The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 07/23/2024July 23, 2024 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, July 23, 2024 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 11:05 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following Board members present: Chairman: Chris Hall Rick LoCastro Dan Kowal William L. McDaniel, Jr. Burt L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Amy Patterson, County Manager Ed Finn, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations Page 1 July 23, 2024 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 July 23, 2024 9:01 AM *** Meeting will commence approximately 15 minutes after the conclusion of the CRA workshop. *** Commissioner Chris Hall, District 2; – Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3; – Vice Chair Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1 Commissioner Dan Kowal, District 4; – CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; – CRAB Co-Chair 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 MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIR. ADDITIONAL MINUTES MAY BE CEDED TO AN IN-PERSON SPEAKER BY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS WHO MUST BE PRESENT AT THE TIME THE SPEAKER IS HEARD. NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE HEARD FOR PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC PETITIONS. SPEAKERS ON PRESENTATIONS ARE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES, UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE CHAIR. ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON A Page 2 July 23, 2024 CONSENT ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO THE BOARD’S APPROVAL OF THE DAY’S CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS HEARD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING FOLLOWING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON PUBLIC PETITION MUST SUBMIT THE REQUEST IN WRITING TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING. THE REQUEST SHALL PROVIDE DETAILED INFORMATION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE PETITION. THE PUBLIC PETITION MAY NOT INVOLVE A MATTER ON A FUTURE BOARD AGENDA, AND MUST CONCERN A MATTER IN WHICH THE BOARD CAN TAKE ACTION. PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO A SINGLE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES, UNLESS EXTENDED BY THE CHAIR. SHOULD THE PETITION BE GRANTED, THE ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THIS AGENDA OR A FUTURE AGENDA MUST REGISTER TO SPEAK PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE AGENDA BEING CALLED BY THE CHAIR. SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES, AND NO ADDITIONAL MINUTES MAY BE CEDED TO THE SPEAKER. AT THE CHAIR’S DISCRETION, THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC SPEAKERS MAY BE LIMITED TO 5 FOR THAT MEETING. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD 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 Page 3 July 23, 2024 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 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. June 25, 2024, BCC Minutes C. June 20, 2024, BCC Budget Minutes 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS A. EMPLOYEE 1) 20 YEAR ATTENDEES a) 20 Years Timothy Amiano- Emergency Medical Services 2) 25 YEAR ATTENDEES a) 25 Years David Hill- Road Maintenance b) 25 Years Jose Horta- Parks & Recreation c) 25 Years Yoojin Xue- Operations & Performance Management Page 4 July 23, 2024 3) 30 YEAR ATTENDEES 4) 35 YEAR ATTENDEES B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 4. PROCLAMATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 24-8227, “Palm River Public Utilities Renewal Project - Area 4,” to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of $4,218,422, approve the Owner’s Allowance of $320,000, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Agreement. (Project No. 70257) (Companion to Item #11B) (Matt McLean, Division Director - Public Utilities Engineering) (District 2) B. Recommendation to approve a modification to increase Purchase Order No. 4500223189 in the amount of $645,032 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., under Professional Service Agreement Number 22-7998 for Construction, Engineering, and Inspection Services for the Public Utility Renewal Project for Palm River Area 4. (Project No. 70257) (Companion to Item #11A) (Matt McLean, Division Director - Public Utilities Engineering) Page 5 July 23, 2024 (District 2) C. Recommendation to accept the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study, accept staff’s recommendation to implement a three-year phased approach, and direct the County Attorney to advertise an Ordinance amending the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees and establishing effective dates of December 1, 2024 for Phase One, December 1, 2025 for Phase Two, and December 1, 2026 for Phase Three. (Joseph Bellone, Director Utilities Finance) (All Districts) D. Recommendation to authorize budget amendments to recognize $12,709,900 in revenues deposited in the Disaster Recovery Fund (1813) received from the insurance proceeds related to the Hurricane Ian claims, allocate $3,000,000 within the same fund (1813) for continuation of the wastewater recovery efforts and returning $9,709,900 back to the original funding sources which include Water Capital Fund (4012) ($429,100), and Wastewater Capital Fund (4014) ($9,280,800). (Joe Bellone, Division Director - Utilities Finance) (All Districts) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS A. Request to elect either Commissioner Kowal or Commissioner Saunders as chairman of the Value Adjustment Board. (Derek Johnssen, Finance Director, Office of the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller) (All Districts) 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda by individuals not already heard during previous public comments in this Page 6 July 23, 2024 meeting. B. Staff Project Updates 1) Recommendation to accept a project update to NCWRF Pretreatment Facility Project No. 70149 currently under construction with Poole & Kent Company of Florida under Agreement No. 23-8116. (All Districts) C. 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 1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility facilities for Moorings Park at Grande Lake East Tract – Phase One and Phase Two, PL20230017409. (District 4) 2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Big Cypress Market Place Phase 3, PL20240005677. (District 1) 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities and accept the conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade by the Islands – Phase 3B & 3D, PL20230016678. (District 1) B. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to award ITB No. 23-8188, “West Vanderbilt Drive Sidewalk & Landscape Improvements,” to Infinite Construction, LLC in the amount of $389,171.98, approve the Owner’s Allowance of $30,000, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Agreement. (District 2) Page 7 July 23, 2024 2) Recommendation to accept a donation of 45 native plants for the Collier County Sheriff's Gun Range from the Naples Botanical Gardens, the donating organization. (District 5) C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 24-8215, “Hazardous Materials Management” to US Ecology Tampa, Inc., as Primary Vendor, and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., as Secondary Vendor, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Service Agreements. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, as the ex- officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District, award a Request for Quotation (“RFQ”) under Agreement No. 20- 7800, the “Annual Agreement for Underground Utilities,” to Quality Enterprises, USA Inc., and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Work Order in the amount of $708,826 for the Rehabilitation Plans for Pump Station 309.16 project. (Project No. 70240) (District 4) 3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, as the ex- officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 23-8194R, “South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Filter Media Replacement and Blend Tank Passive Relief,” to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of $2,075,430, approve an Owner’s Allowance of $100,000, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Agreement. (Project No. 70136) (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments in the amount of $162,000 to maintain compliance and continue funding daily operations within the Water/Sewer Operating budget (Fund 4008). (All Districts) 5) To approve a Second Amendment to Agreement No. 22-8000, "Quicklime Supply for Collier County" with Lhoist North America of Alabama, LLC, to increase the fee schedule price (Exhibit B1 of Agreement), and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Page 8 July 23, 2024 amendment. (District 3) D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a Business Associate Agreement between Collier County and David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., to satisfy the HIPPA rules to ensure protected health information is appropriately safeguarded to remain compliant with the Department of Justice and the State of Florida Department of Children and Families Agreements. (No Fiscal Impact) (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign Amendment #1 to the State Mandated Services Agreement between David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., and Collier County to revise Exhibit C to incorporate additional reporting measures related to the Florida Opioid Settlement funding and State Match requirements. (Grant Fund 1806 and General Fund 0001) (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve technical revisions and clarifying language to the Collier County State Housing Initiatives Partnership Local Housing Assistance Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2023, 2023- 2024, and 2024-2025 for (1) Purchase Assistance, (2) Disaster Assistance, (3) New Construction Assistance, (4) Rental Rehabilitation and (5) Rental Acquisition strategies; to accept additional funding through the Hurricane Housing Recovery Program allocation in the amount of $5,820, and authorize the related Budget Amendment (SHIP Grant Fund 1053); and to approve and authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution that (1) updates purchase assistance, new construction, and disaster assistance strategies, and (2) revises the Purchase Assistance, New Construction, and Disaster Assistance strategies and clarifies language to the Rental Rehabilitation and Rental Acquisition Strategies. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to (1) approve and authorize the submission of the required annual planning documents to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to continue receiving Community Development Block Grant, HOME Page 9 July 23, 2024 Investment Partnerships, and Emergency Solutions Grants Programs entitlement funds, (2) authorize the County Manager or her designee to execute associated forms (including SF-424 for funding applications and SF-425 for future grant closeout), certifications, assurances, and future entitlement agreements upon receipt from HUD, and (3) authorize the necessary Budget Amendments in the amount of $3,656,506.65 for the HUD PY 2024-2025 budget and 4) authorize the conversion of ten (10) current time-limited grant-funded positions to non-time limited to support housing programs. (Housing Grant Fund 1835 and Housing Match Fund 1836) (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve an “After-the-Fact” Second Amendment for the Home Care for the Elderly grant program with the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., to decrease the contract amount by $21,000 for a new total of $52,538, and to accordingly revise the Funding Summary (Attachment II), the Annual Budget Summary (Attachment IX), and extend the agreement by 60 days through August 31, 2024, via a separate letter. (Human Services Grant Fund 1837) (All Districts) 6) Recommendation to approve an “After-the-Fact” Second Amendment with the Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., Community Care for the Elderly grant program for Collier County’s Services for Seniors Program that reduces the award amount by $100,000 to a new total of $971,000, to accordingly revise the Funding Summary (Attachment II), the Annual Budget Summary (Attachment IX), and extend the agreement by 60 days through August 31, 2024, via a separate approval letter. (Human Services Grant Fund 1837) (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to accept a distribution from The Elizabeth A. McCarthy Living Trust, in the amount of $238,500 and any subsequent distributions, if any, to the Collier County Domestic Animal Services, to authorize the County Manager or her designee to execute and complete any required forms, and to authorize any necessary Budget Amendments. (All Districts) E. CORPORATE BUSINESS OPERATIONS Page 10 July 23, 2024 1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to extend Agreement # 18-7475 “Fencing Installation and Repair Services” with Carter Fence Company, Inc., and authorize the Chairman to execute same. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve modifications to the 2024 Fiscal Year Pay & Classification Plan which consist of two new classifications, three classification title changes, and removal of one obsolete classification from April 1, 2024, through June 30, 2024 (All Districts) F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute State-Funded Emergency Management Preparedness Assistance (EMPA) agreement A0444 accepting a Grant award totaling $105,806 from the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) for emergency management program enhancement and authorize the associated Budget Amendment. (Fund 1833 Project No. 33920) (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 4, adding seven days to the Substantial Completion date and utilizing $ 11,219.01 of the Owner’s Allowance, and Change Order No. 5, adding five days to the Substantial Completion date and utilizing $ 6,473.50 of the Owner’s Allowance for Purchase Order No. 4500229878 under Agreement No. 21-7883-ST with O-A-K/Florida, Inc. d/b/a Owen-Ames-Kimball Company for the Main Campus Upgrades, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Change Orders. (Project No. 50214) (District 4) 3) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment in the amount of $1,023,689.31 toward EMS Capital Fund (4055) reallocating reserves to fund the replacement of current personal safety equipment. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to award Invitation for Qualification No. 24-8231, “Motor Oils, Lubricants, and Fluids,” to Palmdale Oil Company, LLC and Reladyne Florida, LLC, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Page 11 July 23, 2024 attached agreements. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions, or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Adopted Budget. (The Budget Amendments in the attached Resolution have been reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners via separate Executive Summaries.) (All Districts) 6) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment reallocating $400,000 from personnel services to operating expenses within facilities management cost centers to support contractual services and other costs necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service for County facilities. (All Districts) G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) 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 in the amount of $79,961,042.39 were drawn for the periods between June 27, 2024, and July 10, 2024 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts) 2) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of July 17, 2024. (All Districts) K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit styled Linda Oneski v. Collier County, (Case No. 23-CA-557), now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, for Page 12 July 23, 2024 the sum of $15,145.10. (All Districts) L. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) a recommendation for approval from staff; 2) unanimous recommendation for approval by the collier county planning commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) no written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the collier county planning commission, other authorizing agencies or the board, prior to the commencement of the bcc meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) no individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers, and supplemental revenue) to the FY23-24 Adopted Budget. (The Budget Amendments in the attached Resolution have been reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners via separate Executive Summaries.) (All Districts) 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383. July 23, 2024 Page 2 MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. As we get this commissioner meeting rolling, we will begin with the agenda and the minutes, any changes, ex parte, and all that good stuff. MS. PATTERSON: Let me start with two changes to the agenda. We have -- continue Item 15B1 to August 13th, 2024. This is a recommendation to accept a project update to the North Collier Water Reclamation Facility pretreatment facility, Project No. 70149 currently under construction with Poole & Kent Company of Florida under Agreement No. 23-8116. This item is being continued at staff's request. Move 16C4 to 11E. This is a recommendation to authorize budget amendments in the amount of $162,000 to maintain compliance and continue funding daily operations with the water/sewer operating budget, Fund 4008. This is being moved at Commissioner McDaniel's question. We have passed our first court reporter break, so we'll see if we get to the second one. With that, that is the changes for today. County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: None, thank you. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/ CHANGES July 23, 2024 Page 3 MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, any further changes or ex parte on the -- CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal, changes and ex parte? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I have no changes, and I believe there was no items for ex parte this meeting. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I have no changes and no ex parte as well. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same; no changes, no ex parte. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Same. CHAIRMAN HALL: And same for me; no changes, no ex parte. MS. PATTERSON: If we could get a motion to approve the agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: So moved. SEE REVERSE SIDE Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting July 23, 2024 Continue item 15B1 to August 13, 2024, BCC Meeting: Recommendation to accept a project update to NCWRF Pretreatment Facility Project No. 70149 currently under construction with Poole & Kent Company of Florida under Agreement No. 23-8116. (Staff’s Request) Move item 16C4 to 11E: Recommendation to authorize Budget Amendments in the amount of $162,000 to maintain compliance and continue funding daily operations within the Water/Sewer Operating budget (Fund 4008). (Commissioner McDaniel’s Request) Notes: TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: 7/23/2024 11:18 AM July 23, 2024 Page 4 Item #2B JUNE 25, 2024, BCC MINUTES - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HALL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED Item #2C JUNE 20, 2024, BCC BUDGET MINUTES MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HALL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED MS. PATTERSON: That brings us to Items 2B and 2C, which we can take together at your pleasure. These are the minutes from the June 25th, 2024, BCC meeting and the June 20th, 2024, budget hearing -- or budget workshop. CHAIRMAN HALL: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: So moved. Item #3A1 EMPLOYEE AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS - 20-YEAR ATTENDEE - TIMOTHY AMIANO - EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES July 23, 2024 Page 5 MS. PATTERSON: That brings us to Item 3, awards and recognitions. Item 3A1A is our 20-year attendee, Timothy Amiano, Emergency Medical Services. Congratulations. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is this him? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They PhotoShopped your picture. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Tim, why don't you just tell us a little bit about your military service. You know, a lot of people don't realize we have veterans that are doing some really big things in the community. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go to the mic. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just go on the mic and just, you know -- I mean, off-the-cuff. You're a guy that's done other things than just here in Collier County. Let folks know a bit about your background. MR. AMIANO: I joined the military at 17 years old, enlisted in the Air Force. I spent eight years on active duty. Finished my time out as an enlisted man as a staff sergeant. Got out, went to college. Went back in as an officer. Actually transferred over to the Army, because when I attempted to become a pilot in the Air Force, I had such a good career as a military policeman, they wanted to keep me as a military police officer because they were short on people, and I told them, "Well, look, I didn't go to college and get a pilot's license to stay on the ground." So they said, "Well, the needs of the Air Force come first, so we want to make you a military police officer." I said, "Well, if you don't let me fly, I'm going to go to the July 23, 2024 Page 6 Army." They said, "Oh, you're not going to go to the Army." I said, "Watch me." So I moved over to the Army, took their test, became a pilot, spent a number of years active duty Army, then I transferred out to the National Guard, finally to the Reserve. Moved down here. Got back into the Air Force Reserve at Homestead Air Force Base in a rescue unit. Joined the Sheriff's Office. Went to the law enforcement academy here at Southwest Florida up in Fort Myers. I was the Sheriff's department's first night patrol helicopter pilot. I was with the Sheriff's Office for seven years. My ID number's 812. I left the Sheriff's Office after seven years, moved to Kouai, spent some time out there flying for an old friend that was in the military unit. Unfortunately, his business closed down. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That was Magnum PI you were flying? MR. AMIANO: I was actually flying that type of helicopter, yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I bet you were. MR. AMIANO: It was a fun little -- it was a fun job. But then the job came open here at MedFlight, and I'm like, "Well, here I go coming back to Naples again." And I've been -- I believe I'm Naples longest -- MedFlight's longest serving helicopter pilot this year. I think I'm the first guy ever to make it 20 years here at MedFlight. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks for your military service. I know we all applaud it. CHAIRMAN HALL: So Burt got here in 1920. Tim got here in 1921. July 23, 2024 Page 7 MR. AMIANO: 1991, actually. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Burt was out there with the Wright brothers, and he's like, "There's something to this flying contraption. I think we could use it in the county." COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I was convinced that there would never be anything like commercial flight when I was working with the Wright brothers. It's not going to work. MR. AMIANO: You guys are always welcome, if you want, to come down to the hangar sometime and see our helicopter. We got some new night vision goggles that are kind of neat. You're welcome to bring your, you know, family, grandkids. Just give us a call and come on down. CHAIRMAN HALL: They do a great job. I took the kids -- I took the grandkids down there just a couple of weeks ago, and he showed them all -- they climbed all over that helicopter. Tim yelled at them. No. It was great. It was good. They still talk about it, so thank you, Tim. MR. AMIANO: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HALL: Congrats. MR. AMIANO: I left one thing out. I also flew for Mosquito Control part time. I believe I'm the only pilot in the county to ever fly for all three agencies. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Wow. MR. AMIANO: It was nice meeting you guys. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Tim. (Applause.) Item #3A2a EMPLOYEE AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS - 25-YEAR ATTENDEE - DAVID HILL, ROAD MAINTENANCE – July 23, 2024 Page 8 PRESENTED MS. PATTERSON: Item 3A2, our 25-year attendees. First we have David Hill, road maintenance, 25 years. Congratulations. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HALL: Good thing that wasn't a gun. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, she was making faces while she was taking pictures. Item #3A2b EMPLOYEE AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS - 25-YEAR ATTENDEE - JOSE HORTA, PARKS & RECREATION – PRESENTED MS. PATTERSON: Next up we have Jose Horta, Parks and Recreation, 25 years. Congratulations. (Applause.) Item #3A2c EMPLOYEE AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS - 25-YEAR ATTENDEE - YOOJIN XUE, OPERATIONS & PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – PRESENTED MS. PATTERSON: Finally, Yuejin Xue, Operations and Performance Management, 25 years. Congratulations. (Applause.) Item #7 July 23, 2024 Page 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 7, public comment on general topics not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: We have no one registered at this time. MS. PATTERSON: Very good. Moving along. Item #11A AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 24-8227, “PALM RIVER PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL PROJECT - AREA 4,” TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,218,422, APPROVE THE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $320,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT. (PROJECT NO. 70257) (COMPANION TO ITEM #11B) (MATT MCLEAN, DIVISION DIRECTOR – PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING) (DISTRICT 2) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HALL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL– APPROVED Item #11B APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO INCREASE PURCHASE ORDER NO.4500223189 IN THE AMOUNT OF $645,032 WITH STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., UNDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT NUMBER 22-7998 FOR CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT FOR PALM RIVER AREA 4. (PROJECT NO. 70257) July 23, 2024 Page 10 (COMPANION TO ITEM #11A) (MATT MCLEAN, DIVISION DIRECTOR - PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING) (DISTRICT 2) MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HALL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED MS. PATTERSON: We're to Item 11, County Manager's report. Item 11A and 11B are companion items. Item 11A is a recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 24-8227, Palm River Public Utilities renewal project, Area 4, to Douglas Higgins, Inc., in the amount of $4,218,422, approve the owner's allowance of $320,000, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement. Next, Item 11B, its companion, is a recommendation to approve a modification to increase Purchase Order No. 4500223189 in the amount of $645,032 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., under Professional Service Agreement No. 22-7998 for construction, engineering, and inspection services for the public utility renewal project for Palm River Area 4. For both these items, Mr. Matt McLean, your division director for Public Utilities Engineering, is here to present. MR. McLEAN: Thank you, County Manager. Good morning. We still are in the morning. Good morning, Commissioners. Matt McLean, your division director for Collier County Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management. I'm here today to present the next phase of the Public Utilities renewal project, Area 4, within Palm River. As mentioned by the Manager, these are two companion items that we have before you here today, the construction contract award to DN Higgins for Area 4 as well as the continuing of the CEI services with Stantec Consulting Services, our CEI team for the Palm River group. The Public Utilities renewal program consists of a series of July 23, 2024 Page 11 projects to repair and replace aging water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure necessary to continue to ensure high-quality and reliability utility services for the community. This project is aligned with the county strategic plan objective to plan and build public infrastructure to effectively, efficiently, and sustainably meet the needs of our community now and into the future. It is also consistent with the 2023 Annual Update and Inventory Report which established and implemented plans to concurrently provide public infrastructure. Just a kind of refresher for the Board, the project location for Palm River is split up into 10 separate areas. Currently right now, northeast Corner Areas 1 and 2 are under construction, doing well on that project; expecting to complete that project by the end of calendar year 2024. Area 4, which we have before you today, is the area that's on the western edge of Palm River, which is the next program area for construction. And while we're under construction in Area 4, we're continuing to proceed forward with the design engineering for Areas 3, 5, and 6. So as I mentioned, Area 4 is the westernmost area of Palm River. It does border the Cocohatchee River, which directly discharges stormwater down the river on out, ultimately reaching the Gulf of Mexico. This particular project includes the replacement of the existing water mains with PVC new mains, valves, water services, fire hydrants for additional fire protection. Area 4 is a little unique to Palm River in that it is the only area within Palm River that currently utilizes on-site septic systems. Typically, those types of systems you see in areas that don't have formal utilities near them; oftentimes in the urban areas. This project will include the complete septic system removal and upgrades to a low-flow pressure sewer system. To fund the septic-to-sewer conversion, as you may recall, we were before July 23, 2024 Page 12 you-all last year in November with a successful award of an FDEP grant for $3 million. This positions this particular project and the water and sewer district to complete the septic-to-sewer conversion in Area 4 without assessing the residents of that area. We're very proud of that. Alternative type fundings like this that we did receive through this FDEP grant will continue to be the key for future projects within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. We will continue to seek alternative funding sources to continue to provide these type of future septic-to-sewer conversions similar in areas where we know we've got some locations in -- say, Golden Gate City is a good example of that. All of the Public Utilities renewal projects, neighborhood coordination is key to those. We do receive a tremendous amount of questions from the neighbors and the residents as we're out there under construction. This particular project will be the same. We've already held several neighborhood information meetings within the Palm River area and the residents of Area 4. We currently are scheduling the preconstruction meeting, dependent on your recommendation today, to further provide additional information to the residents within the Palm River area and Area 4. This type of additional coordination has been very successful and key for us on the success of our Public Utilities renewal projects. There's established phone lines and e-mail addresses that our residents and community members call on a daily basis. I've got a fantastic project management team and project team that manages those e-mails and phone calls to get information quickly back to our folks that are asking about our projects. This particular project was the -- ran through the county's procurement bid process in March. We received our bids in -- April 18th, at the submission deadline. We did receive four bids on this July 23, 2024 Page 13 particular project, three of which were ultimately deemed to be responsive and responsible bids. The low bidder, Higgins, at 4.2 million, was significantly higher than the engineer's probable opinion of cost. The executive summary reflects 30 percent higher. We did challenge and ask our engineering firm why that's happened. They came back to us and indicated that the higher bids, essentially, were really due to current market conditions as well as the additional private property work and some expected dewatering on this particular project. While we do like to see engineer's opinion of probable cost closer to the bids, unfortunately, in this case, the free-market conditions dictated the ultimate pricing, and it was significantly higher. Staff is confident with the recommended contractor. We're excited that we have the grant funding to help offset the overall project costs, and we do stand ready to deliver another project consistent with the county's strategic plan. And with that, we bring before you the two recommendations for approval under Items 11A and 11B, the construction award to Douglas N. Higgins in the amount of $4,218,422, along with approval of the owner's allowance of $320,000, and the Companion Item 11B, the recommendation to approve the modification to increase the purchase order for our CEI services to Stantec Consulting Service in the amount of $645,032. And I'm here to answer any questions that you-all may have. CHAIRMAN HALL: Matt, thanks. I had a chance to talk with staff yesterday, but I also want to ask you as well. You know, it seems like we have these projects where we have engineering cost estimates, and this one in particular's 30 percent high, which it is what it is, and I think we had one on the consent agenda that was 12 percent low. So I guess my question for them was: Are those July 23, 2024 Page 14 estimates -- well, before I ask the question. We have bids that came in fairly close together that established what these contractors are saying that they could do this scope of work for. So I guess my question to you is, are these estimates of value, or are they not of value since we're going to do the work anyway? It seems that way. You know, for the year and a half, almost two years that I've been sitting in this seat, we get these reports. This exceeds the -- this exceeds the estimate or this -- I've only seen one that came in lower. So knowing that, I'm just wondering if we're spending money that we really need to spend or if we're spending money that we don't need to spend. I was just wondering what your opinion was. MR. McLEAN: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. I do believe that there is value in obtaining the engineer's probable opinion of cost. Our current procurement process includes the design engineer's recommendation of award, which includes the identification of their probable opinion of cost. We, as our own project management team, also cost our jobs out well, well, well in advance of any project, typically through our Annual Update and Inventory Report process. We're looking out and forecasting 10 years of projects, and we're conducting our own opinions of probable cost on our own construction projects. But at the end of the day, when the design engineers are getting involved in their projects, they're the ones that are putting their professional opinion on the line relative to what they believe the cost is. The last several years have been very interesting, to say the least, with respect to that because, as you had mentioned, we're seeing some significant deltas on either side. I am happy to kind of -- to look at what's taken place in the last several months. We are starting to see some of those pricings come down much, much closer to the engineer's opinion of cost and in July 23, 2024 Page 15 some cases lower in the one that you mentioned today on the consent agenda. But that goes without saying that I do personally believe that it is important to continue to get probable opinion costs from the engineers. It is another opportunity for us to get a feel for what we believe the cost of the project is. But at the end of the day, with the way that we do invitations to bid, it's an open forum, and the free market is dictating what those bids are. We have taken bids and not awarded them based off of what the ultimate bids came out to be and, ultimately, re-scoped projects, redesigned projects. In some cases, we were able to potentially defer some pieces of those projects to later, which may, quote-unquote, save funding today. But we've also seen where we've done that and it ends up costing us more money as well, and now we've lost time as well. So we analyze this all of the time when we're looking at projects. These are critical infrastructure projects for us, and we believe they're important to include engineer's opinion of cost. CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Thank you. So I guess it has been difficult, you know, since COVID came. You have supply-chain issues, and you have massive inflation, so the engineers really don't have solid historical data to determine today's market. I guess my question -- you know, since it is of value, could it -- would it be -- and I'm asking -- I'm saying this for the sake of my colleagues. We're in the process of priority-based budgeting. We're looking at ways to do things smarter, more efficiently. Is there a -- is there -- do you think that we could have, you know, a county job coster do it instead of paying for an engineer? You know, you mentioned that you definitely have budgetary information. You know basically what you're looking at for these large infrastructure projects. I was just curious if that might be a possibility, and if it is, it is, and if it's not, it's not. I think it just warrants the question. July 23, 2024 Page 16 MR. McLEAN: Well, from a possibility perspective, absolutely, it's a possibility; however, I would expect that you're going to see similar results. You're going to see projects that come in close to bid amounts, projects that come in above bid amounts, and projects that come in below bid -- below the opinion-of-cost amounts. CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure. Right, and that's my point. So if we're paying an engineer to give us similar results, maybe we can be paying someone a little bit less than that to get those same results. And as time -- as time marches on, we'll have the historical data to determine and narrow that delta. So I appreciate you answering those questions. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman. Whenever I hear people talk about septic-to-sewer conversion, I always like to get an appreciation for the timeline because most citizens sort of don't have an appreciation for how long it takes. You can't just decide you want to convert from septic to sewer. You can't just write a letter to the Governor, get a $3 million grant. Give me the short version of about how long it took between -- because I'm sure some of this predates me -- between the discussion of getting the grant money, the plan, where you are now. Just -- because I have several areas of my district that I'm very concerned are still on septic. Some of the citizens share that concern. Some don't. Some don't realize that if you just pull the trigger now with no grant money, they're going to have to write a huge check. And so, like you said, you're very proud of the three million -- MR. McLEAN: Right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- right, grant that was received. And so I -- I spent a lot of time in town hall meetings trying to July 23, 2024 Page 17 separate rumor from fact for the citizens that don't understand. In certain areas, the septic tanks aren't getting any newer, and they're very expensive to convert, and it's -- it's a complicated process. You have to have utilities close by that you can connect to or else it's going to increase the cost of the project. Give me just a short version of about what the timeline was from sort of initial conversations to where you are now, how long it took to get the grant money and things like that. MR. McLEAN: Sure. So this particular grant award was identified. Our application went into the state level two thousand -- probably about a year and a half ago now. We were awarded in July of last year's budget from the State. So that process took several months in and of itself. And then there was four to five months of development of that particular contract that ultimately came to you as the Board in November of last year. So when you look at that holistically from the time when we identify and target a location to go after funding to ultimately apply for it, successful help from our lobbying team here at the county and likely you -- all the commissioners continue to stress the importance of getting additional funding opportunities, that process takes in and of a year -- on a fast track, at least a year, you know. While we're doing that, we're running parallel the designs of these projects so we have shovel-ready projects to go in the ground in the hopes that we're successful. We're not successful in all these grant applications. We went after grant-application dollars as well for the Golden Gate plant expansion project last year and did not receive anything. That didn't deter us from going after more. We're doing it again now. So you've got a year or so of that process to do, and then you have to be shovel ready to go because then you've got a year to start July 23, 2024 Page 18 to work on spending those dollars. You can get time -- additional time affiliated with it, which we have on this project. But, realistically, it's about a two-year process overall to really solidify those additional funding opportunities for us while you're in parallel paths to get ready to build. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But prior to applying for the grant, you had to have certain ducks in a row before you could even ask, correct? I mean, I've spent a lot of time talking to the folks in Tallahassee about a couple of projects in my district, and, you know, their comments multiple times are, "You're not ready to talk to us yet." And some of that is you have to have citizen buy-in. I mean, if there's a -- you know, a disconnect in that community where some are for it, some aren't, and whatnot, did you have to do a lot of that preparatory work, or in this particular case you had -- you had buy-in, everything was falling into place, the puzzle pieces were there, and that's why it was sort of -- MR. McLEAN: We were very fortunate in this area that the residents have been very supportive of it. I mean, at the end of the day, they're not having to pay for an assessment, so, I mean, they're getting maximum benefit. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. McLEAN: You know, in certain areas where you've got groups that want to do this that aren't already in identified target areas, there are conversations about developing MSTUs to try to figure out how to help out with the payment of future potential assessments that may occur on these types of projects. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, lastly, did we have to have matching county dollars before we got the 3 million, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: Do you have a match on this one, Matt? MR. McLEAN: There's no match. July 23, 2024 Page 19 MS. PATTERSON: So, Commissioners, let me help a little bit, because I know -- I know where you're going. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: So the Palm River project itself is years in the making, obviously, of concept, and then, as Matt indicated, going into design and then ultimately bidding it for construction. The advantage here is it's a very small area that's on septic, not a lot of units. MR. McLEAN: Correct, 23. MS. PATTERSON: Right, making this -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: -- easier to speed up and easier to handle. What you're referring to is more like our West Goodlette project which was 10-plus years in the making of getting all of the groups to agree. That was the City of Naples and Collier County, then trying to work with the residents, cobbling together funding for the main portions of the project that were going to be funded by the county and the city and then getting citizen buy-in for the portions that were going to be borne by the residents, which is that septic-to-sewer conversion piece. That project, in and of itself, probably took nearly 10 years before it got legs, and it was not easy even then. So this one is a great example of how we've leveraged grant dollars but not representative of the difficulty of a septic-to-sewer project when you're dealing with a larger community. It just -- there's a lot that needs to be done. And so years of planning to make something like that happen. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I really appreciate that detail, because -- and I knew a lot of it already but really wanted to get it on the record, because at times when I'm at a town hall meeting with different communities -- and I won't be cryptic or anything. You know, I have Isles of Capri, Goodland that's still on septic. When I July 23, 2024 Page 20 meet with those groups, sometimes I think they think I'm fibbing, that, you know, "Hey, just apply for the grant money. You know, we don't want to pay for anything, so just get money from Tallahassee." Okay. Well, that doesn't fall from the sky for free. And in order to get to design, a whole bunch of stuff needs to happen prior before you even get there. And so it's a big effort. So, you know, I'll end this on a positive note and say, "Yeah, it's only 23 houses, so it's a smaller footprint," and that does sort of make for a little bit easier project. But I really commend, you know, this project and how much work's gone into it, because it's no easy task. Whether it's 23 septic tanks or 2300, it's still a big deal. And getting $3 million of grant money from anyone isn't something where they knock on your door saying, "We have $3 million. Would you like it?" So I like everything I'm hearing, you know, about this project, and I'm going to follow it closely, because I believe I've got several projects that are years behind this one. But we're learning from all of these projects, and some of them have great lessons, and some of them have things not to repeat. It sounds like this one has gone very well, but a lot of it is because you had 23 households that sort of understood, "Hey, we better get in line and really support this." And in some of the communities when we don't, it takes 10 years. MS. PATTERSON: These -- this project, and similar to Isles of Capri, are incredibly important because of their proximity to very sensitive receiving waters. So this -- this project ultimately outfalls into an Outstanding Florida Water -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: -- similar to Isles of Capri. So you really think about aging septic at tide is the worst-case scenario. And so even the removal of these 23 septic systems -- the septic systems for these 23 people is huge for the environment. July 23, 2024 Page 21 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, ma'am, sir. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we're heading right on down the crick to Everglades City. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Crick? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Crick. Crick. Creek. We go fishing there. MR. KLATZKOW: Two Es. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Creek or crick? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Doors creak. We go fishing in the crick. But Everglades City, Plantation Island, and Chokoloskee, they're next on the books for us to be talking about how to get those folks moving forward, so... My question, Matt's, a little different than the Chair. Did you call on me, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN HALL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay, good. Are we relegated by the CCNA to do an engineer's estimate of cost of a job before we put the project out to bid? MR. McLEAN: I don't know specifically relative to CCNA, but I know that our current procurement process does include the engineer's probable opinion of cost. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because I'm wanting to hear that it's a procurement process, which is something that we can touch and maybe adjust our processes as we're going forward as opposed to being relegated by the statute. Because the CCNA is a very cumbersome statute for us; it's very cumbersome. It costs us tens of millions of dollars a year in consultant fees along the way. So if this is, in fact, a procurement discussion, I would like to have a discussion about this process and give some -- give some idea -- have our board July 23, 2024 Page 22 with you talk about different ways that we can do what we've been doing. MS. PATTERSON: We'll get that information and get back to you, whether it's a state requirement or local. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know that we're -- procurement's up here, and we have discussions -- we've had discussions in that regard, but it -- I'd be happy to make an adjustment in the process to help the cause. CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to make your motion for approval so I can second it? CHAIRMAN HALL: I move to approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN HALL: Motion made, seconded. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: So moved. MR. McLEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: You talked us right into it, Matt. Item #11C ACCEPT THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT’S WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY, ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION TO IMPLEMENT A THREE-YEAR PHASED APPROACH AND DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN July 23, 2024 Page 23 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATES OF DECEMBER 1, 2024, FOR PHASE ONE, DECEMBER 1, 2025, FOR PHASE TWO, AND DECEMBER 1, 2026, FOR PHASE THREE. (JOSEPH BELLONE, DIRECTOR UTILITIES FINANCE) (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO IMPLEMENT A THREE YEAR PHASED APPROACH BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – APPROVED (COMMISSIONER KOWAL OPPOSED) MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 11C. This is a recommendation to accept the Collier County Water/Sewer District's water and wastewater impact fee study, accept staff's recommendation to implement a three-year phased approach, and direct the County Attorney to advertise an ordinance amending the water and wastewater impact fees and establishing effective dates of December 1st, 2024, for Phase 1; December 1st, 2025, for Phase 2; and December 1st, 2026, for Phase 3. Mr. Joseph Bellone, your director of Public Utilities Finance, is here to present. MR. BELLONE: Thank you, County Manager. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Bellone, the director of Utilities Finance. Based on the discussion we had at the last board meeting regarding the Water/Sewer District impact fee rate study, I was directed to go away and come back at this meeting with some concepts about a phased-in approach; rather than going straight 80 percent, a phase-in approach of two years -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't remember telling him to come back. I remember him -- telling him to go away. MR. BELLONE: I know you told me to go away. July 23, 2024 Page 24 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't remember saying come back. MR. BELLONE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HALL: Love you, too. MR. BELLONE: Go away and look at a two-year phase-in, three-year phase-in, and then a percentage. You know, perhaps go 50 percent, maybe go 40 percent with the recommendation, maybe go 60 percent, and that I have done. So, Commissioners, we've looked at two-year, a three-year, and a percentage of the recommended -- recommended rates from the rate study. Just a reminder, for those that may be watching from home, we're really looking at three expansion-related projects, bond funding sometime in '25. Right now, anticipation in '27, and then 2030 for those projects. A two-year phase-in. Both the water and wastewater impact fees would go about halfway to the recommended rate effective December 1st of '24 and then December 1st of '25. We anticipate there'd be negligible impacts on debt service or our CIP program. Again, we don't have any current information, but we don't anticipate any bond rating impacts; however, anything that changes, any anticipated impacts that we're not anticipating will -- certainly will trigger a review, and we'd come back to you for a review at that time. Three-year phase-in, again, both water and wastewater impact fees will go into effect one-third of the way as of December 1st of '24, the second third is as of December 1st of '25, and then the final phase would be Phase 3, getting to the full amount of the recommended rates as of December 1st, '26. In this particular instance, I am looking at potential user-fee loans to impact fees to meet debt-service requirements that would July 23, 2024 Page 25 lead, of course, to risk manage capital program funds. We've done this in the past before. I think we've discussed how user fees have loaned money to impact fees to meet debt-service payment and then repaid those loans when the revenues were available. And by the time we get to December 1st of '26, we're into Fiscal '27. I'm anticipating a second bond sometime in '27 at this point. At that point we'd be at full rates, and I anticipate we'd be paying those loans back. Again -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: These numbers at the recommended rate -- MR. BELLONE: They're at the recommended rates -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Gotcha. MR. BELLONE: -- of full 80 percent -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Gotcha. MR. BELLONE: -- 12,084 in total but phased in over three years. Okay, Commissioners. I did look at implementing, like, just one time as of December 1st of '24 a certain percentage of the recommended rates. Water would go up, in this instance, halfway, as would the wastewater. And I'm looking at average permitting rates over the last three years. Nothing tells me that history's going to repeat itself. We have no idea what permitting activity is going to be. But I'm anticipating somewhere in the five-plus-million-dollar range a year. By not -- by using this methodology, there are recurring revenue losses that are cumulative as we go through without further studies or without further -- coming back to you again. So, in conclusion, what staff is recommending is that we implement -- is that you adopt the rate study or approve the rate study, approve the recommended amount of water and sewer impact fees, but rather than adopt them at one time, do them on a phased-in July 23, 2024 Page 26 approach. Again, as the County Manager read, Phase 1 effective December 1st of '24; Phase 2, December 1st of '25; and Phase 3, December 1st of '26, and request that the County Attorney advertise an ordinance to that effect. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can you go back to that slide that showed that? MR. BELLONE: Sure. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I guess it's one more. Yeah, one more back. That one. Okay. So that's what, basically, you're recommending. So I want to look at the numbers. MR. BELLONE: So it would be -- in Year 1, as of December 1st, you'd have $4492 -- 8400 -- $8492 would be the combined water/sewer impact fee rates rather than 12,084. CHAIRMAN HALL: So, Joe, we've got -- you know, the study that we paid for says that we need 80 percent increase to be liquid for our future growth. MR. BELLONE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALL: And you-all are coming back with a two-year or a three-year phase-in, and the term was with risk -- you know, with a managed risk of that. So in case something just doesn't go as planned -- I think yesterday you mentioned that we might -- you know, we could do a short-term bond if a bond is required. And if a bond is required, how are we going to pay that back? I think you just mentioned, if I was listening correctly -- and I just want to repeat what you said if I'm right. There was a sort of rob Peter to pay Paul from one category to the next to cover that. I just -- in case there is a bond required, how is that going to be paid back? MR. BELLONE: My anticipation -- and my expert is sitting here; Mr. Johnssen is here. And we have a very, very, very well-versed finance committee and PFM. Our financial advisors are July 23, 2024 Page 27 very well adapted to helping us formulate bond repayments such that we have little -- little to no impact. In the past we've done interest only for the first few years and then adding principal later on. They feather that into the entire bond debt payments. Am I -- Derek is sort of shaking his head a bit. And so in this three-year phase-in, I don't see we'll have a huge impact. And if I do have to make those loans, as we've done it before -- I mean, we talked about Hurricane Irma, we loaned over $44 million got paid back as we received the funds. We have not had significant impacts. The Utility has been able to manage those risks in its capital program. CHAIRMAN HALL: So, you know, definitely we don't want to slam the market all at one time, but at the same time, scale of 1 to 10, what -- what do you think the risk is of phasing in? MR. BELLONE: Again, it's going to depend on permitting activity. If I look at the past three years, if it's -- if history is an indication of what's happening in the past, you know, a three-year phase-in approach, I may -- as a matter of fact, I have a -- I have a document. A three-year phased-in approach -- again, using history, using approximately 2500 ERC connections in any given year, which has been our average over the last three years, there would be about a $6 million shortfall in Year 1. Compound that to about a 9. Compound that, it would be cumulative 13 million. If we were to have to loan until 12/1/26 $13 million, we would look at our capital program and refund the capital programs for the least risky capital programs and then refund that back to the original capital programs as those impact fees started to come in based on permitting activity. CHAIRMAN HALL: So a scale of 1 to 10, it would be very high, 9 or 10, that we are going to definitely have shortfall if we don't implement the 80 percent up front? MR. BELLONE: I'm going to -- I'm going to say -- I'm going July 23, 2024 Page 28 to say in the 7-to-9 categories, I'll give you a range. I can't tell you 8. CHAIRMAN HALL: No, no, that's fair. MR. BELLONE: In that range, we'll have a risk. MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, your other option is to implement in two phases, which Joe has a slide on, and the -- what minimizes the risk in a two-year phase-in is that your first year, you're already going to have permits that are front-loaded that are going to come in before the new fees can take effect based on the statutory wait period. So it kind of shortens the amount of -- it limits the amount of permits that are -- that we're going to get in that first year that would be subject to the new fee. And then, basically, by the time you get to the second year, you're at the full fee, so you've taken off a year. The other thing that we have to restate is that while we're basing our projections on what we see happening now, as well as what's happened over the last three years, permitting activity is changeable. And even the change in the size of units, the types of units, and the mix of commercial and residential construction will wildly skew revenue projections for impact fees. And it's what makes them -- them so tricky to project. We'll be watching that, along with our partners in Growth Management, and if we see anything either to the plus or the minus that we think is really outside of the norm, we have the ability to come back to you, not only talk about what we're seeing, but also pull back a phase if we had to. You still have to wait the 90 days to implement a phase earlier, but we have that ability to do it. You have a couple of options here. If you like the idea of the three-year phase-in, it means that we have to be diligent in watching the permitting activity, and that's not just about things getting busier. It's also about things slowing down. But if you like the idea of the July 23, 2024 Page 29 two-year phase-in, it does start to minimize some of that risk but still give that little bit of help to the industry on not coming with an 80 percent increase all at once. CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, County Manager. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I'm going to throw a charge at you at some stage, because at the end of the day, this is an increase in tax. You know, we did the ULI study way back before -- the Board ordered it before I even came onto this board, and there was a discussion at the end of that report about every thousand dollar incremental increase in the price of a home precluded, at that time in our demographic with our AMI and such, 132-odd people being able to afford it. So my request to you is, over at AHAC, at the Affordable Housing Committee -- I believe you're still the Chair. CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- let's have some discussions about how we can do what we do maybe a little bit differently and not -- not -- not have the -- I mean, I'm certainly in favor of the three-year phased in. I heard you say, Joe, you know, you have -- there was going to be a loan from user fees, not from capital. MR. BELLONE: Don't forget, user fees operate the utility. We have to operate the utility. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course. MR. BELLONE: User fees have some debt service requirements. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. MR. BELLONE: We have to pay our mortgage, so we would pay those. And generally what's left is what goes to the capital program. You were very generous in terms of user fee rate study, July 23, 2024 Page 30 understanding the need for critical infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement. And so the user fees are now funding what I would consider a more robust capital program than we had in the last few years. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which is good. MR. BELLONE: Which is very good. It's good. And I thank you for that -- for that user fee rate study approval. But again, if we had to manage risk and loan money from the user fee capital program, we would take those monies first. It wouldn't impact operations or managing the day-to-day operations. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. And what triggered that discussion was your comment -- because back when Irma came through, they -- we deferred -- I say "they." We deferred capital projects in order to take care of the storm. And I don't want to be put in that position from a risk management standpoint. So, I mean, if we have to borrow something to -- borrow a little bit from the process, but not deferring capital projects is imperative. I don't -- because that sets us down a path of not happiness for me. CHAIRMAN HALL: Not happiness. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not happiness, yes. MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, I think that gets back to the point is that this all has to be -- if we're going to go with any kind of phase-in, it's going to have to be carefully monitored for the impacts on the capital program as well as the rise and fall of what's going on in the economy, because any of that has a direct effect on this income stream. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no argument there. MS. PATTERSON: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think we're paying closer attention to it -- at least I know I am paying closer attention to July 23, 2024 Page 31 it than ever before, because we used to just go along to get along, and we told -- we were told what we needed to be doing, and now we're actually looking at it. And I do know there are different ways of getting things done without increasing the impact fees, which, ultimately -- now, these are all for new users. We have -- I think, Commissioner Saunders, you and I were talking in Golden Gate City we're looking at 18-, 19,000 septic-to-sewer conversions over there in Golden Gate City coming forward. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think closer to 9,000, I think, is the -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, it was nine. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was 9,000? Forgive me. It was -- it was a large amount, and 9 -- 8- or 9,000. So having said all of that, I just -- in the discussion -- I would like to have a discussion within the -- within the affordable housing, because this ultimately flows over into what we get barraged with on the other side is housing affordability at-large. People pay these impact fees, they put them in their mortgage, and then that decreases their capacity to be able to afford a home, and that's something that we need to explore other alternatives. CHAIRMAN HALL: So are you saying discussion just as far as affordable housing or all housing? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All housing, because this is all new -- this -- affordable housing -- CHAIRMAN HALL: It affects everything. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- we do deferrals and setbacks and offsets and all kinds of things. Affordable housing, they don't always have to pay the impact fees. CHAIRMAN HALL: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is at market -- these are regular subdivisions. July 23, 2024 Page 32 CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman. So I think -- I mean, we're looking at three options here. We're looking at 80 percent up front, the two-year, three-year phase. And, you know, just listening to Joe and the County Manager, I kind of see some logic behind what they're saying with -- you know, reality is that the people that already are in the process, the people that are going to be grandfathered in at the rate that we have, in that first year, they're not going to be affected. And the same, even if it's 80 percent right out the gate, they're not going to be paying that 80 percent because they're already locked in, they're grandfathered in. So we're not going to collect that revenue until new ones come in after the date, the new year date of implementing the 80 percent. So I guess what I'm trying to say is you come down to scaring people off, maybe developers and people like that that want to invest their own money into the future, you know, the 80 percent might be a little harder pill to swallow right out the gate. That might diminish the amount of permits moving forward. So in reality, we're actually diminishing the money, the money we're going to collect up front in impact fees. I just -- I'm trying to look at the two-year because then you're not going to have that much impact difference, because in the first year, we still have grandfathered permits in or they're going to be -- regardless, they're going to be paying that rate. Then we implement an increase at that percentage. It might not scare off as many people wanting to invest in the first year. So in reality, you might make more money. You know, I'm just spitballing this, and then in the same time -- Joe, you could tell me better. I mean, which one would be the greatest risk? Because we don't want to lose our rating when it comes down to bonds. I mean, we want to stay in that July 23, 2024 Page 33 category we're in now. I mean, which would be the less risky way to move forward? MR. BELLONE: And, again, in my opinion and from my financial expertise, and I've been doing finance for 48 years now, the least risky, if you want to go the phased approach, obviously, would be two-year. Loans would be negligible, the first bond that we issue sometime in '25. By the time we get into '26 would be easy enough to cover. It may be a little bit short on the water side. But, again, very, very -- very negligible impacts. And I think, as long as the bond rating agencies look at the Board's actions as committed to the fiscal longevity of the utility, they'll be happy with that and won't impact the bond rating. If we were to do something like -- you know, just pick a number like, oh, let's just impact -- let's just raise them 50 percent of the recommended rate, they would look at that a little bit more skeptically, and from a, you know, perspective point of view, they may look at that as not as favorable. We have a Triple A stable outlook. I could lose the stable outlook. I might keep the triple A. I could lose the stable outlook. It becomes a little bit uncertain, and there's always risk in that. So I think the longer we put this off, the more likely you could see those. I'm not saying you will, but there's that potential. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: And when it comes down to affordability, we all understand that the number-one driver in affordability in housing is inventory. If we have a small inventory, that drives the price of homes. I mean, that's just basic 101 economics. And if we have people willing to invest the money and move forward and build the homes that we need, artificially the prices are going to go down just to the fact that the inventory increases. So there's more -- there's more homes out there for people to competitively bid upon and get homes at better prices. July 23, 2024 Page 34 And then like Commissioner McDaniel, I think, in the last meeting mentioned, you know, look at the value between the cost of the dirt when it comes to collecting taxes or to a home that's already built on it. You know, just in that aspect of -- if we get more in the system, more built, more CO'ed, the increase in taxes that we collect in the General Fund just through the ad valorem tax is going to be much, much greater than just an empty piece of lot -- of property. So I mean, we have to just try to keep that balance so we keep moving forward, because development's going to happen, but we need to, you know, not create an artificial roadblock to them just because we're playing with the numbers. So I just don't -- I mean, I like the two-year phase, but I see the value in just getting it out the gate, you know, right off the bat. I mean, it is -- it is what it is to -- you know, the people are going to get these rolled into a 30-year mortgage. It's probably going to be pennies on the dollar in reality difference, you know. But I just don't -- the idea of people seeing it happen at 80 percent, it just puts a bad taste in their mouth, and, you know, we still want to be favorable out there for people willing to invest their money and develop in Collier County. So I'm kind of leaning to the two-year phase-in. I don't know if my colleagues feel the same way or not, but I think it's less risk when it comes to our value -- when it comes to bonds. By the second year, regardless, everybody's going to be paying the 80 percent after that first year in 2025. The first is the 2025. Eventually all those permits will be at the price we were supposed to be at, where we think we should be at, according to the study. So that's my position. MR. BELLONE: Commissioner, to add to that, the 80 percent is a scary figure. It looks like a lot of money, but when I -- when we were making the -- and the County Manager was there. Ian was at July 23, 2024 Page 35 the presentation as well to the DSAC. I mean, even the members of the subcommittee said, "This is 80 percent, but my costs to build a home have doubled since the last time you passed this impact fee rate." So there was full consensus that this was reasonable. Not likeable, but certainly reasonable. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't think it's full consensus that it's reasonable. Joe, let me -- let me -- let me get some clarity and summarize a little bit what I think I heard you say. The risk to our bond rating if we went 50 percent, great. It's high, right? Got that, right? The risk if we keep it at 80 percent but do a two-year phase-in, there's risk but a lot less than if we went 50 percent, right? Stop me if I say anything untrue. And some of this is to clarify it in my own mind, and then as I gravitate towards what I feel I'm supportive of -- three years at 80 percent, three years, greater risk to our bond rating and lots of other things. Greater risk to having a shortfall than two-year phase-in, right? MR. BELLONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So I'm sort of putting these in order of risk. I guess the question I have for the County Manager, in other meetings we're doing a deep dive into our budget, we have ResourceX here, we're talking about how if we do everything, you know, perfect, and they came up with some great recommendations, there could be, you know, tens of millions of dollars in savings. Could any of that savings that we eventually discover help mitigate the risk here, or it's apples and oranges? MS. PATTERSON: It's apples and oranges. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Utilities is a closed system. They have July 23, 2024 Page 36 essentially two funding sources: User fees and impact fees. It isn't to say that -- and this is a conversation that, you know, we've had over the years -- that you couldn't set up some kind of program to pay impact fees on behalf of homeowners, but that typically is reserved for -- and we already have that, largely, and typically reserved for affordable housing. There's no program to go out and just pay impact fees on behalf of the citizen at large. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And citizens need to know that, because I had some conversations recently where, you know, we're proud of the deep dive that we're doing and the opportunities that we see on savings. But that money just can't be rolled into anything that we see fit. So sometimes, you know, folks that don't spend as much time in this room as we do think if you save $10 million over here, you can just throw it over here. You know, as we used to say in the military -- and Commissioner Kowal knows this, but it probably was used in Tallahassee a lot -- the color of money varies. And, you know, you can't take orange money and throw it over into a purple pot. And in this particular case, I wanted to really hear that reiteration that any risk that we're taking financially can't be mitigated by some of the savings we find in another department through ResourceX or something like that. It has nothing to do with any of that. MS. PATTERSON: Not in Utilities, no. We'll have -- when the other impact fees come forward, we may have a different type of conversation about these. But you'll find that the people that live here become the biggest proponents of impact fees because they came and paid their impact fee when they got here and built their house or bought their house, and they would like the people that follow them to do the same. Essentially, it's the -- it's paying for the bite of capacity that that unit is taking. And so it's part of the way that we've balanced our July 23, 2024 Page 37 capital plan all of these years and avoided pushing the cost of growth, to the largest extent possible, onto either the taxpayer or in the case of the utility, the ratepayer. So the impact fees handle the growth piece, and then the taxes, or the user fees, handle the ongoing maintenance piece. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I agree that taking one big bite of the apple all at once and sort of eating the spinach has pain, but it also has advantage. I think, though, to find the equal balance, I'm really sitting here favoring either the two- or the three-year phase-in approach. So I guess my last question for you, Joe, is -- and this is very cryptic. You know, you don't have a crystal ball. What do you think the difference is in the risk between the two- and the three-year? I mean, if you could put a number on it -- like, you know, if our risk for two-year -- and I realize this is very cryptic and very -- you know, a lot of guesswork here, but if -- you know, like you said, you're sitting here with almost 50 years of experience. If the two-year phase-in period, on a scale of 1 to 10, the risk was an 8 and on the three-year it's an 11, you know, the average person can sort of understand that. So if you can -- you know -- and I mean, I know I'm asking you to do something that, you know, you're throwing -- you know, you're throwing Jello up on the wall and hoping it will stick and see what would happen. But what do you think the difference -- is it a subtle difference in risk, or it's a great difference in risk? MR. BELLONE: At the risk of getting a scowl from the County Manager, if I put a number out -- well, I got a smile, so that helps. On a three-year phase-in, when I did the calculations in terms of the potential dollar value based on historical capacity or reservations, if we went to three-year, I'm talking about upwards of 13 to 14 million dollars of loans, okay. That's more than two streets July 23, 2024 Page 38 in Naples Park or -- it could be deferring Lely Public Utilities -- Old Lely Public Utilities' renewal. It's those kinds of decisions that the utility will have to make. So is there risk in doing that? Potentially. But in real terms, that's what the utility would have to look at if they had to make those loans. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Chairman. In terms of -- it sounds like, from what you've presented, that we have to have a final decision and the new impact fees on the books before January 1 of 2025. MR. BELLONE: To make it effective -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. MR. BELLONE: We're not going to get it effective by the new fiscal year but by the new calendar year. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I got from just looking at your different things here in terms of the dates for the implementation of this is it's really the end of this year, beginning of next year is when you'd have to have -- end of this year you have to have a final decision on what we're doing here. MR. BELLONE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The point of that is I don't think we need to make a decision today. And I'm going to tell you a couple of things that I have some concern about. First of all, ResourceX has identified a range of 80 million to $120 million in absolute savings if we implement the things that they're suggesting we do. Now, I don't know if that number, 80 million to 120 million, is an accurate number of actual savings, but I have to assume at this point that it is because that's the report that we have. July 23, 2024 Page 39 We're going to be going through the budget process in September -- early September and then, obviously, in August as well, and we'll have that 80 to $120 million number perhaps identified, and we can determine how much of a savings we have. And so one of my concerns is -- I raised this at the last meeting, so I'm going to raise it again -- that the western half of the county is subsidizing development in the eastern half. Now, I realize that that's not necessarily a bad thing, but in terms of the extension of the sewer and water, that -- in the western part of the county, in the urban area, a lot of those facilities that we're talking about are not -- are not necessary; that these facilities really are necessary for development that's occurring out east. And so I'd like to have a bit of an analysis of what that subsidization really means, what that is, and whether or not we could actually implement a double impact fee type of a situation where we have impact fees for one area and a different set of impact fees for the eastern area. I know, Commissioner McDaniel, I think you said that that's a slippery slope. I'm not sure what slope that's -- we're slipping on. I don't think that's a slippery slope at all. I think it's just taking a look at how we structure our utility cost and allocate those costs to the future developers. So I'll give you another example. You have a redevelopment in the -- you know, we're always promoting redevelopment and improving our neighborhoods, and Golden Gate City is a good example. We're looking at trying to improve the commercial area there. When those areas develop and they hook up, they're paying an impact fee. If there's a -- if an old establishment is torn down and a new building is built, I -- they still pay an impact fee; is that -- MS. PATTERSON: They pay an incremental portion of the impact fees if they're intensifying the use. July 23, 2024 Page 40 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Over and above what the use was, okay. So I'd like to see what that subsidization really is in the scheme that you have, and I'd also like to see whether or not we're really going to have that $120 million in savings that's been identified by ResourceX. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, but that was my point. It doesn't -- it doesn't really matter, according to the County Manager. I mean, I was hoping maybe there was something magical and it would reduce the risk, but she says it wouldn't. It wouldn't matter if we saved 100 million. If he's got a $13 million shortfall, we can't take 13 million out of the 100 million and hand it to Joe, correct? I mean, I know I'm oversimplifying. MS. PATTERSON: It is a closed system. It does receive subsidization from the General Fund. It has two funding sources other than when they go out and get grants. They have user fees and impact fees. Infusing other money sets a dangerous precedent to begin with, but it's just not the way that utilities are handled. The other problem with bifurcating the utility into geographic areas is the utility is designed and is now being enhanced to be able to take flows regionally. So if we start saying, well, out east they're paying a higher fee because that's where the expansion is, or Golden Gate City, it's going to be a difficult argument to have that when you need to be able to divert flows from the urban area to the east or to Golden Gate City, now isn't that -- that creates inequity. So, again, remember, as Commissioner McDaniel loves me to say, this is a fee, not a tax. And equity is incredibly important. And so making sure that that is a balanced system and that all fee payers are treated the same is the most important thing to keep a legal impact fee. That being said, if we want -- if we want to change our July 23, 2024 Page 41 approach, is it a different thing? You've got 30-plus years of policy standing behind this conversation today. What Joe is suggesting is not outside of things that we've done before with a phase-in. We've done something like this before. And the reason -- let me just mention to you, the reason that we're targeting the 12/1 date is there's a statutory requirement for a 90-day notice. So even if you adopt the fee when we do the next public advertisement, we must, by statute, wait 90 days to implement the fee. So the clock is running on the study, and that's the other danger is that you don't want to sit on a study like this for a really long time. Another meeting or two, not a problem. But you don't like the studies to age because, you know, they're created in real time, depending on what's going on. We let them sit around for too long, then we're going to be pushed into a position to have to go and do a refresh on the study. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then let me just ask or make one other comment, then. In terms of the bifurcation or having different impact fees, I was just throwing that out for -- just to get a bit of a reaction and some discussion. But, again, getting back to where we are with our budgeting and the savings that have been identified, we can use some of those savings to offset the cost of impact fees for workforce and affordable housing? MS. PATTERSON: We can. And we're -- and I guess that's probably what we should have told you is that you already have those programs in place now. So the idea that every thousand dollars of price -- prices however many people out of the market is not considering the fact that you have an Impact Fee Deferral Program for affordable housing that defers the majority of the impact fees for the lifetime of homeownership. So that is not an argument that is necessarily relevant when you're dealing with the specific programs attributable to affordable housing. July 23, 2024 Page 42 We have 3 percent of prior-year collections of impact fees that are dedicated every year to providing deferrals to qualifying homeowners. We also have programs on the other side for rental apartments, and we're continuing to work on those. So I always have to say we're very cognizant that having an aggressive impact fee program like Collier County does; on the converse is having those incentive programs or those affordable housing programs to help offset for those critical needs. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm kind of leaning towards the two-year phase-in with the understanding that we'll take a look at the savings that we're identifying in our budgets through ResourceX and perhaps beef up the waiver or delay of impact fees for those workforce and affordable housing type projects. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. We've long looked for a funding source that would help keep the program balanced but also provide additional units for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I have no interest in splitting the fee structure for our community because -- the Clerk of Courts and I went round and round and round yesterday with regard to the current ratepayers and the new ratepayers and the old system and the new system. And I recall when I came into office that there were -- there were tanks -- storage tanks at the south plant that couldn't be taken off-line to do PM, preventative maintenance. And we were 20-years-plus behind on the northeast regional wastewater/water facility. And the interconnection of everything all the way along the line. What I don't want to hear, though, is deferral of capital projects because of a loan that's out here. I don't want to hear -- I don't want July 23, 2024 Page 43 to -- it would really make me happy if we never deferred a capital project ever again, number one. And that leads me to my next question. And this being -- your definition of a closed system, if Commissioner Saunders' discussion with regard to the ResourceX and we are able to accumulate a tax savings somewhere somehow and we appropriate those to the necessary reserve accounts that we already have, the 301 account, I think, is the one that's there, can we loan money out of our reserve funds over here to the user fee fund that he's got designated here as a loan? Now, that's a different color of money as Mr. -- Commissioner LoCastro discussed. But I'm not talking about infusing it to offset the expense. I'm talking about not deferring a planned capital project that he has but borrowing money from a reserve fund that we have over here. MS. PATTERSON: It's not something that I know that we've done before, but that scenario creates less of a situation than just infusing General Fund into the utility. So we could look at ways that could be structured. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no interest in infusing General Fund monies into the system, but I don't have an opposition to loaning. If we've got money sitting in reserves for a deemed emergency, we can borrow it from a different color money pile and go forth and persevere there. MS. PATTERSON: And, again, the other thing is, is if we're approaching that threshold, there are -- there are other things that we can do as far as monitoring this phase-in and looking at having to accelerate a phase. That's another possibility -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was my -- MS. PATTERSON: -- and you'd still be preparing people for -- that we can't flip a switch and just spring a fee increase on July 23, 2024 Page 44 somebody. So we would bring that to the Board well in advance of that type of activity happening, barring a major emergency. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we can. And that was going to be my next question. And if I can -- if I can repeat what I think I just heard you say is we could -- and I have a question for the County Attorney or somebody with a timeline here for -- I don't see any reason for us to not go ahead and adopt the three-year phase-in plan, watch it, monitor it. Can we accelerate that in the event that the data comes back and we're in a tight somewhere? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. You would need to -- we would have to bring the ordinance back, and you'd have to provide a 90-day notice. But, again, we should be monitoring this so carefully that we're going to watch the permitting activity and everything else and know exactly what's happening. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that -- having said that, and -- are we on a time crunch to hit the December 4th date here for today to be able to have a proper advertising in the 90-day notice, or -- you said one or two meetings, we can put this off. But I don't see -- other than fulfilling Commissioner Saunders' request of some theoretical supplement from the urban people to the eastern people, which is an interesting perspective, I don't see any reason to delay. MS. PATTERSON: The County Attorney will advertise the ordinance with whichever option that you-all elect, and you're going to get to see us again. So we're not done today. We're going to do this again. And we'll be closer at that point in time also to be talking about any potential savings and how they may impact our ability to augment our affordable housing programs as they stand today. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman. Commissioner Saunders, I don't like to beat a dead horse, but, July 23, 2024 Page 45 you know, I kind of agree that splitting this in two different -- east and west -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It was just a thought. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: -- values. I was just going to throw out a hypothetical. I mean, you know, imagine if, you know, whatever, two years down the road, or whatever, somebody was successful to convert, like, Riviera Golf Estates into a community and build homes out there and things like that, that would be your west side of, say, Collier Boulevard, and to put services to that community wouldn't cost us any less than it would to put services in the east. So, you know, we don't want to hamstring ourselves to a point where -- well, just because you developed in the west, you know, you got a break, and now we've to cover that project with monies from the east. So, you know, I'd rather just find a happy medium and move forward uniformly. I just blanked out on my second part of his question. Oh, I know what I wanted to say. Joe, can you put up -- what's the difference in the two-year compared to the three-year, the price between the two in the first implement of phasing it in? MR. BELLONE: So here's a two-year, Commissioner, is what's on the screen right -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, I see that. MR. BELLONE: Let's say in Year 1, 4.9 and 4.4, we're talking about 9.4, roughly. It would be $9.4 million as opposed to $12 million [sic] 084, which was at all-in, all at once. If I go to the three-year, again, it would be 8492. So 8492 to a little over 9-. So it's a small difference. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It's a small difference, yeah. MR. BELLONE: Small difference. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: But then in the two-year, we get July 23, 2024 Page 46 to our -- MR. BELLONE: You get to your goal faster -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: -- goal much quicker. MR. BELLONE: -- and less risk. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Less risk for our rating. MR. BELLONE: Yeah, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman. I, too, wouldn't support the split, and like Commissioner Saunders was saying, you know, we're all spitballing. We're floating ideas. But I think that is more implication than we need. Given everything that Commissioner McDaniel said, if we can't move money from an orange pot to a purple pot, however there is some flexibility and some latitude to do some creative things, then -- and I'll throw this out there as just a spitball and it's not a directive or anything, as Commissioner Saunders was saying, then why wouldn't we default to the three-year knowing that even though there's additional risk, we can mitigate it if and when that risk, you know, raised its head? And to the other points that are made, it's not a big dollar difference, but I still sit here and feel like anything that's a raise is a raise. And that, to me, is the slippery slope. A little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit here, and then all of a sudden, we're not really following at least the, you know, moral compass that I think we all have here to, you know, smaller government, spend less, save money, all the things that brought ResourceX to the table and that we're aggressively going to take a look at. So to me, with everything I've heard, knowing that we do have some emergency options if risk -- and risk isn't 100 percent, so it may never happen, but if it did, we did have some things at our disposal, I July 23, 2024 Page 47 do like that we would get to the finish line quicker in two years, but we get to it by having a higher dollar figure put upon citizens. Whether it's somebody who's building a new structure or not to me isn't the case; it's just a matter of how these numbers change. So I feel like the thing that I could support the most that would make the most sense to me would be three-year phase-in with the numbers that I'm looking at right now knowing that we have some things at our disposal. Should any kind of risk, you know, come into the equation, we have ways of mitigating it. Some might think, yeah, we have some ways, but it's a little bit sloppy. But I'm comfortable with it unless somebody chimes in with something that makes me hate it more. But that's where I'm sitting, you know, right now, the -- sitting right on this slide right here from -- with everything that I've heard. MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we can -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And feel. MS. PATTERSON: We can come back to you at the end of the first year. That will give you a good idea of who came in under the old rates -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MS. PATTERSON: -- because they were grandfathered in, what type of permitting activity we're experiencing, and that's going to give you a good snapshot of Year 1, and we can then evaluate continuing on into Year 2 and Year 3. So that may be just to mark the calendar that if that's the direction you're heading, you're going to get a -- you're going to get visibility right at the end of Year 1. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll just add that, you know, if we went to the three-year and then there were some things that raised an issue or whatnot, you can always go sort of backwards, but if we did two-year and realized, you know, there were some things that were unforeseen, it's hard to sort of go the other way. So three year July 23, 2024 Page 48 doesn't put it in stone, but it sets a mark. And then to your point, you know, we sit here in a year and say, "Hey, did we guess right? Did the risk pop up? Are there issues?" And we still have latitude. We're not putting this thing in granite, but I think the way going forward would be the least amount of dollar impact. I know it creates other risk somewhere else. But that's where I sit. I think we've got enough things at our disposal to be able to analyze this at the one-year point to look at different pots of money and, in creative ways, mitigate any risk that possibly could happen. And I think it's the best all-around decision for the type of government I'm proud to help move forward and also limit. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And the only other discussion I want to have is, when are we going to have a look at the rest of our impact fees? That's the only reason I would consider deferring this decision for any nec -- for any length of time. Do we have an idea -- who are you looking at back there? MS. PATTERSON: I'm looking at Ian. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, that was Ian. MS. PATTERSON: Yep. As he's coming up, I will tell you that you have a lot less flexibility with the other fees as far as implementing a full fee. We talked a little bit about the legislature has now prescribed a phase-in that requires some pretty significant effort to do anything other than a prescribed phase-in, and that phase-in is required for even minimal increases. Here comes Ian, and he can tell you where we are kind of with the rest of the fees if you want to go. MR. BARNWELL: Good afternoon. Ian Barnwell, your impact fee manager. We've recently just received the last of the drafts of the -- all the July 23, 2024 Page 49 other impact fee studies, the other eight studies. So those are currently under review now. We're getting ready to send those to outside counsel. So you're quite a few months away from seeing those fees. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: More than the time frame necessary to do the proper advertising and 90-day notice and everything? MR. BARNWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because that's -- again -- because we all know those impact fees that are coming on the balance aren't going to go down, and that would be the only rationale that I would have for deferring this decision is we're going to -- that will put us outside of the time frame for advertising and proper notice. MR. BARNWELL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So with that -- thank you, Ian. It's good seeing you, sir. MR. BARNWELL: My pleasure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With that, I'm going to make a motion that we implement the three-year phased-in along with the County Manager's support of a one-year report at the end, which offers us the maximum amount of flexibility. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. MS. PATTERSON: I believe we have public speakers, Troy. CHAIRMAN HALL: We have one. MR. MILLER: We have one public speaker, Amelia Vasquez. MS. VASQUEZ: I'll pass. MR. MILLER: And she passes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's sitting back in the back waving at me. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is that what you wanted? July 23, 2024 Page 50 MS. VASQUEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, okay. This isn't -- this isn't rocket science here, right? Yeah. She's passing because she liked what she heard. But, yeah, I would second that. CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. We've got a motion and a second for a three-year phase-in. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: So moved. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outlier. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11D AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE $12,709,900 IN REVENUES DEPOSITED IN THE DISASTER RECOVERY FUND (1813) RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS RELATED TO THE HURRICANE IAN CLAIMS, ALLOCATE $3,000,000 WITHIN THE SAME FUND (1813) FOR CONTINUATION OF THE WASTEWATER RECOVERY EFFORTS AND RETURNING $9,709,900 BACK TO THE ORIGINAL FUNDING SOURCES WHICH INCLUDE WATER CAPITAL FUND (4012) ($429,100), AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL FUND (4014) ($9,280,800). (JOE BELLONE, DIVISION DIRECTOR - UTILITIES FINANCE) (ALL DISTRICTS) MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL – APPROVED July 23, 2024 Page 51 MS. PATTERSON: That brings us -- oh, you might as well just stay there. That brings us to -- Item 11D is a recommendation to authorize amendments to recognize $12,709,900 in revenues deposited in the Disaster Recovery Fund received from the insurance proceeds related to the Hurricane Ian claims, allocate 3 million within the same fund for continuation of the wastewater recovery efforts, and returning $9,709,900 back to the original funding sources which include Water Capital Fund and Wastewater Capital Fund, and Mr. Joe Bellone is here to answer any questions that you may have. MR. BELLONE: Commissioners, I'm glad to bring you a good-news story. We actually have $9.7 million in the bank. It's sitting right now in the Ian recovery -- Disaster Recovery Fund, and we're proposing to take some of that money via this budget amendment and move it back into the user fee capital funds that actually donated to the Ian Recovery Fund, move it back to the capital program. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Donated. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I mean, I'd make a motion to approve. I think we all are well read on that. CHAIRMAN HALL: Good news, yeah. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is there anymore deep dive you want to make us aware of, Joe, that we're not, you know, aware of? MR. BELLONE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'd make a motion to approve. MR. BELLONE: Again, it's exactly as it says in the -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALL: Twelve million's all you could drum up? MR. BELLONE: As an advance from the insurance company. In my -- July 23, 2024 Page 52 CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second. MR. BELLONE: -- experience, I've never seen that. CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Motion made and seconded. All in favor for this, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALL: It's done. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you, Commissioners. That brings us to Item 13. 13A is a request to elect either Commissioner Kowal -- CHAIRMAN HALL: Were we going to do users fees? MS. PATTERSON: Oh, I'm sorry. I lost my other item. I was rushing to the end. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's okay. We can go to the end. MS. PATTERSON: That's okay. Item #11E AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,000 TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE AND CONTINUE FUNDING DAILY OPERATIONS WITHIN THE WATER/SEWER OPERATING BUDGET (FUND 4008). (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL: SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL – APPROVED; MOTION TO CHARGE CREDIT CARD CONVENIENCE FEES July 23, 2024 Page 53 TO THE USER BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL – APPROVED (COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS OPPOSED) MS. PATTERSON: All right. This is actually our Item 16C4. Sorry, Joe. This is now Item 11E. It's a recommendation to authorize budget amendments in the amount of $162,000 to maintain compliance and continue funding daily operations within the water/sewer operating budget, and this is being brought to the agenda at Commissioner McDaniel's request. Mr. Bellone. MR. BELLONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Bellone. I do have a small presentation, but I can -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't need it. MR. BELLONE: I can take your questions. CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't need a presentation. All I want to do is accelerate what already -- we already know needs to be done. We have to pay a two and a half percent credit card fee for users that utilize the credit card payment plan. I want that implemented into the billing structure as soon as possible to offset this expense. That's all. I -- when I read this, I was reading about a study and somebody going and doing something else. And I'm like, I just wanted you to get Board direction today to implement the fee into the billing process for credit card payers as soon as possible. MR. BELLONE: Okay. Commissioners, just a little bit of background just for your discussion purposes. We did look at other utilities in the area. There's a list in front of you for utilities that absorb the fee. It's easier if I just tell you those that charge a convenience fee because it's a much shorter list. July 23, 2024 Page 54 It's Ave Maria; Fort Myers Beach who, unfortunately, imposed that on September 1st of 2022. Bad timing on their part; and then the Immokalee Water/Sewer District. All the other utilities absorb credit card fees. As the commissioner said, we use NCR as an agency-wide contract for our credit card processing. Two percent of the value of the utility bill, that's 25 cents per transaction, and it's 20 cents per e-check. We do have other fees that go into the bank charges like lockbox fees, et cetera. Just a short bit for your information and those listening, credit cards, we are guaranteed the cash received in two or three business days. We really designed that program several years ago to make it easy to pay bills, make it convenient. You get a utility bill every month. No one loves paying their bills every month, but a utility bill has to be paid within 20 days of the bill date. We have an increasing trend in the number of folks and customers who have moved to credit card payments from checks and other forms of payment. It's the Visa utility program, and it's based on absorbing the cost. We would have to look. We'd have to work with the County Attorney to understand if passing that on -- we'll look at the contract itself, see if that requires any renegotiation. Just as a reminder, the average utility bill for a single-family home using 5,000 gallons of water is about $120 a month. What we'll be doing is we'll be adding -- I want to say 2 percent of that plus 25 cents will be adding $31.80 to their bills on an annual basis. I do have to do some programming in our billing system and set up a billing code that's designed specifically for credit cards. And I do want to remind you that the largest volume of that cost is really coming from property management companies that represent golf courses, apartments, large commercial customers like the Naples Grande, Waterside Shops, et cetera. With that, Commissioners, I have a list of the top 50 customers July 23, 2024 Page 55 who use credit cards. As I mentioned, they give you the top customers right there, Waterside Shops, Naples Grande -- CHAIRMAN HALL: I don't think that's necessary. MR. BELLONE: -- large commercial customers and property management companies. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The 10,000-foot view is -- number one, I'm going to make a motion for approval of your $162,000 budget amendment, which is offsetting bank service fees for people who are utilizing credit cards to pay their bill. So I'll make that motion and get that out of the way, and then I'll make another motion for direction on the second part. CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second that motion. So we have a motion to approve the 162,000 budget amendment. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALL: That's moved. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then another quick motion just to implement the additional fee on our billing system so that we don't have to do as large of a budget amendment the next time. Whatever that fee is, two, two and a half percent. Pick a number. Everybody uses different things in order to do it. But I'm okay with the fees that you showed here, two percent plus 25 cents. And when you do your next report, if you're talking to me about a monthly bill of $120, don't analyze the additional expense in there, because that makes people think they're going from 120 to 150, but July 23, 2024 Page 56 it's actually $3 -- less than $3 a month. MR. BELLONE: Two sixty. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. So keep consistent with your annualization and relationship to your fee structure. But my second motion is implement the fee as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel, by your motion, the cost of the -- that fee would be borne by the ratepayer? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct, that uses the credit card. Only to -- only for the folks that are paying credit cards -- with credit cards. This $162,000 budget amendment is for us to offset bank service fees for people who pay with a credit card. And we're only implementing that service charge on people who are paying with a credit card. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess I would just ask a quick question. What would happen if everybody started paying by check? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Chasing bounced checks. MR. BELLONE: We do have customers that come into the office either with cash or with a check. A check has a small fee. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So we do charge a fee for someone paying by check? MR. BELLONE: The bank -- the bank contract that we have with First Florida Bank -- First Florida Bank does charge a fee. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. BELLONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're not passing that fee onto the customer? MR. BELLONE: No, we're not. We're not passing the check [sic] for e-checks either, which is 20 cents per -- 20 cents per July 23, 2024 Page 57 transaction. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any particular issue with the motion other than the fact that it's actually to our benefit to have people paying by credit card as opposed to paying by another mechanism. But, you know, if you want to increase their costs, I don't have a -- I don't think I have an issue with that. I don't think I will now [sic] and the 30 seconds from now that we vote, but it really is to our benefit to have people paying by credit card. MR. BELLONE: The whole concept of designing that program was to encourage people to pay their bills timely and on -- I use it. I use a credit card. I like doing that. I can be away. I get an e-mail three days in advance telling me it's coming. I get an e-mail at 6:42 a.m. the morning that it's charged, and then I can ride the float for a few days or a couple of weeks depending on when my credit card is due. I could go to e-check, which means it comes out of my bank on the 20th day after the bill was received. That's a potential people may move to. My fear is that they go back, you know, two steps and go back to paying by check, which would require mail them the bill, they take the coupon off, they put it in an envelope with a return envelope and put a stamp on it. CHAIRMAN HALL: We understand that. Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman. Just a little history lesson. Historically, when paying with credit cards, the person that receives the money from their credit card transaction always pays the fee. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That's typical how -- even if you go to an ATM and take money out at not your network, but you are charged a fee just to receive money, and that's just the nature of the July 23, 2024 Page 58 game right now. And I think the convenience of people having their credit cards on a rotation payment -- automatic rotation payment things like that for water bills and things, sometimes that's beneficial for us. Especially if we have to chase the money. It's -- you know, that's never good, and it always costs us more money. And if you actually go back to mailing bills out to people with the cost of postage and that offset to what we pay in actually fees on a credit card, I mean, I don't -- you know, is there a number there that we can -- do we still send out paper bills? MR. BELLONE: There are some customers who like to sit down with their checkbook, write it down, make a copy of their check, they mail it. I've had conversations with customers who still do that. Decreasing in popularity over time with the introduction of these other, kind of, convenient ways to pay the bill. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I just -- I don't know if the small percentage would discourage people to use their credit cards or not, but I think continuing that process and that program saves us money in the long run, you know, than having everybody get to the point where they want to switch to getting paper bills again. So I don't know what the offset in the costs would be on that. But what are we looking at, like, pennies on the dollar? I mean, what -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 2.65 a month. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So it would be an extra $2.65 a month. MR. BELLONE: Would be added to their -- on an average bill. You know, for, you know, Joe and Mary who live in Naples Manor, if they're spending $120 on a utility bill, we're going to tack on $2.65 to them. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm not -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah. I mean, anytime July 23, 2024 Page 59 somebody sees something increase -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I know when I got a contractor or vendor that says, "Well, you can pay by credit card, but it's going to cost you an extra 2 percent," I always find that to be a little irritating, but I understand. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That's why your local businesses want you to pay cash, because they pay a fee every time you use a credit card to buy a hamburger or French fries. You know, it's just -- it is what it is. So that's just part of the system. CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, as a public entity, you know, if you want to -- if you want the convenience of a credit card, pay for the convenience. It shouldn't be on the backs of all of the others that don't use your convenience to cover your fees. So we have a motion to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the motion is to add that fee to the credit card payers, and it has to do with this -- the previous motion that we approved of $162,000 in bank fees that we're paying for that convenience, and I think the folks that want that convenience should be paying it and not be on the -- on the ratepayers. CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second the motion. So the motion is to charge the credit card convenience fees to the user. Seconded. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Motion moved. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outlier. MR. BELLONE: Thanks, Commissioners. July 23, 2024 Page 60 Item #13A ELECT EITHER COMMISSIONER KOWAL OR COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS AS CHAIRMAN OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD. (DEREK JOHNSSEN, FINANCE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER) (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO ELECT COMMISSIONER KOWAL CHAIRMAN OF THE VAB BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that now brings us to Item 13A. This is a request to elect either Commissioner Kowal or Commissioner Saunders as chairman of the Value Adjustment Board. Mr. Derek Johnssen, your finance director for the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, is here to lead this discussion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to make a little campaign speech, if I might, as I campaigned for that position. I'm campaigning, though, on behalf of Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think because they were both outliers on the last two votes, they both should get the position. CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I was thinking -- COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Let me shed some light on this. Last year both me and Commissioner Saunders sat on this board, and he graciously said, "Hey, I'll be the chairman; you be the cochair," because it's your first year as being a commissioner, and all these things are thrown on you like drinking water out of a firehose. But I went into the meeting, the first one we had this year, I was already the chairman, and you were already the cochair. So I think we made that decision when he offered to be the chairman last year, July 23, 2024 Page 61 and I said, "All right. I'll do it next year," so... CHAIRMAN HALL: Great. Well, I'm glad you stepped forward, because I thought we were going to have to do this officially with Rock, Paper, Scissors. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah. So I'm -- I already chaired the first meeting. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So you guys are just basically going to swap? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah. We already agreed to that last year when he said he'll help me -- CHAIRMAN HALL: So do you want to make a motion to make you the chair? COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Somebody else should do that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make that motion to make -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make that motion. MR. JOHNSSEN: Derek Johnssen for the clerk's office. I really like an item that does itself. CHAIRMAN HALL: So we have a motion and a second. THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second? CHAIRMAN HALL: Me. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALL: Congratulations, Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you. July 23, 2024 Page 62 MR. JOHNSSEN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Another feather in my... Item #15A PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA BY INDIVIDUALS NOT ALREADY HEARD DURING PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THIS MEETING MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 15, staff and Commission general communications. Item 15A is public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda by individuals not already heard during previous public comments in this meeting. MR. MILLER: Historically, we have no public speakers at all today. MS. PATTERSON: Wow. Okay. Item #15B STAFF PROJECT UPDATES MS. PATTERSON: Our Item 15B for staff project updates is being deferred to a future agenda, so that brings us to Item 15C, staff and Commission general communications. Item #15C STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS July 23, 2024 Page 63 MS. PATTERSON: I do have a good-news message, at least for our process, and that is that we did hear -- the Special Magistrate did hear our first animal cruelty case where there was a guilty verdict, and they are adjoining that person to the Animal Cruelty Registry that you-all recently passed, so that is a good step forward. Mr. Finn is going to talk to you very briefly about next steps regarding ResourceX. Mr. Finn. MR. FINN: Thank you, ma'am. Very briefly. The Board did receive a report roughly July 9th from ResourceX. That is a draft report. That was utilizing May data. They are working to update that for the June data or even the July data. It doesn't have a dramatic impact on the work they do because theirs is largely organizational relative to programs and some insights into those programs and potential areas to consider is pretty much their mission. As you well know, they've organized their report into a programs matrix, if you will, that deals with cost, impact, mandate, and reliance and provides some sense of where it fits into that matrix. Our going-forward plan is to bring an item to the Board on -- at the first meeting in August, August 13th, I believe. We anticipate having ResourceX on site here to provide some additional insight. I will say that as staff and the County Manager's Office have gone through this report, I will note that there's a number of insights or suggestions that are made that are -- that are largely implemented. A lot of those have to do with privatization, a lot of those have to do with some of the initiatives the County Manager has taken in the draft budget or the tentative budget, and those include some realignment of resources, some organizational evaluation, and some additional privatization and considerations relative to aquatics, museums, and other areas. There's also a number of areas where suggestions are made or July 23, 2024 Page 64 case studies are introduced into their report, and to a great extent, when it comes to automation, particularly in let's just say the permitting and the plan review area, we've pretty much been on the leading edge of automation and online review of that for years. So having said that, I just want to give you a little bit of good news there that a lot of the initiatives that are seen as best practices by ResourceX are, in fact, implemented at one level or another already. With that, open to any discussion. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And just on that note, you know, I've read the majority of that report now, and I assume we're going to dive into it deeper next month. They're going to be here and have discussions with us? MR. FINN: Yes, that's the intent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to see -- if they happen to be listening, I would like to see more specific recommendations for actual savings to be effectuated. There was -- what I noticed was a rather -- I called them obscure discussions of if you do this, you can save this much or this much. I would like -- because I didn't have enough data, and I'm going to pick -- I'm going to pick one that's out there, because they went through almost all of our departments. The program cost was 375,000. I can't remember which one it was. No revenue generated by it. But if you did this and this and this, you can save 25,000 to 375,000. And so there was not a lot of specificity in what you needed to do in order to effectuate that, number one. Number two, I didn't know what that 375,000 expense for that program compromised -- or was composed of. Not compromised. But what it was composed of. And so without me knowing that 30 July 23, 2024 Page 65 percent of that's staff, 30 percent of that's hard assets, depreciation, whatever the expense is, it's hard for me to ascertain off that number expense-wise what could be done to actually effectuate any kind of savings, if at all. And for us to say -- and I know we already are. We saw that with some of the things that the Clerk's Office is doing with automations -- and Tax Collector and so on and so forth. It's good that we're doing that, but without specifics, it's hard for me. And I hope that when we go further with ResourceX here, that we have more detail in those -- in regard to those. CHAIRMAN HALL: That's a good point because that -- the report that we just got is sticking to that blueprint -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN HALL: -- that Resource -- that refunding blueprint. I had conversations with Mr. Fabian day before yesterday, and I asked him that very question. I said, "When are we going to see the report that comes out with the hard savings, the inefficiencies, the redundancies, the improvement processes?" And I said, "I want to see that coming from you that pertains to every part of our county." And he said, "I understand." And I said, "You don't" -- I said, "It appeared that, you know, there was -- you know, you were under pressure to get this report to us, and I understand that, but we're going to have two meetings in August and we're going to have two meetings in September." And he said, "I will be bringing that forth." So I think we can look forward to that coming in our meetings in August. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good. MR. FINN: Very good. That's all I have on that topic. MS. PATTERSON: County Attorney. July 23, 2024 Page 66 MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Board members. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I got -- well, we covered ResourceX. And I noticed that our Growth Management people are scarce in the back, so I'm going to defer the discussion on code enforcement, but I'd like to bring up at some future meeting a discussion of managing our Code Enforcement. We're in a very tricky spot right now. The County Attorney has espoused on a regular basis Code Enforcement is reactive, not proactive. But I'm really having a difficult time filing a code complaint and sending the code officer to an illegal trailer rental, camper rental in Golden Gate Estates, and having him drive by eight to get to the one that they have the complaint on and not stopping and talking to the other people that I can see. And so I want to have some policy discussions with our board for us to move into a more proactive state with regard to our Code Enforcement. No one likes government intrusion, but with the enormous amount of growth that we're having, especially in the rural estates, there's a lot of folks taking advantage of statutory law -- statutes with -- laws with homeownership, what they can and can't do with their property. They moved here from other parts of the country and state, and they think they can do anything they want, and there are rules. And so I'd like to have that discussion. I wanted to have it today, but we don't have anybody here, so we'll move -- we'll have that discussion -- I'd like to have that discussion at our first meeting in August. MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. We'll make sure that they are here and prepared for that discussion. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Can I comment? I don't know July 23, 2024 Page 67 if -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Code, by statute, can't self-generate an investigation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not correct. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: They only follow up on a report of a violation. But I thought that was statutorily driven by the state. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I believe -- that's not true? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not -- it's not -- I don't think -- that's not correct. We have -- we have -- we have agents that self-report regularly when they witness something. They have that capacity to do it. We just haven't had the support internally, unless you want the County Attorney to weigh in. MR. KLATZKOW: No. If we're coming back on executive summary as to this process -- and it's a policy decision by the Board. The reason it's proactive was a decision by the Board to make it proactive years ago -- reactive, rather. But we'll be coming back, I suppose, and considerations will include, you know, whether or not we can do this. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we've done some things to increase notice to mortgage lenders on some of our repeat offenders. People that are -- that are -- because, you know, a large portion of the folks that live in a home have a mortgage, and the mortgage documents stipulates you can't be in -- you can't be out of compliance with government ordinances, and that can trigger issues to help motivate people to come back into compliance. And so we've escalated some of those processes. But without belaboring the point, I'd just like to have -- I'd like to have a formal discussion with it and for us to go back and forth with some ideas and thought processes. Commissioner LoCastro, you really enhanced some of our fine enforcement with regard to the accumulated fines and so on and so forth, but I think it's time for us to have a look at how we manage it July 23, 2024 Page 68 in -- and have our Code Enforcement self-initiate and move along those lines as well. CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that's number one. Number two -- my phone got shut off. One second. Contract control. Contract control. We had something on our consent agenda where a contract was terming out. Somebody missed a date. Now, there were some circumstances that added to that issue, but we had to extend the contract because we -- somebody that's in charge of the contract missed a date. So the suggestion I had was with the County Attorney's Office -- or with the County Attorney yesterday is to have his office and/or someone from staff, I don't really care who, but somebody, when this board enters into a contract that has time-certain dates that are on it, that there's a checklist that allows for a third party to be checking to make sure that those dates are, in fact, met. It typically falls back on the taxpayers as an increase and exposure, and I think that's a simple process system that could be put in place to allow for, because -- without belaboring the point, that's something that I'd like to see us do. CHAIRMAN HALL: I mean, I totally concur. And it reminded me -- I wanted to bring it up earlier, also on the consent agenda we had some engineer missed -- he had an uh-oh for $18,000 where he missed a drain. And at some point in time we've got -- I'd like this to be the shot across the bow, that if you're paid to do a service and you have an uh-oh, that uh-oh is on your dime. It should not be on the taxpayers' dime. And for -- I've seen time and time and time where we've okayed things in that regard. And I know when I was in business, when I made the mistake, I had to pay for it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALL: And I think that we need to enforce that July 23, 2024 Page 69 along with the contractual agreements. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And either in -- and even if it isn't eaten -- you know, because no one's infallible, but even if it isn't eating the entire 18,000 -- you're using that as an example, but a percentage of that. We have 80-some-odd project managers that are in charge of these contracts, and timelines and circumstances are regularly not met. And so transparency forces accountability. And if -- I did it back in the banking business days. When a loan came in, we attached a -- in the file -- this was back when we used file folders. Do you remember that, Commissioner Saunders, back in those days? And we attached a sheet of paper over there, and it had dates of what needed to be done in order to -- because you've got major compliance issues in the banking industry with a loan. And so things that had to be done on an annual basis for that file -- for that loan that was within our bank -- and we had a staff person that reviewed those dates and then ensured that we stayed in compliance. And I think if we did that, that would -- that would help us enormously to start that process. And then with regard to your point, Commissioner Hall, some kind of accountability with regard to an uh-oh and then a worse accountability with a second uh-oh and so on and so forth would be a fine way to go. And with that, I am done. CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. A few quick ones. Piggybacking on that consent agenda. We've had this conversation before. I really think all five of us, but especially Amy, you and your team, really, let's do a deep dive on the consent agenda. And when we see those -- I agree with Commissioner Hall, and we've said it in here before, even before you and Commissioner Kowal July 23, 2024 Page 70 joined the group here, it was like, why are there so many amendments on here? You know, a contractor, you know, bids on a contract, they bid low, they're the first person to get it. Then all the other people who bid disappear who probably -- in some cases they've even come to the podium and said, "I wouldn't have changed a nickel of what I bid if you would have picked me. Instead, you picked the guy that underbid me, and then he came in and asked for an extra 200,000." We've had some pretty big numbers on these agendas. I'd be for picking those off and making them actual -- and maybe they could be combined or however. But on the consent agenda, with one fell swoop, we approve all these amendments after the fact. And, you know, if you do a deeper dive, which we often do, into the agenda, you see it's exactly what you said. "Oh, we found a drain. Oh, they realized there was an environmental issue. Oh, they didn't have the maps quite right," or "The slope of the roof was -- you know, it was reconfigured after the fact." And, you know, we spend an awful lot of money for Contractor No. 1 who won the bid, and 2 and 3, you know, might have been the better -- the better group. So I'd like to see those really sort of pulled out. Oftentimes we pull out the onesie, twosies, but I'd rather see this agenda come to me, and somebody who's watching this a lot closer, pulls it out. You know, whether that's the Clerk of Courts, whether that's, you know, somebody else on the staff or what have you, and really highlight those. So that's number one. On ResourceX, I agree with Commissioner McDaniel. I read through the whole report, but having used some of these experts before, a lot of times Report No. 1 that you get isn't the final report. So what they're looking for us to do is highlight those things where we go, "Geez, $300,000 saving, but I wonder where.” You circle it, you highlight it, and then it's -- you know, you do a deeper dive. July 23, 2024 Page 71 So I'm encouraged that I think more reports are coming, but I think our homework assignment is to circle those things that sounded kind of cryptic and maybe a little bit magical and them, you know, is this really something that's realistic. On Code Enforcement, I also, you know, fully agree. I love Tom and his team, and if I send him something that was brought to my attention, they're out there lickety-split. But I also have sort of that concern that it's really the citizens and their eyes at times that seem to be the ones sort of coordinating the effort. And Commissioner McDaniel said it perfectly. I have a feeling at times they're driving by 15 violations to get to the one person that was reported to me or what have you. So, you know, that's a discussion for another day. And it's not throwing spears at Code Enforcement. But if they need a little extra, you know, help, or we need to at least understand how they work, and it's -- there again, you know, are they more reactive than proactive? And so we'll leave that there. Oftentimes things are buried in the consent agenda that we vote on, and it's great, but we don't take the time to highlight it. I just wanted to highlight one thing on here, and it's 16D7. We accepted a distribution from the Elizabeth A. McCarthy Living Trust in the amount of $238,500, and any subsequent distributions to the Collier County Domestic Animal Services office -- obviously, department -- to authorize the County Manager or her designee to execute and complete any required forms, blah, blah, blah, you know, to make this so. You know, that's a citizen that just gave us almost, you know, a quarter of a million dollars for an agency that we're all throwing a lot of attention to. But, certainly, you know, you can do anything, but it takes money. So, you know, I don't know Elizabeth McCarthy, but I certainly July 23, 2024 Page 72 thank her family and -- has been very generous to put this in their trust, and I just wanted to mention that because we approved it sort of without any kind of mention. And then lastly, I really want to thank our IT department. Mark Gillis, you know, the second we all got blue screens -- and it was worldwide, so it wasn't a county thing -- he was immediately on the horn to all of us telling -- separating rumor from fact, telling us what to do and what not to do. And, you know, while we were all watching TV and seeing a lot of people come to a screeching halt, I felt here at the county, you know, we knew we could get e-mail on our phones, we knew what not to do with our laptops. In my particular case, I had to bring in my laptop yesterday, and in a minute and a half, somebody fixed it. I actually turned on the screen in my office. It was blue. In a minute and a half it was fixed. So I know his team was working, you know, overtime over the weekend but was really communicating quickly, you know, with all of us. And so we really appreciate that. So, Mark, you and your team, you know, thanks very much. From what I hear, I think we're all back online with no issues at all, and that was yesterday, and a lot of people he was able to help on Sunday. Seeing him send a text message that said, "I'll have somebody from my team come to your home if you really have something that's so critical that you're totally frozen," you know, that's the kind of customer service to keep our county moving forward that I certainly respect and appreciate. So thanks, Mark, and to your entire team. I probably said that too fast for Terri. She's just going to summarize that and somehow -- LoCastro, thanks, Mark, IT, boom. CHAIRMAN HALL: Somehow. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I just have one item. I've been attending the Domestic Animal Services advisory July 23, 2024 Page 73 board meetings -- there was one last week -- and that committee is working really well, and there are some really fantastic members there. There were two openings, and one was for a member at large, and they appointed an individual whose name escapes me at the moment, but they appointed an individual unanimously to fill that position. And then there's a second position, one that is designated for a vet tech or a veterinarian. The county has been advertising for a vet tech or a veterinarian to serve on this board without any success. But they had a second applicant there at the meeting last week that they really wanted on this board. And I suggested to them to go ahead and make that appointment for a second person who essentially will be at large but will be filling the spot of the vet tech or the veterinarian. Now, the board felt that they didn't really need a vet tech or a veterinarian on the board because the county now has two full-time veterinarians working at DAS. And so if they ever need advice or anything about -- that a veterinarian would be able to answer, they always have somebody they can turn to. And so I suggested that they make that appointment and that I would work with the County Attorney to bring back to this board an executive summary that validates that appointment and potentially make a change to the ordinance that set up the Domestic Advisory Board so that that person in the future will be able to stay on that board. And that's going to come to the Commission our first meeting in August, so I just wanted to let everybody know that that's coming. Didn't want there to be a surprise as to why we would be filling a vet tech position with someone who's not a vet tech. CHAIRMAN HALL: Perfect. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And also just to let you know that that board is working really well together now. July 23, 2024 Page 74 CHAIRMAN HALL: That's good. That' different. Commissioner Kowal. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just -- I want to revisit, you know, what you guys have talked about already about the differences we're seeing -- like, today, two items we had on the agenda where we had an engineering firm tell us the cost of a project, and it was 30 percent -- I mean, that's almost one-third the cost, the difference of what, you know, the bids were coming in. And I would have to agree with the contractors, because they were pretty close in bids. And we had four people bid on it, and they were within dollars of each other. And, you know, then our -- the engineering firm we paid tax dollars to to give us an idea of what this project would cost, come in at 30 percent difference. So, you know -- and I don't know if when Commissioner Hall was speaking, I don't think somebody was catching what he was throwing about, you know, if we're going to have 10 to 30 percent difference if our staff did it, our engineers on staff, then why are we paying an independent firm good money to do the same job if we're going to have the same result? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm a third baseman. I caught it. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah. No, I know you caught it, but I don't know if the gentleman Commissioner Hall was throwing it to caught it. But, you know, that's -- and it works both ways, too. Like, I read that item about the drain in the floor. I mean, they were building -- we're building a chiller system that handles water and things like that. You know, you would think, you know, Basic 101; when you're building a facility that may have leakage of water and situations like that, you know, usually right off the bat, you've got to put a drain in that design, you know, not in the 11th hour later. July 23, 2024 Page 75 Thank God it was caught before we had to tear anything back up to go back in and put it in after the floors were, you know, beyond too far that we couldn't do it. But, yeah, some of these things, it's just, you know, kind of like, just -- I don't know. I spoke to staff. Is there, like, a magic number or something, like, if we have bids coming in and there's a 10 percent difference or a 15 percent difference between contractors and our engineering cost versus -- the same way, if we're looking at somebody coming bidding and we've got individuals 30 percent lower than the other four people that bid on it, is there a trigger, like, a number that says we need to look at this closer? Because either somebody's catching something we're not catching, or we're missing something, you know, on the other side. So I don't know if that's something we should have a discussion and maybe moving forward having some, like, marching orders for our staff when going into these negotiations and these bid processes to say, all right, this is a trigger point. This just hit -- this is hitting a percentage that this doesn't look right, something doesn't smell right, so we need to take a deeper dive. Are we missing something, or are they missing something? So I think that would be something to maybe look into. And, yeah, the ResourceX, the report, I wasn't -- when I was reading through it, I wanted a lot more detail. You know, even in some of the low-impact things and low cost, you know, like -- and like -- it was just, like, kind of generic options, like, you can throw a fundraiser. I'm like, okay, I don't want to throw a fundraiser. You know, it was just like I wanted more detail on a lot of some of these things, you know, like, where I can offset this or that, you know. And I'm hoping that we are going to get that here moving forward, so... But I think we accomplished some good things today, especially July 23, 2024 Page 76 with getting that sewer -- septic off of -- systems out of there. That's big on both fronts, you know, for our clean water and for the citizens up there to get a more healthier environment to live in. So these positive things are moving forward, and I just hope we can do some more of that, especially Golden Gate's the next big project. I have my own over off of West Goodlette, and I've already got some messages. They're like, "Well, how come up there they don't have to pay any fees?" They don't understand the concept that we got this grant that -- you know, that's going to pay almost 100 percent of this project where on the west they're not so lucky. But that's been quite a project for 10 years that I inherited, so... MS. PATTERSON: And we'll continue to pursue grants for that. The first phase we were successful. It didn't take the assessment to zero, but it did help with some of the costs, and we'll continue on with the -- with the next phases of that project to try to get -- to try to get grants and help offset the cost to the residents. COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, because the residents don't understand that they're sitting in one part of Collier County. They're like, "Why am I paying and that guy up on the other side of Immokalee is not paying?" You know, they don't -- it's hard for them to digest that, and they're getting the same work done. So, you know, I think it's important to educate them when we can, so thank you. CHAIRMAN HALL: I mean, I'd love to say it's because of Commissioner Hall. But no, Commissioner Hall didn't have anything to do with it. The grant did, which was so thankful. I just want to make one comment about the shot across the bow to our vendors. There's a ditch on both sides of the road and, you know, there are things that come up that are not foreseen that are understandable, and we can talk about those things. We can split -- you know, split the difference if we need to or eat it all. But July 23, 2024 Page 77 when it's not -- you know, when it's not our fault and it is basically whoever's providing the services fault, I'd like to see them own up to it and step up to the plate. But that's all I've got. I appreciate everybody. And with that, we are adjourned. ******* ****Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner LoCastro and carried that the following items under the consent and summary agendas be approved and/or adopted**** Item #16A1 APPROVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR MOORINGS PARK AT GRANDE LAKE EAST TRACT – PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, PL20230017409. (DISTRICT 4) - PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO HAS CONSTRUCTED THE SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Item #16A2 APPROVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BIG CYPRESS MARKET PLACE PHASE 3, PL20240005677. (DISTRICT 1) - THIS FINAL ACCEPTANCE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COLLIER COUNTY, ORDINANCE NO. 2004-31, AS AMENDED Item #16A3 July 23, 2024 Page 78 APPROVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ESPLANADE BY THE ISLANDS – PHASE 3B & 3D, PL20230016678. (DISTRICT 1) - THE VALUE OF THESE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES (ASSETS) WAS $197,407.26 AND $361,820.73 Item #16B1 AWARD ITB NO. 23-8188, “WEST VANDERBILT DRIVE SIDEWALK & LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS,” TO INFINITE CONSTRUCTION, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $389,171.98, APPROVE THE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $30,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 2) - THIS ITEM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COLLIER COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS AREA QUALITY OF PLACE AND THE OBJECTIVE TO SUPPORT AND ENHANCE OUR COMMITMENT TO ROBUST PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES Item #16B2 ACCEPT A DONATION OF 45 NATIVE PLANTS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S GUN RANGE FROM THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS, THE DONATING ORGANIZATION. (DISTRICT 5) - NBG HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE COUNTY ON NUMEROUS OTHER PROJECTS INCLUDING BEACH DUNE PLANTING, STORMWATER SWALES AND MEDIAN LANDSCAPING July 23, 2024 Page 79 Item #16C1 AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 24-8215, “HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT” TO US ECOLOGY TAMPA, INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR, AND CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., AS SECONDARY VENDOR, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED SERVICE AGREEMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) - ON FEBRUARY 16, 2024, THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION RELEASED NOTICES OF INVITATION TO BID NO. 24-8215, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT. THE COUNTY RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) BIDS BY THE MARCH 18, 2024, DEADLINE Item #16C2 AWARD A REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ”) UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 20-7800, THE “ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,” TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES, USA INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $708,826 FOR THE REHABILITATION PLANS FOR PUMP STATION 309.16 PROJECT. (PROJECT NUMBER 70240) (DISTRICT 4) - THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK UNDER PROJECT NUMBER 70240, “REHABILITATION PLANS FOR PUMP STATION 309.16,” IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FY2024 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BUDGET APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 Item #16C3 July 23, 2024 Page 80 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS THE EX- OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 23-8194R, “SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) FILTER MEDIA REPLACEMENT AND BLEND TANK PASSIVE RELIEF,” TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,075,430, APPROVE AN OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $100,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT. (PROJECT NUMBER 70136) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THIS ITEM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSET MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #11E (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16C5 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 22-8000, "QUICKLIME SUPPLY FOR COLLIER COUNTY" WITH LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF ALABAMA, LLC, TO INCREASE THE FEE SCHEDULE PRICE (EXHIBIT B1 OF AGREEMENT) AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT. (DISTRICT 3) - THE CURRENT AGREEMENT HAS ONE YEAR REMAINING OF THE INITIAL THREE-YEAR TERM, WITH TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR RENEWAL TERMS Item #16D1 A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER July 23, 2024 Page 81 COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., TO SATISFY THE HIPPA RULES TO ENSURE PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION IS APPROPRIATELY SAFEGUARDED TO REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AGREEMENTS. (NO FISCAL IMPACT) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THIS AGREEMENT PROVIDES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, PHYSICAL, AND TECHNICAL SAFEGUARDS, INCLUDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION (PHI) AND PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION (PII) AND THE PROVISIONS OF TRAINING ON SUCH FOR EMPLOYEES AND SUBRECIPIENTS Item #16D2 AMENDMENT #1 TO THE STATE MANDATED SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY TO REVISE EXHIBIT C TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL REPORTING MEASURES RELATED TO THE FLORIDA OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDING AND STATE MATCH REQUIREMENTS. (GRANT FUND 1806 AND GENERAL FUND 0001) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER (DLC) IS A NOT-FOR-PROFIT MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE FACILITY IN COLLIER COUNTY FUNDED, IN PART, VIA STATE CONTRACTS FOR THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES July 23, 2024 Page 82 Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 2024-137: APPROVE TECHNICAL REVISIONS AND CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022-2023, 2023-2024, AND 2024-2025 FOR (1) PURCHASE ASSISTANCE, (2) DISASTER ASSISTANCE, (3) NEW CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE, (4) RENTAL REHABILITATION AND (5) RENTAL ACQUISITION STRATEGIES; TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL FUNDING THROUGH THE HURRICANE HOUSING RECOVERY PROGRAM ALLOCATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,820, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENT (SHIP GRANT FUND 1053); AND TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION THAT (1) UPDATES PURCHASE ASSISTANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND DISASTER ASSISTANCE STRATEGIES, AND (2) REVISES THE PURCHASE ASSISTANCE, NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND DISASTER ASSISTANCE STRATEGIES AND CLARIFIES LANGUAGE TO THE RENTAL REHABILITATION AND RENTAL ACQUISITION STRATEGIES. (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (“LHAP”) IDENTIFIES VARIOUS METHODS, OR STRATEGIES, BY WHICH FUNDS WILL BE ALLOCATED AND DISBURSED Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 2024-138: A RESOLUTION TO (1) APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF THE REQUIRED ANNUAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS TO THE U.S. July 23, 2024 Page 83 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO CONTINUE RECEIVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS, AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAMS ENTITLEMENT FUNDS, (2) AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ASSOCIATED FORMS (INCLUDING SF-424 FOR FUNDING APPLICATIONS AND SF-425 FOR FUTURE GRANT CLOSEOUT), CERTIFICATIONS, ASSURANCES, AND FUTURE ENTITLEMENT AGREEMENTS UPON RECEIPT FROM HUD, AND (3) AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,656,506.65 FOR THE HUD PY 2024-2025 BUDGET AND 4) AUTHORIZE THE CONVERSION OF TEN (10) CURRENT TIME-LIMITED GRANT-FUNDED POSITIONS TO NON-TIME LIMITED TO SUPPORT HOUSING PROGRAMS. (HOUSING GRANT FUND 1835 AND HOUSING MATCH FUND 1836) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH ANNUAL ACTION PLANS, WHICH PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE ACTIVITIES AND SPECIFIC FEDERAL AND NON- FEDERAL RESOURCES THAT WILL BE USED EACH YEAR TO ADDRESS THE PRIORITY NEEDS AND SPECIFIC GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN Item #16D5 AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” SECOND AMENDMENT FOR THE HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., TO DECREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $21,000 FOR A NEW TOTAL OF $52,538, AND TO ACCORDINGLY July 23, 2024 Page 84 REVISE THE FUNDING SUMMARY (ATTACHMENT II), THE ANNUAL BUDGET SUMMARY (ATTACHMENT IX), AND EXTEND THE AGREEMENT BY 60 DAYS THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2024, VIA A SEPARATE LETTER. (HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUND 1837) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THESE GRANTS ARE FUNDED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS (DOEA) THROUGH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA (AAASWFL) Item #16D6 AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” SECOND AMENDMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT PROGRAM FOR COLLIER COUNTY’S SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM THAT REDUCES THE AWARD AMOUNT BY $100,000 TO A NEW TOTAL OF $971,000, TO ACCORDINGLY REVISE THE FUNDING SUMMARY (ATTACHMENT II), THE ANNUAL BUDGET SUMMARY (ATTACHMENT IX), AND EXTEND THE AGREEMENT BY 60 DAYS THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2024, VIA A SEPARATE APPROVAL LETTER. (HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUND 1837) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE GRANT IS FUNDED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS (DOEA) THROUGH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA (AAASWFL) Item #16D7 A DISTRIBUTION FROM THE ELIZABETH A. MCCARTHY LIVING TRUST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $238,500 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE COLLIER July 23, 2024 Page 85 COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES, TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AND COMPLETE ANY REQUIRED FORMS, AND TO AUTHORIZE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE FIRM REQUIRES THAT THE COUNTY APPROVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FUNDS AND CONFIRM THAT THE COUNTY WILL ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE TRUST AND COMMIT THE FUNDS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES Item #16E1 AN AMENDMENT TO EXTEND AGREEMENT # 18-7475 “FENCING INSTALLATION AND REPAIR SERVICES” WITH CARTER FENCE COMPANY, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME. (ALL DISTRICTS) - IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY AND CONTINUOUS OPERATIONS OF THOSE FACILITIES, THE COUNTY ISSUED A SOLICITATION TO QUALIFY A POOL OF VENDORS TO PERFORM NEW FENCING, GATE INSTALLATION, AND REPAIR SERVICES Item #16E2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2024 FISCAL YEAR PAY & CLASSIFICATION PLAN WHICH CONSIST OF TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS, THREE CLASSIFICATION TITLE CHANGES, AND REMOVAL OF ONE OBSOLETE CLASSIFICATION FROM APRIL 1, 2024, THROUGH JUNE 30, 2024 (ALL DISTRICTS) - PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 13- 40, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS July 23, 2024 Page 86 AUTHORIZED THE COUNTY MANAGER TO MAKE ADDITIONS, MODIFICATIONS AND DELETIONS TO THE ANNUAL FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN, SUBJECT TO RETROACTIVE RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD. THIS OCCURS THREE TIMES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR Item #16F1 THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE STATE-FUNDED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS ASSISTANCE (EMPA) AGREEMENT A0444 ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD TOTALING $105,806 FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (FDEM) FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT. (FUND 1833 PROJECT NO. 33920) (ALL DISTRICTS) - THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ADOPTED RULE 9G-19, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IN JANUARY 1994. THIS RULE ENABLES COUNTIES WITH FULL-TIME EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS TO RECEIVE MONIES TO ENHANCE EXISTING PROGRAMS BY PURCHASING ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, SERVICES, OR HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL Item #16F2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4, ADDING SEVEN DAYS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE AND UTILIZING $ 11,219.01 OF THE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE, AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 5, ADDING FIVE DAYS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE AND UTILIZING $ 6,473.50 OF THE July 23, 2024 Page 87 OWNER’S ALLOWANCE FOR PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500229878 UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 21-7883-ST WITH O-A- K/FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A OWEN-AMES-KIMBALL COMPANY FOR THE MAIN CAMPUS UPGRADES, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CHANGE ORDERS. (PROJECT NO. 50214) (DISTRICT 4) - THIS ITEM IS APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY AND REQUIRES MAJORITY VOTE FOR BOARD APPROVAL. -SRT Item #16F3 RESOLUTION 2024-139: A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,023,689.31 TOWARD EMS CAPITAL FUND (4055) REALLOCATING RESERVES TO FUND THE REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT PERSONAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) - ON NOVEMBER 14, 2017, THE BOARD APPROVED STANDARDIZATION OF STRYKER POWER PRO AMBULANCE COTS AND POWER STRETCHERS, AS THEY COMPLY WITH MANDATORY FEDERAL SPECIFICATION KKK-A 1822 STANDARDS (ITEM 16.E.3) Item #16F4 AWARD INVITATION FOR QUALIFICATION NO. 24-8231, “MOTOR OILS, LUBRICANTS, AND FLUIDS,” TO PALMDALE OIL COMPANY, LLC AND RELADYNE FLORIDA, LLC, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) - ON MARCH 14, 2024, THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION RELEASED NOTICES FOR INVITATION FOR QUALIFICATION NO. 24- 8231, MOTOR OILS, LUBRICANTS, AND FLUIDS July 23, 2024 Page 88 Item #16F5 RESOLUTION 2024-140: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ADOPTED BUDGET. (THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VIA SEPARATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES.) (ALL DISTRICTS) – BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, INSURANCE PROCEEDS, OR RECEIPTS FROM ENTERPRISE OR PROPRIETARY FUNDS THAT INCREASE THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OF A FUND OVER THE ADOPTED ANNUAL BUDGET MUST BE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item #16F6 A BUDGET AMENDMENT REALLOCATING $400,000 FROM PERSONNEL SERVICES TO OPERATING EXPENSES WITHIN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT COST CENTERS TO SUPPORT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AND OTHER COSTS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR COUNTY FACILITIES. (ALL DISTRICTS) - AS A RESULT OF THESE VACANCIES, PERSONNEL SERVICES SAVINGS CAN BE REALLOCATED TO FUND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES TO SUPPORT ONGOING CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AND OTHER COSTS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT COUNT FACILITIES July 23, 2024 Page 89 Item #16J1 TO RECORDED 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 IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,961,042.39 WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JUNE 27, 2024, AND JULY 10, 2024, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06. (ALL DISTRICTS) - IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES, CHAPTER 136.06(1), THE CLERK’S OFFICE REQUESTS THAT THESE LISTINGS BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item #16J2 APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JULY 17, 2024. (ALL DISTRICTS) - INVOICES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BOND PAYMENTS, UTILITIES FOR EXISTING COUNTY BUILDINGS, AND LEASE PAYMENTS FOR APPROVED LEASES ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THIS LIST IF THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD Item #16K1 THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED LINDA ONESKI V. COLLIER COUNTY, (CASE NO. 23-CA-557), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN July 23, 2024 Page 90 AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $15,145.10. (ALL DISTRICTS) - THIS LAWSUIT ARISES OUT OF AN ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 20, 2022, AT OR NEAR 9 WEST PELICAN STREET, ISLES OF CAPRI, IN COLLIER COUNTY WHERE THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT SHE TRIPPED AND FELL ON A DEVIATION BETWEEN TWO SIDEWALK PANELS ON A SIDEWALK OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY Item #17A RESOLUTION 2024-141: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS, AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY23-24 ADOPTED BUDGET. (THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VIA SEPARATE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES.) (ALL DISTRICTS) - CERTAIN BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT INCREASE THE TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OF A FUND OVER THE ADOPTED ANNUAL BUDGET MUST BE APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING July 23, 2024 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :07 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL CHRIS H L, CHAIRM N ATTEST RYSTAL1ZF ; E - to Ch it ,an's -rature only These minutes approv y the Board on _ /3 y© , as presented or as correcte TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 91