BCC Minutes 06/11/2019 RJune 11, 2019
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 11, 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:
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Sean Callahan, Executive Director – Corp. Business Operations
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
June 11, 2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
June 11, 2019
9:00 AM
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 -Chair; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Vice-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
June 11, 2019
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Pastor Greg Ball of Destiny Church Naples.
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
B. May 14, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
Page 3
June 11, 2019
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
1) Presentation of the May 2019 Employee of the Month, Phil Gravitt,
Instrumentation/Electrical Technician, Public Utilities Department.
(All Districts)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating June 2019 as Youth Leadership Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by representatives of the Leadership Collier
Foundation - Amanda Beights, Tiffany Lehman and Katrina Varela.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for June 2019 to
The Naples Players. To be accepted by Bryce Alexander, Executive Artistic
Director. Also present is Bethany Sawyer of the Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce.
B. Presentation of the recovered remnants of the U.S. Flag that flew over the
Collier County Permitting Office in Immokalee on Sept. 10, 2017, when
Hurricane Irma swept through our area. To be presented by the staff from
the Growth Management Department who were involved in the mission:
Shannon Bassett (served in the U.S. Navy), Gregory Garcia (served in the
U.S. Air Force), James Zuver (served in the U.S. Army), Christopher
Deason (served in the U.S. Army), Felix Burgos (served in the U.S. Marine
Corps), Cristina Perez and her son, Tristan Perez, who was a cadet in the
Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. at Palmetto Ridge High School.
(All Districts)
C. Recognition of Florida Department of Health in Collier County
Administrator Stephanie Vick and members of the DOH-Collier team for
being awarded the prestigious Governor's Sterling Award for achieving high
standards of performance excellence within their management and
operations. Receiving the recognition are Administrator Vick and members
of her team. (All Districts)
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 4
June 11, 2019
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier
County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from
a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the
Baumgarten MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 400 multifamily
and/or townhouse residential dwelling units and up to 270,000 square feet of
commercial land uses at the southeast quadrant of Immokalee Road and
Collier Boulevard, in Section 26, Township 48, Range 26, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 55.66+/- acres; and by providing an effective date.
[Baumgarten MPUD, PL20170000768] (This is a companion to Agenda
Item 11.A) (District 3, District 5)
B. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. This item has been continued from
the May 14, 2019 BCC meeting. Recommendation to further discuss the
adoption of the Collier County Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
Consumer Protection Ordinance to better protect the public by providing
additional requirements. (James French, Deputy Department Head, GMD)
(All Districts)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve a Developer Agreement with BCHD Partners
II, LLC., (Developer) and Collier County (County) to reserve capacity
within the Transportation concurrency system and allow a traffic signal and
specific access points in exchange for the Developer donating land and
Page 5
June 11, 2019
easements to the County and receiving stormwater for a future overpass at
Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. (This is a companion to Agenda
Item #9.A, PUDR-PL20170000768). (Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning
Manager, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management
Division) (District 3, District 5)
B. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Recommendation to direct the County
Attorney to advertise and bring back for a public hearing an ordinance
repealing and replacing Ordinance No. 2011-24, regarding the Florida
Friendly Use of Fertilizer on Urban Landscapes. (Danette Kinaszczuk,
Pollution Control Manager, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and
Program Management Division) (All Districts)
C. Recommendation to evaluate the options for the rezoning of Lot #11 from
Residential Multi-Family Six (RMF-6) to Heavy Commercial/Gateway
Triangle Mixed Use District (C-5/GTMUD) as requested at the April 23,
2019, public hearing under Agenda Item #6, Public Petition request from
Michael Tirpak and provide direction on the options provided. (Mike Bosi,
Director, Zoning Division) (District 4)
D. Recommendation to approve funding for a truck haul beach renourishment
project for the Clam Pass, North Park Shore and Park Shore Beach segments
anticipated to begin in the Fall 2019 (approximately November 1, 2019) for
and not to exceed project expenditure of $5,500,000 (excluding Professional
Engineering services) and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (J.
Gary McAlpin, P.E., Coastal Zone Management) (All Districts)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 6
June 11, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve an agreement awarding Invitation to Bid
No. 19-7550, “Golden Gate Collector Sidewalks at Various
Locations,” to Heritage Utilities, LLC in the amount of $722,826.20;
and to acknowledge a time extension to a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation for
construction of Golden Gate Collector Sidewalks at Various Locations
(FPN #435116-1-58-01, Project No. 33504); approve the expenditure
and the attached budget amendment; and authorize the Chairman to
execute the attached construction agreement. (District 3)
2) Recommendation to acknowledge the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO) Planning (PL) grant for FY 19/20 and
recognize the MPO budget in the amount of $839,988, effective July
1, 2019. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 2 to the Department of
Environmental Protection (“DEP”) Agreement No. S0859 between the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the State for the
construction of the Naples Park Area/Basin Infrastructure
Optimization Project for Stormwater, Water and Wastewater (Phase
I), to extend the period of the agreement by 184 calendar days and to
make minor updates to certain sections of the agreement. (District 2)
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Amendment No. 4 to Contract No. 18-7245 with Taylor Engineering,
Inc.; to include additional tasks for the Collier County Comprehensive
Watershed Improvement Plan. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; to provide professional
engineering services for 2020-2021 Local Government Funding
Page 7
June 11, 2019
Request under Contract No. 15-6382 for time and material not to
exceed $19,896, reactivate Contract No. 15-6382 and extend through
December 5, 2019, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order,
and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 1,
District 2, District 4)
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 17-7097 with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; for additional time and
professional services as required for the Collier Creek Modeling
Study, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 1)
7) Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; to provide professional
engineering services for Park Shore Beach Renourishment under
Contract No. 15-6382 for time and material not to exceed $27,894.80,
authorize the Chairman to execute the work order, reactivate Contract
No. 15-6382 and extend through December 5, 2019, and make a
finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 4)
8) Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.; to provide professional
engineering services for North Park Shore Beach Renourishment
under Contract No.15-6382 for time and material not to exceed
$27,894.80, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order,
reactivate Contract No. 15-6382 and extend through December 5,
2019, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 4)
9) Recommendation to approve a work order with APTIM
Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. to provide professional
engineering services for Clam Pass Park Renourishment under
Contract No.15-6382 for time and material not to exceed $45,498.50,
authorize the Chairman to execute the work order, reactivate Contract
No. 15-6382 and extend through December 5, 2019, and make a
finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 2)
10) Recommendation to schedule the advertised public hearing on June
25, 2019, for an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code
relating to permanent emergency generators for single-family and
two-family dwelling units. (All Districts)
Page 8
June 11, 2019
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”)
between Collier County and Creekside Commerce Property Owners
Association, Inc., for landscape and irrigation improvements within
the Creekside Boulevard Public Right-of-Way. (District 2)
12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
utility facilities for Gaspar Self-Storage, PL20180000252, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the t otal
amount of $7,455.65 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s
designated agent. (District 2)
13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Winding Cypress Amenity Center, PL2016000168,
accept the conveyance of a portion of the 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 $12,698.01 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s
designated agent. (District 1)
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and the conveyance of
the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Gaspar Station Phase
3, PL20170004364 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.
(District 2)
15) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Racetrac at Pine Ridge, SDP 98-28, and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security
(UPS) in the amount of $8,692 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent. (District 2)
16) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Lift Station #3, Force Main and Water Main,
PL20160001589, and to authorize the County Manager, or his
Page 9
June 11, 2019
designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the amount of
$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent.
(District 1)
17) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
TwinEagles Grand Arbors Phase Two C Block 109, Application
Number PL20140000392, and authorize the release of the
maintenance security. (District 5)
18) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Currents of Naples an
Esplanade Community – Phase 1, (Application Number
PL20180003018) approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security. (District 1)
19) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”)
between Collier County and Standing Oaks Homeowners Association,
Inc., for landscape and irrigation improvements within the Oakes
Boulevard Public Right-of-Way. (District 3)
20) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $318,525 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number PL20180000634 for work
associated with Winding Cypress Phase 3. (District 1)
21) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $11,088 which was posted as a
guaranty for landscape work associated with Lot 8 Sierra Meadows,
PL20130000496. (District 1)
22) Recommendation to approve the 10-Year Capital Planning document
for Fund 195-Beach Renourishment and Pass Maintenance and Fund
185 Program Management and Administration, and make a finding
that these expenditures promote tourism. (All Districts)
Page 10
June 11, 2019
23) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore
Engineers for South Marco Beach Re-Nourishment Project under
Contract No. 13-6164 authorize the Chairman to execute the work
order for a not to exceed amount of $118,642 and make a finding that
this expenditure promotes tourism. (District 1)
24) Recommendation to approve the proposal by CSA Ocean Sciences,
Inc.; to continue the required post-construction hardbottom
monitoring for the Collier County Beach Nourishment Project in
summer 2019 with CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. for Time and Material
not to exceed $94,578.90 under the already approved and executed
Contract No. 17-7188 and make a finding that this item promotes
tourism. (District 2, District 4)
25) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore
Engineers to provide Professional Engineering Services for Wiggins
Pass Interim Dredging under Contract No. 15-6382, reactivate
Contract No. 15-6382 and extend through December 5, 2019, approve
necessary Budget Amendment, authorize the Chairman to execute the
work order for a not to exceed amount of $46,978 and make a finding
that this expenditure promotes tourism. (All Districts)
26) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore
Engineers for Water Turkey Bay Channel Dredging under Contract
No. 15-6382, authorize the Chairman to execute the work order for a
not to exceed amount of $64,880, reactivate Contract No. 15 -6382 and
extend through December 5, 2019, authorize necessary budget
amendments and make a finding that this expenditure promotes
tourism. (District 2)
27) Recommendation to approve the staff recommended Tourist
Development Council Grant application requests from the City of
Naples, the City of Marco Island and Collier County for FY-2019-
2020 in the amount of $9,745,300; budget these expenditures and
make a finding that these expenditures will promote tourism. (All
Districts)
28) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 19-7512 with Earth Tech
Enterprises, Inc.; for an additional $6,000 required to repair Terminal
Page 11
June 11, 2019
Groin damages caused by Hurricane Irma and make a finding that this
item promotes tourism. (All Districts)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 19-7506,
“Collier County Museums Hurricane Repairs,” to BD Construction
and Development, Inc., approve the attached Agreement in the
amount of $108,713.50, and authorize the Chairman to execute the
attached agreement. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $1,644,417 to reallocate
Infrastructure Sales Surtax Funding associated with the Building H,
3rd Floor HVAC Replacement (Project #50164). (District 1)
3) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $657,000 to allocate
Infrastructure Sales Surtax Funding associated with the Building H
Roof Replacement (Project #50165). (District 1)
4) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $1,756,220 to allocate
Infrastructure Sales Surtax Funding associated with the Naples
Regional Library HVAC Replacement (Project #50163). (District 4)
5) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $1,525,501 to allocate
Infrastructure Sales Surtax Funding associated with the J1/J2 Chiller
Plant & HVAC Upgrades (Project #50166). (District 1)
6) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $800,000 to cover costs
associated with increased service requests and maintenance for
County buildings and equipment. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to terminate the Agreement for Invitation to Bid #
18-7422, “SRO Wells No.1 and No. 3/9 Transformer Replacement,”
Page 12
June 11, 2019
to Simmonds Electrical of Naples, Inc., in the amount of $59,711 for
the replacement of two pad-mounted transformers (Project #50154).
(All Districts)
8) Recommendation to approve Amendment #2 to Agreement #14-6345
with AECOM Technical Services, Inc., for Basin 305 (Project
Number 70141) of the "Wastewater Basin Program," for increasing
the hourly rates in the Basis of Compensation. (District 1, District 4)
9) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Lease
Agreement with Hometown Landmark, LLC, for the continued use of
County-owned vacant property. (District 2)
10) Recommendation to approve a District Office Lease Amendment with
Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart for continued use of County-owned
office space. (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to approve the document necessary to convey an
easement to Florida Power & Light Company over property owned by
the Collier County Water-Sewer District at 512 103rd Ave. N.,
Naples, FL 34108. (District 2)
12) Recommendation to approve a Payment and Hold Harmless
Agreement between the Florida Government Utility Authority and the
Collier County Water-Sewer District for Irma related disaster
reimbursements received pursuant to the Federally Funded Subaward
and Grant Agreement (Contract Number: Z0644) with the Florida
Department of Emergency Management. (All Districts)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the execution of the 2018/2019 Federal
Highway Administration Flexible Funds Grant Award (Section 5307)
in the amount of $286,180 in the Transit Award Management System
(TrAMS) for the purchase and installation of additional bus shelters
through the Federal Transit Administration Transit Award
Management System and authorize the necessary Budget Amendment.
(All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign one
Page 13
June 11, 2019
(1) Release of Lien in the amount of $15,179.80 for full payment of a
Countywide Impact Fee for an owner-occupied affordable housing
dwelling unit. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Green & Green Investments, Inc., an Ohio corporation, for
approximately 28.70 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $874,000 and authorize
necessary budget amendments. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize a Budget Amendment in
the amount of $15,098.41 and authorize the chairman to sign one (1)
Release of Lien for an Affordable Housing Density Bonus unit that is
no longer subject to the terms of the agreement. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to authorize expenditures for the extension of the
annual Hardware and Software Maintenance Agreement and licenses
and subscriptions, and to add the installation of the i-Tiva automated
interactive communication module and support package, with
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.; for library system operations support, in an
amount not to exceed $180,000 per Fiscal Year, as budgeted through
FY 2021. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to support the Parks and Recreation Division in
seeking national accreditation as a valid and proper public purpose
and approve a Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds to host
the Accreditation Commission not to exceed $10,000. (Al l Districts)
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Student School Year Agreement with the District School Board of
Collier County for transportation services for County recreation
program participants. (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to allow
continuous operation of the State Housing Initiatives Partnership
Program prior to the execution of the 2019/2020 funding award. (All
Districts)
9) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage f or a
State Housing Initiatives Partnership Loan Program and authorize a
Page 14
June 11, 2019
Budget Amendment recognizing program income in the amount of
$20,250. (All Districts)
10) Recommendation to accept release of a State Housing Initiatives
Partnership mortgage and authorize the Chairman to execute a
Satisfaction of Mortgage for a home destroyed by fire and held
affordable for seventeen (17) years. (District 1)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget amendments
impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and
including $25,000 and $50,000, respectively. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) grant application to the Federal Aviation
Administration requesting an additional $1,700,745 for construction
of an aircraft apron and airfield safety improvements, at the Marco
Island Executive Airport project, with estimated costs of $1,889,717.
(District 1)
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of an Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) grant application to the Federal Aviation
Administration requesting $189,000 for the design of the extension of
Taxiway C at the Immokalee Regional Airport with a total estimated
cost of $210,000. (District 5)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 15
June 11, 2019
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to provide approval to designate the Sheriff as the
official applicant and point of contact for the U.S. Department of
Justice, Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program FY2019.
Authorize the acceptance of the grant when awarded, approve
associated budget amendments and approve the Collier County
Sheriff’s Office to receive and expend 2019 grant funds. (All
Districts)
2) Recommendation to provide approval to designate the Sheriff as the
official applicant and point of contact for the U.S. Department of
Justice, BJA STOP School Violence Prevention and Mental Health
Training Program FY2019. Authorize the acceptance of the grant
when awarded, approve associated budget amendments and approve
the Collier County Sheriff’s Office to receive and expend 2019 grant
funds. (All Districts)
3) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between May 16, 2019 and May 29, 2019 pursuant to Florida
Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
4) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of June 5,
2019. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Tourist Development
Council. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to appoint an alternate member to the Collier
County Code Enforcement Board. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Agreement for
Page 16
June 11, 2019
Legal Services for the Retention Agreement with Henderson,
Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. (All Districts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, to allow communications towers as a conditional
use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands and Conservation District;
by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact;
Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,
more specifically amending the following: Chapter Two - Zoning Districts
and Uses, including Section 2.01.03 Essential Services and Section 2.03.08
Rural Fringe Zoning Districts, and Section 2.03.09 Open Space District;
Section Four, Conflict and Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the
Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
(All Districts)
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve A
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners amending
the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) to revise the
SRA master plan in accordance with Section 4.08.07.F.4 of the Land
Development Code, and specifically to: remove from the boundary of the
SRA 12.19 acres of neighborhood general in the northeast corner of the
SRA; remove from the eastern boundary of the SRA .55 acres of
neighborhood general, at the intersection of Camp Keais Road and Pope
Page 17
June 11, 2019
John Paul II Boulevard; and to add to the southern boundary of the SRA
12.74 acres of neighborhood general, to the south of Bellerawalk Circle; and
to revise Appendix A of the Town Plan, the legal description. The subject
property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in
Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4
through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier
County, Florida. (District 5)
C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20180003283, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in a portion of the Park and Preserve Area located in Block “K” and
a portion of the Drainage Easement located in Tract “N” of Royal Wood
Golf and Country Club, Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15, page 16 and
a portion of the Drainage Easement located in Tract “N” of Royal Wood
Golf and Country Club, Unit Two, as recorded in Plat Book 15, page 19 of
the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in the northwest
quadrant of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida and
to accept Petitioner’s grant of a Conservation Easement to replace the
vacated portion of the Park and Preserve Area and Drainage Easements.
(District 1)
D. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, to create the Plantation Island Overlay which will
allow single-family detached dwelling units as permitted uses in addition to
the uses permitted by the underlying zoning district; by providing for:
Section One, Recitals; Section two, Findings of Fact; Section Three,
Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically
amending the following: Chapter Two - Zoning Districts and Uses, including
Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts; Section Four Conflict and
Severability; Section Five, inclusion in the Collier County Land
Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. (District 5)
E. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution Amending Appendix A Schedule 1
to eliminate Fire Assembly Base Charges effective March 12, 2019, and to
increase potable water base charges across the user base pursuant to the
Page 18
June 11, 2019
Board’s direction to staff to implement Option 2 as discussed at the March
12, 2019 meeting, Agenda Item 11C. (All Districts)
F. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance Amending the Function, Powers
and Duties of the Coastal Advisory Committee to provide Coastal Water
Quality coordination, education, oversight and outreach for all of Collier
County including the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island and
Everglades City and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (All
Districts)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
June 11, 2019
Page 2
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, everybody.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I want to welcome
everyone here this morning.
We're going to start off with our invocation and pledge.
The invocation's going to be led by Pastor Greg Ball from
Destiny Church.
Item # 1A
INVOCATION GIVEN BY PASTOR GREG BALL OF DESTINY
CHURCH
PASTOR BALL: Thank you.
If you could bow your hearts with the Lord -- to the
Lord.
God, we thank you for the opportunity to open this
meeting with the invocation. We thank you for all of our county
commissioners. They've gathered here today to make decisions for
our community, and we pray that their efforts be blessed with insight,
guided with understanding and wisdom.
Your word tells us that wisdom is the principal thing;
therefore, get wisdom, in all you're getting, get understanding.
God, we ask you to guard their hearts and their minds,
impart your supreme wisdom to their meeting, may they reach
successful conclusions for what is best for our community and our
fellow citizens. May they use their best skills and in judgments and
keep themselves impartial and neutral as they consider the merits and
the pitfalls of each matter that is placed before them today.
Thank you for being our source of guidance today and
every day. In Jesus' name, we pray, amen.
June 11, 2019
Page 3
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Pastor. That
was very nice.
Commissioner Saunders, will you lead us this morning.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
W/CHANGES; (ITEM #16K1 WAS MOVED TO ITEM #12A BY
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR DURING AGENDA CHANGES);
ITEM #17C WAS CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 25TH BCC
MEETING.
SPEAKERS: RICHARD PRICE AND MIKE FENNELLY)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And ladies and gentlemen,
thank you.
Commissioners, I only have one add-on item on the
agenda from the Manager's side of the house. It's add-on Item 4B, a
proclamation honoring those who served and sacrificed on the 75th
Anniversary of D-Day.
And we have two time-certains today, Commissioners.
One, Item 11B, at 10:45 the fertilizer ordinance, and Item 9B,
the PACE ordinance, at 1 p.m.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just keep Leo, our
manager, in your thoughts and prayers. He's traveling back, I
believe, today or tomorrow. His father passed away last week, and
June 11, 2019
Page 4
he thanked everybody for their kind thoughts and appreciation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So with that, we're
going to start down with the approval of -- well, let's do ex parte,
approval of the agenda and the like.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes to the agenda
and no ex parte disclosures on the consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No changes, no
corrections, and nothing to declare on the consent or the summary.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing to
add and no conflicts -- or no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No disclosures at this
point --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- except for later on,
which will come when we talk about Baumgarten.
But also, I would like to pull 16K1 for a separate vote,
and I think we did that before where we make a decision now and I --
clearly, there were two -- three fine candidates that came before the
Tourist Development Council, but I would like to bring forward
Mary Shay's name as a possible consideration. Do I speak now or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that would be the right
time, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think if you pull it
and we'll put it --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead and move it up
to the -- you pick a spot, and we'll have a discussion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 12A.
June 11, 2019
Page 5
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 12A. Very good.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, myself, have no
additions or changes or any disclosures on the consent or summary.
So with that --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered
speakers for Item 17C. The first speaker is Richard Price. He will be
followed by Mike -- I'm having trouble reading this -- Fennelly. I
hope I've got that.
MR. FENNELLY: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Price, would you come up and
speak. 17C?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 17C.
MR. MILLER: 17C.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This was on the summary
agenda.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. PRICE: My name is Richard Price. I live at --
(Timer went off.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Your time is up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're done. Thank you,
Richard. That was a well put together presentation.
MR. MILLER: Go ahead, sir.
MR. PRICE: I heard government was brief.
I'm a single-family homeowner inside of Royal Wood,
and I've read the application that's on file. It's signed by our
president. It's not signed by the board of directors. There's been no
resolution that I've been aware of. It's not been on any of our agenda
items showing this transaction.
Also, this involves a tremendous change of use of the
property within the PUD. And, generally, when things of that nature
June 11, 2019
Page 6
are that much changed, you would require a member approval. We
haven't seen that either.
So the question is, with no board approval, with no
member approval, I'm just wondering about the validity of the motion
in front of you.
Okay. That's my question.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm going to ask the
County Attorney to address that, if you would, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we wouldn't have processed
it unless we believed there was approval. It doesn't necessarily mean
that 100 percent there was. Let me look into it, and if we could
continue this item to the next meeting, we'll have the time to verify
that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I might say a little
something. I went to their ribbon cutting, and there were a lot of
people there and everybody celebrating the ribbon cutting, and they
have already begun to tear the building down, actually. They've
gutted the place, from what I understand. And so I don't know how
you were missed, or maybe you're just saying that --
MR. PRICE: I've lived in the community several years.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is your house close to the
clubhouse?
MR. PRICE: No. It's on the other end.
MR. KLATZKOW: So your objection is that you don't
believe there was authority by the membership?
MR. PRICE: There's been no due notices.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'd have to verify that. I just --
MR. PRICE: Okay. I've gone through, you know --
MR. KLATZKOW: This went through a Hearing
Examiner process. This has been a lengthy process. This is the first
June 11, 2019
Page 7
time the objection came up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Well, it's not an
objection. He's just questioning the process and that --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the first time the issue's
come up, sir, and I'm saying that this has been through a very lengthy
process, but we would be happy to check it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Continuance for two
weeks. Will that delay the project? I mean, because all we're doing
is really vacating a public interest in a right-of-way that's over there
by where the clubhouse is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that's
appropriate. We've done it in the past; continue it for two weeks.
The gentleman will have a chance to speak to staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't stop all the
work, though, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they've got lots
of people working on it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly.
MR. PRICE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And Mr. Fennelly, that item's going to
be continued for two weeks. Do you want to speak now or --
MR. FENNELLY: I would prefer to speak now,
please.
MR. MILLER: Sure, please.
MR. FENNELLY: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, my name is Mike Fennelly. I've been
an owner at Royal Wood for almost 15 years now. For the last
almost 10 years I have been a member of the board of directors. And
I'd like to attest to you that all of the work and all of the support and
June 11, 2019
Page 8
all of the procedural items for this SDPA were acco mplished
approximately four years ago and only because of an oversight of not
filing did we have to bring this forward now.
So since we already had the approval of the community
four years ago, we did not feel that we needed to go back out and
request it at this time.
I would like to say that Mr. Price represents a group of 16
disgruntled owners who are not willing to accept the majority of our
community.
The Royal Wood Master Board has continually
supported the county. We have given land for the Santa Barbara
extension. We most recently extended an easement for the Waste
Management project so that they will be able to extend the building
and processes at the corner of Santa Barbara and Rattlesnake
Hammock.
So at this point I would like to say that the Royal Wood
Master Board was duly elected and authorized to enter into this
request four years ago. There was only a mistake that it was not
followed through and filed that brings us today.
And I'd like to say that I think the previous speaker is in
the wrong place. If he has a problem with what the Royal Wood
Master Board is doing, then he needs to take us over to the next
building. And I ask you to disregard his objection to this motion.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: That was your final speaker on the
consent and summary agenda, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I appreciate
the speaker's comments, but I think it's prudent if, in fact, we don't
have the documentation from the actual board of directors that we
continue the item for two weeks, let's just assert that everything is to
Hoyle, and then we'll bring it forward and vote on it.
June 11, 2019
Page 9
MR. KLATZKOW: I can't give you certainty today. I can give
you certainty in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. It should be
placed on the consent agenda or summary again, either one. I don't
know --
MR. KLATZKOW: It will go back to summary.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Logistically, it probably
has to because it is a --
MR. KLATZKOW: Advertised.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- advertised -- an
advertised event. So I'd be okay with continuing it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question.
And that's fine. Just -- usually when there is
controversy it's put before us; is that right? It doesn't go on summary.
MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't controversy. This is
what happens in HOAs. People disagree, and unfortunately it doesn't
rise up to the level until now. And I can't tell you who's right or
who's wrong at this point in time. In two weeks I'll be able to tell you
whether or not you the master's authority (sic) had the authority.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it's prudent for
us to do that just to make sure, procedurally, that everything's okay.
So with that -- and you want to -- somebody want to
make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue to the
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For 17C. And then we're
going to approve the agenda as -- make that part of your motion as
well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will -- I would like to
request that we take 17C and put it on the next agenda for approval.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, that's the
June 11, 2019
Page 10
first motion. It's been moved and seconded --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that we -- how'd you like that
leading second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we continue Item 17C till our June 25th meeting. 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.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, I'll call for a motion for the
approval of today's agenda as adjusted.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve the agenda as
adjusted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept today's agenda as adjusted. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
June 11, 2019
Page 11
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 11, 2019
Add-On Item 4B: Proclamation honoring those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe
and defend America’s freedom and security on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day. To be accepted by
World War II Veterans John Basic, Robert Bridges, David Isaacson, Don Mills, Robert Sargeant,
and Pappy Wagner. (Commissioner Taylor’s request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11B to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 9B to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
6/11/2019 10:04 AM
June 11, 2019
Page 12
Item #2B
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 14, 2019 -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item
2B, the May 14th, 2019, BCC meeting minutes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve the minutes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded the
minutes from May 14th be approved as printed. 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.
Now to our favorite part.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is our favorite part.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is.
Item #3D
PRESENTATION OF THE MAY 2019 EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH, PHIL GRAVITT, INSTRUMENTATION/ELECTRICAL
TECHNICIAN, PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT –
June 11, 2019
Page 13
PRESENTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, Item 3D is our
presentation of the May 2019 Employee of the Month, team member
of the month, Phil Gravitt, instrument/electrical technician with the
Public Utilities Department.
Phil, if you'd join us at the front.
(Applause.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Phil, if you'd stand there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is the most important part.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. Hold your award and face the
audience and let us embarrass you a little bit in front of the group, all
right.
Phil has been with Collier County since 2016 and works in the
Public Utilities wastewater power systems section. Phil's level of
sustained dedication day in and day out continues to go unmatched.
He is known for completing tasks, utilizing his superior skills and
craftsmanship.
Phil was assigned preventative maintenance tasks at the North
County Water Reclamation Facility. Beyond performing a PM (sic)
on the cabinet, he reworked the entire system and brought it to
as-new, factory condition.
His work extended the life of equipment another 10 years and
has resulted in trouble-free equipment since the work was done.
Phil's quiet demeanor, self-motivation, and process improvement
skills have earned him the respect of both his team members and
management alike. He's an outstanding team member and May 2019
Employee of the Month.
Phil Gravitt.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Here we go.
June 11, 2019
Page 14
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to speak, Phil?
MR. GRAVITT: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Quiet demeanor, right?
Item #4
PROCLAMATION - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 2019 AS YOUTH
LEADERSHIP MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER
FOUNDATION AMANDA BEIGHTS, TIFFANY LEHMAN,
KATRINA VARELA AND ALEX BREAULT – ADOPTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, that takes you to
Item 4A, proclamation designating June 2019 as Youth Leadership
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by representatives of the
Leadership Collier Foundation: Amanda Beights, Tiffany Lehman,
Katrina Varela, and Alex Breault. Step forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to have young people here,
isn't it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Amanda mentioned, as a
graduate of the Youth Leadership Collier. And your name, ma'am
(sic)?
MR. ZAPPULA: Julien Zappulla.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations.
June 11, 2019
Page 15
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this good? Should we move?
You arrange us, Maria.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I had an opportunity to address this
group a week, week-and-a-half ago, was it not?
MS. BEIGHTS: Last week.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was an amazing experience. If
you ever have an opportunity, please do.
The questions that came forth were quite interesting. I really
enjoyed it.
Oh, please. Good morning.
MS. BEIGHTS: Good morning. My name is Amanda Beights.
I'm with the Leadership Collier Foundation.
Youth Leadership Collier began in 2005. It's a week-long
program dedicated to civic engagement and community leadership
for rising seniors in high school.
Our students tell us this program is life-changing as they learn
about the intricacies of what makes this county run. In fact, one of
their favorite activities last week was actually sitting in your chairs
and learning about the process of a board of county commission
meeting. It was one of their favorite activities, and they were very
encouraged.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: These chairs are so bad I'm
surprised no one complained.
MS. BEIGHTS: Only 10 minutes, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They only had 10 minutes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be in our performance
evaluation.
MS. BEIGHTS: There were county managers and attorneys as
well, and there were even public comment. And it was just a really
fascinating experience for them, so much so that one of the students
left with tears in her eyes and was hugging county staff and myself
June 11, 2019
Page 16
and said, I just never realized how much access I have to make a
difference.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Wow.
MS. BEIGHTS: So we want to thank our county departments
for their annual support in hosting us, all of our community partners,
and we'd like to thank our founders of this program that began this
program 15 years ago: Donna McNiven, whose daughter, Tiffany
Lehman, is represented today. She continues to carry on her legacy
for this program, and we're so grateful for that; Joan Cox; CJ
Houston; Kathy Curatolo; and your very own Crystal Kinzel.
So thank you so much, and here's to another 15 years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amen. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B – Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
PROCLAMATION HONORING THOSE WHO SERVED AND
SACRIFICED TO LIBERATE EUROPE AND DEFEND
AMERICA’S FREEDOM AND SECURITY ON THE 75TH
ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY. ACCEPTED BY WORLD WAR II
VETERANS JOHN BASIC, DAVID ISAACSON, DON MILLS,
ROBERT SARGEANT, AND PAPPY WAGNER – ADOPTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to the
add-on item, 4B, proclamation honoring those who served and
sacrificed to liberate Europe and defend America's freedom and
security on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and I believe you'd like to
read the names and read the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor's going to
read the names and ranks, I believe, and then I'll read the
proclamation --
June 11, 2019
Page 17
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and then we'll all get up and do
the presentation of the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So as I read your name would
you please just raise your hand. These are World War II Veterans:
John Basic, Petty Officer Second Class, Navy Electric Technician;
David Isaacson, Army Staff Sergeant.
MR. ISAACSON: Navy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So David Isaac --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Navy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me; Pharmacist Mate
Second Class Navy.
MR. ISAACSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don Mills, Army Staff Sergeant;
Robert Sargeant, Army Air Corps and Pattons Third Army; and
Pappy Wagner, Private First Class Iwajima Marine.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I'd like to ask you to sit
down, and we're going to read this proclamation. We might be here
till tomorrow, so it's probably a lot more restful to sit down.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm a little bit of a slow reader.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, not that at all.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Whereas, on June 6th, 1944,
D-Day, more than 130,000 Americans and Allied troops stormed the
beaches of Normandy, France, and thousands more parachuted in
behind enemy lines on a mission to retake Europe from control of
Nazis; and,
Whereas, the night before the operation, the largest amphibious
assault in the history of the war, General Dwight D. Eisenhower
issued a message to the Allied Expeditionary Force: "The eyes of the
world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people
June 11, 2019
Page 18
everywhere march with you. We will accept nothing less than full
victory"; and,
Whereas, paratroopers from the Army fell in behind enemy lines
and shortly thereafter the first wave of American, British, and
Canadian infantry divisions rushed forth onto the five beaches of the
targeted 50-mile stretch of the French coastline codenamed Utah,
Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword; and,
Whereas, secure in the nobility of their cause and driven by the
love of country, the heros of D-Day pressed forward against German
onslaught. Through their gallantry and dedication to duty, they
overwhelmed the enemy and secured the beachhead that allowed
wave after wave of infantry to push onto the continent; and,
Whereas, by day's end, the D-Day forces had pried upon
Europe's door, through which streamed the forces of libertarian (sic)
and ultimately ended the war, ended the horrors of the Holocaust,
ended the tyrannical Hitler regime, and laid the foundation of a peace
that persists to this day; and,
Whereas, more than 28,000 veterans currently reside in Collier
County, and many Collier County residents continue to serve on
active duty in the National Guard and in the Reserve and components
of the United States Armed Forces; and,
Whereas, we pause to remember the 75th anniversary and honor
all the brave soldiers and sailors and nurses and airmen whose
selfless sacrifices catalyzed the deliverance of oppressed people and
secured freedom for decades to come. May we always be true to the
virtues and principles for those for which the greatest generation paid
so dearly; and,
Whereas, the United States of America will forever include the
valor and sacrifices of the intrepid servicemen who took those
beaches in Northwest France on June 6th, 1944.
Now, therefore, the Collier County Board of County
June 11, 2019
Page 19
Commissioners urge all citizens of Collier County to join in
honoring those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe and
defend America's freedom.
Signed, William L. McDaniel, Chairman. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all may be seated except for
our honorees.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were only one of
16-and-a-half in the armed forces. More than 10 percent of the
country was in the armed forces.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
MR. SMITH: Wayne Smith. These great gentlemen asked me
to say thank you for your honor. And I'll just say one word.
I was a prisoner of war for a while, and etched on a wall in one
of our prison cells was the words "freedom has a taste to those who
fight and almost die that the protected will never know," and you've
set the stage and you've made it for me as well.
So thank you for your great honor, and we thank all of you for
recognizing these wonderful, wonderful gentlemen who, again, paved
the way. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Wayne.
(Applause.)
MR. SMITH: Mr. Isackson, by the way, was a D-Day honoree
with the Legion of Merit, which is just behind a Congressional Medal
of Honor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that was
heartwarming. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You should have been there on
Monday. It was amazing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could I get a motion to accept the
proclamations.
June 11, 2019
Page 20
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
the proclamations be accepted as presented. 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.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE RECOVERED REMNANTS OF THE
U.S. FLAG THAT FLEW OVER THE COLLIER COUNTY
PERMITTING OFFICE IN IMMOKALEE ON SEPT. 10, 2017,
WHEN HURRICANE IRMA SWEPT THROUGH OUR AREA. TO
BE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF FROM THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT WHO WERE INVOLVED IN
THE MISSION: SHANNON BASSETT (SERVED IN THE U.S.
NAVY), GREGORY GARCIA (SERVED IN THE U.S. AIR
FORCE), JAMES ZUVER (SERVED IN THE U.S. ARMY), FELIX
BURGOS (SERVED IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS), TRISTAN
PEREZ, WHO WAS A CADET IN THE JUNIOR RESERVE
OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS AT PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH
SCHOOL – PRESENTED
June 11, 2019
Page 21
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman and the Board, if it's
your pleasure, could I jump to 5B, because it's a presentation of the
flag from veterans, and I think it's consistent with what we just talked
about a little bit.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. If our team could walk
up as I call your name. Shannon Bassett served in the Navy; Felix
Burgos, Marine Corps; Greg Garcia, Armed Force; James Zuver in
the Army; and Tristan Perez, the Junior Reserve Officer Training
Corps, Palmetto Ridge.
And I'll tell you a little bit about them and what we're presenting
to you. Commissioners, as you know, Friday, June 14th, is Flag Day,
and through Hurricane Irma, they were unable to take the flag down.
The system broke on the flagpole, and these folks took the flag down
after the storm and cherished it, protected it, and put it in this
presentation to give to the Board.
And with that, we would like to hang that in the EOC
commemorating Hurricane Irma. I think it's appropriate, and just
accepted by the Board. If you all want to get in front, we'll take a
picture of you in front of the Board with the flag.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. GARCIA: Actually, I'm a pretty loud guy. Anybody have
any problem hearing me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Greg, you need to be on the mic.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You need to be on the mic. But
here -- wait, we can move the mic from the wall.
MR. GARCIA: Unfortunately, one of the red stripes was
missing upon retrieval, and we replaced it with a metallic that has a
laser-etched message. "This battered flag flew over the Collier
June 11, 2019
Page 22
County government building in Immokalee City through the
devastation of Hurricane Irma on Sunday September 10th, 2017.
And like the citizens of that community as well as everyone else
within Collier County that stood fast, weathered the storm, and came
out on the other side, may this flag continue to reflect and represent
their determination to overcome and persevere in the face of any and
all adversity."
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to say, why don't
you just leave that right there for now. That's a nice place for it to be.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did it come out, the photograph?
THE PHOTOGRAPHER: It came out really nice.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nice.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just say this is just another
example of the dedication of our county staff.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. As we all know, the path
of Irma came right up through the middle part of 951 and trailed out
maybe two-and-a-half, three miles -- the eye went two-and-a-half,
three miles east of us there -- or excuse me, west of us there in
Immokalee.
So there you are. What else do you say to that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #5D – Added
ARTIST OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE – HAROLD KURZMAN;
June 11, 2019
Page 23
ART ON DISPLAY IN THE BOARDROOM
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Before we go forward,
I've been remiss. I'm going to -- since you went off-line, I'm going
to. I forgot to announce the Artist of the Month, and there's some
amazing art there in the back.
Just quickly, the Artist of the Month is resident Harold
Kurzman. Harold's interest in photography began when he worked
for the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs.
While stationed in Africa, Harold had the opportunity to photograph
the beauty of Savanna's deserts, rivers, and safari park animals.
After leaving government service, Harold worked as a
consultant for international business films which gave him the
opportunity to travel worldwide, including the locations in Turkey,
the Philippines, and South America. It was at that time that travel
photography became his passion.
Upon retiring in '04, Harold made Collier County his home. His
images have won numerous awards and have been featured in several
galleries and publications.
Before you leave today, if you have an opportunity, please take
a moment and look at his work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I add, Harold Kurzman also
serves as vice chair for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program
and has for many, many years and is faithful to that, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Thank you, Harold.
Appreciate it very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now you may go.
Item #5A
June 11, 2019
Page 24
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2019 TO THE NAPLES PLAYERS.
ACCEPTED BY BRYCE ALEXANDER, EXECUTIVE ARTISTIC
DIRECTOR, DEREK PERRY, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND
BETHANY SAWYER OF THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. That
takes us back to Item 5A, presentation of the Collier County Business
of the Month for June 2019 to the Naples Players. To be accepted by
Bryce Alexander, executive artist director; and Derek Perry,
development director; also present is Bethany Sawyer representing
the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Come on over here in the middle.
You guys know the drill.
(Applause.)
MR. ALEXANDER: Good morning. My name is Bryce
Alexander. I'm the executive artist director at the Naples Players, and
I just wanted to say thank you to the county. This is obviously a nice
reminder today of what an amazing community we live in; and also
to the Chamber of Commerce.
It's not often that we hear about non-profit arts organizations
winning Business of the Month, but I think it's a wonderful sign of
the movement that Collier County has towards arts and culture, and I
think it's a nice reminder that arts and culture GDP in the United
States is greater than that of the GDP of our nation's transportation
and agriculture, which is, I think, stunning for most people. We hear
a lot about farm bills and the things that we need to do to support the
homeland of America, the heartland and, yet, arts and culture has a
bigger economic impact on the nation than even those individual
sectors, which is pretty spectacular.
June 11, 2019
Page 25
And in the state of Florida, the Naples Players is, in many ways,
regarded as one of the reasons that downtown Naples turned around
20 years ago. And so now we serve 60,000 people a year. We have
an operating budget over three million. We have 550 active
volunteers and more than 1,200 individuals in education.
And we're not complaining, but I think it's worth noting that
despite that large impact, the Naples Players last year received 10
grand in public support, and that's it. And that only comes from the
state. There is no local tax that supports the art. There's no county
tax; the state, when it can; and then the federal government when it
also is approved.
So we're not complaining. We're not asking you suddenly to
create that. But I think as a strategic plan that you've put in place
moves forward, that's something that's worth understanding about
how the State of Florida falls and how arts and culture impacts our
tourism community throughout the country and, certainly, locally.
But thank you very much for having us and honoring us. I'm
sure that there will be more arts and culture organizations in our
future as you move down. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate it.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
RECOGNITION OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEPHANIE VICK AND
MEMBERS OF THE DOH-COLLIER TEAM FOR BEING
AWARDED THE PRESTIGIOUS GOVERNOR'S STERLING
AWARD FOR ACHIEVING HIGH STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE WITHIN THEIR
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS. RECEIVING THE
June 11, 2019
Page 26
RECOGNITION ARE ADMINISTRATOR VICK AND MEMBERS
OF HER TEAM – PRESENTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, this is also a
prestigious item. Item 5C, recognition of Florida Department of
Health in Collier County, Administrator Stephanie Vick and the
members of the Department of Health Collier Team, for being
awarded the prestigious Governor's Sterling Award for high
standards of performance, excellence within their management and
operations. Receiving the recognition, our administrator, Stephanie
Vick, and members of her team.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Leave it up to Stephanie to go the
wrong way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our audience is going to be empty
when you guys leave.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When they leave, the place is going
to be empty.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, I thought everybody was
here to see me, but they were just here to get that award.
MS. VICK: Okay. So good morning, Mr. Chair and
Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here again in front of you and
for an exciting reason.
I'm Stephanie Vick. I'm the health officer and administrator of
our county Health Department. And as you saw, I had a number of
our staff that came along with me this morning. We sincerely thank
you for your recognition of our receipt of the Governor's Sterling
Award.
This award is about continuous improvement and achievement.
It takes dedication and constant attention to results. It definitely
June 11, 2019
Page 27
reflects the efforts of all of our staff. It's not just me. It's everybody.
And I want you to know that there is a benefit to winning and
striving towards this Sterling Award in that it helps us in
management of our business operations now and a review of the past
but prepares us for the future. So we're hoping to remain an excellent
organization for Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm thinking you will. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Mr. Chairman, that takes you
to your advertised public hearings: Item 9A and a companion, Item
11A.
Do we have public comment? Okay, thank you.
MR. MILLER: You want to do public comment on general --
Item 7 or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's next.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. MILLER: Yes. Item 7, we have one registered speaker.
Rae Ann Burton.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She's over there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On the wrong side of the room.
MS. BURTON: Good morning, Collier County Commissioners.
My name is Rae Ann Burton, Rural Golden Gate Estates.
My comments cover basic concerns over proposed mixed-use
developments, lack of cell phone towers, and denial of personal
generators. They're endangering area homeowners' safety and
welfare. Also, the developers are given carte blanche on building.
June 11, 2019
Page 28
Constant rezoning requests from developers to increase unit
density, unit height, and even build adjacent to existing
developments. Who wants their home next to a high-rise with
windows looking down on you?
Units are increased in density so close together. Personal
generators denied by county. Developer should provide generator
backups for the developments, the same as utilities because of this
denial. This would also cut down the number of people seeking
hurricane shelter.
Because of development growth, cell towers should be built
within the development as they are in the fringe area. It would
increase community's selling points, a better, safer, and reliable cell
phone service, plus lease money from the cell phone companies.
More consideration should be made on the impact made by the
dense built communities, increase the people in cars, how to evaluate
safety, and without harm. Golden Gate's Estates Rural can only build
one occupied residence per acre. Why are developers permitted more
and so close together?
Check past evacuations of prior hurricane. Many stranded on
I-75 because traffic could not move. I-75 has daily traffic accidents,
and it's not even season.
Thursday, June 6th a 500-pound bear was killed by a car near
Bonita Springs; tied up southbound I-75 for hours. For Florida Fish
and Wildlife, more bears will die. It is mating season. Their habitat
is less.
If growth is on the table, build the promised ATV park. More
roads put them and bike riders and walkers in harm's way. I'm here
to request that you honor the commissioner's mission/guiding
principles:
Vision to be the best community in America to live, work, and play.
Build an AT (sic) park.
June 11, 2019
Page 29
Mission - to deliver a high-quality, best-value public-services
programs and facilities to meet the needs of our residents, visitors,
and businesses today - growth regulated.
Guiding principles - honesty, integrity, service, accountability,
quality, consistent, respect, knowledge, stewardship, collaboration,
self-initiating, self-correcting. Be true to the homeowners, not the
developers.
Motto - exceeding expections (sic) every day. This is what we
expect from the Board.
To make as little impact or destruction and to regulate the
growth of Rural Golden Gate Estates to protect and to preserve
wildlife and the rural environment. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That is our only registered speaker for Item 7.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2019-11: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH
ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAUMGARTEN
MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 400
June 11, 2019
Page 30
MULTIFAMILY AND/OR TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 270,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL LAND USES AT THE SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 26,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 55.66+/-
ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE –
ADOPTED
Item #11A
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH BCHD PARTNERS II,
LLC., (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY) TO
RESERVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY SYSTEM AND ALLOW A TRAFFIC SIGNAL
AND SPECIFIC ACCESS POINTS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
DEVELOPER DONATING LAND AND EASEMENTS TO THE
COUNTY AND RECEIVING STORMWATER FOR A FUTURE
OVERPASS AT COLLIER BOULEVARD AND IMMOKALEE
ROAD – APPROVED
Okay. Mr. Chairman, board members, this takes us to Item 9A
and Companion Item 11A, advertised public hearing.
Item 9A is proposal to rezone a section of Rural Agricultural
"A" zoning district to Mixed Use Planned Development known as
Baumgarten MPUD to allow up to a maximum of 400 multifamily
units and townhouse units and up to 270,000 square feet of
commercial land uses. And this is at the southeast corner of
Immokalee and Collier Boulevard.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have five registered
speakers for this item.
June 11, 2019
Page 31
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it is an ex parte.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I'm going to go through. We'll
do our ex parte now.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I've had meetings with
Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Genson, I've had numerous emails from
neighboring residents, and a letter from the Tarpon Cove residents as
well.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've also had -- I've received
mail and email from residents. I've met with Rich Yovanovich,
Wayne Arnold, David Genson, and there was somebody else. I can't
remember. Was that it? Just the three of you? Okay. And then also
there was a discussion with some Planning Commissioners, and I
read the staff report.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I've had meetings with
the representatives of the developer and some emails, telephone calls.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Meetings with developer and the
developer's agents, meetings -- monitored not in great detail, but the
Planning Commission meetings, both meetings, emails from
constituents, telephone call. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, myself, have had meetings,
correspondence, and emails as well.
So with that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Petitioner presents.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne
June 11, 2019
Page 32
Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates representing the applicant.
With me today is David Genson and Dan Waters, both from Barron
Collier Companies. Rich Yovanovich, our land-use counsel, and
Norm Trebilcock, our traffic engineer, are here.
I think I'll make a brief presentation for you and then be happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
So as most of you are aware, this is the former Pelican Nursery
site at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier
Boulevard. It's just under 56 acres. I'm bringing that up on the
visualizer. It's just an aerial photograph that shows you the boundary
of the property.
You can see that the site's been cleared for the nursery
operations that had existed there for the past 30 years or so, and then
you see our neighbors immediately south at Tuscany Cove and Bent
Creek to the east.
And I think if you all monitored the Planning Commission
meeting, you saw that there were several concessions made by the
developer for this project. We reduced the square footage from
370,000 square feet to 270,000 square feet, and we also eliminated
the hotel use from the proposal.
I do want to point out one error that's an oopsie on my part.
When we corrected that to reduce the square footages, I missed that
in a location.
This is known as Exhibit B to the PUD document, and you can
see in the red highlights at the bottom we need to strike the reference
to the hotel/motel and need to change the reference from 370,000
square feet to 270,000. This appears in two places in the PUD
document. My error of not getting that corrected. We provided that
to the County Attorney's Office so that your ordinance should be
correct.
This is of the PUD master plan. And, again, the -- one of the
June 11, 2019
Page 33
attributes of this project is it is located in your activity center. It
happens to be a master planned activity center, and it's owned by a
singular entity, which means we get to manipulate the boundary of
the activity center of commercial, and by doing that we were able to
put residential adjacent to our two residential neighbors for the most
part.
The one mixed-use tract in the northeast corner of our tract abuts
what was a cell tower site for Bent Creek when we started this
process. There's a small preserve there as well.
But this project, obviously, has access to Immokalee Road. It
has access to Collier Boulevard. It's proposed to have a signalized
access to Collier Boulevard, which is a benefit to both of the
communities that will be interconnected to us, and I think that's a
unique aspect of this project that both Bent Creek and Tuscany Cove
wanted the interconnect. And, in fact, Tuscany Cove had provided a
stub-out interconnection when they developed their property several
years ago.
This also has a companion developer agreement that, if we need
to answer questions, Mr. Yovanovich would do that. But you can see
along the top portion of this exhibit there's a right-of-way dedication
that that land will be given to the county. We're taking in some of the
water management for that, and that's a future grade-separated
intersection.
So that's a brief outline of where we are, and be happy to answer
any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have no one lit up. Did you
appropriately dock his pay for not fixing the documentation
accordingly for today?
And just as a point of clarity, when I was reading this, I thought
you said that we were eliminating the hotel and adjusting the square
footage down to 240-, and I think my -- is it 270-.
June 11, 2019
Page 34
MR. ARNOLD: It should be 270-, and there's also a caveat in
there, if you read the details, that anything above 250,000 square feet
has to be associated with the self-storage.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So it's actually less unless we build
self-storage. That's the only way we get to 270,000 square feet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I just thought I heard you
say --
MR. ARNOLD: If I did, my apologies.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, for the record, what are we
looking at? What are we reducing the square footage by?
MR. ARNOLD: A hundred thousand square feet from 370 --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And eliminating the use of the
hotel.
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, with no comments, then we're
going to go with our public comment.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Robert Pritt, and he will be
followed by Cheryl Ollila.
MR. PRITT: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hello, Robert.
MR. PRITT: My name is Robert Pritt. I'm with the law firm of
Roetzel & Andress. I represent Tuscany Cove Master Property
Owners' Association.
And I'm here to tell you that although we started out at odds
with the developer over certain issues and some of the issues you've
heard before in other context having to do with taller buildings next
to single-family, existing single-family, and single-story homes, we
were able to work that out.
June 11, 2019
Page 35
Thanks to the Planning Commission, they continued the matter.
We went back and talked, and both parties came to an agreement on
that. It took some talking on both sides, but we were very happy to
be able to report to the Planning Commission at the second meeting
that we have worked it out.
We've lost the -- on the screen we've lost the -- can you pull that
back up, Wayne?
MR. ARNOLD: Do you want the master plan?
MR. PRITT: No, just the one you had up there a minute ago
showing the -- at the bottom there you'll see -- it's kind of hard for me
to see it -- but, yeah, right there. There's a setback line there. It says
105-foot building setback, and what that represents is the fact that
they were able to pull their multifamily -- multistory, multifamily
buildings away from -- as much as possible away from the property.
And I don't know that that satisfies every single person in
Tuscany Cove, but as far as the master association is concerned, they
did agree to that, and some of the other things that Wayne Arnold
alluded to a minute ago providing for some internal access back and
forth. That's consistent with what this board encourages. That has
been done, and so we're happy with that.
I do have Gary Boutin, who is the vice president of Tuscany
Cove. I don't think he plans to speak. We did put a card in, a speaker
slip in, and he took the oath just in case you want to ask him any
questions. But that's the position of the board, and we're happy to
support the application.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Robert.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Cheryl Ollila. She will be
followed by Dale Walters.
MS. OLLILA: Good morning. I'm Cheryl Ollila. I'm the
president of the Quarry Community Association. It's a 900-home
community off Immokalee Road near this development.
June 11, 2019
Page 36
I did attend the Planning Commission meeting and, like the
attorney before me, was very pleased to see that agreements were
worked out with the developer.
I'm here today to continue our concerns as the Quarry
community with the transportation and the lack of traffic signals
along Immokalee Road. The county has planned a traffic signal at
the intersection of Quarry Drive and Woodcrest with Immokalee
Road, and that should be starting in the fall and the traffic signal
working next May, according to Trinity Scott.
But I asked in the Planning Commission meeting about the
traffic denial -- the traffic signal denial of a light at Bellaire Bay
Drive, which is where the Racetrac gas station is on Immokalee -- is
denied because of some various reasons but also because it's in the
way of the overpass or flyover.
And it's my understanding that that flyover is not even in the
2040 plan of Collier County. So we're looking at potentially it's 25
years on the road. Bellaire Bay Drive 2,500 -- approximately 2,500
feet from the intersection of Immokalee and Collier.
Goodland Bay Drive, which is another 1,100 feet east, so 3,600
feet away from the intersection, is where the Baumgarten
development will align with Goodland Bay Drive. Again, a traffic
signal will not be placed there because of this flyover.
So the only traffic signal that is in the works, perhaps, for the
next 30 or more years, is the traffic signal that's going at Quarry
Drive, which is, perhaps, a mile. I'm not sure how far Quarry Drive
is from Goodland Bay. I only know that Goodland Bay is 3,600 feet,
approximately, according to Trinity Scott.
The light that is going in with the Baumgarten development, that
is south on Collier Boulevard at Pebblebrooke, and the Baumgarten
development is only 1,100 feet south of that intersection. So for
people traveling on Immokalee Road, they will not be able -- when
June 11, 2019
Page 37
they leave the Baumgarten development and wish to travel west on
Immokalee Road, they will have to make a right turn, he ad east, and
then do their U-turn either at the Goodland Bay -- I understand there
is a turn there but not a signal, so people will be taking their lives in
their hands to try to make a U-turn in front of all that traffic going at
50 miles per hour, or they use in front of The Quarry, which is going
to get very congested.
We're very concerned about the lack of traffic signals for this
planned flyover which our understanding is it's way down the road,
perhaps not in my lifetime, and I don't know if it's contingent upon an
agreement with Lee County to extend Collier Boulevard north.
So my question is -- no problems with the development. We're
glad to see stores and restaurants and things like that for us to use it
out in our section of Collier County, but the traffic signal and safety
issues are paramount.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dale Walters. He will be
followed by Connie Walters.
MR. WALTERS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, Dale.
MR. WALTERS: I live directly behind this project plan, as well
as do 37 other homeowners. So there are some of us that are
concerned despite the comment you've already had.
I was looking at the Collier County strategic planning workshop
from 2017, and it states that the county will focus on growth
management, that Collier County with focus on ways to create and
maintain communities that are vibrant, attractive, and safe. A
strategic goal is to preserve and enhance the safety, quality, value,
character, and heritage of our neighborhoods.
The plan states that Collier County is a rapidly growing area. It
June 11, 2019
Page 38
is the county's responsibility to manage and promote the county's
growth. The county's growth is managed to prevent inconsistent,
undesirable, and unattractive growth. What I've just quoted is from
the Collier County strategic plan in 2017.
Well, at this time there are three home developments on
Immokalee Road: Bent Creek, Richmond Park, and LaMorada, all of
them within a half a mile east of the property being discussed. These
communities are being developed right now. Also a new -- as new as
the Addison Apartments, which is on the northwest corner at Collier
and Immokalee Road.
The addition of the proposed property does not seem to conform
to the 2017 plan to have desirable growth within close proximity.
The plan for this development will have apartments 65 feet tall, and
they'll be close to our existing homes. I'm one of them, and these are
single-story homes. I don't see how that will conform to the
desirable, attractive growth that we're hoping to have.
The strategic plan states it will preserve the character of our
neighborhoods, so I'm just asking for you to consider that in this
thought.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Dan.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Connie Walters, and she
will be followed by Gary Boutin.
MS. WALTERS: Good morning. I'm Connie Walters. I'm a
long-time resident of Collier County since 1976. I probably know a
lot of your family, your friends, your supervisors, your coworkers.
Being here that long, you know a lot of people.
And as you can imagine, I've seen a lot of change in Collier County.
Some of it good, some of it not so good.
But I wanted to speak to you today as a resident, as a mother, as
a grandmother, as a coworker, as a friend, as a neighbor. It's an
emotional issue for me because I live right where they're going to be
June 11, 2019
Page 39
building.
Therefore, I might stutter and stammer a little because my heart
and my mind don't always work at the same conjunction as my
mouth.
So I wanted to talk about being a mother. When a child comes
to you and they ask for five cookies, you know it's not good for them.
And I am doing a little parallel here, as you can imagine, with the
property development. I'm not against giving that child a cookie.
That's perfectly fine. Everybody deserves to have a cookie; however,
they know that if they ask for five cookies maybe they'll get three,
and maybe they shouldn't because they'll get a tummy ache. Now,
this tummy ache is what's going to affect everybody around them.
Not only is it not good for their tummies; it's going to affect
everybody that comes in contact with them, i.e., us.
We want to give them a cookie. That's fine. I'm not against
growth and development, but I do want it to be responsible, and I do
feel that a 65-foot building next to single-family community is not a
responsible development.
They're going to be right behind my house. They will be
looking in my lanai as I have my coffee in the morning. They will
see me play with my grandchildren out on the porch. I will see their
cars drive into their parking lot every night shine in my bedroom
window.
So my desire, give them their cookie, but make a berm, put trees
on top of it. There is a waterway plan, but in front of most of our
houses there, it will be a ditch and eventually will dry up or breed
mosquitoes. Put the berm before the waterway or after the waterway.
Put the parking lot on the other side of the building so it's not in our
bedroom windows. I'm just asking for just some crumbs. Don't give
them the five cookies. Please help us.
Thank you.
June 11, 2019
Page 40
MR. MILLER: And your next speaker is Gary Boutin, and he is
your final speaker on this item.
MR. BOUTIN: Good morning. I'm Gary Boutin from the
Tuscany Cove HOA. I'm the vice president, and I'm here today to
discuss our agreement with the developers.
As part of the discussions we had, we came to an agreement, and
as part of that agreement, we're here to support the project.
But I understand some of the concerns of some of the residents.
And I think really looking back at this overall, I think the designation
of that area as an activity center was not known to anybody, really. I
mean, anybody I ask, they said, do you know what that is? What
does that means? And none of us really did, so we bought into the
community, and we didn't understand what the potential was in the
adjacent property.
I don't know if that's anything -- there's anything that this board
could do, but as far as the communication on that and what that
means, maybe have a map that sort of shows that, if there's other
places in the community, that may help the residents going forward.
But I don't have any objection to what we've done so far, and
we're in support of our -- of the agreement that we have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Gary.
MR. BOUTIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have to say that I was
pleased to see the interconnectivity between the surrounding
communities as well. That's something that we've been stressing
from our vantage point feeling that it saves the roadway if you can
interconnect into the -- between these places as well, so I just wanted
to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner
Saunders.
June 11, 2019
Page 41
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple things.
Mr. Arnold, could you comment on the testimony that we just heard
from the couple concerning the lights in the bedroom and that sort of
thing --
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and the desire for a berm?
I'm not sure where that is.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And maybe even show us the
locations of the berm and the landscape. I'm sure there's some artist
renderings floating around somewhere that could --
MR. ARNOLD: Let me just describe, and then I'll maybe show
you a graphic that will help better depict that. But we did a video
flyover with the drone during the Planning Commission, and we
demonstrated that, that they have a mature buffer at Tuscany Cove
that will remain intact. We'll have, also, a buffer on our side,
obviously. It's going to be what's considered a Type B buffer. It's 15
feet in width. It has trees every 30 feet. It also has to have a hedge
and a wall maintained at six feet in height.
So one of the other components of this discussion was building
height. And if you go to your regular zoning code, RMF16, C4, they
have setbacks that are based on heights of the buildings. And in this
particular case with the 105-foot setback that we agreed to, it far
exceeds what otherwise would have been a 37-and-a-half-foot
setback per your Land Development Code.
So we think the combination of the landscape buffer that we will
be providing -- the other component of that, one of the larger issues
that Tuscany provided, this master plan is a little different than where
we started because we did not have a lake on our south boundary.
This master plan shows a lake system along the entire boundary,
which gives the further separation between the two communities. So
those were components of our discussion.
June 11, 2019
Page 42
And if you'll give me a moment, I have a line -of-sight exhibit
somewhere in my stack of stuff that we can show you. But we did
that as well, a line-of-sight drawing.
It's probably a little large for the exhibit. Back that out just a
little. But it basically shows that between their mature buffer and our
proposed buildings at the setback that they would be, there really is
no direct line of sight between the two communities.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What are we looking at here?
MR. ARNOLD: This is from the south boundary at Tuscany
Cove looking into our community. You can see their mature buffer
to the -- it shows that you'll end up with two levels of buffering. You
have our water management lakes and then, obviously, theirs was a
nice existing buffer. Our property was cleared for the nursery
operations. There are a few scattered trees, but those have to come
out because mostly they're exotic.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are there any enhancements
to the landscaping or to the berm that would protect some of those
neighbors from what they perceive -- at least perceive to be potential
for, you know, traffic -- or lights from automobiles in their windows
and people being able to see into their lanai? I mean, I --
MR. ARNOLD: Personally -- Rich has got a different exhibit.
Yeah, the hedge has to be 80 percent opaque within a year. So I
think the fact that there are two hedges and two rows of trees, I don't
think that lights are going to be a concern. We've also agreed to
some other concessions with regard to outdoor amplified sound and
music and things like that that help, obviously, make this a
compatible relationship.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I have one other
comment. I was meeting with Mr. Casalanguida and was concerned
about the developer agreement, and I wanted to make sure that we
didn't leave any money on the table, if you will. And I was advised
June 11, 2019
Page 43
that Trinity Scott did a great job with negotiating that and did a nice
job for the county in terms of protecting the public interest. I just
wanted to indicate that.
Also, there was discussion about traffic on Immokalee Road.
And we're going to be talking a little bit about that. I know that the
manager -- Mr. Casalanguida has that as a priority to deal with some
of those intersections and deal with those traffic issues.
I will be asking Mr. Casalanguida why there would be a
reluctance to place a traffic light in an area where there may be an
overpass in 30 or 40 years. So we're going to have that conversation
today under council communications.
So I'm not suggesting you need to stick around for that, but there
will be some conversation about that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It will be an interesting tape for you
to watch. I drive through there all the time, so... Commissioner
Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Those trees, are we
looking at canopy trees?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they are, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not palm trees?
MR. ARNOLD: We can plant some palms, but I think we're --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Palm trees don't block light
when they grow. The little ones do, but not -- how tall are these trees
going to be?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe they are 10 feet at time of planting is
what the code requires for the canopy trees.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the kind of trees?
MR. ARNOLD: Most likely they will be oaks. That seems to
be the easiest material to get. They sustain, obviously, as well as any
other native tree.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They are a pretty decent screen.
June 11, 2019
Page 44
Okay. Any chance of enhancing that a little bit at your -- I know
it's your dime; I understand that -- beyond the code?
MR. ARNOLD: I can maybe take a moment to confer with my
client.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That would be a good huddle to get
into.
MR. ARNOLD: Any other questions while they're discussing
that behind my back?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, since we're on the landscape
buffering, you know, that's one of my main discussion points I
wanted to talk about, and I'd like for us -- I'd like to suggest today if
the developer is in the mood -- but oftentimes the negative impacts
that come from any kind of growth and development have to do with
the construction. And I would -- and we're building a facility at the
wastewater and water facility in Eastern Collier County.
I would like to see if we can adjust our construction planning
and do the landscape buffering first. Do the berm; do the wall; do the
landscape buffering first as a part of our process just to enhance the
reduction of negative impacts to the residents.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich.
There have been -- at times you've imposed upon us as we're doing
our initial site work that we put the berm in as part of the initial site
work, and we don't have an objection to doing that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like to have that in position, if
we could possibly. And I would also like to know the definition
between -- is the Type B buffer the most obstructive or prohibitive
for light, sight, and sound barrier? Is it the most intense buffering
that could, in fact, be utilized? What is the most, Mr. Bosi?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll let Mr. Bosi answer that.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Board. Mike Bosi, Planning and
June 11, 2019
Page 45
Zoning director.
I was just conferring with Nancy Gundlach, our project
manager, who's also a landscape architect, and she had indicated a
Type C would be the most vegetated and obstructing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So while you're in huddle, would
you consider doing a Type C along that south end where those
residents, in fact, are?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If someone can give me a hint as to the
difference between a B and a C.
MS. GUNDLACH: Double row of trees.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: More trees.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I figured that. But is it 25 on center or
30 on center? I don't know the answer.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners.
The difference between a B and a C buffer is the C buffer has a
double row of trees, and I believe it's 25 feet on center.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, we had the similar issue
years ago with Stevie Tomato, which was a commercial develo pment
and it was adjacent to residential. We put in a substantial buffer as
your requirement in between the two, far better than a Type C. I
think it's been very successful. That buffer might be looked into as
well.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't want to jump to that at this
particular stage, but I would like to have a conversation with the
developer -- I don't mean to get in front of you on this. Am I?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, but that's okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're heading down the
same path.
MR. YOVANOVICH: One thing I want to make sure, because
make no mistake, we don't have commercial adjacent to residential.
We have Tuscany Cove residential adjacent to our residential, so
June 11, 2019
Page 46
that's what we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not talking about that. I'm
not talking about commercial. I'm happy with the layout, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The issue that is -- and that is that I
would like to see the most opaque buffering along that southwest side
minimumly (sic) along where that lake is along on the southwest side
just to help buffer the folks in -- those residents. I mean, there's no
argument that a single-family next to a 65-foot-tall building is a big
deviation or differentiation from single-family residential to
multifamily.
I'm not talking about reducing the elevation of our building or
anything. I just -- I want the construction of the berm first, and I
would like it to be for that period for that swath of, however long that
is, quarter of a mile, for that enhanced buffering to go in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, frankly, when we met with
the Tuscany Cove HOA, the way they wanted to address multifamily
next to single-family was to increase the setback from what your
code would be of if you're -- if you're a 55-foot-tall building, your
code would require a 27-and-a-half-foot setback. We're at 105 feet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're pretty close to four times.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all happy with those
concessions and the changes that have, in fact, been done.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a new request, which didn't come
up with the Planning Commission, was this enhanced buffer which
was not requested by anybody in Tuscany Cove. We did commit that
if there are pockets -- because Tuscany Cove -- pretty much every
one of those homes in Tuscany Cove have a substantial buffer
already, but where there were pockets we had agreed to do some
additional planting. I don't know that we agreed an additional
June 11, 2019
Page 47
planting of a quarter of a mile. That's different.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm guessing. I don't know what --
the lineage there. This map doesn't give me a foot from the
southwest corner over to the end of that first lake. I don't think the
entire piece of property's a quarter mile, is it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You said quarter of a mile, so I was
trusting you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, trust me is a good thing, but
put the other map back up, Sean, so I can be very, very clear. See
where his -- see where the southwest corner of the property is, Rich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I see the southwest.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- extending to the east to where the
end of the south lake is? Right there. That's where I'm talking about;
Type C buffer.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, however long -- Commissioner,
when's your normal break? I mean, you're -- this is not something
that we had been asked to consider, and I'd like to have a couple
minutes to talk to my client about the cost impact of that. I don't
think that's unreasonable or unfair to ask.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're in no hurry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not -- we're not in a hurry at
all. Actually, we have all day.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we're going to take a break at
10:30.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we do it --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want us to go through the
balance of our questions, and then you can give me an answer to that
when we come back?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Any other questions,
June 11, 2019
Page 48
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You handled that quite
well, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: First time.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would like to first just commend
all the parties on -- I mean, this is the way this process is supposed to
work, the neighbors get together, they discuss what can make it the
best development, and -- this is the way it's supposed to work.
But I would like maybe for Mr. Arnold or staff to talk a little bit
about the developer agreement because I think it's good for the
residents to understand the commitments that the developer's made
and the benefits to the county from this agreement, because it's
substantial in relation to the overpass when it actually happens and
stormwater and all of that. Because I think that's important.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, Trinity Scott put this
together, the County Attorney assisted, and we did a final review.
She did a fantastic job, and I'm sure she could walk you through it.
Ms. Scott?
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning manager.
I'll give you, as I gave the Planning Commission, the Reader's
Digest version, not the full 20 pages, unless you would like me to
read it.
The developer is going to design and permit their stormwater
management system to receive and tr eat the stormwater created by
the planned overpass. They're also going to install three manholes
along the right-of-way which allow us, when we construct the
overpass, just to connect into those manholes; so we won't have to go
on their property.
Upon completion of the overpass, every five years the developer
June 11, 2019
Page 49
is going to perform an inspection of their stormwater management
system and provide that information back to us, so that way we know
that our outfall is working well.
They will also be responsible for their perpetual operation and
maintenance of that shared stormwater system.
They will be providing 1.34 acres along Immokalee Road which
will allow for the construction of the future overpass. We needed
some additional right-of-way in that area. If you go out there now,
it's an area where we have no sidewalk. The sidewalk starts a little
east of this, because we did not have the right -of-way when we
widened Immokalee Road, so now this will allow that sidewalk to
come out to Collier Boulevard as well.
They're also providing a 20-foot utility easement that will allow
us to relocate the FPL power poles when we begin construction.
And the developer is also going to be waiving any and all claims
for compensation and damages associated with our const ruction of
the overpass as well as they will have to give notice to their tenants
and buyers, both residential and commercial, who purchase or lease
land from them that the overpass is planned.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's all at the developer's cost
at this point?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including the perpetual --
MS. SCOTT: Operations and maintenance of the stormwater
system, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Very good. That's --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Really good.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's worth a lot to the county --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- so thank you very much.
June 11, 2019
Page 50
MS. SCOTT: And if I could, just for the record, this was a big
ask by the county. This ask augmented efforts that our Deputy
County Manager in his prior roles had already started as far as setting
aside the right-of-way, and you see that on the north end where we've
relocated the canal trying to set this intersection up for the future.
And so this was kind of that last piece of the puzzle, so the
developer came to the table, and they were very cooperative, and I
have to say I'm really appreciative of that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Great job. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one question. Is the
overpass going to look as good as the one on Golden Gate Parkway?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be for a future board to
decide where they want to spend their funds.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sixty million here, 60 million there;
what do you do?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You set a standard.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to go ahead and -- are
there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, let's go ahead and take our
court reporter's break now. Give you a minu te to rally your troops.
How's that? We'll be back at 10:35.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're back from our break.
I would like to hear the answer to my question. How are you?
MR. YOVANOVICH: How am I?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good.
June 11, 2019
Page 51
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. How do you feel about the
enhancement berm, or the landscaping, forgive me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's our proposal, and I can show you
an exhibit as to why we think it's appropriate what we're proposing.
We will agree that within the Type B buffer we will include a
fence which will have the vinyl slats in it to create additional opacity
in addition to the required hedge that will be as part of the berm. So
that will be for the entirety of that length that you're talking about.
So that will provide additional opacity that would address any
concerns of somehow -- and I could show you the site plan that
somehow -- car lights are somehow going to go into people's
backyards.
Also, what I understood you to say, Commissioner McDaniel,
that I drew on the exhibit, two lines was the area that you were -- I
wanted to make sure we were talking about the same area. We will
agree that there are -- and I can show you the drone flight, if you
want to see that next. There are a couple of homes that, on the
Tuscany side, they don't have their required trees. Where those two
homes are we would do the additional plantings of a Type C buffer in
the Type B buffer width on those two homes, or if there's three
homes when you see the drone.
There are very few homes in Tuscany Cove that don't have their
required trees. Where that doesn't exist, we would do additional
plantings to the Type C planting scheme but in the 15-foot width.
We don't have 20 feet in width to do that, but the 15 feet will be
sufficient for the plantings.
So we propose that as a condition together with we would build
this all as part of the site work; the berm would go in as part of the
initial site work.
We think that, together with the fact that we pulled the buildings
back to 105 feet and all of the other additional commitments we made
June 11, 2019
Page 52
in the developer agreement, more than -- more than address concerns
for the community. So we would propose that as a landscaping
condition.
And if you want me to put the drone up, I'll show you the drone,
and you'll see how much existing vegetation exists.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. What I'm trying to do is work
this through my head to see that short of -- from a reduction of
inconvenience standpoint -- reduction of impact standpoint. How are
we, the government, going to monitor this to ensure -- I mean,
because basically what you're proposing, in lieu of going from B to C
in a buffer, you're proposing a fence.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we would do the fence the whole
width -- the whole length, not just certain areas. It would be the
entire length of that blue area, those two lines, and there would be a
fence with the vinyl slats in it so it's basically opaque.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Virtually. And it's six feet high.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Six feet high.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And, remember, we already have to do a
hedge along that same area, so you're --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- double the opacity.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then in the areas where there is
breaks in Tuscany's landscaping, you'll enhance to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: C.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to the C buffer.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The plantings of a C within the 15-foot
wide --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On their property or on ours?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be on our property.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On yours.
June 11, 2019
Page 53
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's better than it was. It's not as
easy for me to follow, but it's better than it was.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the slats would have more
opacity than the vegetation probably.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would agree. Slats don't grow.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And slats stay -- the 6-foot fence
stays the 6-foot fence, and the enhanced trees would, ultimately, over
time, help with the obstruction of the view of the height of the
buildings and the single-family and that sort of thing. That's the
reason I was going in that direction.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that, and that's in areas
where they don't have their required trees.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I understand.
Having said all that, I'm going to commend the developer and the
community, the folks, for working together in a cooperative manner.
I like the project. I am pleased with the cooperation that's transpired
to get us to where we are. There's a lot of people that are impacted
by this.
So with those adjustments, I'm going to make a motion that we
approve both of the items, 9A and 11A, I believe.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, if we could, staff
traditionally puts something on the record.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Staff just wanted to put a perspective that we are in agreement with
the Planning Commission's recommendation --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. BOSI: -- the modifications being proposed. This plan is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and staff is
recommending approval.
June 11, 2019
Page 54
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think -- can I just -- that's an
important thing to point out is that this is an activity center.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this is where we want this.
MR. BOSI: Correct, Commissioner. This is the type of
development that the Growth Management Plan would promote, and
it follows your traditional transect planning concept of where you
have a higher intensity of commercial activity stepped down with
how -- with multifamily. So what it's going to do is assist with the
housing diversity that we know we need more assistance of within
this county, and then steps down to the lower residential to the
projects.
And with the distance, with the additional buffering, I think
those conditions have been arranged towards where there will be as
little impact -- and with the interconnection provided both from
Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek, those are trips that will be not onto
the system if they're going to get their goods and services when this
shopping center does develop.
So there's a lot of benefits and there's a lot of good practices that
come from this development. Staff is fully in support.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Great job. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Absolutely.
Commissioner Taylor, do you have a question of Michael?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. The 37-and-a-half foot
setback, can you --
MR. BOSI: Could I, yeah, confirm that the Land Development
Code would only require that 37-and-a-half-foot setback off of a
75-foot building when you have residential to residential.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think that's a discussion
for another day. But boy, oh, boy, we better change that. We better.
June 11, 2019
Page 55
MR. BOSI: One comment, though. There's a concept within --
within planning schools of moving towards an airport, and they put
single-family development right next to -- the development of
Tuscany Cove at Bent Cheek chose to locate single-family
development right next to the edge of an activity center.
The expectation from anyone who purchased there with the
recognition of what our Growth Management Plan is trying to
promote within this area would put them on notice that a higher
intensity type of development is what's being planned from our
Growth Management Plan, the highest regulatory document that we
have from a county standpoint.
I'm not saying that we don't have to adhe re to the impacts of
development, and I think the increased buffering is doing so, but
those developments were put in close proximity to an area that's been
designated since 1989 as the highest intensity area of land-use
activity for the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh -- and I didn't say we did
anything wrong, and certainly the developer has worked very hard to
make these concessions. I'm just saying with the overall plan, that is
absolutely ridiculous. That is 30 -- 37-and-a-half feet are we talking
about? So how many yards is that? Tell me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ten; 10-yard line.
MR. BOSI: Twelve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, 12-and-a-half line.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Depends on which way you fall.
Where's the sword.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you've got now. Is the
county at fault? No. Is the developer at fault? No. Is the original
developer who's been smart to have sold it and not educated
everybody? Of course. And, yes, it's a buyer beware, yes.
June 11, 2019
Page 56
But I think there's something that perhaps we can do to start
recognizing what is out there; that we are growing; that activity
centers are now going to be claimed despite the astonishment of folks
who live around it and start, you know, ameliorating it or changing
the kind of buffers or something so that -- it would have been awful if
it had been 37-and-a-half feet with a 65-foot building next to you.
And that's where everybody's going. They're going up. They're
not going -- it's not the old way of all the same level. Everyone's
going up right now. So perhaps for another day, if I have consensus
of my colleagues, that we could look at that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Happy to look at it, but I need to
second your motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, that's okay. We're just -- we're
ready to go. Your subject -- I mean --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's another day.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's another day.
It's been moved and seconded. And just as a point of
clarification, are we in concert with the adjustment in the
construction period to work on those buffers first just to reduce the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe I said we would agree to the
condition that, as part of our site work -- we would do the buffers as
part of our site work.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I missed that part, so...
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the first thing I said.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded with
those adjustments and conditions and recommendations of the CPC
(sic) that the project be approved. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
June 11, 2019
Page 57
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.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, I couldn't have
timed this thing more perfect. I guess your time -certain is 10:45.
Item #11B
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND
BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE
REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE NO. 2011-24,
REGARDING THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY USE OF FERTILIZER
ON URBAN LANDSCAPES – MOTION TO ADVERTISE THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE – APPROVED
So your next item, recommendation to direct the County
Attorney to advertise and bring for a public hearing an ordinance
repealing and replacing Ordinance 2011-24 regarding the Florida
friendly use of fertilizer or urban landscapes -- on urban landscapes.
And Danette Kinaszczuk will present the item.
MR. MILLER: And I have five public speakers, and it looks
like more coming in for this item, sir.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm
Danette Kinaszczuk, your Pollution Control manager.
Recent water-quality issue put the focus back to fertilizer, and in
June 11, 2019
Page 58
February you guys all hosted a fertilizer workshop with the
municipalities.
Although we weren't all able to come together for a countywide
ordinance, you asked that we bring back an ordinance base d on the
more stringent recommendations that staff made during that
workshop.
So we're here today to protect our water quality by improving
our fertilizer ordinance. I think everyone's goal is to keep what we
see in this picture.
Now, everything that we're proposing today may not be popular,
but we looked at the science, we listened to the public comment, we
looked at what the other communities were doing, and what we
discovered is that what science shows that what's popular will make
our water quality worse.
So because we have water-quality impairments, we're required
by state law to adopt, at a minimum, the state model ordinance,
which is what we have right now. We'd like to take that further and
implement some stricter requirements.
Those more restrictive requirements are: A year-round
phosphorus ban unless the soil test indicates phosphorous is needed; a
minimum of 50 percent slow-release nitrogen content; a requirement
that customers account for nutrients in reclaimed water when
applying fertilizer, including a requirement that the utilities provide
that information to their customers; a 10-foot setback to water for
fertilizer application; and a requirement that grass clippings and
fertilizer accidently applied on impervious surfaces are thoroughly
cleaned up.
So there's two points in this ordinance that have been of
considerable public debate. As a reminder, your staff recommends a
prohibited application period for nitrogen, not a wet season ban. If
you've had a chance to read the common misconc eption staff report,
June 11, 2019
Page 59
then you are aware that a wet season ban is detrimental to water
quality.
Also, contrary to what people keep saying, there is no scientific
evidence that a wet season ban is effective. Additionally, the areas
that have wet season bans and have had them for years still have
algae issues.
There has been a lot of public comment and presentations with
people using the words "fertilizer ordinance" and "wet season ban"
interchangeably and then stating that a wet season ban is effective,
which is just not true.
There's many components to a fertilizer ordinance such as
annual limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, requirements for
slow-release nitrogen, mandatory training for anybody who's
applying fertilizer, prohibited application zones near water bodies, all
of which have an impact on reducing the overall amount of nutrients
that are applied to the turf.
So I'm going to stop on this topic, because you've heard this
from me already. There's a seven-page staff report that says it.
Dr. Unruh is going to speak to it, and I'm sure there's some other
speakers who will probably be commenting on that as well.
So regarding the other point, regarding the application quantity
for nitrogen, staff recommends no change from the state model
ordinance and the turf rule, which clearly defines nitrogen application
rates per the turf grass variety, and all of that is based on
peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of like kind of a "one size fits
all" that could result in overapplication of nitrogen on some turf
varieties.
So due to the more stringent nature of this ordinance, we're
required to document that we've considered relevant scientific
information including input from the Department of Environmental
Protection, University of Florida (IFAS), the Department of
June 11, 2019
Page 60
Agriculture, and all that must be made part of the public record. And
although we did read so many scientific peer-reviewed studies on
fertilizer and nutrients, more than we included in the staff report, I
believe that shows we've done our due diligence in our research.
We reached out to the three required state agencies. The
changes we made based on their comments are in
strikethrough/underline format in the proposed ordinance.
University of Florida made four comments, and then we made four
changes based on their comments.
The Department of Environmental Protection had three
comments, and we made two changes based on their comments. The
change we didn't make was their comment about grass clippings in
swales, and that was to be consistent with the best-management
practices that say you compost that back into your yard.
I also wanted to point out that in the Department of
Environmental Protection's response letter, the DEP stated they
developed the state model ordinance to provide guidance for local
governments, and that guidance that they provided did not include a
wet season ban. And we haven't received a response from the
Department of Agriculture yet.
So we wanted to make sure we met everybody's needs for public
outreach, and as far as public outreach is concerned, the fertilizer
workshop was held in February. We notified communities via task
force meetings. A copy of the proposed ordinance was provided via
email to fertilizer applicators who have gone through the green
industries training. There's been communication with the Golf
Course Superintendent Association, some local fertilizer companies,
the Conservancy, Audubon, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and also
reached out to Ave Maria and the Collier County Water District
utilities since they would have the new requirements to provide the
reclaimed water information to their customers.
June 11, 2019
Page 61
So with that, the recommendation is to direct the County
Attorney to advertise and bring back for public hearing an ordinance
repealing and replacing Ordinance 2011-24 regarding the Florida
friendly use of fertilizer on urban landscapes.
And then just one more thing; completely separate from the
ordinance. During the workshop, we discussed some changes to the
Land Development Code, such as a 10-foot no turf setback to water
and a requirement for some percentage of Florida friendly
landscaping for new and redevelopment.
If you take a look at the nine principles of Florida friendly
landscaping, you know, right plant, right place, quantifying that into
Land Development Code is going to be a significant challenge, so we
wanted to make sure -- not that we're not up for it, but it's going to be
a challenge.
We wanted to make sure that we're headed in the right direction
and get the Board's authorization or some direction to pursue both of
those amendments prior to investing the staff hours.
Okay. And then up next you have Dr. Brian Unruh who's the
professor of Environmental Horticulture and the associate center
director at the University of Florida (IFAS) West Florida Research
and Education Center.
Dr. Unruh's research program focuses on providing real-world
solutions. His work centers on water quality, nutrient leaching and
runoff, water quantity, pest management, and new turf grass cultured
(sic) for our development. Thank you.
DR. UNRUH: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, sir.
DR. UNRUH: Just to start off and give you kind of a little bit of
background about who's standing here before you and my role in
what is going on, I think it's good to share with you that I joined the
University of Florida back in January of 1996, and it was really in
June 11, 2019
Page 62
January of 2000 where the very first fertilizer ordinance kind of came
to be, and that was in St. Johns County just south of Jacksonville.
Again, that was in January 2000.
And so that was an interesting ordinance as it popped up. And
so some of them our departmental administration and I hosted the
very first, kind of, BMP development group meeting in July of 2000.
And that then launched the development of the Green Industry BMP
document that we've referenced here today already.
That GI BMP that we started in 2000 was published in 2002,
and then the following year in June of 2003, I pulled together a group
of folks, and we started developing the golf course BMP manual that
was then published in 2007.
And then in February of 2006 we launched the development of
the sod production BMPs. We are the only state in the nation who all
aspects of the turf industry are covered by regulatory
best-management practice manuals, and you see those.
I think as a result of our success, the Golf Course
Superintendents Association of America contracted with me in late
2015 to develop the national golf course BMP initiative where our
goal is for all 50 states to have a document similar to what we have
here in Florida in place by the year 2020. I report today that we have
25 states across the nation that are in motion. Sixteen states in the
nation have BMP documents.
Let's go back to September of 2010. We hosted a meeting that
kind of started this whole BMP development group, and I gave a
presentation, and in that presentation, I made the statement. I said, as
scientists, we are often prone to show -- or say, "Show me the data."
And in 2000, the year 2000, we lacked the data to really have
confident best-management practices as it related to the green
industry.
And so, you know, in Florida our statutes require -- our Florida
June 11, 2019
Page 63
Statutes define what a BMP is. And it's -- you know, it's evidence
based and it's practical. And so that then led really to us working
with the Department of Environmental Protection over the next
couple years to develop the most comprehensive urban landscape
study that has ever been conducted anywhere in the world, and it was
really state specific, and I'll show you a little bit more detail of that.
But over a period of eight years, so from 2004 to 2012 our DEP
funded $4.2 million to address this issue that we're discussing here
today. And so the title of that evaluation of urban warm-season turf
fertilization and irrigation BMPs; often referred to as just the nutrient
leaching project.
Towards the end of that project in 2012, we developed a
website, and I have included that QR code there so folks can see and
scan and go to this website, and at this website we have listed, really,
kind of the most prominent publications that are related to the
research that was conducted. And they're all there. You can click on
them and read for yourselves what the science says as it pertains to
the issues that we're discussing here. We also did a nutrient
management symposium, and those videos are all noted there as well.
And so, basically, as we look at this, this was a statewide study,
so I am based near Pensacola. Actually, we say oftentimes I'm based
in whatever airplane I'm in or the Dodge truck I drive, because I do
cover the whole state, but I reside, my family resides, near Pensacola.
So the study was conducted in Pensacola, Gainesville, and in our
facilities over in Fort Lauderdale, and we looked at everything from
nutrient impacts on new landscapes, nutrient impacts on established
landscapes. We looked at different fertilizer sources, different
timings, looked at a lot of phosphorous work because we know that
that is a primary concern as well. And so significant amount of work
that came from that eight-year study.
In my world, it's about scientific publications. I'm not going to
June 11, 2019
Page 64
stand here and give you my opinion. I'm going to reference the data.
The better the publication, the better the journal, the better the
publication. And so all of those papers that I have referenced there
were published in the top tier journals of my scientific field, and
those being Crop Science, Journal of Environmental Equality,
Agronomy Journal as well.
And so let's just jump in, and just -- I've just grabbed a few of
the key findings just to -- that speak to this issue. Most of these units
are in kilograms of nitrogen per hectare. Most of us don't do that
math daily, so we can just do a little primer her e. If they see
49 kilograms of nitrogen, that is one pound per thousand. Okay. So I
did create some cheat sheets here, so when you see the data, that's
two, four, eight -- or two, four, six, and 12 pounds of nitrogen that
was applied every 60 days throughout the period of testing.
And that top part of that graph there -- and I don't think -- I do
have a mouse. That top part of that graph there, this section, is the
data from Fort Lauderdale. And so I know in the past you've been
presented some data that was not from this part of the state or from
South Florida. And so here is the data from the state. So
two pounds, four pounds, six pounds, 12 pounds.
I will tell you that for Saint Augustine grass, which this study
was done on, our IFAS recommendations are four to six pounds per
year. And so our 12-pound rate here was 2X, the maximum use rate.
Go over to the right side of the screen and you see these numbers .04,
.05, .06, .14 pounds. So you can put up to 12 pounds of nitrogen per
thousand square feet per year, and only .14 pounds are coming out
the bottom of the system.
We look at this -- you know, if we go back here and, you know,
in Citra, there's very similar data. And so the key of that is that
leaching from all in rates was similar except when the rates exceeded
the UF/IFAS recommendations.
June 11, 2019
Page 65
I teach a lot, and I often say, you know, a picture's worth a
thousand words, and so I think a picture is worth a thousand words.
This is why turf grasses, grasses in general, are the best known bio
filters to man. We very intentionally plant grasses in remediation
sites. Because of this root system that is there that can assimilate
those nutrients, those heavy metals are assimilated into the plant and
put into the system. And so you can see here, this is why very little
nitrogen comes out of the bottom of a landscape.
Moving on a little bit, the effects of sod-type irrigation
fertilization and ortho phosphorus, phosphorus leaching from newly
established St. Augustine. And when we looked across the trials that
were done all over the state of Florida, they were very consistent, and
that led to the BMP that says do not fertilize newly installed sod for
30 to 60 days after application.
The reason for that is oftentimes when the sod is harvested from
the production facility, there's going to be a little bit of fertilizer that's
going to come with it. Just that disturbance process will cause a little
bit of mineralization, and some nutrients are released. And so,
therefore, you can see how this data was actually used to shape the
model ordinance and the Urban Turf Rule where there are
prohibitions in there that says do not fertilize newly established sod.
And this is the data that was used to promulgate those rules.
And the reason for another picture is, obviously, new grass
simply doesn't have that fibrous root system established yes.
Moving on. One of the -- and the staff have said that, you know,
there are some ordinances that are putting out kind of a single rate,
four pounds, for example, regardless of the turf species. Our work
suggests that that is very problematic. And in this case here, this is
bahiagrass, which is the common lawn grass. If you exceeded that --
or we were able to maintain acceptable quality when we stayed at that
one pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet. And my concern,
June 11, 2019
Page 66
when we push out, you know, kind of this blanket four pounds
one-size-fits-all, we're going to lead to some overfertilization in turf,
because people -- this whole issue is a people problem. It's not a
plant problem. And so people are going to hear four pounds and
make a general assumption that my grass must have four pounds.
And so also of note here, that they were slightly elevated in
leaching only occurred during Cycle 3 in Fort Lauderdale, which wa s
actually February and March, not the rainy season.
So proceeding along, I get asked the question: Can nutrients
leach from turf? And the answer is yes. And it's generally when turf
is damaged or mismanaged for whatever reason. And so if you look
at the data here from, really, two years, 2008 and 2010, there were
elevated periods of nutrient leaching. And what's really interesting, if
you look at this slide here, is we can see this period right here where
you so these elevated spikes, that was a time in which the turf was
damaged by disease and, in particular, it was turf damaged by disease
because of the overfertilization that was done through the treatment
structures. Remember, we went really high rates. And so those high
rates caused the disease to become -- or the turf to be weakened, and
then the disease set in, and we saw these elevated levels of damage.
My wife -- there was a football reference earlier, 12 yards. My
wife is a football junkie, and so I have to endure football. But it's
really interesting that, you know, football players need about 50
calories per 2.2 pounds of body weight. And so an average
300-pound lineman is going to eat 6,800 calories a day during the
season. What happens when that lineman eats this many calories in
the off-season? They get sluggish; they get overweight, and the same
thing happens in our landscapes.
We do some growth-potential modeling based off of temperature
and some other parameters, and what you see here, these are other
locations throughout the state of Florida. And we see that in
June 11, 2019
Page 67
January -- and most of these top lines are here in South Florida. We
see here in January and February that the turf is still growing but
really probably only at about 40 percent of wide open.
But in the heat of the season, in April, May, June, July, August,
that is the season. That's when that plant has the enormous ability to
assimilate those applied nutrients. It's in the off-season, just like the
football player, that he's eating 6,800 calories in the off-season that
they're going to see some problems start to exhibit.
And so we base our recommendations for fertilizers off of three
locations in the state based off of these temperatures in these growing
months. And so this is North Florida and Central Florida and these --
if you look at the Urban Turf Rule, you'll see where the fertilizer by
season is broke out.
And we come down here to South Florida. And you see here we
have Naples. In January, February, March, and April we're not
assimilating a tremendous amount of nutrients. But look through
here. Through these summer months when that grass is growing
wide open, that root system is being formed, and that grass -- really,
nitrogen actually becomes a limiting system, a limiting component in
the system. You can throw it at it, and it will assimilate it and take it
up and grow.
And so, how are IFAS recommendations made? They're based
off science. We have a group at the University of Florida called the
Plant Nutrient Oversight Committee. I joke it's a group of people that
walk in and wear black robes and we go before and stand and share
the science. If we want to take a rate up, we have to document it with
science. If we want to reduce a rate of fertilizer. And it doesn't
matter whether it's turf grass or watermelons. All the Plant Nutrient
Oversight Committee is looking at the science to make sure that those
recommendations are vetted by science.
If you look at the old recommendations, these are kind of pre
June 11, 2019
Page 68
2003, and then our current IFAS recommenda tions for our North,
Central and South Florida, you can see that we have reduced our
fertilizer recommendations anywhere from about 25 to 80 percent
based off that DEP research study.
We sat at a table with DEP on one side, Deputy of Ag on the
other when we were developing the Urban Turf Rule which are these
numbers. And that is, with science, was borne out to say, these are
what the IFAS recommended rates are there.
One will quickly look at that St. Augustine and say, well, there
was no change there. We've been growing St. Augustine grass for a
long time in the state of Florida and, kind of, that collective body of
intellects said, you know, we think these are the numbers and, sure
enough, when the science from 2004 to 2012 came in, it substantiated
those recommendations, and no changes were needed.
So the reclaimed-water issue came up. This is one that
oftentimes people say, you know, if you're irrigating your landscapes
with purple pipe -- you know, water coming through purple pipes,
that you do not need to fertilize. DEP provided some regulation on
that. Basically it says that, you know, the advance wastewater
treatment cannot exceed three parts per million of nitrogen, one part
per million total P. I commend the staff who said, you know, those
numbers should be taken into consideration.
But let me show you something as well. This is from an
irrigation pond that is supplied by City of Naples Water. And we
look down here, and we see the desired range is from zero to five.
The reclaimed water when this particular sample was taken was only
about a .10 parts per million. So very negligible parts of nitrogen.
So we go back to DEP, and they say three. And so if you look at
this chart here, we see this value here, and nitrogen concentration and
reclaimed wastewater. So three. If we go across the table here, we
can see one inch of irrigation water, five inches, 10 inches, 20 inches,
June 11, 2019
Page 69
30 inches and so on.
When we take this information and we couple it with the South
Florida rainfall data -- and this is from 2018 -- we can really see only
these months where the orange bars are taller than the blue bars.
Should sprinkler systems really even be running? And so May, June,
July, August, September one ought not see irrigation sprinklers
running every morning. They should be supplemental.
In which case, if we look at these seven months and we take our
irrigation estimates, we should only be at about 30 inches of
irrigation during that period of time. And so if you take this
30 inches of irrigation water and if you assume this three parts per
million of nitrogen, you're only providing a half a pound of nitrogen
per thousand square feet coming off of that reclaimed water source.
Dr. Brian Lapointe from Florida Atlantic University, who I have
never met, he has been sharing some research where he's citing some
of my data. And it's interesting to look at this, so Shaddox and
Unruh, 2017, some Florida use statistics. And so this is the total
fertilizer loading in the state of Florida. And then he makes a
statement here, an assumption that 10 percent is running off, I'm not
sure where he derived that statement.
But if you look at that, his point is is that septic systems are
providing greater than twofold more nitrogen in the system than is
coming from fertilizer runoff, and he is assuming a very, very large
number as well.
As was stated already, there's currently laws in practice or laws
in place that regulate fertilizer applicators. Those laws were
developed off of the research from 2004 to 2012 as well.
My team developed a fertilizer app that allows our applicators
who are out in the state, they have a geo referenced mobile phone,
they literally can mash a button, and it can pull up right exactly where
they're standing to see what fertilizer ordinance is in place. So, again,
June 11, 2019
Page 70
just another tool we've developed to help educate our applicators out
there in the professional side of the business.
So, finally, practical considerations. I think we must say that
nutrients should/must be applied based on that plant's ability to
assimilate them, not on any calendar-based regimen. If we base it off
of a calendar, we're going to open ourselves up to some real potential
problems.
Healthy, dense turf is the key. Not providing the nutrition to the
plant when it is in the middle of its season can lead to turf that will
weaken itself and, as I showed, some of the data suggests that in
unhealthy turf that loses its density, you can see an increased problem
with nutrient impairment.
And so, with that, I will field any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for this. What --
what's your sense on -- or what's your recommendation for
polymer-coated fertilizers versus what is sold on the open market
today?
DR. UNRUH: So most fertilizers that you will see in the retail
sector and in the commercial sector are using some type of coating,
most of which now are polymer coated, okay. So the majority of
fertilizer that is being used in the landscape industry today, that
slow-release fraction is coming from a coated source of fertilizer.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I can't speak to this, but I believe
one of your graduates who actually worked with University of
Florida, Tim Nance, actually worked on this, and his -- he spoke to us
at an earlier meeting. He said that this fertilizer should be of
high-quality fertilizer. There should be -- and I don't know. I wish I
could -- you know what I'm talking about.
DR. UNRUH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it's not a $35 bag of
June 11, 2019
Page 71
fertilizer; it's a $90 bag of fertilizer. I know because I bought it just
recently. What's your sense on that in terms of the importance of
having a high-quality fertilizer that has that polymer coating that will
release over an eight- to 10-month period, so it really doesn't matter
when you put it on?
DR. UNRUH: So Mr. Nance spoke at the hearing that we had
with the City of Naples, and so I heard him first hand explain, you
know, his logic.
He comes out of the side of the industry and worked many years
in the ornamental side of the industry. The ornamental side -- and
you've seen this when you've gone and bought a potted plant or a
shrub. You will see these little prills on the surface of that.
The polymer that they are using is called Osmocote, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
DR. UNRUH: Osmocote is not recommended for use in turf at
all, and here's the reason -- and it's not because of a cost. That is
clearly a major issue. The reason for that is that that polymer really
works on osmosis, and so it imbibes moisture and then will release
the nutrients.
Those prills are quite prone to breakage from foot traffic, mower
wheel traffic, anything walking across the surface. And once that
polymer is broken, you have a 100 percent soluble fertilizer, okay.
So that fertilizer -- once that prill is stepped on is broken -- if you've
ever, you know -- in your potted plants you can pick those little pills
up and you can pop them they're full of water.
So the technology -- that is very sound technology in the
ornamental business because you don't have a whole lot of people
walking through your shrubs. And then also in the landscape
maintenance industry, they will put that fertilizer. When they put that
plant in that, you know, 2-gallon pot or 5-gallon pot, they will put
enough fertilizer that will grow that, you know, one time a year. And
June 11, 2019
Page 72
it's a labor issue. And distribution of fertilizer amongst, you know,
container production is difficult.
The technologies that we use in turf fertilizer today,
sulfur-coated ureas and polymer coats, methylated ureas, which are
reacted natural organic products. And so all of these fertilizers that
are used are -- the technology is proven. Scientifically, good stuff.
One of the things -- and we get -- we have a tendency to get --
and I brought this slide back up because part of the work that we did
was, if you look across the top, you see ammonium nitrate and urea,
30 percent slow release, 50 percent slow release, polymer coat, these
two here are polymer coat, and then the BS is a biosolid.
The plant only sees two types of nitrogen. It sees nitrate
nitrogen. That's the one that can leach; and then it sees ammonium.
NH4 and NO3. That's it. It doesn't matter whether you've put
something on the ground that is green or yellow or smells terribly.
That plant doesn't -- it has no ability to discern what flavor, what
color, what smell of nitrogen you put on the ground. It only sees two
types of nitrogen, and both of those are soluble.
And so we then chemically, through a technology through the
coating process or a chemical reaction, control the release of those
nutrients so that they eke out a little bit of fertilizer over time.
And so this -- a large part of this argument on slow release and
fast release and 50 percents and 30 percents, that plant has no
understanding of that. It only sees two nutrients or one nutrient in
two forms, and both of those are 100 percent soluble.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which means?
DR. UNRUH: Which means, back to your specific point, that
the recommendation that Mr. Nance put forth is not supported in the
turf research scientific literature.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So are we able to -- and maybe
this is not your conversation to have with you, but if you can answer
June 11, 2019
Page 73
it: Are we able to regulate the types of fertilizer sold in Collier
County?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we go.
How do we educate folks? Are we able to educate folks so that
it's, you know, on a flyer, this is the best type of fertilizer, not putting
any names; can we do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure how you would do that, but
yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
DR. UNRUH: So we have county extension agents in all 67
counties of Florida and, you know, the Florida Friendly Landscaping
Program is a UF/IFAS program, and all of those nine points that were
up there -- you know, fertilization, there's an entire module that these
landscapers are taught.
Now, that's the commercial side of the business. The
homeowner, the consumer side, that's much more difficult.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's my main concern.
MS. KINASZCZUK: If I can just jump in real quick. We've
done a lot of fertilizer outreach, and one of the things that we've done
is included going into the Home Depots, the Ace Hardwares, and
we've put signs up that say, this is what you should be using. So they
have to let us do that. We're not allowed to make them do it, but
most of the places have let us come in and do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
DR. UNRUH: The Urban Turf Rule, by the way -- the one that
we often reference. The Urban Turf Rule is really a regulation on the
fertilizer manufacturers, on bags of fertilizer that are 49 pounds and
less, which is your retail consumer products in general.
And so all of the laws in the Urban Turf Rule spell out exactly what's
in the bag, what is required on that label, the square footage. These --
June 11, 2019
Page 74
the rates that I've shown you are all, by law, through that Urban Turf
Rule required to be on those consumer products.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So then just a followup question
and my final question to you. We talked about the real culprit, I
think -- you did it very scientifically in the nitrogen issue -- and that's
septic tanks.
DR. UNRUH: That's one of the culprits.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the other one is?
DR. UNRUH: Well, there's many. And so -- that's what's
interesting. This whole issue surrounds nonpoint source pollution.
Okay. Point source pollution you can point to a factory, and the
pipe's sticking out and flowing stuff into the water. Nonpoint source
pollution -- but what is really happening in the state of Florida and
elsewhere in the nation is that groups have started pointing --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
DR. UNRUH: -- out where are the problems.
Atmospheric deposition. Every time it rains, nitrogen hits the
ground. Every evening when you see folks out walking their dogs,
unless they have their little baggy, they're contributing to nonpoint
source nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.
We live -- you live in an area with practically a jungle. I mean,
you know, big hedges and lots of trees. That leaf litter that comes off
of those trees is a tremendous source of nutrients. Pollen is a high
nitrogen-containing product. So in the season when the pollen dumps
and your black cars turn yellow, nitrogen. And so there's lots of
sources of these nutrients, and that's why this becomes very difficult.
My concern with a fertilizer ordinance beyond, really, the model
ordinance is the fact that I think we're -- we have a potential to be
lulled into thinking that we're going to make a big impact by doing
this, and the reality is -- and it was stated by Danette earlier -- is there
is no evidence in the state of Florida or elsewhere that any restrictive
June 11, 2019
Page 75
fertilizer ordinance is having any bearing. And I can stand here very
confidently and state that there is no peer-reviewed scientific papers
to substantiate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you say that one more time,
please.
DR. UNRUH: Yes, ma'am. There are no known research or
scientific publications that document and substantiate that urban
fertilizer restrictive periods have had any impact, positive or
negative. It does not exist.
Those types of studies are very difficult to perform. They must
be very long-term studies, and then you hope that you don't have
something like Hurricane Irma come along in the middle of it,
because the issues that we were experiencing here in the state, most
scientists will tell you that -- in the south end of the state, most
scientists will tell you that it's because Irma flipped Lake Okeechobee
upside down. I mean, (indicating).
And then you think about the tremendous tree loss and debris
that was laying everywhere, that, you know, is a tremendous amount
of nutrients that were disturbed in the environment, not to mention
overflowing septic tanks and sewer systems that went south, and so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you all good?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Troy, how many public speakers?
MR. MILLER: We have 10 registered speakers for this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten.
MR. MILLER: Ten.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go.
MR. MILLER: I would like to remind the speakers -- I'm going
to call two names. I'd like you to use both podiums. The second
speaker be ready, please.
June 11, 2019
Page 76
Your first speaker is Dave Schewe. Thank you. He will be
followed by Kelly McNab.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And is Kelly here?
MR. MILLER: If you'll please queue up at that podium.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, there you are. Hey, Ms. Kelly.
MR. SCHEWE: My name is Dave Schewe. I also have a pest
control service and used to have a lawn service. I'm also here
speaking as a resident of Collier County. Been in business since
1980. And through the years, I've gained a lot of experience. I don't
have the scientific knowledge that Dr. Unruh has, but I do agree with
all of his comments that he has made with his scientific studies. I
also agree with Danette's proposals for the ordinances.
But as a resident, I've been here since 1972, seen a lot of
changes. I have a boat. I love the water. I don't want to destroy --
that's one of the reasons why I stayed here when I first came, because
it is so beautiful, and the water. Where I'm from in South Haven,
Michigan, it's a tourist town. It's on Lake Mich igan; just like Naples.
That's why I love Naples, except I don't have no winter.
But as far as the bans go, I don't think they should be
implemented prior to -- I couldn't go to the City Council meeting
because I was out of town, but I heard that there was going to be the
ban. There were several lawns that I fertilized before the ban went
into effect the first of June. Those few yards that I did in the City of
Naples look 10 times better than the lawns that I did not fertilize.
When the grass is growing, it's the best time to fertilize. The
thicker the grass -- you know, with the county in the past you had the
impervious, the water runoff. Where does that water go? It goes into
your lawn and the ditches. The healthier the grass, the better it can
filter this water before it goes into the estuaries and the canals.
Also, oxygen. Everybody just looks as trees supply oxygen.
Take carbon monoxide, turn it into oxygen. Grass does the same
June 11, 2019
Page 77
thing, and look how much of that there is in this state.
But I'm hoping that you will look at all the scientific data and
make your decision on that. And I appreciate you listening to me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. SCHUMANN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kelly McNab. She will be
followed by Dr. Eric Brown.
MS. McNAB: Good morning. Kelly McNab, environmental
planning specialist with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy strongly advocates that Collier County adopts
a sufficiently stringent fertilizer ordinance, one t hat includes a
calendar-based rainy season ban on the application of fertilizer to turf
as well as a four-pound cap on the amount of nitrogen that can be
applied to turf.
These components would help to not only reduce pollution and
thus protect water-quality but would also improve enforcement
opportunities.
The City of Marco Island has implemented these critical aspects
into their own stringent fertilizer ordinance, and the City of Naples
has included them in their ordinance moving forward to the final
reading this week, demonstrating that the municipalities within
Collier County have identified the need to further protect our water
resources.
In our backup letter, we have provided ample scientific
resources and case studies that lead to the conclusion that a rainy
season blackout period and capping the amount of nitrogen applied to
turf are not only effective measures to improve water quality but also
these critical aspects do not lead to the supposed unintended
consequences opponents of a strong ordinance suggest are possible.
The water crisis we are currently facing is not just an
environmental issue. It is also a health, safety, and welfare issue.
June 11, 2019
Page 78
This means that you, as our commissioners, have the obligation to do
all in your power to protect your citizens from harmful algal blooms
and polluted water. One of the simplest ways to do this is by
establishing a more stringent fertilizer ordinance.
The county cannot control the current water-quality issues we
are facing. You can, however, ensure that excess nutrients in the
form of fertilizer do not go into the waterways during times of heavy
rainfall by enacting the rainy season ban and limiting the amount of
nitrogen that can be applied to turf.
With the current status of our waters, everyone is part of the
problem, and everyone must be part of the solution. This is an
important opportunity. Please take advantage of it. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Eric Brown, and he
will be followed by Brad Cornell.
DR. BROWN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Eric Brown. I'm the director of agronomy for Massey Services. We
have a contingency here.
We have over 25 people living and working in Collier County to
take care of people and plants. The way we do that is to take the
science from the university and turn it into an agronomic program
that grows healthy plants in an urban landscape.
These plants need to be managed, and professionals who are
licensed and certified to do that should do that. The science has
proven that healthy plants filter out pollutants, hold onto soil, and
protect our water bodies.
I urge you to let us do that as professionals. I know it's the right
thing to do, and if we do that, we actually reduce pollutants in our
water.
The key to protecting water bodies is to keep nutrients out of it.
The way you do that in an urban landscape is by having healthy
plants, particularly grass, but landscaped plants that are taken care of
June 11, 2019
Page 79
and healthy. That way the nutrients don't get in there. In an urban
landscape, we have funnels and filters: Roofs, driveways, streets
needs to be filtered by healthy plants.
I urge you to listen to the university science and let us do our
jobs and protect water quality.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell, and he will
be followed by Fred Herron.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades
and Audubon Florida.
Appreciate the opportunity to address you. This is a good
followup to the workshop you had in February.
I'll just let you know that Audubon supports strengthening your
fertilizer ordinance. This is a good thing. Many of the facets in the
proposed ordinance are good.
I do take exception to the issue of the relatively weak blackout
periods for heavy rain two inches more in a 24-hour period. This is
very -- as your staff note, it's a very small amount of time.
And I want to point to Lee County's experience from their 2008
fertilizer ordinance that did have a summer blackout. Ernesto de la
Vega -- Lasso de la Vega had published a study that was mentioned
in the staff's backup for this item. And I've talked with Ernesto about
this. He agrees with your staff that there are many facets of the Lee
County fertilizer ban that -- their fertilizer ordinance that contributed
to some good outcomes in terms of reducing nutrients. It wasn't just
the summer blackout. So that's true. And so we all can agree on that.
So the other aspect, though, is that you should recognize that
that fertilizer ordinance did have a summer blackout, and you did not
have increased nutrients. You did not have problems that are being
predicted by the opponents of such blackouts. So I think that's
June 11, 2019
Page 80
something to keep in mind.
And it is very difficult to pull these things apart and attribute
which is possible for the best outcomes. But that was a good
outcome. There's also a lot more that we can do besides just the
fertilizer ordinance to reduce nutrients pollution in Collier County
and statewide. Littoral plantings in our lakes and ponds; we need
more of that. You see a lot of ponds that have nothing. And you
need plants. That's what takes up the nutrients. You know, where
does that water go? You need to have --
And Dr. Serge Thomas from FGCU, he is an expert on lake
management, and he has a lot of good input and recommendations on
how to better manage lakes and reduce algae and nutrients. We need
to do a better job of protecting and restoring wetlands. Wetlands are
nature's kidneys. The natural, most effective, most cost-effective
way of cleaning water. We need more wetlands throughout our
landscapes, including in the urban areas.
And we also -- we need to implement the Collier County
Watershed Management Plan from 2011. There's a lot of strategies
in there that will benefit.
Finally, the last thing I'm going to point out is that we would not
be talking about fertilizer ordinances if we weren't -- if we didn't
plant so much grass everywhere. This is an exotic species that we're
trying to maintain in a place that's not meant to be. Let's just get rid
of the grass. Come and look at my yard in Naples Park. It's
beautiful. It's all natives. It's not a bit of grass. That's what we
should be doing. Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Fred Herron, and he will
be followed by Dave Faries.
MR. HERRON: Good morning. How you doing? I'm here
representing TruGreen Lawn Care. I'm one of the branch managers
in this area.
June 11, 2019
Page 81
I've been a happy resident of Florida for five years; in Southwest
Florida for nearly a year. I have two young kids, and I have family
that comes to visit me, and nothing's more frustrating to me is when
there's environmental things that go on that restrict our ability to
enjoy the area.
I try to be as environmentally conscious as humanly possible,
recycling and everything else. And I certainly wouldn't work for a
company if I thought that what we were producing would somehow
degradate the environment.
The nice thing about science that I like is that it's provable, it's
up for peer review, and nobody can just make an unfounded claim
without everybody attacking it and proving whether it's true. And
based on my understanding, it does not appear that what we do
impacts the environment in a negative way in any fashion.
So I would just recommend and strongly urge you not to
implement a restrictive measure that restricts our ability to provide
good quality, not only customer service, but just beautifying the
landscapes that we take care of. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dave Faries. He will be
followed by Erica Marie Santella.
MR. FARIES: Good morning. I'll be brief.
My name is Dave Faries. I'm the general manager here at
TruGreen in Fort Myers. We service this area. We have about 1,600
residential customers in Collier County.
I've worked for the company for 30 years. And what's always
made me proud about the company and the industry is we've always
put the environment first, and we always will.
We all saw what went on here with the water quality, an d the
need to do something is strong, and I get that. What we ask is that we
follow the science. We lean on IFAS a lot for our programs and
our -- what we do and how we go about it and our best practices, and
June 11, 2019
Page 82
we take this right down to every level at the office. So when we're
servicing our community, we're doing the right thing, and that is our
intention.
And I just thank you for listening to me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Erica Marie Santella, and
she will be followed by Michael Merendino.
MS. SANTELLA: Thank you. My name is Erica Santella. I'm
the region technical manager for TruGreen's 23 Florida branches, and
I provide technical support to these folks. I developed their
agronomic programs for trees, shrubs, lawns, palms. And they've
changed a lot since I came here in 1985.
And worked a lot with University of Florida, was part of helping
to develop the best-management practices to protect Florida's water
quality. And it's interesting that fertilizer is our second largest
expense. So as a business we're going to use what's necessary, what's
right, and what is good for the environment.
So I'm asking that you support the ordinance as written and
reject the efforts to add a summertime ban.
We're professionals, and the reason most of us got into this
industry is because we love the outside. I'm no exception. So during
the day, we may be outside treating lawns and landscape, but in our
free time we're out there, you heard people, boating, swimming -- I'm
a big hiker. I like to be in the woods -- and scuba diving and doing
all sorts of things out there that we love. And to suggest that we
would do anything but protect the waters that we're going to play in
on the weekends and sometimes in the evenings is kind of perplexing
to me.
So I'm asking you that you support the sound peer-reviewed
science that folks like Dr. Brian Unruh, University of Florida, have
developed, for our use, for the community, and for the environment.
June 11, 2019
Page 83
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Merendino, and
he would be followed by Matt Germino.
MR. MERENDINO: Hello. My name is Michael. I'm an avid
hiker. I love going out in the water. I'm there every single -- every
weekend I'm out on my kayak with my dogs having fun on the water.
When this first happened last year I was devastated. When it
happened I was yelling and screaming, hollering, everything about,
you know, being out there and seeing, you know, algae blooms and
green water out in Cape Coral, and I really would never do anything
to harm our waters at all.
The science is there. I fully believe in the science and what, you
know, we've seen through science. So that's my main stand on that.
So thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matt Germino. He will be
followed by Todd Josko.
MR. GERMINO: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for
giving me the opportunity to speak.
You know, I'm here on behalf of TruGreen but really, more
importantly, I'm here on behalf of being a native Floridian.
Our water's our number-one asset. Let's not kid ourselves there.
Why wouldn't we want to protect it? So I'm all for, you know, the
ordinance as it's been written.
I'm fully against the summertime ban on nitrogen. It's not for,
you know, just making lawns look prettier. Really, it comes down to
the science. It comes down to the healthier turf grass helping filter
the nonsense and all the pollutants that it can help with.
You know, I've got two small kids. Being a Floridian, I love
being in the water with them. Why would I want to, you know, be a
culprit of, you know, potentially ruining that number-one resource,
taking away from, you know, one of the biggest things that we enjoy
June 11, 2019
Page 84
doing as a family, hanging out at the beach, you know, going fishing
in the canals. It's what we love to do. I think that's why most of us
are here is because we love the state. We love the beauty of it. And
all we want to do is just keep it that way.
Thanks for your time.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for
this item is Todd Josko.
MR. JOSKO: Good morning. My name is Todd Josko. I'm
also on behalf TruGreen. I think I'm finishing the TruGreen portion
of today's program. But appreciate being here today.
Wanted to speak in favor of the ordinance you're bringing
forward. I'd ask you to adopt that as it's written but, you know, to
reject the call that you had for a rainy season ban.
You know, TruGreen supports fertilizer ordinances. They're a
great way to codify the best practices that professionals are taught
and teach those to nonprofessionals who probably don't know maybe
those best practices.
So, you know, there are some additional more stringent
provisions that you're bringing forward, and that's okay. They go
beyond IFAS recommendations, but they're not going to cause any
harm to the environment. The rainy reason ban is a little bit different,
though. I mean, that potentially does cause harm to the environment.
I'm not going to repeat the science that Dr. Unruh and others have
presented of how, you know, the weakening of turf during the
summertime can lead to more erosion, more runoff, as the grass is
unable to trap those nutrients that, you know, come down from
everywhere. If it rains, the rain's going to fall off the roof, and it's
either going to go onto pervious surfaces like roads and go straight
into stormwaters, or it's going to go into grasses and landscapes, and
the turf is able to trap those nutrients before it makes its way into
waterways.
June 11, 2019
Page 85
So the turf provides a tremendous benefit as a buffer against all
types of urban runoff, and that's why it's so important.
There's also a nonscientific reason that these blackout periods
harm the environment, and that is because, you know,
nonprofessionals, they know that they can't take care of their lawn the
way that they'd like to from June 1 to September 30th. And we've
seen in other markets where there's an overapplication of fertilizer
trying to beat the ban. You know, gosh, I know I can't do anything
starting next week until September, so if one bag is good, then three
bags is great, and that's exactly what we want to prevent from
happening, because in those times, in the non-summer growing
months, that's when the turf can't take up the nutrients, and that's
when you see the leaching. So it's best to fertilize in the summertime.
So, again, thank you for what you're doing. I know that, you
know, there's calls for nonscientific measures, and the City of Marco
Island and maybe the City of Naples, they got it wrong. And I know
there's pressure to do something, but we ask you to please do what is
in the best protection of water quality, and that is to move forward
with your ordinance as written and do not add a summertime ban to
it.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: That was it, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Thank you very
much.
Commissioner Taylor, you get to go first.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I'd like to speak to staff,
please. The question I have about the -- I just got rid of it -- the part
of the ordinance that you talk about the 10-foot buffer between a turf
or landscaping -- no, it's not even landscaping. It's just the turf and
the canal. Again, this is an analogy, but it's strongly recommended.
Why could it not be required?
June 11, 2019
Page 86
MS. KINASZCZUK: The intent was to require it, so let's take a
look at that real quick.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's strongly recommended, you
said.
MS. KINASZCZUK: I have under prohibitions, fertilizer
should not be applied within 10 feet of any water body except the
newly planted turf. Which section are you looking at?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's a little bit further than
that. No, maybe that's it. A voluntary 10-foot low-maintenance zone
addition to water bodies is strongly recommended.
MS. KINASZCZUK: So the low-maintenance zone is a little bit
different than the 10-foot no turf setback. So a low-maintenance
zone might be the littoral areas next to a pond and where you
wouldn't need to apply a fertilizer, particularly if it was Florida
friendly. So we're saying no turf from 10 feet to the water, and then
we're recommending, instead of doing -- you know, maybe you have
a seawall and a French drain. We would recommend better plantings
that don't require fertilizer.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then, you know, the
overspray of aquatic weed product zone. I would love to have that
worded a little bit stronger but, again, I'm one person. And the
reason is the overspraying of aquatic plants in water body like Lake
Okeechobee, Florida Fish and Wildlife is notorious for this. In fact,
across the state I'm understanding they're going from community to
community because everyone is so outraged. It's hard to pinpoint
certain weeds to be sprayed.
So if you've got your homeowner -- and I'm speaking strictly not
as a professional but as a homeowner. You know, you don't like this
and so you spray it and kind of nuke the whole area. It's done. That
drops to the bottom of the water body.
I'd like that -- I don't know how you would strengthen that, but I
June 11, 2019
Page 87
think it needs to be strengthened. Section 13, low-maintenance
zones. I'm sorry. I didn't -- and that's on Page 8.
It seems to me that spraying on a water body is, you know,
tough.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, the good news is is what we've
determined from a survey is that 80 percent of the people in Collier
County don't do their own lawn.
So we can make any change that you want, but what we have to
remember is that some people are trying to -- purposely are trying to
spray in the pond to control aquatic weeds.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
MS. KINASZCZUK: What we always recommend and what
we're trying to really move towards -- in fact, I think the stormwater
group is looking for mechanical -- looking at a mechanical harvester
this week. So, obviously, that's the direction we want to go. But in
the meantime, we'll look at changing that to be --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Maybe just -- we can't do
it now. I mean, if there's consensus up here with my colleagues -- I
think it's very important to stress the danger, perhaps, or the
precarious situation you have by spraying a water body for weeds.
Now, of course, the finger points at us, but then we also have to
communicate that to everyone.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Maybe we can catch that in the
pollution ordinance. That would be a little easier, I think, to track
upstream if those efforts were managed in that regard.
MS. KINASZCZUK: We found that the Pollution Control
Ordinance would be able to followed up with some best-management
practices, so -- but we can have it both ways. We'll figure out a way
to strengthen this language a little bit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And can we perhaps say
instead of fertilizers shall not be applied within 10 feet of any water,
June 11, 2019
Page 88
could we perhaps say within 15 feet, or is everyone, you know --
MS. KINASZCZUK: We had it -- it was three feet, and we
bumped it up to 10 feet. And I'm comfortable with that based on that
was, I believe that Dr. Unruh had spoken about at the City of Naples
workshop is that the rotary spreader will throw a little less than
10 feet. So that's where we arrived at that number.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'm comfortable. Thank
you.
The other thing is, why wouldn't -- I know. I know. I don't
mean to talk blasphemy right now, but why wouldn't we ban nitrogen
application in the rainy months understanding that rain brings
nitrogen to the grass?
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. I'm probably going to let
Dr. Unruh answer this one. But from what I understand is the
quantity of nitrogen isn't going to be enough, or it's not going to be of
a usable form. Let me see if Dr. Unruh has something contrary to
that.
DR. UNRUH: Nitrogen deposition from rain is actually very,
very small quantity.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
DR. UNRUH: Okay. So when you look at it over the size of an
area of say, you know, an entire county, that amount of nitrogen, you
know, if it were applied to one lawn, then there might be a sufficient
amount of nitrogen to, you know, contribute.
But if we looked at the reclaimed water numbers, you know, it's
three parts per million. And off the top of my head I'm not recalling
the actual nitrogen deposition numbers. They're there. They're
reported. There's actually a monitoring station in Everglades City. I
mean -- and so it is a very, very small value.
And so not even one that we would even, you know, put into
consideration in our calculations of nutrient inputs or, I should say,
June 11, 2019
Page 89
you know, reductions, you know, to those fertilizer rates.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
I have to say I've really appreciated everybody being here today.
I learned a lot. I have great faith, by the way, in IFAS, and the
University of Florida, and the professor. I don't know if you're
professor or scientist or all of those wrapped up together, but you
made some very important points here, and I learned a lot today as
we sit here.
These guys that came out, they work at this every day, and they
knew what they were talking about, and they didn't have to be out
here. They could still be outside. But I really enjoyed listening to
them. And they're saying the same thing as the professor is saying
and as our people are saying.
So I can't see why we would change it when this is what their
work is, and they're guiding us, and these people are telling us they're
right. So I'm solidly on board with keeping it the way it is.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I just had a
couple questions for Dr. Unruh, if that's -- if I might.
We have a letter from the Conservancy dated June 10, 2019, and
they have some findings in their letter. I don't know if you've had a
chance to see that or not. One of the things that they indicate is that it
says, as IFAS has acknowledged, in South Florida the growing
season may be all year round.
I saw your chart of the growing season, and I've got a lot of
grass, and it does grow very small amounts other than in the wet
season. But is that statement that in South Florida the growing
June 11, 2019
Page 90
season may be all year round, is that a statement that is really
accurate in the sense of why a summer ban would not be a problem?
DR. UNRUH: So if we look at the data that you referenced, if
we look -- you know, go back to -- what color is the line, kind of that
purple line right in here, you know, in the dead of January, you know,
you're somewhere probably around 18 or 20 percent of the growth
potential.
And so -- and then as you go into the season, obviously, we're
wide open and growing grass. So, yes, the statement is accurate in
the fact that the grasses are growing year round.
I'll go back to my football player analogy. That football player
is alive year round, okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And he grows year-round.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: He's burning some calories
year round.
DR. UNRUH: In the season, when they're doing two-a-days and
running wind sprints and weight lifting in the -- you know, they are
assimilating those calories that they have consumed. They're
building proteins and storing some in the carbohydrates. The plants
are doing the same thing.
And so go back to that -- to the growing season of a warm
season grass. It's potential to assimilate those nutrients that are
applied as fertilizer or come through the reclaimed water site or
rainfall deposition or the labrador that walked through the
neighborhood. They're going to assimilate most of those nutrients in
that peak growing season.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's another statement in
there letter that said, Soldat and Petrovic in 2008 suggest nutrient
losses are most likely when fertilizer is applied just before or during
heavy rainfall. And, again, using this as example or justification for a
ban during the rainy season.
June 11, 2019
Page 91
I don't think I see anything faulty about the statement. I would
guess that if you're applying fertilizer in a heavy rainfall, you're likely
to have some runoff, but does that statement -- how would you
respond to that statement in terms of arguing that there shouldn't be a
ban during the rainy season?
DR. UNRUH: So Dr. Petrovic, and then at the time his graduate
student --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Soldat. Soldat and Petrovic.
DR. UNRUH: Dr. Soldat's now in Wisconsin. Those were on
cool-season grasses, but that's kind of -- they're cool-season grasses,
which is really kind of irrelevant. But, nonetheless, if you do read
that study, they would not support a rainy season ban.
If we go back to really probably 2002, there's a book that Laurie
Trenholm and I wrote that says do not fertilizer when rain is
imminent, okay. Now to the commoner, if you go outside and the
sky is black, and it looks like it's about to rain, probably ought to not
get the fertilizer spreader and go spread fertilizers. And what has
happened is that statement, which was a very practical statement, was
taken out of context, and they said, well, in the rainy season in
Florida rain is imminent every day. And is that an accurate
statement? Potentially.
The point is is that, you know, if you see that big, black cloud
out there, then don't go out at that point and apply fertilizer.
What's really interesting is when we do fertilize, we
suggest/recommend that come back and actually apply about a
quarter inch of irrigation to move fertilizer i nto that root zone. Once
that fertilizer's moved into the root zone, the system -- those roots are
going to start assimilating those applied nutrients.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's one other statement in
their letter that basically says that there are two major components of
a strong ordinance. One of those is the calendar-based rainy season
June 11, 2019
Page 92
ban which we discussed and I think you've covered very, very well,
and the other is a cap of -- a four-pound cap on the amount of
nitrogen that can be applied to the turf.
The model ordinance has various standards. I don't think that
you went above four pounds on the -- obviously -- does that
statement support -- or is that a supportable statement to say that the
ordinance should have a four-pound cap on the amount of nitrogen?
DR. UNRUH: That is a statement that has not substantiated any
science. And as I said in my formal comments, that my concern with
that is that -- the issue we're dealing with is a people issue. It's not a
plant system issue. It's not a nutrient issue. It's a people issue. And
what are people doing?
And my concern, if you look at these nutrients recommendations
that we have across the state of Florida, many of them are below four
pounds, okay. And so, consequently, if put this -- and if you just look
at this column, you know, the new -- I've got to look where I'm at. If
you look at the South Florida recommendations here, you know, 1.44,
2.4, 4.56, 3, 4. My concern is if you put this four -pound number out
there, that number's going to resonate with people, okay. And they're
going to hear four pounds, and they're going to make an assumption
that my grass needs four pounds, regardless to what they're growing.
Now, the professionals in the industry down here -- for example,
zoysia grass. If you put found pounds of nitrogen on zoysia grass a
year, you're probably going to have some real problems in the near
future just simply because that particular grass does not need that
amount of nitrogen.
And so the IFAS recommendations, which are, then,
promulgated in the Urban Turf Rule, are based off of these numbers.
To go back to making an ordinance that is more stringent than
the model ordinance, I think, requires science, as I understand it, and
there would be no science to substantiate that recommendation.
June 11, 2019
Page 93
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason I wanted to ask
those questions is we can make a political decision and ban fertilizers
during certain periods of the year, and that will sound good, and we'll
get a good article in the newspaper, and some of the environmental
folks will think we did great work, or we can pay attention to what
the science is, what the science shows, and you've pointed that out
very, very effectively.
So I guess my final question to you would be, in your opinion,
based on the ordinance that staff has put together and based on the
testimony and evidence or facts that you've provided to us, do you
feel that this will be a strong ordinance to protect our water bodies in
terms of dealing with the application of fertilizers?
DR. UNRUH: I do.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That's all.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I have a couple of questions,
and it has -- it falls right in line. And I don't know if it's with you or
with staff, probably with staff, and then that has to do with the people
problem and the enforceability of these restrictions or suggestions.
How are we going to manage that enforceability aspect?
Commissioner Taylor talked about increasing the distance from
spreading fertilization from three feet to 10 to maybe 15. What are
the penalties associated with a violation?
MS. KINASZCZUK: It's the typical code enforcement process.
This year Code Enforcement has done 50 cases, so I really don't see
that there's a problem with enforcement. There's plenty of different
ways to enforce it, but it's a typical, you know, you get your
education, and then if you continue to do it, you get another of
violation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Because it was a question. I
mean, you know, I think the proponents of the ban during the rainy
season were trying to manage the people problem and an aggregation.
June 11, 2019
Page 94
It rains --
MS. KINASZCZUK: I am 100 percent confident that Code
Enforcement is capable of looking at a weather report.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would assume that they are,
Danette. That wasn't where I was going.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Oh, I know you weren't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The proponents of the ban are
trying to manage the people issue in an aggregation during a
particular period of time that it is easily determined that it's going to
rain on a more regular basis than not, and so -- but science proves, or
has shown -- the science that I've seen, in fact, shows that it really
ends up being actually counterproductive when you actually have that
ban in place because of the enforceability and the people problem and
the notion that folks need to take action into their own hands. So that
was one of the questions that I wanted to ask here.
Now if you want, please, pop up the LDC amendments that you
want us to be looking at as well. And how do you plan on -- I mean,
I like all those things. Those are things that we ought to be moving
into, our median landscape processes and everything. How are you --
are you going to -- are we going to take this on a case-by-case basis
as these issues -- or we going to go hunting in the LDC in order to fix
these issues?
MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we're going to have to do a little
bit of both. I think one of the things that we can -- obviously,
fertilize appropriately, we're addressing here. I think we just need to
look at it from new and redevelopment perspective how we can
improve the requirements.
I think one of them is going to have to look at where we place
the turf. But like I mentioned earlier, it's going to be -- this is going
to be hard to do and do it right, so it's going to take a lot of staff
hours, so we just wanted to make sure we had some direction from
June 11, 2019
Page 95
you guys before we headed into it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well -- and, again, I like the
premise. I like the thought process, but also from the private sector
side, I know that that can get rather cumbersome as you've blanketed
a set of restrictions in an LDC or proposed LDC amendments that
could be imposed on a subjective manner going forward without a lot
of specificity.
So I think sooner than later -- I mean, sooner than later we need
to start to develop some parameters that can be brought before us to
show the industry and the private sector what, in fact, we're looking
at. Even enhancements in littoral plantings and the like that are going
to assist with the nutrients reduction that goes in. So I think if we can
get to that sooner than later, that would be -- that would make me feel
a lot more comfortable.
And I also would like to support the enhancement of the
reduction in the lake spraying aspects that Commissioner Taylor
brought up. That's a -- I'm a huge advocate of that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It starts with us. Mechanical
harvesting.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By the neutered carp. That's what I
do in my own lakes. That's -- I really do.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I ask the question?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who neuters the carp?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They come that way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Still somebody has to do it,
right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Am I blushing now?
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go.
June 11, 2019
Page 96
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To direct staff to advertise the
ordinance that's been presented and bring it back for public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we advertise as it has been recommended. Your light is up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I'm just going to say,
I'm going to vote for this to bring this back for advertising. This has
been very difficult for me. As you know -- and I've always looked at
it through my narrow -- the homeowner that does her lawn or knows
folks in my neighborhood who does. But if I look in the broader
scope of things, golf courses, professional lawn care, things like that,
people that are hired to take care of turf, the arguments by Dr. Unruh
are very convincing. And as a member of the FAC Water Policy
Committee, the mantra is "follow the science."
And so we have another bite at this apple; the Conservancy
should know this. But bring us the science, because what we've
heard now is science that's, I think, very convincing with studies that
have encompassed all the regions of the state; south, you know,
central, and north.
So I am supporting this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. It's been moved and
seconded. 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.)
June 11, 2019
Page 97
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We will be back at 1:05 for the
1 o'clock time-certain.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a live mic, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good.
Afternoon, everyone. Glad to have you back.
Item #9B
FURTHER DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE)
CONSUMER PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO BETTER
PROTECT THE PUBLIC BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE JUNE 25,
2019 BCC MEETING; STAFF TO RE-DRAFT AND BRING
BACK FOR REVIEW, AND TO WORK WITH THE PROVIDERS
FOR A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT – APPROVED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Commissioners, this is your
1 p.m. time-certain, Item 9B. It's been continued from the May 14th
BCC meeting. It's the recommendation to further discuss the
adoption of the Collier County Property Assessed Clean Energy
Program known as PACE, and Mr. Jamie French will present the
item.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have 12 registered
speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve registered speakers, did
you say?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twelve.
June 11, 2019
Page 98
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head
for the Growth Management Department.
I know this item is not new to you, but I would say that staff has
certainly along -- working with the County Attorney's Office, we
have certainly taken your comments and the comments from the
public as well as outside agencies into consideration with what we
think you've directed us to do.
I know in one of the previous meetings, Commissioner Solis,
you pointed out that you'd like to see a difference between what our
current membership agreement offers and what's being brought
forward. And I recognize that as of the last -- as of the last meeting,
your last meeting, the program was suspended. So we can either -- I
can go through that list with you, and I can show you what our
thought was behind some of the references we've made to the
consumer protections or we can -- I'm happy to answer any questions
you might have.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That would be helpful for me
because that's what I was trying to understand was where did we start
and where are we now side by side.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you could, just go through --
go through that briefly.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders is here
now, and I would like for -- I would like for him to be able to hear
that as well.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
Okay. So this is just in a Word document. It's not a
PowerPoint. So if you look at the highlighted areas that are identified
within the ordinance just measured up against what you had within
your standard membership agreement: Customer service.
June 11, 2019
Page 99
So under the current resolution as it was written and was
adopted, there's limited local requirements that are stated within that
standard membership agreement, and there was a lot of direction that
pointed back to what the state guidance was.
Well, within this one it's a more defined: Program guidelines,
dispute resolutions, records, as well as some enhanced customer
service standards that many of the providers, by the way, publish in
their own documentation.
So in speaking with some of the providers, I don't think -- staff
did not get the feedback that this was a sticking point with them, and
I don't believe you've heard any testimony that has said we have a
problem with customer service. I think they've all unilaterally come
back and said we promote good customer service and communication
with our client and our contractors.
Then the residential portion. And I've identified these as
residential restrictions or residential enhancements. This would not
apply to commercial. So, currently, there's no local requirement, but
what we're proposing is that we verify prior to entering into a finance
agreement that the notice to lienholder is recorded. Now, the s tate
does speak of that. So this offers further clarification to what the
current statute says on PACE. It's just identifying, at a local level,
this is important to us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I ask a question as you're going
along? Is that not the responsibility of the contractor for the notice of
lienholder?
MR. FRENCH: No, sir. In fact, what we've done here is that
we've pulled out all contractor responsibilities. This is only focusing
on the lending instrument.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: So as we move down: The residential customer
disclosure. There was some conversation about what they're doing in
June 11, 2019
Page 100
Pasco County, and this is a Pasco County Tax Collector item where
they require a disclosure agreement. So we actually took the Pasco
County disclosure agreement that the Tax Collector requires them to
process before he will place a lien on that property.
We've tailored it a little bit to Collier, and we've pointed out
some things -- kind of a "know before you owe" campaign.
Understand what you're signing. It doesn't necessarily mean that the
property owner still won't sign it. It just simply means that the
county has identified, you, Mr. Property Owner or Ms. Property
Owner, know what you're signing before you go into this agreement.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let me ask a couple questions about
that, because I have some serious concerns about this particular
provision because it's going to put the county, essentially, in the
position of reviewing and approving one of these financing
arrangements and that, I think, is a road to disaster. I don't think we
should be in the middle of that.
We certainly don't do that in terms of commercial or
conventional financing for a construction loan. I mean, I'm seriously
opposed to the county being the clearinghouse for any of it.
MR. FRENCH: And, again, Commissioner, this was only
brought back because the Board asked us to look at Pasco County and
what they were doing.
We had conversation with the Tax Collector's Office. I don't
know if Mr. Ray -- Mr. Ray is here. But our takeaway from our
conversation with the Tax Collector's Office is that this is a policy
decision. It's not something that would be administered from his
office. And I could certainly allow him to speak further on that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I get it; he doesn't want to do it
either.
June 11, 2019
Page 101
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He doesn't want to do it either.
MR. FRENCH: Again, what we had looked at is no different
than a building permit application, because most, if not all, of your
PACE qualifying improvements are going to require a building
permit either by owner/builder or by a licensed contractor. So that
would simply come in with a building permit application. It's a
conversation that our staff would have with the property owner just to
confirm that it was their signature.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Again, I mean, I think that is the
road to the county supervising the program and making sure that
people understood.
And, Nick, you and I had this conversation. I was under the
impression that we're not going to be in that position, because I see
that as we're going to create a whole 'nother level of review, and I
think we would be taking on some liability and responsibility for
making sure that people have read their financing documents.
And it's a difference -- there's a difference between issuing a
building permit and permit -- and construction drawing review and
that kind of thing and reviewing in any way whether or not the
financing agreement was something that the property owner should
you have gotten into.
And as a policy, I just don't even want to -- I mean, I'd rather not
even have that conversation. And if that's one of the things that's
going to be required, I mean, I think as a policy for the county that's
just a very, very bad idea, because we're going to be taking on that
responsibility, and we shouldn't be.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't think any of us do. I don't
want to speak for everybody else, but we're going to get down that
line here in a minute. So point made.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, consider
June 11, 2019
Page 102
this: By a vote of three, we are the ones securing the loans for this
company. We have liability, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, we don't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we don't.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have no liability for loans.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That is an incorrect statement.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. County Attorney, we don't have
any liability for any of the loans?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have liability because we
agree to have this program operate in Collier County. That's the
liability.
So I don't see -- when I read this document regarding the
disclosure form, what I saw was just to verify with the owner that
they knew and understood what they were being sold.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think from a policy
standpoint, that is a very bad position to put our county staff in and
the county. I mean, this is a -- this is a program that was established
by the State. It would be the same as putting us in charge of
reviewing whether or not somebody should have taken out a
construction loan at any interest rate. I mean, it's just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think -- I think the word
is "spurious analogy," because when you talk about a construction
loan, that is with a bank.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A bank or a lender, let's just put
it a lender. And they have to operate under fairly strict guidelines
before they go ahead with loaning that entity tha t money.
When you talk about this program, it's individual homeowners
that are asked to agree to add the home improvement to their tax lien
which might result in them forfeiting their home if they can't pay it
June 11, 2019
Page 103
back.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which is exactly the same in a
commercial loan situation, and I think our recession would refute
what you're saying. I mean, people need to be responsible for the
loans that they get into and the improvements they make to their
property.
We should not, as the county, be the ones supervising whether
or not an owner has read and understood their financing documents.
It's just bad policy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think our hands have dipped
into that water of responsibility and liability when we agreed by a
vote --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- of three to bring this program
into the county.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman, I don't
think there's three votes to go forward with that language anyway,
so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Because what I was
going to say is I agree with --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And before you go there, can
Commissioner Fiala go first --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and then -- it's Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And parts of it -- one place it
says here, as they're talking to the client, part of their requirement in
this form that they are to fill out is that they -- it's independently
verified by them. And I was thinking about me, and I wouldn't know
June 11, 2019
Page 104
the first thing about how to verify anything. You know, I wouldn't
even know where to go to ask for verification. I thought, that would
be a little confusing for me, and I would guess the same wit h the
people that are taking the loan out.
And also, although it talks about this, I don't know that any of
them realize that their first payment comes due next year. That
means all of them are in a bad situation financially, that's why they're
seeking these loans, and then they're going to have to come up with a
whole year's payment at the end of the year; every year they have to
pay the whole year's payment.
Do you think they actually can save up, say, $2,200 to make this
payment once a year? It doesn't -- it's not collected monthly. And
I'm thinking, boy, that's a real hardship on the people. I was very
concerned about that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It can be collected on a monthly
basis. One of the issues -- and we've had discussions about this,
Commissioner Fiala, is the timing of the PACE loan and its
implementation doesn't always coincide with the mortgagor's
modification time frame in their mortgage. And so there can be a
disparity between when the escrow period and the adjustments for the
escrow on a monthly basis that all mortgages have when people elect
to escrow their taxes, insurance, and the like in their mortgage
payment and have their lender collect those --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's ask. Can we -- do you offer
them to be collected once a month?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than a whole year?
MS. WESNER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: With the lender.
MS. WESNER: Do you want us to respond?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm asking them, not you.
June 11, 2019
Page 105
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I am answering.
MS. WESNER: Commissioner Fiala, Kate Wesner, Ygrene Energy
Fund.
Yes, property owners that have a mortgage can escrow their
property taxes with their lender.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they told that they can do that?
MS. WESNER: Yes, ma'am. We disclose that in writing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You accept monthly payments on
all of these mortgages if they ask for it?
MS. WESNER: That is something they can ask their lender.
Majority of lenders will allow them to escrow their taxes with them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing is, what I'm trying to do
is make it easy for the people.
MS. WESNER: Sure. I can appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because you're dealing with
people -- they're not college graduates here in mosts cases, and they
really -- some of them have difficulty with our English language.
And we have to spell it out so that they don't get caught up in a plan
and then lose their home because they didn't understand, and that's
what I'm concerned with.
MS. WESNER: Yes, ma'am. I could read you the language that
we give to property owners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've read everything in here, I want
to tell you.
MS. WESNER: This is in our documentation, and we disclose
to the property owner, your special assessment payments will be
added to your property tax bill. Whether you pay your property taxes
through your mortgage payment, using an escrow account, or if you
pay them directly to the Tax Collector, you'll need to save an
estimated amount for your first special assessment install ment. If
you pay your taxes through your mortgage lender so that your
June 11, 2019
Page 106
mortgage -- or you should notify your mortgage lender so that your
monthly mortgage payment can be adjusted. So we tell them this in
writing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they understand that? Because,
you know, you're talking to people. And I don't care who it is. And
I'll be the first one in line to say I'm -- they say, here's your
agreement. Fill it out, you know, sign here, sign here. And if you
want to read the whole thing, and it's pages long in most cases, you
don't really read it well. And, not only that, if you do read it well, do
you understand everything?
MS. WESNER: I can appreciate your concern, Commissioner
Fiala. So we put in a call. It's a recorded call with homeowne rs. A
live person from our company calls a property owner and goes
through the terms of the financing.
This escrow payment and how you pay your taxes is clearly
discussed with them so that they understand that, and this is all before
the contractor starts work.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MS. WESNER: So if they have any reservations, any questions,
concerns, they can pause, they can talk about it, you know, further
with their financial advisor or their spouse. They've got time to
deliberate that before that contractor moves forward.
And so that's what this welcome call that we've tried to suggest
be added to this consumer protection ordinance would be very
valuable to require all the PACE providers to have a confirm-terms
call with the property owner verifying they understand the things that
they signed, and they can ask questions before anything moves
forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, you and I
can't talk, so I want to talk to you now. That's why this property
assessment customer disclosure agreement is so very important
June 11, 2019
Page 107
because it would put a county staff person to be able to communicate
to the person who is considering or has signed up for this loan before
the deal is signed. How do I qualify for this financing? How do I
repay the PACE funds? Are there other costs? What happens if I
have trouble making the increased tax payment?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But when the people are at their
home and they're talking to them about getting this thing, do they
ever say, now, take these papers and don't sign it today. We'll come
back tomorrow so we can study, or the people just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is our verification. So the
idea is the PACE contractor seals the deal. They go through the
process with the provider. They call up. They get -- they understand
the financing. They do their questionnaire by phone. Then this
document comes to -- this is our document. This will come to the
county, and the county will call.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you think it's a good idea then?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This disclosure form is a very,
very good idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because the tax collector in
Pasco County uses it, and I was told -- I talked maybe six PACE
providers -- providers? Yes -- and actually two districts PACE folks
over the last four days, and they indicated they didn't want to do
business in Pasco because of this. But they have found out -- they are
working, and now they are finally getting to the point where they're
going back in Pasco because he insists that this be signed and go
through, because what it does -- it's a safeguard for the consumer,
which I believe is what -- who you are trying to protect and certainly
who I'm trying to protect.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all trying to protect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And the PACE program is
June 11, 2019
Page 108
not required to look at whether your family budget can afford this
additional loan or not, it says right in there, right? Okay. So they
don't have to look at that. That's what -- the form says, how do I
qualify for the financing, right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Where are we looking here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the top of the Page 2 right up
here. And something about with the financing, which may be higher
than other financially -- financing options available.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, it does say that, and that's a
good thing. So then how much higher? You know, 3 percent and
one's 12 percent, do they spell that out?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Say you ask me that question,
and I'm trying to secure a PACE loan for, say, an air conditioner in
my home, and you ask me that question as a county. My response to
you might be, I never thought of that; you mean I could get the same
loan at a lower price somewhere else? Maybe I'll t ake a look at that.
And that just -- it just is -- it's an extra step to ensure that the
homeowner understands everything that -- as much as we possibly
can --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- about the loan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then it says here in another
part -- now, this isn't in the same disclosure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. This is in the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here it says the program standards:
To ensure payment of the annual assessment with each year's tax bill.
But in the other part it does -- some places in here it says monthly. I
read that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's in the ordinance itself.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
June 11, 2019
Page 109
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was surprised PACE
providers that have been created under this section of the statutes are
considered local governments. It says it right here. "Are considered
local governments." Well -- so no wonder they say, well, this is a
government loan.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, we don't -- we collect it,
but somehow it's become now we're the bad guys. Anyway, that's --
there's a number of things more, but I'll just be on my way, and you
guys keep on talking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to agree with
Commissioner Solis in the sense that we don't want to put our county
staff in the position of accepting and approving documentation. It's
one thing for the -- and this may be one way to handle this particular
issue. It's one thing to have the specific form that would require the
PACE providers to make sure is properly filled out, notarized, and
then have that presented to us for filing, but I wouldn't want to put a
county employee in the position of discussing interest rates and other
alternatives and is the form completely filled out properly, does the
person understand what he's doing, because that does put us in the
middle of --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- the approval process, and I
don't think we should be there.
This may be a question for Mr. French and for the providers.
We have a form that apparently is being used in Pasco County. I
don't think there's anything in the form that is problematic, but it does
require a signature of the property owner, notarization. And is there a
problem with simply having this as a required form to be filed with
the county so that at least we know that this information has been
June 11, 2019
Page 110
provided to the customer?
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner.
In speaking with the Deputy County Manager and also with
some of the PACE providers, much like a notice of commencement,
it's required to get notarized, and so that was our approach on this.
That form's a legal seal. We could, as a compromise -- if it's
certainly the pleasure of the Board, we could look for that as part of
the application process so that it would identify and we could put it
within our land development software, attach it to the building permit
so it's very front facing, that this is a PACE project, and it's go t the
authorized county form that was signed by the property owner and
notarized with no county follow-up. So that approval would only be,
was the form signed and was it notarized.
And if that was the case, it would simply just be a checkmark in
the system, and that way we'd be able to have a better tracking
mechanism from the permitting side.
Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If there's a PACE financing
and it turns out that the form is not properly filed or --
MR. FRENCH: We wouldn't know it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we wouldn't know, but
if there was a compliant filed, we would certainly find out, and that
would be a violation of the ordinance, and then we'd get into the
penalty provision.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, Mr. Chairman, I would
support having this type of a form filled out by the PACE provider
and signed by the customer and filed with the county but not a form
that would require the county to have interaction with the customer,
because I think that that does put us into the middle of the financing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, Commissioner, you take out
June 11, 2019
Page 111
the word "approval" because we're not going to talk to the customer
and talk about different financing options. We are accepting the
document as submitted and just notes that the customer knows the
process he went through, and that's in furtherance to what
Commissioner Solis asked.
We're not approving the finance. Commissioner Taylor, we're
not providing alternative terms or have you talk to anybody else.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You said that, though.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You said that. You said the county
employee could actually stipulate alternative financing
methodologies and rates and plant that seed for somebody to go
somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala read it, and
I said, let's just play this out. It could happen. But it's never, ever a
situation we're approving. We can't approve. We approved it when
we allowed this program to come into Collier County. These are
safeguards. It's all it is is safeguards.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is that finger up "I want to say
something" or --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to continue with
this -- the form for just a minute.
At the beginning of the form it says that PACE, or Property
Assessed Clean Energy program, is a government-sponsored
program. And, clearly, it's a government -sponsored program, but if
we have that on the form, it seems to me that we're -- that may need
to be explained a little bit.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's misleading.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner.
And this was the exact language out of Pasco. We can -- and
June 11, 2019
Page 112
much like we're doing right now, we tailor it, but the PACE district --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We talked about that.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am, and I made no pun and no
reference. We amended the document to Collier County standards,
but we did use Pasco as the base document to put this together.
But with that said, the PACE districts are identified as a
government type of a district within the statute; the PACE providers
are not government entities.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm kind of
getting at. If we're going to have anything that says "government
sponsored," I think you need to explain that a little bit more. It's a
program that's sanctioned by Florida Statutes, but we're not -- Collier
County is not part of the program in the sense that we do not ap prove
contractors. We don't approve -- obviously, we do the inspections on
the work, but we're not part of the financing agreement and have no
involvement in that, so...
MR. FRENCH: We can clean that up, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, that was my only other
issue. So, again, if we can have this as a form that it's required to be
filled out, notarized by the PACE provider, then I'd have no problem
with that.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. And in our conversation -- I know
with Ygrene as well as with some of the other PACE providers,
they're operating under something very similar like this in Pasco.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That doesn't make it right.
MR. FRENCH: Well, sir, I can only say they didn't tell me it
wouldn't work.
June 11, 2019
Page 113
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. You've just said that
multiple times, and I just want to say out loud there are some
concerns with what's been proposed by -- verbatim out of Pasco
County.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would actually like to take
Commissioner Saunders' recommendation a little step further. I think
this notice should say that, that this is not a Collier County program
and that the county doesn't approve or review the financing
statement, so that it's clear. That's one of the things I think we heard
about was that somehow people were told that it was a local
government program, and it's not. So, I mean, I think we should have
a disclosure in extra large type.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In red.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In red, whatever, that says that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bold and double underlined
it. I agree.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That might be a path --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make sure that
that's clear. But with that type of clarification, I would support
having this as part of the packet that's delivered to the county.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine. I mean, I was under the
impression -- and one of the things that confused me, I think, is at the
very beginning of the form in the bold type it says that there will be a
review and approval of the form. That's what led me to believe, well,
who's going to be doing that other than the county? I think we'd have
to be very careful and maybe clarify that language at the very
beginning, because it -- the PACE providers are already doing that
through their own process.
So adding that in there made me understand, just reading it, that we
were going to be in that position now.
June 11, 2019
Page 114
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Take out the word "approval."
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Commissioner Taylor, you're
next, and then I have an idea I'd like to propose.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to speak to ask our tax
collector, Mr. Ray. I have a question for him.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Pick a microphone, sir.
MR. RAY: Either one?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Either one you want to.
MR. RAY: Okay.
Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a question over -- it's come
up on more than one occasion over the last couple weeks.
Is it possible that you get these liens recorded at one time with
the Tax Collector just -- let's just say they're gathered up over a year
and filed in September. I'm using these, but the idea is, just because a
loan has gone forward and signed, sealed, and delivered doesn't
necessarily mean you know right away that we information, or is that
incorrect?
MR. RAY: The Tax Collector knows what the yearly non-ad
valorem assessment is, because that comes to me on the tax roll. To
tell you the truth, I don't know what the total loan is. I can look it up
at Clerk Kinzel -- on Clerk Kinzel’s site if I was as smart as Rob. He
can do that. I don't know what the loan is. I don't know the terms. I
don't know the length of the loan.
I know what comes up every year on the tax roll because
Ygrene, just like the Pelican Marsh CDD and the Port of the Isles
improvement district and the Larry Ray Better Lighting District out
in East Naples every year gives me their little portion of the tax
notice in a non-ad valorem assessment. You guys give me a millage
rate. A little different. It's according to value. Non -ad valorem, not
according to value.
June 11, 2019
Page 115
So every year stands alone with me as far as my part of this deal
is. Every year I'm going to put something on the tax notice, or I'm
not going to put something on the tax notice depending on what these
people send me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you don't know the end
game? You don't know the amount at all?
MR. RAY: I do not. Do not. Don't want to know.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't want to know.
MR. RAY: Don't want to know. I am in the tax collecting
business.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Collector.
MR. RAY: I'm the collector. I want to collect it. And I have
provisions for it, if it's not paid, that I collect it. And it works very
well in Collier County. We had our tax sale the other day. We're
now 99.9 percent of the tax roll has been collected, so...
And some of it was PACE that we collected. And we sold a
certificate on a PACE loan.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what happens.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What does that mean?
MR. RAY: That means that we sold a certificate that placed a
superior lien for the taxes due on that property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because they couldn't pay it.
MR. RAY: Because they did not pay it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They did not pay it.
MR. RAY: They did not pay it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They didn't pay just their PACE, or
they didn't pay their whole tax bill?
MR. RAY: The tax bill is the tax bill is the tax bill. You don't
pay part of it -- I don't accept partial payments. You either pay your
taxes, or you do not pay your taxes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
June 11, 2019
Page 116
MR. RAY: Okay. So they did not pay their taxes to include the
non-ad valorem assessment; therefore, I sold a lien.
In two years, if they have not paid that lien -- I looked it up. It went
for a quarter of a percent, so that means in two years if that has not
been paid, that certificate holder will file for a tax deed sale. At that
time, the homeowner is in jeopardy of losing that property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three years.
MR. RAY: Two years.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two years.
MR. RAY: Two years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two years from the issuance of
certificate, which is three.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which is right away, because
this was --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Third year.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's the third year.
MR. RAY: Two years from not paying your taxes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. It's a total of three.
And then you pay that first-year certificate, and that carries you on
for another 12 months.
MR. RAY: Some people do that. That has been done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's how it can --
MR. RAY: I always stay two years behind, and some people do
that, but not everybody.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a -- thank you, sir. It's good
seeing you.
MR. RAY: Always good to be here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a thought, and it was
something that I've been thinking about for quite some time. We've
talked about this on and off again since this PACE program was
June 11, 2019
Page 117
approved last year and that is enhancing the consumer protections. I
think all of us are in agreement, even with what I learned in
Washington, D.C., back in the spring that there are enhancements that
can be done to better protect the residents of Collier County that
choose to participate in a PACE loan.
What's been brought forth so far, though on the guise of
consumer protections, hasn't actually, in my mind, added up to that.
This, though, the pretense is, I believe, in good intent, isn't
functional. I believe it puts the county in a position of a regulatory
process that we would become liable for, and I don't want to see us
do it. I concur with my two colleagues on the end.
A thought that I had, if we were -- if we are -- and,
Commissioner Saunders, I'm looking at you, because if we're going
to continue on with the residential aspects of the PACE program, it's
clear that enhancements to the consumer protection ordinance -- an
ordinance needs to be developed to enhance consumer protections.
So -- and we haven't reached that goal successfully in the
processes so far that we've endeavored to do. I thought maybe we
take it away from those who have been working on it so far, relegate
the coordination of the ordinance to the Productivity Committee, an
appointed group of citizens by us to develop an ordinance for those
consumer protections, to enhance those consumer protections, and
bring that back to us as opposed to the path that we've been traveling
so far.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I believe, based on
what staff has prepared, that we do have an ordinance. There may be
some provisions in it that are difficult or not workable, and that's one
of the reasons why we're kind of going through it.
So, for example, we just talked about the form that's filed with
the county, and we've made changes to that provision. We -- I think
if we go through this, we probably could wind up with an ordinance
June 11, 2019
Page 118
today based on -- basically, on what staff has presented to us.
I'm not so sure I would support turning it over to the
Productivity Committee. This is a difficult legal issue. They don't
have that experience, and I don't think they really have that mission.
So I don't think I would support the Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it was a thought.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And a good thought, but I
just think the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The arena that we've been
operating -- well, and, you know, and that comes around from a legal
question.
Mr. Klatzkow, Commissioner Taylor was reading a portion of
the whereases in the beginning of this ordinance that talks about the
Section 1.63.01(7) are considered local governments. Is that a
portion of the statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a local government statute. That's
why there's an assessment placed on it, all right. That's not our local
government. There was a local government that was crea ted by
interlocal agreement that we're going through. We have an
agreement with them, and a three-party agreement with them and
Ygrene and the other providers. This is a local government program.
It's not our local government program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, and that's where -- the
misconception oftentimes. I mean, you know, we've heard regularly
that people construe this as a government program, and if the layman
reads that, Florida Statute considers these PACE districts or considers
the PACE providers local government, which is what that says.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And the State of Florida, the
legislature is the one that brought this forward. So this is a
state-sponsored program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
June 11, 2019
Page 119
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a Collier County sponsored
program. That's the distinction.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So does that come back around,
Commissioner Saunders, with regard -- or Solis, with regard to
clarification of disclosure, if you will, or disclaimer of it being our
program?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And, actually, I just -- I just
pulled it up. And I'll just read it. It says, this form must be initialed,
signed, and notarized before being filed with Collier County for
review and approval prior to the execution of the PACE financing
agreement.
The review process, which sounds --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Approval.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, we just need to clean that up.
And if there's another reference to a local government, maybe we can
just parenthetically say what local government it is; that it's not
Collier County, at least.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, if you go down beneath
that, you'll see under "What is the residential PACE program" it's the
definition of it, and it does call it a government -sponsored program
that is used in Florida. And, frankly, the district personnel are very
clear that it is commissioners or former commissioners sitting on
their board at no wage. So they link it to government at every
opportunity.
Now, whether somebody that lives in Golden Gate City that
doesn't speak the English language is going to be concerned whether
it's Collier County or the State of Florida doesn't matter. They hear
it's government, and that must mean it's good.
So -- and then, of course, it took a government action, a vote of
three on this commission, to bring it to Collier County, so that kind of
sealed the deal.
June 11, 2019
Page 120
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is a program -- it was a program
that was created by the legislature, and we could make it simple.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Approved by us, and it is a viable
program that helps people. There have been some who didn't
perceive the help to be as great as, necessarily, what it could have
been. The suggestion was to develop an ordinance to enhance the
consumer protections. And so far the resolutions that have come
before me have not done that. They have had language issues and
printed statements that were counterintuitive, counterproductive, and
not realistic with regard to conducting any kind of business. The
commingling of the PACE provider with oversight and responsibility
of the general contractor, it was prohibitive, so...
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me suggest a process,
because we're kind of going around in circles. And everyone knows
that this was approved on a 3-2 vote. We've heard that about six
times today, so we don't need to do that anymore.
We've got an ordinance in front of us, and I think we can go
through this paragraph by paragraph. We've got a staff report that
says if we adopt this ordinance -- and, obviously, we're going to
make changes, then there's a program that staff has said they feel
comfortable moving forward with.
So the first issue was the form, and we've indicated, at least a
majority of us, three of us, have indicated that we're okay with the
form as long as it doesn't give any responsibility to the county other
than accepting it, other than having it filed.
And so the sentences would be, this form must be initialed,
signed, and notarized before being filed with Collier County prior to
the execution of the PACE financing agreement, period. And then
we would clarify that this is not a Collier County sponsored
program -- or Collier County program. It's a special taxing district or
June 11, 2019
Page 121
whatever. There's a district. We can have some explanation in there,
but it doesn't tie it to Collier County.
So it seems to me we can move on to the next section.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you on the ordinance, or are
you on the agreement for --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we're going down
this --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a suggestion? I
mean, I think these are the changes from what we have, and we can
just go through each one of those, and -- is that what you're --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll wind up with an
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have,
by the way?
MR. MILLER: We have 13.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirteen. We had an extra one
show up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we listen to them, too?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's go through this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. In terms of -- you
know, we've heard a lot of indication about the problems with the
program, and we're trying to solve those. So I think the best thing to
do -- and, again, this is just a suggestion; let's go through this process.
Let's see where we wind up. If we wind up with an ordinance that
the majority feels is one that's going to be sufficient, then we adopt
the ordinance, and we move forward. If we don't get to that point,
then the program's already been terminated.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. If it's the will of the Board
to do that, then I'm okay with doing that. I mean, it's -- I mean, I
June 11, 2019
Page 122
have -- personally, I have, in pretense, been in support of this
program since I'm one of the three that's voted for it on a regular
basis and -- but I also, at the same time, believe that there are
necessary consumer protections -- I've talked to the PACE providers
about that -- that could be implemented by our board to better protect
our consumers.
So if, in fact, that's the path that we're heading and we're going
to -- if, in fact, we can reach a consensus, come up with an ordinance
that does that and allows for the residential PACE program to
continue on, then okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask a question? I'm not
digressing, but I am a little bit.
With the Productivity Committee, I believe senior staff is at
these -- at the Productivity Committee; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have a liaison that goes and,
depending on the topic, senior staff's assigned to it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And do we ever have any
legal staff there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We haven't in the past.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it prohibitive to have legal
staff there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's not.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's just -- we're always available if
they ask. We've never been asked.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I think your idea of the
Productivity Committee, another pair of eyes, after we go through
this, might be an idea, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But if we -- mine was more of an
"either or." I was rather -- I don't like adjusting things on the fly, in
all candor. I don't like doing it this way. I mean, if it is the will of
the Board to go forward with this on a paragraph by paragraph, I'm
June 11, 2019
Page 123
good with that. But it would be my preference to not.
And that was my thought, to relegate this off to the Productivity
Committee to develop an ordinance that isn't prohibitive, that isn't
counterproductive, that does enhance consumer protections, and
bring that back to us by September.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that -- I think we
would -- I don't think it's a waste of time to look at this and to discuss
this among ourselves before, if it is the will of this commission to
send it to the Productivity Committee, because there may be
nonstarters here. So just a thought.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I gotcha.
Commissioners Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think I was the one that
brought up whether or not there was a committee or something that
could look at this. The Productivity Committee has a mission and a
narrow focus of looking at departments and divisions of the county
for purposes of trying to improve the efficiency of how the county
operates. I mean, I agree with Commissioner Saunders.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is a -- you know, I mean, I
think we're just going to be expanding what that committee -- and I
would be in favor of let's just go through the revisions to the existing
agreement, and we can vote on which ones we can live with, and then
we should have an ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's do that.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to
say, I think if we go through this line by line, we're going to hit a few
places where we're going to have some conversation, but most of it's
going to be acceptable.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's get on the same
June 11, 2019
Page 124
page. Where are you at?
MR. FRENCH: So what I'd like to do -- and you can see -- is on
the residential cap on lending, there had been conversation in the
past -- Commissioner McDaniel, you had brought up ability to pay
and, of course, other commissioners and members of the public had
talked about cap on lending. And the state does address that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Where is this information in my
stuff?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's here on page --
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry, sir. In the ordinance itself, that's
going to be under 3C, and this chart was simply just created last night
based off Commissioner Solis' conversation that he's had with u s in
the past. I just thought it might be a more useful tool. But it's the
exact language.
And under 3C, and that's going to be on Page 3 or 4 of your
ordinance, what it talks about is simply just some clarification to the
already existing state language within the statute.
And, Sean, could you zoom just to that section.
And this is the passage out of the state. And so what we're
suggesting is that if you -- if you look just under 12A, it simply says
that without consent of the loan instrument holder of the mortgage
company, the loan to value can only be 20 percent of the just value.
That's the assessment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're having a difficult time
following you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's 12A?
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. Just on the overhea d.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not looking at the overhead
projector.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: State statute.
MR. FRENCH: I apologize, sir. That's just the state statute. I
June 11, 2019
Page 125
was just making reference to it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 12A is the statute.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: And so the ordinance -- again, some of this
language -- there's no local requirement. This is just simply a
clarification to how much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And where does it stipulate this in
the ordinance that I read?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: C3.
MR. FRENCH: It's on Page 3, sir, under 3C.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Section 3, No. 3C.
MR. FRENCH: Only for residential property.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 12A. Okay. Now I'm with you.
That's -- that's in the actual ordinance, not this agreement.
Section 3, No. C. She has it highlighted.
Now, we're not going through this paragraph by paragraph.
We're going through this on your suggested adjustments. Do you
understand that, Commissioner Saunders?
MR. FRENCH: Simply the ordinance, that's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There it is.
MR. FRENCH: So under Section C that's been -- you've got my
pen mark next to it -- it simply just supplements the state language by
calling out a clarification that it says the aggregate amount of the
PACE loan or of the assessment cannot exceed 20 percent of the just
value as determined by the Collier County Property Appraiser, which
is language that's directly out of the statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is this what the owner or the
person who's seeking the loan reads?
June 11, 2019
Page 126
MR. FRENCH: That would be in their agreement, in their
PACE agreement. That language currently does exist, but what
we've seen out of just going back and looking and working -- I know
we've recently had some conversation with Clerk Kinzel’s Office,
and reviewing some of these PACE assessments, we did see where
some of the loans did exceed 20 percent of the property value as
defined by the Property Appraiser.
We don't know what the repair may or may not have been, but
we did know that the assessment that was filed was greater than
20 percent.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty percent of the taxable value
or the assessed -- the taxable value or the market value, or what are
we talking about?
MR. FRENCH: The just value would be the market value as
determined by the Property Appraiser, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I wondered if -- at this juncture
if Clerk Kinzel could put on the visualizer a computation that shows
from the PACE provider how they calculate that, and then what the
proposal is for -- in this C, how to calculate it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because it's somewhat up to
interpretation on the definition of what the PACE assessment actually
entails.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The aggregate.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, the just value is one portion,
but then there's also -- there's some discussion with regard to the
aggregate of the PACE assessment. Is it the front-end loan, or is it
the total loan plus interest?
MR. FRENCH: And out of fairness to the PACE providers that
June 11, 2019
Page 127
are here with us today, sir, I would tell you that I have had
conversation as far as their methodologies behind how they make that
determination. So it might be best, if you would allow, that they can
certainly explain their position.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We will.
Crystal, do you want to go first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying to look at, as we're doing
this, as to somebody who's just learning the English language and I'm
reading this, and I'm trying to say, do I know what aggregate means?
Wait a minute. Do I understand that all PACE assessments -- you
know, how many things does the person who's taking a loan, because
they can't get a loan elsewhere, how much of that will they
understand?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's a good question.
CLERK KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel.
Property valuation types -- and I think we reconciled this with
Ygrene so that we do all agree on the actual valuation from the
property appraiser's office and what would be used. And then we
went through with them their methodology for calculating the
20 percent and how we would read this in the statute. So I'll put that
on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Put that sheet that you just had back
up there. Show me one line on that whole delineation of values that
says "just value."
CLERK KINZEL: It doesn't -- the just total is what is defined in
the statute. It refers to it as just. Market, parentheses, just value in
pink, the 225. So that's the one that you would get that would equate
to the just value in the statute.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand.
CLERK KINZEL: Okay.
June 11, 2019
Page 128
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I got all that. I just want to make
sure that what we're putting in our ordinance reflects what we're
talking about here from a laymen's perspective so that there is clarity
with regard to just value, not in parentheses. And if we're going to
call it market value, if the tax bill calls it market value, use market
value in our ordinance, not --
CLERK KINZEL: Okay. We were trying to make it
compatible, ordinance to statute.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, just value is a
legal term. It's used in the statute. That's what we use.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I'm not sure where the
market value would even -- I understand that Property Appraiser is
supposed to adjust values to market value as best as it can, but just
value, isn't that the legal term that --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. But that -- there is a --
MR. KLATZKOW: But just value is the statutory definition.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of market value.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand that. All I'm doing is
trying to provide for clarity for the laymen that's reading this not
from a legal perspective or from a statutorily defined perspective. I
just want our ordinance to say the same thing that the person who
gets their tax bill to say.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that's kind of the point
that I was trying to make. We pass an ordinance that has legal terms
in it. Now, if someone doesn't understand it, that's fine. It can be
explained to them, but we don't explain it to them in the ordinance.
We use the terms that have a legal definition. That's all we can do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm okay with that as well. I
June 11, 2019
Page 129
just -- it was --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is somewhat confusing, though,
because if you look on the Property Appraiser's website or the Tax
Collector's website or whatever, you don't see something that says
"just value." You see "market value."
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Market value, taxable value.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But that's why -- I mean, if you
wanted to amend this proposed ordinance, you could put "just" in
parentheses and put "market" beside it. I mean, it's synonymous, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If you're an attorney, you use
"just." If you're someone like me, you use "market."
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's a good question,
because I was looking at -- I searched where just value comes up in
the statutes and where market value comes up, and I couldn't find
anything in the statute that actually tied t he definition of just value to
market value as calculated by the Property Appraiser's Office. But it
is confusing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The statute says "just value."
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we hear from our Tax
Collector, please.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not his -- that's the
Property Appraiser.
MR. KLATZKOW: The statute requires the Property Appraiser
to come up with just value. He then puts it on his website "market
value," because nobody would understand "just value."
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MR. KLATZKOW: That's exactly what's going on. So the
statute says, Property Appraiser, determine just value. He puts it on
his screen as market value.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
June 11, 2019
Page 130
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Market and just are the same.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are the same? Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm the person who doesn't
understand English very well. What does "just value" mean or even
what does "market value" mean?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I wondered if we could ask
Crystal to go through this, the other piece -- the other piece of paper
that's there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sure she will.
MR. FRENCH: So just as a point of clarification -- and I'm
sorry to interrupt, but perhaps we could simply put in there, just for
clarification -- I think the important term in here is "as determined by
the Collier County Property Appraiser." So we could put "just
value/market value," but we could wordsmith this in such a way to
where the reader understood it's one or the other, which we
understand, legally, they're the same, but it must always be
determined by the Collier County Proper Appraiser, if that would
work for the Board.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That works for me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's perfect.
CLERK KINZEL: If that was that difficult, wait till you see
this.
Okay. If you look at the right side of the document, that's the
Ygrene interpretation, and they use the Clean Energy Green Corridor
program guidelines with the maximum financing is the initial set of --
at the lesser of 20 percent of the just value of the property as
determined by the Property Appraiser or 15 percent of the market
value, which would make you think that those are two different
numbers.
The statute for the calculation actually uses the phrase "the total
amount of any non-ad valorem assessment." So when you look at the
June 11, 2019
Page 131
Ygrene calculation, they're basing it on the amount financed for the
program. The way we read -- and we've also confirmed that with
other officers -- that the total amount of any assessment would be the
total amount that you're assessing on the property.
So in this case, for example, the 20-year term, with the
improvement and the total cost of the 20,951, you would end up with
the annual assessment of 2,298 for 20 years. So your total
assessment would be much higher than the calculation that Ygrene's
using.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So let's have Ygrenes come up here
and give an explanation as to why that's the calculation they're using.
MS. LAWSON: So hello. I'm Stacey Lawson. I'm one of the
founders of the Ygrene Energy Fund and the founding CEO and vice
chairman of the board.
And we use a standard financial convention whereby the
financed amount or principal value is the value used when calculating
loan to value. This is a universally established principle in finance,
and it has been additionally validated by our Green Corridor bond
counsel, by the rating agencies, by our securitization underwriters,
and by our lenders. It is what we use across our program and every
other PACE provider uses across their programs, and it has been used
widely in the capital markets.
So this is a very unique interpretation by Collier County. We've
never seen it before. And I don't think it conforms with standard
financial practice.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's clearly --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is Florida Statutes'
interpretation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to go there. It's
clearly a differentiation in interpretation of Florida Statute. You just
explained your ratification and justification for all of the reasons
June 11, 2019
Page 132
you're able to tranche these debts up and put them out into a
secondary marketplace not really suggesting that your regulations
conform to what Florida Statute says.
MS. LAWSON: I'm sorry if I misstated. This is related to the
Florida Statute. So this is the Green Corridor attorneys and bond
counsel that have reviewed the statute. In fact, as of this morning,
they confirmed with me that the assessed amount -- the assessment
amount is the principal value.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Principal value. That's the PACE --
MS. LAWSON: We'd be happy to set up a call, actually, with
Clerk Kinzel and Green Corridor bond counsel and attorneys to
review and clarify if that would be helpful.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not what the statute --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I meant no disrespect. Well,
it's an -- no. It's Clerk Kinzel’s interpretation of the statute and what
that adds up to and what Ygrene's counsel's interpretation of the
statute is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, it says a clerk
interpretation, but the statute is lifted verbatim, so that's not
interpretation. That's a reference by Clerk Kinzel. But that's a
verbatim from the Florida Statute that defines when the consent of
the loan services or holders of any mortgage incumbering or
otherwise secured by the property, meaning the bank or in the case of
it's Habitat for Humanity, the total amount of any non-ad valorem
assessment for a property under this section may not exceed
20 percent of the just value of the property.
MS. LAWSON: The assessment is the principal value. Just like
in a mortgage where you wouldn't include interest in your financed
amount, if you have a $500,000 mortgage, the bank is looking at you
as carrying a $500,000 obligation. You pay principal (sic) over time
that may be a million dollars over the course of the term of the loan,
June 11, 2019
Page 133
but you would never say that someone's obligation is a million
dollars. It's still only 500,000.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Principal balance of --
MS. LAWSON: Principal balance is the assessment amount.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. And that's where the
interpretation between our clerk's interpretation of the statute and the
assessed amount, and Ygrene's maximum funding is the principal
balance of the loan.
We have to sign a disclosure -- when you borrow -- when you're
doing a conventional loan, if you're borrowing $250,000 over a
30-year period, it tells you how much you have to pay over that entire
30-year period, but your obligation is only if you carry that to the end
of that 30-year period, not when you sell the house five years from
now and you've paid down on the principal from 250- to 245-. That's
your exposure.
MS. LAWSON: Correct, and the same with the PACE
obligation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. That was why I was
asking.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You see the huge difference it
makes, though.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. And, certainly, one
could construe that the obligation of the threshold of 20 percent is
exceeded if you calculate it as Clerk Kinzel has.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I don't -- I mean, if this was
the way you calculated for a 30-year fixed mortgage, no one would
ever be able to get a mortgage because the interest -- when you add
the interest over 30 years, your loan to value would be like that. It
would -- that's not the way it's calculated. It's calculated upon what
you're borrowing, the principal amount.
CLERK KINZEL: And, Commissioners, we'll be glad to look at
June 11, 2019
Page 134
anything they have. We have put together some information over the
last couple of weeks. This was a portion of it.
We are just looking at the straight pure language of the statute.
As I said, we've also verified this with other people to try to get -- I
mean, we're not really trying to interpret it. We're reading the total
amount of any non-ad valorem assessment, which would be what are
they being assessed? They're being assessed that much each year, the
total. If they had meant annual, they might have said annual.
Often, as we have just been discussing here, the legislature may not
put it in clear terms as to their intent, but we can certainly go back
and look at legislative intent a little bit further and come to a
conclusion with Ygrene, okay?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha.
CLERK KINZEL: I don't think this makes or breaks the issue,
so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I think from this draft report
that I believe everybody has, one of your -- year one of PACE impact
in Collier County is that the average 2018 tax bill increased
117 percent due to the PACE assessment.
CLERK KINZEL: But, Commissioner, that would be the
one-year existing tax bill over the annual assessment that was added
due to the PACE program. So those percentages are totally different
issues.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. But what I'm
saying is that it is important because the more -- this is very
important to me, because the more -- Ygrene doesn't want to go
beyond that 20 percent, and the interpretation of this is critical
because you can see on the left it's 37 percent. On the right it's
18 percent. And that amount will determine how much the property
owner can borrow.
It's another issue of consumer protection and, clearly, if the
June 11, 2019
Page 135
average tax bill in year one of the PACE has increased 117 percent,
it's something that we need to pay attention to.
CLERK KINZEL: I think what you're trying to say is that the
Ygrene interpretations allows more people to qualify even though the
overall cost of the issue may be detrimental to them.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, 117 percent --
CLERK KINZEL: That's what it says.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's the case in conventional
financing. That's always the case in conventional financing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, conventional financing,
you're not securing your home.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure, you are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's a mortgage.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a mortgage. If you don't pay
your mortgage, they take your house.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let me restate that. We, Collier
County, aren't securing that loan.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We, Collier County, are not
securing these loans.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir, we are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are not.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are the security --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You lit up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- of these loans. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to say we're
kind of mixing two things here. One is the policy of do we keep a
program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry.
June 11, 2019
Page 136
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're mixing two things
here. We're talking about whether there should be a program, and we
keep kind of falling back to that. What we're supposed to be doing
today, I believe, is going through this ordinance.
Now, if there's a question of interpretation as to what just value
means, we can deal with that at some point, but that's what the statute
says. That's what our ordinance says, and I would suggest that that
particular paragraph, C, is going to be acceptable to everybody as we
go through the ordinance --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay on task. I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- if we could just focus on
ordinance as opposed to the political decision or the policy decision
of the program itself. But let's see if we can come up with an
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would you be okay if we put
"market value" in there in parentheses along with "just value"?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the spirit of cooperation,
fine.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Slash "market value".
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I still like sticking to legal
terms.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would imagine you would.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's generally the way you
draft ordinances, but that's okay. We can put -- we can put in there,
parentheses, what a willing seller -- or a willing buyer is willing to
pay a willing seller if you want.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Quit.
All right. Go ahead, Jamie.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For whatever it's worth, I'm okay
with that language as well.
June 11, 2019
Page 137
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Leaving it as "just" or adding in
"market"?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Parens "market." Whatever
clarification you want, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Parens "market."
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. We'll get it cleaned up for you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Slash, whatever.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Slash.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Either way.
MR. FRENCH: Continuing to follow down on the ordinance
language that was provided to you, under D, this addresses the ability
to pay. And I know, Commissioner McDaniel, this was of interest to
you.
And in conversation, and I recognize -- I'm not trying to parrot
Pasco County, but this was a -- this was a reference point that the
Board asked us to go back and look at. This is the identical language
that exists currently within their interlocal agreement with PACE
providers that talks about -- that they do not exceed 5 percent of the
property's fair market value, and then it addresses the ability to repay
that basically says that it does not exceed 4 percent of the annual
gross income of the household based off an affidavit signed by that
property owner.
There are some -- and Mr. Cohen and I participated in a federal
call. There are some ideas being floated around at the federal level,
and I know that there has been some conversation with regards to
addressing truth-in-lending practices as well as ability to repay on
these PACE financing agreements.
We're not quite familiar with what actions have been passed,
what's been instituted at either the federal or the state level, not yet.
So this area is certainly subject to come back to you at a future date
for discussion or potential amendment.
June 11, 2019
Page 138
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, to me, personally, Jamie,
when I read this, it commingled two sections. Now, you jumped
from 20 percent of the fair slash parens market value to 5 percent of
the fair market value and then commingled that with a percentage of
the borrower's adjusted income, and it's all blended right into the
same sentence.
MR. FRENCH: One was cap on lending, sir. The other one was
intended to be ability to pay based off of your income.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Doesn't the No. C above, take -- put
a cap on lending at the same time?
MR. FRENCH: Cap on lending, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So why reiterate it in a different
format at a different percentage and a different definition in the next
sentence?
MR. FRENCH: What a suggestion might be is that we remove
the 5 percent of fair market value and concentrate more so on the
4 percent of the annual gross income.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or some percentage of the annual
gross income, yes. That was where I had a concern with that. That
was -- I had a concern with the conjoining of those two. Since it's
already stated in above, take it out, take the 5 percent out, and then
come up with some percent of the annual gross income as the
attainable revenue stream that's requisite for the PACE loan to go
forward.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. If that's the will of the Board, that's
what staff will do.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you kind of restate
what you're saying. You're on Paragraph D.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm on Paragraph D, and basically
I'm talking about eliminating the first sentence down to the first
comma.
June 11, 2019
Page 139
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And ensure that -- and determined
at the time of financing. That's all superfluous. Ensure that the total
amount of the annual PACE assessments do not exceed 4 percent --
this says 4 percent of the total annual gross income of the property
owner in the prior calendar year.
Now, that 4 percent, I don't know that number in my head as to
whether or not that's an attainable percentage to be able to satisfy the
payment on the PACE assessment -- on the annual PACE assessment,
so I don't know if that's high enough or low enough.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. How is that -- where does
that number come from? Was it --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Pasco.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Pasco.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir, Pasco County.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Pasco.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So if you -- and the example is, if
you have a PACE borrower who's making $30,000 a year, 4 percent
of that's 1,200?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four percent; how much a year, sir?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 30,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And, Commissioner, without
knowing the debt to income on the other end, you don't know how
much debt this homeowner's applied --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This isn't talking about debt to
income. This is talking about annual gross income; gross. Top line.
Not the other debts associated with this. This is just a -- this is a
gauge to say these people make enough money to be able to pay their
taxes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's one test. And I'll tell you, if you
go to a lending community, they're going to ask you what other debts
June 11, 2019
Page 140
do you have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't disagree with that, but we're
not going to another lending community. We're talking about a
PACE assessment here, and this is -- somebody picked this 4 percent
as an okay number in Pasco County.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm okay with that -- the way
you've amended this and using the 4 percent until we're told
otherwise in terms of the percent, at least keeping through this part of
the process.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't know if -- you know, I
haven't done the math on the 4 percent number to be able to argue for
or against it as a valid percentage. I'm trying to -- does your
calculator have that many zeros?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is there a percentage like that in
conventional financing of any kind?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Something that we can measure it
against?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Conventional financing debt to
income.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Debt to income, and that's total
debt, so that 4 percent does equate to a $1,200 amount.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You'd have to have $25,000
in income for every thousand dollars in project costs?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sir?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think. I'm just trying to do a
little bit of math. I may have done it wrong.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Say that again.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was thinking that -- if you
had a one-thousand-dollar project, you'd have to have $25,000 in
income.
June 11, 2019
Page 141
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Plus or minus, yes, if you had a
thousand-dollar-a-month --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It would be unusable. I mean, so
for a $3,000 repair to your home, you'd need to be making $75,000.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I may not have done it right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I don't think that's right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Four percent on a --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're lawyers. We don't do math.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who does math here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's 400 per 10,000.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Crystal does math.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just use that as a decimal.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Four hundred per 10,000.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four percent. So if you want to do a
$30,000 improvement, 400 times three is 1,200. That's what your
annual payment would be. That's your limit.
MR. FRENCH: On an annual, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's on the annual payment
assessment. It's not the total of the loan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four hundred per 10,000. And then
you figure that out for your annual payment. So if you did a $40,000
improvement, it's four times $400, it's $1,600. That's the most you
would incur annually.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But what would your total
gross income have to be for a $30,000 improvement? That's what I'm
trying to figure out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: About 56,000 or so.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends. And it's referenced in
your annual payment. So it all would --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The annual does not exceed --
June 11, 2019
Page 142
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're looking at you, Nick.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Total amount of --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's put Jamie on the hot
seat here. Let's say you've got a $1,000 PACE assessment. Okay.
Using that 4 percent, what would have to be the minimum income?
MR. KLATZKOW: 25,000.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's what I said
originally.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I didn't want to --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Argue the point, yes. We're going
around. I mean, 4 percent seems like a happy number. I mean, it's
not -- I'm not saying it is or it isn't but, I mean, that doesn't seem
prohibitive with regard to the amount -- of the amount of the
expenses.
MR. FRENCH: And by clarification, in speaking with the
PACE providers, it's interesting to see Pasco either followed Broward
or Broward followed Pasco, but the language does exist in --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In both.
MR. FRENCH: -- other government communities. So that
4 percent number, we're not -- and to Commissioner Solis' point,
we're not quite certain how they got to the number, but we simply
looked at it as almost a guiding document that this is -- they're
already operating under these policies.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And so in the process there would
be some verification from the PACE provider that said -- an affidavit
signed by the borrower that says, in order for you to get this PACE
loan that has an assessment of $1,200, you have to sign an affidavit
and show that you have earned 30,000 the year before.
MR. FRENCH: It's by attestation, sir. The county staff would
not be involved in that interview.
June 11, 2019
Page 143
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand, but that's okay?
Okay. We're okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have a consensus that
we're okay with that?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the 4 percent's a happy number?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. FRENCH: So, sir, just -- if I might, just for staff
clarification, the area that I've highlighted in green on the overhead,
which is from Section D, the first portion of that where we talk about
the annual tax assessments do not exceed 5 percent of the property's
fair market value, you want that struck, correct?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. FRENCH: Okay. And then the rest of the language would
be within the ordinance.
Thank you.
So this led to a little discussion as we get down to Section E and,
really, the idea behind Section E was limiting the financing term
based off of the qualified improvement's original stated
manufacturer's warranty.
So there had been discussion in the past when it came to air
conditioners, and I think that -- I would never refer to myself as a
subject-matter expert in anything other than maybe permitting, but
A/C units typically, even though they carry somewhere between a
five to 10-year warranty, we felt like this language was important so
that a customer taking a 20-year loan on an air conditioner that may
only be warrantied for 10 --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My understanding is that
there are -- there are -- there is published useful life statistics for
June 11, 2019
Page 144
different types of equipment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so a warranty doesn't
really tell you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It doesn't coincide with the useful
life.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got an air conditioner
that I just put in with a warranty of two or three years. It's going to
last 12 years or 15 years. So there is some other guide other than a
manufacturer's warranty, and I would suggest that we use that, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do vary quite a bit, sir. But,
yes, there is a guide that talks about the useful life of a product.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know what that's
called. Maybe it's part of the tax code.
MR. FRENCH: We're happy to look further into that, sir.
Perhaps see the product approvals which are designed by the
engineers of the individual manufactured equipment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask -- there are some
folks that are kind of shaking their heads that maybe there is
something in the tax code or somewhere that we can use, we can refer
to.
MR. TAUBE: Ben Taube, Ygrene Energy Funds. Yes, we --
the other programs we operate we reference U.S. Department of
Energy EPA standards, other national third-party standards that do
define the useful life of equipment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So would that be acceptable?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is to me. Again, I don't like the
warranty aspect. I mean, you know, you buy a new car and you get a
three-year, 100,000-mile warranty, and the car lasts longer than three
years. The warranty's just over.
I know myself on an air-conditioning unit, it lasted 20 years. So
June 11, 2019
Page 145
financing it for --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Each vendor provides a different
warranty, so that's why.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. There is some
standard that you could go to. We don't know necessarily what it's
called, but...
MR. FRENCH: We're happy to look that up, sir, and bring that
back, and we could make reference to whatever the national standard
is on product.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not the warranty.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an IRS standard, Commissioner.
You're absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a what, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: The IRS does this. They have a table.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, because you depreciate
your --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Commissioner Saunders is absolutely
correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I like that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We know they can do no
wrong.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely, and everybody
knows about it. If they don't, they find out.
MR. FRENCH: Item F, sir? So the language -- because the
statute does point to Chapter 489 of the Florida Statute that says that
all qualifying improvements that require repair or a licensed
contractor must follow both Section 1 and 2 of 489. Part of 489 is
not only do you obtain a permit, but the contractor -- and it does put
this -- the statute does put this requirement on the PACE provider, by
the way. But part of that statute is that you obtain all necessary
inspections to include a certificate of occupation or a certificate of
June 11, 2019
Page 146
completion.
What happens is that in the event that the permit expires or it
voids, you no longer have a permit. So staff's interpretation in
looking at that with our building official would be that you're in
violation of Statute 489.
So because the PACE statute does point to that, what we've --
what we've said in the past is prior to that assessment actually being
closed out, that the customer not be left with a PACE assessment
from a contractor that got paid but not close out the permit. It in no
way, shape, or form does it put staff in a position where we don't
want to do our job to followup through Contractors Licensing either
through local or state agencies or perhaps a repair that was done
without a permit where now we're having a conversation with both
the contractor and the homeowner. Again, I've not mentioned
anything at all where we would have a conversation with the PACE
provider, because the contractor who is licensed takes on that
obligation and owns that permit.
But we can't get by the fact that the statute does point out that
the PACE provider shall follow the rules set forth within Chapter 489
for contractors licensing and permitting.
And what we're saying here is they not process any assessment.
And speaking with Ygrene, they may have some language changes
that they would be -- they'd be requesting, but we don't believe that
that assessment should be closed out until the certificate of
completion has been done so the property owner knows that my
project is done.
Current practice is is that the contractor and the property owner,
for lack of a better term, they look back at the project. I'm okay. I'm
okay. Here's your bill. And the county's not involved with that. So
we believe the county's got a little bit of a liability primarily because
we issued the permit.
June 11, 2019
Page 147
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the certificate of completion.
MR. FRENCH: And if they don't get the certificate of
completion, that's where we have the liability. We have to go back
and -- we have an opportunity, but we also have an obligation to
close out that permit.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, did you
have a question there?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I think Ygrene and
some of the other providers have already said that they require a
certificate of completion, so I don't think there's any problem with
that language.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it's just signed by the owner,
not from the county.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I think this is a good
consumer protection.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This provides for a certificate of
completion from the county which --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I see. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: From the county.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any contractor you hire, you need
to have that. Now, I don't know what type of implications it has on
the lender per se, and it really shouldn't, because the contractor has to
complete the work in order to be paid, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's an obligation of the contractor's
licensing, so...
And as I found out -- and I'll say this to your credit and your
department's credit, so many times, at least, I get calls about, you
know, we can't get our final inspection, we can't get our final
June 11, 2019
Page 148
inspection. Well, lo and behold, it's because there's something going
on and the contractor hasn't called for the final inspection although
the owner's being told by the contractor, no, no, we keep calling, and
the county doesn't come out and do it. So I think that's a
reasonable --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And in a conventional scenario, the
retainage isn't paid until there's a CO and all that anyway, so...
MR. FRENCH: You're correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think it's okay.
MR. FRENCH: Then the last one, this came out from both
discussion with the community as well as some of the community
members that have spoke with you in the past where they really felt
like that the use of financing for residential solar panels was not
something that was measurable that consumers should be using a
PACE loan to finance.
Again, there's an argument that this does not qualify for PACE
although what staff has found is that it does fall in line with many of
the energy plans that the State of Florida has pushed forward,
especially through the Florida Building Code.
So, again, I would -- I might ask that might consider some public
input on this, but this was put in there based off of the request of the
public.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should permit -- if
we're going to permit the PACE program, we should permit the
financing of residential solar.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, who's about
to hit her button. Commissioner Taylor didn't hit her button.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think we're going to hear
some testimony from some folks about there's a standard by which
June 11, 2019
Page 149
solar makes sense for a home. And the question is, given the record,
only the first-year record we have of the PACE program being
operated in Collier County, we have learned that the houses are
smaller houses and probably didn't need solar panels because they
don't have pools. Their electric bill may not be over $250 a month,
which seems to be a standard. But I think the public can speak to
that.
And it's nothing more than the technology and where it is right
now with solar panels. It will get better. It's gotten better over all
these years, but right now there seems to be a sweet spot that says, if
you're not spending any more than $250 a month on electricity, you
don't need a solar panel; it's going to be more cost to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you light up again?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Anyway -- but we'll hear from
the public on that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I would concur with
Commissioner Saunders that we should -- we've got stipulations that
allow for limitations of total amount of borrowing, total amount of
income requisites to be able to do it. I think we should be able to do
solar panels. It's part of the energy program. I mean, there are
thresholds where it does make sense and it doesn't, and that's
something that can ultimately be determined hopefully by the
consumer. So but I think we should. I would like to see that be
allowed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's within the statute, right? I
mean, it's within energy --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- efficiency and all of that, so I
think the statute contemplates it.
Now, if we remove that, though, going back to whatever that
disclosure is that we want them to sign, there should be something in
June 11, 2019
Page 150
there that says there's no guarantee as to the savings on a solar panel
or something to that effect, I mean, because -- and that's already in
some of the disclosures that the providers have. So I think we need
to make sure that we have some language in there that puts them on
notice that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There are thresholds that need to be
met in order for the savings to accommodate the expense.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's a -- that can be in that --
is it time for a break for her?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think before you go to public
comment, maybe it might be a good time for a break for Terri.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. What else we have to do
before we go to public comment, Jamie?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We still have more of the
ordinance to go.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, we have more of the
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So we're in agreement that we
should eliminate G?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And that would allow for the
financing on solar panels with the disclosure that there is a threshold
that meets economic wherewithal.
MR. FRENCH: And just to make comment on Commissioner
Solis' comment, there is language in there that talks about energy
improvements and energy audits and who that responsibility falls on.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just didn't know if that
wasn't in there, if that was in the notice.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. It's in your disclosure agreement.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's already in there, okay.
June 11, 2019
Page 151
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For the disclosure agreement.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am. And I think that's what the
commissioner had asked.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: Okay. So the reporting of documents -- and I
had a number of good conversations yesterday all the way into the
evening with some of the PACE providers. But really what we're
looking at here is not necessarily telling them what they have to keep
in records, but we're asking that any records that they do keep, based
on the event that we would -- that you as a board or that we were
ordered to actually do an audit or a customer service finding on a
particular PACE loan or maybe we look at all of them, we're asking
them that they fall underneath the Chapter 119. And so what that
means is that any records that they would have that they would
supply to us would be public record.
Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that -- if there was social
security numbers or if there was driver's license information or
personal information that is exempt from that code, that would have
to be redacted. So I know that was of concern with some of the
PACE providers, but we would follow that Chapter 119, just as much
as we're asking them to do the same as they submit those records to
us. So that means, just whatever you give me, we're going to redact
what we have to, but it becomes public record. And that says that
within 10 days upon request that they would provide that to the
county at no charge.
And then the last portion --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have no issue.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll hear in a minute.
I have a question. And just -- it just seems -- is this a typical
practice of Collier County during an audit process on a construction
project where information becomes a matter -- per Florida 119, per
June 11, 2019
Page 152
Florida Statute 119 where -- I mean, because I'm reading canceled
checks, bank account numbers. There's just a whole lot of
information --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we wouldn't ask this for a typical loan
or anything. This is unusual, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I have an issue with this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think Mr. French just
indicated that the records that would be requested would only be
records that providers would be maintaining, and the providers aren't
going to be maintaining a lot of these records that would be between
the contractor and the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and let me ask you this.
Why would we want this? Why would we want this opportunity?
MR. FRENCH: So where this comes into play is that if you've
got subcontractors or supply -- supply houses that jump onto a notice
of commencement that may have not gotten pai d where you've had a
customer, in good earnest, go into business with a contractor and take
a PACE provide -- or take a PACE loan -- and I'll just use Home
Depot, Naples Lumber. They found mechanics liens because they
jump on that notice of commencement.
So that would be really the only time that we would go back in
the event that we were doing a Contractor Licensing investigation or
you, as a board, or we were asked to go back through and audit that
process to determine whether or not we've got a good cl aim against a
complainant that took a PACE loan.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I see that being problematic.
Clerk Kinzel has a comment.
CLERK KINZEL: Just, Commissioner, actually, you do include
a 119 provision in all of your construction contracts.
And I think, Jeff, that's by statute.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but that's between us and our
June 11, 2019
Page 153
contractor.
CLERK KINZEL: Correct. But it's supposed to be included in
any contract you do have an agreement these, as providers. Now, a
member agreement versus a contract, but it isn't an uncommon
provision to include in your construction contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's required by statute, but these are
not our contracts.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. That's where I'm
wondering where --
CLERK KINZEL: This is your contract with them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- we end up in a position of
authority or requisite for information --
MR. KLATZKOW: What this will do is it will actually give
Crystal the ability to order (sic) a PACE provider that we're getting a
lot of complaints from. That's what this will do at the end of the day.
So if we're getting complaints, for example, from Ygrene, no
offense, that there's, you know, bad things happening, Crystal would
have the ability to take a look at their records and see whether or not
that's true.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then ask for any and all
documentation that doesn't disclose personal information.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Who will do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your auditor, Crystal.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the primary benefit of this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that a bad thing?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not good. It's not bad. It's just a tool
that we have.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Checks and balances; part of
government.
June 11, 2019
Page 154
MR. FRENCH: And, Commissioners, if I might, this currently
does not exist within your standard membership agreement. So we're
very limited on any ability to audit based off the agreements that
were signed previously.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The concern that I was trying
to address is that there's a list of documentation here that the PACE
provider most likely will not be collecting, and we don't want to
create a situation where they have to collect canceled checks and
things like that that are made between the property owner and the
contractor.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Back-charged documentation,
proposal documentation. Those are things that are -- those are things
that are done by contractors.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So just change the wording that
says --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about just eliminate 4?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You can't eliminate it; no. I
wouldn't agree to that. That's our checks and balances.
So why not just change it so that any records collected by the
PACE provider, without specifying what they are, that they can be
requested, and that all personal information will be redacted?
Because I think in my conversations this week was that federal
law prohibits certain information from going into the public realm,
and we would follow federal law on this. So use the federal law as
the -- as the deciding of what can come to us and be public and what
cannot be.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Chapter 119 does that as
well; Florida law does that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Does it? The PACE providers
mentioned federal law.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just eliminate all that superfluous
June 11, 2019
Page 155
document -- listing of information and everything in the middle and
just follow whatever 119 stipulates?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we're talking about the
documents that the PACE provider would be collecting on a
particular client --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- routinely. So that's what
we would be able to ask for.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All requested records maintained by
PACE, by the PACE district, its employees, contractors, shall be
deemed public records.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we are.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Take out the -- I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I'm okay with it.
MR. FRENCH: We can clean that up, sir.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it that hard?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, it's hard.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Again, to me, it's just problematic.
I mean, I've watched our County Attorney flinching over this entire
process, and I think it's problematic so -- but, you know, if there's -- if
you're okay with it, I just -- I don't -- I don't -- I see it becoming
problematic for someone who chooses to hunt.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I don't disagree with
that. I mean, I -- and, of course, Clerk Kinzel’s a constitutional law
officer and can audit whatever Clerk Kinzel wants to audit, I guess,
but I'm not sure why you'd want to audit any of this stuff, but if it's
not public money --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's why I'm --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, that's a good point.
It's a point well made.
June 11, 2019
Page 156
I guess the only -- the only thought is that if there are
problematic PACE -- not providers, but contractors within the
county, then how do we -- how would we ensure that they're removed
from the program or not certified anymore, or whatever the term is by
the providers PACE? What's the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do this. Let's all contemplate
this for 10 minutes and come back at 2:55. How about that?
Say "thank you," Terri.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you've got a live mic.
You're back.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Where did we end up on the
one before? You went to the next page. I was on Page 3 of 4 on the
ordinance, Jamie.
MR. FRENCH: So what we were talking about was the -- on
the records provision identified the documents. And so just having
some sidebar with Ygrene and PACE provider and Commissioner
Solis, perhaps you amend that reference to just reference any and all
documentation that's statutorily required.
So that way in the event that we have a complaint that either
gets to staff or gets to the Board, when we look at any type of
violation of this ordinance, we would at least be able to go back and
look at that statutorily required documentation versus calling them
out line by line by line, because the State's pretty clear on what they
have to do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So the State has specificity with the
required documents that the PACE provider is supposed to keep, and
that's what you will request -- or will be requested in the event of an
audit, not all this?
MR. FRENCH: That's correct.
June 11, 2019
Page 157
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Exactly. Yes. Okay.
Let's wait till the ladies get back before we move on.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the ladies at least. We
started without you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sorry. But you are a minute late.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. A minute late.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And there was a penalty. We
turned off your heater.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, you did. Oh, my
goodness.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: He did it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You might have to turn it back on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It gets too cold here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll give you my jacket.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Now, we have decided --
well, we haven't decided anything. We have suggested that the
documents portion, Page No. 4 here, be relegated to the statutorily
required documents that PACE providers have to keep, not the
language as is in here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I didn't know if you heard
what we were talking about or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what does that really mean?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The statute requires -- so we're told
the statute is pretty specific on the required documentation that PACE
providers are supposed to keep, and those are what then the county
can ask for in the event of an audit or the process per this No. 4.
June 11, 2019
Page 158
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that can't be altered or
anything, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, not legally.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that works for you,
Crystal?
CLERK KINZEL: This was not my add -- audit portion. I'm
just -- most contracts have 119, but we would audit based on the
indications of whatever problem we were asked to look at, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And --
CLERK KINZEL: They can only provide what they have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And are you lit up from before, or
is that on this?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's from before.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right, Jamie. Next?
MR. FRENCH: Now, this has been discussed in all versions
that have been brought forward to the Board in the past.
Currently, the way the local membership agreement is -- or the
standard membership agreement is written is that there is no violation
outside of just canceling the agreement, kicking it out of the program.
So what we're suggesting is that because this is an ordinance,
and the reason why we bring it forward as an ordinance is it is
executable as far as the penalty or punishment phase of this so that it
may not necessarily be just a cancellation of the membership
agreement or revocation. What this may do is that this would go
through the consolidated code enforcement ordinance and either
through the Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate. And I
know that in speaking with the Ygrene staff last evening, they had
concern with going to Code Enforcement versus Special Magistrate
because it's -- we talked about Special Magistrate process where it's
a -- we contract -- the Board contracts with a retired -- or a former
judge or attorney that serves on that on the dais making that decision
June 11, 2019
Page 159
much like they would in a court of law.
But with that said, this -- this would have a punishable fine not
to exceed $500, would be decided by the Magistrate, and the Board,
as a result of a finding by the Special Magistrate, could revoke the
membership agreement or, in this particular case, they could identify
the property that was the found to be in violation.
And in speaking with the Tax Collector, they prefer the word
"the Board may direct," "the Board may request" that the Tax
Collector remove that assessment from that property that was found
to be in violation so that way it's no longer the responsibility of the
county to collect on the PACE provider's behalf for a violation that
they would have been found in violation of.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I know that there's going to be
some question from the PACE provider or some statements.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think from our Tax Collector.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the Tax Collector.
MR. RAY: Just to be clear, as I said before, you could request
or we could talk and you'd say don't accept any more assessments on
any future tax rolls from a parcel or a provider, but do not tell me to
take an assessment off of a roll that has been certified to me and is
out in the public domain as a tax notice.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That won't work.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can't do it.
MR. RAY: That's not going to happen.
So if it's there, it's there. If we don't want it to ever be there
again, we can work out some language for that based on y'all's
oversight, or whatever the right word is. But if I've got it cert ified --
and, I mean, that could be a day. If I got it yesterday and it was
certified to me and you came to me today and said take it off --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Too bad.
MR. RAY: -- that's not going to happen.
June 11, 2019
Page 160
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then what you're saying is then on
the next year --
MR. RAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- we could take it off?
MR. RAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not include it.
MR. RAY: Not include it. The loan doesn't go -- you know, it
just gets out of my bailiwick. You all know a ll that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. RAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the question I was
going to ask. If you had a 10-year assessment and there was some
violation or, you know, it was a 10-year financing and there was a
violation, we could go to you and say we would request that -- it's on
the tax roll now, but take that particular one off; it won't be on the
next one.
MR. RAY: On the future, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to make sure I
understood that.
MR. RAY: That is correct. Now, if there was two certificates
outstanding with that on there, it still could end up being a tax deed
sale event --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sure.
MR. RAY: -- because there might be some already there. But if
they live two more years, maybe it wouldn't be, because we wouldn't
be putting any more on there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For that particular piece of property
and/or that --
MR. RAY: Or for that particular provider if you said they're all
out.
June 11, 2019
Page 161
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That particular provider, because
these are violations -- excuse me, Commissioner Fiala. You're up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if, then, you did sell a tax deed
after the two years, who does the money go to? Being that it's the
county that's collecting it, who does the money go to?
MR. RAY: Okay. I don't do any tax deeds. Crystal does tax
deeds. But that's okay; I can answer the question.
When it goes to Crystal for a tax deed auction, they auction the
property off. The top -- first bit of money goes to the certificate
holder, the guy that paid the taxes and his interest. So he's the guy
that caused it. Then there's money left over.
It gets a little confusing, because if there's a bank involved, it's
probably not going to ever go to the tax deed sale because the bank's
not going to let it go to a tax deed sale. They're going to come in and
pay the taxes, and they're going to escrow it, or it will get -- I mean, it
gets sideways, it will end up in a foreclosure probably, but it will not
be a tax deed process.
But let's say the guy did not have a mortgage; he or she did not
have a mortgage and it went to tax deed. So now the top part of the
money goes off and goes to the certificate holder that bought the
certificate and paid those taxes that you guys use to run your
government.
The next bit of money would go to the number -one lienholder,
would which be Ygrene, okay, for the balance of that debt they had.
And then whatever's left over would go to the property owner, or
there might be other claimants, subordinate liens.
And all in all, until -- some might go to the property owner. So
he doesn't have his house, my certificate holders get their money, the
PACE provider gets their money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the Ygrene people could
actually just come in, then, and buy it, right, themselves?
June 11, 2019
Page 162
MR. RAY: I don't know that -- well, of course, they could if
they bid, yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In pretense, yes.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this is --
MR. RAY: Was I wrong?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no -- Tax Collector curveball
here.
What if there's a tax -- one tax certificate sold, and then we
remove it from the tax bill for the next year and, moving forward,
what happens to that tax certificate holder? Is he just -- he or she just
in limbo with holding a tax certificate that's drawing interest that will
never get paid?
MR. RAY: Oh, they'll get paid. They still can cause it to go to
sale.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The first certificate holder.
MR. RAY: If you've got a certificate, you've paid somebody's
taxes. Two years after that date, if you don't get your money, you can
cause that property to be auctioned off for the taxes due if it's a
non-homesteaded property, or for one-half the just value plus the
taxes due if it is a homesteaded property.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If it's not on the --
MR. RAY: Opening bid. It usually goes for the market value.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But if it's not on the --
MR. RAY: No, no. I didn't take the property off the tax roll . I
didn't put -- I did not put another PACE assessment on that property.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If there's a cert -- if there's a cert
sold on the property because of tax -- because the taxes weren't paid
then -- and then we found a PACE provider to not be playing fair
and, by direction -- and I have an issue with this anyway -- this whole
June 11, 2019
Page 163
process as an additional penalty. But if this were to stay in place and,
by direction or suggestion, we ask the Tax Collector to take the
special assessment off that particular piece of property because of an
egregious act by a PACE provider, that cert holder, from the
beginning, could still cause the property to be sold and get
reimbursed for the taxes that they paid on that cert.
The outstanding balance would be an issue with the PACE
provider that actually put the lien on in the first place if it was
suggested that that be removed off.
MR. RAY: I think what would actually happen, now that I think
my way through this, if you had an issue with somebody, then you
would tell the PACE provider, do not send the Tax Collector
another -- I'm not going to be monitoring. I got 280,000 tax bills.
You tell them, don't send another assessment on that property if it's
another -- don't send any more to the Tax Collector, and I would
expect not to get it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm going to say this, since
we're on the subject matter: I would like for us to not have to -- if, in
fact, we find that a PACE provider is egregiously or regularly
violating someone's rights, I would rather discontinue their
relationship to continue to be a PACE provider and not be allowed to
go back in on individual properties to take those liens off. I'm -- that
last sentence is problematic to me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We are kind of monkeying with the
statute.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I'd like to make a
comment and ask a question, if I might.
I agree that removal of the lien is going to be problematic on
several levels, when a $500 penalty certainly is not much of a stic k.
Removal from the program certainly would be.
But this is a question for the County Attorney. If we -- are we
June 11, 2019
Page 164
limited to a $500 penalty? I know we're dealing with Code
Enforcement and there's some statutory issues there. But if -- this
really is not an issue like, you know, a violation of one of our codes,
tree trimming or grass cutting type of thing. If we had a different
penalty in there, would that be enforceable?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we could take out the $500, and then
it would be really -- let's say it goes to the Code Enforcement Board
or the Special -- they could then just impose whatever they deem
appropriate. I think the maximum is $2,000 in certain situations.
There is a maximum they can impose. But, yeah, we could take out
the $500 limitation. But you're not going to get much more than that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I agree with the
chairman that removal from the program is the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Biggest hammer.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- bigger harm.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think if we -- just looking at
this, since the effort is to go through this, eliminate the last sentence
that starts off "in addition to the imposition of a fine based upon a
finding of violation of this particular ordinance." If we eliminate that
whole -- that whole requisite and allow the fine -- you know, the fine
per the -- because, really, the violation is only for the violation of this
particular --
MR. KLATZKOW: The idea here wasn't the $500 fine. The
idea here was you guys don't want to be involved in some sort of
proceeding as to whether or not they actually violated the ordinance.
So the proceeding would go through either your Special Magistrate or
your Code Enforcement, and then staff would come back to you with
that finding.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And tell us whether or not we
remove the provider from the agreement with us?
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly.
June 11, 2019
Page 165
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. So taking out that last
sentence would get us to that without meddling with an actual lien
that's already been placed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why wouldn't you do that? If
they're in violation of the statute, they're in violation of the
taxpayer -- of our ordinance. They're in violation of the taxpayer
who hired them to complete a job. We're not talking -- the job is
we're going to finance the contractor knocking at your door to install
something. Why would you not -- why would you continue to
penalize -- well, it never is -- it isn't a question of penalizing because,
frankly, the assessment on them continues, but at least they're not in
jeopardy of losing their home, and that's -- that's the rub here. They
could lose their home.
So if they're in violation, if the PACE provider is in violation of
this ordinance, it's twofold. First of all, the property that's in
question, the assessment's taken off of it; it's given to the PACE
provider. But it's no longer on their property. And then the second --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's where we become -- and,
Commissioner, I see where you're going, but it's problematic becau se
we become the judge and jury with regard to the validity of a lien
that's been placed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we're suggesting -- we don't
get to direct anything to the Tax Collector, though I like that idea.
We can suggest that that lien be removed off of the property --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- but it just ends up being --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Request.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- problematic for us as a board.
We're moving off into places where we don't need to be. I think --
MR. RAY: If I may. Yeah, in a way they're sort of -- in this
June 11, 2019
Page 166
particular thing there's a couple of -- you know, the lien that's on the
tax bill is a one-year portion of the deal. They've got a lien filed with
Clerk Kinzel for the total thing. I said I don't get interested in that,
but that lien is there. No matter what I do to the tax roll, that lien
does not go away. They -- the minute they do that business and
record that lien, they've got a lien, and it's a superior lien.
I do the little bit every year that has a very specific procedure
that goes two years you don't pay, you go to the tax deed sale. That
lien's still there. If you-all -- if you decide not to put it on the tax roll
ever again, the poor homeowner -- not the poor homeowner. The
homeowner still has a lien for a new roof. May have had five years
paid on it, may have 15 left. That's still there. It has nothing to do
with the tax roll.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. Which is why I don't think
we need to be meddling with it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think if we send this to the
magistrate, we increase that $500 fine to whatever -- Mr. County
Attorney, we send this to the magistrate, not to the Code Enforcement
Board, we increase the fine to whatever the County Attorney tells us
we can increase it to, and we terminate them from the program, I
think that's sufficient.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If found to be in violation.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Of the ordinance. Now, the
property owner may feel that he was misled. There may be some
violation there, but it's not going to be a situation where the property
owner gets nothing. The property owner's going to still have the roof
or the air conditioner, because there's going to be a certificate of
completion that's been filed. So I don't think it's -- I don't think
anybody gets hurt that way.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are -- now, let's just play this
out. So we've determined the PACE provider is at fault, and we've
June 11, 2019
Page 167
terminated them from the program. We've fined them -- let's just say
we go to the degree. I think it's probably fine them 2,000 and then
maybe -- it's probably not going to happen consecutively, fining and
remove them from the program. It's one or the other and chances
are -- let's just say we remove them from the program. We are still,
as Collier County, securing the loan that they have -- they have
originated.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The loan's already secured.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We, as Collier County, are not
securing anything.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, we are, because we're
allowing it to remain on the tax rolls --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- which means --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The loan is already recorded against
the property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are not securing it. The lien is
secured by the property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We remove ourselves from that,
and we say we are not going to -- we are going to direct you not to
put it on the tax rolls. We're removing ourselves from that part of it.
Now, is there still a lien out there? Yes. Is it still on their
property? Yes. It could be the same as a contractor, or it could be
the same as a bank, but Collier County's not involved anymore.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a legal question --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- which I think --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not from me.
June 11, 2019
Page 168
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- may impact this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, your light
was up ahead of him. Do you want to -- okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Have you seen any other
jurisdiction where a county has taken the step and tried to remove an
assessment from the Tax Collector's tax bill?
MR. FRENCH: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And number two, there's -- I
don't have the statute in front of me, but I'm assuming the statute --
there's nothing in the statute that says we can do that. So my question
is: Are we talking about something that we don't even have the
authority to do? Because the statute sets up a process for how these
assessments are collected, and we're, essentially, going to change that
if we include this, and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we need to investigate that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is that something that we can even
do?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think you can do it. We'll take a --
we'll double-check if this is what the Board wants. I mean, if there
are three votes for this. I'm not sure there are three votes for this to
begin with.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't feel comfortable changing
what the statute requires on the fly.
MR. RAY: Well, actually, I think -- and I would have to do
some checking, but it says that they can come in and do work in the
county, and then they can sign a uniform collection agreement with
me.
Now, theoretically, we might not come to a uniform collection
agreement so, therefore, they wouldn't be using the uniform
collection method, which is what we've been talking about. It doesn't
preclude them from doing work in the county as far as I know,
June 11, 2019
Page 169
statutorily.
Collecting it themselves, as Pelican Marsh could do -- I have a
uniform collection agreement with Pelican Marsh and all these other
people that I collect for, so they could actually be their own collector.
It loses a little of its attractiveness, I would guess, if you're not on the
tax bill with me collecting the money, turning it over to you. But I
don't think there's anything statutorily that precludes that from
happening.
So to answer your question, I don't have it, but I could have
something in there that says if you violate that, I will terminate the
collection agreement. I hadn't thought that all the way through. I'm
just talking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's a potential that's
certainly going to have an impact on the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't leave yet, Larry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's not going anywhere.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's certainly going to have an
impact on the tranche sale.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So do we have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to ask Larry something, if I
can. So they were saying that they could also collect on this -- on
their loans every month rather than --
MR. RAY: I don't know that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's got nothing to do with that.
MR. RAY: I don't know that. I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because you don't do
anything monthly, do you?
MR. RAY: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I wanted to
know.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman?
June 11, 2019
Page 170
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we have at least three
commissioners that have said it goes to the Magistrate, we want to
increase the fine, and we want to eliminate that last sentence dealing
with the lien removal.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed; 1, 2, 3.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would think, though, that you
would like to know the answer whether we can do this or not, and
that might just require a little bit of time. But I would think that that
would be something that you'd be interested in finding out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sure we'll be able to find out,
but we're going to go with one of Commissioner Saunders' signed
dollars as to whether we can or can't.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I still worry about people
trying to come up with a yearly payment unless there's something in
here that's clearly spelled out as to how they can pay monthly.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's got nothing to do with what
we're talking about right now, though. You're talking about an
escrow process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I'm just saying --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I want to make sure that this --
that the ordinance states that they can pay monthly and that they
understand that they do have to come up with a yearly payment,
because I think it's going to -- it's going to put them in jeopardy of
losing their house.
If you only make 15,000 or $20,000 a year and you need to get
this loan, you're not going to be able to come up with a couple
thousand dollars each year at the end of the year. So I want it to be
June 11, 2019
Page 171
spelled out clearly.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. RAY: I'd like to say one more thing, then I'm going to let
you all have it. That last little example I gave you, it's a policy
question. So y'all decide policy. I'm not interested to not do business
with these people. I have an agreement with them. And if y'all
decide they're going to do business, I will collect the money per the
agreement. If something changes that I have to change my agreement
based on your ordinance, then we will look at doing whatever that
requires, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. Thank you.
MR. RAY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you lit up
again. Is that from before?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think we've gone
through the substantive part of the ordinance. We've made changes.
I'd like to -- I'd like to find out what the providers' view is of the
changes, and I'd also like to know what staff's view is in terms of
we've taken your work product, and we've made some changes to it.
Do you feel that we have watered this down to a point where it's
no longer effective to protect the public, or do you think that it's a
starting point, and if we have problems, we can come back later and
fix them?
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. Based off the
feedback that staff's received -- and Claudine and I have spoke, and
I've spoken with Thaddeus in the past -- we believe that some of
these -- some of these restrictions or some of these requirements
already exist. You didn't change them much.
So, no, we're better today than we would have been with a
June 11, 2019
Page 172
standard membership agreement, and there's something actionable.
And, quite honestly, if there's a violation, you're enabling us with the
ability to be able to get the records and take it through the Special
Magistrate's process, which is what we did not have before, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask
one of the Ygrene folks a question?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know who that would
be, but I'd like to get someone's opinion concerning what we've done
with this ordinance in terms of workability from your perspective.
MR. TAUBE: Yes. Thank you, Commissioners. Ben Taube
with Ygrene.
So we feel like we're very close. There's a couple of terms that
we would go through, but I don't think we're far apart at all. There
are a couple clarification --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What are those clarifications?
MR. TAUBE: Do you want me to go through a few?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want you to go through all
of them, whatever you have. This is your opportunity, as far as I'm
concerned.
MR. TAUBE: Yeah. It will not take that long. I think as it
relates to Section 2B, it's just a clarification of how to treat
confidential information as requested from us as an administrator.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, wait a second. 2B.
MR. TAUBE: 2B.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Section 2 or --
MR. TAUBE: Sorry. Section 3; Section 3.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3B.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Section 3.
MR. TAUBE: Number 2.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number 2B, transparent customer
June 11, 2019
Page 173
feedback?
MR. TAUBE: Right. It's now -- we don't have an issue with the
process. It's just a question of how we treat confidential information.
It's just very simple but just making sure that we are treating it as
confidential.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Chapter 191 is pretty
restrictive on confidential information, so you should be okay.
MR. TAUBE: Got it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Shouldn't that say require the
"property owner"? Require the property to file with Collier County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, property owner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Should that say "property owner"?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: B.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good catch. Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What line are you on?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: B, where the marker is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On B, 3B.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 3B, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Prior to entering into a PACE
financing agreement requires.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You went down to another one
here. We were still back up on 2B or not 2B.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. He made a mistake. He
misspoke.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we now?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3B, 3B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're on 3B.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all right. It just looked like
there was a word missing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There was. That was a good
June 11, 2019
Page 174
catch.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And next time, just for
staff's -- to help us, if you could have line numbers on these, it would
make it a lot easier for us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hopefully we won't have to do this
again.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is that something you can --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Entering into a PACE financing
agreement requirement. Require the property owner, it should be.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Owner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ben, are you on 3B with us, or are
you off --
MR. TAUBE: I have not gotten to 3B yet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Where are you at, Ben? Don't
follow the marker.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We were on -- I think we
were on Section 3.2B I think is where we started.
MR. TAUBE: Sorry, sorry. 2D.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 2D.
MR. TAUBE: D. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't be sorry. It's just -- it's very
confusing, and I have three different people saying three different
things, and Jamie put the marker on a fourth thing. So we'll blame
Jamie.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we resolved y our
concern there because we do have a public records law that protects
private information.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's up on 2B.
MR. TAUBE: That's fine. Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's actually 2D, I think.
June 11, 2019
Page 175
MR. TAUBE: It is 2D, sorry. I misspoke. It was 2D.
Want me to move on?
The next one is 3A. Our concern with 3A is it -- there's a
requirement for the consent for a lender to provide an increase in
escrow. And as we've said in the past, getting consent from a
lender --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's an "or" there.
MR. TAUBE: There is an "or," but just understand it's a
unattainable -- the second part of the "or" is not attainable.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is the first part?
MR. TAUBE: The first part is. We do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They do do the first part, but the
second part is not attainable.
MR. TAUBE: So we would be fine with a notice to the lender
for an escrow increase, and we can provide a template, but we're not
going to be able to provide you a consent form.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Commissioners, again, for the
record again, Jamie French.
The statute's pretty clear on this. In the event that they exceed
the 20 percent, they are required by statute to obtain consent from the
lender. They don't have a choice.
So the reason why we put the "or" in there is because it does
give them some flexibility. But under the Florida Statute, it says that
in the event that you're going to do something more than 20 percent,
one, you have to get the consent of the mortgage c ompany or the
instrument holder, or it may require an energy audit.
So the state does provide some provisions here that we found that --
again, and I had this conversation with them last night. The "or"
really kind of, in our view, really makes it de minimis, because we're
looking for -- if they're going to be under 20 or right at 20, they just
give the mortgage company a notice; hey, we're doing it.
June 11, 2019
Page 176
MR. TAUBE: So our response to that would be if we add the
qualifying statute language that says above 20 percent for that
provision, then we would be fine with that. Let's just mirror image
what the statute says.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have an issue with
that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nor do I. I just --
MR. KLATZKOW: If we're going to mirror the statute, why
bother?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, and that's -- well -- and/or --
and, again, I mean, the other side of that equation is the "or" allows
for that provision to be -- that whole sentence allows for that to be --
the only time they would be required per statute to get that consent
was if they were in excess of, and I thought the statute was --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So if the statute
requires that already, I would agree just deleting that language after
the "or" would make some sense. We're not going to get consent
ordinarily.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And they're going to have to
have consent pursuant to the statute. So, I mean, we could -- if you
wanted to, we could put a period after PACE assessment and just
state what the statute says there, or take it out. The advantage of --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure why we care that we're
notifying the mortgage holder to begin with.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're not sure what?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what the benefit is to anybody
requiring them to notify the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The benefit of having it in the
ordinance is that if they violate the ordinance, then we can fine them
and terminate them.
June 11, 2019
Page 177
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it also provides for protection.
Commissioner Fiala's brought up on a regular basis about notifying
the owner and allowing for the mortgagor to modify the mortgage to
be able to collect on a monthly basis. They have to adjust their
escrow amount in order to compensate for the increase in the
assessment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, they don't. I don't
understand what you mean by that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By having to have notice to the
finance -- the mortgagor, the assessment, that puts -- that puts the
property owner on notice that there's an assessment that's due on their
property and that the mortgagor can and will adjust their mortgage
during the modification period for the monthly collection of the
assessment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We got rid of that. Isn't that part
of D?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3D? Ensure that -- we got rid of
that. The total amount of annual taxes and assessments don't exceed
5 percent of the property's fair market value. We just got rid of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, we did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Those are two different things.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are two different things.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are they two different things?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So why wouldn't you --
why wouldn't you -- I guess I have a question of Mr. Taube. How
often -- how often do you -- we don't know what you're doing until it
appears on the tax rolls; isn't that correct? You don't send a notice to
us every time your contractor goes and seals a deal, right?
June 11, 2019
Page 178
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: With this ordinance they will.
MR. TAUBE: You get a permit application, you get the notice
of commencement, and there's a filing on record of the lien.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So that's a
notification. And with dollar amounts?
MR. TAUBE: Dollar amounts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All of that?
MR. TAUBE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And this notice to the mortgagor
allows for the property -- is an additional for the property owner to
know that there is an assessment against the property and that at
the -- because the mortgage modification period is specified in the
mortgagor's language, and that happens every year, and it puts them
on notice that during that modification period they have to adjust the
escrow amount that's withheld from the property owner in order to
make the next year's tax payment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By having -- by forcing that notice,
that is a provision that we have a checks and balance, if you will, to
ensure that they have notified the lender, and the property owner at
the same time is notified as well that that assessment's out there
against the property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But getting consent is -- is
un-accomplishable.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But you have to get consent if
the assessment's more than 20 percent.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Per statute.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. So why don't we put a
period on the second line there where it says PACE finance
June 11, 2019
Page 179
agreement and PACE assessment. Put a period there. And then
mirror the language of the statute that if it's more than 20 percent of
the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just leave it out. We don't have to
regurgitate it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, you reference the statute.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason that I'm
suggesting that we put it in there is because then it becomes a
violation of this ordinance. It's not just a violation of the statute.
And then we can take intive (sic) action based on a violation of
statute.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In the event that that consent's not
done by somebody who does a loan more than 20 percent, we have
the right to then revoke their PACE agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I see.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Any problem with
that? I mean, that's just mirroring the statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Except that in that same
sentence it's talking about annual assessment, right? But if they don't
want to use annual assessment, if they want to make it a monthly
payment --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're talking about the option
right at the time of the loan that they can opt whether they want it on
a yearly assessment or whether they want it prorated on a monthly
basis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but it didn't say that, does it?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it doesn't; ma'am, it doesn't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're not going to be able to force
them to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not force. I don't think that
June 11, 2019
Page 180
they -- I just don't know how a person who's already having financial
problems and that's why they're seeking out this program to fix
whatever they want to or -- you know, the new roof or whatever, and
they can't do it by themselves and they can't get a loan, and they don't
have a credit card, how can they come up with one payment at the
end of each year? I don't know.
MS. LAWSON: Would it be possible to clarify that point?
So the assessment is always an annual assessment under Florida law,
but the property owner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Florida law, it's always an
annual assessment?
MS. LAWSON: Correct, but under the mortgage relationship,
they can choose to escrow a monthly portion of that annual payment
and pay that on a monthly basis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much does that cost them
extra?
MS. LAWSON: Nothing. It's a choice that every property
owner has to escrow their monthly payment under their mortgage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it say that in here and is it
spelled out for the people to understand?
MS. LAWSON: Yes. As I think it was Ben or Kate earlier was
reading from our disclosures, that we make it very clear that the
property owner can notify their mortgage holder to increase the
escrow in the amount of the PACE assessment on a monthly basis.
We also provide several forms for them to do that, and we
provide letters. We send three letters a year after the assessment is
put on the tax rolls where we remind the property owner that they
should either be accumulating the amount of the monthly payment
over time or that they should notice their mortgage lender in order for
it to place it in escrow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of these people, though, are
June 11, 2019
Page 181
living from paycheck to paycheck. And I don't think that that would
work out very well. I know some people that work right here at the
county don't make very much money at all. Like our EMS people,
they make lousy money. And, you know, sometimes they can't set
aside the money. Yes, it's a wise thing to do, but if they can't, then --
MS. LAWSON: I think you would be actually happy to know
that the majority of property owners actually do add the PACE
assessment to their escrow account and pay the escrows on a monthly
basis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it's --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second.
Commissioner Saunders, and then it's Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I just felt that we were --
we had some language or at least I was suggesting some language for
Paragraph 3A that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's okay with me.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then we can move on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you okay with that,
Commissioner Solis, that language increase --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- or that language adjustment?
And, Commissioner Solis, your light was light up.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just going to say, I mean, the
assessment appears on the tax bill. Most lenders will require an
escrow of the whole tax bill.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It will be part of what's being
escrowed anyway.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it's not -- you know, and they
also escrow the insurance.
June 11, 2019
Page 182
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Accident insurance, PPI,
everything.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So most of the lenders are
going to do this anyway because they want to make sure that the
taxes are being paid. It's the whole tax bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do they find out that they
want to include this? I mean, does somebody have to report to them
and say now I bought this?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay up on the mic.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, it's a part of the tax bill.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's too late.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Number one -- well, let me finish.
Number one, it's going to be part of the tax bill that can cr eate that
kind of catch-up escrow situation, but what I think she's explaining is
that the property owner's also advised, too, if they want to do this,
notify their lender to start including it right away.
MS. LAWSON: In addition, as A states, we actually send,
ourselves, a notice to the lender to notify them that the assessment
has been placed so the lender already has been advised to increase the
escrow amounts to be commensurate with the increased tax bill.
So we notice the lender, we advise the property owner to notice
the lender and, by all accounts, most lenders do this proactively
because they want the tax monies covered.
So a vast majority of property owners that have a mortgage -- if
they don't have a mortgage then, of course, they're doing this
themselves. But vast majority of property owners who have a
mortgage pay, through the monthly escrow, the amount that would be
due to satisfy the annual obligation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make my statement, and
then you can take my name off.
I don't think government should be in this business. We are now
June 11, 2019
Page 183
getting into a business where we're supporting a for-profit business,
encouraging -- not encouraging. We're collecting their fees for them,
even though -- because it goes on their tax bill, right? And so we
collect, and then we have to send the money to you when we collect
your money, right?
MS. LAWSON: You collect the taxes, and those taxes are
remitted to an escrow agent who remits them to the bondholders. It
was stated earlier that Ygrene receives those monies but, in fact, it's
the bondholder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're actually giving you the
privilege to use government as, like, you know -- you know, the
government is backing this or supporting -- not supporting it but
backing it, and I just don't think government should be in this
business. I just -- I think it's wrong. That's just my comment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Comment's been made. And the
language in 3A is okay for three of us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's going to read, "mirror the
statute," strike all -- everything after assessment and include the
records "mirror the Florida Statute"?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. It's not going to say
"mirror the statute." It's going to have the language in there dealing
with notifying the -- it's going to have the language in there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The language.
MR. FRENCH: Just for some clarification, sir, what we might
suggest -- because the language isn't -- it's not a lift and copy. We
would simply just make reference to anything above the 20 percent
would require --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
MR. FRENCH: -- an agreement by the lender.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And didn't you already say that that
was per statute?
June 11, 2019
Page 184
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. That's identified, and I believe
Commissioner Saunders said he wanted it left in there for --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm fine with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Enforcement.
MR. FRENCH: Enforcement. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I hope you don't have a whole
lot more.
MR. TAUBE: I'll make them quick, but I do need staff for the
next one.
On 3B, Jamie, we had a discussion yesterday that -- about prior
to entering into the PACE finance agreement. That would be prior to
entering into the PACE lien for the disclosure to be submitted?
MR. FRENCH: So that's correct. They had asked that that
language -- and I'd defer to the County Attorney's Office, but the
language "PACE finance agreement" what they're -- I think what
they're focused primarily on is "the PACE lien."
So by terms of the finance agreement, they've started a
negotiation. They've agreed upon a price. They've agreed upon the
project. The lien won't be filed until the certificate of occupancy or
the certificate of completion. It still gets us there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: It's just the way it's written they said they can't
even go into an agreement or negotiation for an agreement. We're
simply -- I think from county staff's perspective, we're simply looking
at making sure that all of the requirements within th e statute were
followed so that the consumer's unprotected and has a lien against
them with an unfinished project.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The lien is the issue, not the
financing agreement.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This isn't what 3B says. This has
nothing to do with notice of commencement. This has to do with that
June 11, 2019
Page 185
other agreement we haven't even gotten to yet, and it also says at the
end of it that it's reviewed and approved by some designated county
employee. This has nothing to do with certificate of completion. I
don't mean to interrupt you, but I am.
MR. FRENCH: We're only focused on the term in 3B, "PACE
financing agreement." They'd like that changed to "PACE lien."
That's it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Why "PACE lien"? I'm not following.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: PACE lien.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: PACE lien. However, I think the
Chairman's point is well taken. I mean, this is the issue that we
discussed at the beginning. We're putting a county employee in the
position of reviewing and approving something.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: As opposed to just receipt.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've made those changes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that will be -- okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be gone. We're going to
bring this back to you, but we've made those changes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. LAWSON: The additional request that we had was that it
be prior to recording the PACE lien.
MR. KLATZKOW: So you would get it to all the agreements
with the property owner, and the lien's not recorded until the job is
finished, right?
MS. LAWSON: The lien is --
MR. KLATZKOW: You file -- you don't file the lien until the
entire job is finished, correct?
MS. LAWSON: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And so what you're saying is after
the property owner has signed all the financing agreements and after
the work has already been done, at that moment in the time, that's
June 11, 2019
Page 186
when we ask to file the disclosure statement?
MR. PEREZ: County Attorney, Rafael Perez.
The process that Jamie illustrated earlier says when contractor
goes to submit his NOC and also his building permit, he would also,
additionally, submit this documentation.
Before we could get there and get a contractor to say, okay, I'm
going to go do this process, he needs to know if he's going to -- if this
is going to qualify.
MR. KLATZKOW: If we're doing it your way, the property --
doing it your way, the property owner would have gone through the
entire process and only at the very end does he have to sign that
document that discloses the entire process.
MR. PEREZ: What we're saying, sir, is that we want the person
to get approved. They're approved. They have an approval of an
amount. Then the contractor, they have agreed. Now before you
could start a project, you've got to go do the process that Mr. French
identified. So you've got to do A --
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. Now you're at the process
where the hired work's been done, and the property owner says, wait
a second, this disclosure isn't exactly what I was told. Now what do
we do?
MR. PEREZ: So at the time, if the property owner comes and
says, you know what, I've changed my mind, cancels the application,
it's fine. It happens every day. We don't hold them --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but the property -- but the work's
been done.
MR. PEREZ: No, no, no. You've got to do -- so let me walk
this a little slower.
Property owner talks to the contractor, applies, gets approved,
okay, I want to do an improvement on my property. Okay. Let's go
ahead get the financial agreement on how much it's going to cost me;
June 11, 2019
Page 187
through Ygrene, not through the process.
He gets approved. We give him a notice to proceed. Now the
contractor needs to go to the Building Department with a building
permit with an NOC, and the form that is going to be created. The
property owner has to sign it. So they're going to read it, and those
get submitted.
If at that moment the property owner decides, you know what, I
want to walk away, call Ygrene and we cancel.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But you said to put it down at the
time of the lien.
MR. PEREZ: What we're saying is, we've got to let the first
process happen -- the way it's done here --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just asking for the word. Right now we
have a proposed financing agreement.
MR. PEREZ: What we're asking for is, you can't have -- no
contractor -- I am a general contractor. I am not going to go without
a form of financing or a form of cash to go submit a building permit.
I first have to get an approval; then I'll go do the step. It just has to
be -- that's what we're asking, that the steps be, first, allow them to
get approved; then the next step is go submit the documentation that
is required by ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: What language do you want us to put
there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Prior to the issue of the building
permit.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. I just want from them.
What language do you want us to change?
MR. PEREZ: We agree with Mr. Nick.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So let me throw a wrench
into this. With air conditioners, they're installed before you got the
permit.
June 11, 2019
Page 188
MR. PEREZ: So we did talk to Mr. French that there has to be
an emergency clause. I think there's an emergency clause in state
statute, so Mr. French could add that because, yes, if my mom, a
senior, or my baby, newborn baby, which there is, needs an A/C , I am
going to do it immediately. I'm not going to tell them, hey, wait for
the permit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What if -- what if it's a very
aggressive contractor that says, oh, I can install it today, and they say,
oh, boy, wouldn't this be great. What do we do then?
MR. PEREZ: That's a process we have to define. I was just
giving you the -- 80 percent of our projects are not A/C. So that's one
process. For an emergency clause, we can work out and discuss an
emergency process, what the process is for that. Mr. French, we're
talking about an emergency process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What if the emergency is on the
part of the contractor, which means it's on the part of the other side?
What I'm saying is, is that it -- yes, we have to figure that out, and
probably this isn't the time to do it, but that has to be figured out.
Because, again and again in this county, contractors will install air
conditioners before they pull permits.
MR. PEREZ: So the emergency clause is our finance agreement
has a lot of language that goes through detail. Our welcome call
confirmation call explains that this is not a government program,
explains that the contractors --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not talking about that.
MR. PEREZ: But I'm saying there's already a safe guard for this
one situation where there's an A/C. That is a recorded call; we have
that. We also have a finance agreement.
So we internally have that available. So I'm not sure how you
want to work this, but we're just saying that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I care about it being
June 11, 2019
Page 189
incorporated into this ordinance so that folks that want air
conditioners and contractors that are PACE contractors install it
without a permit, they don't come back to us and say, ah, yeah, but
it's not required by this ordinance. Whatever you do is fine. I want it
in here, and I think that's going to require a little bit more debate that
probably shouldn't happen at almost 4 o'clock this afternoon.
MS. LAWSON: Just also to clarify on this point. We were
trying to avoid a process -- a process -- an inadvertent process
misstep that would actually cause the program to be nonfunctional.
It's not that we're tied to the time of lien. We are trying to make that
it wasn't prior to when a contractor would actually -- that it would
actually inhibit the approval -- the application approval process.
So we would be equally happy with contemporaneously entering
into a PACE financing or contemporaneously with entering into
performing our welcome call. It can't be prior to the PACE
financing, because that would actually be a process misstep that
would cause grave harm to the program design.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a comment?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, if we do what our Assistant
County Manager is saying, that this has to be provided prior to the
issuance of the building permit, that should take care of it. I mean,
there's this issue of an emergency installation, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You still have to get a permit.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've still got to get a permit.
MS. LAWSON: That would be fine with us; yeah, that would
be fine.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What happens if the air
conditioner's in the house? It's all done?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do the work, and then they
June 11, 2019
Page 190
submit this information. The homeowner still has to validate it, and it
still has to come to staff to look at.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They don't end up with a lien. If it's
not -- if the homeowner doesn't do this after the fact even, they don't
have a lien.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's not part of the permit, it won't
be issued. Can't close it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the permit won't be issued,
then Ygrene doesn't have a lien, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So they're exposed.
MR. FRENCH: So they still could not file the lien because
they've not obtained a certificate of completion. So what the statute
says is that typically you would have a 48-hour period to obtain your
permit in the event of emergency repair. So air-conditioning, roof,
broken window, something like that, to where the home was exposed,
or it was not able to meet the current code. So they had a 48 -hour
window to get their permit.
Either way, by using issue of the permit, they still cannot file th e
lien until the certificate of completion has been acquired, and that has
to be acquired by the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what if the repair is not an
emergency but a very aggressive contractor?
MR. FRENCH: Well, then the contractors -- that's where we
would come in, ma'am, and they've got to explain themselves to our
building official and our building director as to the reason why they
did a repair without a permit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's have that incorporated
somehow in this.
MR. FRENCH: I can only --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. That's moving over into
June 11, 2019
Page 191
regulating the contractors that this ordinance is not about.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No one seems to be protecting
the property owner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We already have those protections
under our Contractor Licensing and the requisites for the conduct of
business in Collier County by a general contractor.
This ordinance has to do with the PACE financing and that
arrangement, not the general contractor. You've gone off into a
supposition of a special interest or a special circumstance with an
aggressive contractor, and by changing that language, per what I
understand, prior to entering into -- or prior to an issuance of a
building permit, the rest of that sentence flows?
MR. FRENCH: So Chapter 49 and Chapter 553 is going to
regulate that industry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. FRENCH: And 49 is mentioned within the PACE statute.
So we would aggressively go after the contractor who installed
an air conditioner, one, without a contract, maybe committed fraud,
and we would involve the state. They're not a general contractor;
they're a specialty contractor that's both issued a local license or state
license.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what about the lien?
MR. FRENCH: The lien cannot get recorded until a certificate
of completion has been issued by the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. FRENCH: And so we're not going to issue a permit no
matter who finances it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So even though the -- let's say
the air conditioner's installed, no lien can be filed because, say, it
was -- it's not -- say there's a problem and it's an aggressive
contractor and the owner doesn't really want to go forward, but the air
June 11, 2019
Page 192
conditioner's in there, and you would not issue a permit for
completion?
MR. FRENCH: No. They'd have to have -- they'd have to have
a notice of commencement, they'd have to have the building permit
application, they'd have to follow -- despite who pays for it, they still
have to follow the state law.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the rest of that language is
going to get cleaned up in there with regard to review and approval
and all that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're almost on our second page of
notes but, yes, everything you've said so far has been collected.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Ben?
MR. TAUBE: Sorry to continue to stay on 3B, but I think it's an
overarching comment about two items. One being the disclosure
that's attached to the back. Just our comment is is that we would be
more than willing to work with staff on creating the disclosure that
models after what we're doing in other counties. This one is a little
bit more lengthy and a bit misleading in the way it reads. So we'd be
happy to work on language that is -- conforms to our other programs.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We haven't got to that disclosure
yet. I assume that that's going to be part of what we talk about today.
So right now we're working specifically on the ordinance.
MR. TAUBE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There are things within -- I would
have -- happy to not have the disclosure at all, but that's -- that helps,
so...
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to ask if
there are any other issues.
MS. LAWSON: Yes, there are.
June 11, 2019
Page 193
So related to 3B, the other item that we had asked staff to
change was the reference to notary. We do electronic IDV
verification through the credit bureaus where we actually do live calls
to confirm the identity of the person signing documents.
And so rather than having a wet signature and a notary, which
causes additional process delays, we would like there to be
reference -- either have that struck or have reference to an alternate
process that accomplishes the same thing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd be okay with that. I mean, this
is the -- what century are we in now? 21st century? So there are a lot
of different ways.
Jamie?
MR. FRENCH: So they're required at time of application or
before they can receive their first inspection to have a notice of
commencement. So whether or not that notice of commencement is
done by electronic signature or done by notary stamp, that's
administered under state statute under Crystal's office.
I would tell you, sir, that 99 percent of the permits we have seen,
whether they're scanned in or whether they're supplied to us, it's not a
wet signature. The contractor's already got a notary there to sign the
notice of commencement by the property owner.
Staff would disagree. We don't believe that this is going add
any additional step other than the fact that it's going to put some
additional consumer protections in that the contractor's just got to get
a signature, and they can notarize both forms right there.
MS. LAWSON: Perhaps we could provide both options,
because it may very well be that this notice is signed not coincident
with the filing of the permit; that it actually is part of our application
process, and we deliver that to the property owners, for instance,
along with our welcome call, which will not be coincident with the
permit process.
June 11, 2019
Page 194
So if we could be allowed either option; it will be either
electronically notarized via our IDV or physically notarized. It gets
to the same end.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think the design of this is that
you do deliver it at the time. Whatever you do is not the issue. It's
what the county wants you to do.
MS. LAWSON: We would deliver it to the county at that time,
but perhaps we would have accomplished the notary procedure prior
to that delivery.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm inclined to go along with
what Mr. French has just said. He said that most of them are (sic)
wet signatures.
So I understand that that may create some difficulty, but...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're going to go along
with what Jamie had to say on that one.
MR. TAUBE: Okay. So this is the final one, on 3F.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three what?
MR. TAUBE: 3F; 3 (sic) as in Frank.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I gotcha.
MR. TAUBE: We would -- for this section all we would like is
a clarification that we would not make final payment until the
certificate of completion is complete.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say that again.
MR. TAUBE: We would like to be able to make some payment,
but we will not make the final payment to the contractor until t he
certificate of completion has been filed with the county or inspected
with the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's F?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But that has nothing to do with you.
This is a PACE assessment coming back against the property until
June 11, 2019
Page 195
the certificate of completion is done. How you treat your contractors
is your business.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I like the word "your." That's
important in this conversation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that changes the whole
scenario, because my understanding's always been that no payments
are made to the contractor until the end and until the certificate of
completion is signed by the owner, and now we're adding that no
payment will be made until the county issues a CO or a certificate of
completion.
So I'll tell you why I'm concerned: Because one of the things
that I have found is a big protection for the owners here is just that,
that there's no payment made until the end, so there's no scenario in
which the contractor can get ahead of releases and things on the
owner.
MR. PEREZ: Commissioner Solis, what we're asking for is
there's situations where -- remember the property owner still has to
sign our certificate, Ygrene's certificate of completion. If that's not
signed, we won't disburse. What you're -- what it is saying is your
certificate of completion, your final, which we're okay. What we're
saying is in some situations something happened. They need an
engineering letter. The engineer letter takes five weeks. The
material supplier wants to put a lien on the property. We want to be
able to release some form of payment if necessary to material
suppliers so it doesn't become a bigger problem. That's all we're
saying.
Final payment will be issued when -- the certificate of
completion from the county. So it gives us flexibility to -- if we have
to pay something.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can always pay something. All we're
June 11, 2019
Page 196
saying is that you're not going to slap the assessment on the property
until the job's done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This has nothing to do with you
paying your contractor.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can pay the contractor anything you
want.
MR. PEREZ: We're just making sure so we don't violate the
ordinance. We're trying to make sure we're clear.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're off in a different subject
matter per my understanding. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just --
you know, this has to do with the PACE assessment against the
property owner for the qualifying improvements. And you cannot
put the lien against the property until the certificate of completion has
been issued, period.
MR. PEREZ: We understand. We just wanted to make sure if
we did that they wouldn't cause us -- if we disburse something, you
wouldn't come and say, oh, you disbursed something to a material
supplier. You violated the rules. We just wanted a clarification.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My understanding was is that the
way this normally happens is that until you get the certificate of
completion signed by the owner that there's no disbursements made.
MR. PEREZ: Exactly. But in this situation, then the county
wants their certificate of completion, which they're calling their final
inspection, to be done.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. PEREZ: Today it doesn't work that way, because there's
scenarios. If the property owner says, yes, pay them, pay the
contractor, because they've done the work. Unfortunately, there's
some reason we can't get a final inspection. There's a lot of reasons.
It could be a project with multiple measures, right? It could hav e an
A/C, it could have this. And due to the fact that the complete
June 11, 2019
Page 197
building permit is not finaled, they're not going to give you a final for
the whole building permit if -- like, if it's a window job and you're
doing multiple measures -- until the whole job is not (sic) finished,
you don't get a building final. That's just how it works.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's got nothing to do with us.
Certificate of completion allows for you to pay the contractor or put
the lien again the property. We don't care when you pay the
contractor.
MR. PEREZ: Ygrene certificate of completion; is that what
you're saying?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, it doesn't say that. It says a
certificate of completion from Collier County.
MS. LAWSON: I think that's where we're getting confused.
Ygrene has a certificate of completion, and if the property owner
signs it, we can pay the contractor on their behalf.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you choose to.
MS. LAWSON: If we choose to.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you do do that, that's your
business. But per this ordinance, it's Collier County's certificate of
completion.
MS. LAWSON: Correct. So that's -- I think that's where we're
getting confused which is now there is an additional certificate of
completion.
What we're asking is to the degree that the property owner signs
off -- because, again, as Rafael said, there can be multiple phases of a
job, and it can be time to pay the window --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're talking two different things.
You can't -- F says you can't file an assessment until the county
Building Department says you're complete per the permit. That's
what this says. How you pay your contractor and what you do with
the homeowner, you can't assess the homeowner until the Collier
June 11, 2019
Page 198
County inspector says the job's done.
MS. LAWSON: The problem is we can't -- we can't do any of it
without an assessment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can't submit the assessment until
the job gets its final certificate of occupancy or certificate of
completion? So how would you put --
MS. LAWSON: That is what this is saying, but that is not -- so
this is a new process. And we're saying, we would like to be able, in
a long job where you've got, say, long lead time is windows, and you
had an A/C put in, and they're two different contractors, we wo uld
close out a portion of that, get a certificate of completion, and pay for
that piece, but we do that with the assessment in place.
So we're trying to reconcile this element of not being able to
place a lien at all prior to this very end stage.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you had multiple permits for
multiple jobs, when you completed a permit for, say, windows, and
let's say this assessment was for three things: Windows, A/C, and
roof --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And three contractors.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and three permits, okay, or general
permit, and they completed windows and they wanted a lien for
windows, and the county building inspector says they're done, the
windows meet inspection, then you're all set.
MS. LAWSON: Then we can place a lien for that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the windows.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For the windows.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For nothing else, but not for the
whole assessment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Once you receive a certificate of
completion from us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For the windows.
June 11, 2019
Page 199
MS. LAWSON: Okay. Then we would have to file multiple
liens on the property. That typically hasn't been our practice because
it's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But that's up to you, because what if
you never complete the roof, and --
MS. LAWSON: Then we would never --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then no assessment will be filed
because you wouldn't have a certificate of completion for the entire
job.
MS. LAWSON: In this new process. We're just trying -- so,
please forgive us for just trying to reconcile --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
MS. LAWSON: -- this new element given it has similar
language to our existing phrasing with the certificate of completion
and how that affects the actual structure of the program.
I'm not sure where to -- I mean, we had suggested -- that's why
we had suggested language that was final payment to contractors. I
understand that we, perhaps, misunderstood the relevance.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. It has nothing to do with
payment to your contractor.
MS. LAWSON: Right. This is a nontrivial (sic) impact, so I
think maybe we need to regroup on it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What does "nontrivial" means?
MS. LAWSON: It means it would have a significant
operational impact in terms of getting -- handling these situations like
a multiphase job in a way that would allow for the relevant parties to
get the payments that they're due in the appropriate times.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A quick question, then a
comment. Other than this particular provision at this point, are you
finished with your --
June 11, 2019
Page 200
MS. LAWSON: Yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Mr. Chairman,
obviously, we can't pass an ordinance tonight. I don't think anybody
really fully comprehends what we've done. Staff will have to go back
and rework everything.
This will be a very unpopular, perhaps, motion, but I'm going to
make a motion at some point -- I'll make it now; we can talk about
it -- but to continue this until our next meeting, have staff redraft all
of this that we've done, distribute it, and then at our next meeting
consider final passage.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would second that. I think
that's a very wise decision. We're wordsmithing as we sit here. I
don't think -- and we've got some concerns with at least one PACE
provider. I haven't talked to the other PACE providers nor the
districts that I spoke to. They haven't seen it. There's more than one
in this game here, so I think it would be very wise to continue this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And part of that motion
would be for staff to work with the providers in terms of the
disclosure statement. They indicated that they have some language
and things that would make it better disclosure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to let the record reflect
that I wanted to do this at the beginning of this process, just so you
know. I'm joking. I'm just messing with you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're going to get to speak.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sit down, Michael. I'll get to you.
I've already -- I know we've got Star Trek DVR'ed in the back, so
we're good.
So we're going to -- it's been moved and seconded that -- we're
going to continue it to when, Commissioner Saunders, the next
meeting?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Our two-day meeting.
June 11, 2019
Page 201
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not a two-day meeting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What'd you say?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Looking like two days, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Three-day.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Really?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's looking like two days, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All the more reason why we need to
have more meetings. We'll have that discussion when we move into
it.
Well, it's been moved and seconded for now. We're going to
move and second that we continue this item until our June 25th,
parentheses, 26th meeting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're going away? No, it's not
okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's stay on task here, please, if we
can.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just heard something germane.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know. Well, it was new news to
me that we had -- somebody's thinking about a two-day meeting on
our 25th meeting.
But it's been moved and seconded we continue this item to the
25th. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, do we want to hear from the
public comment first before we move?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's go.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 13 registered speakers.
I'll remind the speakers to use both podiums. I'll call two names.
Please queue up so you can be standing by.
June 11, 2019
Page 202
Your first speaker is Jury Paulson. He'll be followed by Devesh
Nirmul.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's no longer here. He had to
go to work.
MR. MILLER: Devesh Nirmul will be followed by John
Harney.
MR. NIRMUL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Devesh
Nirmul. I represent the Florida PACE Funding Agency. We did
have a chance to speak with Commissioner Taylor and staff and other
commissioners over the past few weeks.
I want to make it clear that -- and we spent probably 25 minutes
with you, Commissioners, explaining the districts and the importance
of that oversight in governance model, the special local government
that -- on that -- in that district you have a board made up of peers,
County Commissions and administrative staff. And they all feel that
our program is working just fine.
The few things that have come up in this ordinance are the
exception rather than the rule across the over two-thirds of the state
that we work in.
And I want to remind everybody that the staff did vet our
program in intensive detail, and we were given a clean bill of health.
We're happy with our program. We feel that in Pasco -- you should
know we just got re-entered into Pasco County, because we did
object to the disclosure, the way that it was handled through the
mechanism of the Tax Collector, and the operational burden of that
whole process.
It goes back to the delineation between being a lender and being
a contractor and also being able to provide something of value and
accessibility to the property owner.
Let's go back to the statute. It was a compelling public purpose
after we had a failed insurance market and when we have an issue
June 11, 2019
Page 203
when we're dealing with impacts of climate and trying to be more
energy efficient. That was the public side of this. The other side of
that with the state statute is instead of going down the path of ability
to pay, they did have underwriting standards that prevent particular
homeowners in situations of having previous bankruptcies or any
record of mispayment to access PACE.
Everything that we've done from permit requirements to the way
the payment works on our sign-off of a completion certificate, et
cetera, ties into this spirit of the statutory guidance. And I think a lot
of what we're seeing is working against the ability of the program to
perform successfully to make the property improvements that --
private capital, there's been basically a paucity of private capital to
these ends. And this enables that money to flow.
So, I mean, on the specific details, we still have a problem with
the notarization. Pasco County even does not require that.
And on the completion, we've had this dialogue with other
jurisdictions. The idea is that we do all we can as a lender to make
sure that final inspection is called. But whatever extenuating
circumstances are there between the process of closing that out and
the contractor, we have to still run our business.
And so I think it's important that we find that important
delineation where our role is and where it isn't. But it would be quite
a hardship to operate under the ordinance that came here today.
The edits, obviously, are very welcomed. The few remaining
things are what we're concerned about. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Harney. He'll be
followed by Michael Schumann.
MR. HARNEY: I'm John Harney. My address is 7426 Acorn
Way, Naples.
I worked with Jury Paulson and several other volunteers and
staff members to do interviews. When we were here two weeks ago
June 11, 2019
Page 204
we heard that there were 400 completed jobs; there were only three
complaints. We were suspicious of that. And we contacted our 25
homeowners who are involved in the PACE program. Nine of them
said that they had problems, and they all said the same thing.
There were four points that they brought up. All of them said
PACE was represented as a government program. They all said that
they were misled to believe that they would owe very little, if
anything, out of pocket; that this would be paid for some other way;
some mysterious way that was pitched by the contractors.
Notary publics were not present with any of them during the signing
of their extremely detailed agreements which were frequently or
nearly always done on tablets or even cell phones; so they were
almost impossible to read.
And the possibility of losing their home by not making sufficient
payments on what would become the first lien on their home was not
explained to them thoroughly, if at all.
Our problem with this program is not the ordinance. It's not the
basic construction of the program. It is how is it executed with the
public. The public has found, as they are getting into these
agreements, that it's not being represented to them properly. As a
result of that, they're entering into agreements which are onerous,
which are impossible to pay for many of them, and because of the
fact that it's being sold to them improperly at the street level, this
program cannot work.
We do not feel that the homeowners are being supported
properly by the county by the continuation of this program, that the
homeowners have been taken advantage of by the contractors, and
because of the fact that the county has been involved with this
program, in their own minds, that makes the county complicit as well.
We've had a lot of conversation today about distancing the
county from the program and finding ways to separate the county
June 11, 2019
Page 205
from the program. In the mind of the public, they're all connected.
There's no way to separate them. It's all one to the people who are
involved in these PACE loans.
Thanks for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Schumann. He'll
be followed by Karen Beatty.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Michael, sorry about yelling at you
there. I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't forgetting you.
MR. SCHUMANN: Not a problem. I appreciate it. It's been a
very long day, and I hope to get through this very quickly.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three minutes.
MR. SCHUMANN: I was assured by Mr. Saunders yesterday
that we would have sufficient time to make our point, so I appreciate
your indulgence.
I'm not going to go and talk about all the problems that we've
had with the PACE program; you've heard that in many previous
meetings. What I want to do is focus today on the issues that you
really need to address, okay.
And, basically, there's really two separate issues. There's the
first issue, which is the current status of the PACE ordinance and
whether or not you're going to terminate the residential PACE
program completely or if you're going to implement some kind of
additional consumer protections. But there is a second thing that I
think you need to take a look at that has not been discussed today at
all, and that is the current performance of the PACE providers that
you already have agreements with and whether it's appropriate to
continue doing business with some of these providers.
And I'll get into that, but let's focus first on the proposed
consumer ordinance. The first thing that I want to mention is there
was a lot of discussion about what do you do when somebody has an
emergency air-conditioning repair? Okay. And I think what is really
June 11, 2019
Page 206
a misconception is the PACE ordinance -- the PACE statute that was
passed in Florida is not a statute to basically provide financing for
repairs, whether when it's an air conditioner or whether it's hurricane
damage or whatever. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a
mechanism to do three very, very specific improvements to a
property. One is an improvement that improves energy conservation
and efficiency improvement, and I've handed out your statute;
secondly, improvements that relate to renewable energy; and, thirdly,
improvements that deal with wind resistance.
Now, if you have hurricane damage or some other damage and
as part of the repair you're meeting one of these three criteria, then
you can use this ordinance; however, if you look at Paragraph 13 of
the ordinance, the ordinance requires -- the statute, I mean. I'm sorry.
The statute requires that before you can move ahead with PACE
financing, the property owner needs to provide 30 days' notice to the
lienholders, to the mortgage lenders before they can even, you know,
sign a financing agreement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I had advised
this gentleman that I would make sure he had time to go through his
thing. I realize we have a three-minute limit. He's getting ready to
run out of time, so I wanted to -- I can ask him questions, but...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah -- no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I can ask him questions, too.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Or we could let him go for a
few minutes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I just want to be fair to everyone.
And Michael is -- you're off -- I want to be fair to everyone, but I also
want you to have an opportunity to speak, so...
MR. SCHUMANN: I appreciate it.
The bottom line is the Florida Statute, the Paragraph 13, requires
30 days prior notice before you can use PACE financing, and that
June 11, 2019
Page 207
makes it impossible to use for an emergency air-conditioning repair.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So, necessarily, then, that entire
discussion with regard to an emergency air-conditioning repair was a
waste of time.
MR. SCHUMANN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We should have heard from the
public first.
MR. SCHUMANN: Right. Moving on. The consumer
disclosure document is a step in the right direction, but the problem
is --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Turn off those buttons -- excuse
me, Michael. Shut the time off. Let him speak until Commissioner
Saunders says he's done.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHUMANN: Okay. The problem with the consumer
disclosure document, the way it's presented and the way it's included
in the proposed ordinance is it's just another piece of paper in a big
stack that people are signing on an iPad that they don't read. It's
really meaningless, okay.
If you want to basically have a document that means something,
you basically have to have people sign it in front of somebody that
doesn't have money in the pot that is a neutral party that can sit down
and determine whether or not the person understands what they're
reading, whether or not they've read it, okay, and can explain any
questions to them.
If you're not going to do that, this is a waste of time. I mean,
there's already probably an inch of paperwork that is presented to
people on an iPhone or an iPad that their eyes just glaze over. This is
just going to be another piece of paper. So don't get too hung up on
how effective that's going to be.
As far as the limits, okay, I just want to give you some business
June 11, 2019
Page 208
numbers. Your drop in the 5 percent of the property market value,
which is redundant. The next limit, the limit on the annual PACE
assessment of 4 percent of the property owner's gross limit -- gross
income. That is actually an important limit, okay. And let's take the
classic example; if you have a property owner that has a $40,000
household income, that means that their PACE assessment can't be
more than $1,600 a year.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. SCHUMANN: All right. What that translates into, if
you're talking about an 8 percent loan, that's a $16,000 limit on an
improvement. If it's a 4 percent loan, which it should be, it would be
a $22,000 improvement.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I ask you to stay to the
specifics with regard to your disagreements with the ordinance and
the adjustments we've already made?
MR. SCHUMANN: Sure. As far as the limit on the warranty
term limit on the PACE assessments, my suggestion there would be
take the common things like, you know, A/C, roof windows, and just
create a schedule, and just say, okay, for A/C we're going to have
10-year limit. You know, for a roof, 15; for windows, 20. You
know, make it simple.
The building -- the requiring the certificate of completion on the
building permit before you can issue a lien, that's imperative. So I
totally think you need to stick to your guns on that.
Finally, in terms of the penalty for violations, the discussion
about whether or not the PACE assessment can be challenged, I
understand why you wouldn't want to get in the middle of that
argument, but I think it's important that in your o rdinance you
provide a private clause of action. So if the PACE provider does not
follow the state statute or the ordinance, that either the property
owner or the mortgage lender has the opportunity to challenge the
June 11, 2019
Page 209
assessment in court.
Okay. Now I want to talk a little bit about the actual
performance of the existing PACE providers over the last two years,
all right, and in particular I'm going to focus on Ygrene. And the
only reason we're doing that is because in Collier County, probably
90 percent of your PACE projects are Ygrene related, all right.
And I think, basically, if you look at what's been going on,
Ygrene has consistently misrepresented what they do both in their
process as well as what kind of improvements are eligible for the
PACE program.
And the classic example of that, they've made a very, very big
deal in front of you and in the public about the rigorous process they
have for qualifying contractors, yet they signed up Bruno and
Summitwood Works who together probably are close to half of the
projects that have been recorded as liens in Collier County, and both
of them are, basically, no longer qualified and are under investigation
for fraudulent practices, all right.
In addition, if you go onto Ygrene's website today and you look
at what kind of projects are eligible for PACE financing in Florida,
they claim that standby generators are permitted. That's totally
untrue. You know, standby generators, if you look at the Florida
state statute, it's not an energy conservation or efficiency
improvement, it's not a renewable energy improvement, and it's
certainly not a wind-resistent improvement.
Same thing applies to electrical panel upgrades, electrical wiring
monitorization, and seawalls. I mean, seawalls have nothing to do
with what's authorized in the PACE ordinance, and they're not even
attached to buildings, which is a requirement in Subchapter 10 in the
Florida Statute.
So, again -- the other thing is timely lack of notice to lenders.
You know, as I mentioned before, Paragraph 13 of the state statute
June 11, 2019
Page 210
requires 30-days notice to the existing lenders before you can move
ahead with PACE financing. That hasn't occurred in a single case
that we've looked at a Ygrene project. Every single Ygrene project
we've looked at, Ygrene is actually the one that has notified the
lender, and generally the notification is sent out on the same day that
the property owner signs the financing agreement, which is in total
violation of the state statute.
All right. The next slide, let's talk about the relationship
between Green Corridor and Ygrene, all right. And a lot of people
don't understand this.
Green Corridor is actually considered a local government that
has been organized which is the actual entity that's providing loans
and doing the assessments to the property owners. Ygrene is
basically a for-profit company that is their administrative agent that
basically provides loan origination and servicing, customer service,
management and legal services, and raising capital for Green
Corridor.
But, basically, Ygrene is just an entity that more or less runs
Green Corridor's day-to-day operations. And as such, Ygrene has a
fiduciary responsibility to Green Corridor of, A, transparency and
also, B, procuring costs, services, and capital for Green Corridor at
competitive pricing, all right?
But what's really happening? All right. How does Green
Corridor raise capital? So Ygrene really acts as the underwriter for
Green Corridor's municipal bond issues. Now, are they selling these
bonds on a competitive basis using competitive bidding? No. Green
Corridor is selling the bonds to Ygrene as a private-placement
transaction at a typical interest rate of 7 to 8 percent, all right.
These are bonds that if they were sold on the open market would
sell for probably 3 to 4 percent. Then Ygrene is going out to Wall
Street and selling Triple A rated bonds using those green energy
June 11, 2019
Page 211
bonds as collateral, and they're getting 3-and-a-half to 4 percent is
what they're selling their bonds for and collecting 4 percent as the
interest spread as their profit.
Now, is this violating their fiduciary responsibility to Green
Corridor? All right. Is this ethical? Is this legal? Does Collier
County want to be the bill collector for this kind of enterprise?
Thank you very much. Thank for letting me spend some extra
time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Karen Beatty. I
understand she is no longer present. So Stacey Lawson. Stacey's
been ceded an additional three minutes from Kate Wesner, who is
present, and Stacey will be followed by Ben Taube.
MS. LAWSON: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, I'm
Stacey Lawson. I'm a founder of Ygrene Energy Fund, and I am --
I've been in the PACE industry from the very beginning. I was the
founding CEO of Ygrene and am the vice chairman of the board.
Thank you, Commissioners, for the lengthy discussion on
PACE. We are a willing partner to get to the ordinance that we're all
hoping will be an improvement to Collier County's PACE program.
I wanted to just take my time to respond to some of the other
public comments to make sure that you all have the appropriate
information you needed to make sure that you recognize the Ygrene
program as a sound program.
When we founded Ygrene nearly a decade ago, it was with a
mission of public service, both providing accessible and affordable
financing to the communities and the property owners that we serve
for them to protect their homes and families against severe climate
and rising energy costs.
In listening to the public testimony over the last number of
sessions -- and really the biggest challenge that we've had over the
course in the industry has been this misunderstanding between the
June 11, 2019
Page 212
role of Ygrene as an administrator and financial provider and the
contractors.
And I hope that it's clear by this point that we are not a
contractor and that contractors are not our employees, agents, or
affiliates. They are independent third parties, and unlike the state
licensing board and perhaps other government entities, we don't have
any legal jurisdiction over contractors, but we do have -- we do have
the ability to demand certain rules of engagement with them in order
to get them access to the program, and we can certainly terminate --
suspend or terminate them to the degree they don't comply with
those.
So we have a little bit of leverage, and we use that on behalf of
property owners the very best that we can. In fact, when we set out
to build the business, we recognized that no other home improvement
financiers provide any oversight over contractors. If you look at
banks, you look at unsecured lenders, you look at credit cards, none
of them are policing contractors. And we felt that we could actually
provide this extra benefit, extra protection to homeowners by
assisting with oversight monitoring and policies for contractors along
with all of the other consumer protections.
So we use this leverage on behalf of property owners and, as a
result, the complaint rates that you heard about are very consistent
across all of our programs. We see complaint rates in the 1 to
3 percent range. In fact, in Collier it's less than 1 percent while in the
general home improvement markets, complaints run in the double
digits, sometimes upwards of 20 percent.
So to put this into perspective, during the period where we
funded 400 projects in Collier County, there are over 2 -- excuse
me -- 20,000 building permits that were pulled all without any
oversight of contractors. And I would venture to guess that there
were hundreds, if not thousands, of issues. Ygrene had three
June 11, 2019
Page 213
complaints.
So I just wanted to share the thought that villainizing PACE is
sort of like having a police force that has brought down crime from
20 percent to 1 percent and then blaming the police for any remaining
crime that's left, right? We are, in fact, providing consumer
protections and oversight that does not exist with any other form of
financing, and that is the reason you're only seeing 1 percent or less
issues within Collier County.
Along these lines and at the request of the commissioners,
Commissioners Taylor and Saunders, Ygrene has actually provided
to you all a point-by -point correction to the myriad of false remarks
that have come from certain speakers in recent meetings. And I don't
want to go through those points here; rather to point that out to you.
Hopefully you have those documents. We've provided those and the
transcripts of several property owners that actually appeared here.
But because some of these pieces are relevant to the ordinance
and comments that you've heard from the public, when we get to that
I wanted to just make a few notes on that.
There were various statistics cited in various public comments
related to Ygrene's average fair market value, average assessment,
average tax increase, average loan to value, th e calculation of just
value. We found all of these comments to be incorrect, and the
accurate data has been provided to you in that report.
It was stated that notices of PACE assessments were not sent to
lenders in a timely manner. This is absolutely incorrect. We have
confirmed that all notices have been timely mailed from the inception
of the program, and that has actually been confirmed by the log of
our third-party provider who sends the mail, sends the notices. So
that is not something that we think is debatable. We have the log,
and we can provide that to the degree that you're interested.
It was stated that property owners without equity in their home
June 11, 2019
Page 214
could still borrow when they might be underwater. This is incorrect.
We require at least 10 percent equity in the property and the
combined mortgage debt plus PACE lien cannot exceed 100 percent.
It was stated that IRS, state, and other tax liens existed on PACE
improved properties. This is incorrect. All Collier files have been
reviewed, and there were no involuntary liens.
It was stated that there were issues with misrepresentation,
disclosures, terms, conditions, and I just want to remind the council
again that we have conducted recorded confirmation calls with
100 percent of Collier County PACE participants in which they walk
through each of the disclosures, the fact that it's not a government
program, and that all financing rates, terms, and fees are disclosed to
them, in which case they actually acknowledge understanding of
those and acceptance of those terms.
And we will be happy to provide to you any of those transcripts
or actually hear the recorded calls for any property owner that we
find has an issue.
Do I have the additional time of my colleague?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MS. LAWSON: I'm almost finished.
MR. TAUBE: I'll cede my time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you don't need to start the
clock. Just let her finish.
MS. LAWSON: The transcripts have been provided for the two
property owners that appeared in chambers who mentione d that they
didn't understand this was a government program or that it wasn't a
government program or they'd have to repay, and you can clearly
hear and read in those transcripts that they acknowledged that the
program was not a government program; that they would have to
repay; and that the terms and fees were clearly disclosed; and they
agreed to them.
June 11, 2019
Page 215
It was stated several times that the financing documents and
confirmation calls were not provided in the consumers preferred
language. This is incorrect. Ygrene has offered financing
documentation and confirmation calls in English, Spanish,
Haitian-Creole, and even Portuguese in Collier County, and we
provided a summary table that shows the various types of calls and
documents that were sent out and how many in which language.
It was stated that Ygrene was subject to a federal class-action
lawsuit, and Ms. Mola, who had mentioned that, conveniently
avoided mentioning the fact that the bulk of those claims have been
dismissed by the courts with prejudice. Interesting information to
have.
And most recently it was suggested that some projects may have
exceeded 20 percent of just value, and we believe strongly this is
incorrect. In fact, we've had multiple conversations with our
attorneys and bond counsel and, again, as I mentioned earlier, believe
that the financed amount, the principal value is the component used
when calculating loan to value, widely accepted across the financial
industry, and that, in fact, the actual elements of the statute clarify
that, and there are elements beyond those that were referenced in the
brief conversation of this that make it quite clear and that our bond
counsel would be thrilled to talk with you about it.
So I guess in summary, I will just say that, you know, as a
founder of Ygrene, as someone who has worked with a team from the
very early days, we are absolutely committed to running an
exemplary program. If we have made any missteps or mistakes along
the way, we apologize. Let me be the first to take accountability and
tell you we will work with you to make sure that this program is
absolutely top-notch. And our stats really do tell the story.
In Ygrene's 10-year history, there has not been a single
foreclosure related to a PACE lien. In a decade in operation, not one .
June 11, 2019
Page 216
See if you can find a mortgage lender or any other financial provider
who can say the same.
Our complaint rates, as I mentioned, are an industry low 1 to
3 percent. We take that 1 percent very seriously. So we have a
whole operation in place to help deal with contractor complaints,
workmanship, or other issues that do arise in the process because, no
doubt, there will always be a bad apple, and we try to make sure that
our processes catch that, and that we eliminate contractors from the
program who are not operating as we would like them to be.
And, then, Ygrene has a 97 percent satisfaction rating among
our customers. Really one of the highest scores that I've seen in
many financial companies.
And then, of course, most importantly, Collier County
homeowners have benefited from this both in terms of energy
savings, insurance premium reductions, all of the things we've talked
about in the past.
So, in summary, we believe that the program is working, and we
are dedicated to ensuring a safe and well -functioning PACE program
for Collier County, protecting our customers, ensuring positive
outcomes, and really a seamless experience from end to end, making
sure the operations work for people has always been and will remain
our very, very top priority.
As it relates to the ordinance, we don't have one issue that was --
we noted at the very end there that is a -- still a substantially large
issue. So I just want to -- hope that we will have the opportunity to
work with staff.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So noted. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: All right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taube, did you
still need to speak?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, he waived his time.
MR. MILLER: Then your next speaker is Bill Shade, and he'll
June 11, 2019
Page 217
be followed by Marceau Berteau.
MS. LEFKOW: Bill had to go back to work.
MR. MILLER: Marceau Berteau will be followed by Lisa
Lefkow.
MR. BERTEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you so
much for your hard working. You work very hard.
But you know one thing I want to tell you today, please, you
have to talk to Ygrene today. Let them know, don't use the
government name to do the kooky thing. Whatever they're doing,
they're doing something wrong. They make the government look
ugly.
When they come to you, they say that that's a government
program. You don't have to pay nothing out of your pocket. And it's
just like a doctor, when the doctor give you a shot, he rub your skin
with alcohol so you don't feel it. That's what they're doing.
Now, my situation right now, I'm in big trouble because when
they talking to me, they tell me that that's a program from the
government. I'm not going to pay nothing out of my pocket, but now
if I -- if you were -- I can just pass you those bills and you can see.
And they charge, like, 7 -- I don't know, 7.4 percent. If I can pass it
to -- I don't know.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, if somebody could take
that.
MR. BERTEAU: And now I think I'm in trouble. I might lose
my house, you know, because I'm not working. I've been involved in
a big accident. I tell you that before when I came here last time. And
I've been diagnosed with glaucoma, and I have a bladder problem.
My wife, she's the only one who's working in the house. And
because of PACE program, I cannot even put gas in my car. I cannot
even put food on my table for my kids. I have three kids in my
house.
June 11, 2019
Page 218
So I hope those people will change this program, because this
program is not right for the -- especially for low-income person like
me.
So let's put my both feet on one shoes. I don't know what to do .
And I'm glad that that was Habitat who was my mortgage company.
If that was a different company, maybe I already lose my house,
because I been -- I used to pay on time, but since after Ygrene put
this bill on top of my mortgage, I cannot even pay on ti me anymore.
So I don't know what I can do, and I hope this program is --
disappear from Collier County because it's a lot of poor people in
Collier County. Even though it's a lot of rich people, but there's poor
people, too. And I'm qualified from this house because of Habitat. If
it was another company, I would never be qualified. Because when
they tell me I'm going to be qualified -- I was not even -- I'm sorry.
I'm just going to have to put one more words.
I was not even qualified for 18 panels they put on my roof, 18
panels, and you're going to see how much money they charged me.
Like almost like $46,000; 18 solar panel on my roof.
I think that's not right. Somebody need to change this problem
in Collier County, please, because I don't want nobody else get hurt,
and that's exactly the reason I'm here even though I've been here
since 1 o'clock until now. It's almost 5 o'clock, and I have my three
other little kids in the house to take care, and I cannot even take care
of them. That's very sad. I don't want nobody else get hurt, and that's
why I'm here. Thank you so very much to have me here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lisa Lefkow. She'll be
followed by Dan Lopez.
MS. LEFKOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Lisa Lefkow, CEO, Habitat for Humanity.
We've spend an incredible amount of time on this topic. We've
June 11, 2019
Page 219
spent four meetings discussing this. We've spent hour upon hour
upon hour discussing it. At the beginning of this meeting we spent an
inordinate amount of time with you discussing why this was not your
program. This is your program. It is your decision to continue the
program or to cease the program. It is your program. You authorized
the program. You enter into agreement with the program. This is
your program.
As we are looking at the ordinance that has been proposed to
you, I would remind you that we've spent a great deal of time
listening to the lender, the financer, and not paying attention to the
consumer. We have cowed and bowed to the lender, and offered
them every opportunity to talk about what makes the program work
for them without hearing from the public.
You have heard from the public. You've heard from the public
in a number of times and places. We have, as you heard Mr. Harney
reference, spoken to nine Habitat for Humanity homeowners who
entered into PACE agreements. Nine out of nine wished to enter a
complaint when that was offered to them.
When we asked why they had not previously done that, they said
they had absolutely no idea that that was possible, nor would they
have the vaguest idea how to go about doing that.
As we look at the ordinance that you have before you today,
there are a number of things that you have stricken from the
ordinance based on what Ygrene has proposed to you that were put in
simply to protect the public, to protect Collier County homeowners.
As you are aware, in some of the work that has been done to
evaluate the program, the majority of those that have entered into
PACE liens live in low-income neighborhoods and are clearly
low-income or fixed-income folks. The basic advertisement seems to
target this sort of client base.
As we look at the program, you know, the things beginning with
June 11, 2019
Page 220
the disclosure form, all of these things -- and, certainly, as you have
heard from the lender, all of these things are done. Yes, they are,
certainly, but they are also coached along the way.
So as the lender makes the welcome call to evaluate whether the
client understands that this is not a government program, that it will
be collected on their tax bill, that they understand the financing
mechanism, as we've talked to, again, Habitat for Humanity
homeowners, so I can tell you about 25 of them, they attest to being
coached and being told this is -- when you get this call, just answer
yes to every question.
There are enumerable instances where we can talk about
contractor violations and contractor misinterpretations,
mis-presentation.
There are three levels here. So Ygrene's responsibility is to train
the contractors and to have contractor oversight. You've just heard
some testimony to how they are doing that and the pride that they
take in that, but we've seen egregious violations of contractor
practice. You've heard over and over again about statutory
violations.
There are a number of issues with the financing mechanism and
model, things that put the county in its own seemingly double bind.
Like the fact that your SHIP down payment assistance lien, which
must stay in second position, is now relegated by the PACE loan
which, by the way, is not a loan, but a lien.
So there are a number of levels here, and ultimately it comes to
you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you almost done?
MS. LEFKOW: Last thing let me say, that we have taken away
from the public in their contract with the PACE providers their
opportunity for that checks and balances of the free market, which is
the opportunity to sue. There cannot be a lawsuit by a PACE client
June 11, 2019
Page 221
because they waived that opportunity in their contract with Ygrene.
So they can't even defend themself.
Marceau cannot issue a suit based on his -- the mis-presentation,
although it may be completely fraudulent, because he has already
waived that right. So, ultimately, that comes back to you.
And so I would plead with you. We have now spent an
extraordinary amount of time. I can't imagine that you do this on a
regular basis. This, obviously, is fraught with issue, with question,
with concern.
Yesterday, in meeting with Commissioner Saunders, I shared
that under my vows of ordination I vow to live a life and really, on a
daily basis, that plays out in three things: To do good, to do no harm,
and to stay in love with God.
I'll allow you the third. Do good and do no harm.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker is
Dan Lopez, and I'm assuming Mr. Lopez is no longer with us at this
meeting. So that would be it, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So now we've heard from the public
speakers. There's been a motion and a second to continue this item
until our June 25th meeting. Is there any other discussion by my
colleagues?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Real quick one. What's the
difference between a loan and a lien? You made a point of
mentioning it's not a loan; it's a lien.
MR. KLATZKOW: You secure a loan with a lien.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You secure a loan with a lien. They're two
separate things.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Lien secures the payment of the
loan.
June 11, 2019
Page 222
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a security instrument.
It's been moved and seconded that we -- are you okay with that
answer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll ask further later on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're going to -- it's been
moved and seconded we continue this item till the June 25th meeting.
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.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, do you want to check
with Terri to see if she's okay --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How you doing, Terri?
THE COURT REPORTER: A break would be good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry?
THE COURT REPORTER: A break would be good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll be back at 5.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
We have a few items left.
Item #11C
EVALUATING THE OPTIONS FOR THE REZONING OF LOT
#11 FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY SIX (RMF-6) TO
HEAVY COMMERCIAL/GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE
June 11, 2019
Page 223
DISTRICT (C-5/GTMUD) AS REQUESTED AT THE APRIL 23,
2019, PUBLIC HEARING UNDER AGENDA ITEM #6, PUBLIC
PETITION REQUEST FROM MICHAEL TIRPAK AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION ON THE OPTIONS PROVIDED – MOTION TO
FOLLOW STAFF’S OPTION #5 – APPROVED
Commissioner, we're at Item 11C. It's a recommendation to
evaluate the options for the rezoning of Lot 11 from residential
multifamily to heavy commercial.
This item was presented April 23rd as a public petition. Michael
Bosi will present the item. He's presented several options, and he has
a staff recommendation.
Mike?
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Nick.
Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
At the April 23rd Board of County Commissioners meeting
under public petition, Mr. Tirpak asked the Board to assist with an
issue related to a code enforcement case. The Board directed staff to
work with Mr. Tirpak.
Before we could move forward on addressing the issue, we
wanted to frame the issue and give the Board options in terms of how
to evaluate the -- how to evaluate the road forward.
What you see on the screen on the visualizer are four lots that
are owned by Mr. Tirpak. The two lots that are not in yellow, 13 and
14, were purchased by Mr. Tirpak in 2000. The two lots that are in
yellow, 11 and 12, were purchased by Mr. Tirpak in 2006.
And as you can see, Lot 11, which is the westernmost on the
screen, is zoned RFM6; the Lot 12 is be zoned C5, Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use District.
Within the aerials, you can see in January of 1995 the two lots
were vegetated, and in '99 they were very vegetated. In 2004, they
June 11, 2019
Page 224
were cleared. We believe they were cleared by a Michael Valentine,
who was the owner at the time. As indicated, Mr. Tirpak purchased
the property in 2006. And in 2006/2007, you can start to see that
usage of that property started to be used for storage.
As you can see, 2010, 2012, it starts a little bit more intensity.
In this past -- or this past year, a notice of violation was issued. It
was indicated that the utilization of these lots were never done by
proper permitting, never sought to expand the commercial operations
onto the two lots. It was just encroached upon with the storage of
vehicles.
From looking at the specifics, it turns out that to find a remedy
for the issue, there's three things that need to be done. There needs to
be a small-scale amendment to change the future land-use
designation to allow for that Lot 11 to be rezoned from residential to
commercial, there needs to be a rezoning process that has to happen
as part -- as a companion item to that small-scale amendment, and as
well as a Site Improvement Plan. Any commercial business when
you encroach upon another property or incorporate that property into
your business, it has to go through the Site Development Plan to help
ensure compatibility and all the code requirements are met.
Staff had put just a real brief estimation as to what -- the cost
associated with all of these activities. It's right around $45,775, about
$46,000 in whole for all of the different activities.
We put together five different options that the Board could
consider moving forward with. The first one is for Mr. Tirpak to file
the petition to amend the Growth Management Plan to provide for the
rezone, and then after rezoning in Growth Management Plan would
similarly go through, then he would submit the SIP. That's the
traditional route where the property owner is paying for the activity
that's going on. And, like I said, that total cost is right around
$46,000.
June 11, 2019
Page 225
Option 2 would be for the Board to direct staff to have the
General Fund pay for the application fee for the GMP amendment
and the rezoning but have Mr. Tirpak satisfy the costs for advertising
associated with the petitions, the consultant fees, as well as the SIP,
and then that split about $28,275 for Mr. Tirpak; about 18,000 for the
county.
Option 3 would be for the Board to direct staff to have the
General Fund pay for the application fee for the GMP amendment,
rezoning, as well as the cost of advertising with the associated
petitions, and the rest would be associated with Mr. Tirpak. And that
would be a $25,775 split for Mr. Tirpak, and then a $20,000 cost for
the county.
And 4 would be for the Board of County Commissioners to
direct staff to initiate the GMP amendment process, rezoning as
county funded initiated companion petitions, and develop
requirement materials to satisfy the neighborhood information
meeting and all of the rezoning requests and data and analysis. In
that scenario the county would pick up a tab of about just under
$39,000, and Mr. Tirpak would be left with the SIP at the end of that
process.
And then the fifth option, and that's the staff-recommended
option, is for the Board to take no action related to the GMP
amendment for the rezoning process or for the small-scale
amendment and direct staff to work with Mr. Tirpak to legally
incorporate Lot 12, which is the one that's -- which is zoned C5, into
his business, and then provide -- utilize 11 as additional buffering for
the neighborhood, the residential properties that sit to the west of this
property, develop the lot as a residential -- from residential purposes,
or put it on the market.
That's the -- that's the recommendation from staff. I know that
has -- from speaking with Mr. Tirpak, that could have complications
June 11, 2019
Page 226
in terms of how his business would operate. But from a staff's
perspective, that was the recommendation that we've arrived upon for
the Board consideration. And I know Mr. Tirpak has some
perspective that he would like to share with the Board as you're going
through your deliberations.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. For him, or do you want to
hear from Mr. Tirpak?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good, sir.
MR. BOSI: That completes my PowerPoint.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would you do me a favor and pop
back the aerial photos from '95 forward and let that just sit up there.
And Mr. Tirpak, I believe, is here.
Would you like to speak, sir?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, he's registered. Do you want me
to put a time on this?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I mean, this is a -- this is a --
he's here for us to make a decision on, so...
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. TIRPAK: Okay. I'd like to thank the Board and everybody
involved and -- for extending me this courtesy, and I appreciate the
help from everyone involved.
Let me start -- I wasn't going to start here, but I have to because
of the way Michael put on his.
One thing I'd like folks to understand, when I bought this
property, these two lots, I bought them from a commercial in dustrial
realtor, Michael Valentine. The property had been owned by a
commercial industrial gentleman before me. Michael Valentine sold
it to him. He had me fence it because I was in the fence business
next door when we bought it.
I fenced it. I got a commercial fence permit because it was
June 11, 2019
Page 227
commercial, and I fenced it. And Jim Morandy off and on parked
cars there. That's what he bought it for, because he was a car dealer,
and he put overstock cars there.
Well, Jim Morandy lost it. It went back to Valentine under the
land contract. He came to me and wanted to know if I wanted to buy
it, so I bought it thinking that -- and he told you -- Morandy told me,
Michael Valentine told me, the Collier County appraiser's website
said it was zoned commercial. I didn't know that that wasn't the
zoning. I just -- I mean, I'm a layman. I didn't know that these two
departments didn't coordinate their labels of properties. So I thought
it was commercial, I thought it was C5, and that's why I bought it.
Years later I find out that only half of it was C5, and so -- and
this is when the county gave me the citation that wasn't because of a
complaint. It was because they just were doing a little extracurricular
activity on the street after there was a complaint of p arking, and they
started doing some checking and found out that this was not totally
right.
So, now, another thing I didn't realize -- because when I bought
my buildings next door, the property, when I bought it, I bought it
from a gentleman that had it for 10 or 12 years. I didn't have to come
to the county and say, hey, I'm moving in there, and now I'm going to
be doing this, that, and the other thing because there were tenants in
there, and I just bought it, and we carried on.
So I felt it was the same thing when I bought this other piece of
land that this other guy was parking cars on, that I'd buy it. And, you
know, he parked cars there; I can park cars there.
I didn't know -- you know, again, blame me. It was dumb, I
guess. But this is how it ended up. And all of a sudden now I'm in
this situation.
Well, since I got into this situation, I did a little digging. And I
talked to my neighbor next door. He's a 90-year-old man; been there
June 11, 2019
Page 228
since 1950. His brother owned the property that I bought , these two
lots. His brother passed away, I think, in 2004 or '5 or something like
that. Maybe it was a little later, but anyhow.
And he told me that he knew about it; that the zoning was
changed. Him and his brother found out, he said, several years later.
He didn't say exactly when. But he never realized that the man that
built my buildings that I owned around zero lot line, he owned those
properties plus about six down, and he got all those properties
changed. I think it was Lots 11 through 20, if I'm not mistaken,
somewhere in there. But he needed Lot 12 to be zoned commercial
so he could build a zero-lot-line building.
And he just took it on his own, didn't tell anybody, walked into
the board meeting back then and said, I'd like to get all these changed
to commercial, and they never asked him, they never looked into
whether he owned the properties or not. They just passed it.
Now, one thing in the executive summary that I got from the
folks on Horseshoe Drive, they mention that this fellow -- they
couldn't find this -- anything on this documentation. I do have to
disagree with that regarding the point made in the executive
summary.
The petition by Vernon Dunkley, was the gentleman's name, to
change Lot 12 from residential to commercial zo ning, could not be
substantiated; this is what the summary said. Quote, no file or
petition were found in the records to verify the claim. I have both --
all the records right here. They were there. They are there. They're
here.
And it was -- I have the resolution. I have the whatever they call
it, the initial request to change them. So it's all there, and it's in black
and white. The man never owned the property. He duped the county,
and 45 years later, I got duped because of it, too, because I thought I
was buying commercial land, both lots.
June 11, 2019
Page 229
I mean, it was one address, you know; 3023 Terrace Avenue is
what it was. And, in all honesty, for -- I didn't even realize -- and,
again, you know, I'm an old-school guy. I shake hands, and the deal's
done, whatever. But, in all honesty, I didn't even know I bought two
lots, you know. I just -- they said, here's the lots, you know, for sale,
and do you want to buy it. I didn't realize it was two.
So, look, I'm not here to try to humiliate the county nor this nor
the past board but, again, I must say, if the Board had checked the
validity of Vernon Dunkley's petition and claim of ownership on Lot
12 when he applied for the change of zoning, he would have been
caught in his deception and turned down, and none of us would be
here today because I would have never bought the property had it
been zoned residential.
The error was made by the Board at the time, and I'm asking this
board to right this wrong and have the compassion and the courage to
correct this mistake and grant me the use of Option 4 as described in
your executive summary.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala's first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So when I was reading my
agenda on Sunday, I couldn't figure out where this property was, and
I wanted to see -- I like to go out and see some of these things on my
own, so I went over to see, and I did find it. And I noticed that both
properties were full, and you were saying you needed it to park cars,
right, or park vehicles, or what ever?
MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, yeah. Well, after -- yeah. The original --
Mr. Morandy, who bought it before me and then lost it, he parked
cars there, overstock cars for his car dealership. I started parking
boats and motor homes there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I noticed there were
some businesses on there, too, right, or it looked like it. I was just
June 11, 2019
Page 230
going to ask you about that.
MR. TIRPAK: Well, the businesses -- the business buildings
are next door. They're on Lots, let's see, 11 and 12 -- they're 13 and
14 I own, and those are big metal buildings with overhead doors
and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I thought I even
saw a taxi service on there, but maybe that was just another one that
you park there.
MR. TIRPAK: No. I used to have a taxi company there, but,
no, there's no taxi there now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, something said taxi, anyway.
That's okay. I was just wondering if there are -- if you're buying it to
park cars, is that also allowed to have, like, say -- you know, like,
cars for sale or business or things for sale? I didn't know.
MR. TIRPAK: I believe so. I believe so. I think a C5 zoning --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 5C is the most lucrative zoning we
have.
MR. TIRPAK: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it isn't now, but it's going to
be -- he needs to change it to C5.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know. But C5 zoning is the most
lucrative --
MR. TIRPAK: Well, I'm just -- my big thing is I just don't
understand how -- and then the CRA came along, the Bayshore
redevelopment, and they split my -- those two lots. They split the
property right up the middle. Half -- one half is in the Bayshore area,
and the other half is out of it now. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know about that. Do you
know about that, Penny?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. That was done in --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
June 11, 2019
Page 231
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no. That's quite all
right, Donna.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's after 5.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They must have done it when
they drew the boundaries back in 2000. But I don't understand what
you -- may I?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You go ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't understand what you said
about you have evidence that the Board actually approved the
rezoning of that land.
MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, I've got the -- everything's here. I mean,
it's right here. The resolution --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I need to hear from staff
because, obviously, Mr. Tirpak --
MR. BOSI: One of the relevant pieces of information is
contained within your executive summary, and it's an email from Mr.
Mark Strain, the County Hearing Examiner.
And before the April 23rd public petition, Mr. Tirpak was
working with Mr. Strain as to what options were available to him.
And from conversations with Mark, we've not been able to validate
any of his claims of illegal zoning with -- on the property. We've --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You've gone back and looked in
the records and --
MR. BOSI: We have not been able to validate the cla ims of
illegal zoning. And from my awareness, I'm not -- I'm not aware of
many people who are better at researching Collier County for records
than the Hearing Examiner and, from our work together, we just
haven't -- we weren't able to substantiate that. I'm not saying it
couldn't have been, but I'm just saying we weren't able to substantiate
that based upon what evidence was in the record.
June 11, 2019
Page 232
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. TIRPAK: I mean, here's the petition number, R9 -- or
691C, the date, the petitioner's name. I mean, everything's here and
how he applied for it, and then there's -- I have the resolution. The
next page is the resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just trying to verify what was
on the property, whatever you want to do with it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, you know, there again, I
mean --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have choices.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We do. We do have choices, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like four options.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Basically five options. There are
five options that have been presented, and it's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. There it is, the fifth.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the -- one of the suggestions
is to wave our magic wand and help this gentleman out. So, you
know --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, we typically don't
up-zone property --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- at our cost.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But, I mean, my question to you,
sir, you bought the piece of property. It's named under one address.
What was it -- and it was zoned commercial.
MR. TIRPAK: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Were you taxed at a commercial
rate?
MR. TIRPAK: I believe so, because it still is -- in fact, as of
today, it's still shown as commercial on the Appraiser's website.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And is it C5?
June 11, 2019
Page 233
MR. KLATZKOW: Just hold on. The issue's Lot 11.
MR. BOSI: The Property Appraiser uses a land-use designation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, Mike. The issue's Lot 11, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You just gave me something that rezoned
Lot 12.
MR. TIRPAK: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: What you're relying on was a rezone of
Lots 12 through 20.
MR. TIRPAK: Well, Lot 11 is --
MR. KLATZKOW: Lot 11 is a different lot.
MR. TIRPAK: Lot 11 is the one that didn't get changed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it was not -- it was never asked to be
changed. So what -- so you're telling the Commission that this was
wrongly rezoned. It was not wrongly rezoned.
MR. TIRPAK: No, he didn't own Lot 12. He had no
permission --
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you rather have less of a zoning?
We can give you back less of a zoning.
MR. TIRPAK: I didn't know it at the time.
MR. KLATZKOW: This was up-zoned. Okay. There was a
request for it to up-zone, which he benefits from. It has nothing to do
with the residential lot.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. And the residential lot is
the one in question.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the residential lot is the problem.
MR. TIRPAK: Let me say one more thing. At the time this was
done, there was a house on the lot that Mr. Lyon owned, Duane
Lyon, and the house sat on both of the properties. I mean, it
encroached on both properties. So, I mean, there was a house there.
This Dunkley guy, who was a developer, whatever -- well, I looked
June 11, 2019
Page 234
up into -- I actually looked into his history somewhat, and he was --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt you, sir.
But to clarify the point, Lot 12 was erroneously or illegally or
whatever --
MR. TIRPAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- rezoned by somebody who didn't
own it.
MR. TIRPAK: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: It got up-zoned.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You've been the beneficiary of that.
Lot 11 was not.
MR. TIRPAK: But when, again --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're asking us to up-zone it for
you because of a misconception?
MR. TIRPAK: Well, because when I bought it, I again, I was
sold it as lot -- as commercial C5, and the appraiser's website showed
it as commercial.
MR. KLATZKOW: But the issue is the county -- he said the
county did wrong here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Under no possibility did we do wrong here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Someone other -- other than
someone's designated Lot 11 as being commercial that was under the
tax --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that wasn't the county. Maybe it was
the seller that said that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And/or the Tax Assessor's Office.
According to this gentleman's representation, Lot 11 was zoned
commercial.
MR. TIRPAK: Lot 12 -- Lot 12 was zoned commercial.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 was zoned commercial but
June 11, 2019
Page 235
we're --
MR. TIRPAK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The discussion today is about 11,
correct.
MR. TIRPAK: Well --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The westerly piece.
MR. TIRPAK: -- both lots because -- again, hadn't this guy
deceived the county back then, lied about it and got his deal --
MR. KLATZKOW: It has nothing to do with Lot 11.
MR. TIRPAK: But so what?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it does, it has everything to
do, because you're talking about Lot 11. You want it changed, the
zoning changed, so you can continue to run your business on it.
MR. TIRPAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In order to do this, we have to
change the zoning. Lot 12 is --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Already zoned.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- is water down the river.
MR. TIRPAK: But it doesn't matter that somebody --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No --
MR. TIRPAK: -- cheated on you?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- not for this conversation. You
benefited from that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 is legal.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's residential.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is it?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lot 12 is legal. There's a benefit
there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 11.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lot 11.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 11 is still residential, and that's
June 11, 2019
Page 236
the one you're asking us to change.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And when it's up-zoned, it will have
significantly more value.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there's -- just to mention also,
there's a lot of change going on in that street, which was always run
down.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now there's brand-new buildings
going up. They look like commercial buildings, of course.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the issue of what -- the
CRA border being defined where, you know, Lot 12 is in the CRA,
Lot 11 --
MR. TIRPAK: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- really doesn't -- is not
germane to this. It doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter to you, sir,
because what -- you have a thriving business east of Lot 12, and you
want to get Lot 12 into that mix, but --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Lot 11. Lot 11,
excuse me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When were the CRA boundaries
drawn?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 2000 is when it was established.
MR. TIRPAK: I don't even care if Lot 11 is zoned commercial.
Well, I do and I don't. It all depends if somebody will let me do
this -- and I don't understand this part of the code. But I don't want to
use it other than to drive across it to get to Lot 12.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. TIRPAK: That's all I would like to do.
And they came up months ago. And, Mike, you weren't even in that
June 11, 2019
Page 237
meeting. But months ago I had a meeting with them, and they said,
well, there's kind of a little loophole thing here. We can give you
permission to do off-site parking.
And I said, I don't need off-site parking. Well, you just have to
put one parking space in. It will suffice just to, you know, wink,
wink, this will work, and then you can drive across that land.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we give him a variance that
he drives across the land and there's no --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MR. BOSI: The option that was identified by the Hearing
Examiner was for Lot 11 to seek a parking exemption. A parking
exemption would be to allow for a residential property to utilize for
commercial parking. Now, the storage of vehicles is a different
animal.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He says he's --
MR. TIRPAK: I don't --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You don't want to store your
vehicles.
MR. TIRPAK: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All he wants to do is drive
across this land.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was waiting for Mr. Bosi to
tell us what kind of a motion we need to effectuate what he just said
he needed, which is to drive across it. No parking, no storage. Just --
MR. BOSI: Well, what I --
MR. KLATZKOW: All he wants to do is drive across it?
MR. TIRPAK: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't want to park on it?
MR. TIRPAK: No, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't want to use it for anything?
June 11, 2019
Page 238
MR. BOSI: But what would be the purpose of -- his commercial
business abuts Lot 12. Lot 12 is where he would store cars. Why
would you need to -- Lot 11 is adjoining a residential lot.
MR. KLATZKOW: But he's not using it for anything.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, he is.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, he just wants to drive across it.
MR. TIRPAK: I just want to drive across it. That's all.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But right now he's --
MR. TIRPAK: And the reason I need it is because I need room
to get, like, a 40-foot motor home in there. I have back in and --
yeah, they'll back in, they'll drive across Lot 11 and park it on Lot 12.
That's it. Boom, and they may not get in that thing for two months,
three months.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Let us do some
talking now, okay. We'll try to solve this for you, but don't interrupt.
So what do we need to do?
MR. BOSI: If the Board needed us to explore and follow
Option 5, work with Mr. Tirpak on an SIP process -- SIP process
recognizes older properties that it gives us the flexibility in terms of
how we address it, and we -- as long as we understand that Lot 11
will not be utilized for storage of vehicles, could have some
ingress/egress, we can make that work.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm making that motion based
on the testimony that we just heard.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll second that. And you've
heard that testimony here. And your testimony stands, sir, no parking
of any cars. You just want it for access.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a question. My light's on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, your light's on.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, question: Can you –
June 11, 2019
Page 239
Mr. Bosi, can you explain to me what is Lot 11 and what is Lot 12 on
these pictures?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Left and right, sir.
MR. BOSI: If you look, Lot 11 is the westernmost, the farthest
to the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's where the buildings are?
MR. BOSI: No, those are the lots in question. That is the
residential lot, 11. 11 is the furthest. And the buildings are -- the
buildings are where the -- where it's white. That's where his --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what I was getting at.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go back to the aerial.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go back to the aerial. So if the
commercial buildings are on --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirteen and 14.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- 13 and 14, what do you need to
drive to Lot 11 for?
MR. BOSI: That's the question I had that that's --
MR. TIRPAK: Thirteen and 14, the lots have been razed, and
there's no access from the building side to get to those lots.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But what are you going to
drive over there to do?
MR. TIRPAK: Park motor home or a boat storage on Lot 12.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that's storage. You can't --
MR. TIRPAK: No, on Lot 12 only. Not 11. I can get --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What do you need to go through
Lot 11 to get to Lot 12 for?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Current years of this lot, the way
it looks today --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is what I'm trying to
understand. We're trying to help you, but I'm trying to understand
June 11, 2019
Page 240
why you need to go through Lot 11 to get to Lot 12.
MR. TIRPAK: I don't -- I don't necessarily have to get through
Lot 11, but I need to be able to pull into Lot 11 momentarily and back
up so I can store my motor home on Lot 12.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And only your motor home?
MR. TIRPAK: No, no. Other people's boats and motor homes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Lot 12 is commercial, sir.
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What would help is if Michael --
(Simultaneous speakers speaking.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to move everything
off of Lot 11?
MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, yeah. I don't think there's anything on
there right now today. I've moved it all off of -- everything's on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was only there on Sunday, so
maybe you've moved them since then. I don't know.
MR. TIRPAK: Were you looking at the place with the covering
across the fence?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looking at the place that was right
next door to that place that I needed to call Code Enforcement about
because they've got so much trash out in the front of their house, and
then the lot next to it is your 11, and then the lot next to it is your 12,
right? And -- but 11 had lots of cars on there and stuff.
MR. TIRPAK: No, you must have been looking at the wrong --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I must be looking at the
wrong one.
MR. BOSI: Commissioners, if you look at April of 2010 -- and
thank you, Nick. He just reminded me the visualizer does have the
capabilities.
Lot 11 is the westernmost lot. Lot 12, which is zoned
commercial, abuts his commercial buildings, as you can see. So
June 11, 2019
Page 241
that's the orientation of the facility.
So -- and I guess Mr. Tirpak is saying that he just needs to be
able to back onto it to be able to store, but the storage of the vehicles
will only be allowed, by zoning, on Lot 12, which is the lot that abuts
his buildings.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it looks like in 2016 there was
some storage of vehicles and things on 11 --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which caused the code issue.
MR. TIRPAK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- which caused the issue, and in '17
it's been -- it looks like it's been cleaned up except for in the back
where there is some. Do we have any from '18?
MR. BOSI: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No aerial photos from '18, so
we're --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I must be having them
confused then with half and half of your 11, yes. That must be what
it is, because the other one had a lot of things on there, lots more. So
maybe I didn't see the line down the middle or something.
MR. TIRPAK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I noticed --
MR. TIRPAK: I've been working.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- right next door to that other
property, that residential.
MR. TIRPAK: The citation was handed out, yes, I admit. There
was things on 11, too, because I didn't know I was wrong.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Now you know. Now
you're not going to be able to sell it as anything other than that --
MR. TIRPAK: I know.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- residential with whatever he
said --
June 11, 2019
Page 242
MR. TIRPAK: It's going to be tough.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to be able to let you drive your
bus across it.
MR. TIRPAK: That's all I want to do is be able to drive across
it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How wide is Lot 12?
MR. BOSI: They're both 40 feet.
MR. TIRPAK: Forty feet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They're both 40 feet. Narrow.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forty feet?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. It's been moved and seconded
that we do what Mr. Bosi said.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll support the motion but,
you know, this is commercial property, it was bought as commercial
property. You've got to do your due diligence, I'm sorry, and verify
the zoning and exactly what you can do with all of the property when
you're going to buy something like this. And if there's something we
can do -- but I'm very skeptical that it's going to be used as a
driveway.
MR. TIRPAK: Well, yes, but -- but. You know, we're lucky if
three or four people go in and out of there in a week. I mean --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, but I mean, if it's not just you,
then it's not a residential use. It's a commercial use. This is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Tirpak, I would be quiet and
sit down while you're ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a motion and second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: With all due respect, sir, we're
going to help you try to do this.
MR. TIRPAK: All right.
June 11, 2019
Page 243
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Let's go forward here. It's
been moved and seconded that we allow for that use to be
entertained.
MR. TIRPAK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. You all right with that,
Mr. Bosi?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. We'll work with --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
MR. TIRPAK: Aye.
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 #11D
FUNDING FOR A TRUCK HAUL BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECT FOR THE CLAM PASS, NORTH PARK SHORE AND
PARK SHORE BEACH SEGMENTS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN
IN THE FALL 2019 (APPROXIMATELY NOVEMBER 1, 2019)
FOR AND NOT TO EXCEED PROJECT EXPENDITURE OF
$5,500,000 (EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES) AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM – MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
That takes use to Item 11D. It's a recommendation to approve
June 11, 2019
Page 244
funding for truck haul beach renourishment project for the Clam
Pass, North Parkshore, and Parkshore beach segments.
Mr. Gary McAlpin will present.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion -- second.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was a good presentation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All day.
MR. McALPIN: Can I at least say my name for the record?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All day.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will vouch for the fact that I saw
the presentation at the TDC. It was a wonderful presentation. It
could not have been any clearer, and I'll support the motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept staff's recommendation with regard to the haul routes.
Any other discussion?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. No discussion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Quickly, just quickly. When are
you going to let the neighborhoods know that you're going to be
trucking?
MR. McALPIN: Well, we're going to have a discussion -- once
we -- once we get our design done, we're going to have a sit-down
with the City of Naples, and we'll notify Lee County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
June 11, 2019
Page 245
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2019-104: APPOINTING AMANDA COX TO THE
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL – ADOPTED
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, that takes you to
your last item, Item 12A, which was 16K1, which is an appointment
to the TDC. And, Commissioner Taylor, I believe you pulled this off
the agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I did. And this is not to
negate your role, sir, as Chairman of the TDC, but I'd like to bring
Mary Shay's qualifications to this board for the reconsideration of
her -- of her capabilities and talents to bring an important part of
tourism to the TDC board decision-making.
Mary Shay, as you know, was president of the Sports Council,
which is huge, because we're building a sports center for amateur
sports. So she's got her handle on sports. The other thing is that she
represents the hotels that are going to support this kind of activity
going forward.
And those hotels are not represented on this board right now,
and that's where I'm going with this. Amanda Cox, very qualified,
lovely woman; kind of a new kid in town, very busy with the
J.W. Marriott. We already have a west of 41 and, in this case, a
Marco Island hotel. I would make it equivalent to a west of 41 hotel.
And we have the Hilton is represented on your board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is.
June 11, 2019
Page 246
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I just -- I think she will -- I
think she's a hard worker. Not always the most tactful, but her heart's
in the right place, and I think she is so supportive. She's just had vast
experience, not only in -- not only in the smaller hotels, but she's sold
in hotels throughout this country, and the major names out of
Washington D.C., so she understands the business.
But, more importantly, she now understands Collier County, and
she also understands the sports industry. So that's why I'm
suggesting that she would be, I think, a very good appointment to this
board, and that's why I brought her name forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to suggest
just the opposite. And, obviously, she's very well qualified, so this is
not a reflection on any of the applicants.
But we have a committee that's made a unanimous
recommendation, and if we start to diverge from that, that then begins
to make it more of a political appointment. So my personal belief is
that we should try to avoid that when we can and we have a
unanimous decision. But more importantly than that -- because we
do have the ultimate decision -- if we don't appoint Amanda Cox,
then there will be nobody on that council from Marco Island other
than a City Council member, and we'll have a half a do zen from the
City of Naples but none from Marco Island. And Marco Island
provides 25 percent of the tourist tax.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Am I wrong, we do have
someone from Marco Island?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You've got a City Council
member.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, City Council; yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: City Council member.
June 11, 2019
Page 247
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he doesn't know tourism.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And Naples, you have Andy
Solis, Michelle McLeod, Daniel Sullivan, Clark Hill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dan Sullivan is leaving.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sullivan's on his way out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the vacancy.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nancy Kerns, Susan Becker,
right?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ski Olesky, and then Victor Rios.
That rounds it out.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, Victor Rios.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Victor Rios is the only Marco
Island --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's the Marco Island.
Well, the other thing just so -- and I'll add this to the mix. Dan
Sullivan's appointment was made contrary to the recommendation of
the TDC board, and he did just fine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, he did.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to point my
finger at Andy Solis and say, you were right there, and it says they
voted unanimously for this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I was just going to ask you for
your opinion, but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was a very difficult decision.
They're both incredibly qualified and, you know, they both came and
made presentations, and it was a unanimous decision without any
hesitation.
Having said that, I will share what I said to Mary Shay myself,
is that one of the things that she has committed to helping me with is
June 11, 2019
Page 248
the mental-health efforts in Collier County. And as I told Nick the
other day, we need a Mary Shay to spearhead that. We need
somebody -- because we're talking about changing everybody's
perspective on how we look at mental health in our community and
how we go about dealing with the mental issues that are constantly
coming up.
And I really hope that -- I mean -- and I would think that she
would be the right person to help me do that. So I've asked her to
please just -- let's focus on that. For me, while the TDC is very, very
important, I think everybody understands that for me changing what
we're doing on mental health is more important in some respects.
So it was unanimous. We talked about it. We listened to both
of them. We looked at their resumés. You know, having -- the J.W.
Marriott's probably going to be the largest contributor also to the
TDC in terms of revenue. I would not feel comfortable as the
chairman supporting a motion that would disregard the TDC's
decision that was made unanimously.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. I'll entertain a motion
then.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll move -- well, I'll move to
accept -- gosh --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amanda Cox.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Amanda Cox as the
representative to the TDC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we stay with the recommendation of the TDC. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
June 11, 2019
Page 249
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- same sign, same sound. So
moved; 4-1.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNCATIONS
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, Commissioners. That takes us
to your last item, staff and commission general communications.
We have no workshops coming up. I will remind the Board and
the public we've got a budget workshop next week on the 20th in the
morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One. No workshops but then a
workshop; is that what you just said?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, budget workshop; no board.
Budget workshop's a little different.
In the morning of the 20th, and the carryover day for the 21st, I
think, Mr. Isackson, again, once again, has delivered you a really
good budget package, and the manager's letter's included, so I expect
that we will move along with that.
Also, you have a board meeting scheduled for the 25th, and
we've talked a little bit that it will probably go the 26th. So I just
want to give you some forewarning on that.
And the last comment I have is just to recognize, we didn't get a
chance to, is Danette Kinaszczuk. She did an amazing job today with
public outreach -- Danette with the fertilizer ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Danette. Nobody can say her last
June 11, 2019
Page 250
name; Danette.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: She did a wonderful job reaching out
to everybody and making sure -- and that's all I have, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She did a great job putting that
together.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: She did. She communicated with
everybody.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you've done a very good job
today as well.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Except I ran a little bit over. I was
doing good in the morning.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You ruined it when you said we'd
be done by noon.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you remember that long
conversation we had about that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: None of us are long-winded up
here, though, are we? Absolutely not. Not our fault.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And how about our County
Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, but I concur about Danette. She
did a great job.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. And our clerk?
CLERK KINZEL: No. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, sir. I have three things. One
is I just wanted to bring up and get some consensus on having the
mental-health workshop that we've been trying to schedule for the
29th of October. It's actually the last Tuesday of that month.
June 11, 2019
Page 251
Hopefully the strategic plan will be in a form that can be presented to
us, and the request has been made to have it on the 29th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-ninth of June?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of October.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Why?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Why is it made, the
request to do it at that date specifically?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think there were just some
scheduling issues with getting everyone there. That was the day
that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is just a draft of the
mental-health plan that we're --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That we're waiting on, right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- waiting on.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And they have been working
diligently on it. They're going through each of the seven of the
priorities.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay, cool.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's one that's --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: October 26th.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or 29th; 29th. It's the last Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Forgive me. It's October 29th.
That's one.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's one.
Number two, I handed out -- I've had a request from the Naples art
district which is an area between Pine Ridge and Trade Center Way
between Airport and Taylor -- or Shirley Street, really. There are
over 60 members of the art district. They're artists. They have
galleries in this area. It is -- I don't know if anybody's been to an
event there, but it's -- in terms of arts and artists working together and
June 11, 2019
Page 252
collaborating and creating some incredible artwork, it's really
blooming there.
And there's a request for a designation of that area. In the first
page you can see the area that's marked there as a -- as a Collier
County cultural and arts district. I think there's something similar in
the Bayshore area. They're doing a great job. They're -- every day
there's more artists moving in there, and I think it's a great idea, and
I'd like to bring that back in the future if there's some consensus that
we can do this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to see if you agree that
we wait until the consultant comes with this report because, I mean,
they are prime now to come into our community.
So if we could -- before we designate anything, let's give them
an opportunity to certainly -- well, become acquainted with is a very,
very vibrant part of the arts.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this -- these are 60 -- 60
artists that have asked for this that are already located there. I mean,
I don't know -- I mean, what would the -- what would the study say;
that they shouldn't be there or --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I don't think so. It's a
strategic plan. You know, you've got -- they call themselves the
Naples Art District. Then you've got Bayshore Arts District. You
know, maybe they should call themselves the Pine Ridge Art District.
You know, there's a lot of -- this is highly competitive. You've
immersed yourself --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not to mention this is in -- forgive
me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is an industrial park.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And designating an arts district in
June 11, 2019
Page 253
the heart of one of the two square miles of industrially zoned lands --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't think it changes any land
uses or anything like that. It's just that really it's a designation for
marketing purposes to help people know that there's -- there are
artists and galleries in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I thought -- when I saw
Naples Art District, I thought of the art district downtown where they
have the art galleries.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. So maybe they would
want to make it clearly that it's Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. They intend to work with the
consultants and are going to be involved in that. There's -- the group
that's the head of the organization, Paula Brody; others in town will
certainly be involved in that.
I'm just bringing this up for informational purposes. When, in
fact, the designation or the resolution they would want to bring that
up, I don't specifically know, but I wanted to bring this to every's
attention because it is something that's being requested of me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then last, Mr. Carnell is back
there. Pickleball, we need a water fountain at Veterans P ark in the
pickleball courts badly before somebody gets dehydrated. There's
no -- and, unfortunately, that person was almost me when I was there
playing pickleball.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you practicing for our match?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, man. I'm ready to go.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's totally wrong.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, anyway, if we could look at
that, I've had a number of emails about it and I was there. And it's --
the closest water fountain is, like, on the other side of Veterans across
June 11, 2019
Page 254
the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's really important to
have that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, it is. So if somebody could
look at that, I'd appreciate it.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's readdress the Naples Art
District. What are you looking for us to do? You want us to bless for
you to bring this back at another time? I mean, because I wouldn't be
opposed to hearing about it again, but what were you --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I was just -- this is
informational. Again --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- they're going to come and make a
presentation. I just wanted to pass that along. They asked if I would
do that, and so --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you are. You have done that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I'm meeting my word.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. The first thing is I was at the
museums. They had a presentation the other day over at the museum
downtown, and it was with the -- come on, Donna. Say it, say it, say
it -- With the D-Day presentation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Monday, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you couldn't understand what
anybody was saying because the sound system is so bad. So I
suggested that maybe we needed a new sound system. The county
would have, like, a sound system especially for the museums, but
anyplace else, too, where they're speaking with a crowd of people
that are outside, a traveling sound system with a person who knows
how to work it. The people that were talking to me said they have to
June 11, 2019
Page 255
know how to work it because, I guess, without Troy there, they tried
to get the thing to working, and it really wouldn't work. And you
were there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it was so hot that the thing
was melting, and it would go down like that (indicating). Everybody
had a hard time with it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was very, very -- and I would
support that idea, Commissioner Fiala. It was very frustrating for me.
It was an unbelievably humbling experience for me to be addressing
that group of people, and I got rather irritated with the young man
that was running the sound system because the reverberation that was
coming while I was trying to address that crowd was -- and people
were yelling, my friends -- well, a couple -- I say they're my friends.
Folks that I knew were in the back were yelling that they couldn't
hear me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. And your voice is
loud.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then there were the elderly
whose voice was a little shaky --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Like yours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and they couldn't understand
them at all. So it was really tough.
So I think it would be a good idea, a good investment. I don't
know how -- where you're going to put it, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've already started on that, ma'am.
And we've talked to Troy, and we've got the team looking at it right
now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The other thing, I think somebody
June 11, 2019
Page 256
else might be talking about, is the school board, but maybe somebody
else is going to be bringing that up. Has anybody else talked to Kam
Patton?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I talked to her.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So that will be under budget,
correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think we're getting a letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's a letter coming from her. I
wasn't planning on bringing it up tonight. She just gave us a phone
call.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's all for me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, a couple of things.
I'd like to see if there's any interest -- we talked about earlier on
the Baumgarten public hearing regarding the 37.5 setback for
residential from -- in the activity centers. I'd like to see if there's any
willingness to kind of explore it to see how we could -- understanding
this is infill, a lot of it. We're now developing land that is adjacent to
residential throughout this county; just to explore this. And I'd have
to have a -- you know, it has to be a consensus. We may not want to
change it. We may want to change it, but I'd like to really look at it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can have Thaddeus and his team
meet with you, Commissioner, and just make sure that -- you know,
explain it a little bit better and walk you through where it would be a
problem, maybe not be a problem, and if you found it was something
you wanted to bring forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm happy to do something
preliminarily, but then maybe eventually, depending on --
June 11, 2019
Page 257
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What you find and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, if that's an agreement.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That would be a fine way to go
there, and then we know how many -- because these activity centers
have been delineated since the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- ZRO in 1990 with these
regulations and stipulations, and they are, basically, vestitures. So we
have to -- we need to be very --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not a well. It's a vestiture.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, of course.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the concession that was made
today by the developer was a pretty decent concession.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I like the idea of having you
meet with our staff and find out how many there are; how many were,
in fact, the issues.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What we could do?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And, second of all, I
think -- Commissioner Solis, I think you requested that the Clam Pass
discussion not be at our next meeting, and I know you'll be grateful
for that, but I wasn't aware of that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I haven't made that kind of request.
I thought -- I was told that there was no plan on that coming up until
October from staff.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I was told about three
weeks ago by the County Manager it was coming up on the 25th, but
I would like to make a request to see if we can get consensus with
everybody here so it's very clear and it's written down, because it's a
June 11, 2019
Page 258
moving target here. I'd like it to come in the high season: January,
February, or March.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I make -- are you talking about
the parking garage at Seagate?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like this discussed in
January, February, and March.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like to lean forward and look at
my colleagues and see who is in favor of that parking garage.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to object to doing
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I said I'm going to object to
the question.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is not the appropriate
time. We're having discussions concerning that. It's going to come
back. I have no problem with it coming back winter.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In the high season.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But to turn around and say,
who's in favor of this now, I'm not going to answer the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But speaking of that park, I just
happened to go over there on Saturday with someone else just for
another reason altogether, and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You get around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, I know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You really do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it was about 2 o'clock in the
afternoon on a Saturday. Well, of course, I never expected to see
anybody there on a hot 2 o'clock afternoon Saturday. The place was
jammed. I was so surprised. I thought it was going to be rather
empty.
June 11, 2019
Page 259
And what I noticed was the hotel next door had all of their
chairs almost all the way up to the waterline, and then they had their
umbrellas and everything. There weren't many people in them, but
they were all there. And I thought, that's exactly what they're talking
about, obstructing other people's way to get to the water.
And then the people that were in this place -- now, I know I've
heard from the Tourism Bureau that on the weekends people from the
other coast like to come over. And I was guessing that some of them
were from the other coast. They had their families and everything,
and they had their strollers, so I figured they had to drive here. Then
there was -- there were other people, and I just happened to ask,
"Where are you from?" you know. And I thought they would say
"the other coast," but this couple was from England. And they said
they come every year. They come to Orlando and then they drive
down here and stay a few days. But, you know, if you can't get a
place on the beach, it's kind of tough.
And so I was just thinking -- and I know that some other
beaches now have been -- also been cordoned off if somebody lives
in a house behind them, and people try to go to the beach, and they're
told to get off the beach.
So I don't know what we can do, but I think that ought to be
something we ought to talk about at some point in time, because that
is the reason tourists come here. And we need to address that and
find some type of a solution that we can all live with. And it
probably has to be done sooner than later, because now people are
taking possession of the beach, and it's going to hit our tourism
business and the hotels.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that wasn't where I was going
with that but -- and I wonder, Commissioner Saunders, you seem to
be offended by -- because I thought we gave pretty -- when we talked
about the parking garage before, there was an ongoing study that was
June 11, 2019
Page 260
being done, and -- but I thought we -- I thought the Board gave pretty
specific decisions to not pursue the parking garage.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: First of all, two things.
Number one, I don't ever get offended, so take that off the table.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. I didn't want you to be. I
just wanted to make sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to make a
decision -- be forced into making a decision on something that's not
even on the agenda and at 6 o'clock at night, very controversial, and I
just don't think it's an appropriate question to ask at this time. Now,
it's appropriate to put it on the agenda, and Commissioner Taylor has
suggested we do that when people are here --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: January, February, March.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Again, I do have selective memory
issues; I'll admit to that. And my selective memory was that there
was basic consent to not go forward with the parking garage. But I'll
acquiesce to the -- in the fall have another discussion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, no; January --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: High season.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- February, or March, one of
those. Pick your dates.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm the fine with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that -- we all okay with that?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My understanding is that staff was
coming back in October with an update. I know there's still
June 11, 2019
Page 261
discussions going on with the foundation which, you know, has a
major impact on all of it, so --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the foundation --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I don't think it's time to talk about
it anyway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What foundation?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Pelican Bay Foundation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioners, I think our goal
was to bring back not only Clam Pass but look a little
comprehensively again with basically the direction you gave us in
that little workshop session: Distribution, the other properties as
well, too.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In January, February, March.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of those three months.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, anything
else?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have two things. I was
approached by one of the members of the Planning Advisory Board
for the City of Naples. He would like to see a joint meeting between
the City of Naples planning board and the Collier County planning
board.
My reaction was, certainly have no objection to that. Perhaps
we could, by consensus, say to our planning board, if they want to
have a meeting like that, go ahead and set it up; that they're
authorized to do that. So that's number one. So unless there's some
objection to our planning board meeting with the city planning
board --
June 11, 2019
Page 262
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's communication. That's
nine-tenths of the law.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let both planning boards
know that they're --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll reach out to the city manager
and make sure he runs it appropriately through his city council and --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If our board wants to have the
meeting. I'm not trying to force a meeting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think we have to have a
purpose.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The second item, and this
goes along with what Commissioner Fiala was saying. We've got
this -- a couple major beach renourishment projects we've already
approved one today. When we do those beach projects, that changes
the erosion control line, and my understanding is that everything
seaward of the erosion control line is public.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I don't know where
the erosion control line is when you get up to the Ritz-Carlton and on
the north end, but there are a lot of hoteliers that are blocking off the
beach. And I suspect that what we need to do is put some marking in
as to where the erosion control line is so that everyone knows.
So the law enforcement comes out there, and they shoo people away
based on what the hoteliers are telling them, and I've gotten several
complaints from that.
But it is public from the erosion control line seaward. So if we
could maybe give some consideration to being able to publicly
demarcate where that line is so that people know it and so that law
enforcement knows it as well.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioner, I'll just tell you
from the calls I receive, that may cut both ways. Maybe I'd like to
June 11, 2019
Page 263
have Gary McAlpin, when the time's right, show you the maps of the
erosion control lines because sometimes people will go in landward
of the erosion control line, and people don't say anything.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I understand that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if we mark them with anything --
and, you know, Gary's a real good resource in terms of what we've
done in the past, and maybe I'll have him put something together and
just --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe in the fall.
Obviously, we don't want to do anything now because our next
meeting will take two days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perhaps in early September
you could give us some presentation on that. And if we feel that we
need to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- mark that in different
locations, especially with the new beach renourishment project
coming up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good time to do it, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Beaches are our greatest attraction
for tourism. And, by the way, for the people who live here, it also
pulls their taxes down.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, Commissioner Saunders,
Senator Passidomo -- did you have any more you wanted to bring up?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Senator Passidomo, when that
legislation passed, talked about that erosion control line as if
everybody knows where it is, and there's only a few of us that do.
And I said, when that came through, it's setting up for litigious
June 11, 2019
Page 264
opportunity for people to be talking about it. I mean, there's two
clear delineated lines on the beach that any Yankee from
Pennsylvania can see, and one's your weed line and one's where the
water is, and those are really the only two that the regular Joe can see.
After that it's up to discretion as to where that erosion control
line is. And I've seen videos where the sheriff's been running people
off because they're not sitting in wet sand, and that's not the
delineation of that erosion control line. So I would welcome a
presentation in that regard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a great idea, too, yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I say something about our
two-day meeting coming up?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. It's one day.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we try to keep everything in
one day, it's been my experience -- and Commissioner Fiala and I
think Commissioner Saunders, I understand you're traveling the next
day. You get giddy. You don't think after a certain period of time
because it's too much.
And in order to -- you know, either what we -- look at the --
maybe look at the agenda and move things to the magic date of July
the 9th, which is supposed to be a kumbaya moment, but maybe it's
not going to be a kumbaya moment. But to have -- they want
January -- they want July as this kumbaya moment like it's a nice way
to end the session. We don't put controversy there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, it's not for kumbaya.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As long as the meeting ends,
that's kumbaya right there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We should have that right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because of the consideration
portion --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, anyway, I just would like to
June 11, 2019
Page 265
see -- so that we discuss it, because I am not into spending nine or 10
hours with a meeting. Even if you do feed me, it's not going to work.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if we work with the Chair, if
the Chair will sit with me and Leo, which I'm sure he will, we'll go
over what looks like a schedule for the 25th.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somehow the Chair's getting
blamed for a two-day meeting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Drink a lot of coffee and you can
stay up, but --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ready to go. And the Chair's also
suggested regularly that we have more meetings. So maybe one of
these days we'll start thinking about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes we have Chairs that
don't say much, and sometimes we have Chairs that say more. You
never can tell.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're not sure which.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pick your druthers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right now the Chair's got one little
comment. He was told he can't talk about the parking garage at
Seagate, so we won't. And then we're going to go -- there is one
thing I would -- did you find out about the intercity meeting put on by
the Chamber September 5th and 6th?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing that right now, sir.
We've got some calls in just to de-conflict that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we all got that email from
Mr. Barker, the chairman of the Chamber, that two-day meeting. It's
an intercity meeting. I would like to go if I can, but our budget
hearing is on the 5th, and I'll bolt to Orlando that night just simply
because I'm watching what's happening with our RPC. It's about to
fold. If -- I can't say out loud because I'm one of many on the RPC,
but our RPC is being shifted around, at my direction, by the way,
June 11, 2019
Page 266
assistance, with how it's going.
The authority of the RPC's been taken away and moved to an
informational process, and we're minimally going to move to every
other month with meeting, if not even less than that, and try to get
into the kumbaya stuff as opposed to the authoritative approval
processes that we're currently relegated.
And I think this intercity meeting, sounds like, might be
something that we could become involved in to foster the
communication of local governments in a more collaborative manner.
Other than that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for your patience.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Kumbaya.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- kumbaya.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll see you all on the 25th.
**** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7550, “GOLDEN
GATE COLLECTOR SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS,”
TO HERITAGE UTILITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF
$722,826.20; TO ACKNOWLEDGE A TIME EXTENSION TO A
LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF GOLDEN GATE COLLECTOR SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS (FPN #435116-1-58-01, PROJECT NO. 33504);
APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE AND THE ATTACHED
June 11, 2019
Page 267
BUDGET AMENDMENT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 3) – TO PROVIDE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS IN GOLDEN GATE ON SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD FROM COPPER LEAF LANE TO CEDAR TREE
LANE AND ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM
50TH STREET SW TO TROPICANA BOULEVARD
Item #16A2
ACKNOWLEDGING THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S (MPO) PLANNING (PL)
GRANT FOR FY19/20 AND RECOGNIZE THE MPO BUDGET IN
THE AMOUNT OF $839,988, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – NO LOCAL MATCH IS REQUIRED
Item #16A3
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (“DEP”) AGREEMENT NO.
S0859 BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NAPLES PARK AREA/BASIN
INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROJECT FOR
STORMWATER, WATER AND WASTEWATER (PHASE I), TO
EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT BY 184
CALENDAR DAYS AND TO MAKE MINOR UPDATES TO
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 2) –
PHASE I OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 110TH AVE N.
AND 107TH AVE N.
June 11, 2019
Page 268
Item #16A4
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
CONTRACT NO. 18-7245 WITH TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC.;
TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TASKS FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT
PLAN. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A5
A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR A 2020-2021 LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST UNDER CONTRACT
NO.15-6382 FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED
$19,896, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND
THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1,
DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 4) – IN PREPARATION OF THE 2020-
2021 LGFR FOR COLLIER COUNTY’S SHORE PROTECTION
PROJECTS; SOUTH MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS, AND THE COUNTY’S
INLET PROJECTS: WIGGINS PASS AND DOCTORS PASS AS
WELL AS APPLICATIONS FOR STATE SUPPLEMENTAL
FUNDING FOR HURRICANE IRMA REPAIR PROJECTS
Item #16A6
June 11, 2019
Page 269
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE
ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 17-7097 WITH APTIM
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; FOR
ADDITIONAL TIME AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS
REQUIRED FOR THE COLLIER CREEK MODELING STUDY,
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES
TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1) – IN ORDER TO ADDRESS
COMMENTS FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO SUPPORT
PERMITTING OF A LONG-TERM SOLUTION FOR COLLIER
CREEK, APTIM HAS PREPARED A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY
PO NO. 45-179398; APTIM IS REQUESTING AN INCREASE OF
$78,427 AND AN ADDITIONAL 365 DAYS, BRINGING THE
TOTAL OF THIS CONTRACT TO $377, 386.30
Item #16A7
A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PARK SHORE BEACH
RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 FOR
TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $27,894.80,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND
THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 4) – TO ASSIST
THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ACTIVITIES ON PARK SHORE BEACH. THE PROPOSAL
WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING
ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE CLAM PASS
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF
June 11, 2019
Page 270
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS,
COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR
NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF
RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT
Item #16A8
A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR NORTH PARK SHORE BEACH
RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO.15-6382 FOR
TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $27,894.80,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND
THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 4) – TO ASSIST
THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ACTIVITIES ON NORTH PARK SHORE BEACH; THE
PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INCLUDING ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE
CLAM PASS MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS,
COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR
NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF
RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT
Item #16A9
A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CLAM PASS PARK
June 11, 2019
Page 271
RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO.15-6382 FOR
TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $45,498.50,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK
ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND
THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 2) – TO ASSIST
THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ACTIVITIES ON CLAM PASS PARK BEACH; THE PROPOSAL
WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING
ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE CLAM PASS
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS,
COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR
NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF
RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT
Item #16A10
SCHEDULING AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 25,
2019, FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO PERMANENT
EMERGENCY GENERATORS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND
TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16A11
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND CREEKSIDE COMMERCE
PROPERTY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
June 11, 2019
Page 272
CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
(DISTRICT 2) – ADJACENT TO THE ARTHREX
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, THE OWNER AGREES TO
MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GASPAR SELF-STORAGE, PL20180000252,
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,455.65 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) – A
FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS
AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY STAFF
ON APRIL 23, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES, AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES FOR WINDING CYPRESS AMENITY CENTER,
PL2016000168, ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION
OF THE SEWER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL
June 11, 2019
Page 273
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $12,698.01
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) – A FINAL INSPECTION
TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND
WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON
APRIL 23, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES,
AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR GASPAR
STATION PHASE 3, PL20170004364 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. (DISTRICT 2) – A FINAL INSPECTION
TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND
WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON APRIL 23, 2019, IN
COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY
AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR RACETRAC AT PINE RIDGE, SDP 98-28, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
June 11, 2019
Page 274
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,692 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT.
(DISTRICT 2) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER
DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN
CONDUCTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON
MAY 14, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES
AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A16
FINAL ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
WINDING CYPRESS LIFT STATION #3, FORCE MAIN AND
WATER MAIN, PL20160001589, 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. (DISTRICT 1) – A FINAL INSPECTION
TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND
WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON APRIL 4, 2019, IN
COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE
FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY
AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2019-98: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
June 11, 2019
Page 275
FINAL PLAT OF TWINEAGLES GRAND ARBORS PHASE TWO
C BLOCK 109, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140000392, AND
AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16A18
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CURRENTS OF NAPLES
AN ESPLANADE COMMUNITY – PHASE 1, (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20180003018) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY. (DISTRICT 1) – W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A19
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A COLLIER
COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
(“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
STANDING OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE OAKES BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
(DISTRICT 3) – THE OWNER AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
OAKES BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN THE LANDSCAPE
PLANS
Item #16A20
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A
PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $318,525 WHICH
June 11, 2019
Page 276
WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT
NUMBER PL20180000634 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 3. (DISTRICT 1) – WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED,
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A21
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A
PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,088 WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR LANDSCAPE WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH LOT 8 SIERRA MEADOWS,
PL20130000496. (DISTRICT 1) – THE DEVELOPER HAS
FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
LANDSCAPE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY
Item #16A22
THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR FUND
195-BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE
FUND 185 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE
EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A23
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT
UNDER CONTRACT NO. 13-6164 AUTHORIZE THE
June 11, 2019
Page 277
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER IN A NOT TO
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $118,642 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1) –
THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE SERVICES FOR
ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE
SERVICES FOR PROPOSED 2019/2020 RE-NOURISHMENT OF
THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH PROJECT AT THE SOUTH END
OF MARCO ISLAND; A CONSTRUCTION BID OPTION MAY
BE TO COMBINE WITH WATER TURKEY BAY DREDGING
FOR POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS
Item #16A24
A PROPOSAL BY CSA OCEAN SCIENCES, INC.; TO
CONTINUE THE REQUIRED POST-CONSTRUCTION
HARDBOTTOM MONITORING FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT IN SUMMER 2019 WITH
CSA OCEAN SCIENCES, INC. FOR TIME AND MATERIAL
NOT TO EXCEED $94,578.90 UNDER THE ALREADY
APPROVED AND EXECUTED CONTRACT NO. 17- 7188 AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM.
(DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 4) – TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT
POST-CONSTRUCTION HARDBOTTOM MONITORING TO
ENSURE ALL IMPACTS FROM THE 2018 RED TIDE EVENT
ARE ASSESSED AND DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO 2019 BEACH
NOURISHMENT
Item #16A25
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
June 11, 2019
Page 278
WIGGINS PASS INTERIM DREDGING UNDER CONTRACT
NO. 15-6382, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND
EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT, AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT
TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $46,978 AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING,
PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR
THE PROPOSED 2019/2020 INTERIM MAINTENANCE
DREDGING OF A PORTION OF THE WIGGINS PASS
NAVIGATION CHANNEL/CONSTRUCTION; BIDDING MAY
BE COMBINED WITH WATER TURKEY BAY DREDGING FOR
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS
Item #16A26
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
WATER TURKEY BAY CHANNEL DREDGING UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 15-6382, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $64,880, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382
AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM.
(DISTRICT 2) – THE WATER TURKEY BAY PROJECT
INVOLVES NEARSHORE SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AND MAY
BE CONDUCTED DURING THE LATTER PORTION OF THE
2019 SEA TURTLE NESTING SEASON
Item #16A27
June 11, 2019
Page 279
STAFF RECOMMENDED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTS FROM THE CITY OF
NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR FY-2019-2020 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,745,300;
BUDGET THESE EXPENDITURES AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE TOURISM.
(ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A28
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO
CONTRACT NO. 19-7512 WITH EARTH TECH ENTERPRISES,
INC.; FOR AN ADDITIONAL $6,000 REQUIRED TO REPAIR
TERMINAL GROIN DAMAGES CAUSED BY HURRICANE
IRMA AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES
TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – WHILE THE HEAVY
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IS ON SITE FROM THE
MARCO ISLAND CENTRAL BEACH REGRADE PROJECT
Item #16C1
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 19-7506, “COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUMS HURRICANE REPAIRS,” TO BD CONSTRUCTION
AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPROVE THE AGREEMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $108,713.50, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF REPAIRS TO
VARIOUS DAMAGED ELEMENTS AT COLLIER COUNTY’S
MUSEUMS; THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED IN
June 11, 2019
Page 280
COORDINATION WITH MUSEUM TECHNICAL STAFF AND
FEMA TO ENSURE WORK DONE ON STRUCTURES LISTED
ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL PLACES IS
DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE
GUIDELINES
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,644,417 TO REALLOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED
WITH THE BUILDING H, 3RD FLOOR HVAC REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT #50164). (DISTRICT 1)
Item #16C3
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $657,000 TO ALLOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED
WITH THE BUILDING H ROOF REPLACEMENT (PROJECT
#50165). (DISTRICT 1)
Item #16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,756,220 TO ALLOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED
WITH THE NAPLES REGIONAL LIBRARY HVAC
REPLACEMENT (PROJECT #50163). (DISTRICT 4)
Item #16C5
June 11, 2019
Page 281
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,525,501 TO
ALLOCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING
ASSOCIATED WITH THE J1/J2 CHILLER PLANT & HVAC
UPGRADES (PROJECT #50166). (DISTRICT 1)
Item #16C6
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000 TO
COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED SERVICE
REQUESTS AND MAINTENANCE FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS
AND EQUIPMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C7
TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID
#18-7422, “SRO WELLS NO.1 AND NO. 3/9 TRANSFORMER
REPLACEMENT,” TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF NAPLES,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,711 FOR THE REPLACEMENT
OF TWO PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS (PROJECT
#50154). (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE SUPPLIER CANNOT
PROVIDE A TRANSFORMER TO FIT THE EXISTING
CONCRETE PAD
Item #16C8
AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT #14-6345 WITH AECOM
TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., FOR BASIN 305 (PROJECT
NUMBER 70141) OF THE "WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM,"
June 11, 2019
Page 282
FOR INCREASING THE HOURLY RATES IN THE BASIS OF
COMPENSATION. (DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 4) – DUE TO THE
ESCALATION OF COSTS SINCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
WAS APPROVED THE VENDOR REQUESTED AN INCREASE
IN HOURLY PERSONNEL RATES; RATES PROPOSAL HAVE
BEEN ADJUSTED APPROXIMATELY 6% IN TOTAL FROM
RATES ESTABLISHED FOR 2015 AGREEMENT #14-6345;
THIS IS LOWER THAN THE 8.2% INCREASE IN THE
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR SOUTH URBAN, ALL URBAN
CONSUMERS, NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED
Item #16C9
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
HOMETOWN LANDMARK, LLC, FOR THE CONTINUED USE
OF COUNTYOWNED VACANT PROPERTY. (DISTRICT 2) – TO
EXTEND THE LEASE TERM TO AUGUST 14, 2020
Item #16C10
A DISTRICT OFFICE LEASE AMENDMENT WITH
CONGRESSMAN MARIO DIAZ-BALART FOR CONTINUED
USE OF COUNTY-OWNED OFFICE SPACE. (ALL DISTRICTS)
– THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITIES,
JANITORIAL SERVICE, AND LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE
TO THE LEASED SPACE; THE CONGRESSMAN WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE
CHARGES; THE ANNUAL RENTAL OF $10 WILL BE PAID
AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE GENERAL FUND (001)
Item #16C11
June 11, 2019
Page 283
A DOCUMENT NECESSARY TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OVER PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT AT 512 103RD AVE. N., NAPLES, FL 34108.
(DISTRICT 2) – TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT FOR
INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE ON
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT PROPERTY
REQUIRED TO POWER A NEW PUMP STATION
Item #16C12
A PAYMENT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT UTILITY
AUTHORITY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT FOR IRMA RELATED DISASTER
REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE
FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBAWARD AND GRANT
AGREEMENT (CONTRACT NUMBER: Z0644) WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
(ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D1
EXECUTION OF THE 2018/2019 FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT AWARD
(SECTION 5307) IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,180 IN THE
TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) FOR
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL BUS
SHELTERS THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
June 11, 2019
Page 284
ADMINISTRATION TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FUNDS WILL BE USED
FOR THE DESIGN, PURCHASE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP
TO 12 METAL BUS SHELTERS (INCLUDES AMENITIES SUCH
AS BIKE RACKS, BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES)
Item #16D2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE
AMOUNT OF $15,179.80 FOR FULL PAYMENT OF A
COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEE FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT. (ALL DISTRICTS)
– FOR PROPERTY AT 13691 LEGACY LANE, NAPLES, FL
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GREEN
& GREEN INVESTMENTS, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION,
FOR APPROXIMATELY 28.70 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $874,000 AND AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,098.41
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1)
RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS UNIT THAT IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO
THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FOR
June 11, 2019
Page 285
PROPERTY AT 7821 BRISTOL CIRCLE, NAPLES, FL
Item #16D5
EXPENDITURES FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE ANNUAL
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND LICENSES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND TO ADD THE
INSTALLATION OF THE I-TIVA AUTOMATED INTERACTIVE
COMMUNICATION MODULE AND SUPPORT PACKAGE,
WITH INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC.; FOR LIBRARY
SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUPPORT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $180,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS BUDGETED
THROUGH FY 2021. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2019-99: SUPPORTING THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DIVISION IN SEEKING NATIONAL
ACCREDITATION AS A VALID AND PROPER PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO HOST THE ACCREDITATION
COMMISSION NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D7
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STUDENT SCHOOL YEAR
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR
COUNTY RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – THE AGREEMENT WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM
JULY 1, 2019 UNTIL JUNE 30, 2020 AND INCLUDE THE
June 11, 2019
Page 286
SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMS AND SCHOOL YEAR FOR
2019/2020; ANNUAL COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INCLUDING SUMMER CAMP, IS ESTIMATED TO
BE APPROXIMATELY $60,000
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONTINUOUS
OPERATION OF THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF
THE 2019/2020 FUNDING AWARD. (ALL DISTRICTS) – IT IS
ESTIMATED COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE AWARDED A
TOTAL OF $599,670 IN SHIP FUNDING; FUNDS TO BE USED
TO IMPLEMENT SHIP PROGRAM STRATEGIES OUTLINED IN
THE 2019/2022 LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN
Item #16D9
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR A STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING
PROGRAM INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,250. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13691 LEGACY
LANE, NAPLES, FL
Item #16D10
RELEASING A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP
MORTGAGE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR A HOME
DESTROYED BY FIRE AND HELD AFFORDABLE FOR
June 11, 2019
Page 287
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS. (DISTRICT 1) – FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3100 POLLY AVENUE, NAPLES, FL
Item #16E1
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL. (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE NET TOTAL
FOR ELEVEN (11) ITEMS IS $182,681.14
Item #16F1
A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – BA #19-555 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR
VETERINARIAN FEES TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AND
SPECIALITY SERVICES AT DAS
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2019-100: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19
ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16G1
SUBMITTAL OF AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION
June 11, 2019
Page 288
ADMINISTRATION REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL
$1,700,745 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN AIRCRAFT APRON
AND AIRFIELD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, AT THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT PROJECT, WITH ESTIMATED
COSTS OF $1,889,717. (DISTRICT 1) – WITH A REQUIRED
LOCAL 10% MATCH OF $188,971.70 AVAILABLE WITHIN
AIRPORT CAPITAL FUND (496) PROJECT #33484
Item #16G2
SUBMITTAL OF AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION REQUESTING $189,000 FOR THE DESIGN
OF THE EXTENSION OF TAXIWAY C AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT WITH A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF
$210,000. (DISTRICT 5) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16J1
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH
COLLABORATION PROGRAM FY2019. AUTHORIZE THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, APPROVE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RECEIVE AND
EXPEND 2019 GRANT FUNDS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16J2
June 11, 2019
Page 289
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BJA STOP SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND
MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING PROGRAM FY2019.
AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHEN
AWARDED, APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND 2019 GRANT
FUNDS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16J3
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN MAY 16 AND MAY 29, 2019
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16J4
DETERMINING VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES
PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF
JUNE 5, 2019. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16K1 – Moved to Item #12A (Per Commissioner Taylor during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2019-101: APPOINTING CHLOE BOWMAN,
June 11, 2019
Page 290
SERVING AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER, TO FILL THE
REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM EXPIRING ON
FEBRUARY 14, 2022, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16K3
SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL
SERVICES FOR THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH
HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P.A. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – EXTENDS THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO
SEPTEMBER 12, 2021, INCLUDES THREE 1-YEAR RENEWAL
OPTIONS, REFLECTS CHANGES OF MEMBERS IN THE FIRM,
AND ADJUSTS FEES
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2019-08: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO ALLOW COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE
SENDING LANDS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT; BY
PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO,
FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER
TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION
2.01.03 ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND SECTION 2.03.08 RURAL
June 11, 2019
Page 291
FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND SECTION 2.03.09 OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE (ALLDISTRICTS)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2019-102: AMENDING THE TOWN OF AVE
MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) TO REVISE
THE SRA MASTER PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
4.08.07.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
SPECIFICALLY TO: REMOVE FROM THE BOUNDARY OF
THE SRA 12.19 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL IN
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SRA; REMOVE FROM
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SRA .55 ACRES OF
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL, AT THE INTERSECTION OF
CAMP KEAIS ROAD AND POPE JOHN PAUL II BOULEVARD;
AND TO ADD TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SRA
12.74 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL, TO THE
SOUTH OF BELLERAWALK CIRCLE; AND TO REVISE
APPENDIX A OF THE TOWN PLAN, THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS
ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 16
THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #17C – Continued to the June 25, 2019 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
June 11, 2019
Page 292
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PETITION VAC-
PL20180003283, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE
COUNTY AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE
PARK AND PRESERVE AREA LOCATED IN BLOCK “K” AND
A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN
TRACT “N” OF ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB,
UNIT ONE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 16 AND
A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN
TRACT “N” OF ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB,
UNIT TWO, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 19 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ACCEPT
PETITIONER’S GRANT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT
TO REPLACE THE VACATED PORTION OF THE PARK AND
PRESERVE AREA AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. (DISTRICT
1)
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2019-09: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO CREATE THE PLANTATION ISLAND OVERLAY WHICH
WILL ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN ADDITION TO THE USES
June 11, 2019
Page 293
PERMITTED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT; BY
PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO,
FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER
TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION
2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS; SECTION FOUR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION
IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;
AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2019-103: AMENDING APPENDIX A SCHEDULE
1 TO ELIMINATE FIRE ASSEMBLY BASE CHARGES
EFFECTIVE MARCH 12, 2019, AND INCREASE POTABLE
WATER BASE CHARGES ACROSS THE USER BASE
PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S DIRECTION TO STAFF TO
IMPLEMENT OPTION 2 AS DISCUSSED AT THE MARCH 12,
2019 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11C. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2019-10: AMENDING THE FUNCTION, POWERS
AND DUTIES OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
PROVIDE COASTAL WATER QUALITY COORDINATION,
EDUCATION, OVERSIGHT AND OUTREACH FOR ALL OF
COLLIER COUNTY INCLUDING THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE
CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND EVERGLADES CITY AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM.
(ALL DISTRICTS)
June 11, 2019
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL D t. CTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
C.e);40100 ►
_..........,..,„
WILL /A M L. McDANI L, JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
CRYSTAL Xk ' NZEL, CLERK
NI .-,t „,,
,. ud : ,- '.. 0 0,c,
Attest aA > '
signature`Q � F
These minutes approved by the Board on 3uII 1 i 2011 ,
presented resented ✓ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 294