Loading...
Agenda 04/23/2019 Item # 2B (BCC Minutes - 3/26/19)04/23/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: March 26, 2019 - BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 04/23/2019 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 04/11/2019 10:45 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 04/11/2019 10:45 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 04/11/2019 10:45 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/23/2019 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 12 March 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 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. 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 paddi ng 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 r esidential 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 wal l 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 barbecuin g, 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 y ou. 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, oleande r 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 cons ider 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 cr eated. 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 peopl e 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 incl uded 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 taxe s 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, b ut 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 ye ars 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 ti me. 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 designa ted. 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 vi sion, 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 t o 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 y ou. 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 a bout 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 ar e 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 rat e, 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 des cribed 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 ty pes 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 rene wable 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 h ave 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 distri ct. 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 Colli er 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 the re'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, fi ve 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 o f 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 progra m. 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 recommen dation 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 y ou'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 renta l, 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 the re'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 particula rly 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, plea se 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 Lea gue 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 mo re 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 Hilt on. 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 l ooks 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 co nsideration 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 rental s 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 fiv e 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 fo rmat, 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 co me 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 dwel ling 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 abutti ng 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 ou r 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 photog raphy 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, ga thering 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 tha t. 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 adja cent 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 Bou levard. 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 c hange 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 i s 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 Veter ans 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 ligh t 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 America n 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 relevan t 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 fo llowed 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 hi s 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' associati on 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 t hat. 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, presumab ly, 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 dec rease, 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 apartme nt 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 whe re 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 regulat ions. 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 y ou 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. An d 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 t hen 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 uncertai nties 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 ca n'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 fo r 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 wi ll 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 goin g 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 f rom 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 y ou -- 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 cancellati on 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 Page 309 ***** 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 ______________________________________ WILLIAM L. McDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK _____________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.