BCC Minutes 11/12/2019 RNovember 12, 2019
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 12, 2019
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Burt L. Saunders
Donna Fiala
Andy Solis
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
November 12, 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
November 12, 2019
9:00 AM
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 - Chair; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Vice-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
November 12, 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. Reverend Tony Fisher, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Greater
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. October 8, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes
C. October 29, 2019 BCC Mental Health and Addiction Ad Hoc Committee
Workshop Meeting Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
Page 3
November 12, 2019
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating November 18 - 22, 2019 as American Education
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Beth Hatch, Executive Director
of Pathways Early Education Center of Immokalee.
B. Proclamation designating November 20 - 27, 2019 as Farm-City Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Garrett Richter, 2019 Chair of the Farm
City BBQ, Cyndee Woolley, President of the Farm City BBQ of Collier
County, Inc., and representatives of the four youth leadership development
programs benefitting from the proceeds of Farm City BBQ: Collier County
4H Association; Youth Leadership Collier; Collier County Junior Deputies
League; and Key Club International.
C. Proclamation designating November 2019 as National Hospice and
Palliative Care Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jaysen Roa,
President & CEO, Avow Hospice, Inc.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for November
2019 to the Boys & Girls Club of Collier County. To be accepted by Megan
McCarthy Beauvais, President & CEO, Jose Hernandez, COO, Dena Liston,
Chief Development Officer, along with Board Members Mary Pat Hussey
and David Grogan. Also attending is Bethany Sawyer, representing the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Page 4
November 12, 2019
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve by Ordinance the KRG Courthouse Shadows,
LLC Small-Scale Amendment to the Collier County Growth Management
Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as Amended, and to Transmit to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity. (Adoption Hearing) (Coordinator
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) (This is a companion to Agenda
Item #9B) (District 4)
B. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting.
This item requires 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 an Ordinance of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending
Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, the Courthouse Shadows Planned
Unit Development by adding 300 multi-family rental dwelling units as a
permitted use in addition to the commercial development; by adding
development standards for residential only buildings; by adding deviations
related to the residential uses; by revising development commitments and by
revising the master plan. The property is located on the south side of US 41
and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres;
and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to agenda Item
#9A) (District 4)
C. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting and
has been continued indefinitely. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned
Unit Development (PUD), to increase the maximum number of dwelling
units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an effective date. The subject
property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858)
approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13,
14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 616+/- acres.
(PL20180003155) (District 5)
Page 5
November 12, 2019
D. Recommendation to review and approve the 2019 combined Annual Update
and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and Schedule of Capital
Improvements as provided for in Section 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land
Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes and adopt a
Resolution that updates the 5- Year Capital Improvement Schedules.
(PL20190000983/CPSP-2019-1) (All Districts)
E. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the incorporation by
reference of two impact fee studies; amending the Road Impact Fee rate
schedule and the Water and Wastewater impact fee rate schedule; providing
for an effective date of November 25, 2019 for all rate categories that are
decreasing and a delayed effective date of March 2, 2020 for all rate
categories that are increasing and new/replacement land use categories being
added to the fee schedules, in accordance with the 90 -day notice
requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d), Florida Statutes; and
providing for revised definitions and update of the requirements related to
the payment of Road Impact Fees to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public
Facilities (COA) to comply with the new provisions of the Florida Statutes.
(All Districts)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #11A.
Recommendation to purchase the 37 acre SD Corporation/Cypress Landings
II parcels under the Conservation Collier program previously included in the
cycle 9 Acquisition A List in the amount of $1,580,000, which the owners
have indicated they are willing to accept. (Commissioner Fiala) (District 1)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Future Acquisition
Strategies document. (Summer Araque, Conservation Collier Program
Coordinator) (All Districts)
B. Recommendation to evaluate two (2) options for the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Joint Participation Agreement (JPA), for new
landscaping on US 41 East (Collier Boulevard to Greenway Road), and
Page 6
November 12, 2019
Collier Boulevard South (US 41 East to Shell Island Road). (Joe Delate,
Principal Project Manager, Road Maintenance) (District 1)
C. Recommendation to approve the award of Invitation to Bid No. 19-7611,
U.S. 41 North Water Main Replacement Phase 2, to PWC Joint Venture,
LLC, in the amount of $2,488,340, authorize the Chairman to sig n the
attached agreement, and authorize the necessary budget amendments,
Project Number 70247. (Tom Chmelik, Director Engineering and Project
Management Division) (District 2)
D. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7655 to Florida Dredge
and Dock LLC in the amount of $2,351,000 for the dredging of Water
Turkey Bay, Wiggins Pass and Caxambas Pass for the Marco South beach
renourishment, authorize necessary budget amendments, authorize the
Chairman to execute the attached Agreement, and make a find ing that this
item promotes tourism. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Manager, Capital
Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Page 7
November 12, 2019
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Summit Place in Naples Phase III, Application Number AR-6935, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3)
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Avila
Unit Six, Application Number PL20120001662, and authorize the
release of the maintenance security. (District 4)
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Madison Estates, Application Number 99-16, and authorize the
release of the maintenance security. (District 2)
4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Pebblebrooke Commercial Phase IV, Application Number AR-5145,
and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3)
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Southeast Immokalee, Application Number AR-3410, and authorize
the release of the maintenance security. (District 5)
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Eden
on the Bay, Application Number 99-02, and authorize the release of
the maintenance security. (District 2)
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Torino and Miramonte, Application Number AR-6320, and authorize
the release of the maintenance security. (District 4)
8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Cordoba at Lely Resort, Application Number AR-13078, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 1)
Page 8
November 12, 2019
9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Barefoot Bay, Application Number 00-36, and authorize the release of
the maintenance security. (District 2)
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
facilities, and accept the conveyance of the potable water for
Neighborhood Shoppes at Orangetree. (Water Main Extension),
PL20180001641. (District 5)
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples – Learning Center,
PL20180002553 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 $5,750.16 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 3)
12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water facilities for Richmond Park (Fire
Hydrant), PL20170002337 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 $4,839.16 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 5)
13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facilities for Hiwasse – Lock-Up Storage, PL20180002067, 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 $13,593.27 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s
designated agent. (District 4)
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Isles of
Collier Preserve Phase 7C, PL20180001299 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 4)
Page 9
November 12, 2019
15) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer utility facilities for The Club at Pelican Bay, PL20180002468,
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 $13,260.49 to the Project Engineer or Developer’s
designated agent. (District 2)
16) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Preferred Materials, Inc.,
for construction of the “Oil Well Road Shoulder Improvements –
Segment I” project, in the amount of $596,370.44 (Project 60231.2)
and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Work Order. (District
5)
17) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Ajax Paving Industries of
FL, LLC, for construction of the “Everglades Boulevard North
Shoulder Improvements – Segment I” project, in the amount of
$620,373.28 (Project 60237.1). (District 5)
18) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-a-Road Program Agreement
for the roadway segment of Wilson Boulevard (from Immokalee Road
south for 1.5 miles) with two (2) recognition signs and two (2) Adopt-
a-Road logo signs for a total cost of $200 with the volunteer group,
Collier County Cash Cows, Inc. (District 5)
19) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with a value of $220,980.21 for payment of $730.21 in the code
enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Janice Rives and Arturo Rives, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate
Case No. CEPM20160008025 relating to property located at 5378
Broward St, Collier County, Florida. (District 1)
20) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 12-234,
to remove the tri-annual amendment cycles and allow for amendments
to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to be processed,
reviewed and scheduled for public hearing as submitted, as aligned
with the Florida Statute 163.3184. (All Districts)
21) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Amendment No. 5 to Contract No. 18-7245 with Taylor Engineering,
Page 10
November 12, 2019
Inc., to include additional tasks for the Collier County Comprehensive
Watershed Improvement Plan. (All Districts)
22) Recommendation to approve two donation agreements for the
conveyance of drainage easements (Parcels 445DE and 446DE)
required for Gulfview Drive. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1,000.
(District 4)
23) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $18,927.18 for payment of $1,827.18 in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Randolph Codner and Van B. Rhone, relating to property located at
4343 22nd Ave SE, Collier County, Florida. (District 5)
24) Recommendation to authorize staff to utilize $199,674 from the
Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone Trust Fund for a
Golden Gate Parkway Complete Street Study and authorize the
necessary budget amendments. (District 3)
25) Recommendation to direct Staff to extend the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District’s (RFMUD) “Early Entry” bonus Transfer of Developments
Rights (TDR) credit, as provided for in the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and
in the Land Development Code (LDC). (District 3, District 5)
26) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committee’s ranking and
authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Tindale-Oliver
& Associates, Inc., dba Tindale Oliver, related to Request for
Professional Services No. 19-7563, “East Naples Community
Development Plan.” (District 1)
27) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to establish a standard
template for Construction Bonds associated with the collocation of
small wireless facilities on County utility poles on behalf of the Board
of County Commissioners. (All Districts)
28) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of $3,580 which was posted as a development
guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA) (PL20160000314)
Page 11
November 12, 2019
for work associated with Anthem Parkway Extension. (District 5
29) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $46,300 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.079, PL20120001414 for
work associated with Twin Eagles Phase 2B – Block 106. (District 5)
30) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Numbers 60.100, PL20120002540;
60.100-1, PL20130002717; 60.100-2, PL20140000342; 60.100-3,
PL20150000128 for work associated with Naples Reserve Phase One.
(District 1)
31) Recommendation to extend the existing contracts with Aptim
Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC, and Humiston & Moore
Engineers, P.A. under Agreement #15-6382, “Grant Funded
Professional Services for Coastal Zone,” for a period of up to 180
days to allow staff to complete negotiations for a new agreement and
to prevent a lapse in this service. (All Districts)
32) Recommendation to hear a Land Development Code Amendment at
two regularly scheduled daytime hearings and waive the nighttime
hearing requirement. (District 3)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking for
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 19-7634, “Heritage
Bay Government Center Design,” and authorize staff to beg in contract
negotiations with the top-ranked company, Stantec Consulting
Services, Inc., so that staff can bring a contract back to the Board at a
subsequent meeting. (District 4)
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7531, “Plumbing
Parts and Supplies,” to Palm Beach Plumbing Parts, Inc., as the
primary vendor, and Jameson Currie Corporation Inc. d/b/a Jameson
Page 12
November 12, 2019
Supply, Inc., as the secondary vendor, for County-wide plumbing
parts and supplies. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to award Agreements for Request for Qualification
No. 19-7539, “Roofing Replacement Contractors,” for County-wide
roofing replacement services to: Advanced Roofing, Inc., F.A.
Remodeling and Repairs Inc., Crowther Roofing and Sheet Metal of
Florida, Inc., Above All Roofing Contractor, LLC, and Target
Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to take any and all
legal action necessary to ensure that the property located at 249
Brockington Drive, which escheated to the county due to the prior
owner’s failure to pay taxes, is vacated of any occupants and the
dilapidated trailer on the property is removed or demolished, if it
remains. (District 1)
5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for the Facilities
Management Division in the amount of $1,869,000 to fund the Jail’s
Kitchen Replacement and Safety Upgrades Project (53007) from the
Infrastructure Sales Surtax. (District 1)
6) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 19-7593, “Palm River
Utility Improvements,” and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the top ranked firm, Q. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A. (District 2)
7) Recommendation to approve the award of Invitation to Bid No. 19 -
7625, U.S. 41 East Water Main Replacement, to DBE Management,
Inc., d/b/a DBE Utility Services, authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached agreement, in the amount of $660,591, and approve the
necessary budget amendment (Project Number 70248). (District 1)
8) Recommendation to approve the selection committee rankings and
authorize entering into negotiations for a contract related to Request
for Professional Services (RPS) Number 19-7621, "Golden Gate
Wastewater Engineer of Record (EOR) and Infrastructure
Improvements." (District 3)
Page 13
November 12, 2019
9) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments in the amount of
$911,912.93 for the Vanderbilt Drive Cul-de-sacs Public Utilities
Renewal, Project Number 70122. (District 2)
10) Recommendation to approve the Easement Agreement with
Bradstrom Village Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not-for-
profit corporation, at a cost not to exceed $4,553 for the acquisition of
a Utility Easement for proposed water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements, Project Number 70043. (District 1)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7630 to Infinite
Construction, LLC, for the “Barefoot Beach Boardwalk and Pavilion
Replacement,” in the amount of $225,343.28, authorize the Chairman
to execute the attached agreement, authorize the necessary budget
amendment and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
(District 2)
2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier
County and David Lawrence Mental Health Center to administer the
allocation of the state-mandated match for FY20 in the amount of
$2,335,934. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve a Temporary Right of Entry Agreement
with Fischer Brothers Industries, Inc., to allow a portion of the Rich
King Greenway be utilized as an access and staging area for a Moon
Lake development lake bank remediation project, at no cost to the
County. (District 4)
4) Recommendation to approve an “after-the-fact” contract and an
attestation statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc., for the Emergency Home Energy Assistance Program
and authorize a Budget Amendment to ensure continuous funding for
FY19/20. (Net Fiscal Impact $73,218.87) (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for the
State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program where the term of the
Page 14
November 12, 2019
obligation has been met. (District 5)
6) Recommendation to approve two (2) mortgage satisfactions for the
State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the combined
amount of $33,458 and approve an associated Budget Amendment.
(District 4, District 5)
7) Recommendation to approve one (1) Release of Lien for an owner
who has met the 15-year affordability term of a State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Grant Agreement for Deferral of 100% of
Collier County Impact Fees for Single-Family Affordable Housing
Dwelling, provide a refund. (District 1)
8) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of
$68,981.24 to fund lobby and office improvements at Collier Museum
at Government Center. (District 1)
9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Manager to sign all documents required to accept an initial
distribution from The Harvey M. Shreve Jr. Irrevocable Trust of 1997
(Trust), in the amount of $1,600,000 and any subsequent distributions
to the Collier County Public Library, and to approve any necessary
Budget Amendments. (All Districts)
10) Recommendation to approve upon arrival a FY2019/2020 Federal
Transit Administration Section 5311 rural grant award in the amount
of $484,276 to provide transit service to the rural area of Collier
County; approve a resolution authorizing the Chair to sign the
agreement and all necessary budget amendments and certifications.
Total fiscal impact is $968,552 with a Federal share of $484,276 and
local match of $484,276. (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to approve and execute upon arrival the FY20 -21
Public Transportation Grant Agreement (PTGA) with the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the amount of $1,965,584
providing for State funding for eligible Collier County fixed -route
transit administrative, management, and operational expenses in the
amount of $982,792, approve a local match in the amount of $982,792
and authorize necessary Budget Amendments (All Districts)
Page 15
November 12, 2019
12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to establish a “No
Overnight Parking” Zone at the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Facility
located at 8300 Radio Road. (District 3)
13) Recommendation to accept the donation from Naples Velo Cycling
Alliance, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, for the purposes of
upgrading a starting gate at Naples BMX Sports Park and approve the
Temporary Right of Entry with Bonness, Inc. to perform
excavation/site work required to install a new starting gate (District 4)
14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Agreement #H0311 from
the Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM) in the
amount of $225,000 for hardening of the University Extension
Services’ (UES) Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS)
Building and associated Budget Amendments which include a local
match contribution of $75,000, and a Resolution to authorize the
County Manager or designee to revise and execute any and all
documents necessary to apply for and/or receive the HMGP. (All
Districts)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-ME,
“Professional Services Library – Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing
and Technology Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the top five ranked firms, so that proposed
agreements may be brought back for the Board’s consideration at a
subsequent meeting. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-CE,
“Professional Services Library – Civil Engineering Category,” and
authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with all thirty-six ranked
firms, so that proposed agreements may be brought back for the
Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-AR,
Page 16
November 12, 2019
“Professional Services Library - Architectural Study, Planning and
Design Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations
with the top nine ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be
brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting.
(All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of
Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-TR,
“Professional Services Library – Transit Planning, Design and/or
Study Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations
with all four ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be
brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting.
(All Districts)
5) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services (“RPS”)
No. 18-7432-AH, “Professional Services Library - Architectural
Historic Preservation, Study, Planning and Design Category,” to
Parker/Mudgett/Smith Architects, Inc., Bender & Associates
Architects, P.A., MLD Architects, LLC, and Renker, Eich, Parks
Architects, Inc., and authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreements. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and annual Statewide
Mutual Aide Agreement between Collier County and other counties,
municipalities, and independent special districts and the State of
Florida, Division of Emergency Management. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to renew the annual Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for Collier County Emergency
Medical Services to provide Class 1 Advanced Life Support Transport
(ALS) for one year and authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit
and Certificate. (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to recognize carry-forward from accrued interest
earned from the period July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019 by
EMS County Grant revenue and appropriate funds for a total amount
9) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
Page 17
November 12, 2019
notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts)
10) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to accept an award of $63,560 in grant funds from
the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency
Medical Services for supplies and training and to authorize necessary
Budget Amendments. (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 FY2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to use Tourist Development Tax Promotion Funds
to support the upcoming December 2019 Sports Tourism Events the
Gatorade College Soccer Showcase December 7th-8th, 2019 up to
$9,100 and the Kelleher Firm Holiday Hoopfest December 27th-30th,
2019 up to $5,625 for a total up to $14,725 and make a finding that
these expenditures promote tourism. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Summit Orthopedic Technologies, Inc., (“Summit”) as a qualified
applicant to the Collier County Basic Industry Job Growth Promotion
Incentive Program and approve the attached agreement for Project
“Peak.” (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to authorize a $146,000 budget amendment
recognizing carryforward for two purchase orders that did not roll
from FY 2019 to FY 2020. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Agreement #
19-7509 between Cultural Planning Group, LLC and Collier County
Page 18
November 12, 2019
to increase reimbursable travel expenses in an amount not to exceed
$4,326 and make a finding that this action promotes tourism to Collier
County. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to authorize a Work Order under Agreement No.
14-6213, “Utility Contractors,” for Pelican Bay Lake 2-9 Restoration
to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., in the amount of $682,722.70.
(District 5)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve the Fourth Amendment to Agreement
No. 16-6561, “Design Services for Marco Executive Terminal,” with
Atkins North America, Inc., in the amount of $31,450 for
Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services associated
with Bid Alternates 1 and 2 and authorize the Chairman to execute the
Amendment, and to approve including the costs associated with
construction of Bid Alternates 1 and 2 in Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc. Contract No. 18-7366 - Marco Airport Apron & Associated
Safety Improvements, increasing the amount of the award by
$621,365 from $3,689,425 to $4,310,790 and authorize the County
Manager or his designee to execute a Change Order for the increase to
Contract No. 18- 7366. (District 1)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Agreement No. 19-7558, “Design and Related Services for the
Immokalee Regional Airport Runway 18/36 Project,” and the
“Taxiway C Extension Project” in the lump sum not-to-exceed
amount of $680,344 with Hole Montes, Inc. (All Districts)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to review the Florida Association of Counties
(FAC) Water Policy Committee’s 2019-20 proposed guiding
principles to be submitted to the Governor and Legislature for their
consideration at the 2020 Legislative session. (Commissioner Taylor)
(All Districts)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
Page 19
November 12, 2019
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of
the quarter ended September 30, 2019. (All Districts)
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between October 10, 2019 and October 30, 2019 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval of the submittal of
the Application for Funding Assistance for the Sheriff’s Office
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment grant. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to authorize execution of the budget amendment for
$635,000 for communications VESTA Hardware Replacement (9-1-
1). (All Districts)
5) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of November
6, 2019. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint a member to Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Vanderbilt Beach
Beautification Advisory Committee. (District 2)
4) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the
Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Health Facilities
Authority. (All Districts)
Page 20
November 12, 2019
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a
settlement agreement between Jeffrey and Brenda Lane and Collier
County, related to dispute over ownership of a drainage easement
within the property located at 6915 Oakmont Parkway, Naples,
Florida, with the County accepting ownership of the drainage
easement and future maintenance of the drainage line and both parties
waiving costs incurred in relation to the failure and replacement of the
prior drainage line. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for public hearing, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2018-
21, in order to codify the Board’s appointment of alternate members
of the Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Oversight Committee. (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. 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 an Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 17-45, as amended, the Logan/Immokalee
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), to increase the maximum
allowable size of a dry cleaning plant from 1,500 square feet to 2,500 square
feet; and providing for an effective date, for property located on the
southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of
18.6+/- acres. (District 1)
Page 21
November 12, 2019
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance establishing a ban against cast net
fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford. (District 5)
C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-12,
as amended, by adding to the classifications of Certificates of Public
Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) a Basic Life Support (BLS) provision
within the Class 2 Inter- facility transport services provision. (All Districts)
D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
November 12, 2019
Move Item 17B to Item 9F: Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance establishing a ban
against cast net fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford. (Commissioner Taylor’s request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9E to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.
Item 10A to be heard immediately following Item 11A
12/2/2019 8:40 AM
November 12, 2019
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please come to
order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. Good morning,
everybody. As soon as we get Commissioner Fiala up here, we'll get
going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm up here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, since you're all standing, if
you all would rise, please, we're going to do the prayer and the
pledge. Reverend Tony Fisher from the Unitarian Universal
Congregation is here this morning.
Item #1A
INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVEREND TONY FISHER OF THE
UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL CONGREGATION
REVEREND FISHER: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
REVEREND FISHER: Spirit of life, God of our deepest
understanding, we stand in awe at the wonder. At the gifts with
which we have been graced: This planet, this life, the beauty of our
beloved county, the shared commitment within this room for the
well-being of all citizens.
On this day after Veterans Day, we honor with deep gratitude all
those citizens who have given so much of themselves in service to
our country and the armed forces.
For all we have and all for which we can be grateful, we know
we live in a fragile world where the difference between have and
have not, between security and vulnerability, between good health
and ill can be, oh, so slight. We live in a world where tumult and
November 12, 2019
Page 3
uncertainty are written not only in the faces we see on our television
screens but in those we know as we go about our daily rounds and
those we are aware of sitting close to us in these seats this morning.
We live in a fragile world where all have experienced loss,
where we all know regret, where we all feel pain.
Spirit of love, as our Commissioners begin their work this day
and we all move forward into the season of Thanksgivings, may they
and we be filled with the compassion, the strength, the humility, the
courage to overcome our own fears, move beyond our disagreements,
and reach out our hands and our hearts in the spirit of gratitude and
generosity. Stay with us now and always as we strive toward the goal
of beloved community today and every day here in this fragile world.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, will you lead
us today?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will. Please stay with me...
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chair, I just would like to
remark what a wonderful invocation that was.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It really, really was. Thank you.
Very nice.
All right. County Manager, 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
November 12, 2019
Page 4
MR. OCHS: Good morning, sir. Good morning,
Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of November 12th, 2019.
The first proposed change is to move Item 17B from your
summary agenda to become Item 9F under your advertised public
hearings. This is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance
establishing a ban against cast-net fishing at the Ann Olesky Park on
Lake Trafford, and this is moved at Commissioner Taylor's request.
We have a couple of time-sensitive items today on your agenda
commissioners. The first is Item 9E. That will be heard no sooner
than 1:00 p.m. That's a discussion about your proposed impact fee
adjustments, and Commissioner McDaniel has asked that to be heard
no sooner than 1:00 p.m., and Item 10A is to be heard immediately
following Item 11A. And those are all the changes that I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
Well, let's go through and see if anybody else has any changes
or adjustments.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes, no adjustments, and
nothing to disclose on the consent or summary agenda, if we're
already to that.
I would like to ask one question about something that's on the
consent agenda. And I'm sorry. It was related to putting out a
proposal or an RFP for utility services in the Palm River area. And I
thought I had flagged it, but I can't see it now. Just wondering
what -- the timeline on that work beginning just so I can prepare my
constituents for that -- and you can tell me later. That's fine. I'm just
curious.
MR. OCHS: We'll get you the schedule, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you.
November 12, 2019
Page 5
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And yesterday was a holiday, so
there wasn't staff meetings and typical questions that we get
answered.
So, Commissioner Fiala, good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
Well, I, too, have nothing to declare on the consent agenda.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, excuse me. If you could pull that
microphone up. There you go. I can hear you, but the rest --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Red Tide. Oh, I
mean, Mr. County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Red tie, did you say?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She was commenting on your
Halloween costume.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. No good deed goes unpunished.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our County Manager dressed like
the Red Tide on Halloween, and if that isn't innovative, I don't know
who is. But, anyway, I got a kick out of it.
So I have nothing to declare on the summary or consent agenda,
or rather -- summary agenda, and I have no changes, no additions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there you are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing to declare. No changes
to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing to declare and
no changes as well, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I have nothing to declare. I do
have a couple of questions.
On 16A16, I wasn't able to find a map. This isn't -- I don't -- just
make a note. I'd like to see a map of the work area for that.
November 12, 2019
Page 6
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 16A18, I'd like to know who
Collier County Cash Cows are and what they do. It was a group that
signed up for a road project. It's Adopt-A-Road. And I've never
heard of the Collier County Cash Cows before, so I think we ought
to -- I even Googled them, and I couldn't find them on Google.
MR. OCHS: I'd like to find them as well.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do what?
MR. OCHS: I'd like to find them as well.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I bet you would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we should know before we
pass that, huh?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I think it's probably been well
vetted -- and, no, it hasn't been --
MR. KLATZKOW: Not necessarily, no.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I'm not going to pull it. It's
okay. I just -- I found it interesting.
And then on D9, maybe we ought to name one of our libraries
after the contributor, that trust.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not that one.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not that library?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, give it consideration at some
point. That was a pretty big bequeath.
I have no other changes or adjustments.
Before we go on -- well, let's do a motion and a second on the
agenda and its adjustments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. And I would just ask
the County Manager if, before the end of the meeting, he could find
out who Cash Cows are before we seal this meeting, because we don't
November 12, 2019
Page 7
know who we're talking about. Speaking of blind voting; that would
be it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'll do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can't imagine that something
would end up on our agenda that hadn't been pushed through, but it's
potential.
And they are -- it's an Adopt-A-Road project. So it's all being
coordinated in picking up trash and doing the proper thing, so...
I would -- before we go on and do anything else, I want to --
because I always forgot this. We have an Artist of the Month.
Lidia Dick is her name, and I'm probably mispronouncing it.
Lidea? Lidia.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nope, Lidia.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lidia has carried a passion for art
around the world living in countries like Brazil, Mexico, Thailand,
and China.
She obtained formal training and received an associate's in arts
at Delta College. There she focused on oil paintings. She continued
her training in Mexico City where she expanded her techniques into
bronze sculptures, and then also in Thailand where she learned A sian
arts.
She was given the opportunity to display her work at numerous
solo and group exhibitions, and worked with multiple recognized
artists around the world.
Lidia hopes to bring together the physical and spiritual worlds of
art and inspire thoughts and feelings through her work.
If you have a moment today, please, while we're on one of our
breaks, the court reporter or lunch, please take a moment. Her art's
displayed around the back.
November 12, 2019
Page 8
Item #2B
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 8, 2019
– APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's go ahead and do our
minutes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item 2B is approval of the Board of County Commissioners'
meeting minutes of October 8th, 2019.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve the minutes from October 8th. 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.
Item #2C
BCC MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIVE AD HOC
COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM
OCTOBER 29, 2019 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED
November 12, 2019
Page 9
Item 2C is approval of the October 29th, 2019, Board of County
Commissioners' Mental-Health and Addiction Ad Hoc Committee
workshop meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
the minutes from our mental health workshop be accepted. 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.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS – ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18-22, 2019 AS
AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY BETH HATCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
PATHWAYS EARLY EDUCATION CENTER OF IMMOKALEE –
ADOPTED
November 12, 2019
Page 10
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
That takes us to this morning's proclamations.
Item 4A is a proclamation designating November 18th through
the 22nd, 2019, as American Education Week in Collier County. To
be accepted by Beth Hatch, executive director of Pathways Early
Education Center of Immokalee. If you'd please step forward and
receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I knew you were here somewhere.
MS. HATCH: On behalf of Pathways, thank you so much for
all your support for the past 55 years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please go to the microphone and
say that.
MS. HATCH: On behalf of Pathways, all the children of
Immokalee, for your support for the past 55 years, we thank you as
we continue forward with over 400 on the waiting list, and the
purchase of our land across the street just last week, we will continue
to expand and serve the little under 1,200 children in Immokalee. So.
Thank you. Thank you --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
MS. HATCH: -- for all your support. Have a great day.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I love that bunch.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 20 - 27, 2019 AS
FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
GARRETT RICHTER, 2019 CHAIR OF THE FARM CITY BBQ,
CYNDEE WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ
November 12, 2019
Page 11
OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., AND REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE FOUR YOUTH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS BENEFITTING FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FARM
CITY BBQ: COLLIER COUNTY 4H ASSOCIATION; YOUTH
LEADERSHIP COLLIER; COLLIER COUNTY JUNIOR
DEPUTIES LEAGUE; AND KEY CLUB INTERNATIONAL –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating
November 20th through the 27th, 2019, as Farm-City Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Garrett Richter, 2019 Chair of the
Farm-City Barbecue; Cyndee Woolley, president of the Farm-City
Barbecue of Collier County; and representatives of the four youth
leadership development programs benefiting from the proceeds of
Farm-City Barbecue: Collier County 4H Association, Youth
Leadership Collier, Collier County Junior Deputies League, and the
Key Club International.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people in the audience
are going to Farm-City Barbecue? Raise your hand.
All right.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all going to be there serving
you.
MS. WOOLLEY: We're looking forward to it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, almost all of us.
MS. WOOLLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name's Cyndee Woolley. I'm the volunteer president of
Farm-City Barbecue, Inc., of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you volunteer for that
presidentship?
November 12, 2019
Page 12
MS. WOOLLEY: I volunteered for it, and it's my love, my love
and passion for quite a few years now.
On Wednesday, November 27th, we're returning to Cambier
Park. Thankfully, the trees have filled in, so it will be a littl e bit
shadier this time, following Hurricane Irma. We are expecting a
record 3,000 in attendance. And part of what we're so proud about
with the Farm-City Barbecue is we've donated more than $500,000
back to youth leadership programs through 4H, Youth Leadership
Collier, Junior Deputies, and Kiwanis Key Clubs.
Now, some people think that Farm-City Barbecue is strictly
about promoting the agricultural community, and while we do that,
part of what makes Farm-City Barbecue so special is we're not just
celebrating one aspect of the community. We're celebrating the
relationships that make a community stronger. From the farmer to
the truck driver, to the banker and the entrepreneurs; it wouldn't work
if we didn't work together.
So, Commissioners, with that, I'd like to extend my thank you,
my appreciation on behalf of the committee for your support, and I'd
like to introduce our chair, Garrett Richter, to say a couple of words.
MR. RICHTER: Thank you, Cyndee.
Good morning, Commissioners. It's always an honor to be in
your company. Thank you for your service. I know each and every
one of you are very proud to serve the citizens of Collier County with
good government, with good policy, with good decisions, and I know
that many or all of you will enjoy serv ing the citizens of Collier
County the Wednesday before Thanksgiving with good food, good
camaraderie, and good times.
I believe that the Farm-City -- the Farm-City day that alternates
between the city and the rural area is, in my opinion, the number-one
most enjoyable and effective gathering that I attend year after year.
And thank you for your service to the county, and thank you for
November 12, 2019
Page 13
serving up good steaks, corn, and, of course, Immokalee salad.
Thank you, all.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2019 AS
NATIONAL HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JAYSEN ROA,
PRESIDENT & CEO, AVOW HOSPICE, INC. – ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Item 4C is a proclamation
designating November 2019 as National Hospice and Palliative Care
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jaysen Roa, president
and CEO of Avow Hospice, Incorporated. Please step forward and
receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MR. ROA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Jaysen Roa. I am the president and CEO of the Avow
companies, including Avow Hospice.
Thank you so much for this honor. On behalf of our board of
directors, our hundreds of staff, our hundreds of volunteers and, of
course, the thousands of patients and families that we serve in Collier
County each and every year, thank you so much for recognizing all
that we do.
We really appreciate the support of Collier County and truly
appreciate the support of the County Commission. So thank you for
all that you do, and on behalf of everyone at Avow, thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I can get a motion to approve
November 12, 2019
Page 14
today's proclamations, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
our proclamations be accepted. 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.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2019 TO THE BOYS & GIRLS
CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MEGAN
MCCARTHY BEAUVAIS, PRESIDENT & CEO, JOSE
HERNANDEZ, COO, DENA LISTON, CHIEF DEVELOPMENT
OFFICER, ALONG WITH BOARD MEMBERS MARY PAT
HUSSEY AND DAVID GROGAN. ALSO ATTENDING IS
BETHANY SAWYER, REPRESENTING THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for November 2019 to the Board of County
November 12, 2019
Page 15
Commissioners Boys and Girls Club of Collier County. To be
accepted this morning by Megan McCarthy Beauvais, president and
CEO; Jose Hernandez, chief operating officer; Dena Liston, chief
development officer; Mary Pat Hussey and David Grogan, board
members; and Bethany Sawyer representing the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce.
MS. BEAUVAIS: Good morning. I think this is the first time
somebody has said my last name correctly, so thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Aimee gets all the credit in the
board offices.
MS. BEAUVAIS: Megan McCarthy Beauvais, yeah.
Well, you did a fantastic job.
I just wanted to say thank you as president and CEO of the Boys
and Girls Club of Collier County, on behalf of our board of trustees,
on behalf of our staff and the over 3,000 kids that we work with on a
yearly basis, primarily in the East Naples and Immokalee areas.
We really are trying to raise good citizens. We want them to
become County Commissioners. We want them to be productive,
caring, responsible members of society. We do that through
academics, character and leadership development help, and really
trying to teach them the skills on how to get along with people, how
to communicate, how to solve issues peacefully. Those are skills that
we think are necessary in today's world. They get that in addition to
all the other enrichment activities, and we do that for less than $2,000
a kid with 100 percent scholarships.
So we thank you for your support, we thank the Chamber for
recognizing us as well, and we couldn't do it without Collier County
community, so thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very nice.
November 12, 2019
Page 16
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 7 this morning,
public comments on general topics not on the current or future
agenda.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker
under Item 7, David Grogan.
MR. GROGAN: Good morning. David Grogan. I'm here today
to alert you to the rampant fraud which is occurring in our
condominium and homeowners associations. I'll give you some
background as to why it's become so rampant.
Back in 2016 the Miami-Dade District Attorney convened a
grand jury to look into the practices of the condo division of the
Department of Business and Professional Regulation since they had
received so many complaints from citizens.
The 35-page grand-jury report, which came out in February
2017, was far worse than anyone had imagined. Among the findings
was that its own investigators had never even been trained to conduct
an investigation. One of the main recommendations of the report was
to revamp the election monitor program.
So I set out to talk to the new head of DBPR, Mr. Beshears, by
sending an email to his communications department, which did not
receive a reply. After about a week, I sent another email. Again, no
reply.
After waiting another week, I sent a third email which said, "I
hope you can appreciate the irony of not receiving any
communication from the communications department."
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ha-ha. Sorry.
November 12, 2019
Page 17
MR. GROGAN: Minutes later --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did. You appreciated it,
right?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was funny.
MR. GROGAN: Minutes later my phone rang, and it was the
head of the condominium division. I said, okay, that's a start. He
hadn't read the grand jury report, which had been out for over a year,
so I told him about the findings regarding the election monitoring
program.
And he said but, Mr. Grogan, we have an election monitor
program. It's run by the ombudsman's office. So I asked him, who is
the ombudsman? And what he said next made me think that this
could be a Saturday Night Live skit. He said, there isn't one.
I then talked to a manager in the ombudsman's office who said
that he had been told not to appoint any new election monitors and
not to hold any election monitor training classes.
So as we approach the third anniversary of the grand-jury report,
a very bad situation has become even worse.
So I ask the Commissioners, could you just please simply raise
your hand if you're in favor of finding common-sense solutions to
protecting Collier County citizens from association fraud.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who wouldn't be in favor of that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Raises hand.)
MR. GROGAN: Well, I'm glad to see the response. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I understand given your
experience with elected officials and government you were -- you did
have to ask that question. So what can we do?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah.
MR. GROGAN: Well, I will be returning, and I hope to meet
with each of you individually to discuss that.
November 12, 2019
Page 18
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was going to say, let's get -- I
mean --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's nothing we can do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was going to say, it's a State issue,
is it not?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Division of Condominiums, yeah.
MR. GROGAN: Well, I think some local leadership just in
terms of maybe contacting the proper State officials will also be
good. We'll get together and talk.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do a quick letter and bring it up as
an agenda item and have some discussion, public input. I'm sure
you're not the only one that feels the way that you do.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You started out talking about
rampant fraud. What's the rampant fraud you're referring to?
MR. GROGAN: Well, what might be good is I could send you
the 35-page grand-jury report as well as many articles of fraud
occurring in associations. So I think it would be educational. It's
definitely a topic, just by virtue of how they've been handled at the
State level that for the most part complaints have been buried. And
the grand-jury report is pretty good about telling you that.
So it's not coming from me. It's coming from the grand-jury
report.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that was -- okay. My question
really is, is there fraud in Collier County that you're asking us to look
at, or this is just kind of a 10,000-foot look at the process?
MR. GROGAN: What we really need to do, what's really
needed is some common-sense solutions to prevent fraud from
happening as well as detect it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
November 12, 2019
Page 19
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll bring it up and have it as a
discussion. Thank you.
MR. GROGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, David.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that was our only registered
speaker for public comment.
Items #9A & #9B (ONE MOTION TAKEN ON BOTH ITEMS)
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2019-39: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE BY
ORDINANCE THE KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS, LLC
SMALL-SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, AND TO TRANSMIT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY – ADOPTED
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2019-40: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 92-08, AS AMENDED, THE COURTHOUSE
SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY ADDING 300
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AS A
PERMITTED USE IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR RESIDENTIAL ONLY BUILDINGS; BY ADDING
DEVIATIONS RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES; BY
November 12, 2019
Page 20
REVISING DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS AND BY
REVISING THE MASTER PLAN. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT
PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONSISTING OF 20.35+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 9 this morning,
your advertised public hearings.
We'll hear Item 9A and 9B together as companion items. These
items were continued from your October 22nd board meeting.
Item 9B does require that ex parte disclosure be provided by the
commissioners, and members that are going to participate are
required to be sworn in.
Item 9A is a recommendation to approve a small-scale
amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for a
project known as GR -- KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, and
Item 9B is a recommendation to amend the Courthouse Shadows
Planned Unit Development to add 300 multifamily rental units as
permitted use in addition to the commercial development.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have two registered
speakers for this item.
MR. OCHS: So, Mr. Chairman, ex parte disclosure, please, and
then we'll swear the participants.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. On 9B I've had
communications with Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Kirby of Kite Realty,
Rob Sucher or -- Sucher, emails from Mr. Smith, that's the neighbor,
November 12, 2019
Page 21
and correspondence from the Haldeman Creek MSTBU advisory
board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I've had multiple
meetings with the applicant and with his counsel, I've had special
CRA meetings, I've attended CRA meetings, and I've had discussions
with CRA members and also nearby community members, emails,
discussions with county staff, and with Planning Commission staff.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I also have had
correspondence and meetings concerning the 9A and 9B.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Again, very much -- very
similar: Meetings, correspondence, emails, calls.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you are.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Clearly -- attended CRA
meetings, spoke to a couple folks from the MSTU board, spoke to
Audubon about the trees, and I think that's -- and visited the site, of
course.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, as well, have had meetings,
correspondence, emails, and calls.
So with that, that's -- everybody rise who's going to give
testimony today and be sworn in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich
Yovanovich, for the record, on behalf of the petitioner and applicant.
You have two requests before you today pertaining to the
Courthouse Shadows project right across the street from the
November 12, 2019
Page 22
government center. One is a Growth Management Plan amendment
on 10 acres of that property to allow for an overall density of 300
apartment units on the 20.35 acres that is the overall PUD, and then
to amend the Courthouse Shadows PUD to allow for an apartment
complex to be constructed on the property.
With me today are several people who can answer questions you
may have. I'll do a brief overview, and Wayne Arnold will go
through the site plan in a little bit greater detail. But I have with me
Doug Kirby with Kite Reality, who is the property owner of the
property; Jared Wilson, who is the director of the East Region for
Johnson Development, who is the purchaser of the property and will
be developing the apartment complex; Wayne Arnold, the
professional planner; Kristina Johnson is the civil engineer with JR
Evans Engineering; Jim Banks is our transportation consultant and
can answer any transportation-related questions; and Tim Hall is our
environmental consultant.
On the visualizer is the 20.35 acres that is the Courthouse
Shadows PUD. I'm sure you're all very familiar with the site and the
current condition of that site.
KRG Realty owns 18.8 acres of the parcels that is in front of
you. Essentially, they own everything but a few of the outparcels that
front U.S. 41 where you have the restaurant, the gas station, Dunkin
Donuts, and the former Burger King site.
The 18.8 acres that KRG is selling to Johnson Development will
be redeveloped for an apartment complex. The Starbucks will be
staying; it's not going anywhere. So Starbucks will stay as well as
the other outparcels fronting U.S. 41.
The property is within Activity Center No. 16. As you're all
familiar, most of your activity centers except for two permit a density
of 16 units per acre. This activity center was originally adopted at
four units per acre because it was within the coastal high hazard area
November 12, 2019
Page 23
which capped the density at four units per acre.
State regulations and statutes have changed over the years
allowing for local governments to increase the density within activity
centers provided that proper hurricane mitigation is obtained for the
increase in the density.
Under your current Growth Management Plan, the density
allowed on this site would be 172 units. So, basically, we're asking
for an increase of 128 units through the Growth Management Plan
amendment. And we worked with Dan Summers to provide the
appropriate mitigation related to the state statutes and hurricane
evacuation by providing both general and special-needs cots for your
hurricane shelters for these people. Our people will basically be
sheltering in place because it's new construction. So we're not going
to create an impact on your overall hurricane evacuation.
I will briefly go over the history of this PUD because, as you're
aware, this PUD has -- I'm sorry -- this shopping center has
languished and has seen many of its tenants go away. The original
PUD was approved in 1992 and was developed with a
147'-square-foot (sic) shopping center that has had several grocery
stores serve as the anchor of that shopping center.
KRG acquired the shopping center in 2006, and in 2008 Publix
purchased Albertson's, which used to be there, and Publix went to
this shopping center. In 2013, after Publix, you know, expanded the
Kings Lakes shopping center, Publix decided not renew the lease, and
since that time the shopping center has struggled to find good -quality
tenants.
In roughly two thousand -- and they've tried to market to
Winn-Dixie, Sweet Bay, Wholefoods, Lucky's, and none of those
grocery stores have decided to re-establish themselves in that
shopping center. In fact, they had a contract with Lucky's, but that
fell through, and they relocated nearby and chose not to go to this
November 12, 2019
Page 24
center.
As many of you will recall, in 2014 Sam's Club became very
interested in this site. Everybody was excited about Sam's Club
coming to this site, including Kite. We started the PUD amendment
process for Sam's Club to increase the square footage from 147,000
square feet to 165,000 square feet, and right as we approached the
finish line of the zoning, Sam's Club decided they were not doing any
more expansions, and they basically put -- not just this project, but
many, many projects on hold, and they decided not to move forward
on this site.
Since that time, KRG has tried to find national retailers such as
HomeGoods, T.J. Maxx, Ross, Five Below, and others to come to
this site. None of them wanted to come here. As you can see, it's an
odd configuration. They're older buildings, and it would be very
expensive for them to come here.
There was another developer who was interested in doing a
ground lease for a multifamily project. That fell through.
And then in 2018, Johnson Development Associates identified
this site, liked this site, and has had this site under contract, and it has
been moving forward with doing another apartment complex. You
may be aware that not too long ago we did an amendment to the
Briarwood PUD to add an apartment complex to that property at the
corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road. Johnson Development is
the developer of that apartment complex, likes the Collier County
market, and sees this as a great opportunity to redevelop this
shopping center into another high-quality apartment complex.
And they've worked long and hard with the outparcels tenants --
or owners to help them with their parking issues and help them
become better parcels for development and higher use, and hopefully
the restaurants will stay and not keep coming and going from the
outparcels. Wayne will take you through some of those changes.
November 12, 2019
Page 25
We've met with the CRA advisory board multiple -- on multiple
occasions. The CRA Advisory Board likes the project and has voted
unanimously to endorse the project.
One of the comments that we hear, and we hear on just about
every project now, is traffic. Traffic's bad in Collier County; we
don't want to do anything to make traffic worse.
This site is a little bit different. Because it's an already
established shopping center, it's already vested for its traffic impacts
for the 147,000 square feet of shopping center. And what does that
mean? It's already vested for 582 peak -hour trips for the 147,000
square feet. It's actually approved for 662 p.m. peak-hour trips for
the 165,000 square feet that's been approved.
With the multifamily development that would occur on the site,
the trips from this project would be reduced to 453 p.m. peak-hour
trips. So depending on whether you want to use the approved 662 or
the already vested 582, worst-case scenario, you're reducing the trips
on the road by 129 p.m. peak-hour trips if you use the already vested
number of trips.
Overall, there would be almost 1,900 fewer daily trips coming
from this site if you go to multifamily versus the approved 165,000
square feet.
According to staff's annual AUIR report, Tamiami Trail is
currently operating at 77 percent of its maximum capacity. We will
be reducing the number of trips on that road.
KRG has tried on multiple occasions to market this for a retail
center. It's just not in the cards. Retail has changed so differently
over the years as well as the configuration of that site. It's just not an
optimum retail site.
As I said, we've gone to the CRA advisory board on multiple
occasions and showed them the architectural renderings of what we
propose to do on this site, and we believe that this site is an excellent
November 12, 2019
Page 26
site to continue the success of the CRA redevelopment that's
occurring in Bayshore, hopefully will occur in the mini-triangle, and
hopefully spur further redevelopment along the East Tamiami Trail
as we go further east on U.S. 41.
One of the other important factors that we believe relating to this
site is the tremendous tax value to the CRA that will result from the
redevelopment of this site. Currently, KRG pays about $80,000 a
year in ad valorem taxes. That was their 2018 taxes. I've looked at
comps for other apartment complexes that are similar to this proposed
project.
Inspira's recent 2019 tax bill -- and that's 304 units -- is for
$463,466.22. So you will see in that that's a tremendous increase in
value for the CRA and for the community by redeveloping this
center. And Orchid Run, which we've all been using for years as the
comparable for, you know, high-end apartment complexes, Orchid
Run's tax bill this year is $425,879.39.
So you could see that apartment complexes that are market -rate
apartment complexes where there's a significant investment in the
property are -- pay significant amount of money in ad valorem taxes,
and in the CRA would be a great benefit.
We've agreed to be included in the MSTU. Only part of the
property is currently in the Henderson Creek -- it's Henderson Creek,
right -- Haldeman? -- Haldeman Creek MSTU. We'll put the
remainder of the property in there, and the courthouse multifamily
project will generate about a million six in additional impact fees.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of both the
amendment and the PUD amendment. Staff's recommending
approval of both the PUD amendment and the Growth Management
Plan amendment. That's a general overview of what we're asking.
Wayne will take you through the specifics. We've spent a lot of
time working with our neighbors to address buffering and other
November 12, 2019
Page 27
issues related to the project, and Wayne will take you through those
changes, and then we can answer any questions you may have or be
happy to answer questions now. Up to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're okay. I have no lights
lit up.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Arnold, certified planner; pleased to represent Kite Reality on this
petition.
Rich did a good overview. And one thing he didn't touch on
were the specifics of the site plan that we have. And there's not a lot
of detail on the plan, but we do have superimposed on a site plan that
some of you have probably seen in your meetings with Rich.
One of the things, what I just put on the visualizer, Rich
mentioned, we are in Activity Center No. 16. That represents all of
the properties in the activity center. It includes the government
center and the buildings we're in today. It includes Courthouse
Shadows, obviously, south of U.S. 41 and portions of the properties
over at Bayshore and Airport and -- excuse me, Shadowlawn and
Bayshore Drive.
So the property is a large activity center. Most of your activity
centers already allow the 16 units an acre. These are considered
mixed-use activity centers and, unfortunately, there aren't that many
examples we have where we actually have mixed-use activity centers,
and what this proposes to do is to allow the multifamily to essentially
replace the defunct shopping center building, the Buffalo Wild Wings
building, the former office supply building, and then we would have
the residential structures constructed and leaving the outparcels
remaining along U.S. 41. So we're going to have a natural buffer
being behind those on U.S. 41.
And as Rich mentioned, at the Planning Commission hearing we
November 12, 2019
Page 28
heard from neighbors, and there's a commitment that's in your PUD
document before you that talks about leaving the existing vegetation
along Peters Avenue that provides a natural good buffer to the
neighbors, and we're happy to do that.
So this is considered the official PUD master plan. It's pretty
basic, as you can see. But the area that's shaded in dark gray is
labeled C/R. That would allow commercial to remain. If for some
reason Johnson doesn't close on this and build the residential, it also
allows the residential. So the area highlighted as C and R are the
only places the residential would be allowed on this PUD.
One of the things that Rich mentioned, too, the outparcels have
remained. And I'll show you a little bit more detailed site plan. And
as Rich mentioned, the applicants have been working with the
existing property owners of Dunkin' Donuts and the defunct Burger
King and the Chevron station and the restaurant, and they will
continue to own the Starbucks building. So it's really a nonissue for
them.
But you can see there are additional parking that's been provided
all along the perimeter road, and that will serve as additional parking
for those outparcels. There's also a parking lot that's being added in
this location that I'm pointing to, and there's another parking lot that
will be adjacent to U.S. 41 that will serve all of those remaining
outparcels.
And as Rich mentioned, one of the things that occurs with this is
that if we go forward with the residential option, we forego 100,000
square feet of future commercial. So the tradeoff is, for the 300 units,
this project gives up 100,000 square feet of commercial. That leaves
65,000 square feet on the table, which is more than adequate to
satisfy the existing commercial that's there. It's probably in the order
of 20,000 square feet for those outparcels. But in working with the
County Attorney's Office, you know, we need to make sure that
November 12, 2019
Page 29
there's ample room for those people to expand. So the number was
an easy tradeoff at 100,000 square feet.
So on that plan, too, a couple features I wanted to point out. The
residential component is planned to be gated. There will be two
access locations that are going to be gated. One here where I'm
pointing; another will be in this location. So that will be secured.
One of the issues that came up at the CRA meeting, as well as the
Planning Commission, was not wanting a wall. There's a recent
project that's under construction on Bayshore Drive, and the
community said, we don't want you to build a solid masonry wall
along this project.
So one of the commitments that you'll find in the PUD is that
there are a commitment to build decorative fencing around the project
and no solid wall, with one exception. And after at the Planning
Commission meeting, we met with some of neighbors that are on
Collie Court, which is the property south near the Haldeman Creek.
And they said that they understood the commitment not to want a
solid wall, but for their purposes behind their homes, they would
prefer a solid wall, at least in part.
So what I've done on this that I'm putting on the visualizer
would show you the one exception area where we would put in a
solid wall at the request of those neighbors. You can see that's not
really adjacent to the road. It's not going to be highly visible to the
traveling public. You won't see it from U.S. 41. And I think the
concern with the CRA was, it doesn't seem as welcoming or friendly
to have that solid wall as your door. So we would put in probably
decorative aluminum fencing of some sort in the other areas
surrounding the residential project. There are some language, I'll go
through in just a moment, we need to modify to deal with that.
One of the other things that we have dealt with were the
renderings, and I'm sure some of you have seen these, but these were
November 12, 2019
Page 30
presented to the CRA and the Planning Commission.
And these present four-story buildings, four-story apartments.
The thought is that they would have integral amenity centers, so they
would have a leasing office, obviously, for the apartment, but they
would also have integral one or more amenities for each building so
that you don't have a large outdoor active area. You might have an
outdoor pool, but a lot of the others things, like exercise equipment
and space. And there's a reference to some what was loosely called
"we work space," which would be areas where, if you were a resident
or a guest of a resident, you would have some space in the lobby area
of the apartment where you would have area to share computer space,
have WiFi access, et cetera, so you could Skype from your cubicle or
whatever so you didn't necessarily have to be at the office to do work,
which is obviously, as Rich mentioned, not only is retail changing the
way they do business, but the way we all work seems to be changing.
So that was an important aspect of what we were doing. And I think
those were well received by the community. Obviously, the CRA
and the Planning Commission.
But for the project, I just, if I could, highlight a couple of the
changes we do need to make, a couple of commitments that we made.
One was there was a line on the master plan, and I'll trace that. It's
120-foot offset line from the south property line adjacent to Collee
and Peters. And we made a commitment at the Planning Commission
that in that area light fixtures would be limited to 15 feet in height
with fitted cutoff shielding on them to make sure that there was no
intrusion into the neighborhood. So there is a condition that needs to
be modified.
And the way it's written, it would imply that we can't have
something taller than 15 feet anywhere on the site, but we, in fact, do
need to have taller lighting at our main entrances on U.S. 41, for
instance, and in front of the buildings on U.S. 41 we may need that
November 12, 2019
Page 31
taller lighting.
So in the PUD document you have there's a Condition I that
says, for residential buildings abutting Collee and Peters, the lighting
maximum height shall be 15 feet and shielded from off property with
no excess bleeding of light greater than .2 foot candles. And I just
wanted to reference that that's within 120 feet of Collee Court, and I
can work with Mr. Klatzkow or Heidi to come up with the
appropriate phraseology, but I wanted to make sure that that was the
limitation only within the 120 feet as shown on that master plan.
There was also another condition written similarly that talked
about the parking lot lighting, and it says essentially the same thing,
and it references the 120 feet, and that's on Page 15 of 16.
But I wanted to add a reference that says, taller fixtures will be
no closer than 120 feet, and I think that would clarify that the intent is
to have something taller than 15 feet farther than 120 feet away.
And the other change that we wanted to make was in reference
to the fence that I mentioned on the highlight area. Where it says that
we would have the decorative fencing, I want to write some language
that would say except that a solid wall could be located in the area
adjacent to Collee Court and Peters as shown on the ma ster plan.
And I think -- I talked briefly with Heidi in your County Attorney's
Office about those changes, and I don't think they have issues with
those. I think those are clarifications that address the neighbor
concerns even better than we addressed at the Planning Commission.
With that, I just wanted to summarize that, again, as Rich
mentioned, we think this is a good project for many reasons. I mean,
this is in your CRA, and having a new energetic project that plays off
a lot of the positive things that are happening on Bayshore hopefully
can bring some of the life to the corridor on U.S. 41. It is
redevelopment. Your redevelopment agency exists for a reason, and
I think this is one of those perfect examples where it works.
November 12, 2019
Page 32
Mixed-use seems to work here. I mean, we're sitting in the
government center that employs how many thousands of people at
this location and can provide easy work opportunity and live
opportunities that it's a short walk away. You have transit across the
street from here, and you have busy U.S. 41 and, clearly, this model
has not worked for retail as it's evolving in the world we live in.
So I hope that you can support it. We're here to answer any
additional questions that you have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have no lights. So you've done an
admirable job explaining. Do you want to do our public speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you've got David coming
up.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, you have two registered --
MR. OCHS: Hold on, Troy.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We've got to do -- we've got staff,
I'm sorry.
Forgive me, David.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'll be very brief. For the
record, I am David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff.
We are recommending approval for the reasons stated in your
executive summary. I specifically wanted to make one correction on
the record, and that is the executive summary incorrectly states that
the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote 6 -0. It
was actually 5-1. One commissioner did not support the project and
preferred to see commercial rather than residential.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, David, just as a point of
clarification, the language changes between transmittal and adoption
will all be reviewed?
MR. WEEKS: This is an adoption hearing, because this is
what's called a small-scale amendment. So if you approve it today
it's -- we're done.
November 12, 2019
Page 33
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered
speakers. Your first speaker is Robert Smith. He will be followed by
Al Schantzen.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning.
MR. SMITH: My name is Robert Smith, and I reside at 3312
Collee Court, which is directly behind the Courthouse Shadows
shopping center project.
I'm here representing the six homeowners who have lived -- who
live on Collee Court directly behind the project. And I'm here to tell
you that we have no objections to the project. We have worked with
Kite Realty and Johnson Development, and they've been most
accommodating in how they've tried to resolve any problems that we
have.
We are concerned primarily with buffering from the project, and
they have agreed to construct the wall at least eight feet high.
Six feet high on a 2-foot berm or five feet high on a 3-foot berm or
whatever it might take to give us that visual protection. They've also
agreed not to site any waste containers within 100 feet of our
homeowners.
They are attempting to save two heritage oak trees that are in
excess of 200 years old that are on Collee Court and that one of the
trees is on their property, and one, the property line splits the tree. So
they said they would make an effort to save those two trees.
They have agreed to -- I heard a -- someone mentioned retention
of the vegetation as a buffer. And if you look at the vegetation that
exists today, it certainly isn't sufficient to provide a buffer. It is
overgrown. It was put in there when Collier Development developed
the site in 1992. So it's been there a long time. It's all overgrown,
and it should be removed and replaced with adequate landscaping.
So that's the only thing I'd like to -- the only issues that we have
November 12, 2019
Page 34
have been resolved. They have agreed to shade the lights to prevent
intrusion on our property. And they've been a good -- two good
companies to deal with in resolving our questions.
That's all I have. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away. Number one, I like
your shirt. Are you a marine?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir; six years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you for your service.
MR. SMITH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate that.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away. I'm not done with
you.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders has a
question, I believe.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is really a question for
Mr. Yovanovich in response to what was just stated concerning the
two trees. I appreciate the indication that the developer will make an
effort to preserve those trees. I'd like to make that as a condition of
approval that those trees be preserved. I notice that the developer is
shaking his head in the affirmative. Would that be acceptable? I'm
not even sure we can legally do that, but I'm going to ask you if you
would accept that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the answer is yes. I can't foresee
that the -- if we have a problem for some reason, we'll come back, but
yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can't enforce that.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's okay. We do things
November 12, 2019
Page 35
that are unenforceable from time to time. I think it sets the record,
and I'm going to -- in the motion, whoever makes it, I'm going to ask
that that be a condition, and hopefully --
MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have our commitment, if
something unforeseen happens, we'll come back.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let us know. I appreciate
that. I hate to see a 200-year-old -- a couple 200-year-old trees --
MR. SMITH: They shouldn't be taken down. They're a
beautiful tree --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Two of them.
MR. SMITH: -- and we should retain them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two of them.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Al Schantzen. He will be
followed by Mary Waller.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Good morning, Commissioners,
Chairman. Al Schantzen, for the record.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning.
MR. SCHANTZEN: I, too, support those trees. One of my
concerns here before he got in on that was those trees, because they
do -- the canopy of the older trees shelter the view from my area over
on Canal Street, which is across the Haldeman Creek, and they mak e
a very big, beautiful place where the birds go to rest and move from
tree to tree up and down the Canal Street, so -- up and down the canal
system, so they're really sensitive to the environment, these older
100-, 200-year-old trees.
And on the Planning Commission recommendation, Stipulation
No. 2 was that only non-watercraft are permitted on Haldeman Creek
from this area, and that's a good stipulation that's carried through, to
my understanding, in this agreement. But it does bring in a couple
other questions, and one was answered, is that the Haldeman Creek
MSTU will now encompass the whole thing. That's a good
November 12, 2019
Page 36
development. That's great.
And the only other part I have on the Haldeman Creek issue was
the area where the launch is and how the county determines whether
it's an active activity or a passive activity as far as parking. You've
got two different sets of regulations for parking in that particular area
if they consider it passive or activity -- or active area. So some
clarification in that area would be nice to know how many parking
spots they're going to put down by the canal.
And another point of clarification for the record, in the minutes
that are attached of the CRA meeting of August, the vote shows to be
6-1. I was the dissenting vote on that, so it wasn't a 7-0. And I
dissented on the basis of the density.
They've got a 75 -- they're asking for a 74 percent increase in the
original -- the required density. And I don't have anything against the
development or against increasing the density. I just think that that
amount of increase of density is a little much for Activity Center
No. 16 and the way the pedestrian and bicycle traffic of those
residents are going to get around on the busy 41. We have access
across the street problems.
And one of the other concerns I have is the infrastructure along
the Collee Court/Peters Avenue back properties. Peters Street, as it is
now, is just a road and a culvert. It would be nice if as this
development goes on -- I know it's the county's responsibility to put
in the infrastructure for pedestrians in that area, if they do that
simultaneously, it would be a great benefit to those people in that
residential area.
I see I'm out of time. I thank you. I support it, just not the
density, and maybe some pedestrian --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Schantzen, I think we're
going to get some clarification on exactly who's going to be using
that canoe launch, and it's my understanding it's the residents only.
November 12, 2019
Page 37
This isn't open to the public --
MR. SCHANTZEN: Correct. But my concern was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- so there won't --
MR. SCHANTZEN: -- is the parking, amount of parking that
the overall -- the facility, the overall compound has.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh.
MR. SCHANTZEN: And if there's not enough -- I mean, the
residents will be taking the parking for the canal bank and everything
else. So what is the requirement for parking in that particular area?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think -- at Courthouse
Shadows the whole PUD or specifically for the canoe launch?
MR. SCHANTZEN: Well, I ran out of time. The --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When she asks you a question, you
can go.
MR. SCHANTZEN: The activity center -- the four or five
buildings -- excuse me. I forget how many buildings you're putting
up total.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're putting up a total of five
buildings.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Five buildings. And to my understanding,
during the Planning Commissioning (sic) that there was a
commitment not to put activity centers in a couple of buildings, and it
was going to be only restricted to three of the buildings?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a commitment activity
center -- the amenities --
MR. SCHANTZEN: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- are going to be within the buildings
themselves. Most apartment complexes have a separate amenity
building. This one will have the amenities within the residential
buildings themselves. And it's a compact site. We don't anticipate
November 12, 2019
Page 38
providing any additional parking anywhere near the -- it's going to be
for paddle-boarding, kayaking, and maybe canoeing, and those will
all be provided by the apartment complex itself, so it will be for use
of the residents. So there's no need for additional parking related to
that.
I would think it's a passive use, because there's no motorized
vessels or anything like that. It's just simply going out and hopefully
going in the creek and doing paddle-boarding and kayaking, and a
really nice amenity for the residents.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Oh, no. I agree with you. I just didn't
know whether the definition would be active or passive, which have
different code parking requirements.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it would be passive.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it meets the definition of passive.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. And on the other issue of those five
buildings, to my understanding, if you refer to the notes of the
Planning Commission, they did indicate, I thought, in there that they
would not be putting activity centers in all five buildings. That
they -- there was a plan to put it in only maybe three of the buildings,
and two of the outlying buildings wouldn't have those centers, which,
when you do that, if you put activity centers in all five, you're into the
parking question again.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you meaning fitness centers?
MR. SCHANTZEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. Not activity centers.
Activity center spins off a whole new development process. And
they did specify they were going to be individually within the
buildings themselves.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what somebody said. I can't
November 12, 2019
Page 39
remember if it was Wayne or Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see that we have three
buildings that are 55 feet zoned height. That's where the amenity
centers would be, and the other two buildings we committed there
would be no centers -- or amenities within those buildings. So you're
correct. You're correct.
MR. SCHANTZEN: That's the way I understood it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I see.
MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for
this item is Mary Waller.
MS. WALLER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mary
Waller. And I, too, like the trees. I think they're beautiful. I like the
development. I think the buildings are lovely. I think they've done a
very nice job with the design and the thought -- they've thought it out.
What I do object to is that I really don't think they've thought it
out that it's going to be across the street from the government center.
At the government center, we have a center that is supplied by
essential-use personnel. You're going to have 300 units across from
the government center that will not allow for any of the essential -use
personnel to lease there because it's going to be out of their price
range. I think they should consider doing something similar to the
Allura project where they offer it to essential-use personnel for rental
as first applicants, and then if they don't apply, a certain number of
units -- they did -- I think at Allura they did 18 percent of the units
went -- and that was only 55, 51 units out of 303. You're not giving
up the entire project. You're not losing on your costs. You're
assisting people that really need somewhere to stay. They will be
across the street from where they are.
You've got a courthouse. You have government offices here.
Think about that. Don't just think about the dollar value of what
November 12, 2019
Page 40
you're going to get out of everything.
Thank you for letting me speak.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
Commissioner, do you have a question for her?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Mary.
Any other questions? Discussions?
Commissioner Taylor, you get to go first.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do. Okay. That's it? Are we
closing?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're done with the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have to close it?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do I have to close it? It is now
closed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to follow up on Ms.
Waller's comments. I, too, agree that this development needs to
address the issue of affordable housing.
Now, we, as a commission, made a decision over -- well, there
was two years of meetings, and then when this came to us we pretty
much moved an affordable housing program to a point where having
affordable housing related to increased density was the key to making
it happen.
And right now we're talking about increasing the density by 12.8
units in an area that's never seen this before.
First of all, I don't think we have the infrastructure to do that.
But, more importantly, I think we could allow this density if the
developer would follow what the agreement was by Stock
Communities for the Allura. And I have that agreement right here,
and I can put it up on the visualizer.
Now, this was for ESP units and, yes, there was an availability
for -- I believe it is for 60 units, 20 percent for rent.
November 12, 2019
Page 41
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Specify --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Essential service personnel, that
would be our -- the folks --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We know what it is. I just wanted
you to say it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Essential service personnel.
That's what I'm talking about. And this would be inclusionary
zoning. And I've had a conversation with our attorney --
Mr. Yovanovich, with the developer's attorney about this, and he
indicated that he wasn't sure that this would even fly with another
developer. But I can assure him I got a call this morning, and
someone else will pick this up. So Kite should be very happy about
that. They think they could make this work.
So if you look at this, this -- 30 of the 60 ESP units, 32, I think it
is, are kind of held for a specific number of days, and then if it's not
picked up by essential service personnel, then it goes to the open
market. But then there are 10 percent income restricted to
households earning no more than 80 percent of Collier County's
median income.
I think, given the position of this facility and the fact that the
only -- the only carrot we can offer folks who are willing to build
affordable housing in this community is increased density, I don't
think we should give it away right now. And I think that this
commission would agree that you didn't agree -- you agreed to that
because you made it a condition of kind of a carrot to give folks who
wanted to -- reward to folks who wanted to build affordable housing.
So we're talking about essential service personnel. It means
families or a person whose annual -- total annual household income is
at or below 120 percent of Collier County's median income.
And so at this point I'd like to see if the developer would
consider doing -- building inclusionary zoning at this spot for
November 12, 2019
Page 42
essential service personnel.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I appreciate getting to see this for
the first time --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You worked on this --
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- right now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- two weeks ago.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything
with Courthouse Shadows a few weeks ago.
You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm assuming you're
referring to the Allura project.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I don't think the Allura project
was a redevelopment of a failed shopping center and the additional
costs and expenses that go along with having to demolish the existing
structures, redo the existing utilities and all the expenses that go
along with that process to redevelop a failed shopping center.
I don't know where your percentages come from, and so I
cannot -- and, frankly, I've discussed with my client the concept of
income restriction. There's no problems with offering up ESP units,
you know -- you know, to target that market first. There's no
problem with that. In fact, that's what they're doing at Briarwood.
They committed to that. But to income restrict the project with what
you're proposing, the buyer, frankly, is not willing to do that.
And I don't know who you spoke to about taking over the
contract purchaser's position, but I'm not going to do anything to
interfere with an existing contract --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that exists today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You indicated to me that if this
didn't go through, it would fail, and you didn't know what would
happen with Kite Realty because this whole project --
November 12, 2019
Page 43
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'm telling you right now I have an
obligation to protect my client from people interfering with existing
contractual relationships.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're changing the subject, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You went out and solicited another
potential buyer, not me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir. No, I didn't.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You said earlier on the record that there
would be someone to step into the shoes --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't solicit it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you shouldn't be involved in it is
what I'm suggesting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was communicated to me this
morning. I did not solicit it, sir. You're changing the subject.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not changing the subject. I'm
addressing a comment. And we ar e not -- and I've told you this. My
client is not in a position and is not willing to income restrict any of
the units. Providing first-come first-serve to ESP has never been an
issue, and we've told you that.
And, frankly, there are a lot of costs and expenses that go along
with a redevelopment project that didn't exist in a project that had
vacant land that was being developed for the first time, like Allura.
It's not -- Allura was not a redevelopment project.
The benefits for the community for this redevelopment, I think,
far outweigh -- I think the community would much rather have you
vote yes for this redevelopment project than let it die, the
redevelopment project, let it die over the provision of more
affordable housing in this area of Naples.
So with that being said, affordable housing -- income-restricted
housing is not on the table for us, but providing a first -come
November 12, 2019
Page 44
first-serve for essential service personnel, happy to do that, and this
developer is committed to doing that in another project, an d we think
that that provides a benefit.
And there are government employees, there are nurses, there are
other medical professionals and other essential service personnel that
can, in fact, afford to live here and would love to live here. It's a
great location for working here. It's easy to walk across that street to
get to -- to get to Starbucks. Even I can do it, so -- I can. I've done it
three or four times without even getting hit.
So my point is is this is a great project, and we would hope that
the project won't die on a requirement that we provide
income-restricted housing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just for the record, being on the
MPO board and understanding the concern that the FDOT has on this
stretch of highway, especially right in front of the Courthouse
Shadows and going into Naples -- going to the bridge, it's of high
concern because of the traffic fatalities on that road. So it's not a safe
road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I already have -- my client already has
582 vested trips on that road.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no. I'm just saying, you
may be able to cross it, but it's not a safe road. The FDOT has
recognized this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What she's saying is be careful
when you're crossing that road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You go to the pedestrian crosswalk, and
you cross when --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Crosswalk.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it tells you to cross.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again, just to summarize
what I said, I think we're really poking a serious blow into our
November 12, 2019
Page 45
affordable housing program. I believe that the ability to put
10 percent of the total units -- and that 10 percent, by the way, is a --
it's not a standard, but it is -- it is across the nation, when they talk
about inclusionary zoning, 10 percent is that percentage that comes
up again and again. So that's why it was used with Allura, and I
would like to see it being used here. And thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was pleased to see that the
Planning Commission all supported it. And I had some concerns
myself with all the extra traffic.
I want to tell you I talked with everybody I could talk with. I
love the fact that the CRA was behind it, because if the CRA wasn't
behind it, I would not be behind it, and they were behind it. And the
community coming out there, that was wonderful of you to be here so
we hear the community as well.
It sounds like a great project and, yes, it's a little bit dense, but I
think it's better than what could have been if we would have had
commercial there. It would have not worked. So I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. I
have a bit of a comment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll go to -- it's been moved and
seconded that we approve the project.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's for Items 9A and 9B.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, that's for 9A and B. We're
going to do them both at the same time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, sir, we are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And then we're in discussion
now. So, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, just a couple things. One is, I
agree with Commissioner Fiala. This is the way I think
November 12, 2019
Page 46
redevelopment should work, the involvement of the neighbors
resolving the issues and the concerns that the neighbors have.
I think there's a benefit to including it within the entire
Haldeman Creek MSTU. I mean, that's a benefit to the community.
The reducing the traffic counts is obviously, in the long run, a good
thing because what could be there could be very, very intense.
With regard to the essential personnel -- and you're saying that
the developer would agree to just holding -- you know, holding the
units out for essential personnel at the beginning. I just want to make
sure I understand for how long and how many units are we talking
about, and is it -- is it within the certain -- I mean, is it what Allura
originally agreed to?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Rich, that's Paragraph 1
of that agreement that's on the screen.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, is it going to be that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Paragraph 1 is not an issue where
we will market first to essential service personnel, and if nobody
wants to be there as an essential service personnel or qualifies, then
we can go to nonessential service personnel. So Paragraph 1 is not an
issue for us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Paragraph 1 of 1. That's what
you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Within the -- my question is, within
the income category? Right, okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, you just did Part 2.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I went on too far.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, you did. Stay in the lines.
Somebody give him another crayon.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You want one of those magic
markers, the black magic markers?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. There's a reason I should use
November 12, 2019
Page 47
pencil.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including that, I think given that it's
a redevelopment, I'm going to support it. I think this is -- this is a
good step for the community.
Would it have been better to have some, you know, income --
some voluntary inclusionary zoning? Sure. But it is a different
situation, and the numbers for redevelopment are significantly
different than -- so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we need a stipulation for the
15-year hold?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I imagine is we'll put this in the
PUD. I'm looking to confirm that the 15-year period --
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll make sure it's in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Same language, okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Outstanding.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I assume the -- my motion or
my second was with the intent of having that in there, and I assume
that the motion maker would amend the motion to reflect that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner
Solis. This is a little different than the Allura project. The Allura
project we had vacant land, and the developer was looking for some
density that, quite frankly, we didn't have to approve it at that density.
We felt that the project was better for that community with the
increase in density, and the developer agreed to have this
inclusionary type of program.
With a redevelopment in an existing activity center, I think
trying to force that type of commitment would be a mistake at this
point, so that was my rationale for seconding the motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: And are we including the tree issue in the
November 12, 2019
Page 48
motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just going to ask.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to get to everything
that's included in the motion here, so...
That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for reminding me.
I forgot.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I wanted to ask about the
buffer redo that was suggested by Mr. Smith. Is that a condition that
we're okay with?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What we had agreed to, Commissioner,
is along Peters Avenue to keep the nice native trees, get rid of
whatever exotics, and then we would supplement if there were any
holes in the Peters. They were very concerned about keeping the nice
bigger trees along Peters. So, yes, we would --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was Mr. Smith mentioned there
was a buffer that was dilapidated and needed to be torn down and
rebuilt.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can't remember specifically
where. Are we okay --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we're not
tearing down Peters, because Peters is --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no. There was a specific
buffer that Mr. Smith mentioned that needs to -- that needs some --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we will do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- addressing.
Okay. And we are going to protect the 200 -- you got something
else?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was just going to say, I
November 12, 2019
Page 49
think we need to get maybe a new motion that includes all of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I have a couple questions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I'll withdraw my second
so we can make a new motion --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Then you can make your motion,
and we'll formally do it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that includes all of those
elements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get all the notes ready, because I'm
going to have trouble with all of them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm keeping notes. I got it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, oh. I'm watching you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- pretty much, except for the
inclusionary zoning.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I thought that was included.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. So we've got the buffer redo,
the 200-year-old tree -- the two 200-year-old trees, the inclusion. Are
we going to include the -- there was a letter here with regard to the
MSTU boundary --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We had --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- any inclusion into that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that as part of what we committed to.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That is there. The Collier County
Planning Commission recommendations, there were --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are already in there except for the
little tinkering that Wayne mentioned about clarifying the light
fixtures and those issues.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Little tinkering, yes. Okay.
And then the last is the paragraph with regard to the ESP first-come
first-serve.
November 12, 2019
Page 50
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, the language on the screen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Those are my notes that I had.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So can I say I make a
motion to approve all the notes that he had?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Is there any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve both 9A and B with the stipulations that we've put in
there. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's take our court reporter break
now. And then we're going to take a short 10-minute break. What
time are we coming back?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are coming back at 10:44.
Oh, wait.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 10:34. We'll be back at 10:34.
(A brief recess was had from 10:24 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Item #9D
November 12, 2019
Page 51
RESOLUTION 2019-232: RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW
AND APPROVE THE 2019 COMBINED ANNUAL UPDATE
AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND
SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECTION 163.3177(3)(B),
FLORIDA STATUTES AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT
UPDATES THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
SCHEDULES – ADOPTED (AUIR PLUS STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS)
Commissioners, we're moving on to Item 9D. This is a
recommendation to review and approve the 2019 combined Annual
Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and the schedule of
capital improvements as provided in the Collier County Land
Development Code, and to adopt a resolution that updates the
five-year capital improvement schedules.
Mr. Corby Schmidt from your planning staff will begin the
presentation.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning.
MR. SCHMIDT: With me today to talk about the Annual
Update and Inventory Report are a number of your staff and others
who represent sections inside the report for roads and bridges,
stormwater management, potable water, wastewater, solid waste,
your parks and recreation, jails and correctional facilities, libraries,
emergency medical services, government buildings, and coastal zone
management.
What do we take a look at each year? Well, the Annual Update
and Inventory Report is your once-a-year snapshot at five years worth
of improvements based on your projected population increases
November 12, 2019
Page 52
against your levels of service, and it's also noted here that these
change, along with the demand, equations evolve.
The full AUIR document as part of your packet includes the
details, but the summary here is meant to give you an overview of the
categories of those improvements, and those are broken up into your
Category A facilities. Those are your roads, your drainage or
stormwater management facilities, your potable water, your
wastewater, your solid waste, your parks and recreation, schools, and
these are your concurrency facilities tied to the Capital Improvement
Element.
Category B, or non-concurrency facilities, are your jails and
correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, emergency medical
services, and government buildings. And, of course, Category C, for
your coastal management areas.
Concurrency tells us when we should be doing things. It tells
us, have these facilities in place and have them available when the
impacts of the development occur. And these requirements are
contained in the Capital Improvement Element and in your Land
Development Code.
This year there are no recommendations to change levels of
service from staff or from your Planning Commission.
Most of your improvements, your capital improvements and
your facilities are based on population projections. How do we
project population solely?
Now -- but the basis is on the University of Florida's Bureau of
Economic and Business Research medium-range projections. You've
often heard us use the term BEBR figures. We take those BEBR
figures and adjust them for your fiscal year October 1 numbers and
then again increase them by 20 percent for your peak season for some
of those users.
As an example in its simplest form -- we use libraries here for an
November 12, 2019
Page 53
example. Take a population, it's level -of-service standard, and
determine when a capital improvement is needed. In this example a
population is given, projected for your five-year planning period. In
this case the level of service is .33 square feet per person necessary
for library buildings. Take that population times that needed square
footage for library buildings or facilities, and by the end of the
five-year period in this example, an additional square footage would
be required.
But not all facilities use population, or not all facilities use only
population. Here you see examples of facilities in your AUIR that
use population in combination with other measures or not populations
at all. Roads and bridges, for instance, use traffic counts or reserve
capacity found in their trip bank.
Potable water and wastewater also look at historic demand usage
along with their additional reserve capacity and others, incl uding
stormwater, solid waste, and your Coastal Zone Management, who is
based on no population figures but sustainable standards in their
master plans.
Well, I know a quick overview that was, and your
recommendation is in front of you. There are four poi nts to it: To
recommend the -- to approve the overall 2019 Annual Update and
Inventory Report; approve all those portions of Category A, B, and C
facilities relative to projects and revenue sources; approve the
Category A facilities in the schedule of cap ital improvements update
for the CIE by resolution; and find there are no inconsistencies for the
public schools capital improvement plan and their facilities work
program.
And that's my overview. Thank you for your time. If there are
questions, I've got a roomful of people to help answer them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Anybody have any questions for
Corby?
November 12, 2019
Page 54
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have one. And that has to do with
our population estimations and the utilization of the BEBR numbers.
We have another tool, the CIGM. Have we done any comparison
with regard to those population estimations? The CIGM, the Collier
Interactive Growth Model, it allows for a little, I believe, more
accurate spatial differential for our population, down to a TAZ area,
Traffic Area Zone, that would allow for the dispersal of the
population.
So the simple question is, Corby, have we utilized the CIGM's
population estimations in comparison to the BEBR numbers? Yes or
no?
MR. SCHMIDT: I see Mr. Weeks is here to answer the details
on that, and I'll allow him to do so.
MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning section.
Commissioners, for the AUIR exercise, we look at the BEBR
figures only. I would concur with you, Commission --
Mr. Chairman, that the CIGM is a more accurate tool looking at the
micro level, but if we compare the population outputs from the CIGM
versus the BEBR figures, they are not significantly different.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I concur with that
thought process. The rationale was because there's a dispersal of
population, and we're implementing the AUIR along with the CIE,
we would have -- the Capital Improvement Element, I would think
we would get a little more accurate estimation as to where we need to
do those capital improvements in order to take care of the dispersal of
the population. And maybe we can just -- for now. We don't have to
really address it today. It's just maybe we could have a look at that in
the future as we're going forward.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, let me get one thing -- I think it's
November 12, 2019
Page 55
important to get on the record. We are constrained, we are bound to
use the BEBR medium-range figure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand what we're bound by,
yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. We have to amend the Comprehensive
Plan --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's part of our GMP. We're
handcuffed with regard to that. And I'm not suggesting that we come
away from that. It just as a -- when we adopted the utilization of the
CIGM as an additional tool to put in our toolbox to better make
recommendations as to what we're doing, so I just want to make sure
we're not leaving it sit on his shelf.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, the head of the MPO
is working with our staff to populate the TAZs with the CIGM.
There's email traffic going back and forth, so that's a good place for it
because it gives you good visibility 25 years out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it would also would
have -- with our CIE as well, because we're seeing where population
trends are, in fact, transpiring on a closer -- on a closer level. So that
was my only question, Corby. Thank you. It wasn't really a
question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, if we take population
trends, we heard it when went to the M-CORES meeting. Nine
hundred people a day.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thousand, yes. Yeah, 900 to a
thousand, yes. That's in the whole state, not just in Collier County,
just so nobody hits the panic button.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, yeah, but we did put
80,000 people in the last 10 years in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ish, yes. Very good. Any other
discussion?
November 12, 2019
Page 56
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have any public comment?
MR. MILLER: We do not, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, then I'll
make a comment, and I'll say I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I will -- and that includes all
four of the elements, and I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it -- I'm assuming your motion
includes the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- recommendations of staff and
those --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- four elements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right there on the screen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
All right. It's been moved and seconded as -- that we approve
the AUIR and -- along with these recommendations. Any other
discussions?
(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 you can all go back to work.
November 12, 2019
Page 57
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They were all here dutifully ready
to answer questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The room is going to empty out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a suggestion? This
presentation every year, I think, is really helpful for me to understand
how all of this fits together and how the county plans its capital
improvements and all of this.
I would really suggest that maybe we should come up with a
public presentation that we're always making available, because I
think a lot of times there's this impression that, you know, we're just
putting out fires, that we're not planning five years down the road,
and that how we plan these things isn't a very methodical process that
we go through; the level of service, the population, you know.
And I think it's really helpful, and I think it would be very
helpful for the public to understand this. And if there's any way that
we can have a dedicated communication effort about this particular
thing, I think it would help people understand a lot better why Collier
County is such a great place to live.
MR. OCHS: We'll do it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know, I wish the
newspapers would write that, too, just exactly what you said. I'm
supposed to say that into a microphone. I wish the newspapers would
write exactly what you said. And I'm going to have Mike take that
off the TV, and I'm going to write it in my newsletter to people.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's really fantastic.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask Troy? Troy, did you
design the graphics?
MR. MILLER: I did not, ma'am. No, that was all --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The graphics were fabulous.
November 12, 2019
Page 58
MR. MILLER: I was going to send a note to Mr. French how
impressed I was with the PowerPoint.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Really, really well done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not the words. It was the
photograph or the pictures behind it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, and maybe -- and,
County Manager, maybe just going off of what Commissioner Solis
was saying is as we're coming through with projects, we can relate
them back to the AUIR and the CIE just as a fortification of that
document just -- because the more we talk about it, the more aware
folks are.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, you know, you brought it
up again, so I'm going to have to just -- I have to say this: The AUIR
works when you adhere to the densities that the code and the land is
zoned for. It's when you increase densities that you throw it off. And
at least in the last two meetings, I've seen major increases of densities
from my colleagues, so that's where the public comes in and says,
what the heck are you doing here? Why is this happening? You have
a plan. Why are you deviating from it? And I need to be quiet now.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
I'm going to let that one go.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: I'll move on, sir.
Item #9F
ORDINANCE 2019-41: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BAN AGAINST CAST NET
November 12, 2019
Page 59
FISHING AT ANN OLESKY PARK ON LAKE TRAFFORD –
ADOPTED
That takes you to 9F. This was previously Item 17B on your
summary agenda moved at Commissioner Taylor's request. It's a
second reading of an ordinance establishing a ban against cast -net
fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes. And thank you very
much.
I did do some research between the time that we moved this
forward for advertising, and I don't think we have jurisdiction to --
over the lake. I don't think we have jurisdiction over any kind of
freshwater in the state of Florida, but I'm not sure about that, and we
are -- I think it's Florida Fish and Wildlife that has that jurisdiction; is
that correct, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We have jurisdiction to enact this
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good.
And then the second question I would have is, there is a problem
we have, because if we're really worried about the alligators on the
lake, we're not banning people fishing from the shore. We're banning
the net fishing, which I'm understanding from the interviews I've
done of some folks up there that these people use that fishing -- that
fish, and they sell them, so it's a business for them.
So we're not banning the pole fishing, and pole fishing can pull
fish up, and the people can leave them on the shore also.
So I guess what I'm asking my colleagues to do is maybe we
could kind of do a -- before we ban something, maybe we could do
an intermediator -- I can't even say it -- a step in the middle where we
maybe post it that if -- don't leave your fish here because it attracts
gators, and see what we can do.
November 12, 2019
Page 60
I did speak to the Chamber of Commerce. They didn't know
anything that this was happening. I did speak with the chair of the
Chamber, and he said his paramount concern is the safety, and he is
concerned about the safety.
So if we could post this and see how that works. But clearly just
banning the net fishing isn't going to do the trick because of the pole
fishing that occurs from the side.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion? I make a
motion for approval as it's printed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. Is
there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I mean -- and my thought processes
are, I mean, I've been asked to do this by the community leaders. The
Chamber is well aware of it. There is a health, safety, and -- well,
you can -- there is a health, safety, and welfare issue.
We do have letters of recommendation from the CRA and the
community out there at large, so -- and there's an ongoing issue with
the cast netting. And the people that are doing that are selling those
fish as a general rule. They leave the discarded -- the ones that
they're not using, they leave those on the bank, and it's attracting the
alligators in. So -- and that's -- and Mr. Olesky, who runs the marina
and is there all of the time, is the driver of this bus, so...
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to support the motion because, obviously, you have
firsthand knowledge as to why this is here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I, quite frankly, do not know
why it's here or how it got here, but I'm going to rely on what you just
November 12, 2019
Page 61
said to support the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's why I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. 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 SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For reasons stated.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER FUTURE ACQUISITION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT –
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ACQUISITION DOCUMENT
WITHOUT PRIORITIES 1 & 2 – APPROVED; MOTION NOT TO
INCLUDE THE RFLPP AND STAFF TO BRING BACK –
APPROVED; MOTION TO BRING BACK THE BALLOT
LANGUAGE FOR REVIEW AT THE SECOND MEETING IN
JANUARY – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11A. This is
a recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Future
Acquisition Strategies document.
November 12, 2019
Page 62
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered
speakers for this item.
MR. OCHS: Summer, please.
MS. ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque, Conservation Collier
Program coordinator.
During your May 28th meeting, the Board requested staff to
bring an acquisition plan in advance of your review of the
Conservation Collier reestablishment ballot language, which is
planned for you to hear on December 10th.
I don't want to go too much into the process, because I did talk
with you about that on May 28th, but I'll give you a recap on that.
In the past, acquisition planning has been done on a
cycle-by-cycle basis starting with Cycle 1 in 2003, and the CCLAC
proposed target areas, and the Board approved, by resolution, areas to
target for acquisition.
Letters were sent to willing sellers. In addition to that, any
properties could be nominated, and also properties outside of those
letters sent could also apply. This process will continue for future
cycles independent of the acquisition plan.
This is the existing target protection areas map which has
existed since 2003. The potential lands acquisition map, which you
are reviewing today, is not as broad as the target protection areas map
that you see in front of you but not as specific as a cycle list.
Moving forward, as stated earlier, the existing cycle process will
continue to be the same --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Summer.
MS. ARAQUE: Did you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hold on one second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Could you just back up and
repeat what you just said about the map.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes.
November 12, 2019
Page 63
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I was --
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So this map is the map that was created
based on the Conservation Collier ordinance, and this map was
created in 2003.
So this is what cycles have been based off. So if you look at this
map -- and I don't know if you can see, you know, for example, it
shows the urban areas in the yellow, it shows north Golden Gate
Estates. Those are target areas. Rural Fringe Sending and Rural
Lands Habitat Stewardship Areas and the Rural Lands Flowway. All
of those areas you see over here, except for conservation, I think, are
all target -- target areas. So you can see how broad that is. It's quite
a bit of the county.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Per the existing ordinance, you can
just color the whole county. Per the existing ordinance, the language
that's in the ordinance allows you -- now, I understand on a targeted
basis these are the priorities, but the entire county is --
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So you can see that there are some white
areas, especially in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, but it shows
you that if we were to base, say, an inventory of property that may be
available for acquisition off of this map, it's not going to be specific
enough for you. But this was a tool that was used f or those -- for
those cycles.
And so the CCLAC would decide what areas do we want to
focus on in a specific cycle, and that's what could be done in a
potential future cycle. In one cycle the Board could say, we want
only urban areas, and that's what we focus on, or we could say let's
pick one or two from each area.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That flexibility is built in right
now?
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. And that will not change. The
acquisition plan is a planning document. It doesn't change the
November 12, 2019
Page 64
ordinance. Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, because what you
repeated is we could vary the cycles, but because it's guaranteed in
the ordinance, that Collier County is open --
MS. ARAQUE: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- with willing sellers.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. ARAQUE: And we'll state it here, and it is in a document
that I've put some language in there that it's very specific. So you'll
see that in a few slides.
So the process will continue to be the same. Like I just said, the
document -- the future strategies document does not change the
existing process.
And given -- if the November 2020 referendum passes, then
we'll go back to -- we'll have a Cycle 10, actually.
The maps that you are reviewing provide an estimate of the
remaining undeveloped lands potentially available for acquisition.
So it's -- that's -- in a nutshell, that's what the document is, is an
inventory, and it will help you to inform your decisions about the
ballot language that you will be reviewing in December.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As a matter of fact, under Rural
and Family Lands Protection Program, it says here it was requested to
consider moving towards an acquisition of development rights and
not fee-simple purchases. Could you please explain that to me so I
understand better what it just says.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Did you want me to wait till I get to
November 12, 2019
Page 65
that, or do you want to do it now?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We thought you were done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought you were done, yeah.
MS. ARAQUE: No, I do have more slides, and I have a slide
specifically for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. ARAQUE: So we have the acquisition document that y ou
have in front of you; however, secondary to that we also have this
option to potentially do a conservation easement program. So I'll go
into that. I just have a few more slides.
So these are the items in the acquisition document that I wanted
to make sure that everybody was aware of. The Conservation Collier
is a willing seller program. Priorities for acquisition shall be based
on the Conservation Collier implementation ordinance. Any lands
that are not specifically identified on the maps are not excluded from
consideration. So just because they're not shown on these maps
doesn't mean they're excluded, and the same is also included; just
because they are shown on a map doesn't mean that they're
guaranteed to be included in a cycle. Again, the document -- the
maps are essentially an inventory for you-all to be able to make an
informed decision on the ballot language.
And here is the Conservation Collier potential acquisition lands
map. You will see in dark green the Conservation Collier preserves,
and the red are the potential acquisition areas.
Did you want me to go ahead and talk about the Rural Family
Lands Protection Program, or did you have any questions about the
map?
(No response.)
MS. ARAQUE: Nope, okay.
So in addition to the red areas, which you can see we do have a
lot of red in the Golden Gate Estates area, in the rural fringe, we have
November 12, 2019
Page 66
some remaining in the urban area, and definitely quite a bit in the
urban Immokalee area, and we've broken that out for you in the
acquisition document how much acreage is within each area.
In addition to the map, we also have another map, which is
Figure C2, which circles contiguous areas and prioritizes them. Like
I said, the main criteria was just contiguous areas, and then the
criteria for Priority 1 areas is all urban areas and areas adjacent to
existing Conservation Collier preserves, and then the criteria for
Priority 2 areas are all other priority areas. And, again, just because
you're in a priority area doesn't mean that you're included or
excluded.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You could just make this all real
simple and say, all of Collier County's included, not excluded.
MS. ARAQUE: Correct. I mean, essentially what it comes
down to is the acreage that's noted in the document, because that's
what you-all need to make your -- to make your decision.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On the individual basis there, yes.
And I don't want to get out of line. I mean, I made a comment
outside of the thing. Commissioner Saunders, was your statement
related to what I said or to general -- I mean, because Commissioner
Fiala -- we've got a list up here, so we'll -- I'll get to you in a second,
then.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And, again, these maps that are in your
document, these are what we call zoom-in maps. They just -- we've
got several maps that zoom into areas so it's easier to see.
Okay. Commissioner Fiala, to your question on the
conservation easement program. So the main task, like I said, was
the acquisition document. How much land is out there that's
potentially available for acquisition?
The other task was the Rural Family -- Rural and Family Lands
November 12, 2019
Page 67
Protection Program is a State of Florida Agricultural Land
Preservation Program. I was asked to look if we could do something
similar in Collier County; however, before I go further, I would like
further direction from you-all if -- I would like a vote from you
today -- actually, that's part of my staff recommendation -- if you
want me to move forward on looking into this further, because it does
require an amendment to our ordinance to include such a program in
the Conservation Collier program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I noticed that, and I also noticed
that the CCLAC feels that we shouldn't go through in that direction,
and CCLAC has been there for a long time. And look at Bill Poteet;
he's -- anytime we're going to talk about Conservation Collier, he's in
the audience. He's there. He knows everything that's going on. He's
a land-use guy, too. I mean, he's a realtor. And so he knows what's
happening, and I have to put a lot of faith in he and that committee,
so I probably would not recommend doing that.
MS. ARAQUE: Does anybody need any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had another question, too, if I
may.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, that was another one.
Wait a minute. There was a third one. Hold on just a minute.
However, if -- well, never mind. I was just emphasizing something
for myself as far as if we voted for it, but -- I have it all circled in
orange, but I'll skip that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You got to raise your hand, Leo.
You don't have a light up here, so you have to flag me down.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it might be -- it might be
instructive if Summer elaborates a little bit on the relationship
between this potential program and the RLSA lands, particularly the
ag lands.
November 12, 2019
Page 68
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So does everybody understand what the
concept of this is?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, of course.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I think we don't.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Could you go through a little more
detail?
MS. ARAQUE: Yes, definitely. So --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Which one are you going to
explain; the conservation easement program or the Conservation
Collier program?
MS. ARAQUE: So in regard to a --
MR. OCHS: This program.
MS. ARAQUE: -- potential conservation easement program
that would be similar to the Rural and Family Lands Protection
Program, I'm going to tell you what the State does. So they protect
agricultural lands through a conservation easement, so they
compensate the landowner and give them money to keep their
property, not put it into development.
So if you have a ranch, you can still have your cattle, and maybe
you have some natural areas. Their focus is not specifically natural
areas. But on a ranch you probably do have some natural areas, and
those remain.
So it's basically just you're not going to sell your land and put it
into housing development or commercial. You're going to keep it as
a ranch. They're paid to do that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask just a quick question?
MS. ARAQUE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
November 12, 2019
Page 69
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So right now that's a program that's
available from the State for any landowner in Collier County?
MR. OCHS: Yes. And there's some ag areas in Collier County
that are part of this program.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes. And that information was provided in
your packet. We've had one property owner that has taken advantage
of that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my assumption is, then, that
you're competing on a statewide basis for those funds.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it's a competitive process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the reason. So there
wouldn't be any double dipping.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I'm sorry.
MS. ARAQUE: So staff's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They couldn't get it from --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What I'm saying is the State
would do the research assuming that Conservation Collier decided to
implement this program and acquired this land under these
parameters, there'd be no opportunity for that landowner to then go to
the State and say, give me the same, because it would be recorded. It
would be -- it would follow the land, so to speak?
MS. ARAQUE: So we are not to that level of detail, but that is
a very good point, because that could potentially happen. There
would have to be something that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we did --
MS. ARAQUE: Probably we have to work with State to make
sure that they're not compensating, because I don't know that they
would know if we compensated them.
November 12, 2019
Page 70
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. ARAQUE: So on the other hand, I did -- did you have a
question, Commissioner McDaniel?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, well, I've got a lot. I've got a
lot of comments. This is -- but please go on.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So the program does not provide public
access. And like I said, we're requesting further direction on whether
you would want us to pursue this program, because it would take a lot
of work to take that through subcommittee and also to amend the
ordinance. So we want to make sure that you-all are on board before
we start implementing something like this.
MR. OCHS: Summer, speak to that last bullet, if you would,
please, so the Board understands.
MS. ARAQUE: So if such a program were recommended by
the Board, the staff's recommendation would be that Stewardship
Sending Areas are not considered in the program as these areas are
being utilized for generation of stewardship credits.
So in Collier County you have approximately 148,000 acres of
land in agriculture, and 102,000 of those are within the RLSA. So,
granted, not everybody does participate in the RLSA. So if you're
not participating in that program, then we would -- then that's
something that we would recommend be allowed within the program.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Another numbers question.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders is ahead of
you. We're going to go to questions here at the end.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I was going to -- quite
frankly, I was going to ask a question dealing with the Priority 1 and
Priority 2, so I'll hold off.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's 148,000 acres in
agriculture, 102-, you said, was in the RLSA. Is -- that 102-, are
November 12, 2019
Page 71
those all sending lands?
MS. ARAQUE: I'd have to pull up my numbers, but --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's a pool of 200-some-odd
thousand in the RLSA, so I would say it's -- they're going to end --
depending on what we end up doing, there's going to end up being
about -- right now there's 39,000. Well, it's limitless as to what can
be entitled within the RLSA, so -- but currently it's about
39,000 acres of SRAs; 150-some-odd thousand of --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of receiving areas?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of sending.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: SSAs?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And as a point of
clarification. And maybe I can clear some of this up if you'll come --
it was I who brought this up. It was I who suggested -- because I'm
not happy with the fee-simple acquisition and the enormous amount
of expense that Collier County bears to continue on with the
maintenance of these properties.
My thought process was, who better to manage their lands than
the farmers? They already care for them now. And there is an
enormous amount of environmental protection that comes from a
ranch and/or a farming operation. Their collaborative efforts are
ongoing.
I think a simple way to actually ascertain whether or not we
want to -- we want to pursue this is a cost-benefit analysis with
regard to the acquisition of development rights in lieu of fee -simple
acquisition.
We paid Nion (phonetic) 12,000 plus-or-minus dollars an acre
for Pepper Ranch. And if I read -- if I'm not mistaken, you know, the
development rights are going to vary based upon the availability of
those development rights, and we could make -- we could make a
rational -- a rational -- have a rational discussion as to whether the
November 12, 2019
Page 72
cost warrants the stripping of the development rights and leaving the
land ownership with the farmer and ongoing maintenance and such,
or the fee-simple acquisition is there.
And to address your comments, Commissioner Taylor, there is
no double dipping considered in this process. We will -- we will
protect against that. There is no overlap with the RLSA in the SSAs
and/or in the sending areas within the RFMUD, the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District.
So just my thought process was we can still preserve and
protect, but we don't have to take on the perpetual maintenance
aspect that we know goes on -- well, it goes on forever.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I've heard Liesa Purdy
(sic) speak on this on more than one occasion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lisa.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, Liesa Priddy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I've heard her speak of
this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so I'd like to -- I'm one
commissioner, but I'd like to explore this anyway.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When we get to a vote, we'll do
that. I -- again, I'm the one that stirred the pot with regard to this.
And I concur with you with regard to our CCLAC Board and our
staff, because it is a pretty big deviation from what they've always
done. But I think it certainly would be worthwhile for us to
maximum the available dollars that we do spend and garner the
greatest benefit from an environmental protection as well as the
development rights, so...
That's just -- that's -- but we'll get to that in a second.
Commissioner Solis, did you have any other comments?
November 12, 2019
Page 73
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This particular topic or on --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. We're wide open. So you
can go -- you wanted to go on to the priorities.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you pull up the slide that
had Priority 1 and Priority 2 on it.
MS. ARAQUE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're still lit up.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You had a slide that just had
two lines on it, Priority 1 and Priority 2.
MS. ARAQUE: This here?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There we go. Is this
something new that's being added here, or is this an existing
statement of the existing program?
MS. ARAQUE: So as far as the acquisition plan goes?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
MS. ARAQUE: I mean, the document itself was created just in
the last few months, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So this is not in the
existing program, this language of Priority 1 and Priority 2.
MS. ARAQUE: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm looking forward to
hearing some comments from the audience, because under the current
program, we are free to purchase property in the urban area. So this
doesn't really change anything from the existing program. But what
it does do is I think maybe send the message to the world that our
priority is going to be acquisition in the urban area, and I think that
creates confusion. So I want to hear from the audience concerning
that particular issue and may ask that we not have this type o f
language, and the basis, again, for that would be twofold. One, you
November 12, 2019
Page 74
can already purchase in the urban area, so it doesn't really add
anything and, secondly, it does create some confusion, I believe.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I would agree with that. I
mean, literally, if you read the existing ordinance -- and I'm sure you
have. I think you probably wrote it, or you were participatory in
writing it. I mean, there is an allowance in that language of the
existing ordinance that doesn't really -- there are certain areas that are
delineated as priorities, but we have the right to buy anything, so...
I agree with you as far as confusion process goes, so...
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that was my concern, too.
I'm not sure we should prioritize anything. If it's all open for
acquisition, then let it be, and let the best rise to the top.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. We're going to go through
as we go, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Just a question related to
that. I mean, what is -- the recommendation is that we adopt this
prioritization system, right, that's being proposed that we would adopt
some type of priority system in the acquisition process?
MS. ARAQUE: No. We would use the existing Conservation
Collier implementation ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then why are we discussing it?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Then why -- I'm confused
then.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't be confused.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because this creates a Priority 1
area, which is in the urban areas. Is Priority 1 and 2, is that priority
in the sense of importance, or -- I guess I'm confused. I'm sorry.
MS. ARAQUE: So we identified larger contiguous areas so that
November 12, 2019
Page 75
it was clear where those contiguous areas existed within the plan, but
staff has no issue with removing the priority areas.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. You just said you
have no problem deleting that, taking that out?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Taking it out.
MS. ARAQUE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you say deleting?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
MS. ARAQUE: I just wanted to let you know, we do have
Community Planning section staff here if you have any other
questions about the RLSA that we were talking about earlier.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I would just
make one comment in reference to easements and that sort of thing. I
think the Board has emphasized that if we can acquire easements to
protect land, whether it be farmland or just natural habitat, doing
that's a whole lot cheaper than buying fee simple, so I just wanted to
agree with you in terms of if we have farmland that can be preserved
as farmland with simply acquiring something less than fee simple, I
think we should pursue those.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. I agree.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And then I also
would like to say that there's nothing like -- to me, when I read the
emphasis on urban, which I would agree with. I'm not sure it's going
to confuse the people so much because, frankly, everyone -- if you
had open spaces as you drive down your crowded roads in between
developments, it would define this county, and it would set it apart
from the rest of Florida.
November 12, 2019
Page 76
So I see this as a plus-plus. Not to say it's solely urban, but to
understand the acquisition of urban land as open space fulfills the
Conservation Collier, because everyone, everyone is worried about
growth.
And we're talking about building a turnpike because of growth,
for gosh sakes, billions and billions and billions of dollars, so --
throughout Florida. So I think that making sure that the voter
understands that urban is part of the picture, I'm not sure it's going to
confuse them. But it's the balance, okay. It's the way we have to --
and I believe it's also ordained in the ordinance. I believe it's also
inclusive in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
And I think Commissioner Taylor was just going towards the
question that I really have, and I don't think I expressed it as well as I
could have, and that is, the program right now evaluates properties
that a willing seller will sell based upon the environmental, I want to
say, value, sensitive value, whatever each property is, regardless of
where it is in the county, the environmental value that it has for us to
preserve.
To prioritize something because we want -- we need open space,
I don't see that as part of the Conservation Collier mandate in that we
have an open-space requirement in the Land Development Code. If
we're talking about open space, then that's a different thing rather
than evaluating a property based upon the need to preserve it from an
environmental standpoint.
I see those as two completely different things that my concern is
we're going to start confusing those things. If we start making these
priorities that we want to start buying lands in certain areas for open
space or green space or whatever, we're going to start confusing that,
and I think that's a road that we don't want to go down, because
November 12, 2019
Page 77
Conservation Collier's had a very specific purpose that the voters
have been very, very happy with in the past. And I, for one, would n't
want to see that issue becoming clouded.
I remember this coming up -- I can't remember. Maybe I was on
the Planning Commission or something. This started coming up in a
couple of places, and it was a concern of mine then, and I'm still
concerned about it now, because they're two different issues.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we covered that. By
eliminating those priorities, we're pretty well there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, did you
have a statement?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to
say, the mere fact that we're spending 20 minutes talking about it, I
think, is evidence that it is a bit confusing and controversial.
I know a lot of people support the Conservation Collier
acquisition of lands in the rural area, and if we have a slide up or
document that shows urban as priority, some of those folks are going
to be turned off to the program. And we don't have to do that to
encourage the acquisition of properties in the urban areas.
So I'm going to -- just to settle the issue, I'm going to make a
motion that, as we go forward -- this is just on part of the program --
that we do not have a Priority 1 and Priority 2 as listed on that slide
as part of the program.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll make a note on that, because I
think there will be more on the motion when we get there. Do you
want to do it -- do you have an individual --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I was just --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
November 12, 2019
Page 78
we eliminate the priority aspect that was suggested today.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I do have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we're not --
MR. MILLER: Okay. Well, I thought you were going to vote.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. We're not going to vote right
now. Well, we can -- we should wait till we hear the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because I think a couple of
speakers are probably going to talk on that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, you're up
now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Regarding urban versus rural we've heard complaints in the past
where we've bought up big patches of land, rural, and nobody can
ever see them. They can't get on them. They can't even drive to
them, but there are large swaths of land, and people keep saying, you
know, we're taking all of the land away from the animals and
everything. They're talking in the urban areas rather than the rural
areas, right? You're taking all the land. So I think -- maybe I said -- I
hope I said that in the beginning, right.
I think it's important for us to buy some lands that are urban and,
of course, also rural, because you've got to protect your water
resources and so forth. There's a combination of both. And each one
makes a lot of sense.
But I don't think we should turn our heads on the fact that people
are going to judge what they can see as they are driving by. And if
they see no land that's preserved of any type that we're not letting
birds and chickens walk on or whatever, you know, I think we need
to do that, too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think we are. I think
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm just making sure that I
November 12, 2019
Page 79
said that right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You did.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner, you did. It was
perfect. Commissioner Taylor actually said it best, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sure she did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And all of us have said the same
thing: We're going to let the best -- the cream of the crop rise to the
top as we go through the process. And we're not excluding from a
prioritization anything within Collier County, urban or not, and allow
for -- allow for those to come to the Board from a decision -- because
we don't want to discourage people that are not in the urban area by
setting a priority of buying within the urban area for people that are
outside that might be of important conservation to us.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, no. I have nothing else.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The issue that we all know,
because we're -- you know, we sit up here, and it's -- every day we
see it, there's no way -- if someone has property, they want to have
the return on their investment, and that's right and that's fair and that's
the way we do things. And the only way that we can take that
property out of the development is to buy it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or buy the development rights.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Or, yes, buy the development
rights. And that's, I think, the issue. And I think that -- I think that
when we discussed, it was for the sales tax initiative, and when I
brought forward some literature that Conservation Collier used in
their marketing for the last campaign, it was clear it was about
overdevelopment. It was about showing traffic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't mean to -- I'm going to
November 12, 2019
Page 80
interrupt you. Forgive me, but it was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, you are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was not Conservation Collier that
promoted that. It was the -- there were support groups for
Conservation Collier that promoted those things.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Conservation Collier gave it to
me. They had it in their literature.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The literature was put out by other
organizations, not by Conservation Collier. That's the clarity.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not by us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Well, when I think of
Conservation Collier, I think of the major environmental groups tha t
were the huge supporters who put out this literature, and it was about
too much traffic, too much development, you know, trying to plan for
the future, and that's part of the reason that I'm delighted to see the
urban concept being brought into the mix. And I don't think it's
going to confuse anyone that wants this program, but I'm one person
up here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We've got our -- we've got our --
I've got a list on this thing here. I think we're all set.
Commissioner Saunders, you lit up again. Was that just to -- or
was that to try to take you away from before?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I didn't do that. Somebody
else must have done that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody else hit his button.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It wasn't me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do -- let's have our public
speakers now.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. Your
first speaker is Gladys Delgadillo. She will be followed by Meredith
November 12, 2019
Page 81
Budd.
MS. DELGADILLO: Hi, Commissioners. My name is Gladys
Delgadillo. I'm here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida. I appreciate today's discussion.
And I just wanted to clarify, certainly not all of Collier County
properties are eligible for purchase under the Conservation Collier
Program. The ordinance specifies a number of criteria in terms of,
you know, value to the public in terms of value to our water
resources, wildlife habitat, buffering from storm surge, all kinds of
stuff.
So the reason why this isn't further specific is just because it
would take a lot of analysis to determine what areas of Collier
County are worthy of purchase or protection under this program.
And so, accordingly, I support Commissioner Saunders' motion.
We don't support ranking parcels Priority 1 and Priority 2 before
these parcels have been analyzed against criteria in the ordinance.
Under this strategy, all urban parcels, regardless of their value to
the program, would be ranked as Priority 1 over values that are
contiguous to conservation land and parcels that have been identified
for hydrologic restoration, et cetera.
The additional emphasis on urban parcels, as has been
mentioned today, is unnecessary, as urban parcels are already a target
protection area under the ordinance, and CCLAC continues to bring
forward a plethora of urban acquisitions, including the SD Corp
proposal on today's agenda, which I'll be speaking to support later.
So we ask that the BCC move forward and support
Commissioner Saunders' motion, simply state that the parcels in
Appendix C are priority parcels without dividing them into Priority 1
and 2, and allow CCLAC to analyze and prioritize parcels as they
come forward. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Budd. She will
November 12, 2019
Page 82
be followed by William Poteet.
MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd
on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation.
I just want to commend staff for the extensive work I know went
into this acquisition strategy. It was a big undertaking to go through
all the parcels throughout Collier County.
I, too, support the motion that Commissioner Saunders made.
The ordinance -- the Conservation Collier ordinance, it does set forth
the criteria to prioritize acquisitions in general for the county, and as
a part of those prioritizations, both urban areas and those that were
contiguous to other parcels are included in those criteria so that
Priority 1 and Priority 2 ranking is not really necessary. And so I
agree with Gladys that perhaps just taking out the delineation
between Priority 1 and Priority 2 and just saying that those areas are
generalized, a priority, and can come through the pipeline through the
program and come up based on their -- as they meet the criteria set
forth in the ordinance.
So a big example just to point out as to why the Priority 1 v ersus
Priority 2 seems a bit off. If you take a look at the map that has
North Belle Meade on there, you'll see North Belle Meade is
delineated as Priority 2.
North Belle Meade is a natural resource protection area. It has
consistently been a priority for preservation for natural resource
value, water resources, wildlife resources, and it's -- because it's not
urban or contiguous to another parcel, it's already just set back as
Priority 2. So I think that kind of shows how the Priority 1 versus
Priority 2 doesn't really speak to all of the values that the program
will bring, and I think the parcels can speak for themselves as they
come before you.
I do want to speak to the easement program that's being
proposed. I want to point out that the point of Conservation Collier,
November 12, 2019
Page 83
the mission, is to acquire, preserve, restore, and maintain vital and
significant threatened natural lands, forest, upland, and wetland
communities.
And if you look at the Rural and Family Lands Program, that --
and that easement program, and if it's being modeled off of that, that's
to protect -- to protect agricultural lands, and it's to work together
with agricultural production to ensure sustainable agricultural
practices, and it's also to protect natural resources, but it specifically
states not as the primary purpose.
So the Federation is very supportive of the easement program. It
is a great tool to preserve landscapes. We are super supportive of the
Rural Land/Family Lands Program as well as the Florida Forever
Program at the state level, and we have existing easement programs
here in Collier County through the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
program as well as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. So we are very
supportive of easement programs in general, but as part of
Conservation Collier, I really don't see it being consistent with the
goals and mission of the program. It's very distinct. These -- to
protect agricultural lands is a very distinct program, and also it brings
the issue of access. So I just wanted to point that out to you as well.
So thank you so very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Meredith.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is
William Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here to
answer any questions on behalf of the CCLAC.
But on the easement issue, we predominantly looked at that
from a cost standpoint first. And we're going to have limited funds
each year -- each cycle to purchase land.
And the examples that were used of other properties that had
been purchased through this were large acreage. And so the ultimate
November 12, 2019
Page 84
price was $2 million, $2 million for a lot of these purchases, which
would take away from our limited funds that we could use for
acquisition of conservation lands.
It doesn't mean we can't do it, but it just, it -- we've been doing
something really well for a long time, and so we just wanted to
continue what we're doing and do it well.
The idea of not having public access on these lands that you
would purchase -- that use for easement concerned a number of our
members, because that's really the difference between our program
and any the state or federal programs is you buy a property through
Conservation Collier. We go out of our way to make sure that the
public has the ability to go out there and enjoy these natural
resources. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: William, don't go away.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We mainly hear from -- all of us
get letters from people around the community saying something
about overdevelopment, too much development. We're not saving
any space for the wildlife and so forth and so on.
The problem with buying all the huge swaths of land is they
don't ever see that we're buying that for future water sources or
whatever. And I personally, just me, feel that it's important that we
also intersperse that with some things that people can see so that we
know that we're not overdeveloping anything. We're just -- you
know, we've left space for other things as well.
And do you agree with that?
MR. POTEET: Well, absolutely. The issue of water -- the
water issues are within the criteria that we look at. You know, what
is the recharge for that particular property? Does it have any
advantage on stormwater drainage, et cetera? We look at all those
things when we consider a piece of property.
When we talked about making the -- reducing the size of the
November 12, 2019
Page 85
areas that were on the map that you saw, part of that was because of
Golden Gate Estates. The entire Golden Gate Estates was put on the
map. And we have no intent to purchase the entire Golden Gate
Estates area; however -- and we didn't want people in the general
public to misconceive that that was there. But we do know there's
natural flow-ways in there that need to be protected, and those
properties we would want to go and take a look at, depending upon --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're working with CREW,
aren't you? I mean, because CREW's buying those things, too, right?
MR. POTEET: CREW's buying some of the lands out there,
yes. And, you know, like we have one preserve that we partner with
CREW on on the management end of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And South Florida Water
Management?
MR. POTEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, William.
MR. POTEET: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. My comments or
suggestions are -- and I want to address what Meredith said. The
closest easement program that I could come up with at the time was
the Rural Florida Lands Program. It doesn't mean there aren't other
compatible easements similar to what we do with the RLSA or Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District, that we couldn't blend something in to do
that.
I just -- I wanted to -- I think what I heard William say is, I
wanted to -- I want to best manage the available dollars that we have
for the maximum benefit, and without a cost-benefit analysis, it's
difficult to do that, so -- and one of my -- I actually have in my notes
here just -- you know, I was okay with No. 1, to direct the CCLAC
and related to look at those adjustments in the ordinance; No. 2, a
cost -- we've already got -- the Scofield ranch, we've got a -- it's been
November 12, 2019
Page 86
studied forever. We know it really, really well. We have a cost. We
have a price.
We could do -- once the RLSA third-party transaction is
consummated for Hyde Park, we'll actually have two independent
bodies. Somebody who owns credits and somebody who's buying
credits to develop will actually be able to put a value on those credits
within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
We could do a cost-benefit analysis and show what we can
preserve and protect, what we get with the purchase of those
development rights, what our offset costs are for the ongoing
maintenance that travels along with that and allow the land to stay in
the -- in the rancher's hands for agricultural purposes and so on and
so forth.
There are going to -- and I want to be very clear. There are
going to be areas similar in the -- in the North Belle Meade area, in
the watershed protection area in the Eastern Golden Gate Estates,
there are small tracts of land that the easement won't work because
there's no -- there's no -- there's not a property owner there that can
continue on with the maintenance and so on.
There are going to have to be -- and we have that allowance
within the existing ordinance to do fee -simple acquisition. I'm not
suggesting that we roll to that in its entirety. Certain times, certain
places, aggregation of lands contiguous to already held Conservation
Collier lands, those may need to be -- probably will have to be
fee-simple acquisitions.
I just want -- I wanted to -- I wanted to have the discussion, and
the premise is to maximize -- as has been stated, we have a limited
resource of money with regard to this program, and I want to be able
to maximize that.
So that's what I have to say.
Commissioner Taylor?
November 12, 2019
Page 87
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, just -- could you just
refresh me. Talk to me about what average -- the amount of money
that would come into Conservation Collier from the past. Do we
have any of those figures?
MS. ARAQUE: How much would come in on an annual basis
when the millage --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, just an average.
MS. ARAQUE: When the millage was being collected?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twenty-two million.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A year?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Twenty-two million a year.
MS. ARAQUE: That sounds about right, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That was at the millage rate set --
MS. ARAQUE: For acquisition.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- by the prior board of .25, yes.
Plus or minus 22-.
MS. ARAQUE: And then 25 percent of that was for
management -- set aside for management.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's now -- that's the way it's
established now. Originally it was 15 --
MS. ARAQUE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- in the original ordinance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The only thing I wanted to
add was one of the reasons I was talking about some of -- some urban
lands is people are going to have to vote for this, and if they can't see
it, and they can't see what's happening, will they vote for it? I'll just
November 12, 2019
Page 88
leave it at that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have an idea there. You keep --
yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you just X'ed me off, so
that's okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you're up
next.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Let me restate my
motion. Staff has two recommendations. First is the acquisition
document. And maybe if we do this in two pieces, we can get
through it.
So on the acquisition document piece, I make a motion to
approve the acquisition document piece with the exclusion of the
listing of those two priorities, Priority 1 and Priority 2, and the basis
for that, Commissioner Fiala, is that we can already buy urban
property in the current program. We don't need to say it's a priority.
And the reason I think it's a problem to say it's a priority is a lot of
supporters of this program are looking for us to acquire larger tracts
of land and will support that. If they're told, well, the number -one
priority is urban, then I think we're going to turn off some voters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wasn't putting priorities, I'm
sorry. I don't think I even mentioned priorities.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's the reason for the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I was just hearing that
there was no emphasis on urban, and I was just --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll renew my second to the
motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And can I just -- I'll turn my light
off if I can just add one thing, and that is, the referendum's coming
November 12, 2019
Page 89
up. Everybody knows the program. If we start changing it, I think --
I think it's going to really upset the apple cart in terms of the
referendum, because then it's not the same old program that we said
we're bringing back. And -- anyway, that's my final comment. So I
have seconded it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And I guess I'm going to ask
the motion maker, you want to include -- are we only going to do the
acquisition --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- document first? Okay. It's been
moved and seconded. We'll adopt the acquisition document without
the listed priorities. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are we including the Rural Land
Family?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no. We're not going there yet.
We're doing the acquisition document.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just the acquisition document --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- exclusive of this finding?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know what, you're lit up. Did
you have anything else you wanted to say?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I want to deal with the RFLPP --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The rural lands.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we adopt the acquisition document without that prioritization
specified.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
November 12, 2019
Page 90
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I'd like to hear from
the Conservancy, please, on their position. We heard from Florida
Wildlife, but I'd like to hear from the Conservancy about the RFLPP,
please.
MS. DELGADILLO: Hi. Gladys Delgadillo, again.
We have kind of a nuance position, so -- the Conservancy
supports the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program and
advocates for funding for the program statewide. Conservation
easements may be a good option for Conservation Collier, but many
questions would need to be answered before pursuing this path.
One question looming over the Conservation Collier Program as
a whole is how it interacts with the RLSA and the pending HCP.
Most of the agricultural lands in Collier County are within this
program area, and as staff has pointed out, the program contains
existing protections and incentives for development.
So if CCLAC moves forward to ask -- with this program, the
question of interaction with the RLSA should be decided by the
Board. The Conservancy wouldn't support any type of acquisition of
a parcel already protected by the RLSA or HCP and being used as
mitigation for development.
And then similar to what Meredith said, the Rural and Family
Lands Protection Program is far from the only conservation easement
November 12, 2019
Page 91
program active in Florida. So, for example, the Florida Forever
Program also provides conservation easements as does Alachua
County's Land Acquisition Program, and these easements, too, can be
compatible with activities like cattle ranching.
The type of easement and the terms of an easement can vary. So
if Conservation Collier pursues conservation easements, we would
encourage the county to adopt an easement program with more
protections for natural resources than a typical Rural and Family
Lands easement that might do things like provide explicit protections
for panthers on the property.
So there is certainly a cost benefit in terms of -- in an easement
program, you wouldn't have to pay management costs. You can
typically buy an easement for 50 percent of the appraised value;
however, as Mr. Poteet mentioned, there's no public access.
We also concur with his statement that a lot of times easement
programs are used for larger parcels. Over 500 acres of, if possible,
is what makes these things make most sense, as it can be a
complicated relationship with the county and the easement holder,
and the landowner. There's a lot of monitoring and oversight.
And, finally, in order to support a conservation easement
program, the Conservancy would encourage the county to includ e a
third-party enforcer to easements.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down, please?
MS. DELGADILLO: Sorry.
We would encourage there to be a third-party enforcer to
conservation easements, preferably an environmental NGO just to
make sure that if an easement is placed on a property, it's protected in
perpetuity.
So, again, generally we're supportive of conservation easements,
there's value, but there's just a number of things that would have to be
worked out where we could support. And, thank you.
November 12, 2019
Page 92
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, if I can --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don't muddy up the -- don't
muddy up a successful program at this point.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Perfect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I just want to -- as a point of
clarification, it's -- you know, staff went down a path here with, I
think, far too much specificity for us to make a decision on at this
particular stage. It's not a requisite for us in advance of the
referendum question.
I think that we develop an easement program. There seems to
be consensus that an easement program can be implemented into the
Conservation Collier Program from an acquisition standpoint if there
is benefit to the community and we adjust the easements not
specifically based upon the Rural Family Lands Protection Program
but on the criterium (sic) established for Conservation Collier for
environmental value.
Their discussion with regard to how much we spend really isn't
relevant. I mean, that's a discussion on the value associated with the
expenditure of tax dollars, so we really don't -- that doesn't have to be
determined today -- and identify what types of -- we're not going to
identify specifically any type of property within the Conservation
Collier's bounds, just the exploration of the easement program in
some form or fashion and an engagement of those that are involved
with it on a regular basis.
I do want to say this -- and I can't remember. I think it was
Meredith that mentioned this. There is a concern with some -- or not
a concern. There's been a statement made that third-party
management NGO coming in to enforce or oversee those easements,
those get changed over time.
So I would caution -- just as a statement, as we're exploring this
November 12, 2019
Page 93
further, caution having -- if, in fact, the easement program is
something that we decide to go forward with, that we would be
careful about what nongovernment organization we put in charge of
the oversight process. So that's just a -- that's -- it was represented --
Kate English, the -- Kate English, the land-use lawyer up in Fort
Myers, she shared that with me. She saw this program coming
through when we were talking about it a couple of months ago, and
she shared that there were concerns that those agencies that get listed
in the oversight of these easements change, the nongovernment
organizations, so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think -- at least I'm fairly
convinced that this is -- this might have value, but at this point this is
not something that we should be including when we're looking at an
election in barely a year. And it just seems to me we're going to
muddy up the water, and that's my concern.
So -- not that it doesn't have merit, but I think that's -- perhaps
once this program is established, and we all hope it will be, if it's the
voter's will, then we can start talking about maybe including this.
But at this point, I think this is probably not what we need to do
because of the -- because of the issues raised.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think it's -- you know,
certainly, it becomes a questionable point no matter what we do,
depending on what -- after we get through the referenda from an
additional funding standpoint.
So I don't personally see a harm in exploring it, as has been
outlined. But if you don't want to do that -- I don't see the necessity
of having it done before the referenda vote, certainly.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I don't think we talk
about it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think that, there again, the
resolution for Conservation Collier --
November 12, 2019
Page 94
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, my only concern -- and I'd have to
work with Jeff, I guess, and the Board on this, is if eventually you're
going to use the referendum proceeds for this conservation program,
does that have to be referenced in some way in the ballot language
that you're not only buying land, you're going to purchase, you know,
easements for land that's not in conservation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's not correct, Leo, and I'm just
correcting you, specifically. I said that we could pur chase
development rights on the established basis of Conservation Collier's
ordinance, which is predominantly for ecological purposes. There
are items within the ordinance that provide for public access. But
does anybody know here how many -- of the Conservation Collier
lands, how many are not accessible right now, plus or minus?
MS. ARAQUE: Approximately four.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because there are some that we
have owned for quite some time that still are not accessible. So I just
wanted to clarify, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're, you know -- and, again, I
don't want to beat this up. I'm not -- I'm just trying to enhance an
already successful program and maximize the available tax dollars
that we have for the purposes of environmental protection. That
was -- that was it. The public access is an important issue to me,
obviously, but there are tens of thousands of acres that are preserved
and protected in perpetuity through the RLSA, the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area program, that don't provide public access without a
private recreational lease.
So, in comparison, I'm just -- I think the public access is a
component of Conservation Collier, but it isn't necessarily a requisite
of the acquisition.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And my final statement is that, you
November 12, 2019
Page 95
know, as the Board had mentioned several times, we were planning
as a staff to come back at your December meeting with some
proposed ballot language for your consideration. That's already been
vetted with the CCLAC. I don't know if the CCLAC would want a
second opportunity to consider that recommended ballot language to
be more inclusive or more specific as it relates to this program. And,
you know, we have time; you don't have to do it -- you don't have to
do it on December 10th.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I am the light.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: His light's always on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm with you. What I was
trying -- and, Commissioner Saunders, forgive me. I just wanted to
finish this point, and that is, it's not necessarily a priority in advance
of the referenda language. We made adjustments and have made,
regularly, adjustments to the Conservation Collier ordinance in the
past that haven't been part of an original ballot language.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. I just don't want you challenged down the
road for buying something that someone thinks wasn't authorized
under the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Look, there are two issues with the ballot,
okay. It's a straw ballot in some respect, which means it's
nonbinding. But the portion of it that's binding would be if you
wanted to bond it. So if you wanted to bond these funds, you should
be specific about bonding those funds for easements or whatever.
But other than that bonding issue, it's just a straw ballot. You can
always change the ordinance afterwards.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Didn't know if you
had anything else on that one.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I probably do.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Attorney, under the
November 12, 2019
Page 96
current ballot language that was adopted in the curre nt program,
would it be illegal for the county to acquire an easement with those
funds?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So if we can already
do it with the existing program, and presumably the future program is
going to be the same because it's met the test of referenda in the past,
then I would say let's not muck up the language here with anything
dealing with easements since we can already do it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just do it as we go. And that's kind
of what -- I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then one last comment on
this. If we sell a program with certain ballot language, I don't want to
be going back and trying to interpret what that ballot language means.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, we can do this under
the existing program, and it's worked, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, you have two issues. If you bonded
it and then used those proceeds, you might be challenged if it wasn't
within the four corners of the ballot. However, other than the
bonding, this is a straw ballot. The Board of County Commissioners,
either this one or one year from now, can change the program.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if you would
entertain a motion, then, I will move that we do not include the Rural
Family Lands Protection Program language at this point, direct staff
to come back at a future date with some information on how we
might acquire easements and what kinds of protections there may be,
but not to include that in this document.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you have something you
wanted to say?
November 12, 2019
Page 97
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do. Just that in light of the motion
that was made, if -- when this comes back, if and when it comes
back, that staff would include an analysis of how much of the
102,000 acres that's in an SSA that's agricultural land that this would
apply to, how much agricultural land is in the RLSA that is not in an
SSA that this would apply to. Because if it's a lot, then this is really
important. If it's 10 acres or something, some small amount, then
we've probably spent too much time on it.
But that's the kind of analysis I would need to understand to
make this decision as to whether or not we should make a program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's where I was going with
the cost-benefit analysis. I actually had it in my notes that, you
know, we already have an identified piece of property as a priority,
the Scofield ranch. It's been studied from an environmental
perspective under the criterium (sic) of the Conservation Collier, and
a simple cost-benefit analysis on that would be a beginning. We
don't have to do it today. I don't concur with staff's direction to try to
jam it in before the ballot language and have questions and so on and
so forth.
So it's been moved and seconded that we don't include the
RFLPP in the language as of right now but we do go through some
kind of an exercise to explore the easement processes in the future. Is
that close enough to your motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perfect.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
November 12, 2019
Page 98
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question for the County
Manager, if I could.
County Manager Ochs, what comes next, please?
MR. OCHS: Well, at your December meeting, staff was
planning to bring some sample ballot language that was vetted with
the CCLAC. That's our next step. That kind of infers that through
that action you're going to make your policy decision as a board
about whether or not you want to re-establish the program.
Obviously, you wouldn't vote in favor of ballot language if you didn't
intend to re-establish the program.
I mean, your other option is to bifurcate that in some way. First
make the policy decision. If, then, the policy decision is yes, then
look at ballot language. But those are your options. You can do it all
in one action, or you can bifurcate it at the same meeting, or you can
deal with the policy issue at one meeting and options for ballot
language at a next. We're prepared to do it any way the Board would
like.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do it as per -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to see if we can't
bifurcate it and maybe actually develop the language in January. It's
my understanding there are interested stakeholders that want to do a
little bit more work, maybe even poll the public. This is not
unprecedented. We did it for the sales tax; the Chamber of
Commerce did it. It was very informative of them. They were
unsure whether they were going to go forward, and they decided to
go forward at that time.
So I think it's important that we allow the interested stakeholders
November 12, 2019
Page 99
that leeway and, frankly, if we agree to the program, it's my
experience, anyway, in developing ballot language for a referendum
that it's usually not done in the same meeting, so -- but I'd like to see
if there's support to move it to January, the first or second meeting in
January.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're talking about the specific
language?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You okay with that? I don't have a
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't have a problem with it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
that we develop the language for the ballot maybe the second meeting
in January, or -- are we okay with that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, that would be fine.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm all right with that, too.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a motion? Can I make a
motion on that?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have -- do you want to make
a motion on that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved that we do the
specific ballot language at the second meeting in January. Second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do I have a second?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second it for crying out loud.
It's been moved and seconded --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to do the language -- come on.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
November 12, 2019
Page 100
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.
You okay with that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And then in December we'll just bring a
very simple item forward saying does the Board want to re-establish
the conservation program. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. So that will keep
December's meeting to a low roar.
MR. OCHS: At least that item should be a little short, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no, no, we could discuss a
lot of things on that one.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, we won't go that route.
Mr. Barton, do you -- are you going to be able to come back
shortly at 1:00?
MR. BARTON: I'm at your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, then we are adjourned. And
be back at 1:01.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:01 p.m. to 1:01 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope you had a good lunch.
Item #10A
November 12, 2019
Page 101
RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE THE 37 ACRE SD
CORPORATION/CYPRESS LANDINGS II PARCELS UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM PREVIOUSLY
INCLUDED IN THE CYCLE 9 ACQUISITION A LIST IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,580,000, WHICH THE OWNERS HAVE
INDICATED THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT – MOTION TO
PURCHASE PROPERTY – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10A was scheduled this
morning to be heard immediately after Item 11A. So if you'd like to
take this one, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's when we scheduled it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And this is a recommendation to
purchase the 37-acre SD Corporation/Cypress Landing II parcels
under the Conservation Collier Program, which were previously
included in the Cycle 9 acquisition A list, in the amount of
$1,580,000.
And, Summer?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is somebody coming to speak to
us?
MR. OCHS: Well, it is Commissioner Fiala's item. Go ahead,
Commissioner, you put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you, yes.
I put it on the agenda. I spoke with the parties that are interested
in it, and then I spoke with Leo afterwards about the price and so
forth, and it was -- the parties who want to sell it to us really have
been easy to work with. And so here it is in front of you. That's
about it. Maybe --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Bill could get up --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When I was reading the backup, it
November 12, 2019
Page 102
is a contiguous piece of property to an already owned Conservation
Collier holding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm glad you said that, yes,
because that's exactly what it is, which makes it more valuable.
MR. OCHS: Stand up. Summer, if you could fill in any of the
details, please.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we do have three registered
speakers for this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not one, two, and three. There we
go.
MR. MILLER: I think you got them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have any other comments,
Ms. Summer, or we'll go to our public speakers.
MR. OCHS: Just go ahead, Summer.
MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Well, I know that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I'm just needling him.
It's my very poor sense of humor shining through.
MS. ARAQUE: So I know that this item was brought to
Commissioner Fiala, and she sponsored this item. But if you would
like to see where the property is located, I do have the property
summary here, which I know it was in your backup.
My understanding is that this is not adjacent to an existing
Conservation Collier property, and I think that was just sa id
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was represented that it was.
MS. ARAQUE: This is not adjacent to an existing Conservation
Collier property, and I did just confirm that with some other folks
here.
November 12, 2019
Page 103
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My mistake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, I thought it was, too.
MS. ARAQUE: You may be thinking of Serenity Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I know where Serenity Park is.
Maybe Bill could talk to us about that.
MS. ARAQUE: So, otherwise, I have the property summary
here, and then I'll let the owner speak.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill, would you tell us about that. I
thought it was right next door to Conservation Collier. Sorry for my
misunderstanding.
MR. BARTON: Good afternoon, Chairman McDaniel,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill Barton, and I am
here today representing the interest of the owners of this property.
To the subject that was brought up, probably the confusion
comes because this property is immediately adjacent to another
property that was on the list of Conservation Collier to be acquired.
It was not on the A list. That property was on the B list. And it is --
in the map you'll notice that it's slightly to the north and east of the
property that is the subject of this agenda item.
First let me say that I think that your staff's executive summary
was complete and accurate, and I would only take a few moments of
your time to highlight a couple of things.
Firstly, the fact that this is before you today stems from the fact
that the property owners are desirous of selling this property to
Conservation Collier at the appraised value. And the -- I think it's
interesting to note that the Conservation Collier Selection Committee,
prior to the time that the independent appraisal was made, had
estimated the value of this property at $2,266,000, and it's also
interesting that the Collier County Tax Assessor's Office in 2018
assessed these properties at $2,601,000.
November 12, 2019
Page 104
So you can see that the price that's shown before you of 1
million 850 would appear to this person to be a pretty good price
compared to other possible estimates.
The other thing I would mention, that the property is certainly
squarely in the urban area. And we had some interesting
conversations on 11A today on that subject. And I understood -- I
well understood the Commission's desire not to prioritize the urban
area but, by the same token, I think it's safe to say that the
Commission is in favor of acquiring the good properties, good -value
properties within that urban area, and we certainly consider this to be
one of those.
Another issue I think is important for properties that are
acquired is access. And this property does have public access. Polly
Avenue touches the property, is contiguous with property in its
northwest corner. So the access to the property is guaranteed by
virtue of that right-of-way.
With that -- we brought this to Commissioner Fiala because it
lies within her district, and that seemed the appropriate place for us to
start. I've spoken to each of the Commissioners on this subject, and
that was one of -- my charges prior to going forward with it was to
get a feeling whether or not this was a piece of property that the
Commissioners appeared to think was appropriate for Conservation
Collier. And having done that, we deemed it appropriate to go
forward.
So with that, I would simply say that we would urge the
Commission to approve your staff's recommendation, and I'll be
pleased to try to answer any other Commissioners' questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I apologize. I just walked
back in, and I had forgotten everything I read, and I wasn't -- my
mind wasn't cleared yet. Thank you for filling us in. It's a beautiful
piece of property. There's a lot of horses and animals in that area, a
November 12, 2019
Page 105
lot of them, and there's a lot of agricultural things going in that area,
too. I think it would be a prize piece of property for us -- and at this
price, for us to preserve.
MR. BARTON: And the property currently is vegetated with
natural Florida vegetation. I don't know this personally because I
haven't walked the property. I'm getting too old to do those kinds of
things. But my understanding from the Conservation Collier
Selection Committee, that 75 percent of this piece of property is free
of exotics.
So I think that's worthwhile putting into your consideration as
well.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
Thank you, William. I don't have anybody else lit up, so let's
go --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Barton was your first registered speaker --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He was?
MR. MILLER: -- unless he has anything else.
Gladys Delgadillo will be followed by Meredith Budd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you have to talk slower.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She's got her three minutes.
MS. DELGADILLO: Gladys Delgadillo, again, on behalf of the
Conservancy. The Conservancy supports acquisition of this parcel
that contains 82 percent wetland cover, and it's within the urban area.
We thank Commissioner Fiala for bringing it back to the Commission
for consideration today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker is Meredith Budd.
MS. BUDD: Good afternoon this time. Meredith Budd on
behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation.
I, too, do support acquisition of the parcels. Now, back when it
was first presented to the Conservation Collier Program, there were
November 12, 2019
Page 106
three parcels. That top parcel you see labeled as Parcel 1, now that
parcel does have direct contact with Serenity Park.
So I believe the CCLAC put that parcel on the B list because it
had some Melaleuca and so that it wasn't deemed Priority A or on the
A list. But at the time, after it was ranked, I believe the landowner
did offer some sort of endowment. I don't remember the amount of
that endowment to help get rid of that Melaleuca. And then also I
know that there are state grants available that could be received for
getting rid of Melaleuca.
And I see a lot of value in definitely the two parcels that are
being presented to you here, and I do urge you and support tha t you
move forward with acquiring them, but I also would just like to
consider, if the landowner is still willing, that Parcel 1 that does have
that continuity to Serenity Park, I think it adds a lot more value to the
purchase and a lot more value to the program as a whole. I'm not
sure of the status of that. I don't think that an appraisal went forward
because it was on priority -- excuse me -- on the B list.
But I think that there's a lot of value in that Parcel 1 piece
despite it having Melaleuca. I think there's opportunities to clear it.
Perhaps if the landowner is still willing to provide that endowment,
state grants that can be available, and then that adds that connectivity
not only to the other two parcels, but also to Serenity Park.
So I wanted to bring that to your attention but just to also
highlight that I am supportive of moving forward. This is a great
parcel to show that Conservation Collier does and is able to purchase
land in that urban area, and we have it here before you today. So
thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The neat thing is, it's right here in
the heart of the area. Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet you have the wilderness
November 12, 2019
Page 107
right there at your back door. That's all.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bill, I was going to ask her a
question, but I do want --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, Commissioner Taylor
had a question for Meredith.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You're going to ask
Meredith a question?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Just to -- it seems to me
that it would make great good sense with the other parcel, too,
because if there's Melaleuca on one, chances are there's going to be
Melaleuca on two.
MS. BUDD: I agree. I don't know the percentage cover on the
other two parcels, but there are some exotics on the other two; much
more highly vegetated by native Florida plants in the other parcels
here before you. But, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's important to control the
source.
MS. BUDD: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There is no controlling the source.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Poteet
is willing to jump up to the microphone for just a minute, I want to
get his view on this acquisition as chairman of the committee, and
then I have a couple other questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please. You have the floor.
MR. POTEET: Thank you, Commissioner.
The CCLAC has already ranked all the properties. We ranked
two of the properties A properties and one of them B property. The
one B property was -- it had 100 percent, or close to it, of exotics on
the property. And so we supplied you the rankings, and after that we
November 12, 2019
Page 108
kind of didn't do anything left -- we just left the properties as-is.
Subsequently, the owner came to us and said -- or the owner's
representative -- and said, hey, if you put the property that's on the B
list back on the A list, we will give you a quarter of a million dollars
towards removing all the exotics. And I told him at the time, we do
not have a meeting between now and when the Commission meet;
however, if you want to make that offer to the Commission, please do
so, because it's a very valid offer. We probably would have
entertained it, but I can't speak for all nine members of the CCLAC.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
MR. POTEET: Only myself. But it would have been something
of great interest, because all three properties will tie into Serenity
Park, and we thought that was a very, very good proposition for
Collier County.
The two properties that are remaining now, they're good
properties, but it would be much better if they add the third.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And then just a couple
questions for our staff. Just for the record, it says that the
recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners
purchase the property. I'm assuming that's a staff recommendation.
MR. OCHS: That's Commissioner Fiala's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then let me rephrase the
question. And I'm assuming that staff concurs with that
recommendation; and, if not, why not?
MR. OCHS: Well, we don't oppose it, but -- you know, it's on
the list, but the last time the Board looked at this list, they stopped the
acquisitions after the fourth ranked project on the list. Again, sir, it's
all about money. This is money that's coming out of the Maintenance
Fund. So as long as the Board replenishes it in some form or fashion,
then, certainly, it's on the list, and we would support it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. The next question is,
November 12, 2019
Page 109
the fiscal impact statement was a little bit confusing, which gets back
to the source of funds.
It says, funds for this acquisition would come from the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund, period. Then it goes
on, if Conservation Collier land acquisitions proceed, it is assumed
that funding will be provided by a voter-approved funding
referendum. So it sounds like, from the executive summary, that the
anticipation is that funds would be used to pay for this coming from a
future referendum, and I'm not sure if that was what was intended.
MR. OCHS: What's intended, Commissioner, is that if the
future referendum passes, we would look for that money to restore
the maintenance funding that would be used to acquire this property.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the funding for this will
come out of the $17 million we put aside --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- we put aside --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- out of the Maintenance
Fund. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just a little side note, I know
this is not anything for it or against, but we already bought this little
piece of land called Serenity Park. It's just a little strip of the land.
It's right next door to Naples Lakes Country Club. But I want to tell
you, that place is busy all the time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it surprised us so much.
There's a lot of wildlife in there and so forth. So I think this is good
that it's contiguous with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. It's a small parking lot,
but it's always full.
November 12, 2019
Page 110
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if we were to -- what is the
total amount of money, what we're talking about for what's been
presented, and if we included the other parcels, what are we looking
at, all three parcels, please?
MS. ARAQUE: We would need to obtain an appraisal on
what's called Parcel 1.
MR. OCHS: It's up on your -- it's on your screens,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In front of me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's another $4 million.
MR. OCHS: Well, yes, that's the estimate. We don't have an
appraisal on that yet for that Parcel 1 on the B list.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it probably best that we
stay on task with -- if it is the pleasure of the Board to make this
acquisition, we do what's in front of us, and go ahead with the next if,
in fact, it's warranted. That would be my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even know if it's for sale --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we'll find --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that other piece of property.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's down on the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- not approved for acquisition yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just get one thing at a time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I just have to say it again, just
because I have to.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say it again.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Using the maintenance money to
purchase property is a bad idea, and I'm not going to support it. It's
November 12, 2019
Page 111
just a bad idea.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He shut his own light off.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He doesn't want to say anything
more.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's all I've got to say about
that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't -- well, there you are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to purchase this
property.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we purchase this -- do you have a question, Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I was just trying -- just the first
property.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, just the one that's on the
agenda for today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two and three.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1. There you are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a great piece of property.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How you doing?
MR. BARTON: Thank you, Commissioners.
November 12, 2019
Page 112
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's Mr. Quinby. I haven't seen
him in forever. Good to see you, Mr. Quinby.
Item #9E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE,
PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF
TWO IMPACT FEE STUDIES; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT
FEE RATE SCHEDULE AND THE WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 25, 2019 FOR ALL
RATE CATEGORIES THAT ARE DECREASING AND A
DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 2, 2020 FOR ALL
RATE CATEGORIES THAT ARE INCREASING AND
NEW/REPLACEMENT LAND USE CATEGORIES BEING
ADDED TO THE FEE SCHEDULES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REVISED DEFINITIONS AND UPDATE OF
THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF
ROAD IMPACT FEES TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES (COA) TO COMPLY WITH
THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES –
MOTION TO ADOPT THE DECREASES IN THE IMPACT FEES
AND CONTINUE THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEM UNTIL THE
NEXT MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, on your agenda that you set earlier
November 12, 2019
Page 113
this morning, you had Item 9E to be heard no sooner than 1 p.m.
Would you like to hear that now?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It might be -- yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
9E is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Laws and Ordinances, which is the
consolidated impact fee ordinance providing for adjustments in two
impact fees: Your Road Impact Fee Rate schedule and your Water
and Wastewater Impact Fee rate schedule.
Ms. Amy Patterson will make the presentation.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning -- whoop. Good afternoon.
Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the director of Capital Project
Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management.
We're going to break this presentation up into a couple pieces.
I'm going to walk you through an overview, and then we're going to
turn it over to Joe Bellone from Public Utilities to talk to you about
the Public Utilities rate study -- Impact Fee Rate Study, and then we
have the consultants here that will make specific presentations, or we
can go to answer -- question-and-answer at that point.
I do need to put one thing on the record. The Development
Services Advisory Committee did review the Transportation Impact
Fee Update Study after this agenda went to print, and they
unanimously recommended to accept the methodology and made no
recommendation on the implementation of the rates.
So with that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So they approved it?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, they approved the methodology.
With that, I'm going to move on to just a quick presentation and
overview.
Just an overview of the history of impact fees in Collier County.
We have had impact fees in Collier County since 1978 starting with
November 12, 2019
Page 114
water and wastewater and up to our most recent adoption of the Law
Enforcement Impact Fee in 2005.
The reason we're here today is our impact fees are updated at
least -- they're required to be updated at least every three years. Per
statute, they must utilize the most recent and localized data available.
And something different than a lot of other places, Collier County
also requires indexing between full studies. That was implemented
around 2002 to smooth the changes between the formal updates.
During that time period we were -- it was nothing to see
increases in the impact fee rates of over 100 percent. The indexing is
a way that costs are captured. I'm going to get to that in actually just
a second here. But costs are captured, not just increases but
decreases as well, which is something that we experienced during the
recession when we aggressively reduced our impact fee rates based
on those cost decreases and other demand changes.
Actually, briefly on the indexing, we had a localized index that
was developed in 2007 that used a 10-year regression analysis model
with localizing factors.
In 2009, again, because of the downturn, the methodology was
changed to a more sensitive model. So when costs change, we're able
to pick them up more quickly.
Just talking about what happened with your impact fee program
during the Great Recession, we had major decreases in land -use
applications and permitting which drove modifications to your impact
fee program and the DCA terms because we had a lot of
developments that were paid at 100 percent plus. We suspended our
affordable housing programs for lack of use. We had significant
reductions to infrastructure costs. The foreclosure issue stressed the
county resources, but it also lessened demand for new infrastructure.
We aggressively adjusted our impact fee rates based on reduced
costs and other demand changes, and we had to shift to an even more
November 12, 2019
Page 115
pro-business or job environment. We developed incentives programs
to develop -- or to mitigate impact fees for existing commercial
development, and we restructured our economic development
programs to incentivize jobs.
Now, as you all know, around the state other Florida counties
did a lot of other things. They suspended and reduced impact fees by
policy. They implemented different type of fee structures to move
away from the stigma of impact fees. They created programs to
incentivize certain types of businesses or industry. They developed
programs to reduce impact fees for job creation. And in Collier,
besides everything I listed before, with the exception of the school
impact fees, fees were reduced only through technical studies. No
policy reductions.
And this is kind of a wordy slide, so I'm not going to take you
through all of it, but basically the question is, what ha ppened? Did it
work anywhere? There is no conclusive data to support the reduction
or elimination of impact fees, increases permitting activity, because
market factors, such as demand, financial issues, et cetera, control
activity.
The decreases that we experienced with our impact fees had no
increase in permitting or construction in Collier County during this
time period. We had no evidence of job creation tied to the impact
fee increases either.
In fact, our board at the time challenged businesses to bring
forward job creation and, in exchange, would look to further give
impact fee concessions; however, we did not have any participants.
Not all counties have impact fees, and yet the downturn affected
all counties, not just impact fee related counties or impact fee -- pro
impact fee counties.
And Collier County, with some of the highest impact fees in the
state, even after the reductions, recovered faster than many of the
November 12, 2019
Page 116
moratorium counties.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One quick second, before you
jump.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, you were
here during the downturn, but you were -- you were elected in 2000,
weren't you? And that's when it was catch-up time. The roads --
wasn't that when they found out that if you didn't build it, they still
came?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In Sarasota, you mean?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here as well, yes. And we were --
we were really accused of a lot of things, although we had just gotten
in, and the people were very, very angry with the way the roads had
gotten so far behind. And we promised them not only road, but we
had the landfill that was a stinkin' landfill at the time --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- amongst other things. And we
promised everybody in our campaign slogans, we're going to fix that,
and we meticulously went about doing that, and we did. And people
didn't complain at all.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do you think that -- because I
think it's striking what you just brought out, the fact that other
counties in the downturn reduced impact fees. You -- Collier never
did it. And I wasn't here -- you were here -- never did it without a
study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we never did it, and not only
that, but then when -- during the Great Recession, that's when Lee
County dumped theirs way, way, way down. We did not. Although,
I have to say that we probably lowered them a little bit, but not much
of anything. Lee County went way behind, and then they had to start
November 12, 2019
Page 117
taxing people on their property taxes because they got so far behind.
We did not have to do that. We were -- we were religiously trying to
keep our taxes as low as they could be and still cover all of our costs.
And impact fees helped a lot.
When you've got your impact fees, don't forget, it's the people
who are just moving in that are paying those impact fees. The
homeowners right now don't have to pay for the impact they make on
their road. They're already living on it. It's done. So th ere's a great
deal of good about that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good, thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry.
MS. PATTERSON: No problem.
Now moving on, where do we go from here with the impact fee
program in 2019? You're seeing the first of two impact fee upda te
studies with several more to follow.
So what's going on out there? We have a high volume of
land-use petitions and permitting activity. Affordable housing
discussions are back on the radar. As we saw, there's a need for
infrastructure improvements that's increasing so much so that the
taxpayers got behind the one-cent sales tax to fund a portion of
infrastructure. Cost escalations are beginning to outpace funding
driving calculated increases to the impact fees, yet we have a demand
to maintain level of service because our constituents view level of
service equal to quality of place and quality of life.
We do run a number of benefit programs in Collier County. All
of these programs currently have capacity for new applications.
Those include the Countywide Impact Fee Deferral Program, the
Multifamily Impact Fee Deferral Program, the Charitable
Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program, the Impact Fee Program
for Existing Commercial Redevelopment, otherwise known as the
Change of Use Program, the Immokalee Impact Fee Installment
November 12, 2019
Page 118
Payment Pilot Program, and then a number of economic development
programs, including those that help to fund impact fees for qualifying
businesses.
Just a quick view of the impact fee revenue over the years from
the high in 2007 to the low from 2011. So that's a $115 million
program dropped to $22 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in the bottom of
the recession, recovered here to -- we're bouncing around just under
$90 million a year. That's all 12 of the county's impact fees, or those
that we collect for other governmental agencies like the school board
and the fire districts.
So, in conclusion, what are our options? We stay with the
policy that's been in place that growth pays for growth to the largest
extent possible and implement the impact fees in full to the maximum
legal limit, which is what's being presented to you even though
these -- the transportation study does include calculated decreases.
Second option is a phased-in -- phase in the impact fee increases
over a specified time period. We have done this a couple of times in
the past where you implement those fees over a two-year or
three-year time period to get to the maximum fee.
Implement partial fee increases. This is popular in other places
where, by policy, board of county commissioners may elect to only
increase the fees by a certain percentage.
Adopt the study and implement only the decreases. We don't
have a choice about that with the calculated decreases on the
transportation side of the house. Those decreases must go into effect.
Do nothing is not an option for any studies with decreases. As I
just said, we are compelled to adopt those decreases; otherwise, we
would be overcharging. However, any option other than number one,
which is staying with the full maximum legal limit fees, shifts a
portion of the growth demand to taxpayers or to other funding
sources or will require reductions in level of service.
November 12, 2019
Page 119
So with that overview, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bellone
from Public Utilities. He's going to talk to you a little bit about the
update to the water and sewer impact fees, and then we'll move on to
the presentations or to your questions.
MR. BELLONE: Thanks, Amy, for your help with
administering this entire impact fee program.
And I want to start also by thanking Rob Ori, who's a consultant
with Raftelis who spent quite a bit of time on the Water and
Wastewater Impact Fee rate study.
For the record, Joe Bellone, director of Financial and Operations
Support for Public Utilities.
Commissioners, in your packet on Pages 242 to 268 is this
presentation. I won't take you through all 27 slides. You, obviously,
have all that information.
What I do want to talk about just for a second is the water/sewer
district in particular. It is an enterprise fund, and it's two primary
sources of revenue. It's user fees, and we use user fees to operate and
maintain the utility, and thanks to your support, the budgets have
been able to fund all of our operating costs.
We also fund critical aging infrastructure projects which replace
and rehabilitate the older utilities, and then we also use user fees to
meet all of our user fee debt obligations and fund statutory reserves.
On the other hand, impact fees are used to pay for the
expansion-related infrastructure only. It is a separate -- there are
separate funds for water and separate funds for wastewater impact fee
funds. They are pledged to the bondholders to meet the debt service,
and they also fund all of the reserves that are required by the bond
covenants.
As I said, they fund growth. They fund capital projects that are
expansion-related only. And per the bond resolution that you
approved many times, but most recently in March, those impact fees
November 12, 2019
Page 120
are pledged revenue. So the buyers of the bond will say, how are you
going to pay this debt service, and we say, we have a dedicated
funding source, and that is impact fees for these growth-related
projects.
Now, the result of that is it actually reduces your borrowing
costs. Because of that, we have this dedicated source. You have a
utility that has Triple A bonding rating from both rating agencies,
which helps you on either side. If you're borrowing for capital
projects for rehabilitation or you're borrowing for expansion-related
projects, that Triple A rating actually helps you with your rates.
I think you know a little bit about impact fee legislation.
Another important thing to note, Commissioners, is that this
impact fee rate study was reviewed by Nabors Giblin, our outside
counsel, and it was reviewed by DSAC subcommittee. And Amy and
I met with them for probably about two or three hours during their
review, and luckily the DSAC meetings notes from the last meeting
were available for us.
And the subcommittee reviewed the proposed increase and,
again, they recommended the study be endorsed but did not opine on
the proposed rates because they said setting rates is policy, and that
really is up to the board, the governing board.
It is a 27 percent increase in user fees. And I'll get to a slide that
shows you sort of a history of the water/sewer impact fees since prior
to the Great Recession, during the recession, and since then.
And I also opine that water and wastewater is an important
component of development in the county, and it really needs to be
adequately funded. And those were quotes from the chair of the
subcommittee.
Methodology can get rather complex, but there are only
several -- several components that are included in impact fees. That's
the capital investment that is related to growth only, it's the capacity
November 12, 2019
Page 121
that we need to build, and the multiplier is the level of service. And
by level of service we mean how much water are people using, both
historically and going forward.
So, Commissioners, impact fee calculations only utilize system
costs, and those are treatment plants, so a water treatment plant and a
wastewater -- the treatment plant or reclamation facility, and the
primary transmission mains; those large pipes that carry water to the
locations where they need to be used.
All the other appurtenances that are on a utility system, like
hydrants and meters and manholes and lift stations, are not included
in impact fee. Those benefit everyone. And any infrastructure that's
conveyed to the county by developers, obviously, is not included in
impact fee calculation.
Commissioners, there's an existing -- there are existing costs in
the utility infrastructure that are worth about $1.4 billion per the
CAFR at the end of the last fiscal year. We've excluded from that
anything that benefits all customers that are non-backbone
distribution or non-plant-related.
And then we look -- that's backward looking. Then we look
forward to the Capital Improvement Program. And over the next 10
years, the utility plans to spend about a billion dollars in water and
wastewater infrastructure; however, we're going to exclude from that
almost $670 million, again, because they're not growth-related
projects, only the incremental costs to install or construct the
growth-related assets.
That's just pictorially what I just said. There are currently assets
in service, about -- a little over $1.4 billion. Some of those serve all
customers. They have to be excluded from the calculation, meaning
what's left are just the treatment and the transmission assets.
But we know that a portion of those assets are being utilized
currently by users of the system. And on the water side, a little over
November 12, 2019
Page 122
62 percent of that capacity is already utilized, and a little over half of
the wastewater is already utilized, leaving less -- leaving the balance
available for new growth, and those are recognized in the impact fee
calculation.
So out of the $1.4 billion in assets that the utility has in service,
about -- almost 350 million is included in the asset calculation.
Again, those are assets in service.
Now let's look forward to the capital expenditures over the next
10 years. As I said, we're going to spend about a billion dollars
between water and wastewater; over $600,000 of that is to serve all
customers. But we also know that as we build these over time they're
not worth what they were when we first built them, so we actually
take a depreciation deduction off of that.
And then the amount recognized in the impact fee is about a
little over 300 million or about a third -- 33 percent of the total
investment going forward is included in this impact fee calculation.
For water and sewer, when we talk about level of service, we're
really talking about how much water does a normal household use in
a day, okay. So it's gallons per day. Back in March, when I brought
you the bond resolution, in order to get that done, we had to have
both a financial and an engineering rate study done.
And A Com prepared that engineering rate study and
recommended a reduction in the level of service, that is what we've
seen historically over the last few years, whether it be new houses are
going green, more efficient appliances, maybe less irrigation, maybe
it's our inverted rate structure that's driving a conservation behavior.
But we've noticed that there's a lower level of service per equivalent
residential unit than historically.
So we've proposed, based on that engineering study that was
done for the bond resolution, be consistent with that and lower the
proposed level of service for water to 300 and to wastewater for 200.
November 12, 2019
Page 123
That's consistent with the trends that we're seeing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When you say "lower the level
of service," what you're talking about is lower the consumption.
MR. BELLONE: Consumption, yes. The service --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Level of service --
MR. BELLONE: You get the same pressure, the same quality,
et cetera. It's just the number of gallons that's used per day is being --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- the conservation effect.
MR. BELLONE: Yeah, conservation. It's a combination of
factors, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good, good.
MR. BELLONE: Okay. So we've used localized data. Our rate
consultant's taken prior years' history of consumption and noted that,
but then we've also looked forward and used the metro forecasting
model to suggest for us, does that trend continue in the future, and it
certainly does.
Okay. And, again, just, pictorially, you can see that we're
proposing 300 gallons a day for water and 200 gallons a day for
wastewater. And if you look at the comparisons of county,
Hillsborough County's utility is very similar to ours in terms of size,
number of customers, types of service, and we're being very
consistent with that one.
One of the other elements is capacity -- existing capacity. I said
we have to look at what structure -- what capacity is already built and
how much is being used. We look at our constructed capacity and
our reliable capacity for both water and wastewater.
Okay. Those are the three components. And what those lead
you to is an existing water fee of $2,562 increasing to $3,382. That's
a 32 percent increase.
November 12, 2019
Page 124
Wastewater is currently $2,701. The proposal is to raise it to
$3,314; 22.7 percent.
Total, water and wastewater combined, is an increase of $1,433
or 27 percent.
Now, Commissioners, as I said, the multiplier factor in that is
the level of service. And so we're looking at the bottom half of this
chart actually shows you how we arrived at the impact fee from the
current fees, the infrastructure investment. Both looking backwards
and looking forwards is a component. But, yet, that multiplier is now
lower, so we've actually included in that a lower amount due to the
level of service decrease leading to our proposed fees.
Just a brief history for water and sewer over time. Amy alluded
to this. Prior to the Great Recession in the early 2000s when
everyone was moving here and we needed to create the capacity to
meet the demand, impact fees -- water and sewer impact fees
increased to a high of $7,339 in 2007. You'll see at the bottom of that
chart I tried to highlight for you that that was sort of during the time
when the northeast facilities were in design, and that was approved
by the Board back in 2004 in December, Item 10A.
Then, of course, came the Great Recession. And in 2011, we
started taking out those costs -- those future-looking costs. They
were pushed out beyond the 10-year horizon. We didn't need the
capacity then. And those rate studies brought those rates down. And,
in fact, you agreed to put those northeast facilities design into
hibernation in 2010, and then just recently we brought those back to
you, and that was reactivated.
And, Commissioners, we also could talk about impact fees. You
can talk about comparisons of impact fees to other utilities. And
there are lots of reasons why those might vary, and I won't read them
all to you, but -- depending on source of supply, treatment process, et
cetera.
November 12, 2019
Page 125
You'll see that Collier County today is pretty close to average in
terms of water/sewer. I don't know where with transportation and
others. But in terms of water/sewer, they're pretty close, but we are
proposing to increase them, and you'll see to the right of that chart
that they're above the average. And I don't know if it's easy to see or
not on this chart, but lots of those counties and municipalities have
little asterisks next to them, and those are utilities that currently have
a fee study in process or plan to implement one.
So while this is a static view on where we are today, those could
change. They could be different tomorrow. They could be different
next month.
So our recommendations, Commissioners, are to accept the
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Rate Study, which is considered to
be reasonable, meets all of the criteria, and to adopt -- there's a
resolution in your packet to adopt the advertised water and sewer rate
resolution.
And with that, I'll take your questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Having none...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done.
MR. BELLONE: Thank you. Thank you.
Amy, I'll turn it over to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry, Amy. I thought we were
done, but go ahead.
MS. PATTERSON: Well --
MR. BELLONE: We'd like to be.
MS. PATTERSON: We're going to move on now to the
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. I have members from our
consultant firm, Tindale Oliver, here available to make a brief
presentation and walk you through the study components. This one is
a little bit more complicated, again because it has both increases and
decreases in the calculated fee schedule. It also has over 60 land uses
November 12, 2019
Page 126
that we'll be looking at and the effects of the changes on those.
I should mention that we have over 26 land uses on the schedule
that are going down with this study. And of those land uses, there are
many of them that are the most commonly permitted land uses, things
like office, retirement community, some of the multifamily rates,
ultimately, will be going down that are going to be affected by this
change in a positive way, if you were to be a person building an
office or a retail establishment.
So I just want to provide that information to you. We do have
some comparisons that we can throw on the visualizer. If you'd like
to have the Tindale Oliver team come on up and walk you through
this a little bit and then we can go to your questions or, at your
pleasure, we can go straight to your questions. The presentation was
included as backup.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only one that kind of
jumped out at me was the fast-food fee of $104,000 or whatever that
number was. I'm not sure how anybody can build the fast-food
restaurant with that type of an impact fee. I know ours have
traditionally been, what, 96,000, and it's going up. It just seemed like
a huge number for some reason. Where does that come from?
MS. PATTERSON: It is a high traffic generator. And the
interesting thing about the fast-food restaurant with drive-thru rate
category is for at least the last five, maybe longer, years, we've been
looking for a partner willing to do an alternative study with the
county so that we could get a localized look at fast-food restaurant, a
McDonald's or a Burger King or one of those, the one that has, you
know, the three meals a day and the maybe 24-hour service, the ones
that are really high traffic generators, and we have yet -- even though
we've dealt with McDonald's and met with them even back to when
Mr. Casalanguida was our department head, sat down with the
November 12, 2019
Page 127
McDonald's folks, extended the offer to partner with us to try to have
another look at this, potentially, to look at fast-food restaurants that
are part of a shopping center, they're outparcels, and partner for even
a different rate structure that way. To date we've had no takers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's interesting, if you look at
the Indian River County fees for fast food, it's $20,000, and in Collier
County it's 104,000. It's five times as much. I just didn't know how
we would come up with a number like that.
Have you looked at some of the other counties to see how
they're doing their calculations, or are these fees that are just greatly
reduced in those counties?
MS. PATTERSON: Generally speaking, there are different fee
policies in other counties either that their fees are reduced, not at their
maximum legal limit, or the other thing that's a factor is that they
have other revenue sources that are used for the same purpose as the
impact fees.
So we recently have the infrastructure sales tax, which did go as
a credit against our impact fees. But places that have tolls, places
that use property taxes to a greater extent than we do for their
growth-related efforts, those all are a way that the impact fees can be
reduced as well as the choice to reduce them by policy. There are
counties that just elect to do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What is the one that's so famous
out now in Golden Gate?
MS. PATTERSON: Popeye's. Popeye's did --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They lined up to 951.
MS. PATTERSON: They did. They backed all the way up onto
951, and you probably could have driven to the Popeye's in
Immokalee and gotten your food and gotten back faster than you
could get through that line. And the funny part was, is that Popeye's
November 12, 2019
Page 128
actually received the benefit of the lower tiered transportation impact
fees because they don't serve breakfast. And we had somebody do an
alternative study several years back for fast-food without breakfast
being about 13 percent lower than fast food with breakfast. So it's an
interesting delineation, but they still created a bunch of havoc.
They're really popular.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I have an interesting
question to ask. We pushed through -- not me, I have to say, but we
pushed through the sales tax to build the roads. We were already, of
course, collecting an impact fee on the roads, but we pushed through
a sales tax to help us along and to meet some of those needs and
bridges and all of the stuff that we were mentioning.
So we already know we've got that, and we already know we've
got the impact fees. We already know that we get grants, and we
already know that we have -- well, that's it. I'm sure there are other
things that we get in as well. Why do we need to go this extra step?
MS. PATTERSON: Understood. I'll give you a two-pronged
answer: One, the infrastructure sales-tax projects that were on the
list, some of which are, you're correct, growth-related projects, but
the only part of those that are being funded by the sales tax is actually
the funding shortfall.
So we went through our capital program to look at all of the
things that needed to be done and all of the types of ways that we
were able to fund them at that time, impact fees, maybe some grants,
maybe some other -- some other revenue sources, we were still left
with a shortfall.
And in order to bring those projects forward, that was the intent
of the sales tax. So if we had -- I'll give you an example. If we had
$80 million towards a road that cost $100 million, the sales tax would
go to fill that other portion so that we were able to bring the projects
November 12, 2019
Page 129
in sooner rather than having to wait or to take debt or other strategies.
The other piece of this is, is as you mentioned, all of those other
revenue sources that are used for the same purpose as the impact fee
go as a credit against the impact fee. It's always been that way. So
we have to give the developers a credit for everything that we're
using that's used for the same purpose as the impact fees.
And so in this case, newly introduced into this study was a credit
for those sales-tax dollars that will be used for those growth
components, and that brought the fee down from where it would have
been without that credit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've always been a supporter for
impact fees, not only a supporter, but a staunch fighter for it, because
I felt it was necessary and it was good for our community and for our
taxpayers because it keeps their taxes low. I'm afraid you hit a -- you
hit my capacity, and I'm having trouble with this. I'll just say that
right now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, I heard what you said
earlier, and you said the reason that you have supported impact fees
is that growth -- it helps -- it doesn't help -- it relieves our taxpayers
of the cost of this infrastructure, and it puts it on the backs of the
people moving in and, certainly, the developments that are bringing
in.
And right now before us is a development where they're -- I hate
to say it -- kind of refusing to pay for any of the roads, especially the
big road. I was lobbied personally at an MPO meeting at a break to
make sure that a certain road was put on a map. And it's my
understanding now that the same developer who will be before us in
not too short a period of time doesn't want to pay for these roads. So
that means it's put on the back of you and me and the taxpayers that
we represent.
November 12, 2019
Page 130
So I think -- I think it's important that we -- I was very pleased
to hear about the credit system, and I think that the impact fees are a
way to make sure that growth continues to pay for growth. And at
least I'm fairly satisfied that there's no double dipping on the part of
the county on this; that there is a credit system; that sales tax -- the
impact fees reflect that.
So I would be -- I don't want to ask you, but it must be quite an
increase in impact fees if we didn't have that sales tax.
MR. PATTERSON: The differential is about 10 percent or
maybe a little bit more across the land-use categories.
The other thing I need to put on the record is that we also -- in
respect to fairness, we did scrub these costs to ensure that everything
that's included equally represents both sides, bot h our costs, as well
as the cost to the developer, to ensure that the costs truly represent the
costs to the county for providing those -- that road infrastructure.
And so that meant that we reduced some components, because
the way that we did things in the past for a period of time has
changed a little bit, and that also reduced things within these road
impact fee categories. We were facing, and you probably heard
around, some increases in these fee schedules that were much greater
than what we've brought forward as the final fees.
And that, again, is that balance to keep the fairness equation,
which is a requirement of impact fees. It's what makes them a fee
and not a tax is that you have to have that benefit relationship, and
they have to be fair.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So with that, now we'll go to public
comment.
MR. MILLER: We have two registered speakers today,
Mr. Chairman: Danielle Hudson will be followed by Cathy Curatolo.
MS. HUDSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
November 12, 2019
Page 131
Danielle Brazil Hudson, and I am the vice president of public policy
at the Naples Area Board of Realtors.
I'm here today on behalf of our board and membership to share
our opposition to the levy of additional impact fees, specifically
residential impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Particularly what?
MS. HUDSON: Ultimately, ours is a principled and
philosophical opposition borne out of the idea of realtors being a
conduit for prospective buyers to share in the dream of
homeownership. In fact, it is a core belief of realtors that
homeownership is not a privilege that should be attained by only a
few but rather the cornerstone of the American Dream.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that it is the role of
government to ensure that all individuals be able to afford a home in
our county. Quite the opposite. We understand that a strong market
economy unencumbered by government is beneficial to our
membership; however, we are suggesting that it is the role of
government to first provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the
people in deciding where to allocate existing funds, like those
highlighted in these documents, before asking prospective and
existing homeowners for more.
Understanding the complexity of the situation before us and the
efficiency of impact fees to pay for public amenities and growth, we
felt we could not underestimate the importance of fiscal
responsibility on the part of the county when dealing with the topic
that could limit homeownership for many.
So we ask that careful consideration be given to the studies and
assessments before you and that you err on the side of fiscal
responsibility and consider existing and prospective homeowners in
making your final decision.
Thank you.
November 12, 2019
Page 132
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker on this item is
Cathy Curatolo.
MS. CURATOLO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. It is a
pleasure to be with you this afternoon.
First and foremost, let me say that I represent the Collier
Building Industry Association. We are, as you all know, opposed to
impact fees.
That having been said, there's a couple of comments -- quick
comments I'd like to make. First of all, I want to share my
appreciation for Amy Patterson and her staff. We've had pretty
extensive discussion on the methodology for these two particular
studies, and I appreciate her educating me as a very naive person
when it comes to these formulas, because I'm not so sure anybody
could understand them.
That having been said, as I reviewed the documents, we're using
a deductive rather than an inductive approach. We deduce that
there's going to be a need for particular entities, and we move down
from that point to what, in fact, the fee is going to be.
In my humble opinion, that is an incorrect approach to take. I
think we need to look at revenues within the community, within our
county, determine what our priorities are, and then move forward.
Because, again, in my humble opinion, a 27 percent increase in water
and wastewater? If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be
laughable to me that we're talking about affordable housing and
looking at a 27 percent increase. It doesn't balance. It doesn't match
for me.
The other thing about the studies is there are too many ifs. If a
plant is needed. Really? If? Is it or is it not needed? And if so, if
needed, then you spend the money. But an if, again, doesn't go very
far for me, personally.
As Commissioner Fiala mentioned -- and there are grave
November 12, 2019
Page 133
concerns over this -- what are the implications of the sales tax in
terms of road impact fees? Come on. Let's consider these issues.
Again, if you're going to do anything, my preference is nothing;
however, if you're going to do anything, perhaps a phase-in approach
might be more applicable because, unlike what Commissioner Taylor
said, it does affect each one of us working in this community.
Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We just heard the AUIR this
morning, and so this is a quiz. What's the cost per lane mile to build
a lane mile of road in Collier County?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Six million dollars.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Depends on who's building it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Five.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Five million dollars for us, 10 for
the State, one for the private sector.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One lane. Last time I looked,
we have two-lane roads and we have four-lane roads and we have
six-lane roads. But we don't usually build six-lane roads.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So what's your point?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Got to build the roads for the
projected growth. It's an if. What if they don't come? That's kind of
the attitude that they had back in 1998/'99. But their attitude back
there was, you know, they may not come, so we're not going to build
it.
And I think Commissioner Fiala can clearly remember what
happened. I remember what happened because I was on the -- I was
on the City Council at the time, and the sewage was spilling in the
streets, and they came to the city and said, please, please, please let
us pipe into your sewer line because we don't have the capacity, and I
was the swing vote that said, yes, you can do that.
November 12, 2019
Page 134
So I remember that. It affected the whole county, and that's the
other side of the effect of lack of funding which comes from not
planning.
And I don't think anybody knows for sure something is going to
happen until it happens. But in planning, you've got to project. I
think that's the "if" that you heard from our planners today. We've
got to plan for it. The land is not public ownership that's being
already zoned and the development is -- lots of permits being issued
right now. We've got to plan for it.
And I particularly liked the staff's report that every time rates are
examined, it's done with studies, it's done carefully and methodically.
It's not done on a whim because you don't like it or you feel, you
know, the political pressure or it's a great way to spur growth.
You've done it methodically.
And so I think the "ifs" are pretty much more certain in Collier
County maybe than in other places. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. When we give our
consultant a challenge, we hire them and we tell them what we're
talking about. Do we tell them we want you to figure on the highest
rate? The middle rate? The lowest rate? The Cadillac rate? Or the
Chevy rate? Or how do they do that?
MS. PATTERSON: So what we do is we ask them to calculate
the actual cost to the extent that it can be borne by the impact fee.
And what they have to do is consider both , now, the Florida Statutes
and the guidance given there on how the rates are calculated, as well
as over 30 years in case law of what you're allowed to do and what
you're not allowed to do.
And so what their job is is to come up with that legally
defensible fee, the actual cost for us to provide that infrastructure
minus the credits that we talked about in those types of things, and
November 12, 2019
Page 135
from them, it's handed off to outside counsel who's completely
separate from the consultants, who works for the county, who then
looks at that study independently and verifies the same.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now say, for instance, we told
them, we want you to give us a rate but something that is more
acceptable that we -- you know, won't hold us up or anything, but --
oh, and, by the way, we get gas tax also. I forgot to mention that
before.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get a lot of money coming in to
build these roads. And, by the way -- and I say this with a happy
heart, we build a Cadillac of roads. We build the very best. Same
with our water and sewer, we build the very best. And why?
Because they don't run down. They don't -- you know, they stand up
for a long period of time. I think it's a great thing. That is not a
complaint at all. And I realize that you must have to take that into
consideration.
I just -- I just have a real problem thinking that we pushed that
sales tax through -- see, that still -- that still bothers me. We pushed
that sales tax through, and -- because we needed the roads never
saying that, and then we're going to come back and ask you for an
impact fee increase, too.
MS. PATTERSON: Well, again, my take -- let me answer your
questions -- is when there's a cost that may be different or
extraordinary due to -- there could be a number of reasons why --
something extremely expensive or something that's not so expensive,
the consultants also take steps to validate those costs to be sure that
we're not including an anomaly into the calculation.
So they verify that information by way of datasets so that -- and
if there's an anomaly, it can be explained. But, otherwise, there's a --
there's a way that they check those numbers and recheck them and
November 12, 2019
Page 136
check them again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to hold us up any at all.
MS. PATTERSON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really don't. It's just that I think --
I'm trying to get my head out of the -- out of the water. I'm trying to
breathe again, and it's feeling like it's -- you've asked too much.
MS. PATTERSON: In reference to the sales tax, though, again,
as I think I should restate, is that when that list of projects came
forward, the sales-tax portion of the funding was never intended to
lower, limit, or replace the impact fees. It was only intended to fund
the shortfall, therefore making the assumption that your impact fee
program would remain intact and that we assumed a reasonable rate
of growth going forward into the capital plan.
It was never ever the intention that that become a substitute
revenue source. And you're right, we do give credits for all of those
things into the impact which, in my opinion, makes it all the more
fair. All those things that you listed, gas tax, grants, property taxes to
some extent and now the sales tax, have, in fact, had the effect that
you're looking for, to lower those impact fees a little bit and in some
cases a lot when you're looking at that rate schedule.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
These impact fees, if they're approved today, would remain in
effect for three years, and then there would be another study; is that
what I understood you to say?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. So we go through a formal impact
fee update process every three years. We do index in the midyears,
but the Board does have discretion to accept those indexings or not,
and the other thing I did want to mention is that I know there's the
concern about the need and what's going to happen in the future. The
Board can always send staff out to update the fees sooner.
November 12, 2019
Page 137
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ms. Curatolo suggested that
if we do something with the fees as opposed to doing nothing, that
she would prefer to see us phase these in. So the question is, can we
adopt the reductions in full today and then advise you to implement
the increases over a three-year period in equal amounts?
MS. PATTERSON: Can you do that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the question.
MS. PATTERSON: By policy, yes, you can do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But?
MS. PATTERSON: We'll have ramifications on our capital
project funding for those three-year period -- for that three-year lag.
We will have to rebalance the programs, and we will have to look at
whether or not we have sufficient revenue to cover the projects that
were intended to be -- to be constructed during that time period.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including the ones that we said we
were going to build with the sales -- the surtax money?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. We would have to look at
the entire picture and then figure out how to recalibrate it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I make one comment in
reference to that? Because I'm not questioning the validity of what
you've just said. It just strikes me as a bit odd. When we adopted
that sales tax, we knew what the roads were that we were funding the
shortfalls for, but we didn't know that we were going to have an
increase in impact fees because we hadn't done the study.
So it just seems to me that that's a little bit hard to understand
why we would have that major of an impact by phasing in an increase
when that increase wasn't even known at the time.
MS. PATTERSON: I understand. But even since the passing of
the sales tax, you've have changes in costs, and that is likely to
continue to happen. So as long as your costs continue to escalate,
November 12, 2019
Page 138
that gap will continue to widen.
The other thing that has gone on is the legislature has made a
change in the way that we collect our impact fees, so we are already
anticipating -- we already know that there's going to be a short-term
issue with the fees that we used to get up front, that for a period of
time, while the system recalibrates, that we are going to have a
shortfall due to that. That used to be sort of a balancing act. We
would have money paid in up front, and they were drawing their
balances down that they'd prepaid, and they balanced each other out.
When that upfront payment goes away, you're still going to have
developers pulling their balances down, which means no new money ,
so you're going to watch that revenue dip.
And I explained that in the executive summary, but that's
another reality of the situation that was not anticipated, obviously,
when the sales tax passed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all set?
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, Commissioner Fiala, just
to bring this, again, to your attention, because we discussed it at the
M-CORES, gas taxes are down, and they're going to continue to
slide. They know that, and that's one of the reasons why the district
has moved on the back burner some projects they wanted -- we had a
schedule, and we had planned for it. They've even -- are moving
these back, because the revenues are not coming in, so it's a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The good thing is we have a great
tourism industry, and we're bringing in more and more people all the
time, so that should help to make up that deficit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the most extraordinary part
of this is is one of the comments, and I still haven't asked Secretary
Nadam (phonetic) about it. They project -- they've said this at the
November 12, 2019
Page 139
M-CORES meeting, that rental cars -- the rental-car industry is going
to -- is experiencing and will continue to experience a decrease in
customers. It doesn't make sense, but that's --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it certainly does. It's the
advent of AV and AI and Uber and Lyft and those other companies
that aren't requisite for people to rent a car anymore. You can just hit
your button on the phone; somebody comes and picks you up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I do.
So, Commissioner Solis, I'm sorry. He had to clear his voice for
me to get him.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. He's very deep in his chest.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I hate to ask this question, but
is there any impending time consideration here that we have to do
this today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The reductions.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There is?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The reductions need to be done right
away.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The reductions have to be done
right away.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And forgive me for interrupting,
but I thought it wasn't with choice; that the reductions happen
automatically whether we vote for it or against it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But, I mean, then the increase --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- because, obviously, I don't think
anybody has any problem with the reductions.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need to vote for the reduction. The
November 12, 2019
Page 140
impact fees are part of your ordinance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: They're not going to automatically go
down by itself. You need, today, to vote for the reduction.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For the reductions today.
MR. KLATZKOW: Everything else can be deferred.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're being asked to vote for it all
in aggregate, including the reductions and the increases.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need to vote for the reduction. You
can defer anything else.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha.
MS. PATTERSON: The only other sensitivity, obviously, is the
age of the studies. And so we wouldn't want so much time to pass
that we would need to bring in -- basically, redo the work we've done.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm not talking about deferring this
six months or anything. I'm talking about deferring this until the next
meeting or something just to have more time to have gotten my arms
around this a little better than I'll admit that I have, you know. And
maybe I should have known that this was going to be on the agenda
before the agenda was finalized.
But this is a big decision. It's a big increase. And I, frankly --
I'll just admit that I don't think I have my arms around --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, there you go.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- the issue like I should.
And if there's any way that we could just defer this one meeting
to have some more time to look at the data and what the
alternatives -- if there are any other alternatives, I would appreciate
that, just because I want to make sure that whatever decision --
whatever vote I cast is going to be as informed as it can be. And this
is a big increase, and I just don't feel comfortable doing it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
November 12, 2019
Page 141
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who was that?
MR. OCHS: I just wanted to ask Amy quickly to go over some
of these calculations on these fees, because percentages are large, the
dollar amounts may be a little different, and add some perspective,
several going down. Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
So what we've done is pulled a lot of the common land uses, and
I actually ran a schedule on the commercial side of the house that we
can also talk about the permitting activity over the last five years and
how many of the uses that are going down actually are the most
common uses that we permit.
But this is just to give you an idea, because it's daunting to hear
32 percent or 22.7 percent; however, when you layer that in over all
of the impact fees currently assessed and those proposed changes --
so for a single-family home on county water and sewer, you're
looking at an overall change of just over $2,000 or 7.33 percent.
Moving over to multifamily -- and I need to say about
multifamily, is there's some changes due to demand that have
changed these categories, which I actually think are going to provide
the users a lot better choices in the use of the multifamily category,
including some options for multifamily over commercial with lower
fees.
But even in this case, worst-case scenario, the combined
increases on county water and sewer and with the road increase is a
16.8 percent increase, or $2,800 per unit.
But when you go over to the commercial side of the house, it
gets really interesting because if you look at a 10,000-square-foot
office, the magnitude of the decrease to the transportation impact fees
actually not only wipes out the increase to water and sewer but
actually still takes the overall fees to a 10 -- almost 11 percent
reduction.
November 12, 2019
Page 142
When you go to retail, a larger size retail, it's just under
1 percent total. Again, general industrial, a very common use -- we
use this all the time through our permits -- is an 11 -- almost an 11.5
percent total decrease. And then small retail is only going up
4.31 percent.
So when we're concentrating on these 22 percent to 32 percent
increases, you have to look at the picture in totality, not only in the
dollar amount of the change but also in combination with those fees
that are going down.
And so our fee schedule, like I said, contains 26 uses, many of
which are most common uses that we apply to building permits that
are actually going to be reductions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all set? I don't feel any --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not really.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I mean --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm all set to --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're as comfortable as you're
going to be for now.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
I think that, you know, one of the things I learned over the years
being up here and in other political bodies is how to count to three, if
three is the majority, and I think that -- I feel uncomfortable going
forward with this until Commissioner Solis is comfortable because,
quite frankly, I think that there may not be three votes to do this
without that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I'll vote for the decrease.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I understand that.
So I was going to suggest that you entertain a motion to adopt
the decreases today, continue the increases until the next meeting, but
at the next meeting we will vote.
November 12, 2019
Page 143
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think we need to bring
all the consultants down. I think we've gone through all of this stuff a
couple times. Put this back on the agenda, we'll get comfortable with
it, and we'll vote. But I think if we force the vote today, I believe we
may have a problem.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fail.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll second that.
And, for discussion purposes, does anybody else have anything
to say? I mean, you were counting correctly, and I want to -- I want
to say this: I mean, at the end of the day, this all boils down to a
tax -- taxation and management of our revenue. I believe there are
other ways that we can get to where we need to be to support the
growth, to support the inevitable necessities of infrastructure that we
have for the inevitable growth. And so --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, this gives us
an opportunity over the next month -- because our next meeting is in
December. It gives us an opportunity to hear what those other
alternatives are because, if there are some, I'd certainly like to
entertain those.
I have always been a proponent of maximizing our impact fees,
going back to when I was on the County Commission the first time,
and I still am, because I think that's the fairest way to deal with this,
but I'd like to see a fairly unified board when we do that. And if
you've got some other alternatives, let's have them on the table so we
can consider those.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I mean, there is. I've
suggested them before. We implemented a little plan over in
Immokalee that hasn't been all that successful. We're having some
discussions on some other plans.
November 12, 2019
Page 144
I think at the end of the day it also -- and it has to do with how
we're conducting business as a community, where we're spending our
money, where we're prioritizing the expenditure of our available
dollars.
We, this year, for the first time in Collier County's history, have
a line item on our budget for capital asset replacement and
maintenance funding. We've never had that before. And so when
we're -- when -- and forgive me for the vernacular, but when we're
squirreling away money for ongoing maintenance and ultimately
replacement of these capital assets, that's a beginning of a shift in
how we're conducting business to be able to appropriate for these
funds.
But we'll certainly have more discussion in December. It's been
moved and seconded -- you got more?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got one more thing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You going to talk me out of it?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. No, no. I just -- one of the
things that I've -- this is really more a question for staff. One of the
things that I'd really like to understand better, because I am
concerned that on the one hand we do talk about housing
affordability and then on the other hand we're -- you know, we're
increasing what it's going to cost to create new housing.
And I know in the executive summary there are -- we do have
programs to foster housing affordability and the like. But this would
have an impact of some kind on the affordability of housing. And if
there's any way to quantify that, I'd like to understand that a little bit
better. If there's a way to quantify what this impact would be --
would have on the affordability, the creation of housing that's
affordable so that I can try to balance that in my unbalanced head.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I agree. A lot of times
we wonder. We always absorb the impact fees when -- you know,
November 12, 2019
Page 145
they've been a great renter or homeowner and so forth after 15 years
or something like that, but where does that go? And when we pay for
it, what is that paying -- paying back to us? Because they can't.
Where do we get that money from? So that would be a good thing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a rather complex system.
Sometimes she'll wear you out for hours explaining -- explaining that,
so...
All right. It's --
MS. PATTERSON: At the pleasure of the Board, I'll make
myself available to answer these questions between now and next
month. We can walk through affordable housing, economic
development, commercial development versus residential. We've got
a really clear picture on this after 19 years of collecting data, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, and -- you know, just --
the cautionary statement that I have is, is just because it's the way
we've always done it doesn't mean there isn't a different way to get to
where we need to be.
It's been moved and seconded that we accept the reduction in the
fees. Any other discussion? And we defer the increase in the fees
until the next meeting. That was all part of the motion, correct?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir.
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.
November 12, 2019
Page 146
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Is it time for you to
have a break there, Terri?
Yes, 10 minutes. We'll be back at 3:33 -- 2:33.
(A brief recess was had from 2:22 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. I want to apologize.
I misspoke the time when we went to break and said we'll be back at
3:30. I hope nobody else left town or anything.
And I did give you an extra three minutes just because we
were -- I was off on the clock. I tried to make Commissioner Taylor
do it on the last break, and she didn't do it well either.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't. No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's go. I'm on the
wrong screen here, Leo, so...
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO EVALUATE TWO (2) OPTIONS FOR
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA), FOR NEW
LANDSCAPING ON US 41 EAST (COLLIER BOULEVARD TO
GREENWAY ROAD), AND COLLIER BOULEVARD SOUTH
(US 41 EAST TO SHELL ISLAND ROAD) – MOTION TO
ACCEPT OPTION #1 – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're moving to 11B, Commissioners. This is a
recommendation to evaluate two options for the Florida Department
of Transportation Joint Participation Agreement for new landscaping
on U.S. 41 East and Collier Boulevard South.
Joe Delate, our project manager with your Transportation
Department, will present.
November 12, 2019
Page 147
MR. DELATE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have on the
visualizer a map of the subject area, which is Collier Boulevard from
U.S. 41 down to Fiddler's Creek and then from U.S. 41 -- from
Collier Boulevard down to approximately Greenway Road.
These are areas subject to a pending joint participation
agreement with the DOT, and today we're asking you for your
direction.
We have two options in front of you for this potential JPA, and
we wanted to see where you wanted to go with this project -- these
projects.
Option 1 is for you to decline the landscape JPA, and Option 2 is
to explore the creation of an MSTU on the benefiting properties to
fund the project maintenance after completion.
Essentially, we have currently -- this is a construction joint
participation agreement which would pay for construction. We have
the ability to do the design under our current budget; however, as
you're aware, I was in front of you in February, and because of the
rising costs in maintenance, we basically pushed the money that we
had for capital projects into our maintenance budget, and we're facing
that same thing, which is we do not have the funding to maintain
these miles if they were built, and the only possible scenario we're
proposing is that an MSTU would be established to the benefiting
properties to fund the maintenance.
And today I'm here to answer any questions and to go over this
with you and move forward with a path forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any questions?
Commissioner Saunders, did you -- are you lit up on this one or
from the last?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the anticipated
November 12, 2019
Page 148
maintenance costs would be almost 600,000 a year; is that --
MR. DELATE: That's correct. That's an approximate number
using our average cost per mile, plus some incidentals.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we may -- as you've
noted, we've addressed this issue. We made a policy decision not to
do any more median -- new programs until we got a handle on how
we were going to handle maintenance.
MR. DELATE: That is correct. However, I'd like to point out
one thing, if I could, Commissioner. At the time, in February, we
also talked about potentially pursuing grants, which this would
essentially be. It's a JPA.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But this would be a grant for
construction.
MR. DELATE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But we still have the 600,000
in maintenance.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. DELATE: That's right. You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I'm reluctant to move
forward with any additional landscaping until we have some better
idea of how we're going to handle what we already have.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have talked to the State in
terms of how long before we'd have to have a decision from the
Board on this grant offer, and I think we have to make a final
decision sometime before the end of January, mid-January.
MR. DELATE: It's either next meeting or in the January
meetings.
MR. OCHS: Okay. So if you had any interest in us going out
and talking to the homeowners associations or property owners about
whether or not they have an interest in an MSTU, we would have that
time frame to do it; otherwise, Option 1 is on the table as well.
November 12, 2019
Page 149
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I was going to
suggest. I would support -- clearly, that's a huge figure per year for
maintenance, and so I would support seeing if the homeowners --
bring the facts to them and the data to them and seeing if they were
willing to form an MSTU. And do we have enough time before the
end of January? That gives you enough time to go over to the
homeowners associations; does it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And we talked about
doing some outreach to them and finding out where they stand.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I would support that.
Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who's running this show?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I was just -- I just was
looking here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is my thing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I was just looking at her.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wash his mouth out with soap.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wash his mouth out with soap.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I only got one more meeting to go.
You better let me go.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, he's creating trouble.
Then you've got to get him away from that box.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is the section of road that
DOT just widened on U.S. 41 past 951, and it goes all the way to
Greenway Road. So from two lanes it became six lanes. Everything
else already is done up to that road, and then this is beyond.
The important thing to note is on that particular road -- now, I'm
happy to go and interview people or send letters out or whatever.
We've got a couple communities there like -- come on, Donna,
say them. There's a few mobile home parks there. One of them is
November 12, 2019
Page 150
Imperial -- Imperial Wilderness, and they do want it. I don't know
about the other mobile home park. And then there's some others that
are not financially doing very well, you know, Westwinds and so
forth.
Then you have quite a few Habitat villages along there, too. I'm
sure that they would love it, but I don't know that they could afford to
pay anything because they're in a Habitat village, but it would make
them feel -- it would make them feel like the rest of the community.
Reflection Lakes is in there. Naples Reserve is in there, so I
know they will vote for it, because they've been asking for it. Okay.
So that covers that area.
You've got down there Auto Ranch Road. I'm sure you all know
Auto Ranch Road. That's -- that's very, very, very low-income area
as well.
I think it's -- of course, to me, I want to -- I want people to feel
proud of where they live, and I think that that helps them.
And then you turn onto 951, and you've got the big shopping
center, Walmart and so forth, and then the Fire Department, and the
ambulance. Then you've got some more Habitat villages going in
along the water there. And then -- but then you've got a couple
mobile home parks, but on the other side there's nothing, so there's
nobody to even tax because that's all environmentally sensitive land.
So it's going to be a difficult area, especially with criteria saying
you don't want any -- want to do any of that. But I know it would
mean a lot to the people.
And I'm happy to call a town hall meeting or whatever. You all
can be there; can call it right here in our government center if people
can get off work. I'd love to try it because I know with us, when we
first got landscaping, we were very late in the game with the
landscaping game, and -- very late, and when we finally got it, the
people said that they -- everybody was saying to them, oh, you guys
November 12, 2019
Page 151
are really improving, and all we did was put in landscaping. But it
makes such a difference in the lives of people, such a difference.
Anyway, I will make that speech. I would be happy to try and
take a survey with everyone and see what they can do. I don't know
that that will go through. I don't know if there are grants available for
communities who can afford it. I just don't know what is available,
but I would like to investigate or have you guys help me investigate.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, I'm relying on you
with -- because it's your district, and there's -- the people here
predominantly, you know, are living within your district. You
communicate with them the most.
I am inclined -- was inclined, before we started this discussion,
to go with Option 1, just not pursue the joint venture with the DOT. I
think, if I'm not mistaken, we're still in the process of adjusting our
RFPs to solicit more landscape companies to come do work for us, to
bring down that average cost of 75,000 per mile. We haven't gotten
there yet, and so I was inclined just to stop.
I personally believe that there are human issues that require
attention far in advance of landscaping. I believe that the folks that
live in Reflection Lakes and some of these other less affluent
communities would care more about decent sidewalks and
transportation to be able to get to and from work and so on and so
forth in advance of landscaping. Not that landscaping's not
important. Not that there isn't a sense of community, but there are
human issues that are -- I believe, from a prioritization standpoint, we
should be addressing in advance of $600,000 a year and going out
and asking them if they want to raise their taxes to support that
maintenance.
So I don't think it's a bad idea to involve the public,
Commissioner Taylor. I think that was a valid point.
My question is, as I'm down the path a minute, what are we
November 12, 2019
Page 152
going to do when it's kind of a split -- we're going to have to decide
sooner or later whether we tax these people in an MSTU. Because I
won't support doing the joint venture with the DOT and forcing an
MSTU.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. That's why I asked if
there's enough time, but it's 50-plus-one, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. But we're not going to do a
poll.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're not doing a formal poll,
ma'am. You're going to do an informal meet with the communit ies
and find out where they stand, have the HOA presidents represent
what the community feels. And it's a Catch 22 in the sense that if
you said no today, the communities didn't get a chance to weigh in,
they would have said, well, we had no say in this.
So we would -- that would be our goal is to reach out to some of
these HOAs and talk to them and see where they stand.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And would you have figures per
household?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be more informal from the
presidents, approximations, just, you know, come back. And,
certainly, Commissioner McDaniel's correct, you're going to have
some people that are dead against it, but we're trying to get a feel
for --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is it a supermajority that's for it, or
where do we stand with this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yep. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the joint participation
agreement, the total cost of construction is 2.8 million. Would the
State pay that entire amount, and then we would just pay the --
MR. DELATE: Yes. That's the construction amount. They
November 12, 2019
Page 153
would pay whatever the bids came in as. So if it came in less than
that, that's an estimate.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. So we would pay for
the design costs, 220 million (sic), and then 600,000 --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred twenty thousand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What did I say?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred twenty million.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, 220 million.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd sign up for that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why would we do that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My design company --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. $220,000, plus 600-,
so our first-year expense would be approaching $800,000.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're not going to be able to
get any legally binding response from any of the homeowners
between now and January. You might get some response that, yes,
we'd like the county to do this and we're interested in having an
MSTU, and then we're going to be put in a position of voting to tax
them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm just saying, just for the
record here, I'm not going to be willing to do that, I don't believe.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Even if -- even if --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You can come back with that
and see what you have, but I'm just not ready to make that kind of a
financial commitment for a beautification. That road is actually very
nice. There's a lot of landscaping or greenery on both sides. It's not
like it's an urban stretch of road that is barren and ugly or anything.
It's actually a nice road, and so I don't know that we need to do that.
That's kind of my view.
November 12, 2019
Page 154
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On 951, it's already landscaped
down to near the end now. That -- the State has paid for all of that,
and there's just only one section left. Just in case you think it's the
whole thing on 951, there isn't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I didn't understand that
it's not going to -- even if you go out to them and they say, yeah,
yeah, it's not legally binding, but we have to make a commitment in
January. I'm not willing to risk that.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's good to know now. That's why
we brought the item up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I'll make a motion for Option 1.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that.
And I'll just say, I agree with what Commissioner McDaniel is
saying. So many times we consider these things in a vacuum and not
in relation to something else that's also very important. So while I --
yeah, it's nothing against landscaping. It does make the community
beautiful, but I think Commissioner McDaniel's correct that there
may be some other things that might be of more interest. So I'll
second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wish our reporter wouldn't have
stepped out of the room. I would have liked him to hear this, too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Here's hearing it somewhere.
Okay. It's been moved and seconded that Option 1 be the path
we pursue. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
November 12, 2019
Page 155
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1.
MR. DELATE: Thank you, Commissioner -- Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew you guys wouldn't vote for
it.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF
INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7611, U.S. 41 NORTH WATER
MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 2, TO PWC JOINT VENTURE,
LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,488,340, AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11C is a recommendation to award a contract
for the North Water Main Replacement Phase 2, to PWC Joint
Venture, LLC, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the
amount of $2,488,340, authorize the Chair to sign the attached
agreement, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Chmelik is available to present or respond to questions from
the Board or accept a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Second.
Is there any questions or further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's an amazing report. All in
November 12, 2019
Page 156
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. OCHS: Thank you, Tom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one more question --
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- back on the last subject, if I may.
I'm going to write up the Tidbits tonight, but it goes out to all of those
people. And say, for instance, they all decide that they -- somehow
their communities, or whatever, want to do an MSTU, can we bring it
back if people want to pay for it?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. You want to hear that yes
from them?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But not with a grant.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But there's a procedure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you want us to hold off and just tell
DOT, let the communities get together and talk about it, we can
certainly do that. We have until January, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just maybe DOT has some
money to help out.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They usually have capital dollars,
ma'am. They're usually pretty bad about operating dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They build it, but you take care
of it.
November 12, 2019
Page 157
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, exactly.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You get to sweep it after they build
the sidewalk.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO.
19-7655 TO FLORIDA DREDGE AND DOCK, LLC IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,351,000 FOR THE DREDGING OF WATER
TURKEY BAY, WIGGINS PASS AND CAXAMBAS PASS FOR
THE MARCO SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT,
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to award a contract
to Florida Dredge and Dock LLC in the amount of $2,351,000 for
dredging of Water Turkey Bay, Wiggins Pass, and Caxambas Pass
for the Marco South Beach renourishment, authorize the necessary
budget amendments, authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreements, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
Mr. McAlpin is available to present or respond to questions or
accept a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wait. We've got lights up.
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that, but I'll also say
that -- I wanted to commend staff, Gary McAlpin, for a great job on
this, because he really was able to parlay this with some other
November 12, 2019
Page 158
dredging work, right, and bring the costs way down for this particular
project.
So I -- this was presented at the TDC, was it last month or this
month, I can't remember. But, I mean, it was a really well -done,
well-thought-out plan, which is going to ultimately save us a lot of
money. So great job. Thanks.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a question. I didn't
quite understand how they -- Marco or the Caxambas Pass could
affect the Marco South Beach renourishment.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am. So what we do -- for the record,
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
So what we do is we need to renourish the Marco South Beach
with about 80,000 cubic yards of material. So our source for that
material is Caxambas Pass. So we dredge Caxambas Pass, improve
the navigation in that channel, and use that sand to put on the beach
at Marco South.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. I knew it needed to
be done, but I just didn't know how they correlated. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept staff's recommendation. 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.)
November 12, 2019
Page 159
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
And just -- thank you, Gary. I have a -- done with you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you're not.
Gary, I'm sorry. Gary, Commissioner Taylor's not done with
you, so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So now the cameras are rolling,
and we know that the entire public of Collier County is listening to
this meeting --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you going on a subject not on
today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- tell us about the beach
renourishment. What's going on? Give us the latest status.
MR. McALPIN: Well, the beach renourishment that we're
undergoing right now is about 75 percent complete.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations.
MR. McALPIN: We have -- we have --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow.
MR. McALPIN: -- about 40,000 cubic yards left to put on to the
beach of -- excuse me -- 140 -- we have 40,000 tons left to put on the
beach at this point in time from 165,000. We are making good
progress, and we should be able to make our projections for the first
of the year being complete, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So -- okay. So it's 75 percent of
the amount of sand is on the beach, but you --
MR. McALPIN: Has been placed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- still have to spread it. So
there's a little bit time --
MR. McALPIN: Well, we do that continuously as we put sand
on the beach. We spread it. So that's almost a continuous operation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I won't ask you to commit to any
November 12, 2019
Page 160
more, but congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One burning question: There
was a dump truck that hit a sinkhole in Fort Myers. Obviously, it
wasn't ours. In fact, Mary, our wonderful security guard, passed it
this morning as it was tipped over into the sinkhole along the road.
That wasn't one of ours, was it?
MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am, it wasn't. We have enough
problems of our own. We don't accept other people's problems. So,
no, that was not one of our trucks.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have a question for him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No question. I was just going to
say, while he's still up there, though, I wanted to just, again, give him
a pat on the back in case nobody heard it before. When he was out at
the Marco beach doing his renourishment, and Marco Beach all of a
sudden had a burrowing owl build a nest on the beach. Burrowing
owls don't build nests on beaches. And somebody in that great big
van or great big tractor saw it, stopped all of the work, cordoned that
thing all off to protect that bird, and I thought it was the coolest thing.
It was but two days later, and they found a tortoise -- a tortoise
hole. All he saw was the tortoise hole, and he saved that. And so just
kudos to you and your great group of guys. Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: We do have a great group of guys. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Gary.
And, County Manager, before we go, I'm not sure we
sufficiently -- I know a little bit about the creation of an MSTU.
Commissioner Fiala asked -- this is two subjects ago back on our --
November 12, 2019
Page 161
on your MSTU area. There is a procedure for creation should the
voters want to create an MSTU and bring it to us, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. KLATZKOW: MSTU is your creation. You can do it
voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary MSTU is generally you'll get a
petition from the community asking the Board to set up an MSTU
and tax themselves. Those are relatively rare. Then you've got the --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Involuntary.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- involuntary where the Board will put an
MSTU on a community, such as the latest ones we've been doing
have been the private roads that need the upgrades.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we were -- I ran into that
issue when we were talking about the MSTU for the private roads in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And to get that many conflicting
viewpoints all heading in the right direction to get your 50 percent
plus one, you almost have to go with the involuntary thing, but there
is a process for it, so -- and I wasn't sure that it was explained well,
so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you so much. And
there are some shopping centers there that would want that pretty
badly, because that would be an addition to them all along that
corridor, just maybe, you know -- who knows, maybe they would like
to help fund it. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Time will tell.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 15, staff and
November 12, 2019
Page 162
commission general communications.
I have just one follow-up item. At last Friday's MPO, I know
that the MPO asked the Chair to pen a letter to the FDOT secretary
urging them to, if not maintain, actually accelerate the I -75/Collier
Boulevard interchange project on the work program instead of
deferring that.
So I believe we may also want to send a similar letter from the
chair of the County Commission. And I think there was some
discussion about trying to arrange a meeting with the secretary or
perhaps the governor or both and members of our commission to try
to lobby to accelerate that project.
So my question is, would you like us to prepare a letter for
signature of the Chair to the governor and the secretary to kind of
mimic what the MPO board had done?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay with that, yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay. If you'd like me to try to arrange for those
meetings, I'd be happy to do that as well.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. And it's my understanding
that they are in the process. They're -- the SIS funding is the
challenge right now, and that they are trying to develop their budget
so that those meetings need to be not in January; they need to be now.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Other than that, I just want to wish
you all a Happy Thanksgiving.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that's right.
Happy Thanksgiving. Here we are.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Happy Thanksgiving, yep.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Goodness.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
November 12, 2019
Page 163
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Madam Clerk?
THE CLERK: Nothing, thank you. Happy Thanksgiving, too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: To you as well.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I have a -- I have a piece of
good news for a change.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I got an email from a
constituent that lives in Naples Park. As part of some of that utilities
work in Naples Park, there's a couple of lift stations that have been
moved around and relocated. And this one constituent, Ms. Kane,
wrote and said that I'm contacting you as a follow-up to my previous
contact regarding the new pump station at 512 103rd Avenue North
as well as specifically the efforts of John Arteaga of the Wastewater
Division.
We live nearby, are no longer experiencing the odor from the
station, have several calls from Johnny Arteaga who explained the
procedure thoroughly and ongoing efforts the department is making
to control the odor. I appreciate John Arteaga's updates as well as his
professionalism, knowledge support, and continuing efforts to stay on
top of the problem.
I have a sense of confidence that this problem -- that should this
problem recur at any time, I now have someone to contact who
quickly responds and alleviates the problem. Johnny Arteaga and I
have agreed to call one another if either of us becomes aware of a
concerning situation at the station.
So kudos to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- staff --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Solid waste.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Dr. George. Great customer
November 12, 2019
Page 164
service, yeah. And, thank you, Johnny Arteaga out there somewhere
for doing such a great job.
MR. OCHS: We'll make sure he knows.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it when the buck stops here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was great. Yeah,
congratulations.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. We're going to have a big
turkey dinner at my house, and a lot of my kids are going to be here,
at least four of them, with all the grandkids --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What time shall we show up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7:30 in the evening. Actually, it's
1:00 in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: She didn't miss a beat, did she?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She made a funny. That was
perfect. We're eating at 1:00, but you show up -- okay.
Commissioner Saunders, we're going to let you go now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add.
Happy Thanksgiving to everybody and to our staff.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll probably see all of you
next Wednesday -- is it next Wednesday that we have the Farm-City?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, Farm-City.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, just one thing. I'd like to
see if there's support among my commission to bring the question of
the census and taking the organizing position for the census count.
It's -- I received a call from Superintendent Patton, who after our last
meeting, when we said, okay, the school's going to do it, let them do
it, and she called me and said, uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: School's not going to do it?
November 12, 2019
Page 165
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They're not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think it's critical to our
bottom line. And I don't know how to do it or a way to do it, but I
think that Mr. Mullins --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders needs to
hear this, and I don't know what they're talking about.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I missed an item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, you did. Commissioner
Taylor was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He agreed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So he's just going to vote --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's a vote, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's going to go out and take the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to go out and go --
if you go along with what I'm getting ready to say, I'll go along with
whatever you just said. I don't know what it was, but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, basically, the census issue.
You know, we need to understand what the role of the county would
be. The school board is unwilling -- the school system, according to
Superintendent Patton, is not going to take the lead on it.
I've been reassured by the NAACP, Mr. Keyes, sitting in the
back -- and I actually got that confirmed yesterday again, that he is --
he has contacted church leaders. He is setting up a network, but
somehow the county has to be the big brother in this. Now, I don't
know what that means, but I sure would like a discussion at our next
meeting, and maybe Mr. Mullins can do the research.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like to do that. Because we
had a discussion about it. We all kind of agreed --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Said the school --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that the school district was going
November 12, 2019
Page 166
to do it, and now they're saying no. So maybe we could have a
discussion with the school district, joint venture; do something. I
think the county does need to take the lead. It's imperative for us to
have an accurate count.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's how we -- it determines the
demographics of the community. It's grant money. It's --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so I would -- you know, I
think Superintendent Patton is willing to send someone here to talk
about what -- their role in it. I know that Mr. Keyes is going to talk
about what his role would be in it, and that kind of leaves
Mr. Mullins to explain what our role is based on his research.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say, for instance, none of this
works. Where do the -- where does the government go -- if we don't
have a solution, where do they go to get this done?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They're doing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So, period?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's being done, but then this is a
coordination effort between the federal government and us on a local
basis, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To encourage and actually make
sure our numbers are as accurate as they possibly can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, and I know it
means a lot to us, but if we don't have the resources and, say,
NAACP doesn't have them -- everybody has a little bit of resources
but nothing else, who is going to be in charge to make sure it's all
coordinated and volunteer coordination and so forth?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just asking it because --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's the point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're going to have to figure it
November 12, 2019
Page 167
out.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's the point. That's the point
that she's making.
MR. OCHS: You know, the Census Bureau has their own
outreach efforts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do they?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They do. Yeah. They're all over --
they're all over in my communities where I've been traveling, so --
but I think we could bring it up at our next meeting and maybe have a
cost analysis with regard to a lead person, joint venture with the
school district and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Of what it entails. I don't even
know what it entails except when I got the call, they said, nope, it's
not us.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we'll bring back the same report
we did last time. We took you through three options. And you didn't
want the county to do it primarily because Sunshine requirements and
the appointments, and they're going to be out taking the census here
in a few months.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep, we've got --
MR. OCHS: So by the time we go through the application
process and get it back on a board agenda for appointment and get
them their Sunshine Law orientation, you know, it's March. But if
that's what you want to do, we'll bring it back.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I guess my question is, do
we have to go that way, and do we have --
MR. OCHS: No. That's -- we gave you two other options, and
we'll bring those back again in December.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: January or December?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: December, at our next meeting in
November 12, 2019
Page 168
December. And we've got head nods on all that, so good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. That's it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, with your
indulgence, I think that there's one issue that I think staff needs a
little bit of direction on. At our last -- I believe it was our last
meeting, we directed staff to prepare an invitation to negotiate to see
whether there was an operator of a golf course that could come into
Golden Gate City, take a look at that golf course, provide some
family entertainment and restaurant golf course operations,
something that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There was something on today's
agenda with regard to that in the consent or summary. One had to do
with the release of the limitations of hours of operation and parking
and so on.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. We directed staff to
eliminate the cap on the number of seats in a restaurant from 150 to a
higher number and also the hours of operation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, this is -- we directed
staff to prepare the ITE, and I think staff just needs direction to issue
it. Is that what --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. This is for the affordable
housing component we talked about, Commissioner. So there was --
the Community Foundation has a $10 million grant that's on the
table, and I think they want a little bit of comfort that the Board's
going to partner with somebody, so we're going to put an ITN on for
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you have direction on the
other ITN?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's moving forward, yes, sir.
November 12, 2019
Page 169
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So this is on housing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We were going to bring back the
ITN, if the Board gave us three nods, in December.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a not-for-profit that's
offered up a very substantial amount of money to help subsidize what
they describe as essential services personnel.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: ESP.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: ESP: Firefighters, police
officers, schoolteachers, nurses, that sort of thing. They want to
know that the County Commission is serious about considering that.
And what we've suggested is that there's property at this Golden Gate
Golf Course that would satisfy that need. It would be a great
location. It would not prevent us from doing another 12-hole type of
a golf course on that property.
So the issue is giving staff direction to see what kind of interest
there is from developers to do that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I don't mean to interrupt you,
but from a procedural standpoint, do you need to have that direction
now to go forward with the IT (sic) for them, or should we bring it up
as an actual agenda item for public discussion? Because there are
people that might not think that housing on that golf course is such a
great idea.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the ITN drafted, and with
the concurrence of the Board today, we'll put it on the December
agenda. And then if you have any comments or the public has any
comments after that, we would advertise it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: While we're talking about that
subject, you've been mentioning a 150-seat restaurant on that
property, too? What is that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right now under the current
November 12, 2019
Page 170
zoning, because it's golf course zoning, a restaurant operation
typically goes with a golf course. So in that particular zoning, golf
course zoning classification, that particular PUD, you can only have
150 seats. And so at our last meeting, the Commission agreed to
direct staff to do a rezone petition to eliminate that cap so that if there
is an operator that can come in and take over the golf course and
provide that type of an amenity, they're going to want more than 150
seats.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a restaurant in Collier
County that seats more than 150 people?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have very few that seat
less than that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Not in my area.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's not a big number.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, it's kind of a
magic number. If you have more than 150 seats, you can get a full
liquor-type license as a matter of right. If you have less than 150,
you have to get a -- you have to purchase a liquor license. So most
restaurants are substantially higher than 150.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So you've got head nods to go
forward on the IT, and then we'll have a -- for the housing
component, and then we'll have an actual discussion where the public
can weigh in whenever that proposal comes back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: December, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's my -- in December, okay.
And I --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just -- I wish everyone a
blessed and food-filled Thanksgiving.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Same to you. I am not going to be
joining you while you're serving the public of Collier County at
November 12, 2019
Page 171
Farm-City.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going to be hunting
the turkeys?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no. I'll be having
Thanksgiving with my -- well, I'll be having Thanksgiving with my
mother.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On Wednesday?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The Wednesday before
Thanksgiving, yes. So I'm always gone in Pennsylvania then.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it goes to Pennsylvania.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. My mother lives in
Pennsylvania. And she's watching, so say hello.
All right. With that, we are adjourned. See you in December.
*****
**** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried by consensus that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2019-208: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES PHASE III,
APPLICATION NUMBER AR-6935, AND AUTHORIZE THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2019-209: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
November 12, 2019
Page 172
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT SIX, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20120001662, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2019-210: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF MADISON ESTATES, APPLICATION
NUMBER 99-16, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2019-11: PRIVATE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
PEBBLEBROOKE COMMERCIAL PHASE IV, APPLICATION
NUMBER AR-5145, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2019-212: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF SOUTHEAST IMMOKALEE,
APPLICATION NUMBER AR-3410, AND AUTHORIZE THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
November 12, 2019
Page 173
RESOLUTION 2019-213: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF EDEN ON THE BAY, APPLICATION
NUMBER 99-02, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2019-214: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF TORINO AND MIRAMONTE,
APPLICATION NUMBER AR-6320, AND AUTHORIZE THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2019-215: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT,
APPLICATION NUMBER AR-13078, AND AUTHORIZE THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2019-216: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF BAREFOOT BAY, APPLICATION
NUMBER 00-36, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item#16A10
November 12, 2019
Page 174
ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND
ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPES AT ORANGETREE (WATER
MAIN EXTENSION), PL20180001641 – LOCATED OFF OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND RANDALL BLVD.
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES –
LEARNING CENTER, PL20180002553 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
$5,750.16 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION
WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AND FOUND
THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR RICHMOND PARK
(FIRE HYDRANT), PL20170002337 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 $4,839.16
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
November 12, 2019
Page 175
DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD JUST EAST OF COLLIER BLVD.
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR HIWASSE – LOCK-UP STORAGE, PL20180002067, 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 $13,593.27 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL
INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2019
AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 7C,
PL20180001299 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE
SATISFACTORY
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
November 12, 2019
Page 176
SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE CLUB AT PELICAN
BAY, PL20180002468, 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 $13,260.49 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON
SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE
SATISFACTORY
Item #16A16
WORK ORDER TO PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC., FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE “OIL WELL ROAD SHOULDER
IMPROVEMENTS – SEGMENT I” PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $596,370.44 (PROJECT #60231.2) AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED WORK ORDER
Item #16A17
WORK ORDER TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FL, LLC,
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE “EVERGLADES BOULEVARD
NORTH SHOULDER IMPROVEMENTS – SEGMENT I”
PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,373.28 (PROJECT
#60237.1)
Item #16A18
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE
ROADWAY SEGMENT OF WILSON BOULEVARD (FROM
IMMOKALEE ROAD SOUTH FOR 1.5 MILES) WITH TWO (2)
November 12, 2019
Page 177
RECOGNITION SIGNS AND TWO (2) ADOPT-A-ROAD LOGO
SIGNS FOR A TOTAL COST OF $200 WITH THE VOLUNTEER
GROUP, COLLIER COUNTY CASH COWS INC.
Item #16A19
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A
VALUE OF $220,980.21 FOR PAYMENT OF $730.21 IN THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JANICE RIVES AND ARTURO
RIVES, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE
NO. CEPM20160008025 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5378 BROWARD ST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA –
VIOLATION CONSISTED OF THE BOARDING OF AN
UNOCCUPIED HOME WITHOUT OBTAINING A BOARDING
CERTIFICATE
Item #16A20
RESOLUTION 2019-217: AMENDING RESOLUTION 12-234, TO
REMOVE THE TRI-ANNUAL AMENDMENT CYCLES AND
ALLOW FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE PROCESSED,
REVIEWED AND SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AS
SUBMITTED, AS ALIGNED WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE
163.3184
Item #16A21
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO CONTRACT NO. 18-7245 WITH
TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC., TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
November 12, 2019
Page 178
TASKS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INCREASING
AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION AND PRE-
APPLICATION MEETINGS BY $14,688. ADDED SUB-TASK
ADDITIONAL COORDINATION - PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNERS; GMP/LDC CODE REVISIONS BY $19,460.
DECREASED CONTINGENCY BY $34,148
Item #16A22
TWO DONATION AGREEMENTS FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (PARCELS 445DE AND 446DE)
REQUIRED FOR GULFVIEW DRIVE. ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $1,000 – FOLIO #48171800007 AND #48171840009
Item #16A23
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $18,927.18 FOR PAYMENT OF $1,827.18
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. RANDOLPH CODNER AND
VAN B. RHONE, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
4343 22ND AVE SE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - THE LIEN
WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO AN ABANDONED
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKED ON AN UNIMPROVED
ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON APRIL 3, 2014
Item #16A24
UTILIZING $199,674 FROM THE GOLDEN GATE CITY
November 12, 2019
Page 179
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE TRUST FUND FOR A
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COMPLETE STREET STUDY AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16A25
EXTENDING THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT’S
(RFMUD) “EARLY ENTRY” BONUS TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENTS RIGHTS (TDR) CREDIT, AS PROVIDED FOR
IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)
AND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) – AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A26
ENTERING INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH
TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA TINDALE
OLIVER, RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES NO. 19-7563, “EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.” – TO STUDY THE LAND USES
ALONG THE EAST US41 CORRIDOR
Item #16A27
RESOLUTION 2019-218: ESTABLISHING A STANDARD
TEMPLATE FOR CONSTRUCTION BONDS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE COLLOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS
FACILITIES ON COUNTY UTILITY POLES ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
November 12, 2019
Page 180
Item #16A28
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,580 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20160000314) FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH ANTHEM PARKWAY EXTENSION –
LOCATED WITHIN AVE MARIA
Item #16A29
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,300 WHICH WAS POSTED AS
A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.079,
PL20120001414 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TWIN
EAGLES PHASE 2B – BLOCK 106 - THE WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE
DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A30
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBERS
60.100, PL20120002540; 60.100-1, PL20130002717; 60.100-2,
PL20140000342; 60.100-3, PL20150000128 FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH NAPLES RESERVE PHASE ONE - THE
WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS
COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
November 12, 2019
Page 181
Item #16A31
EXTENDING THE EXISTING CONTRACTS WITH APTIM
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC, AND
HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS, P.A. UNDER
AGREEMENT #15-6382, “GRANT FUNDED PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE,” FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO
180 DAYS TO ALLOW STAFF TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS
FOR A NEW AGREEMENT AND TO PREVENT A LAPSE IN
THIS SERVICE
Item #16A32
HEARING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AT
TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED DAYTIME HEARINGS AND
WAIVING THE NIGHTTIME HEARING REQUIREMENT –
SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD DECEMBER 10, 2019 AND
JANUARY 14, 2020
Item #16C1
SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 19-7634, “HERITAGE
BAY GOVERNMENT CENTER DESIGN,” AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP-RANKED COMPANY, STANTEC CONSULTING
SERVICES INC., SO THAT STAFF CAN BRING A CONTRACT
BACK TO THE BOARD AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING - THE
PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON 6.33 ACRES OF
COLLIER COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED
November 12, 2019
Page 182
APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE NORTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF 951 AND IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL (NCH) NORTHEAST FACILITY AND WEST OF
HERITAGE BAY VISTAS
Item #16C2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7531, “PLUMBING
PARTS AND SUPPLIES,” TO PALM BEACH PLUMBING
PARTS INC., AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR, AND JAMESON
CURRIE CORPORATION INC. D/B/A JAMESON SUPPLY INC.,
AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR, FOR COUNTY-WIDE
PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES
Item #16C3
AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION
NO. 19-7539, “ROOFING REPLACEMENT CONTRACTORS,”
FOR COUNTY-WIDE ROOFING REPLACEMENT SERVICES
TO: ADVANCED ROOFING, INC., F.A. REMODELING AND
REPAIRS INC., CROWTHER ROOFING AND SHEET METAL
OF FLORIDA, INC., ABOVE ALL ROOFING CONTRACTOR,
LLC, AND TARGET ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC.
Item #16C4
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ANY
AND ALL LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 249 BROCKINGTON DRIVE,
WHICH ESCHEATED TO THE COUNTY DUE TO THE PRIOR
November 12, 2019
Page 183
OWNER’S FAILURE TO PAY TAXES, IS VACATED OF ANY
OCCUPANTS AND THE DILAPIDATED TRAILER ON THE
PROPERTY IS REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED, IF IT REMAINS
Item #16C5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,869,000 TO
FUND THE JAIL’S KITCHEN REPLACEMENT AND SAFETY
UPGRADES PROJECT (#53007) FROM THE
INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX
Item #16C6
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 19-7593, “PALM
RIVER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP
RANKED FIRM, Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Item #16C7
AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7625, U.S. 41 EAST
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, TO DBE MANAGEMENT
INC., D/B/A DBE UTILITY SERVICES, AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $660,591, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT (PROJECT NUMBER 70248)
Item #16C8
November 12, 2019
Page 184
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND AUTHORIZE
ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONTRACT
RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(RPS) NUMBER 19-7621, "GOLDEN GATE WASTEWATER
ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR) AND INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS."
Item #16C9
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $911,912.93
FOR THE VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE-SACS PUBLIC
UTILITIES RENEWAL, PROJECT NUMBER 70122 – BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACTOR FIXED COSTS AND
ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY QUANTITIES
Item #16C10
EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BRADSTROM VILLAGE
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-
PROFIT CORPORATION, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,553
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR
PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NUMBER 70043 – LOCATED AT
338 BRADSTROM CIRCLE
Item #16D1
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7630 TO INFINITE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, FOR THE “BAREFOOT BEACH
BOARDWALK AND PAVILION REPLACEMENT,” IN THE
AMOUNT OF $225,343.28, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
November 12, 2019
Page 185
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16D2
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID
LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO ADMINISTER
THE ALLOCATION OF THE STATE-MANDATED MATCH FOR
FY20 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,335,934 - THE AGREEMENT
REQUIRES THAT DLC PROVIDE ADULT AND CHILDREN’S
MENTAL HEALTH AND ADULT SUBSTANCE ABUSE
SERVICES
Item #16D3
A TEMPORARY RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH
FISCHER BROTHERS INDUSTRIES, INC., TO ALLOW A
PORTION OF THE RICH KING GREENWAY BE UTILIZED AS
AN ACCESS AND STAGING AREA FOR A MOON LAKE
DEVELOPMENT LAKE BANK REMEDIATION PROJECT, AT
NO COST TO THE COUNTY – FOLIO(S) #6065000102,
#60605500042, #60606000059 AND #25891000647
Item #16D4
AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AND AN ATTESTATION
STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE EMERGENCY HOME
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
November 12, 2019
Page 186
FUNDING FOR FY19/20. (NET FISCAL IMPACT $73,218.87)
Item #16D5
ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHERE
THE TERM OF THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN MET –
LOCATED AT 1049 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE
Item #16D6
TWO (2) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN
THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $33,458 AND APPROVE AN
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT – LOCATED AT 3525
12TH AVE NE AND 661 WINDSOR SQUARE #101
Item #16D7
ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN OWNER WHO HAS MET
THE 15-YEAR AFFORDABILITY TERM OF A STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP GRANT AGREEMENT
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DWELLING, PROVIDE A REFUND – LOCATED AT 14581
APALACHEE STREET
Item #16D8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,981.24 TO
FUND LOBBY AND OFFICE IMPROVEMENTS AT COLLIER
November 12, 2019
Page 187
MUSEUM AT GOVERNMENT CENTER – IN PREPARATIONS
FOR THE TEMPORARY LOAN OF THE KEY MARCO
ARTIFACTS FROM THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 2019-219: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO
ACCEPT AN INITIAL DISTRIBUTION FROM THE HARVEY M.
SHREVE JR. IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF 1997 (TRUST), IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,600,000 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT
DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY, AND TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 2019-220: A FY2019/2020 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 RURAL GRANT AWARD
IN THE AMOUNT OF $484,276 TO PROVIDE TRANSIT
SERVICE TO THE RURAL AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY;
APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS. TOTAL FISCAL
IMPACT IS $968,552 WITH A FEDERAL SHARE OF $484,276
AND LOCAL MATCH OF $484,276
Item #16D11
RESOLUTION 2019-221: THE FY20-21 PUBLIC
November 12, 2019
Page 188
TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT (PTGA) WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,965,584 PROVIDING FOR STATE
FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE COLLIER COUNTY FIXED-ROUTE
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $982,792,
APPROVE A LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $982,792,
AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 2019-222: ESTABLISHING A “NO OVERNIGHT
PARKING” ZONE AT THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
FACILITY LOCATED AT 8300 RADIO ROAD
Item #16D13
DONATED SERVICES FROM NAPLES VELO CYCLING
ALLIANCE, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT
CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPGRADING THE
STARTING GATE AT THE NAPLES BMX SPORTS PARK AND
APPROVE THE TEMPORARY RIGHT OF ENTRY WITH
BONNESS, INC., TO PERFORM EXCAVATION/SITE WORK
REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE NEW STARTING – LOCATED
AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
Item #16D14
RESOLUTION 2019-223: HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT
PROGRAM (HMGP) AGREEMENT #H0311 FROM THE
November 12, 2019
Page 189
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
(FDEM) IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,000 FOR HARDENING OF
THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICES’ (UES) INSTITUTE
OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SERVICES (IFAS) BUILDING
AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS WHICH
INCLUDE A LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION OF $75,000,
AND A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO REVISE AND EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR
AND/OR RECEIVE THE HMGP
Item #16E1
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-ME,
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – MECHANICAL,
ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY,”
AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP FIVE RANKED FIRMS, SO
THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK
FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING – TOP FIVE FIRMS: (1) JACOBS ENGINEERING
GROUP, INC., (2) MCKIM & CREED, INC., (3) WOOD
ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., (4)
JENKINS MAAG ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND (5) STANTEC
CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
Item #16E2
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-CE,
November 12, 2019
Page 190
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – CIVIL
ENGINEERING CATEGORY,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL THIRTY-SIX
RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY
BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION
AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-AR,
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY - ARCHITECTURAL
STUDY, PLANNING AND DESIGN CATEGORY,” AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE TOP NINE RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED
AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S
CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING – TOP NINE
FIRMS: (1) VICTOR J. LATAVISH, ARCHITECT, P.A., (2)
WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS,
INC., (3) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., (4) HARVARD
JOLLY, INC., (5) BSSW ARCHITECTS, INC., (6) ADG
ARCHITECTURE, LLC, (7) STUDIOPLUS, LLC, (8) PK
STUDIOS, INC., AND (9) RG ARCHITECTS, P.A.
Item #16E4
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-TR,
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – TRANSIT
PLANNING, DESIGN AND/OR STUDY CATEGORY,” AND
November 12, 2019
Page 191
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH ALL FOUR RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED
AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S
CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING – THE
FOUR FIRMS: (1) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., (2)
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., (3) JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., AND (4) CAPITAL CONSULTING
SOLUTIONS LLC.
Item #16E5
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”)
NO. 18-7432-AH, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY -
ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION, STUDY,
PLANNING AND DESIGN CATEGORY,” TO
PARKER/MUDGETT/SMITH ARCHITECTS, INC., BENDER &
ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.A., MLD ARCHITECTS, LLC,
AND RENKER, EICH, PARKS ARCHITECTS, INC., AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENTS
Item #16E6
RESOLUTION 2019-224: ANNUAL STATEWIDE MUTUAL
AIDE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
OTHER COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND INDEPENDENT
SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Item #16E7
November 12, 2019
Page 192
RENEWAL OF THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) FOR COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE
CLASS 1 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT (ALS) FOR
ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE
Item #16E8
RECOGNIZING CARRY-FORWARD FROM ACCRUED
INTEREST EARNED FROM THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2019
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 BY EMS COUNTY GRANT
REVENUE AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $864.26
Item #16E9
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT - FOR ON-LINE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,076.49 AND NET BOOK TOTAL FOR ONE VEHICLE OF
$33,081.20
Item #16E10
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL – FOR TWO CHANGE ORDERS THAT
MODIFY CONTRACTS BY $37,520.06 AND TWO AFTER-THE-
November 12, 2019
Page 193
FACT MEMOS WITH A FISCAL IMPACT OF $28,663.33
Item #16E11
AN AWARD OF $63,560 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR SUPPLIES AND
TRAINING AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
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 –
BUDGET #20-090 FOR SERVICES UNDER FUND 123 FOR
SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2019-225: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY2019-20 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F3
USING TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDS
TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING DECEMBER 2019 SPORTS
TOURISM EVENTS THE GATORADE COLLEGE SOCCER
SHOWCASE DECEMBER 7TH-8TH, 2019 UP TO $9,100 AND
THE KELLEHER FIRM HOLIDAY HOOPFEST DECEMBER
November 12, 2019
Page 194
27TH-30TH, 2019 UP TO $5,625 FOR A TOTAL UP TO $14,725
AND FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE
TOURISM
Item #16F4
APPROVING SUMMIT ORTHOPEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
(“SUMMIT”) AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY BASIC INDUSTRY JOB GROWTH PROMOTION
INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR
PROJECT “PEAK.”
Item #16F5
AUTHORIZING AN $146,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZING CARRYFORWARD FOR TWO PURCHASE
ORDERS THAT DID NOT ROLL FROM FY 2019 TO FY 2020
Item #16F6
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT #19-7509 BETWEEN
CULTURAL PLANNING GROUP, LLC AND COLLIER
COUNTY TO INCREASE REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL
EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,326 AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES
TOURISM TO COLLIER COUNTY - FOR A TOTAL TRAVEL
EXPENSE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $16,106.52 TO
COMPLETE STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Item #16F7
November 12, 2019
Page 195
A WORK ORDER UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 14-6213,
“UTILITY CONTRACTORS,” FOR PELICAN BAY LAKE 2-9
RESTORATION TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $682,722.70 – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 16-6561,
“DESIGN SERVICES FOR MARCO EXECUTIVE TERMINAL,”
WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,450 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH BID
ALTERNATES 1 AND 2 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT, AND TO APPROVE
INCLUDING THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION OF BID ALTERNATES 1 AND 2 IN QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA INC. CONTRACT NO. 18-7366 - MARCO
AIRPORT APRON & ASSOCIATED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS,
INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD BY $621,365
FROM $3,689,425 TO $4,310,790 AND AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
CHANGE ORDER FOR THE INCREASE TO CONTRACT NO.
18-7366
Item #16G2
AGREEMENT NO. 19-7558, “DESIGN AND RELATED
SERVICES FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
RUNWAY 18/36 PROJECT,” AND THE “TAXIWAY C
EXTENSION PROJECT” IN THE LUMP SUM NOT-TO-EXCEED
November 12, 2019
Page 196
AMOUNT OF $680,344 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC.
Item #16H1
THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC) WATER
POLICY COMMITTEE’S 2019-20 PROPOSED GUIDING
PRINCIPLES TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND
LEGISLATURE FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AT THE 2020
LEGISLATIVE SESSION - REVIEW OF SIXTEEN (16)
PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Item #16J1
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF
COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2019
Item #16J2
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 10, 2019 AND
OCTOBER 30, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J3
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE
SHERIFF’S OFFICE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE
November 12, 2019
Page 197
TREATMENT
Item #16J4
EXECUTION OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $635,000
FOR COMMUNICATIONS VESTA HARDWARE
REPLACEMENT (9-1-1)
Item #16J5
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 6, 2019
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2019-226: APPOINTING HANNAH RINALDI TO
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY
11, 2022
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2019-227: APPOINTING JENNIFER MITCHELL
TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 1, 2022
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2019-228: RE-APPOINTING BRUCE R. FORMAN
AND GABRIELLA R. MIYAMOTO TO THE VANDERBILT
November 12, 2019
Page 198
BEACH BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
TERMS EXPIRING NOVEMBER 13, 2023
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2019-229: RE-APPOINTING AUSTIN BELL AND
ELIZABETH PERDICHIZZI TO THE
HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD TO
THREE-YEAR TERMS
Item #16K5
RESOLUTION 2019-230: RE-APPOINTING EDWARD MORTON
TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 9, 2023
Item #16K6
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN JEFFREY AND
BRENDA LANE AND COLLIER COUNTY, RELATED TO
DISPUTE OVER OWNERSHIP OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT
WITHIN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6915 OAKMONT
PARKWAY, NAPLES, FLORIDA, WITH THE COUNTY
ACCEPTING OWNERSHIP OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THE DRAINAGE LINE
AND BOTH PARTIES WAIVING COSTS INCURRED IN
RELATION TO THE FAILURE AND REPLACEMENT OF THE
PRIOR DRAINAGE LINE
Item #16K7
November 12, 2019
Page 199
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND
BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2018- 21, IN ORDER TO
CODIFY THE BOARD’S APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE
MEMBERS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX CITIZEN
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2019-37: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 17-
45, AS AMENDED, THE LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A DRY CLEANING PLANT
FROM 1,500 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 18.6+/- ACRES
Item #17B – Moved to Item #9F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2019-38: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-12,
AS AMENDED, BY ADDING TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF
CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
(COPCN) A BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS) PROVISION WITHIN
THE CLASS 2 INTER- FACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES
PROVISION
November 12, 2019
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2019-231 : AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3: 12 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL D TS UNDER ITS CONTROL
je
. A 0410
WILLI M L. McDANIE , JR., CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
CRYSOMKINZEL, CLERK
►;° y
0.C...
s#"as C 'sU
tigrtature only
These minutes a proved by the Board on ()&&er 9je�►aIal
presented V or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 200