agenda. So
with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we have 63 speakers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- I compliment you on your
patience. And we have how many speakers, Troy?
MR. MILLER: Right around 60.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right around 60.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I make a suggestion about
the speakers? If you agree when it's your turn to speak and the
person before you has -- you're repeating that, you could come up to
the podium and give your name and say, "I agree with that speaker,"
so that your name is registered so that we know that you, you know,
are accounted for. We could do it that way rather than --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's a fine way to go as well.
MR. MILLER: All right. Your first speaker is Elena Mola.
She's been ceded additional time from Kevin Sheehy.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And also from Ronnie Bellone. I think I've got
the name right. Is she here?
MS. MOLA: Maybe she went to the bathroom.
MR. MILLER: She's not here. You will have six, Ms. Mola,
and you will be followed by Daniel Cornillie. I hope I'm saying that
right.
MS. MOLA: Thank you very much. So I have nine minutes
or --
MR. MILLER: Six minutes.
MS. MOLA: All right. My name is Elena Mola, and I'm
president of the Strand Presidents Council which consists of the
March 26, 2019
Page 216
presidents of all 15 Strand residential homeowners association,
comprised of over 1,200 dwellings and approximately 2,400
individual residents with approximately the same number of cars.
I'm going to depart from my comments just to quickly clarify
two points: The De La Rosa 170 (sic) units have not been built, were
not built, and I believe that the Barrington Cove individuals had no
idea that they would maybe at some point in the future be subjected
to living next to apartment buildings.
The other thing is in the presentation the Stock Development
attorney said -- gave all these examples of where multifamily units
are right next to single-family but did not make a distinction of
whether those multifamily units were actual apartment buildings
instead of condominium units as a part of a greater PUD. So he did
not do that.
The other thing he did not state was that there are some
limitations on the terms under which the egress and ingress of the
107-unit De La Rosa, I guess, approval would hinge, and that they do
not, in fact, own the property that would be adjacent to Veterans
Highway to allow them to build a mega 304 apartment complex. So I
just wanted to clarify that.
The other thing is, I am concerned with the wording of this
petition, a single Stock Development petition that basically transmits
this, what is called the establishment of the Livingston Road/Veterans
Memorial Boulevard east residential subdistrict to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity for review.
And it seems to me that once this is transmitted up, it's somehow
giving another -- the state entity authority to do something which we
then cannot take back. So I just wanted to clarify those points to see
if, in fact, that's the case.
The other thing that was mentioned was density, you know,
individual unit density. What we are concerned about here is the
March 26, 2019
Page 217
nature of our neighborhood and the number of people and number of
cars. So if you're talking about 304 units, you're talking
approximately 608 individuals with 608 cars. So now I'm going to go
back to my remarks.
The Strand has only two entrances and exits which are located
approximately three miles apart. The first at the Strand Boulevard at
Immokalee Road to the south and the second at Strand Boulevard at
Veterans Memorial Highway to the south -- I mean to the north.
Approximately half of the 2,400 Strand residents live closer to and
use the Veterans Memorial Highway to enter and exit the community
daily.
The southernmost entrance and exit of Talis Park, with its
approximately 550 residential dwellings and approximately 1,000
residents and their cars, is also located at the Veterans Memorial
directly across the Strand's northernmost exit.
I would presume that approximately half of the thousand or so
Talis Park residents use Veterans to enter and exit their community
daily. Additionally, Barrington Cove, a community consisting of 120
single-family homes, also has entrance and exit at Veterans Highway
almost adjacent to the Strand's exit.
In short, you have three very large communities with
approximately half of their residents, i.e., approximately 1,700
individuals and their cars using Veterans to enter and exit the
communities on a daily basis.
Now, as you all know, Veterans Memorial Highway is no
highway at all but a narrow two-lane, not even a road, street which
begins at Talis Park and Strand entrance/exit and, for all intents and
purposes, ends at Livingston Road.
Livingston Road with its six lanes of traffic is a primary entry
and exit road for a number of large communities, and it's already
quite saturated during rush hour. Mediterra, Delasol's 500 residents,
March 26, 2019
Page 218
and the other communities there, which are at least three or four, also
have to enter and exit off of Livingston.
At present, it takes the average Strand resident that exits at
Veterans during rush hour 20 to 30 minutes to travel three miles to
Bonita Beach Road.
Similarly, if the Strand resident exits Strand Boulevard through
its southernmost exit at Immokalee, it could take as long as 15
minutes to simply reach Immokalee and another eight minutes to turn
south to Livingston; i.e., approximately 20 minutes to drive one mile.
So I see that I'm not going to have much more time. I want to
say that I have with me over 500 of our residents who signed
petitions, and the petition specifically states about the negative
impact not only on our community but on the property values, the
congestion, the traffic that this particular community will bring, and
also questioning whether all the appropriate studies were done with
respect to the utilities to be used and how all of that is intended to be
managed if, in fact, this project is approved.
But we would say that we would not want you to approve this
project and transfer it back up to Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: I had a gentleman offer to cede you three
additional minute just at the very end. That's hard for me to do. Did
you want to --
MS. MOLA: Well, I'll finish. I'll just -- if you don't mind, I'll
just tell you, kind of the -- okay.
So, specifically what they're saying is that this project, which is
not -- no longer Allura. It is basically opening up this area for the
building of additional apartment and affordable apartments, as they
said.
It's in complete incompatibility with the rest of the surrounding
area, which is populated by single-family, middle- to high-value
March 26, 2019
Page 219
homes such as the Strand, Barrington Cove, Talis Park, Mediterra,
and soon to be constructed Enclave.
Extreme negative impact on the already heavy traffic on
Livingston as well as the Veterans Memorial, and particularly at the
corner of Livingston and Veterans during rush hour, which is already
overburdened by traffic at this time.
The entire stretch of Livingston changing to Imperial at the
county line from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach is already heavily
impacted by substantial traffic.
A lack of established need for an apartment complex in this area
at this time; we have all of the documentations and studies from the
realtors stating exactly that you are, at present, in a balance on
apartment building, and you don't really need that many more.
Anyway, illustrates a lack of forward planning regarding the
situations with schools, school drop-off, fire station crossing, utilities,
environmental impact, and the impact on the value of our homes and
the community.
So 500, and so -- petitions with names, signatures, and
addresses. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Daniel Cornillie. He'll be
followed by Doug Dismuris.
MR. CORNILLIE: Yeah. I'm Daniel Cornillie, C-o-r-n-i-l-l-i-e.
I live in Secoya Reserve, which is about seven-tenths of a mile west
of this proposed development.
I don't want to repeat all the comments that were made at the
earlier hearings. There are dozens of us that talked about congestion,
except to note that the Planning Commission relies on these Formula
A traffic studies that predict no traffic problems when there are
already huge traffic problems in that area, especially at some times.
That veterans four-lane extension where they cut through to Old
41 will make these much worse, because traffic will flow to avoid the
March 26, 2019
Page 220
congestion of Bonita Beach. It's going to cross over there to
Livingston and jam that up even worse, so that's going to be a bigger
problem, not the solution.
I want to focus on one thing, which is the compatibility of this
development with the existing single-family homes in the area. The
insertion of high-density rental units into this area, and right across
the street you've got Mediterra, which is a high-end is -- this insertion
of the rental units is totally out of place.
Would you personally, each of you, want to have an apartment
complex place next to your homes? Probably not.
I believe this kind of mismatch is exactly what the zoning is
supposed to prevent, and I believe it's your responsibility to keep this
from happening, not just for our neighborhood but also for the Naples
brand. This is a thing of quality over or -- quantity over quality, and
this would be a huge mistake; short term for us, and longer term for
Naples and Collier County. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Doug Dismuris. He'll be
followed by Arnold Saslavsky.
MR. DISMUKES: My name is Doug Dismukes (phonetic), and
I live in the Strand.
And I agree with the previous speakers with one other addition
that I'd like to -- I'm really worried safety-wise with the additional
traffic that -- these traffic studies, when you looked at them, they
obviously haven't been out there during high-traffic periods of time,
because you sit at that light at Livingston and Veterans Boulevard.
And I'm worried about if there's an emergency and we need to
get fire and ambulances into our communities, it's next to impossible.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate it.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Arnold Saslavsky. He will
be followed by T. Michael, I'm guessing this is Kutin, Klitin?
Klinton? I'm not sure. Go ahead, Mr. Saslavsky.
March 26, 2019
Page 221
MR. SASLAVSKY: Thank you.
When we learned about the development of this community, I
think everybody in this room saw red, and now it's your turn to see
red.
And we are here to plead with you to make sure this projets gets
the red light. I'm in agreement with the other speakers also. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is T. Michael Kuhn, I believe
this is, followed by Richard Wirth. Mr. Kuhn?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Richard Wirth. Mr. Wirth will be followed by
William Van Tiem.
MR. WIRTH: I don't know, Andy, if you're -- oh, live at the
Strand, and we use that Veterans Highway going out.
But do you live in our district, District 2?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm the commissioner for District 2,
yes.
MR. WIRTH: Do you live there?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of course.
MR. WIRTH: Do you use Livingston?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think you have to address the
Chair. I mean, if this it --
MR. WIRTH: I'm sorry. Do you --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I don't live in your
neighborhood. I do drive Livingston Road.
MR. WIRTH: You do use it?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
MR. WIRTH: You use it in the afternoon, 4 o'clock?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sometimes.
MR. WIRTH: Five o'clock?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I usually go east, further east.
March 26, 2019
Page 222
MR. WIRTH: Yeah, we miss a lot of dinner reservations
because of that road.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sorry about that.
MR. WIRTH: Thanks.
Anyway, I agree with everything that's been said so far, and I'm
really concerned about it, especially our property values. We moved
here four years ago, homesteaded last year, looked at properties in
Naples, south, northeast, west, for four years from 2010.
We chose the Strand because of the surrounding community.
We come from New York, we have apartment buildings, and this was
your escape to live someplace really, really nice, not congested.
We're done with that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. WIRTH: I hope you guys appreciate that, why we're here.
And if this project goes in and our property values go down, we'll
probably move. We'll move somewhere. So, anyway, thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard Wirth. Oh, that
was Richard Wirth. I'm sorry. William Van Tiem, and he will be
followed by Joe Huntt.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Joe, if you'll move to the next
podium. That's correct. Go.
MR. VAN TIEM: Thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak. I'll keep it short.
I agree with everything that's been said already. I use that north
gate frequently, so I'm on that Veterans corner at Livingston, and I
have sat through two and three lights cycles. It's backed up all the
way from Bonita Beach across Veterans. It's just dead stopped. And
if there's ever an accident on 75, everybody northbound knows that
Livingston is the alternate, and it's just impassible.
So I won't keep (sic) any more of your time. I agree with what's
March 26, 2019
Page 223
been said, and I just appeal. If you're ever going to say no to a
program (sic), this is the one.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. VAN TIEM: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Joe Huntt. He'll be
followed by William Arndt.
MR. HUNTT: My last name is spelled H-u-n-t-t, for the record.
I am a resident of Barrington Cove. My house backs up on Veterans.
When I bought a year ago -- I moved in officially in October -- I
never would have realized the volume of traffic that is on Veterans
Boulevard. It's ridiculous, as mentioned previously. You've got a
significant number of households in the Strand that exit out Veterans.
Talis Park. Something that hasn't been mentioned, Talis Park
has ongoing construction. All the construction workers, the
18-wheelers, the cement trucks, the dump trucks, they have to enter
Talis Park up Veterans and then they exit, speeding.
Thirty-five miles an hour? Forget it. No one drives 35 on that street.
I walk a lot in the mornings, usually the length of Veterans
Boulevard from one dead-end to the other dead-end. There are days,
though, that I don't -- and I'm not talking rush hour -- that I don't want
to cross Livingston, even though there's a crosswalk button, because
invariably somebody is running the light. You hit, the light turns, I
can walk. There's a car shooting through the intersection. People
just don't want to stop.
And also mentioned previously, when the traffic backs up, the
drivers plug the intersection. So if you're on Veterans, you have to
struggle to even get onto Livingston or, as happens to my wife and I,
we're driving south on Livingston and we want to turn left onto
Veterans, you can't. They're blocking the driveway. Light turns
green for Veterans, you have people that can't get out because of the
congestion that's already in the intersection.
March 26, 2019
Page 224
One last thing about Veterans, because it is just a two-lane road.
It's never -- on that east side is never going to change. If the first
person on Veterans that wants to turn onto Livingston wanted to go
left, no one else can move because there is no way to make a right
turn. You can't get around there. So, therefore, potentially, you will
sit through two. I've never seen more than two cycles at a light, but
that is a potential.
This apartment complex, everybody will be coming in and out
off of Veterans because they're not -- they don't have access currently
to Livingston. So all the traffic will come and back up at that light
guaranteed ongoing for essentially forever. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bill Arndt. He's been
ceded three additional minutes from Ann-Marie Arndt. Can you raise
your hand and indicate you're --
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
Will be followed by Bernard Gunderson.
MR. ARNDT: My name is Bill Arndt. I'm currently on the
board at Barrington Cove. I'm a board member; I'm also on the
transition committee.
I thank you guys for having us and listening to us. This has
been a long day. You guys have been really patient. I appreciate it
very, very much.
I'm going to approach this today from a few different directions.
First of all, the high school that's going down on Veterans, it's been
approved. It's going to be built in 2021 or 2022, I'm not certain
which one, but that's going to provide an additional 2,000 people
down on Livingston where that four-lane traffic's going to go beyond
that, there's going to be another development of 400 units on
Veterans Parkway. I said Livingston Road; I meant Veterans
Parkway -- veterans Parkway down past the high school on the other
March 26, 2019
Page 225
side there's going to be an additional 400 units.
The corner of Livingston and Veterans on the opposite corner
from Allura is owned by some gentlemen here in Naples. It's
40 acres. They own all of it, and in their article written in 2015 in the
Naples Daily News, they said they plan on developing a
Moorings-type community that can house up to 500 people. They
said they don't -- they're not going to do the 500. They're going to do
something smaller because that's kind of keeping with the Moorings
style. Not high density, not high type units, but it's 40 acres of
additional people coming in there.
There's also a development going in on Livingston up the road
by the Argo Development Company. They're going to be building
about 150 single-family homes in there. So we have all this coming
that is additional traffic on that point.
A couple of things I'd like to point out. Mrs. Cordova, who lives
in our community, I'm really glad she spoke because she said
something that's very interesting to me. She said that change is
painful, and she's right. To the community, us in Barrington Cove,
it's very painful.
I'd like to invite you commissioners to come by and let us give
you a tour of Barrington Cove and introduce you to a man named
Walzak and his wife. She's a nurse; he a fireman.
The part that they're talking about -- I'm looking at it here, the
red part with 125 feet away, the building that's four stories tall that's
125 feet away is his backyard. He is looking out his backyard at
125-foot -- I mean, a 50- or 60-foot-tall building that's 125 feet way
from him.
He has kids. He moved in there. He wrote a letter to each one
of you commissioners, I believe, impassioning or saying that he was
really disappointed with the choice to put that there because this is
where they decided to settle.
March 26, 2019
Page 226
They're not only residents here; they serve us. They're the ones
that the affordable housing push was made for. They saved their
money. They did the right thing and came into that community to
live there.
Up and down the way there there's some other neighbors that are
going to be affected. I'd love for you to come by and meet them, and
look out the back of their yards and see what they're looking at and
see if a 10-foot-high tree prevents them from seeing a 60-foot-tall
building. I don't know how that can be. I can't figure that out.
I know that from living there we have residents that are just
wonderful with each other. We have Halloween get-togethers. We
have Christmas get-togethers. We have parties. We go to each
other's house. We have dinner parties. This is a real community.
The most of our community is kids, children, and they play in
the streets because they don't have much else place to play, but now
we're going to impose a backyard where they can't even play in their
backyards, because they go back there -- the lady that lives next door
to me moved over from Miami. She has three daughters. One of
them is 16 year old, and she laughingly said she looks like she is 23,
and she says she can't stand the thought of somebody living in an
apartment four stories up ogling her in her swimming pool in the
backyard, so now she's not going to be able to swim in the only
swimming pool that she has.
This is where the kids play in the backyards. Would you want
your kids to be looking (sic) at -- from four stories up? No, I don't
think you would.
The last thing she said -- Ms. Cordova said is Livingston is
dangerous. She's exactly right. She said it was currently dangerous.
Add to it the additional congestion that's coming. Livingston will be
even more dangerous.
The other thing she said, she started at Spectra, the manager.
March 26, 2019
Page 227
She's right. They sold it -- this last year in Naples Daily News the
article about how they sold the units up in Fort Myers, drawing about
$222,000 a unit. This is an apartment complex, but they sold it, and
management went elsewhere. They went on to Inspira.
In the article it said the person from Stock, the person in charge from
Stock, said that this was their business plan. They're going to buy the
apartments. They're going to sell them when the buyer comes
available.
They're going to build Inspira up, and they're going to sell them,
because Stock is a developer. They're not a rental agency. They
don't want rentals. They want to develop, build, and sell. They're
going to do the same thing to Inspira, and I'm afraid they're going to
do the same thing to us.
In four years from now, who's going to be the person in charge
of that management? Ten years from now, what will those
apartments look like? We've seen that already in Naples. We've seen
apartments deteriorate. Those apartments are likely to deteriorate,
and we're the ones, as Ms. Cordova says, that has to bear the pain of
that.
Please, I urge you, come by and visit us. I would love to show
you around.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bernard Gunderson. He'll
be followed by Virginia Berkley.
Mr. Gunderson.
MR. GUNDERSON: Good afternoon, or evening. My name is
Bernard Gunderson. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my
opinion. I agree with the comments of the other opposition speakers.
I bought at the Strand about 10 years ago. I'm a retired veteran. I'm
not an activist. I'm not a public speaker of any kind.
March 26, 2019
Page 228
My wife and I are permanent residents of Florida. We
researched a lot of communities to find a quiet single-family home
residential area to retire. Allura will severely impact the quality of
life we envisioned.
My wife and I have written each of you, each of the
commissioners, expressing several specific salient reasons for our
opposition to the Allura project. I won't take the time to reiterate
those now. Allura does not fit this community. It just does not fit. It
does not belong.
I'd like to add an additional important quality-of-life point to my
earlier comments. I'm an avid cyclist. You all heard of the traffic
issues. In my opinion, your traffic study is bogus. I have -- I have a
quiz question. What state has the highest bicycle death accidents?
It's Florida. I'm afraid of using Livingston for fear of the excessive
traffic already there and the dangerous conditions it presents.
How does the addition of the Allura project on Livingston help
alleviate this major issue in Florida? It doesn't. It exacerbates this
problem or, as the news describes the bicycling issue in Florida as the
killing fields of Florida.
This project is an abomination. Vote to stop it. Don't be swayed
by Stock's slick presentation. Building the De La Rosa is a bluff.
Stock doesn't want to build it. Don't listen to the veiled threats by
Stock on what they can build there if you don't agree to approve the
Allura project.
You folks have the authority to determine the future of the
quality of life in this area. Please use it to stop the Allura project, and
I thank you all for the very important community service that you
provide. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Virginia Berkley. She'll be
followed by Joann Moore.
March 26, 2019
Page 229
MS. BERKLEY: Virginia Berkley. I live at the Strand also,
and I agree with everything that's been said here so far by the public.
I disagree a lot with what was said by Stock.
My concern is traffic. The woman here who was on the Stock team
said something about putting in a crossing guard at Veterans and
Livingston? I don't know of anybody in Collier County that walks, at
least not someone who lives here year round. You might find some
during season.
A crossing guard isn't going to help alleviate anything about
traffic. We are going to have many more cars going in because of the
high school, many more cars coming down Livingston Avenue
because of the additional building at Enclave, at Talis Park, at
Barrington. There are going to be so many cars.
And then nobody has mentioned Seed to Table at the corner of
Immokalee and Livingston, and that's going to bring probably
hundreds or perhaps thousands of cars into the area. The place is
going to become a parking lot.
Livingston when it first built -- when it was first built, was
thought to be a wondrous thing. It helped traffic so much. It doesn't
help traffic anymore. And the addition of 107 or God forbid 300-plus
apartments will be a disaster for our area.
I ask you to reconsider. I don't know, Chairman McDaniel,
whether or not you can revoke the approval that was done in 2007.
That was 11 years ago. Things are different now. We've had a lot
more building, and I hope you'll all look into your hearts and do the
right thing for our community.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Joann Moore. She'll be
followed by Robert Aufdenkampe.
MS. MOORE: Good evening, everyone. I'm Joann Moore, and
I live in the Strand, and I'm one of the residents that have been there
March 26, 2019
Page 230
and seen everything. I've been there for 16 years in a single-family
home.
When Livingston was first built, it was like our "wow," and it
has turned into a nightmare, so I totally agree with everything that
everyone has said about this traffic.
But I think the thing that I want to bring out is I am seriously
concerned about the infrastructure. I mean, let's talk about the
sewers; let's talk about the electric grid. I know when Irma happened
it became very obvious that we were underutilized for the sewer
system and everything else.
And I don't think a lot of that has been addressed as far as how
are we going to handle that much more and traffic, people using the
utilities and that type of thing? It's beyond anything you can imagine.
I have personally called the traffic department and invited them
to come sit out there. I've seen some gentlemen and cops sitting
there, but I don't know how accurate. I have -- literally can tell you
that I sat at a stoplight going to -- going east from Veterans from
Livingston, and if you try to make a left, the light lasts less than 30
seconds. So if you have five people behind you, they are never going
to get across.
So I invite you to start at 4:30 and come sit out there from 4:30
to 6:00 and see how bad the traffic really is. Thank you so much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Aufdenkampe.
He'll be followed by Mary Loftus.
MR. AUFDENKAMPE: Robert Aufdenkampe,
A-u-f-d-e-n-k-a-m-p-e. I live in Barrington Cove.
You've probably heard the term "scorched earth policy." In the
military we use it as strategy that involves burning crops and any
resources that could be useful to opponents. A good example is
General Sherman's "March to the Sea" during the Confederate War.
Figuratively, it's an intentional course of action that is drastic or
March 26, 2019
Page 231
ruinous. A good example is the proposed monstrosity by the name of
Allura. It will forever alter the communities located in the
surrounding areas.
In your Future Land Use Element, it requires new developments
to be compatible and comparable with a surrounding area. Nowhere
in the proposed area is there any developments like this Allura
project. Every community surrounding this area is made up of one-
and two-story family homes and/or condos.
This development will stick out like a sore thumb. If you're
coming down Livingston south, all you're going to see is these
massive buildings.
They dazzle us with the artist's renderings of how beautiful these
buildings are going to be. I don't know if you've gone down to the
area there around Lely where they have the Inspira. It's nothing but a
bunch of six-story concrete buildings with surrounding garages
painted a stark white with very little, limited landscaping.
Two weeks ago I had the unfortunate duty to travel to the Bonita
Beach Publix, which is exactly four miles from my house. I left my
house at 5:15, I arrived at the Publix in Bonita Beach at 5:55. I left
there at 6:05, and returned home at 6:35. That's 80 minutes to go
eight miles.
Leave the zoning as it is, 187 units on that place, and we'll all be
good neighbors. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mary Loftus. Okay. I
don't see her. Mark Roos? He will be followed by David Depew.
Mr. Depew, if we could have you waiting at the other podium, please.
Thank you.
MR. ROOS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Mark Roos.
It's R-o-o-s. I live at 16501 Buonasera Court in Mediterra.
And I'm here just to also acknowledge my concern, my public-safety
concerns with the traffic situation.
March 26, 2019
Page 232
I took a walk a couple weeks ago which I recorded on video, and
I sent it to Commissioner Solis -- thank you very much. Your staff
acknowledged the receipt of it -- just to show you what this looks like
practically without a traffic study, and you can see in the video that
the traffic on that particular day, which is not unusual, was backed up
from Bonita Beach Road to below the fire station.
Now this is three-lanes wide in the northbound direction. No
opportunity for rescue operations to deal with any potential crises
between the fire station and the Bonita Beach Road. I don't know
how they would do it unless they were on the southbound side of
Livingston facing traffic in the wrong direction at 45 to 55 miles an
hour.
So after that walk, I was greatly concerned about the situation
we already have there, and anticipating potentially another 5- to 600
vehicles in that neighborhood just seemed inconceivable.
So my appeal is with regards to the potential public-safety issues
of additional traffic in that intersection as you've heard from others. I
hope you can look at the videos. You'll see the concrete evidence.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Depew. He will be
followed by Alan Johnson.
DR. DEPEW: Commissioners, David Depew, D-e-p-e-w. I'm a
land planner. I've been a member of the American Institute of
Certified Planners since 1983. I am a principal with Morris Depew
Associates, and I'm representing the Mediterra Community
Association, Inc.
I have analyzed the proposed land-use amendment, and I'm
limiting my comments to the land-use amendment rather than to the
zoning request at this time.
I've looked at it and believe that it's inconsistent with the
requirements found in the Florida Statutes. More specifically, it's my
March 26, 2019
Page 233
professional opinion that the amendment fails to be based on relevant
and appropriate data and analysis, it fails to react to the data and
analysis in a manner that is appropriate and professionally acceptable,
it is not based upon demographic projections upon which the plan is
currently based, it will create internal inconsistencies within your
existing Growth Management Plan, it fails to coordinate with other
governmental agencies approved plans, and it fails to adequately
describe and characterize existing land uses in the area.
It fails to encourage a functional mix of the uses. It fails to
promote walkable and connected communities. It also fails to
support the provision of housing for all current and anticipated future
residents within the county's jurisdiction.
Based upon the surrounding land uses in the area, the requested
density of 8.55 units per acre is between 2.13 times and 13.36 times
the existing built density that exists in the area proximate to the
property.
As of September 2017, the Community Housing Plan estimates
that housing demand for extremely-low, very-low, and low-income
housing would be 1,618 dwelling units per year. The applicants have
not provided any basis for a waiver or elimination of the existing
policies which provide for bonus density when providing this type of
housing.
I might also point out that research shows that the De La Rosa
environmental resource permit was denied by the South Florida
Water Management District on May 14th of 2009. So the plan that
you have seen before you may have been approved as an SDP by the
county; it was not approved by the district.
The Growth Management Plan amendment that has been
requested is simply unnecessary. It fails to demonstrate any kind of
deficiency which it is intended to address. The subject property has
an economically viable and reasonable use. The applicant can
March 26, 2019
Page 234
achieve a reasonable density through the utilization of the existing
provisions of the GMP, and the document submitted for the
companion request demonstrate the compatibility with proximate
development will not be achieved.
On behalf on my clients, I would respectfully request the County
Commission decline to transmit this proposed amendment. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chair, just a quick question for
Mr. Depew.
You stated that the application is not consistent -- or the Growth
Management Plan amendment that's being requested is not consistent
with other agency plans.
DR. DEPEW: Your housing agency has already identified
deficiencies in extremely-low, very-low, and low-income housing.
And it is established in your plan, in conjunction with your housing
agency, that there is a demand, an unmet demand, and a need in those
areas. This plan has no data and analysis that supports a waiver of
the bonus density beyond the seven units per acre that they could
achieve in this particular land-use category, and they're asking for,
without this data analysis, a waiver of that requirement to achieve
that bonus density. And I think that is inconsistent with your housing
agency's plans.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So you're saying it's
inconsistent with our own plans. I thought you said there was some
other agency that it was inconsistent with.
DR. DEPEW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alan Johnson. He'll be
followed by Tim Diegel.
MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to give my three minutes to Robert
March 26, 2019
Page 235
Pritt.
MR. MILLER: Tim Diegel is your next speaker. He's been
ceded additional time from Colette Diegel. Can you raise your hand?
MR. DIEGEL: She had to leave.
MR. MILLER: I cannot read this other name, sir. Is that Desire
Pollin ceded time to you? Deisthee Pollin, P-o-l-l-i-n?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Mr. Diegel, I only have you here present at this
time, so you will have three minutes to speak. You'll be followed by
Thomas Michael (sic), Jr. Go ahead, sir.
MR. DIEGEL: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tim Diegel
from Barrington Cove.
I read the minutes from the Planning Commission's meetings on
January 17th and February 7th, and I'm going to summarize why
Planning Chairman Mark Strain did vote against Allura. He's been
the chairman of over 18 years dealing with all the developments in
Collier County. He has a reputation of being honest, a good listener,
very knowledgeable, respectful to all in making his decision based on
facts presented with no personal bias.
Mark Strain rejected Allura and expressed four concerns: The
first was the increase in traffic. On both days of hearings he
questioned in detail the traffic results by Stock's representative of
why his report stated that only 25 percent of the resident 600 cars
would leave and return during the rush hours.
After hearing illogical and vague answers, Chairman Strain
finally stated, quotes, that's the piece I need explained, quotes, that it
wasn't.
The second issue is about the lack of a need for Allura. Since
Allura's not giving affordable housing, Chairman Strain stated,
quotes, now we got a lot of new projects coming online, 4,000 units
just about. But I'm not sure the need is for high-end market rate
March 26, 2019
Page 236
housing as much it is for other types of housing. So I'm not sure the
need for this is necessarily proven, quotes.
The third issue was a legal case where a developer met the
required criteria but the development was deemed not needed.
Chairman Strain said, quotes, you meet these criteria. There's an
argument that you've got to approve them. No, that's not true, quotes.
In speaking of Allura, he said, if they still meet the criteria, we
still have other issues that can factor in, and that's what I wanted to
make sure everybody understood, quotes. This means Allura does
not need to be approved.
The fourth related to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of a
large apartment house coming into a developed -- development of
detached houses that created a new law that was discussed by
Mr. Pritt. The Supreme Court stated the residential character of the
neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residents are
utterly destroyed.
Chairman Strand (sic) stated he read the case himself and found
the elements of the case they thought were more pertinent to this,
meaning Allura, than not.
His final statement in voting against Allura stated, the character
and the scale of the buildings are greater in mass and density now
than what I think is typical to the neighborhood. And from a public
safety and also compatibility, the traffic that will be added to that
road, nothing's to be gained that outweighs the added traffic, and
we're only going to be exacerbating an existing problem.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. DIEGEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Thomas Michael, Jr. He'll
be followed by Robert Pritt.
MR. MICHAELS: Thank you for hearing me. My name is Tom
Michaels, and I'm president of the homeowners' association at
March 26, 2019
Page 237
Camden Lakes. Camden Lakes is Learning Lane. It has a single
entrance on Learning Lane. We share that with the elementary
school. Slightly around the corner from us is where the middle
school is located. We have 80 children in our neighborhood, most of
whom attend those schools or are still toddlers.
My sense of this is that once or if this apartment complex is built
there will be number of additional children. I do not think a crossing
guard will help the traffic on Livingston Road. My previous speakers
have already said something about that. But I do want to make the
point that during the hours that school is open, from approximately
7:15 in the morning until 3:00 in the afternoon, school buses and
mothers and parents are going up and down Learning Lane.
We've had them parking in our entrance area, we've had the
traffic backed up to our entrance to the point where many of the
residents are either unable to get in or unable to get out until the
traffic parts. If you add more density to that -- and obviously the
apartment buildings would -- it will make our situation much more
difficult.
The next thing I want to say is that during Irma, as it happened
in most -- much of Collier County, our sewage system went down.
We were unable to have sewage service for 14 days. The county had
to send in additional generators every once in a while to pump out the
system. The system's clearly inadequate.
Lastly, the mention of traffic on Livingston I find humorous
because the developer says that we have three lanes going in the
direction going north and south, we have three potential lanes, I
assume, on Veterans Highway or Boulevard, if it's ever completed,
and we have only two lanes in Lee County, and I don't think that
anyone has spoken to the commissioners of Lee County on their
plans to extend Imperial all the way up to Three Oaks Parkway as
three lanes.
March 26, 2019
Page 238
I suggest that that cannot be remedied, and until that is
remedied, the traffic situation on Livingston Road will only become
worse. Thank you for hearing me.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Pritt. Now, he has
been ceded additional time from several speakers. I'll call you.
Please raise your hand to indicate you are present.
Alan Johnson.
(Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Here.
MR. MILLER: Francis Smith.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Tony Gattone, if I'm reading that right.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Howard Frankel.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Joe Albanese? Is Joe here? Albanese?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No Joe.
MR. MILLER: Joe's not here. Rosemarie Welding.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: That will be a total of 21 minutes for Mr. Pritt.
MR. OCHS: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you check your
counting on that?
MR. PRITT: Shame on me if I use all of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think you miscounted on that.
MR. MILLER: Twenty-one -- seven speakers times three
minutes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They weren't all here.
MR. MILLER: I only had one that was not here, sir.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chair, could I have just about -- maybe I'll go
March 26, 2019
Page 239
over three, but maybe six or something.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about six?
MR. PRITT: Okay. I'll give it a shot, okay. Thank you.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is
Robert Pritt. I'm an attorney with Roetzel & Andress law firm, and
we were engaged by Mediterra. I represent Mediterra and only
Mediterra. We are engaged by Mediterra to look into the issues
relating to this development.
I had recommended and the board hired Dr. David Depew, who
you just heard from a couple moments ago. We did send you a copy,
and in your packet is a copy of his final determinations that he
referred to today, so if you need to take a look at that -- he had to go
through it pretty quickly, but it's all there.
Mediterra is located on the west and the east side of Livingston
Road north of Veterans to the northwest and north of the proposed
development. It's a pretty big development. It actually goes across
Livingston.
Mediterra, as was stated, is a mixed-use residential PUD,
1,168 acres, and it has about 750 units in density. It's primarily
single-family homes with some attached coach homes, but the density
is very, very low. It's less than one per acre, as I recall, and, again,
that's in the document that we had given you.
The proposed development that we're talking about here is, in
our opinion, inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, and
that's really what it's all about, is this consistent or inconsistent with
state law and the Growth Management Plan. And Planner Depew's
analysis is there.
We have a couple of major issues. You've heard most of them
concerning density. We think that this is too much on too little. One
of the problems is that it started real high, it started at 420, and then
it's at 350, and pretty soon 304 starts sounding good.
March 26, 2019
Page 240
But that's only relevant if 304 was good in the first place, and
then the second question I would have is, why didn't they just ask for
304 units? So we still think it's too high, way too high for that
property.
Secondly, you've heard a lot from others about incompatibility,
and I want to say a little bit about that, too. The type of development
that is apartment buildings is incompatible with the existing
neighborhood development patterns and the prevailing single-family
or low-density coach homes already in the area, and that is something
that you look at in your Comprehensive Plan and the GMP, Growth
Management Plan. Simply put, though, it is in the wrong location.
Thirdly, and related to incompatibility -- and I'll say something
about incompatibility again before I quit, if I have time.
And thirdly is something called spot planning. Now, spot
planning is -- probably it's better to say that this is planning that
allows for spot zoning. Spot zoning is illegal in the state of Florida,
and that is where something is done simply for the purposes of the
one -- the purposes of the person or the developer who wishes to have
the development. This looks a lot like spot planning to get to spot
zoning, and we heard a lot of zoning already today from the
applicants.
I think the Board should be very, very weary of subdistricts. I
know you have about 20 of them, but you shouldn't have 20 of them,
but you're stuck with them, and here's another one and, presumably,
the county has carefully analyzed the GMP when it did the districts,
when it created the districts. Subdistricts of this are for -- such as this
are for no other reason than to accomplish a single private developer's
proposal to overdevelop a particular parcel of land in its own image
and for its own purposes. That's not how planning and zoning is
supposed to work.
March 26, 2019
Page 241
It's actually supposed to work where you have the -- you have
the plan, Growth Management Plan, and you have the zoning, and
developers are supposed to purchase property and develop in
accordance with the existing plans, not to be changing them all the
time.
So assuming that was a well-thought-out plan, the developers
should purchase and develop a property in obedience to that.
And there was a reference to a U.S. Supreme Court case and,
yes, I did cite that. I didn't cite just any case to the Planning
Commission. I cited "the" case, the case that every law student has to
take and learn and know for testing purposes and every planner must
know, the first thing they must know. It's called Village of Euclid
Ohio versus Ambler Realty, 1926. And what it says is, among other
things, with particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out
that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded
by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in
destroying the entire section for private-house purposes; that in such
sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite constructed
in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive
surroundings created by the residential character of the district
bringing as necessary accompaniments the disturbing noises incident
to increased traffic and business, detracting from their safety, and
providing -- depriving children of the privilege and quiet spaces for
play enjoyed by those in more favored localities until, finally, the
residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a
place of detached residences are utterly destroyed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You have more time.
MR. PRITT: Thank you. Under these circumstances, apartment
houses which, in a different environment, would be not only entirely
unobjectionable, but highly desirable, they come very near to being
nuisances.
March 26, 2019
Page 242
That case could have been written last month, it could have been
written years ago. That is -- but for that case, we would not be here,
because zoning would have been found unconstitutional.
So some things never change. And putting apartment dwellings
next to single-family dwellings is one of the things that was looked at
by some very forward-thinking justices a long time ago.
With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're all good. Thank you.
You did go over your three minutes, though, just so you know.
MR. PRITT: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Irene -- and I'm having trouble
reading this -- Bintatti? Binfatti maybe?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She left.
MR. MILLER: She has left, okay. Jennifer Moen.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She left. They've got children.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Ivan Rosenblatt.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We all have children.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Rosenblatt has been ceded additional time
from Lisle Anderson. Can you indicate if you're here, Mr. Anderson?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And also from Mary Anderson. Are you here,
Mary?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: He will have a total of nine minutes and will be
followed by Judith Sloane.
MS. SLOANE: I cede my three minutes.
MR. MILLER: Your want to cede your time, Ms. Sloane, to
Mr. Rosenblatt? All right. Then, Mr. Rosenblatt, you will be
followed by Rob Andrews. You will have a total of 12 minutes, sir.
March 26, 2019
Page 243
MR. ROSENBLATT: I don't think I'll use 12 minutes, but I just
wanted to hit a few points.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay on the microphone, please, sir.
MR. ROSENBLATT: High density is not good in an area in
which -- which will only exacerbate a traffic issue. And shopping
and conveniences are not proximate to our location, so such an issue
is not applicable to our situation.
Compatibility is a crucial issue here. You've heard that from
many other people. Three- to four-story rental apartment complex is
totally incompatible with our area, and as we see, they're talking
about rentals of six months, seven months. This is a very transient
situation.
We are not against development as long as it is compatible
development. As an example, Enclave, which is between Mediterra
and Talis Park.
If this Allura project is approved over all our objections, it will
negatively affect, I believe, Collier County coffers, since property
values for all the communities in this area such as the Strand,
Barrington Cove, Mediterra, Talis Park, and the soon to be
constructed Enclave will significantly decrease, and property tax
revenue will decrease in accordance with that. So I don't think that
benefits the tax coffers of Collier County.
As you've heard already, traffic already is bad, and this will
make it immeasurably worse. Many of our residents are senior
citizens so they don't work, but they have to go places and do things,
and this traffic is certainly a big, big issue.
The neighborhood -- we've heard some things about
neighborhood changes, frightening; they are. When you have the
potential of a project coming in which has a transient level of
community, you don't know what kind of people you're going to get.
And, as we heard, Stock has a habit of getting something, and after
March 26, 2019
Page 244
they've developed it for a while and rent it for a while, they sell it off
and move on. They've done it up in Fort Myers, they've done it other
places. So you don't know who you're going to end up with. This is
a bad situation made worse.
I could say a lot of other things, but I'll just say one thing
succinctly: Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob Andrews. He'll be
followed by Marion Andrews. Rob Andrews?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Marion Andrews?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Michael Theodore?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Michael Theodore. He will be followed by
Edward Gorelick.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We don't have a Michael Theodore
here either.
MR. MILLER: Oh, I thought that was him getting up. I'm
sorry. Edward Gorelick.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And after Andrew is?
MR. MILLER: After Edward Gorelick is Jayne Gorelick.
MS. GORELICK: I'm going to pass to him.
MR. MILLER: Okay. I thought so. And Mr. Gorelick will be
followed by Susan Mulgner. I hope I'm saying that right.
Mr. Gorelick, you have six minutes.
MR. GORELICK: Thank you. I don't think I'll use them, but...
I live in Barrington Cove, and when we come out, we go out
onto Livingston Road. Now we have to go across three lanes if we
want to go south to make that U-turn, and if you bring all those other
developments in, you'll never make it across that road. It's just
impossible.
March 26, 2019
Page 245
And also, in Bonita Springs they're building a tremendous
amount of apartments. It's behind Pinchers Crab Shack. So I don't
know if you're aware of that. So it looks like maybe 800 units going
in there. And that's about it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's freezing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it is, isn't it?
MR. MILLER: Susan Mulgner.
MR. GORELICK: Susan had to leave.
MR. MILLER: I think I heard someone say she left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The only two that aren't freezing
are the two of you.
MR. GORELICK: We have an annual meeting on the
association.
MR. MILLER: All right, sir. Marsha Cherry, is she here? She
had donated time to Susan. I wanted to give her an opportunity to
speak.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Sharon Griffith. Sharon Griffith.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Donald McDaniel?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can't be all bad.
MR. MILLER: Elbert L. Lands.
MR. LANDS: Here.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Lands would be followed by Andrew
Kowalski.
MR. LANDS: Good evening, and thank you. I have to agree
with what's been said already, and it's been said very well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, sir?
March 26, 2019
Page 246
MR. LANDS: My name is Elbert, E-l-b-e-r-t. Last name
Lands, L-a-n-d-s. I'm a homeowner in Barrington Cove the last
two-and-a-half years.
Traffic is a major issue, and incompatibility is a key issue, and
we'd certainly like to keep it as it is, not as Mr. Stock would like it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. LANDS: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Andrew Kowalski. He'll
be followed, oh, boy, Zannos Grekos.
MR. GREKOS: Yes.
MR. MILLER: I was in the ballpark. Mr. Kowalski.
MR. KOWALSKI: Yeah, I'd just like to agree with everything
that's been said so far. I'm sure Mr. Stock doesn't live around
apartment buildings, nor does he want them around him, and I think
everybody in this room that came here today -- and this is just a tip of
the iceberg of the rest of the people that are out there that feel the
same way that just didn't get here today because they have children in
school or are working or whatever. Very opposed to this. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Zannos Grekos. He's been
ceded three additional minutes from Larry Waller. Mr. Waller is
right here. Will be followed by Amanda Walgray (phonetic). I hope
I'm saying that right.
MS. WALGRAY: I donated my time.
MR. MILLER: To?
MR. GREKOS: Walzak.
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. To who?
MR. GREKOS: She's donating it to me.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you, sir. You will have a total of
nine minutes, then.
March 26, 2019
Page 247
MR. GREKOS: Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience
and your listening still and your awareness still. I also want to thank
you individually for meeting with representatives of Barrington
Cove. We were part of that group that met with you in the offices,
and we really enjoyed the interactions that we had with you.
As I stated at your meetings, Barrington Cove is a community.
It's a neighborhood. We have children, and we have grandparents
living in the same community, which blows my mind in Florida
because that's not something that, having grown up here, you
generally tend to see.
You know, my kids had to go outside the neighborhood to be
without (sic) other kids or maybe to trick or treat here in Naples.
And it's nice to have big trick-or-treating groups. And we have
Christmas parties, and we have our little own 4th of July parade. So
it's really -- you know, it's really what you want for your family and
what you want for your kids growing up.
What Attorney Bob Pritt mentioned about that Supreme Court
hearing (sic) and a neighborhood being wilted by an apartment
complex close by scared me even more than how afraid I was when I
came into this meeting. So I just wanted to let -- start off with that.
Stock's attorney spent a whole lot of time talking about buffers and
how the trees going to be and what the sight lines are going to be, but
it doesn't change the fact that these are three- and four-story large
apartments buildings that are into a neighborhood that doesn't have
any of these down the entire corridor of Livingston between Bonita
Beach Road and Immokalee Road. There are no rental communities
on that corridor, and there are no large buildings such as this.
And though Stock has been indicating that they were gracious
enough to decrease the size of their buildings from four-story to
three-story, I believe that that happened because their numbers went
from 420 to 350 to 304, so their buildings had to get a little bit shorter
March 26, 2019
Page 248
in order to accommodate for the loss of overall density.
So let's start off with De La Rosa PUD that apparently does not
have full approval to go forward, from what I'm understanding today.
That is something that has been threatened against the Barrington
community and, as a Barrington Cove resident in solidarity with the
other residents in the community, including Amanda Walzak, who
has ceded me her time, whose house is the one that abuts that
threatened multi-story building that will be 25 yards from the back of
her house, we accept that as a potential consequence. As long as you
as our representatives do what we ask you to do, and that is to deny
this Growth Management Plan amendment to turn this into a
subdistrict.
We do not want it transmitted, and we stand behind it regardless
of what the consequences might be. You are our representatives, and
please let us voice to you what our concerns are and what we're
dealing (sic) to accept as a consequence, because I've heard threats
from Stock Development and from others that this is the less of two
evils. If you don't agree to this, then something worse is going to
come down the road, and I believe that we should deal with the
battles that are in front of us at the time we're battling. And this is a
decision that just makes sense to me not to allow the increase in
density.
The base density for that area is four units per acre, and as has
been mentioned before, there's nothing that has been built greater
than four units, and Barrington Cove, though it was approved for
multifamily and a density of four units per acre, is at a little over two
units per acre. So our neighborhood that is going to abut -- well, that
hopefully will not abut this proposed apartment building, is at less
than -- is around two units per acre.
Can I put something on the screen? Excuse me. I just want to
revisit Florida -- or Future Land Use Element that we're all citing
March 26, 2019
Page 249
here today. And if you can see Policy 5.4 that is, again, being cited
quite a bit is not being read in completion, and let me read it to
everybody. New developments shall be compatible.
We've talked a lot about compatibility and putting in buffers, but
we haven't talked about the "and" part of, which is "and
complementary." Complementary "and." It's not an "or," it's an and.
So compatible and complementary to the surrounding land use.
That's Barrington Cove. That's Talis Park. That's the Strand. That's
Camden Lakes. Those are the areas that are around it. It doesn't
mean that it should be compatible and complementary to Arthrex, to
Stock, or to any other corporation that's looking to have housing
added to the area. It's complementary to us that are directly next to it.
So I haven't heard anything that makes me think that this is
complementary other than buffers. How do I know it's not
complementary? Well, there's nothing else in the area that's rental,
four-story in that corridor. There's no density in excess of four units
per acre in that area with the exception of De La Rosa, which is total
of 15 acres. And if you compare the 15 acres to the over 3,000 acres
of the rest of the community, it's less than .1 percent.
That was a mistake, looking back, and I don't think that making
a second mistake makes that one right. You know, we all grew up
with "two wrongs don't make a right." I think that that's what it
would be if this is transmitted.
Next, you've got a lot of people with red shirts here that are
speaking against. The only person that I heard speak for it is the
employee of Stock that rents (sic) in Barrington Cove that admitted
that the traffic is bad. So why would we make traffic worse by
adding an additional 100 and some plus units to that area when they
still have to drive to the Publix on Bonita Beach Road or the Publix
down to Immokalee?
If this was complementary, this room would be filled with
March 26, 2019
Page 250
people saying, let's do this. This is a great project. It enhances my
way of life.
You have two petitions, one with over 500 signatures, and one
with over 1,000 signatures from that district against this.
Lastly, how do I know that it's not complementary is that the
chairman of our own Planning Commission voted against it with
prejudice, and I have to appreciate his expertise, his integrity, and his
ability to make decisions as to what makes Collier County Collier
County, and that's families. I've raised five kids in Collier County.
You know, they've all gone on now to do great things at schools, and
they're going to be coming back, hopefully, to live here with their
families, and I want them to have neighborhoods so that my
grandkids can play in the neighborhood on the street like kids really
should.
So thank you again for your consideration.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one slip left, and I'm
really having trouble with this one. Is there a Gene or Gert, lives in
the Strand. I can't even make out the last name at all. Is there anyone
signed up to speak from the Strand who I've not called?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I'm going to guess this person's not here then,
Mr. McDaniel. And that would be -- Chairman McDaniel, that would
be your final speaker, then.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Therefore, then, we'll go on to the
petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Unless there's questions. Commissioner
Solis, you are lit up first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'd like to hear if there's any
comments or -- from the petitioner, but I do have -- I do have a
couple issues that I want to raise, and that is looking at what you're
actually -- number one, this is a transmittal hearing, so all we're
March 26, 2019
Page 251
deciding today is whether or not to send this proposed Comp Plan
amendment to the state for review with compatibility with Florida
Statutes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So we're not actually approving --
we're not even approving the Comp Plan amendment. We're just
going to forward this to the state. Mr. Bosi's shaking his head yes.
Okay.
So there is ample opportunity, then, to -- we're going to see this
at least twice again more if it moves forward.
Number two --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just one more time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, there will be a zoning -- the
zoning application will come behind it.
MR. OCHS: I think they'd come concurrent.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, right. But I mean, there --
okay. There's the Planning Commission on both of those.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's two -- at least two more
public hearings, right? Mr. Bosi's shaking his head yes. Okay. I just
want to make sure we're on the same page.
You know -- can we go back to that line-of-sight -- the line of
sight charts.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm working on it. Is that the one?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so -- and even if this is -- I
want to make sure, Mr. Bosi, that I'm clear. So even if this is sent to
the state for review and it comes back -- it may come back with
comments -- we're going to have another adoption hearing if we're
going to adopt what that is. And there are opportunities to make
March 26, 2019
Page 252
changes to this document again if we need to.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. And,
correct, Commissioner, this is the transmittal. This will go to
Department of Economic Opportunity for their review. They will
review it again state significant systems, provide comments to us, and
then we will join up the Planned Unit Development, the specifics of
the zoning regulations for the PUD with the GMP amendment with
whatever modifications would be required by the state, bring that
back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would
review. And normally during the adoption hearings the PUD
becomes the focus.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. BOSI: But there's other ability to make other adjustments
to the density and other allocations within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's really where the final
decision as to density and what the actual development is going to be
like is made.
MR. BOSI: At adoption, correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: At adoption and in the zoning
application.
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which comes -- okay.
So this is -- this is just a policy statement, not the actual
approval. You know, my concern -- and I understand the concern of
having, you know, tall rental apartment buildings next to
single-family homes. I mean, I wasn't aware that Barrington Cove,
that the PUD there actually allowed multifamily. So to some extent
that kind of compatibility is -- it's problematic for me to say that it's
not going to be compatible if it's allowed within the Barrington Cove
PUD itself. I mean, there's a logical problem with that. But, again,
we're not here to decide specifically what's going to be approved
March 26, 2019
Page 253
under the zoning.
I am concerned, though, because this is, I think, an overall
policy issue as to the size -- the height of the buildings. And I realize
that the ones that are closest to Barrington Cove on the north side are
three stories, correct?
And the four-story buildings are the ones that are farther away;
however, looking at the line-of-sight charts, the four-story buildings
are the ones that you'll actually see the building from the Barrington
Cove property? Am I getting that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me go to D.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go to the next one.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You will see that -- I'm assuming what
you're talking about is D --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- this line of sight for D.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: C and D.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You would see the fourth -- you would
see the tippy top of the fourth story.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But you'd see it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. I just want to make sure
we're --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, C and D. I'm sorry. I gave
you the wrong direction. It's the north buildings right there, right, C
and D. Those are the four-story buildings.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In these line of sights, actually Building
C itself, I'm sorry, the C angle where it's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here, this building, this is an old
graphic. We have not -- this shows four stories, but we've agreed to
March 26, 2019
Page 254
reduce that to three. So what you're seeing now you will not see in
the version of line of sight C because we've agreed to go down to
three on that. That's an old line of sight that we showed at the
Planning Commission and have not reduced that height.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So C -- you will not see the building that
this line of sight is showing you for C, but you will see in D that it's
still four stories.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. Now it makes sense.
You know, I'm concerned that you've got the three stories and then
you've got the four stories shown in D, and those are the buildings
that you're going to see. And I realize that you're pushing them back
125 feet. What's approved is 20. You know, even at the approval
stage, because this is just a policy statement -- I mean, I don't think as
a policy that's something I would support, to allow buildings that
would be tall enough to be seen from, you know, the Barrington Cove
properties. I think the other ones it was just the very top of the roof
line. I mean, this you'd actually see the side of the building.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you go back to A, right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I'm not inclined to support
it if the buildings are going to be seen, even at transmittal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So are you saying that you would
like to see -- we don't have a height limitation in the current
subdistrict language. Are you asking us to include a height limitation
of, I'm assuming three stories because that's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If that's the most restrictive way to
do it, yes.
March 26, 2019
Page 255
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean, typically we don't get this
detailed in the Comp Plan, but you have in the past added those
development standards in the GMP subdistrict as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Whatever the heights are on A and
B that wouldn't be seen, whatever you're proposing there, and I'm not
sure exactly what -- is that a --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I've got to go back. I'm sorry.
MR. MULHERE: Forty and 50.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is that the -- three stories.
Allowable zoned height is three stories at 40 feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what we're talking about.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. That's in the PUD. Are you
asking to move that into the GMP as well?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I just want to make sure I get it in
the right place.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I want to make sure that -- I
think that's -- even at the policy level, this is something I think the
owners have a point that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it also --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- they shouldn't have to see it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- applies along the lines of the
subdistrict thought process so that we're --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- you know, we have something to
go back on in the event that someone else comes along and wants to
do something else.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I would also say again, since
this is just a transmittal and we'll revisit all of this again, I think I
would just suggest that in that process there's going to be a lot more
March 26, 2019
Page 256
opportunity to work with the neighbors, because I understand their
concerns. The traffic issue on Livingston Road is a real thing. I've
traveled that. Unfortunately, the more I look at this -- and it may be
just my -- I don't know if I'm an expert in this, but everybody that I've
talked to says that the real problem is traffic moving north and getting
stuck at Bonita Beach Road. We have got to -- and I'm going to work
on having discussions with the mayor. You know we have a joint
MPO meeting --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That we haven't had in forever.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forever, because our neighbors to
the north, we can't get a quorum. That's one of these solutions. I
think, obviously, opening up Veterans Parkway will help. I think that
will help. Logan, Logan will also help, because if there's something
going on, on I-75, everybody gets off, and they end up on Livingston.
I mean, I think there are things in the works that are going to help the
traffic.
You know, if the applicant's willing to lower the height of the
buildings so that they're all three stories and include that in the
Growth Management Plan, then I'm not opposed to moving forward
just to have the state review it. It doesn't mean we're committed to
that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, she had her --
Commissioner Fiala had her light on --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's what I thought.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and took it off because she
thought I wanted to talk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did, but then I --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just commenting on what
Commissioner Solis was, so please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, can I --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Would you want -- I don't want to
March 26, 2019
Page 257
interrupt the discussion, but I did have a few comments to the public.
Do you want me to wait until discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I can go after you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't want to interrupt.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If he could finish so we could
close the public hearing and then we get into our discussion, I would
feel more comfortable.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. That's a fine way to go.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's okay. I just have a few rebuttal
comments that I'd like to make to some comments from the public.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I should have done that in the first
place.
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, you have done a housing
analysis, and your housing analysis is that you have a shortfall in
market-rate rental as well as affordable housing rental. You have a
shortfall in both, and the data and analysis fully supports our request
for market-rate affordable housing.
I always have this "no dah" moment whenever I bring a Comp
Plan amendment when people get up there and say, this is
inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Because if it was consistent with
the Comp Plan, I wouldn't be asking for an amendment to the Comp
Plan.
So I acknowledge that it's inconsistent from a density standpoint
to get here with a unified development to get to the density we're
requesting. It's not inconsistent with the already existing provisions
in your Comprehensive Plan to get to two separate projects that
would achieve a higher density.
And I always -- I kind of rub my eyes. You know, Francesca
makes fun of me when I do this (indicating) when I hear some
statements, because I get this comment that we haven't -- we should
be denied because we haven't analyzed whether we can have a
March 26, 2019
Page 258
financially viable project for an affordable housing project on this
site.
So the Planning Commission asked Mr. Depew, I'm sorry,
Dr. Depew, are your clients advocating for an affordable housing
complex on this property? If I listened to what he said, I think he's
saying, hey, if I could do affordable housing, I'm consistent with the
Comp Plan and bring it on.
And I'm going to tell you right now when you look at the density
numbers and the traffic impacts, I'm going to meet all your rules and
regulations at 10 units an acre, which was the 350, and we can -- I
could achieve that today under your new affordable housing density
bonus criteria. I can.
And so if that's what Dr. Depew thinks we should do, I would
expect him, if we did that, to come and support our project as being
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
I want to remind the Board that the Planning Commission voted
4-2 in favor of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. There were four
Planning Commissioners that listened to the entire presentation and
recommended approval at 304 units. So the majority thought this
was a good project and recommended approval of that, as is your
staff. Your staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment.
Now, people say that nobody wants to live near apartment
complexes. I, frankly, disagree with that. We just did one in the
Briarwood community. Very little opposition to that. We're not
affecting their property values with rents that are going to be in the
1,400 to $1,500 rent for a one-bedroom up to, you know, $2,000 a
unit for a three-bedroom. We're not going to affect anybody's
property values.
So those statements kind of frustrate me a little bit, because
we're not a pig, and we're not putting lipstick on a pig. Inspira for
March 26, 2019
Page 259
Stock is a very good project. The project that they sold in Fort Myers
sold for $71 million. Nobody's going to invest $71 million on a
project and let it get run into the ground. They are going to protect
that investment and make sure that these, quote, transient people that
are going to live there are quality people.
And to refer to people who live in an apartment complex in a
negative way as transient I don't think is fair and it's not accurate,
because most of us probably lived in an apartment at one time or
another when they came to this community. I know I did for a couple
of years.
So to refer to us as transient or this project as transient to reduce
the value of the neighborhood, I think, is unfounded, unfair, and not
supported by any information that was provided to you.
One of my favorite radio stories when I was growing up was listening
to Paul Harvey. I don't know if you all remember Paul Harvey and
the rest of the story. Now, I know most of you are old enough -- I
know some people are not in the audience, but most of us are.
Now, the Euclid case that was cited that poor Commissioner
Solis, Commissioner Saunders, and Mr. Klatzkow and I had to all
learn about Euclidian zoning basically had to do with someone taking
away what they perceived to be the right to do industrial zoning. So
they challenged the imposition of certain zoning on that property.
What you weren't told is that the Euclid case, the zoning
district -- the zoning that was upheld -- it's very similar to our zoning.
You start with -- in our case C1 you have certain uses, C2 builds on
those uses, C3 builds on those uses, it gets better -- you get more and
more intense.
In the Euclid case, the U3 zoning district, that was upheld as
okay, allows single-family, two-family, apartment houses, hotels,
churches, hospitals and other uses all in the same zoning district.
We're not asking for those intense uses, but the Supreme Court of the
March 26, 2019
Page 260
United States upheld a zoning scheme that allowed apartments next
to single-family.
You have the right to adopt zoning. That's what Euclid said is
local governments have the ability to adopt zoning regulations.
Euclid did not say that apartments next to single-family is
incompatible. It actually said the exact opposite when it upheld that
zoning district standard.
We are requesting that you submit our requested GMP
amendment because it's a good project, and you'll see the PUD. And
we spent a lot of time on the PUD because everybody's afraid of
what's the Growth Management Plan going to lead to, and that's why
we bring them both together so you'll see the end product.
We're -- of course, we're not going to object to a request that we
go down to three stories. Is it for every building in the project, or
was it for the ones nearest -- does that include the two buildings
along Livingston as well?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not going to object to that going
into the Comprehensive Plan. We will typically find it in a PUD, but
we're not going to object to it being in the Growth Management Plan
as part of the transmittal and, hopefully, ultimately the adoption. But
your staff is recommending approval, your Planning Commission is
recommending approval. You have a good, quality developer on this
piece of property, and to imply otherwise I don't think is fair, and we
request that you transmit to -- I keep wanting to say DCA --
Department of Economic Opportunity so they could comment on this
petition. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. At some point we will
close the public hearing and deliberate.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I appreciate the legal way
March 26, 2019
Page 261
of looking at this, that this is just merely a transmittal, but this is
much, much more than merely a transmittal. This is the camel in the
tent. And I think we have to look at it as a very serious decision
whether we want to allow this development as presented to go
forward. Even though they reduced it to three stories, I think that's
zoning on the fly. I think that's going to reduce the number of units
in the project. I'm not sure -- I don't know if anybody knows how
much that's going to be, and -- but we still have a challenge here
because we've got bad traffic in this corner, terrible traffic. I mean,
I've seen the video, and I've actually driven it, and I'm quite aware of
how challenging it is.
And we're having a more intense use of a high school, so there's
going to be a lot more going on there. And despite the four-laning of
the Veterans road, I don't think that's going to help very much, I'm
sorry to say.
This is -- this is a challenge we all have. Because it's not my
backyard. It's the people who are here, the people who have been
here since 1 o'clock who are still here. It is now almost 6:30. The
people who have written to us, the people who have great concerns
about the intensity. They don't have the intense worry about
development, because they've talked about other properties being
developed. They have about the proximity of this development to
neighborhoods. Now, I think one of the setbacks is 125 feet; is that
correct?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not even midfield on a
football field. That's a 40-yard line, for gosh sakes. I can see the
quarterback's eyes in the end zone on the 40-yard line. I can hear
them yell in a football field. Can you imagine living next to this?
I -- this is -- this is done -- and, of course, it's done to create profits
for the developer, but I don't think it's done with the best sense of the
March 26, 2019
Page 262
neighborhood in mind and of their property values in what they're
doing.
And it is a very serious vote we take right now. I don't want to
dismiss it by saying, oh, it's merely transmittal. Of course, it's
transmittal, but it's the beginning of a process for which these people
will object to.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was surprised because
you've been the queen of affordable housing, so I was surprised to
hear that.
But, anyway, I wanted to say that this -- I'm comparing it a little
bit with Arthrex, because Arthrex came in, and they were right on the
heels, and you voted for it, Commissioner Fi -- Commissioner
Taylor. I'm Fiala; you're Taylor.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm getting confused.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they were located right next
door to Lakoya, and Lakoya people were all out and they were
talking about the traffic and talking about trying to get out of their
place and so forth and talking about apartment dwelling, and there
aren't any apartment dwellings around there. You know, they had all
of the same things. We voted for it anyway.
And Inspira, I went over to take a good look at it, and I wanted
to see what it really looked like and -- as they were not only building
it, but since they've opened it. I wanted to take a look at what it was
like inside. And they have these Friday night things, you know, after
work everybody get together and get to know your neighbors and
stuff, and they had fireplaces going, and it's -- the place is just great.
It's lovely. And the people are, like, becoming real friendly with one
another, and there's only about 40 percent of the place occupied so
March 26, 2019
Page 263
far. I was happy to see that.
But I think, then, of this particular area, and this particular
project, and then I think the reason they're coupling some of the
rental units -- and they're going rental because that's what everybody
has been crying for. We need more rental units, especially in North
Naples, because there's -- Arthrex has been, very, very loud in
promoting the fact that they need housing. They don't need housing
for cheap stuff. They need housing for the people that are coming in,
getting jobs there at Arthrex, taking on all of this new building that
has been coming there. They're going to be bringing professors in
who are going to be teaching in the school. They're going to be
bringing in students who are learning more about -- I hate to say
stitching up people, but that's what they're going to do, and things
like that.
This isn't somebody going and shoveling dirt or something.
These are people who have educated themselves, they're coming in,
and they want to know where they're going to live. Yeah, they want
to live at a place for a year, maybe two years before they decide
they're going to build their house, but this is good people.
And same with the Sheriff's Office; they've been looking for
housing out there and yelling about it. Naples Daily News and the
Chamber of Commerce, they're all saying we need more housing, and
everybody is calling for rental. And here they are, they're answering
the call, and now we're saying, but not here. I don't quite understand
that myself.
I think it's a great proposal, and so I'm saying we should take it
on to -- and get it -- right now take it up to Tallahassee and see what
they have to say about it, too. But I -- and I would hope that these
people who have been asking for it, Arthrex, Sheriff's Office, Naples
Daily News, hospital -- the hospitals have been asking for it, too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fire Departments.
March 26, 2019
Page 264
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've got a lot of people there
that need places to live.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And school district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And school district, yes. Well, here
we are. Here we have it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, one of the things that
really concerns me is, having worked in this area for a long time, is
the fact that there is -- there's already an approved PUD, which I
mean, puts the buildings 20 feet from the backs of some of the
houses. That's been approved, I mean. And as I understand it, Stock
has purchased this piece. They already own it. You've closed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Number one. Number two, if
another property owner ends up with the north piece that abuts
Veterans, I mean, I think there's a very distinct possibly that you end
up with two developers. It will be very difficult to make this nice if it
ends up being chopped up. And I see that as a very, very serious
possibility.
And the buildings being -- I mean, a building that large 20 feet
from the back of a property line is -- that's a disaster. I mean, I
wouldn't want to live next to that and, certainly -- but it's there.
Whether it was a good idea or bad idea, we can't just say, you can't do
that anymore. It's been approved.
What I'm suggesting is that this, as Commissioner Taylor said, is
the beginning of a process, and I'm hoping -- because I still have
serious concerns about a lot of it, that since this is the beginning of
the process, that this process continues and what we end up with is
something better than it would be otherwise, like a four-story
building 20 feet from somebody's house. That's the worst-case
scenario, I think, out of this whole thing.
March 26, 2019
Page 265
And so what I'm suggesting is we move it forward. They've
agreed to lower the buildings and put that in the Comp Plan, that's
unusual, and the process continues, and I hope that everybody will be
here again.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I bet they will.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can we start at 9?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We'll try.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Solis, are you --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I've kind of gone
back and forth on this. I told the group, I think, from Barrington, or
wherever the group was from yesterday, that I thought that I would
probably vote to move this forward with sort of the same logic that
Commissioner Solis has indicated, but I had some very serious
problems with this.
Now, you've eliminating one of the problems, which was the
four-story building, and that makes this whole thing a whole lot more
acceptable in terms of moving it forward.
I think that that project that's already been approved, I think that
was a mistake. Now, we didn't make that mistake. And just so the
audience understands, because of Bert Harris property rights and
constraints that we have, we can't simply go back and say to a
property owner that has relied on -- or has purchased property with a
specific zoning, you can no longer have that zoning. That creates a
burden on that particular property and could result in the county
having to pay substantial damages for that reduction in that zoning.
So we've got an existing zoning that we really have no way to
say -- simply say, well, you can't do that anymore. So now you've
got a single developer that's acquired that and, as Andy Solis,
March 26, 2019
Page 266
Mr. Soils has indicated, having one person develop those parcels as
opposed to having two separate developers, one already having the
right to do a project that would be much more intrusive than what this
particular developer has proposed, I think, would just make that
mistake that was done by the commission years ago even worse.
So I'm going to vote to move this forward for transmittal today,
but I've got some very serious problems. I don't want this to sound
like a message to the developer when you come back with the rezone
it's a slam dunk because we're transmitting this. I have some
problems with it, and I think the county staff is going to continue to
need to work with the developer to continue to minimize impacts on
this community.
Going from four stories to three stories really has sort of tilted
my decision to move forward with this to the transmittal. I don't
think comments coming from the State Department of Economic
Opportunity are going to be particularly persuasive --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- to any of us, but I think
that does give the developer some more opportunity to continue to
work, and let's see if we can make sure that we minimize these
impacts. So had they not made the concession to go from four to
three, I would have voted against transmittal today.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Concur.
Commissioner Taylor and then I'll --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, what do
you think they're going to do with Bonita Beach Road? They can't
widen it, I don't think.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think they can widen it. I think
that there's certainly things -- well, I mean, I don't know. I'm not a
commissioner in Lee County or the mayor.
But there certainly has to be -- there have to be options in
March 26, 2019
Page 267
whether it's signalization, timing, you know, there has to be a way to
alleviate that situation somehow. I mean, we do it all the time in
Collier County, and I feel very confident that we wouldn't have the
problem -- some of the delays we have, because it all begins in Lee
County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We need to push this issue, and I'm
going to do that with Lee County. It's -- this is not a problem that not
approving this project is going to solve. It's still going to be there.
We have to solve this with our neighbors to the north. It will be the
same issue probably on Logan if we don't address it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And 951.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And 951.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've been trying to get that
through.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have got to get our MPO, our
joint MPO process, to work because I think that's where it needs to
start. But I don't know what can be done, but there has to be
something that can be done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But if there's not?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If there's not -- if there's not, then
we're back to if we don't move this forward -- let me say one thing,
and I haven't asked Stock this. But usually a developer will take an
option on the whole piece, right, and it's contingent upon a zoning
approval.
If I was in Barrington Cove, I would be concerned that they
closed on the piece that's already zoned.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They own it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because what it tells me is there's
an analysis that's been made that one way or the other it's worth
buying, either as De La Rosa or as what they're proposing to do later.
March 26, 2019
Page 268
I would be extremely concerned with that if I was you, because you
have buildings 20 feet from the property line. That's just the way the
business works.
If -- and I'm not trying to put words in Mr. Yovanovich's mouth,
God forbid, but I would assume that that happened because either
way it's going forward and that's -- I'd be concerned with that, and I
would hate to see that happen because I think, as Commissioner
Saunders said, I think the De La Rosa approval was a mistake. But
the only thing we can do about it now is try to improve it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think the same way. I really
like the fact that you've asked for the reduction in height all the way
across and have that to be included in the GMP as well as the PUD.
I think two wrongs don't make a right. If there -- the De La Rosa
project has the propensity to have some really serious negative
impacts on the area.
Now, Commissioner Taylor, you brought up a point, and I
always go -- you must not have been reading my notes on this one.
But I -- you know, we, as a community, need to start to have some
discussion about the data and analysis that we're utilizing for the
construction of our infrastructure. I watched the Planning
Commission hearing that talked about the traffic generation of 104
trips and 750 parking spaces, and it was just absolutely
counterintuitive to me.
And I saw dear Trinity stand at the podium and talk about the
lack of staff and the lack of capacity that we have to go out and do
actual analysis on facilities. We're building our infrastructure,
developing our infrastructure based upon an AUIR that then leads
into a CIP that goes on to the capital funding for what, in fact, we, in
fact, have to have and need.
So I am -- I think systemic adjustments are warranted for us as a
community. Cooperative efforts with Lee County next door to us are
March 26, 2019
Page 269
in dire need because of the continuity of the two communities.
So I would prefer knowing, as a community, what was going to
be next to me. I think that the offerings that have come forward from
Stock Development -- I know Stock Development. They're one of
the finest developers in our community. They build one of -- they
build a fine product, whatever they do.
So I'm in support of moving this forward. I share the concerns
of my colleagues; not all of them. But I share the concerns of my
colleagues with regard to the future negotiations with the neighbors
and additional buffering and things that may be able to assist, but I'm
in support of moving this forward.
So with that, I'll make a motion to do that, unless Commissioner Solis
wants to.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: With the height limitation for three
stories.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just seconded it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He just seconded it, okay. Any
other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
How are you doing, Terri? Are you doing okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: I could use five minutes.
March 26, 2019
Page 270
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll take a five-minute break.
Come back at 6:42.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #11C
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 17-7198
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK (CMAR)
CONTRACT PHASE 1A – GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE
(GMP) NO. 2 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL WORK
PACKAGE TO MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
NEXT PHASE OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX AND EVENTS
CENTER (SCEC) IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,757,765 –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
We're on to Item 11C. This is a recommendation to approve the
second amendment to the agreement for Construction Management
and Risk Contract Phase 1A for a guaranteed maximum price for
horizontal and vertical work package to Manhattan Construction for
the next phase of the sports complex and events center in the amount
of $30,757,765.
Mr. Casalanguida will make the presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask you a quick
question? Do you really want to make a presentation, and do we
need one?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh-uh.
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to hurt your
feelings.
March 26, 2019
Page 271
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, Commissioner McDaniel has
concerns about the -- about the proposal as it's put forward.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have need a
presentation on the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I don't have to have a
presentation, if we just want to go straight to discussion. It's up to
you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I can blow through
the slides or answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's quarter to 7. Let's do the
issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Or can this wait until our next
meeting, and then you'd have a full --
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only because we've got construction
wrapping up one phase, and I'll lose the overlap in savings if I do
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's just get into the issue of
the contract that's in front of us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. And, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question is simple. What is a
field house?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A field house is a -- it's an indoor
gymnasium, ma'am. Nothing -- it's a glorified indoor gymnasium.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Multi-purpose.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Multi-purpose. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve.
March 26, 2019
Page 272
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, well -- okay, okay. Okay,
okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Call the question. I take that
back. I take that back.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just let me say
my two cents, if you will, please.
I am the one a month or so -- with your support, after I was
elected, that shot down the Atlanta Braves project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a bad --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That was not -- I felt that that was
not good for our community. We all --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You shut it down?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We all did, the Atlanta Braves
stadium that was coming to us.
Now, I have concerns with this project. I am as, you know, a
developer. I am a real estate guy. I do projects all the time. I have
seen inconsistencies with this. There are a lot of uncertainties in this
proposition, a lot of move -- don't shake your head no. There are a
lot of moving parts.
There is no reference to any impropriety or facetious activity on
your part. I need you to hear me say that out loud, okay?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'm very comfortable
that there's no improprieties on my part.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. And -- but be that as it
may, you know I'm disappointed with the Phase 0 process at all. I
know why.
I am also disappointed in the lack of a TPC, the total project
cost, to get to that, that moving target that moves around, has been
moving around.
I certainly -- it was represented in this executive summary the
March 26, 2019
Page 273
excess money that came from the TDT tax was to be spent on beach
renourishment and beach resiliency, not appropriated off in those
others that were mentioned in here.
I have not yet seen what I perceive to be a good budget for the
O&M going forward, and I know that there are a lot of moving
targets, for lack of a better term, that you really can't come at us
with -- come at me with yet to help with my concerns in that regard,
but there is -- there are -- there are moving targets with regard to the
expenses and operations of this facility.
I expressed a concern that the estimates of this project and its
total expenses were not as accurate, potentially, as what were
represented to us and could certainly be higher, and I see this coming
at us at the end where we're not going to have a field house under
your current budget constraints. That was one of my few, if you
will -- you asked about it. That was one of my few perceived public
benefit that was coming for this was a Cat 5, 80,000-square-foot
shelter on the other side of I-75, and that's -- under the current budget
that we have, we're not going to have that, not without taking this
project up to the $100 million mark or so in order to facilitate that.
I think, as it currently sits right now, that we have sufficient
deliverables to warrant what we -- how you have proposed this to
come forward. I think. I hope.
But I am -- I am worried with regard to what this is, in fact,
going to impact our community. I just -- I have to say that. I
haven't -- you and I went round and round about this yesterday. I
just -- I have -- I'm expressing a concern. I can count and hear what's
going on around me and know that this is going to go forward. I just
want to elaborate that -- that concern.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if anything I can tell
you to alleviate some of that concern is the team that's been here,
Margaret, Commissioner Taylor's participated, even the Clerk's team
March 26, 2019
Page 274
that comes to our production meeting, five of them, took them on a
site visit. They even provided input and asked a lot of good
questions. And I think good questions from Crystal's team always
gives you a better product.
There's been an inordinate amount of time spent by myself and
the team along with the construction manager, designers, the Clerk's
staff, to turn this project upside down. And we've laid out a phase
schedule that gets you a project faster with more scrutiny and
transparency and more ability for the Board, along each phase, to
make decisions as they need to.
The sketch that's in front of you -- and it would probably
behoove you just to see it, because I wanted to make sure you
understand what you're gong to get in a sense -- and I can run through
it real quick -- gives the Board everything they've asked for. The
contract manager that's coming on board expects to double, from
what they've told us, the amount of revenue that we'd come in based
on the current design we've done. And a lot of that came from the
comments that both you provided, Commissioner Saunders, and
Commissioner Solis regarding baseball, because they said to us, these
dual-purpose fields on the east side are going to double what we can
do for events in this facility.
And the way we've designed the park allows you to have almost
four different events going on at the same time, the east side of the
park: The core, the park, the stadium, and the great lawn.
And we talk about the revenue from the great lawn when you've got a
food truck here with beer and wine.
Mr. Farno (phonetic) is here, but I'm not going to bring him up.
But I'll tell you, the meetings we've had with the management
company, who just opened up Vicksburg -- I went up to see them in
Atlanta. They run Sandusky. They run an excellent program. And I
predict that, you know, rather than 40 or 50 cents on the dollar that
March 26, 2019
Page 275
parks takes in for O&M per capita, you know, revenue back for the
O&M expended, I bet you we're going to get in the neighborhood of
75 to 100 percent when we're done because of the amenities that are
here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm excited about the potential,
Nick. I can't share with you that. I'm sharing with you personal
experience that I've had in my private life with regard to business
decisions that I've made along the way. And the potential for revenue
for this project is off the chart. It's off the chart. The benefit for the
community on the phased-in process as you currently have it set up is
sufficient to warrant for it to go forward. I just --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm reading you loud and clear, and
I'm going to make sure I keep an eye on it.
Commissioners, if I could, if I could take two minutes, I will blow
through the slides and just give you a feel for what's there. That
way --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can he do it real quick. It's already
been moved and seconded --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and we can vote, but it's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question, though, of our
County Attorney. Because it was posed by our county clerk to me
yesterday, and I said I would ask. Is -- the CMA process, is that
illegal?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's commonplace. It's legal, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's construction manager.
MR. OCHS: At risk.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: At risk.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At risk. What exactly does that
mean, Mr. Casalanguida?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, it is one of the hardest
March 26, 2019
Page 276
processes to go through. You hire the contractor first. That's the first
person you bring on the team. You bring on the designer second.
They both work for the owner, but they don't work for each other.
So the designer designs things. That contract -- contractor
evaluates the cost of that. Sometimes it's adversarial, but that's
advantageous to the owner. What they're telling you is the designer
comes on board, says, let's build this stadium to this height, this size.
The contractor gives you a price, and you make adjustments. You go
back and forth. At the end of the day, because you're pricing as
you're designing, they give you a guaranteed maximum price.
In this contract, not only have I locked in construction costs, I've
locked in general conditions with the contractor. By the way, the
lowest value in the state right now, lower than anything he's signed
up for, and he'll tell you that. Any he's also locked in his staff.
Everything's open book in a construction manager at risk. You
only pay for what's expended. Every dime that goes out, he has to
provide the receipts. In a design-bid-build, which is what we
normally do, which is easier for the county but provides more risk to
us, you don't get to see that. They give you --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Risk and expense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, sir?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Risk and expense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
So if you do a typical design-bid-build, you tell the architecture
what you want, he creates the project, and then you go out to bid.
And you really don't have a good feel for what that project's going to
cost until you go out in the market.
In a construction manager at risk, you're doing that along the
way. And then he locks down the price.
Now, I've said in the executive summary I can't guarantee
turnback, but I'm already seeing several hundred thousand dollars of
March 26, 2019
Page 277
turnback before this project even goes out the door in the things that
we're doing as part of construction manager at risk.
It's a lot harder for staff to run a CM-at-risk project. Margaret?
MS. BISHOP: (Nods head.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is easier for staff to do
design-bid-build. Ted, our procurement director, will tell you -- he
comes from Sarasota, and he's highly regarded. You know what he
did in Sarasota -- 75 percent of the projects are construction manager
at risk. They require experienced staff, they require a lot of time, and
it's the preferred method of doing projects where you have to control
costs, especially vertical projects where you really need to understand
what you're building before you go forward.
I wish we had done the airport in Marco CM at risk. I wish we
had done Big Corkscrew CM at risk, but we didn't. And I can tell
you the difference is really obvious to me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I pray we're right. I mean, my logic
for going forward with this in the first place was generation of jobs in
District 5, construction, year-round tourism, revenue, a whole
bunch -- all of those rationale were there, and I really see those
potentials. It -- it's conservatively optimistic.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So with that, I'm done.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. Commissioner, I'll take
you through the slides real quick.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, you don't have to do it. We're
going to vote for it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just want you to see the project so
you don't say later, Nick, did you tell me you were building it that
way?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You didn't show us that, Nick.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Next meeting.
March 26, 2019
Page 278
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We told you not to, but you didn't
show it to us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is the team. And I want to thank
Crystal's team, because they have --
MR. OCHS: He's going to show you anyway.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to go real quick and get
you out.
That's what you started with. This is what you ended with. It's
broken up in two phases. It has a central spine this way and a central
spine that way. You can operate this facility, this facility, the
stadium, and that location all at one time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Plenty of parking.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is Phase 0. We did Phase Zero
because it gave us six months on schedule. Now, I'm going to give
you some quick progress photos just to get you a feel for what you've
got for Phase 0, and that road is not -- is actually constructed. It's not
a float-in.
And that's the park. That's the 60 acres. This is the next phase
that we're doing right now. This is 1A. Everything on what you own
currently in City Gate will have all the underground work done, and
you will have a deliverable at the end of this phase. We will open
fields.
You will have a welcome center, two stories, trophy area, a
market, a gate. You will have both the building that does the
maintenance and the bathrooms that provide for the great lawn and
the fields as well as we're putting in a construction trailer, but rather
than wasting the money, that's going to be what we recommend is a
"sheriff's deputy full-time live there" facility because it's right next to
where the overnight parking is.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Great idea.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is a --
March 26, 2019
Page 279
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the two big water bodies?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The big lake. I'm going to get to that
in a little bit. That's the 13-acre lake, and also over here is a lake in
the next phase, and this is 13-acre that's an amenity that we have as
well, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What kind of an amenity are you
going to have in there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I will show you in a second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's water management.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. This is Phase 1B that's
going to come about four months behind this, and we're designing
this right now. All the underground works will already have been
done. We will do the stadium and the great lawn in this next phase in
about four months. And it's great because we take advantage of the
contractor being on site and just going through.
This will take us to the summer of next year. May will be the
court area that's done, and this will be done in the summertime right
behind it.
This is the neat part of the project. This is where Phase 2 comes
in, but this is the great lawn. And I've got to tell you, all the efforts in
Phase 1B is going into that because that's going to be a real
community asset. There's going to be an amphitheater that's here, a
fitness area, a food truck area that serves beer and wine overlooking a
beach.
And this is almost as big as a field. This scoreboard here serves
two purposes. It serves the stadium and it serves as an entertainment
venue for there.
So when we do 1B, we're going to deliver that to you. What we
may have to do is truncate the stadium designs on the end to meet
budget as well as over here a little bit. Now, we'll still get the
seating, but we may not get covered on both ends, because I'm going
March 26, 2019
Page 280
to stay within the budget, Commissioner McDaniel.
And then we're going to look at Phase 3. Now, Phase 3 is still
subject to permits, but it provides you those fields. And what I was
going to have SFI talk about, and I'll cover them real quick just for
the sake of time, and then, obviously, Phase 3, the field house.
We put in for a grant, and we put in -- when we did the sales tax,
we put in hurricane resiliency. We planned for about 4 or 5 million
to do the field house. So that's about two-and-a-half years away
anyway. So I'm excited to say that if we can meet our budget in the
other two phases, we'll have some money left over, maybe hit that
grant and get the field house in play.
This will give a pretty neat feel. That's a truck right there.
That's what a side view will look like for what we've already cleared.
And I've already talked to you a little bit about what's on top. I'm
going to zoom out a little bit.
So in Phase 1, you're going to get all of this here, everything
that's in here, and then 1B, right behind it, you're going to get this
amenity and the stadium that comes in afterwards. So that's right
around the corner.
And SFI did this design. They opened this up in the top left in
Vicksburg. It is a baseball field with a multi-purpose field laid in.
You asked for four baseball fields. We got one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight in this design, and all these three fields right here are
superfields. They're all connected where the lighting is on the
outsides. So you can have huge types of events on this side over
here.
And they believe -- the team approach to this design has been
fantastic. As they note, 40 events versus 17 events. They grow these
events organically. They grow them internally. And their goal is to
take as many of the revenue generating and keep it in-house. The
market they design is like a Wawa in the center core of the project,
March 26, 2019
Page 281
and then they recommend food trucks and deliverables or, you know,
going out to the different locations. And they've done this in
Vicksburg.
We're a million dollars ahead of plan TD revenue, which is
good. Commissioner Saunders, you wanted us to be conservative.
Right now we're generating a million dollars more than we thought
we would at this point in time. So -- and then we expect that number
to continue higher as we go forward.
This was the budget questions we talked about. This is already
out the door. This is what's in front of you today. This is what I'm
holding to for 1B. This is what I'm holding to for Phase 2. That
takes you about to 69 million. There's about 10 and 15 percent of
soft costs. That's the 76.8 that's right there. These are your bond
proceeds, your interest, road impact fees because the road -- and I
want to show you that just to make sure you understand it. I'm going
to go back a couple slides.
I'm going to go forward because that's -- right there. This road
here is a public road. It's part of Wilson/Benfield. That will not get
paid out of the TD money. Never was planned to.
So I'm going to go forward to the very end.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm crossing myself.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And so, you know, we're looking at --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can we vote on the motion
before she has to run?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, can we vote? And the Clerk
would like to speak. Do you want to hear from the Clerk first, or do
you want to vote?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll stay for that.
THE CLERK: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, Clerk.
I want to clarify, because we have worked with Nick, and we are
included. And I've relayed to Nick my concerns. When we talk
March 26, 2019
Page 282
about a maximum price or the contract manager at risk, my concern
is that this phasing doesn't offer a total project maximum price. And
we want to make sure, just what Nick said, will we or won't we have
a field house? Will we or won't we have this field or that field?
We have to audit to whatever the construct is of each contract,
and we have to make sure that those contracts are solicited properly
and then managed properly.
And we continue to work with him, but I didn't want an
implication left out of there that I think something is going on illegal.
I have told him I'm very concerned that -- I'm unsure the maximum
price, because when we get the control budgets, they vary. There's a
field house in. There's a field house out. What is the total maximum
price that you're actually contracting for?
And then monitoring, because the lines are estimates, estimates,
estimates. And so because you're contracting this seemingly in each
of these phases, if any phase goes over or under what your estimate
was, then do you really have a maximum price when you're using the
same contractor?
We talked about in Phase 1 how there was already a budget
amendment, and I understood what you had done in Phase 1 with the
grubbing and everything. And it did make sense to go ahead and do
it while they were on site and save those on-site costs --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
THE CLERK: -- but you couldn't point to where those were
saved in a subsequent phase because those phases had not yet been
contracted. And so I'm just trying to get the constraints of what is the
total real cost to this so we can monitor that it is the maximum price
for what it is the Board intends you to build.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
THE CLERK: Okay. So just to put that on the record. We are
working very closely. My staff goes to these meetings. These are
March 26, 2019
Page 283
some of the questions I know they've talked to you about. I
mentioned it to Nick, and we're going to work with him on it, but I
wanted you all to be aware.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. It's been moved and
seconded that we approve this item as recommended by our staff.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER 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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Margaret, don't leave. Could I just
ask Margaret --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor has to go
four minutes ago, so you are now excused, and we will continue on,
and Nick can talk until his little heart's content.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And it looks awesome, by the way.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. It totally is impressive.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Very exciting.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It doesn't wane my concerns.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm just sharing with you, so...
Now go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if she has to leave, go ahead,
let her go first.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She is.
March 26, 2019
Page 284
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, Margaret, could you just stay
for a second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not done by any -- we're not
done. We will be in a minute.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: By any stretch of the
imagination.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Our court reporter just -- her eyes
just got really big.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're almost done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Margaret, my question is really
simple. Pickleball games are coming up in just a few weeks. Do we
have anymore bathrooms in there yet? That park still has very
insufficient bathrooms for thousands of people. Are we getting any
before?
MS. BISHOP: As you know, we're working on the master plan
right now, and that is one of the top priorities, but we're not going to
have new bathrooms --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can't use them for a bathroom,
though, the master plan, right?
MS. BISHOP: Correct. We're not going to have them for this
year's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not going to have it what?
MS. BISHOP: For this year, for the April tournament. But
we're planning on it for next year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah. That's all I wanted to
ask you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Port-o-potties?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll be putting out for porto-lets.
MS. BISHOP: We did last year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the year before, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't know if you can build that
March 26, 2019
Page 285
many bathrooms for that -- you know, for a park facility and make
any kind of sense out of the expense associated for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There will always be more, because
we have to rent showers, too, and everything, but...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the tractor trailers come.
All right, County Manager. Where are we at now?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Item 15, staff and commission general
communications. Just a reminder next Tuesday, April 2nd is your
BCC/CRA workshop at 9 a.m. in the chambers here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. OCHS: And in the interest of time, that's all I'm going to
talk about tonight.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, there you are.
How about our County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Crystal, our clerk?
THE CLERK: No, thank you. I said enough today, but Happy
Birthday again, and --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. I notice those folks in
red shirt -- the second wave didn't sing to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, see that? They did sing to
you at all.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, they didn't.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nothing to add and look
forward to --
March 26, 2019
Page 286
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Next Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- going home and seeing you
guys in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Next Tuesday. We have a
workshop next Tuesday.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have a question -- just one thing, a
question, and maybe Dr. George can help us. Has there been some
change in the policy relating to a delinquent water bill and when the
water gets cut off? Because I seem to be getting, all of a sudden, a lot
of calls and things related to -- that there's been some change in
policy and that if you're delinquent, it's immediately cut off. And I've
had more than one of those. And I'm just -- I'd like to know, is there
a policy change? This happened to someone in Pine Ridge, and it's a
little -- I'm a little confused.
DR. YILMAZ: For the record, George Yilmaz, Public Utilities.
Commissioner, we did not have and we do not have change in policy.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What is the policy then?
DR. YILMAZ: The policy is -- for the impact fees at the time of
connection, impact fees are being paid. When the -- that's first.
Second piece is, if the ownership changes, that's where -- that's where
some of the confusion kicks in, especially during the season if we
have changes in ownership. Because we go by the owner, not the
renter or user. That's been the policy and has not changed.
So we have an increase historically during the season and when
we have more homes exchanging and ownerships exchanging, there
are some -- there are some confusion among our customers.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, what is -- so if I get a water
bill and I don't pay it, is it 30 days to pay it? Is it 10? I mean, I'm
just trying to figure out, what's the time frame or the chronology
before somebody shuts your water off, just so I know?
March 26, 2019
Page 287
DR. YILMAZ: It's 40 days -- 48 days out, and depending on the
situation, we have administrative decision-making that, middle of
night or 24/7, if you have a good reason we can turn water back on,
so -- and in terms of benchmarking, Commissioners, when we look at
FP&L, power utility, we look at Comcast and what have you, we are
within the same range, if not 10 days out.
So when we --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YILMAZ: -- cut water off, we're not trigger happy.
We're --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
DR. YILMAZ: -- actually aligned with other utility companies.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you don't mind, I'll get
Mr. Bellone and Mr. Yilmaz on your calendar to give you a
briefing --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I just --
MR. OCHS: -- and that way you can share that with your
constituents.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that would be a good idea for
all of us.
MR. OCHS: If you'd all like that, yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you for asking the question,
because, I mean, we're all --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's coming up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- moving into -- you know, with
the acquisition --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I heard about it coming up,
too.
MR. OCHS: We'll do it. We'll send out --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The acquisition of the utilities that
we've done to folks in Orangetree and FGUA --
March 26, 2019
Page 288
MR. OCHS: Happy to do it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- or they're all under. So if we
know what the policy is. Because oftentimes I have a suspicion that
sometimes we're told things that are not to the benefit of the bill
payer and their water being cut off is --
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- something there. So there.
MR. OCHS: We'll be happy to do that. We'll get that out to you
tomorrow.
DR. YILMAZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Doc.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like trigger happy to turn it off
before they've contacted -- yeah, and maybe the person -- maybe
they've been contacted while they're out of town or on a cruise or
something, and they have no way of knowing it or -- you never can
tell what's going on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right, sure. Is that all you had?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all I've got.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about you, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I've got more. I've got a few
things, yes.
One of them is I wanted to talk real quickly about Golden Gate
Golf Course. And I just want to let you know that I'm still hoping
that we can do that, and I've heard that people are saying that they
want to change it to nine holes rather than 18 holes, and I just want to
keep that alive in your mind because pretty soon we're going to be
discussing it again, I'm sure. I'm getting a lot of mail. I'm sure all of
you are, too. And I just hate to see a piece of land that big -- once
you change it, you never get it back again.
And like I said before, it's like park central, New York Central
March 26, 2019
Page 289
Park or Boston Common. Let's not let that go. So I'm just going to
say that.
The second thing is, I wanted to -- landscaping issue is -- I'm
getting -- I don't know if you-all are getting comments from it, but I
sure am, and they're kind of upset that we've stopped our landscaping
plan, especially because they're still being taxed for it, but we've
announced openly that we're not going to do it anymore, and then in
the fall we're going to discuss it, which means we're still not going to
be doing it.
And so I would like to know -- I'd like to have staff do an
economic impact analysis on the landscaping because, you know, in
my opinion, I believe that there's money that is derived from our
landscape whether it be in our taxes, whether it be easier to sell your
properties because land values stay up just because of the
landscaping. We all know that. Tourism definitely has even written
us letters saying it helps tourism because it brings people here.
And to cut that off instead of finding a quicker answer for it -- I
understand that you need the money, but what about -- I mean, we're
already getting some money in. What about getting on it -- you can't
wait till the fall to decide if we're going to do it by in-house
workforce or not. And then by the time you have to hire all of the
people and you have to buy all of the equipment, I think we should be
swinging into gear a little bit sooner, but that's -- I wanted to throw
that on the board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to respond to that
portion or --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to
say, I'm not supportive of doing that. We've got a busy staff, and an
economic analysis of landscaping program, I'm not sure what that
means. I don't want to give staff direction just to go out and try to
figure this out. So I would oppose that for right now because -- I
March 26, 2019
Page 290
think we've got some busy folks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. What it means is, we do
know already that it helps our property values. We do know that it
helps the retail sales of homes because NABOR has told us that, you
know, when you have a neighborhood that is looking really nice, that
it helps a lot to sell their homes, and we do know from tourism that it
helps that because they've even told us. There has to be some
impact -- economic impact from this so that we can move forward
instead of waiting till fall; move forward in that we're just gathering
information so we could start the program in-house.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the things that I would like
to suggest, and I want to ask -- because this is the first time that I've
heard that we're going to re-talk about this in the fall. I thought we
were going to talk about this in May during the budget processes,
because one of the things we do know, that the cost associated with
the mile -- per-mile maintenance associated with these landscape
medians has rocketed to average $75,000 a mile.
We brought an agenda item forward two weeks ago that if you
took that portion of Davis Boulevard where we stopped construction
and extrapolated out to a mile, it would be almost $150,000 for an
equivalent mile. And I thought when we tabled this, took the tax
increases that were voted on before we came on -- before I came on
board and appropriated it to maintenance, that offset the deficiencies
that we had in the ongoing maintenance, and then revisit the
parameters for the RFPs for what we're planning, Florida friendly
fauna, reduction in fertilization, water, maintenance, and then the
RFIs for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- the contractors to allow for more
competition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we can't start that plan
March 26, 2019
Page 291
until the fall until we've got a budget in place, and that's, what,
October 1st before we can even do anything?
MR. OCHS: Well, that's when your new fiscal year starts.
We're working right now on the first part of that, and that is working
with our vendors and looking at our current contracts to see if there's
requirements or regulations that are driving those numbers up and
what we can do to modify either the scope of work or some of the
general terms and conditions in those contracts that either get more
vendors to compete or the ones that currently do the business to lower
our unit costs. We're working on that right now.
And then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Working on that --
MR. OCHS: -- we also want to bring an in-house versus
contracting-out analysis back when we present the budget in June to
the Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I meant.
MR. OCHS: But you're right, Commissioner. Let's say during
the discussion in June you make a decision to go one way or the
other, we either, you know, appropriate that for next year's budget
that starts in October or you take it from some other existing source.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the last thing is, I've
been hearing a lot about this Golden Gate -- I'm sorry, not Golden
Gate, the EMS station on Pine Ridge Road linked with the Fire
Department, and the Fire Department wants to sell that place, but I've
heard -- and this is what I heard -- was that EMS can't move out of
that station. They can't move into the other station because it will
take them too long to respond to emergencies, so...
MR. OCHS: You haven't heard that from me.
March 26, 2019
Page 292
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I did not hear that from you nor
from Nick.
MR. OCHS: I'm not ready to say that to you yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. OCHS: I'm not ready to say that that's the case. I've got
the staff evaluating our response time based on the movement to that
station down the road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you get back to us next
meeting and let us know what your response is to that?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I'd be happy to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There was some preliminary data
given to us from the fire chief of North Naples that we cohabitate
with right now and estimations of their response-time
differentiations, and I believe our chief of EMS actually talked to us a
little bit then, so -- but I've heard the same thing, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I will reiterate. I agree
with Commissioner Fiala. I do have a concern about response times
in that general area if we move our EMS facility. And so there may
be an opportunity to keep that facility, so that's the kind of analysis I
would like to --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's exactly what we're doing right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It didn't make any sense to
me, if you moved it down a street, over, and into a neighborhood way
at the end how you could get as good a response time as if you're
right there on Pine Ridge Road. It just doesn't calculate at all.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, but, I mean, moving it one
way makes it closer to one place than -- I mean, but I understand.
We've got to really look at the analysis.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was my first reaction.
Yeah, you're moving it -- you've got --
March 26, 2019
Page 293
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, I mean --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But there's an impact on all of
it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On all of it, right. And it works
with all the other stations. I mean, it's a complex issue to look at and
really understand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So my thought was -- and I
appreciate Commissioner Fiala bringing this up. My thought was,
well, you know, maybe we purchase that site, or maybe we keep that
site. It's just an analysis that staff needs to -- EMS needs to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's such a perfect location.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think that fire district has
intents of selling that, period. They have intentions of selling it, and
so it's certainly something we should give budget consideration to
from an acquisition standpoint as to whether or not it makes
economic sense for us to do it in relationship to -- and this is the
conundrum that we fight with -- I fight with on a regular basis,
especially in Eastern Collier County, rural area. There's a difference
between a 4-minute response time and 12 when you're the guy laying
there having a heart attack and can't get your breath.
Now, is there a 30-second differentiation? That's something
we're going to have to grapple with, which was what I heard coming
out of the fire chief in the move over to the new facility.
So -- and as you said, you got closer to this -- this group over
here, and move farther away from the folks that are, in fact, in Pine
Ridge, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I keep meaning to go over and
drive over and see what it feels like to go from one to the other and
what their location is.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, remember, they have little
buttons to make those lights go the way they want them to go.
March 26, 2019
Page 294
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But if it's down a street --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm joking with you, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not funny.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. Yes, ma'am. Yes,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it for me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have one point I'd just like to
make, and it has -- you know, Ms. Rae Ann, she brought it up earlier.
I actually had it in my notes to talk about, and I'd like to see if we
would give some consideration. It was -- we experienced some very
poor technology and service with regard to cell service during Irma,
and I related that to the lack of statutory regulations and the upkeep
of fuel and so ons and so forth.
There is an enormous -- I would venture a guess -- and this is
just a guess -- that at least 60 percent of the households, probably
higher, do not even have a landline in their home with regard to
telephone service. And at some -- I think we should give
consideration to cell service becoming or being intertwined into an
essential service.
When I was doing the ribbon cutting at the fairgrounds a couple
of weeks ago, one of our lieutenants talked to me about the Sheriff's
Department utilizing Verizon for a primary communicator for Eastern
Collier County, and with the blip -- the mother ship got close, and
Verizon went off-line, and we all -- all of our phones, especially in
Eastern Collier County, went off. And it wasn't just Verizon. I think
AT&T also had issues as well. Something happened.
And in any case, I think we should, at some stage -- and I don't
know how to get there from here, but to me it's becoming an essential
service. There are people who do not have -- who have chosen to but
do not have hard wires into their home for communication and rely
solely upon an independent, private, for-profit entity to be supplying
March 26, 2019
Page 295
them with the capacity for communication.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can tell that they don't even
make phone books very much anymore, do they?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The phone books have gotten to --
they sound like an ancient thing, but that's -- I have one in my house,
but I don't know how many people have a landline in their house.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I don't know, is this something
we should talk of off-line and maybe -- if I have your consent, I'd like
to talk with staff and maybe bring it back as an agenda item for us.
It's not an emergency, but it needs to be discussed, because I don't
want us to go through what we have gone through. We went through
it with Irma terribly, then we -- and then it happened again here when
our good Lord wasn't sending us any adverse weather. It just
happened again two weeks ago.
And I actually heard my friends at the SO talking about their
incapacity to communicate with their officers, which brought up the
essential services --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It sure is -- the essential services
process.
So with that, I'll whip something up and bring it back to you.
Hearing no --
THE CLERK: One thing I forgot; sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's okay.
THE CLERK: I had spoken with each of you. I think I had a
very productive meeting with EII regarding moving forward in
payments. I was able to pay them for their payrolls and their salaries.
Had a great discussion. You had initially indicated maybe April 9th
to have some other discussion.
I, unfortunately, have a mandatory new-clerk training, and I was
March 26, 2019
Page 296
wondering if we could go to the second meeting in April. EII did not
have an objection to that. I've given you the email that I got from
Mr. Grant as president. If that's okay with you --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm okay.
THE CLERK: -- I would appreciate it, with the Board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You can -- and since we're talking
about EII, I'm very disappointed -- just so you know, I'm very
disappointed with their maneuvers in cancellation of the tour and the
events that they had scheduled at our Immokalee accelerator. I felt
that that was -- I didn't care for that move at all.
THE CLERK: Thank you. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: With that, we are adjourned.
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Taylor
and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary
Agendas be approved and/or adopted****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GREYHAWK AT GOLF
CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES PHASE 4, (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20180002724) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY – W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE
COMMERCE PARK PHASE THREE REPLAT, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20190000350
March 26, 2019
Page 297
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR ALL SEASONS, PL20170002720,
ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, 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 $24,909.94 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION
WAS CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2019 AND FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR OYSTER HARBOR AT FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 2A,
PL20160001312 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON
FEBRUARY 13, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE
SATISFACTORY
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
March 26, 2019
Page 298
SEWER FACILITIES FOR SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION (PINE
RIDGE BRANCH), PL20160003554, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER
AND SEWER FACILITIES, 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 $11,928.03
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 14, 2019 AND FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A6
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $388,440 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.121,
PL20140000667 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH WARM
SPRINGS – PROJECT LOCATED OFF OF COLLIER BLVD AND
TREE FARM ROAD
Item #16A7
AN ACCESS IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH RACETRAC
PETROLEUM, INC. TO FULFILL A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL PURSUANT TO HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
NO. 2018-14, CONCERNING A NEW ACCESS POINT ON
SHADOWLAWN DRIVE CLOSEST TO U.S. 41 FOR THE
RACETRAC AT SHADOWLAWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
– HEX DECISION 2018-04 FOR PL20180000543
March 26, 2019
Page 299
Item #16A8
RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD FUNDING FOR THE
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
(MPO) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,877, EARNED FROM THE FY
2017/18 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING
GRANT, AND AUTHORIZING ALL RELATED NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – TERMS OF THE GRANT
CONTRACT STATED THE MPO WOULD BE REIMBURSED
UPON COMPLETION OF SPECIFIC TASKS IN LIEU OF
ACTUAL EXPENSES
Item #16A9
A CHANGE ORDER TO ADDRESS REDESIGN CHANGES AND
ADD 112 DAYS TO THE FINAL COMPLETION DATE FOR
AGREEMENT NO. 18-7316 “COLLIER BOULEVARD (GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD) LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION” (PROJECT NO. 60206)
AND TO REACTIVATE THE WORK ORDER (AND THE
AGREEMENT), WHICH HAD AN EXPIRATION DATE OF
MARCH 4, 2019 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A10
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AGREEMENT #4600003762 FOR
THE WEST GOODLETTE- FRANK ROAD AREA JOINT
STORMWATER-SEWER PROJECT (#60142) – PROVIDING AN
UPDATED CONSTRUCTION TIMEFRAME
March 26, 2019
Page 300
Item #16B1
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2018 CDBG
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CRA FOR THE INSTALLATION/IMPROVEMENTS
OF SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA -
MODIFYING THE AGREEMENT’S SCOPE AND BUDGET,
CLARIFY SPECIFIC SPECIAL GRANT CONDITIONS AND
IDENTIFYING THE SUBRECIPIENTS CURRENT PROJECT
MANAGER
Item #16B2
ACCEPTING THE 2018 ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR
THE TWO COMPONENT AREAS: BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AND IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS (CRA) AND PUBLISH THE
PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE FILING – PUBLIC NOTICE RAN
MARCH 27, 2019 IN NAPLES DAILY NEWS
Item #16B3
AN ACCESS EASEMENT OVER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
EASEMENT SO LONG AS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND
SKETCH GENERALLY CONFORMS TO THE EXHIBIT
March 26, 2019
Page 301
PROVIDED – FOR ACCESS TO THE NORTHSIDE OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, FOLIO #77510240008
Item #16C1
AN AGREEMENT TO PURE AIR CONTROL SERVICES, INC.,
FOR RFP #18-7403, “INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING,” FOR
COUNTYWIDE INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING SERVICES
Item #16C2
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR SPACE ON THE COUNTY-
OWNED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED AT NAPLES
COUNTY BARN ROAD – SFWMD LEASE #4600003951
Item #16C3
A BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH CAPRI COMMUNITY,
INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A WELCOME SIGN ON
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT PROPERTY –
FOLIO #00746280003
Item #16C4
AN AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7510,
“HIBISCUS IRRIGATION QUALITY (IQ) ASSEMBLY ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS" (PROJECT NUMBER 70166), TO HERITAGE
UTILITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,477 - PROVIDING
IQ WATER TO THE HIBISCUS GOLF CLUB FROM A
CONNECTION ON RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
March 26, 2019
Page 302
IMMEDIATELY EAST OF DORAL CIRCLE
Item #16C5
A PURCHASE ORDER TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL INC.,
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 18-7311-1, FOR THE “SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(SCRWTP) ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY PROJECT” (PROJECT
NUMBER 70069) IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,192.34, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT –
SCOPE OF SERVICES INCLUDE EXCAVATION AND
INSTALLATION OF APPROXIMATELY 600’ OF CONCRETE
STEEL REINFORCED DUCTBANK, INSTALLATION OF ALL
CONDUIT AND WIRE, AND RETROFITTING AND TESTING
OF EXISTING BREAKERS
Item #16C6
THE ADDITION OF $250,000 IN ALLOWANCES TO
AGREEMENT NO. 16-6638, VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE-
SACS PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT (THE
“PROJECT”), WITH MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. AND APPROVE A PURCHASE ORDER
MODIFICATION FOR $307,024 TO STANTEC CONSULTING
SERVICES, INC. (AGREEMENT NO. 14-6345) FOR CEI
SERVICES ON THE PROJECT – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C7
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES #18-7249,
March 26, 2019
Page 303
“DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES BUILDING DESIGN
RENOVATION” (PROJECT #50145), TO ADG ARCHITECTURE,
LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $209,253, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT, AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT -
PROVIDING A NEW ANIMAL FACILITY THAT WILL
COMPLY WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF SHELTER
VETERINARIANS’ GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OF CARE
IN ANIMAL SHELTERS (ASV GUIDELINES)
Item #16D1
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
RICHARD FRANKLIN BERMAN, TRUSTEE, OF THE RICHARD
FRANKLIN BERMAN REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2012, FOR
APPROXIMATELY 2.34 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $19,500 – LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
(UNIT 91) ADJACENT TO THE GORE PROPERTIES OFF OF
DESOTO BLVD
Item #16D2
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (IMMOKALEE) FOR THE
INSTALLATION/IMPROVEMENTS OF SIDEWALKS IN
IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA – LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF IMMOKALEE ON PORTIONS OF CARVER STREET AND
SOUTH 5TH STREET
March 26, 2019
Page 304
Item #16D3
THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, INC. FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE 21ST CENTURY
LEARNING CENTERS SWIMMING SKILLS AND DROWNING
PREVENTION “MIRACLE” PROGRAM IN IMMOKALEE –
CAMPS HELD DURING MARCH – JUNE, 2019 AT THE
IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX
Item #16D4
AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE VENDED MEALS FROM
ANOTHER APPROVED SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE FACILITY
WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
(SCHOOL BOARD) TO SPONSOR AND OPERATE THE 2019
SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM (SFSP) AT
DESIGNATED RECREATION CAMPS WITH UNITIZED MEALS
PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (TOTAL
ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACT $170,064.60 WITH A
FEDERAL SHARE OF $138,114.60 AND A LOCAL
CONTRIBUTION OF $31,950)
Item #16D5
THE SUBMITTAL OF AN FY2018/19 GRANT APPLICATION
FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,180 FOR THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL BUS
March 26, 2019
Page 305
SHELTERS THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (TRAMS) – FOR THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF UP TO TWELVE (12) BUS SHELTERS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, INCLUDING AMENITIES
SUCH AS BIKE RACKS, BENCHES, AND TRASH
RECEPTACLES TO PLACE ON EXISTING PADS
Item #16D6
THE SUBMITTAL OF AN FY18/19 GRANT APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $545,068 FOR THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SIGNAL PRIORITY
EQUIPMENT ON TRANSIT VEHICLES AS WELL AS
ELECTRONIC FAREBOXES FOR PARATRANSIT VEHICLES
THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
(FTA) TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) –
THE GRANT REQUIRES A 20% MATCH; THE COUNTY
REQUESTED THE USE OF $136,267 IN TOLL REVENUE
CREDITS FROM FDOT AS A SOFT MATCH FOR THE GRANT
Item #16D7
APPLYING FOR A FLORIDA ANIMAL FRIENDS GRANT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $24,850 TO HELP SUPPORT THE MISSION
OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES BY OFFERING FREE
SPAY OR NEUTER PROCEDURES FOR LARGE BREED DOGS
AND COMMUNITY CATS
Item #16D8
March 26, 2019
Page 306
APPROPRIATION OF A RESTRICTED DONATION OF $500 TO
BENEFIT THE MARCO ISLAND BRANCH LIBRARY AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16D9
APPROPRIATION OF A RESTRICTED DONATION OF $1,000
TO BENEFIT THE VANDERBILT BEACH BRANCH LIBRARY
AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16E1
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2019-50: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2
AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH GC II, LLC TO
PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE OPTION CLOSING
DEADLINE FOR THE 2.5 +/- ACRES THAT WOULD INCREASE
THE BASE FOOTPRINT OF THE FUTURE SPORTS COMPLEX -
March 26, 2019
Page 307
EXTENDING THE TIME PURCHASER MAY ACQUIRE THE
2.5-ACRE PARCEL TO OCTOBER 11, 2019
Item #16J1
AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO ACCEPT FEDERAL
ELECTION ACTIVITIES FUNDS WITH A 15% MATCHING
CONTRIBUTION AND TO AUTHORIZE THE BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE CERTIFICATE OF EQUIPMENT FOR CASTING AND
COUNTY BALLOTS AND CERTIFICATE COUNTY MATCH TO
FEDERAL GRANT TRUST FUNDS UNDER THE HELP
AMERICA VOTE ACT
Item #16J2
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 28, 2019 AND
MARCH 13, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J3
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF MARCH 20, 2019
Item #16K1
March 26, 2019
Page 308
RESOLUTION 2019-51: APPOINTING JESSICA RYALS
(RFMUD SEAT) AND ROBB KLUCIK (RLSA SEAT) TO THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2019-52: APPOINTING MICHAEL FOGG,
DENISE MCLAUGHLIN AND MICHAEL W. WEIR TO THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2019-53: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2019-04: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-8, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY FALSE ALARM
ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR SERVICE OF WARNINGS AND
CITATIONS TO BE MADE BY TEXT MESSAGE OR
ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 26, 2019
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:32 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
( e)- '-
WILLI AI_ L. MenANIE , JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
ttest as to Chairman's
sionaturo only.
These minutes approved by the Board on Lt )a3 ) Lcj , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 309