Agenda 08/13/2024 Item # 2B (July 9, 2024 BCC Minutes)08/13/2024
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 2.B
Doc ID: 29606
Item Summary: July 9, 2024, BCC Minutes
Meeting Date: 08/13/2024
Prepared by:
Title: Management Analyst II – County Manager's Office
Name: Geoffrey Willig
08/07/2024 11:05 AM
Submitted by:
Title: Management Analyst II – County Manager's Office
Name: Geoffrey Willig
08/07/2024 11:05 AM
Approved By:
Review:
County Manager's Office Geoffrey Willig County Manager Review Completed 08/07/2024 11:05 AM
Board of County Commissioners Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending 08/13/2024 9:00 AM
2.B
Packet Pg. 12
July 9, 2024
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 9, 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 9:00 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 (attending remotely)
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Burt L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT:
Amy Patterson, County Manager
Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk
July 9, 2024
Page 2
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good morning, everybody.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was here early; now I'm
late.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That's right. We'll let you come in.
I was going to tell a joke, then I decided not to, then I decided
to.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Come on.
CHAIRMAN HALL: You know, Commissioner Saunders, he
says that, you know, words matter. And when you say that, I think
about the couple that went to the counselor and they said, "Counselor,
we're not getting along."
And the counselor said, "What are you not getting along about?"
And he said, "Well, it's incompatibility. I lost my income, and
she lost her patability."
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is that a joke from personal
experience?
CHAIRMAN HALL: No.
MS. HALL: Watch it, Rick.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Dot -- no, Dot was over here
going, yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I have lost my income, but she's never
lost her patability.
Moving right along.
We'd like to do the prayer.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY PASTOR DAVID GEORGE, FIRST NAPLES
July 9, 2024
Page 3
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we have the invocation
by Pastor David George, First Naples, and followed by the pledge,
Richard Lee, U.S. Marine Corps sergeant, Purple Heart recipient, and
seven years of active duty, two tours in Vietnam.
PASTOR GEORGE: Let us pray.
Dear Lord, we come before you this morning humbly to ask
your blessing over this meeting. The Bible teaches us in Romans 13
that you have both ordained and established earthly governments for
our good and for your glory.
May these elected officials do just that: Do what is best for the
citizens of Collier County and bring you glory in their deliberations
and their decisions.
Please give each one of them the wisdom of Solomon, the
courage of David, and the humility of Jesus as they represent this
great county.
Furthermore, Lord, I pray for all those here who will have the
opportunity to share their thoughts and concerns, both positive and
negative. I pray they will have the courage to share calmly and that
they will feel that they have been heard. Please be merciful to us
sinners, Lord, for it is in the matchless name of Jesus, the only name
under heaven given among men by which we might be saved, that we
pray and make our petitions. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
MOTION ALLOWING COMMISSIONER KOWAL TO ATTEND
VIA ZOOM BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we have Commissioner
Kowal, who is participating by Zoom. So if we could get a motion
to allow his participation, please.
July 9, 2024
Page 4
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
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 (COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS
OPPOSED TO ITEM #16F5)
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
That brings us to changes for July 9th, 2024. Just one item to
correct: The placement of Item 16F6 should have been placed as
16L1. This is a recommendation to accept a donation of public art to
be installed in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area
parking lot at 3321 Bayshore Drive.
With that, there are no additional changes.
County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, ex parte
and -- disclosures on the summary and consent agenda or any further
changes.
July 9, 2024
Page 5
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No changes, no ex parte, but I would like to, on the consent
agenda, have it reflected that I have no vote on Item 16F5, which is
the budget amendments dealing with the transfer of funds from
Conservation Collier.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So noted.
Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Good morning. I have no
changes to the agenda, and I have no disclosures for consent or
summary, and no jokes. I have no jokes this morning.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Come on, come on, Commissioner
Kowal. Step it up.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning. I have no
changes, nor any ex parte.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same for me. No changes,
no ex parte.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No changes, no ex parte for me.
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?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
July 9, 2024
Page 6
Item #2B
JUNE 11, 2024, BCC MINUTES - MOTION TO APPROVE BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Item 2B is the Board minutes from
June 11th, 2024.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Motion and seconded. All in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #5A
ARTIST OF THE MONTH - AUDUBON CORKSCREW SWAMP
SANCTUARY
That brings us all the way to Item 5A, which is Artist of the
Month. If I can direct your attention to the back of the room, the
July Artist of the Month is the Audubon Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. Seventy years ago, brave voices in our community spoke
up to protect ancient trees from the threat of the axe and saw. The
Sanctuary protects more than 13,000 acres in Southwest Florida as a
July 9, 2024
Page 7
haven for plants, animals, and people in the heart of the Everglades
ecosystem.
The famous 2.25-mile boardwalk is an adventure through the
largest old growth bald cypress forest in North America. This
photography exhibit celebrates the past 70 years of conservation and
looks ahead to the next 70 years.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
With that, that brings us to Item 7, which is public comments on
general topics not on the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: We have one registered speaker at this time,
Dr. J.B. Holmes.
DR. HOLMES: Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioners. Chairman Hall, my name is
Holmes, Dr. J.B. Holmes. I'm back in regards to the VA nursing
home. No surprise.
I want to thank you, once again, for all the hard work you've
done on that, and, Commissioner Saunders, particularly I want to
note your hard work and dedication on that.
And I have recently been advised, Commissioner Saunders, that
men with white beards are the smartest, hardest working, best looking
men there are, okay? So we thought we'd get that one out of the
way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's another thing that
we --
DR. HOLMES: That was my attempt at a joke, Commissioner
Hall. So anyway -- well, that wasn't a joke. That was true.
July 9, 2024
Page 8
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was one of those
things -- another one of those things that you and I agree with.
DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Commissioner.
Now, in regards to the VA nursing home, following up on that, I
have been advised by the Department of Veterans Affairs that there is
no priority list. That priority list will not be released until after the
budget is released in October. So we don't know where we
stand -- where Collier County stands on that list. We know we are
competing against California and Texas. And that decision will not
be made by elected officials. That decision will be made by
Department of Veterans Affairs administration officials.
So -- and I've also been advised that in that budget, although
we're requesting 74 million, there's only available for new
construction of extended health -- extended care facilities
171 million. I looked at the budget myself, and it only shows
141 million.
So we need -- we would like to have 74 million, and we're
competing against two other states that are states that are larger and
maybe more influential.
In my discussions with the Department of Veterans Affairs and
with our congressman, they have requested that -- this is what my
request is to you today -- is that they would like to hear from public
officials, particularly Senator Rubio and Senator Scott. They want
to hear from public officials to be sure this is a -- because they don't
know the situation in detail in Collier County like we all do here.
So they want to hear from public officials to make sure this is an
important community project. So I'm asking you -- and I came in
with Crystal Kinzel today. Crystal Kinzel, all elected officials,
please, and all elected officials listening today, all elected officials
that we can contact, please contact Senator Rubio and Senator Scott
and advise them of our support -- advise them of our support for the
July 9, 2024
Page 9
Florida VA nursing home on the old Golden Gate Golf Course.
I will be back in the future. There's a confusion point on the
$20 million for the daycare center. I'd like to discuss that with you,
Commissioner Saunders, off the record.
Thank you very much, everyone.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Holmes.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 10.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I make a quick comment
on that?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Holmes, Sergeant
Holmes, J.B. Holmes, Commander Holmes of the VFW, just as a
sidenote -- and you know this already, but just for the record, one of
the reasons why all five of us went to Tallahassee earlier this year
was to do that very thing.
Now, our job's not done, but we did more than plant the seed.
We actually met personally with Senator Scott, and at the time,
Senator Rubio, I think, was out of the state, so we met -- but we met
with his key officials and went all the way down the line, even
through, you know, Congressman Donalds, and we hit all the main
offices and came with a stack of materials and everything.
So that's step one. That doesn't mean we're done. But we've
already, you know, planted -- more than planted the seed in person,
and I think every single office -- I don't want to say "I think." I
know every single office we walked into, the first thing they said is,
"All five commissioners are here?" And then we were with John
Mullins and his team and, you know, some of our key folks that are
on the Tallahassee staff.
We're going to -- we'll continue to do that, you know, as well,
because I think that was -- you know, that was one of the more
impressive things. And it might seem like it's just a glad-handing
July 9, 2024
Page 10
and a grip and grin, but as you know, relationships are everything.
And I don't know if people from California are doing that but, you
know, we pounded the pavement for two days in Tallahassee and
99 percent of what we were doing was the veterans nursing home.
So we'll continue that. You know, we'll follow John Mullins'
lead -- I don't know if I see him back there anywhere. Oh, there he
is. You know, if he thinks it's advantageous for us to go back up
there and maybe even bring some veterans with us. And even
though we sound like a broken record to some of those folks, we
want to be a little bit of a mosquito without being annoying. And
that trip was very successful.
And so we'll continue that as well. So I think if we're all
burning the candle at multiple ends, that's going to give us the best
chance to continue moving forward. So -- but I appreciate your
comments.
DR. HOLMES: Thank you for your --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But it's not lost on us. You
know, we'll keep doing the max of what we need to do.
And I just think in person's way -- we could all write letters.
You know, Senator Rubio's not going to read my letter. It's going to
sit in a box somewhere. When we walk in the office and all five of
us are in the waiting room -- and we did some of the key officials that
were there. We scheduled it because that's powerful. You know,
that's powerful. And they told us so.
Go ahead --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One other note, too. Just
because you don't see anything happening doesn't mean there isn't
anything happening. I mean, when we were in Washington, D.C., I
got a phone call from Mario Diaz-Balart's office, and the first
appropriation, the entire 9-million request, got through to the
subcommittee. Now it has to go to the big committee, and it has to
July 9, 2024
Page 11
go to Congress, and it has to get through the White House in order for
it to come through, but there are things that are transpiring even
though it doesn't look like there's anything transpiring.
I got that phone -- on a -- I think there was four appropriations
that were coming out of Diaz-Balart's office with regard to that
Everglades and I-75 and wastewater plant down in Everglades City.
So there's -- there's a lot more going on than just us, as he said, going
to Tallahassee and shaking hands. There's a lot of things -- a lot of
moving parts, Doc.
DR. HOLMES: I thank you for your support, and I appreciate
everything you're doing.
I notice you also have a white beard, so you're going to be in the
white beard club there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I was petting it
earlier, but you didn't acknowledge me, so...
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Dr. Holmes. I
agree with everything that's been said; that we are obviously making
that effort. I think what you're suggesting is a great idea. I think
that -- and we've always been talking about generating local support
for this project.
I've got a group of about 150 veterans that are part of a group
that are friends of the nursing home. The reason I mention that is I
think in order to be most effective, if you could have -- if we could
direct and request letters from elected officials to be addressed to the
Florida -- the federal Department of Veterans Affairs but to have
those letters delivered either to you or to me, and that way we can
collect letters, and then we can send them and make sure that they get
there in a package or, quite frankly, we can go up and hand deliver
them. Because I would agree with Commissioner LoCastro, they
start getting individual letters from, say, a council member from
July 9, 2024
Page 12
Marco Island, it's going to go in a box someplace. The senator or the
congressman is not going to see that.
But if we have a collection of letters, and we go up and we hand
deliver them and say, "Listen, we have tremendous support. Here
are the letters that have been drafted of local officials" and hand
deliver those, I think that would be effective.
And so I'll put the word out if you'll put the word out. Have
them draft letters, have them delivered to either you or to me, and
then we'll set up a time to go back up to Washington and show the
community support.
DR. HOLMES: I'd be happy to join you as postal carrier,
Commissioner -- Commissioners. So, again, I thank you very much.
And just so you know, Commissioner Daniels [sic], when you
were up in Washington, D.C., and you made all those visits, one of
you sent me a collection of pictures, great pictures of your visits. I
posted them on Facebook. Facebook took them down as -- on
dishonest information or untruthful information. So I just wanted
you to know that.
So thank you for -- thank you very much. And, Commissioner
Saunders, I'll work with you on that letter.
Thank you very much.
Item #10A
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR
A PARTIAL REFUND OF $141,540.90 FOR FUNDS RECEIVED
TO RELEASE A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $167,500 IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. KRISTA L. IRIZARRY AND MARCIAL
July 9, 2024
Page 13
JOHN IRIZARRY, RELATING TO PREVIOUSLY OWNED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 105 16TH ST. SE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO RETAIN
$50,000 WITH AN ADJUSTMENT A PARTIAL REFUND OF
$117,500 BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KOWAL – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10A.
This is a recommendation to provide additional information to the
Board of County Commissioners regarding the request for a partial
refund of $141,540.90 for funds received to release a code
enforcement lien with an accrued value of $167,500 in the code
enforcement action titled "Board of County Commissioners versus
Krista L. Irizarry and Marcial John Irizarry," relating to previously
owned property located at 105 16th Street, Collier County, Florida.
This item was brought to the agenda originally at Commissioner
McDaniel's request and then the concurrence of the Board.
And Mr. Iandimarino is here to present and/or answer questions
at the Board's pleasure.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Good morning. Tom Iandimarino,
Code Enforcement director.
This item was brought by Commissioner McDaniel to ask for
additional information. We've provided some additional
information. Obviously, Mr. Irizarry is -- Mr. and Mrs. Irizarry is
asking for a lump sum of their money back from code liens that
started back in 2010 and went all the way through 2016.
Mr. Irizarry applied for code lien relief, as per the resolution
from last year. He applied for a code lien relief in August -- or July
of 2023 and ended up selling his house prior to being eligible for a
code lien relief.
Since then, he has done quite a bit of work to push us into giving
July 9, 2024
Page 14
his money back. And I said, "Sir, I don't have a means to do that.
The Board resolution pretty much states that I can't give you your
money back. It's up to the Board to make that decision."
So it's up to you guys to make that decision. The information
that was provided to you is there. If you have questions, please ask
away.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right. I'll go first.
This is not a new subject for us. He's e-mailed -- I've seen you
all being copied on the e-mails that have come forward.
There's a lot of extenuating circumstances. I personally don't
feel good about taking 167,000 from somebody because of
technically -- because of a technicality at the end of the day.
There were a lot of family issues. There were a lot of health
issues with the family. He had financial issues that forced him to
have to sell his home, and that happened in the middle of the process
while -- Commissioner LoCastro, which I support your enhancement
of the code enforcement regulations and enhancement of the fines
and so on and so forth. Mr. Irizarry got caught in the middle, for
lack of a better term.
And so I think a fair way -- this is what the proposition is.
We've been -- we've been liening on the 10 percent of the appraised
value as the ultimate fee, and that is the difference between the
167,5- and the proposal to reimburse him. The lien was out there in
and in effect and was taken out of the proceeds of his sale. And
so -- and we don't really have a process to go back and refund that.
So this was the only real way that I could come up with to
actually make that happen.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So he wouldn't be paying
zero. He'd be paying the difference of 167,141. So math in head,
July 9, 2024
Page 15
26 grand, basically?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 16,000, I think, is the --
MR. IANDIMARINO: It's the 25-, 26,000, roughly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're correct. I'm sorry.
My math was off. It's about 25- -- about 25-, 26,000.
MR. IANDIMARINO: That would be the 10 percent of the
appraised value at the time of his application in August -- or July of
last year.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, initially when I saw
this yesterday, I didn't see that -- or maybe I didn't -- I didn't put two
and two together that it was the difference of the two, so I wasn't
supportive of the going from 167- to zero, you know.
And one of the things I said when I made the proposal to tighten
up fines, except in extenuating circumstances -- and, you know, you
filled in a little bit more of the blanks than what was, you know, on
here, and I didn't dig deeper. I figured we're talked about it here.
But that's what I was looking for was something in the middle.
You know, what we've told the Code Enforcement Board is if
someone owes us 167,000 -- in the past, you know, once they cut the
tree and fix the fence, then it went to zero, but realistically, you
know, the fine was there for a reason. And so if there's extenuating
circumstances, that's what we want to hear.
But, you know, I get worried about precedent. Everybody
comes in here and they have a, you know, extenuating circumstance,
and sometimes it's hard to fish through that. It helps when a
commissioner maybe knows the case personally and can say, "No,
this isn't a guy crying wolf" or whatnot.
I was hoping that the part in the middle would be a little bit
more than just the difference, because that's a big jump -- or a big
savings to him, but, you know, I don't know how the other, you
know, commissioners feel. I was kind of on the fence about this
July 9, 2024
Page 16
one, and even when I hear it's 26K, that's a big discount.
Because one thing we have to remember, this is taxpayer dollars,
so this isn't -- you know, we're not -- yeah, we're penalizing him, but
then this is money that he owes the county. It's not that, you know,
we billed him for no reason. I mean, do you have anything more to
add, Tom?
MR. IANDIMARINO: I do, Commissioner. You know, the
case started in 2010. He had numerous opportunities to come into
compliance. He didn't come into compliance until after about 60
inspections by the code inspectors going out there and repeatedly
going to the property, up until 2016 when a code enforcement officer
identified that the vehicles that were in violation are finally gone off
the property, and we notified him that he's now no longer in
abatement -- no longer in violation.
So staff did a lot of work on this property, and we didn't hear
anything from him until July of 2023.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: See, and that's the part I
focus on. It's, like, to me -- and this may be a -- maybe not the
perfect example, so I'll make a more generic statement. When we do
things like this and make, you know, 200,000 go to zero or 200,000
go to 10- and the staff has done an unbelievable amount of work
during these extenuating circumstances, I think it's really
disrespectful to our county staff to just say, "Hey, thanks for going
out there 50 times, but in the end, you know, the guy didn't have to
pay anything because, you know, he filed a complaint or something."
And like you said, maybe this one's a little bit -- you know, this
one does have maybe -- that's what we're trying to figure out. How
extenuating are the circumstances?
But one of the things that I had heard from you and your team is,
you know, this wasn't one that just slipped under the radar. And,
you know, sometimes we have fines that are -- you know, are adding
July 9, 2024
Page 17
up automatically, and the person's trying to do all they can, or the
staff dropped the ball or something like that, so it's sort of an artificial
fine. I had heard this was one that staff had really worked hard to try
to work with him, even during the extenuating circumstances.
So I have a little bit of a problem, you know, giving him a
gigantic discount and then telling the staff, "Hey, thanks for your
attempts and everything," especially when it goes back that far. If
this is one that got really sloppy in the last six months -- but this
thing's been sitting on the -- you know, no disrespect to
Commissioner McDaniel or his constituent, but, you know, I sort of
look at this and go, these come before us quite often and the
precedent of -- if you told me, you know, the staff didn't really do all
that much, we went out there once, then we forgot about it, it fell
through the crack and this and that, it's like, okay, it sounds like some
of the extenuating circumstances are on our side.
It sounds like we spent a lot of taxpayer, you know, salaries to
get our staff on top of this one, and, you know, I think part of the fine
is to reimburse those efforts of our staff.
So I don't think this is one I can support at 26K. You know, I
was -- you know, something sort of more in the middle and sort of
split the difference or whatever, but, you know, just, you know,
taking the appraisal fee, subtracting the amount, and it's like, "Hey,
thanks." I mean, I think that spits in the face of the county staff
when you do that, especially when you guys have worked so hard to
try to address this one.
But that's just me. I mean, I don't know. Does this take a
supermajority vote, or -- it just takes a majority.
MR. KLATZKOW: Three.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So I have a problem with it.
And I like to be consistent in my votes. If this was someone in my
own district, I'd be making the same speech.
July 9, 2024
Page 18
So, you know, in the extenuating circumstances he gets a
discount, but this one, to me, is a little bit more major. So I can't
support it at 26,000, or whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
If you could go through just for a few moments what would
have been the normal process to have the fines abated. And first let
me start with that: What would have been the normal process?
MR. IANDIMARINO: The normal process, he would apply for
code lien and relief, he would have been in compliance with the
resolution. He would have had all of his open permits on the
property, which he still did have at the time, up until May of just, you
know, two months ago when they finally closed out the last permit.
Had he been in complete compliance with everything and had he
been able to apply for the resolution, the 26,000 would have been the
ultimate number, and it probably would have gone to consent, and
you guys would have walked away with this, you know, a few
months ago.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. If he had done -- if
he had gone through the process, the staff's recommendation,
pursuant to our ordinance, would have been a $26,000 fine based on
the fair market value of the property at the time?
MR. IANDIMARINO: The assessed value of the Property
Appraiser at the time, which was the 25- number, the 26- number that
you're discussing, correct.
Now, the other issue is is that Mr. and Mrs. Irizarry apparently
purchased this home, you know, in 2005, I suspect with a code
violation on it that we didn't know about it. When he sold this
house, he sold the house stating that the house has current code
violations because it has a garage -- an unattached garage that's been
illegally converted into living space. That has never been permitted
July 9, 2024
Page 19
in the first place.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hang on one second, Tom.
And, Commissioner Kowal, if you'll mute yourself.
You're -- we're back-feeding. We're hearing it coming through on
you.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't want to
be slow like I was last time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all right. We'll let
you catch up.
MR. IANDIMARINO: So part of the reason that the -- that
they never were able to apply for the code lien relief is because there
is an outstanding permit on a solar installation on the unpermitted
garage conversion, okay.
So at this point in time -- when he sold the house, actually listed
in the MLS that we're going to -- you know, this house is being sold
with an unpermitted garage version. And since we found out about
this whole process, we opened up a code case on the unpermitted
garage conversion on the current new owners of the property, and
they're working through that code case as we go through it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So from your understanding
of all of the facts, he didn't conceal the fact that there were code
violations when he sold the property and -- first of all, is that correct?
MR. IANDIMARINO: From what I understand, he did not
conceal that to the current owners when he conveyed it to the new
property owners.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if he went through the
process today, the fine would have been $26,000 because of the
safety value on the property. So we're not treating him any
differently than if he had come here five years ago with this.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Well, the resolution was different -- the
resolution just came out in May of last year. So prior to the
July 9, 2024
Page 20
resolution --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Well, then we're
getting to a point where I wanted to get to.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want to make sure we're
not treating him any differently than we would have treated him at
that time. And so that's -- my question is, what would have -- what
would have been the process if he had done this in a timely fashion,
and what would the fine have been if he did that in a timely fashion?
MR. IANDIMARINO: Yeah, I can't estimate what the fine
would have been, because that was a negotiated amount between the
code enforcement director and the individual -- and the homeowner at
the time, which was why the resolution was passed last year, to take
that off of the Code Enforcement and put it on the Board to make
sure that 10 percent across -- or 20 percent, depending on --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Well, then let me ask
you a little bit different way, then. Based on your knowledge of
everything that's transpired from the time that this code violation was
noted to today, with the changes in the ordinance, what is your
recommendation?
MR. IANDIMARINO: My recommendation would have been,
had he been in compliance, to do the 26,000 and be done with it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So we're not
treating him any differently if we -- in your view, if we do that today?
MR. IANDIMARINO: Mr. Commissioner, I think that --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think things have changed
a little bit.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Right. You know, because of the
conversations that we've had with him and our staff has had with him
stating, "Sir, you need to contact an attorney. Don't just go ahead
and sell this house right now, because this resolution is here." We
July 9, 2024
Page 21
advised him to talk to counsel on his own to make sure that he's
following his protocol so he protects himself.
He never did that. He just sold the property on his own free
will hoping that he can get his money back on the back end.
And I said, "Sir, I can't promise you that. You need to contact
your counsel, make determinations on your own," and now he's
asking for forgiveness on all that in the back end. And --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think I -- I'm going to listen
to some more discussion, but I think I kind of agree with the
recommendation to reduce the fine. We've had the use of his -- of
those funds for -- how many years have we had those funds?
MR. IANDIMARINO: The check was cashed in September of
last year.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. We've had the use of
those funds for a year. That gives us some benefit; 4 percent,
3 percent, whatever. And I don't think we're going to be treating him
differently than we would if he was here today with a brand-new
violation.
And so I want to listen to what everybody else has to say, but I
think I'm okay with this.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I have a question for you, Tom.
Did -- Mr. Irizarry, did he build -- he did not build the detached
garage, but did he make it living quarters?
MR. IANDIMARINO: I don't believe he did. He says that he
purchased the garage already converted.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Now, he did add the solar panels and
that system to it, and he put a new roof on it, and, you know, he had
permits for the new roof. He had permits for the solar panel. He
put a new roof on the primary residence, and he had a permit for that
at the same time, so, you know --
July 9, 2024
Page 22
CHAIRMAN HALL: So was he -- was the only violation the
stuff in the yard?
MR. IANDIMARINO: The nuisance abatement. All the
unlicensed, unregistered vehicles and a bunch of stuff in the yard,
some boats and stuff. You know, he actually -- he had gotten rid of
a few things to begin with, but there were still a handful of things that
he just didn't part with.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I mean, I understand hardship, but I don't
understand hardship for six years.
And is there something in the ordinance that says if it's ongoing,
it's not 10 percent, it's 20 percent?
MR. IANDIMARINO: That's if it's multiple violations that
have been repeat violations, and this doesn't -- it was just one
violation. It wasn't --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. I just remembered something
about that. That's what I wanted to ask about.
MR. IANDIMARINO: You're close but -- right on.
CHAIRMAN HALL: And it's a tough situation for me
because, at the same time, we have an ordinance that says the
10 percent. But I don't want people out there thinking that "we can
just do what we want to do because in the end it's only going to cost
us 10 percent."
You know, if -- sin has consequences and so does breaking the
law, and I don't want to -- you know, I do have compassion, and I'm
not leaning one way or the other. I just want to make some
comments about my thoughts.
If we give him -- you know, if we take $26,000, that's a pretty
big sting. How much of the 167,000 was actually penalties, like the
$100-a-day stuff?
MR. IANDIMARINO: 167,000.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So it was just because of time, not
July 9, 2024
Page 23
because of --
MR. IANDIMARINO: Correct. He failed to come into
compliance for six years, and it was the accumulation of that
$100-a-day for six years.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I mean, that's a lot of money. $100 a
day is a lot of money, so...
MR. IANDIMARINO: And he was -- when he came to hearing
to the Code Enforcement Board, he was granted -- he asked for an
extension of time to come into compliance. The board gave him 180
days, six months, to come into compliance, and he still didn't come
into compliance at that time after coming to a board hearing, you
know. So in my opinion, he knew --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Oh, sure, he knew.
MR. IANDIMARINO: -- what everything was. And, you
know, he just -- and then after he came into -- after compliance hit in
2016, he had until 2023 to try to close the case out and pay off
whatever fines he could, and he negotiated what he could at that time.
Only until he sold the house is when he started asking for
forgiveness.
CHAIRMAN HALL: And he sold the house, and the new
people, they bought it knowing that they had an issue with it, so it's
not like --
MR. IANDIMARINO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALL: It's not like he just sold his problem.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Correct. He sold the home. He
disclosed, as required by law, that there were code violations on the
house, that it was an unpermitted build-out garage -- unattached
garage, so they bought knowing what they were buying.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let me -- let me help you a
July 9, 2024
Page 24
little bit. This is -- this is one that got caught in the middle. There
were extenuating circumstances. I haven't gone into all of the detail.
You don't get to pick and choose when you sell your house. When
you're in a tight, you've got to sell your house, and you got to sell
your house when the buyer's standing there wanting to buy the house.
You don't necessarily have time to go get legal counsel and figure out
all of the stuff.
The lien is real. We collected the funds.
Commissioner LoCastro, if it weren't for you, he would be
getting off for court costs, 1800 bucks. That's an insult to our staff.
That -- what was happening in the past was an insult to our staff and
our taxpayers for the expenditure of the tax funds and the time that
we spent taking care of these things.
So if it hadn't have been for you, we'd be riding along taking
$1800 from somebody like this, and that would be it. And that's
about what it was -- I mean, I settled I don't know how many
outstanding code compliance issues before Tom came along for a
couple thousand dollars, 180-, $200,000 in compliance issues that
somebody got cited on and never did.
The other extenuating fact that you have to remember is in
Golden Gate Estates, especially in Rural Golden Gate Estates, what I
do within the four corners of my piece of property is my business and
you, the government, had not to be coming in there. If I decide I
want to keep unregistered vehicles on my property, I'm going to do it.
It's not right. It's outside of the ordinance. It's outside of the
laws of our community, but there is an attitude out there.
Then we get into the unpermitted living structure that was there.
How many of them are out there? My goodness. I report -- I report
a camper a week that somebody's illegally non -- non -- I don't want
to say -- well, it is illegal. It's against our ordinance. You're not
allowed to rent a camper in Golden Gate Estates.
July 9, 2024
Page 25
So Mr. Irizarry knew he was in violation, didn't take care of it.
There were health issues that I don't really want to get into here.
There were extenuating circumstances that were, in fact, going on.
And I think had he not had to sell his house because of an illness and
the financial constraints that were put upon him, he would have went
through the normal process. We would have -- we would have -- we
would have treated him equally, as we are now, for the 10 percent of
the assessed valuation, and this would have -- as Tom said, this
would have been under the consent agenda.
There were extenuating circumstances that caused him to have
to sell, that caused us to then collect on the lien.
So, again, I'm not -- I'm not lobbying for someone who has
effectively broken our laws. What I'm doing is trying to treat
everyone equally, thanking Commissioner LoCastro for moving us to
the place where we are now where there is some teeth in our codes
and in our ordinances, which it needs to, in fact, be, and cure an ill
that transpired because of circumstances outside of our normal
control.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
When I read this particular item on the agenda, it struck me -- it
was different than what we typically see here. I know I've only been
here the second -- this is my second year on the Board. But in the
past we've always seen these come before us was when the new
owner had purchased the property and is looking for a, you know,
lenience on this because they weren't the one that actually caused the
issue or had the issues with the county, it was the prior owner, and
they're just trying to make theirself whole and fix the problems and
try to get a discount on what transpired.
But this was unique. I mean, I understand, you know, my
colleague talking about illnesses and situations, personal life
July 9, 2024
Page 26
situations. I don't know that -- Tom, if you correct me if I'm wrong.
I mean, it seems like for six years they've been -- somebody must
have turned them in at one point for having these unregistered
vehicles. And then, of course, the county and county Code
Enforcement did their job. They went out and investigated the
complaint and found violations.
And from what I understand, all this -- this $167,000 is just
because he had a bunch of unregistered cars on his property. And
you guys know me, this might sound harsh, but just because of your
ZIP code doesn't make you -- you're above the law, all right. You
know, we all have to stay within the lines, or we have chaos.
I don't know if he's been sick for six years. I don't know the
personal issues, but he could have got a tow truck there a long time
ago and took care of this problem when he was asked to do it.
And I think the property was purchased in 2005; am I correct?
MR. IANDIMARINO: I believe so, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So he sold it in 2023. So I
could probably guarantee he made a heck of a profit on that property,
regardless of advertising the code violations to the new seller. It's
almost like he, like, kind of snubbed his nose to us until the end and
now he's, like, saying, "Well, I want to make my full profit on my
property that I got diminished because I had to advertise it as having
code liens," and that's on him. That's totally on him and no one else.
He had six years to fix it, and he just chose not to.
So I'm kind of like with Commissioner LoCastro. I'm not
happy -- I'm not satisfied with the $25,959.10. I think this -- this
probably requires a little more of a lesson because it just -- you know,
I lived out in the Estates when I first moved over 20 years ago to
Collier County. I had a two-and-a-half-acre lot way out on 56th Ave
Northeast. But you know what, if I did something wrong or I was
turned in by Code Enforcement because my boat didn't have its
July 9, 2024
Page 27
registration on it, you know what? I fixed it. You know, I took care
of the problem before it became a problem. So that's just what
you're supposed to do.
And, you know, I'm not going to make excuses, but I'm pretty
sure when he sold this house, he had an opportunity to sell it
before -- and I don't know the circumstances, but, you know, you're
saying a guy's standing before him wanting to buy the house, you've
got to buy it -- you've got to sell it right now. You know, I don't
know if that's the -- that even comes into play here when you have six
years to rectify the problem.
I mean, I know it would have been a lot cheaper to hire a tow
truck to come in and drag them cars out of there than getting fined
$100 a day. Then after the fact, you didn't make a big enough profit
on the sale of your house, now you want to get your money back.
So I don't know. I'm not -- I'm not comfortable with the
25,959. I think there's another number, maybe, but that's the way I
feel.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
I'll just add a couple fine points as to why I'm still not
comfortable with it.
First of all, the length of time. You know, if it was a tighter
time frame where he's sick and, you know, everything was more
compressed. But, you know, Commissioner Kowal said it better
than me; you know, you make a phone call. You get a tow truck,
you know, you do it.
I think he knew he was always going to sell the property. And
we said when we put more teeth in the ordinance, you can't unload
the property for sale and then all of a sudden -- even if you advertise
it, the new owner says, "Oh, it wasn't my problem," and the old
owner says, "Well, it is what it is."
July 9, 2024
Page 28
I can appreciate what Commissioner McDaniel is saying is that
the unique attitude of some of the people in Golden Gate. The
reality is, it doesn't supersede the law. So, you know, if I had a
unique attitude in East Naples, I'd still be on the hook for this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You do have a unique
attitude.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, and I would still pay.
The one thing I'll correct you with, Tom, if 26K was on the
consent agenda, it wouldn't automatically be approved, and the
reason being is I would have pulled it off. So the consent agenda
isn't rubber stamp approval, as you know. And I know you weren't
inferring that.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Understood. Understood.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But we would still be talking
about it because it would have jumped out at me as, you know, hey,
another person who sold their home is looking for a discount.
And like Commissioner Kowal said, he may have a hardship and
health and whatnot, but I bet he profited handsomely from the
property.
The 10 percent also, that's not an automatic. That's a guideline.
We can negotiate anything. And so when someone owes us half a
million dollars, even though the 10 percent is in there as a guideline,
it comes to the Board because we could say, well, you know, the
situation wasn't that extenuating -- circumstances weren't that unique
or extenuating. And so, you know, the 10 percent is a drop in the
bucket for this.
I'll just go on record and say, I'm not going to vote for this for
anything under 50K. I think it should be twice the 25 and change.
So 50K, I'd sleep better at night and feel like the taxpayers got their
money back and we were consistent to send a message that says,
"You know what, when you kind of move slow and, you know, your
July 9, 2024
Page 29
grass is too long or the cars don't get moved or whatever" -- and, you
know, we weren't asking him to build the Empire State Building or to
remove it. These were things that could have been fixed in six years.
We set a really bad precedent if -- you know, if we just default
to the 10 percent and go, great, wonderful, because I think you're
going to be at this podium multiple times from people that all have
the same view.
And I'm not here to ask you, you know, your opinion. This is
the vote of the Board, so I wouldn't put you in the spot and say,
"What should we do?"
I just want you to tell us the facts, and you've outlined the facts,
which were the length of time and, you know, this wasn't something
that was an over-the-top fix type of thing.
So if somebody made a motion and said to collect -- and I'd even
make it. I'll agree to 50,000, not a penny less, and if there's a motion
that it's going to be 49,9-, it won't get my vote. And I think that's
still fair. He still gets a discount. He can pay for it with the profits
of his property, and, you know, I do think he could have taken care of
this way, way, in advance, and that's the whole -- that's the whole
message of us tightening up, you know, this ordinance.
So I guess, unless somebody has other comments, I'll make a
motion that we reduce his fee to 50,000 even, and I would approve
that.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: And I will second it and just to
say, he's -- you know, the system already worked. At closing, they
withheld this money and gave the money to the county, so it's not like
he's -- you know, he's going to keep it. We still have to cut him a
check now for $50,000 from the taxpayers' money.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Correction. I think the -- just to
confirm, your motion is to retain 50,000 and return the remaining.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Return less, yeah.
July 9, 2024
Page 30
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'm going to trust your judgment from
the personal -- from the personal information that you have. I know
that you wouldn't be -- you wouldn't be so passionate about it
wasn't -- if there wasn't some truth to it, but at the same time, I don't
want to sting this guy for $167,000, and I'm going to agree with the
50-.
I think he would have had time. You know, people do what
they want to do. And in hindsight, looking back, it's easy. I don't
doubt that there was extenuating circumstances. I don't doubt that he
had to sell his house. I don't doubt that he had health issues, but for
six years -- and during the problem I think that there was some effort
he could have had to take care of those things.
And I'm going to agree with the 50,000. I think that's enough to
make a statement, not only to him but to the public coming forward.
If you have code -- if you have code things, no matter what's going
on in your life, you can make a phone call, a text, you can do
something to let us know that you're trying.
And with that, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's me.
If it's the will of the Board for 50,000, it's the will of the Board.
I can count noses. I'm not -- again, I'm not going to sit over here and
lobby for somebody who wasn't complying with our code. Right
now Mr. Irizarry loses $167,500. It's already gone. So giving
back --
CHAIRMAN HALL: 117- --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- minus the 50- is
something.
I can share with you -- and, again, I'm not lobbying for anything
other than -- I can share with you there were health circumstances,
not only his own but his family. There were financial circumstances
that caused duress with his father, things that he had to take -- and,
July 9, 2024
Page 31
again, these aren't excuses.
Commissioner Kowal, you -- we've all been there. How easy
would it be to get a wrecker to come and take care of your stuff?
Bottom line, the motion's made, 50-. I think we've belabored this
circumstance long enough.
So I -- I think, because of the extenuating circumstances,
because had he not got caught in having to sell his house when he
sold his house because of the financial duress and the illness that was
going on with his family, he would have got dinged for the
10 percent, and this would have been on down the road, which was
the avenue that I was coming back with here.
But, you know, we can all sit around and talk about what we
would have done if we would have done it, but -- and if you
think -- again, right now, he's out 167,5-. So if it's the will of the
Board to do -- and, again -- if it's the will of the Board to do the 50-,
let's giddy up.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Just two quick
points.
I agree with the $50,000. I think that that's a fair number, but I
will say that I will always ask staff for their opinion. I may not
always agree with it. But we have a professional staff, and I rely on
your opinion. So it's not just simply asking your opinion and going
along with it without any questioning of it. So I don't mind putting
you on the spot. I will always do that.
MR. IANDIMARINO: Well, okay, I guess I'll answer it, then.
My opinion is that staff did a lot of work on this over the years.
Staff advised Mr. Irizarry of what he should and shouldn't do.
Contact counsel. An attorney's not that expensive when it comes to
167,000 if you're just asking for a couple hours of advice. And if
he -- you know, to me, he didn't do that. He relied on the generosity
July 9, 2024
Page 32
of county staff to hope that he would be able to get something on the
back end, and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And he is.
MR. IANDIMARINO: And I get that, but, you know, as I
would, I would impose the 167,500 as I would any other case that we
had for the Code Enforcement Board or before the Special
Magistrate. I would do the same for you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. So we have a motion and a
second to withhold the 50,000 and to return the 117- and change. So
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.)
MR. IANDIMARINO: Thank you.
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 2024-135: ADOPT A RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF THOSE FEE
SIMPLE AND EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXTENSION OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM 16TH STREET NE TO
EVERGLADES BOULEVARD. (PROJECT NO. 60249).
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $17,195,000. (JAY AHMAD,
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DIVISION DIRECTOR)
July 9, 2024
Page 33
(ALL DISTRICTS) –MOTION TO APPROVE BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to
Item 11A. This is a recommendation to approve and adopt a
resolution authorizing the condemnation of those fee simple and
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway drainage
and utility improvements required for the extension of Vanderbilt
Beach Road from 16th Street Northeast to Everglades Boulevard.
Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Transportation Engineering division
director, is here to present or answer questions.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Jay Ahmad with Transportation Engineering for the record.
I'd be happy to present or answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I think we understand it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. It seemed like a
no-brainer after --
CHAIRMAN HALL: And just to clarify, this is just something
that is going to establish our right to condemn property. It's not our
intent to do that. But this is just a formality that says that if we get
to that point, then we can.
MR. AHMAD: That's correct, sir. Yes, sir. We have about
five to six months to continue negotiating with the property owners
and to meet project schedule by late next year, 2025. We would
have to get into litigation and through our County Attorney and the
court system.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, do you have a picture?
MR. AHMAD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just to -- and, again, we're all
July 9, 2024
Page 34
extremely familiar with the grid system that's going on in Eastern
Collier County, the interchange efforts at Everglades and I-75, the
lack of grid system that this community's had for 20 years. And this
is -- to us, this is semantics. This is us setting up the precedent. We
approved this 17-some-odd million two months ago to move forward
with the right-of-way acquisitions. This just sets the -- this just sets
the stage for the acquisition in the event that there's litigation.
And it's important that people actually know about this. I was
listening to the radio this morning, and, you know, there were a
couple of people that were calling in and chirping about the growth
and the lack of infrastructure, but they're not really aware of what's,
in fact -- what's, in fact, going on, that we do now have a grid system
that's in place, that we do now have a plan within our Long-Range
Transportation Plan itself that delineates how we're going to be able
to move people around better.
So I just -- thank you for showing the picture.
I'll make a motion for approval because, again, we're all aware
it's semantics. But I just -- I wanted to say out loud that there is a
plan that is, in fact, going on. And this -- by having this mechanism
in place, this allows us to move into litigation/condemnation in the
event that we run into a property owner that's not interested in
negotiating fairly.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. And as you know, the Vanderbilt
Beach Road extension Phase 1, which, from Collier to 16th, is under
construction, and we hope to be done by late 2025 or so. And so this
will be a continuation of that all the way to Everglades Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So we had a motion. Do we have a
second?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: We have a motion and a second. All in
July 9, 2024
Page 35
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you.
Item #11B
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING
FOR THE INCORPORATION, BY REFERENCE, THE IMPACT
FEE STUDY; AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 1, 2024, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN
SECTION 163.31801(4)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REVISED DEFINITIONS AND UPDATE OF
THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE ADOPTION AND
COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES. (JOE BELLONE, DIRECTOR
UTILITIES FINANCE) (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION WITH
SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO BRING THIS ITEM
BACK FOR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL;
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to
Item 11B. This is a recommendation to authorize the County
July 9, 2024
Page 36
Attorney to advertise for future consideration an ordinance amending
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
which is the Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance,
providing for the incorporation, by reference, the impact fee study;
amending the water and wastewater impact fee rate schedule;
providing for an effective date of December 1st, 2024, in accordance
with the 90-day notice requirement set forth in
Section 163.31801(4)(D), Florida Statutes; and providing for revised
definitions and updates of the provisions related to the adoption and
collection of impact fees.
Mr. Joe Bellone, your director of utilities finance, is here to
begin the presentation.
MR. BELLONE: Thank you, County Manager.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Bellone,
director of Utilities Finance.
Today I'm going to give you an overview of our most recent
water/sewer impact fee study and discuss the role that impact fees
play related to the provision of new capacity expansion. The utilities
expansion plans are aligned with the strategic objective to plan and
build public infrastructure to effectively, efficiently, and sustainably
meet the needs of our community.
This study is based -- has a basis in the 2023 AUIR, which
included capacity expansion dictated by population growth using the
BEBR numbers and the Interactive Growth model.
The agenda today includes the topics you see on the slide that
are related to the water and wastewater impact fee rate study that was
completed by Raftelis, our rate consultants. I have Justin Rasor
here.
There we go. Okay.
Justin Rasor is here from Raftelis today, should have you any
questions at the end of the presentation.
July 9, 2024
Page 37
And, again, the purpose today is to convey to you, the governing
board of the Water/Sewer District, and to the constituents and anyone
listening, about the critical nature of this study and the fiscal
sustainability of the utility into the future to meet expected demand
for utility services that growth is creating.
There we go.
The purpose of impact fees. These were water and sewer, our
last updated. The rate study was updated in 2019. They had an
effective date of March of 2020. Impact fees are updated regularly.
We try to do that every three years or whenever business conditions
warrant.
Impact fees have historically supported the policy of growth
paying for growth where legally permitted. This study includes the
current local construction costs, updating those from four years ago.
We all know what happened in the last four years. And those meet
the impact fee guidelines for using the nexus for using local data.
We all know that water and wastewater capacity must be
designed and constructed in advance of a demand, and to do that the
utility must bond these projects to ensure that the appropriate funding
is in place. Due to the long lead times for design and construction of
these capacity projects, impact fee rate study includes a 10-year
capital planning horizon to ensure that the funding's in place timely.
It's slow today. Excuse me, Commissioners.
Let's talk just a bit about Enterprise Fund revenues. The
Water/Sewer District -- and I'll refer to them as "the district" from
time to time -- is an enterprise fund, and as such, there are no General
Fund or tax revenues to support the utility. They rely solely on user
fees and impact fees. I'm just going to remind you, though we're not
talking about user fees today, they do provide for day-to-day
operation of the utility and its routine maintenance.
We also use them for the critical repair and rehabilitation and
July 9, 2024
Page 38
replacement capital projects and to fund those to replace aging
infrastructure that has reached the end of its useful life, and we do
transfer to pay user fee debt obligations and to fund statutory
reserves.
So today what we're talking about is the impact fee rate study.
So current users of the utility, our current customers, are not really
affected by this rate study or its implementation.
Impact fees, on the other hand, really only affect new customers
that are connecting to the system; that is as they're buying new
homes. They pay for new or additional capacity infrastructure.
Those would be production in treatment plants as well as the large
transmission mains that bring the raw water to the water plant and
take the wastewater from the homes to the wastewater treatment
plant.
Impact fees fund reserves to meet bond covenants, and they are
pledged to meet the growth-related debt service.
There we go.
Our utility expansion plan and its relation to the strategic plan
priorities, these capacity expansion plans and those needs are
identified in the 2023 AUIR, and we'll see those specifics on the next
slide. They're in line with the 2024 strategic plan priorities and
objectives. And, obviously, the expansion plans that we're
discussing enable the district to provide potable drinking water and
wastewater treatment to produce irrigation-quality water that will
meet the future demand that we're facing.
In the 2023 AUIR, the district identified specific growth-related
capacity expansion projects that are contemplated within the 10-year
planning horizon. Included in that were a four-million-gallon-a-day
wastewater reclamation facility. It's located on the current -- will be
located on the current Golden Gate City plant site, and that stated
would be online in 2027, so that's the most immediate need we're
July 9, 2024
Page 39
facing.
In addition, there will be a 4 MGD wastewater reclamation
facility. It will be located on the northeast utility site, and the plans
were to have that online in 2030.
And, finally, there would be a 10-million water treatment
facility also located on the northeast utility site, and that would be
online in 2033, along with any of the appropriate raw water wells and
transmission mains, et cetera, necessary to feed that plant.
We talk about the Golden Gate site, but the Golden Gate water
reclamation facility will become the central Collier regional facility.
It will be the third regional facility in our utility. It will not only
serve new sewer customers as we move forward with plans for
septic-to-sewer conversion that are being developed but also relieve
the south plant to divert flow coming from growth in the southeast,
and all the activity in Activity Center 9.
Just a few examples of impact-fee-funded projects. And if
you've driven around Golden Gate City, you'll see these. You see
here the transmission pipe, the water -- potable water transmission
pipe installation in Golden Gate City. This ongoing
impact-fee-funded project will benefit the residents of Golden Gate
City to provide potable drinking water, thus eliminating the wells that
are in close proximity to septic systems as well as enhanced fire
protection capabilities as we add fire hydrants throughout this project.
Another example, Commissioners, again, in terms of your
strategic priorities, is the northeast utility expansion. You'll see here
the ground storage tanks. They are part of the permanent utility
infrastructure on the NESA site. Those were built with impact fee
revenues.
Currently, we are building two deep-injection wells. You
approved that just a few meetings ago. Those will be online in two
and a half years from now, and they're required to be online so that
July 9, 2024
Page 40
they are available when the permanent treatment facility is
constructed.
And as I mentioned before, the NESA site will also be home to
the 4 MGD permanent wastewater treatment reclamation facility.
Again, reminding you they'll be online in 2030, and the 10 MGD
water treatment facilities we expect to come online in 2033.
The proposed northeast developments, growth in the northeast
service area of the county will also create demand for additional
capacity. The district has Board-approved utility service agreements
with several villages and towns. We'll talk about those on the next
slide.
There we go. The agreements we have with Skysail, Rivergrass
Village, Town of Big Cypress, Bellmar Village, and Brightshore
Village, if you add those up, agreements will provide service to
12,500 residential units and approximately 1,768,000 square feet of
commercial properties. These agreements are already in place.
We're working and current -- agreements are currently in
process. They'll add an additional 10,000 residential units as well as
commercial properties with the Horse Trials [sic], Collier Rod & Gun
Club, and Hogan Island.
Just an additional note here, Commissioners, is all of
these -- we're building this capacity so that we're able to add future
customers, and those customer connections to the district's
infrastructure really represent future revenue stream of user fees, and
we could utilize those to fund operations and maintenance of those
new facilities as well as capital projects to rehabilitate aging
infrastructure anywhere in the utility system as those assets reach the
end of their useful life.
It's been quite an extensive review of the rate study thus far.
We've had legal review throughout the development of the study and
at its final report with our bond counsel from Nabors, Giblin &
July 9, 2024
Page 41
Nickerson. We've taken the study to the DSAC utility
subcommittee, reviewed in detail with three gentlemen. We did that
back in March, and they concluded that the study be endorsed and to
move it to full DSAC. We presented those to the DSAC at their
April meeting, and the motion they made was to include the
recommendation to move it forward to you for review.
We also did visit with the CBIA at their offices to discuss the
study's recommendations, and we did that back in May.
As you know, water and sewer impact fees are one of -- two
pieces of the large pie of impact fees that are assessed in Collier
County, but impact fees actually represent an investment in the
future.
You can see that water and sewer independently represent 11,
12 percent of the total. Those would increase. All else equal, we
know that other impact fee rate studies are in process, but the pieces
of the pie for water and sewer, obviously, will increase as we move
forward if you move forward with this today.
Just again a reminder that water and sewer services are essential
life-sustaining services, which we believe future
residences -- residents, businesses, and visitors not only demand but
expect.
The chart will depict the current -- or the existing impact fees for
water and wastewater, the proposed fees, and the difference in total
would be $5,388. That's a large percentage; $5,000 on 7,000 is a
large -- is a large percentage. Theoretically, it's not a large dollar
value. And we've always included in that for our residential
master-metered communities sort of a scale for smaller units paying
about a third of the full impact fee, those between 751 and 1500
square feet about two-thirds of the fee, and anything 1500 square feet
single-family residential and above represent full boat -- full boat,
100 percent of the fees.
July 9, 2024
Page 42
This chart, Commissioners, obviously, your eye is probably
drawn to the red -- the red line. That was done purposely so you
know what we're recommending. But if you'll indulge me for a
minute, I'd like to take you from the left side of that chart to the right.
The dollars are above. But below I have sort of a timeline so you
can see how impact fees increased and decreased based on business
conditions.
So the very left side of the chart at the bottom you'll see that in
the early 2000s we bought the northeast utility site, and we're in the
planning process and design for building both the water and
wastewater plants on the northeast site.
2008, we all know what happened, the recession hit. All those
capacity expansion projects were put on hold. They moved out of
the 10-year planning horizon. Impact fees came down.
And here we are today. We started to expand the district in
2019, and we know where we are today. Not only are demands
increasing for incremental capacity, but there are also the
construction costs, since we've -- we updated the last water and sewer
impact fee rates based on the 2019 rate study. The last four years,
construction costs have increased dramatically.
And as we agreed, I mean, we had this discussion at the DSAC
meeting in April, and should capacity planning change or move out
of the 10-year horizon, obviously we'll do a rate study update -- thank
you, Justin -- and we will look at impact fees going forward as
business conditions change.
So, Commissioners, as the -- as the district's financial officer,
you can see the recommendation is stated in the executive summary
before you. I, along with staff, are recommending acceptance of the
study's conclusions and recommendations. We're asking you to
authorize the County Attorney to advertise this impact fee ordinance
for consideration and adoption at the August 23rd BCC meeting.
July 9, 2024
Page 43
And I will reiterate my message about the criticality of this
study, as it affects the fiscal sustainability of the utility in the future
to meet the expected demand that growth has created.
And with that, Commissioners, I will open the floor to any
questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, Joe.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Let's back up a slide.
MR. BELLONE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: First off, do we have any
public speakers?
MR. BELLONE: We have one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Do you want to go to
them first, and then we can --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- have our deliberations?
MR. MILLER: Danielle Hudson, who I startled.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's -- she's a hired gun.
We've got to get her in and out of here, because...
Oh, you don't have to run. They don't pay you enough.
MS. HUDSON: Just jogging. Get my exercise in.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Danielle Hudson.
I'm the vice president of public policy at the Naples Area Board of
Realtors, and we are here today to speak in opposition to the 80.5
percent increase in water and wastewater impact fees.
We've been here before. In 2019, when the County
Commission was suggesting increasing impact fees, our then
president and now State House Representative Lauren Melo asked a
very simple question, and the question was, to quote her, "If we want
to provide housing for service personnel, why would we increase the
cost of housing in Collier County?"
July 9, 2024
Page 44
Commissioners, we have a circular conversation in this county
regarding workforce and attainable housing. As an industry, we sit
on focus groups where we attempt to solve for the spiderweb of
factors that impact housing affordability. At the same time across
the country, families are having to make difficult decisions and
adjustments to their budgets as costs increase.
So our question is simple: Can we at least have a robust
discussion on controlling expenses or potentially adjusting the
Commission's budgets or the county's budgets to offset this increase
before we place even more of a burden on housing affordability
making housing even more out of reach for the workforce that we are
attempting to solve for their housing needs right now?
That's our request. We thank you for your consideration.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now can I go?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I lost my turn.
The issue -- you know, housing affordability, as Dani, brought
up, is an ongoing circumstance. I want to -- I want to say out
loud -- I want you to say out loud that there are no plans for
septic-to-sewer conversion in Golden Gate Estates rural.
MR. BELLONE: There are no plans for septic-to-sewer
conversion in rural --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Golden Gate Estates.
MR. BELLONE: -- Golden Gate Estates, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
You know, we're always up here separating rumor from fact,
and it got on the interweb that -- from somebody that works in
utilities that we're going to hook everybody up to water and sewer in
Golden Gate Estates.
In 2006, Commissioner Coletta anointed me to be chair of the
East of 951 Horizon Study, and there was a prophecy then of
July 9, 2024
Page 45
connection to Golden Gate Estates, and it was, like, $100,000 per
house to extend utilities to those folks. And there certainly was
no -- there was no -- there was no need, No. 1; No. 2, the expense
was extraordinary.
So just -- I'm going to lay that one to rest at this particular point.
Number 2, Golden Gate City, on the other hand, Commissioner
Saunders, you and I were on the Board when we acquired that utility
and know of the health issues that are existent in a six-unit-per-acre
subdivision largely on septic and well. And you have to have 75 feet
away from somebody else's septic system for your own water supply.
And so potable water in that community is imperative. That's the
less expensive extension to take care of the health of that community.
The more expensive extension is the -- is the wastewater coming
away, and that will take some time over -- as we go forward.
Number 3, I'm a data junkie. I want data all of the time. And
one of the first things that I did was I commissioned a study on the
water quality from Eastern Collier County all the way out where the
canals, in fact, all start all the way in, and that -- I had actually
brought forward a resolution to suggest that we mandate that new
construction go to the highest and best technology. Not particularly
any particular manufacturer, but we all know those -- those -- there
are -- there are septic systems now that create drinkable water. I
wouldn't do it, but I've seen the video where the guy drinks from an
active septic tank. He takes a cup of water and drinks off of it.
CHAIRMAN HALL: He had a white beard.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And was good looking.
So costs are going up. There's no argument that costs are going
up. But we're all, right now, suffering from consequences of
decision-makers. This timeline right here shows what's, in fact,
going on. That land where the northeast regional wastewater/water
facility's, in fact, going in was bought by the county in 2000. It was
July 9, 2024
Page 46
permitted up to 90 percent by '04 and then set aside because of what
was deemed the Great Recession.
And when I came into office in 2016, we had storage tanks for
wastewater at our south plant that we couldn't take off-line for fear of
a disruption to our current ratepayers. We couldn't take off-line to
do PM, preventative maintenance. We couldn't -- we couldn't do
what was necessary to take care of the community that we already
have, let alone knowing there's more coming.
So, yes, the northeast facility will provide for services for that
future growth that will come in the next 20 years over time. They're
not going to be here tomorrow. But on the same token, it is a relief
valve -- am I mistaken, is the northeast plant already interconnected
with the systems that we already have in place?
MR. BELLONE: The northeast -- we have the interim
wastewater facility on the northeast site and, yes, that would be
connected to the regional system.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ultimately, they'll all three be
connected to provide service for all of our -- all of our community.
It's important that the people understand we as a government are
obligated to the property owners to extend utilities when someone
comes forward. That's part of our Growth Management Plan. They
have a right to pay their impact fees, and they have a right to receive
the services that are there.
So it's -- the northeast system will provide the necessary
duplication that are -- that is requisite for us. And I keep pointing at
Dr. George. He's sitting in the back not saying anything right now,
but he and I have had lengthy conversations with regard to this. It
will provide the duplication that's necessary for us to be able to
maintain the quality of services that our utility, which is one the best
in the nation, will continue to provide.
I don't want to get caught up in the extraordinary expense. I do
July 9, 2024
Page 47
want to say out loud that I'm concerned about this extraordinary
increase all at once. I would like to see some data and analysis with
regard to a potential of phasing in this fee increase over a period of
time. No one knows necessarily what the economy's going to do.
No one knows what interest rates are going to, in fact, do. No one
knows what our borrowing capacity's going to be based upon what's,
in fact, going to transpire in the future.
So before I make a final approval of this, I would like to see a
two-year phase plan, I would like to see a three-year phase plan, and
then I'd like that to be weighed against the risks associated with
extending out the fee increase over a period of time.
Where we're at with our CIE, our Capital Improvement Element;
where we're at with our AUIR, which then leads into the five-year
CIE, I would like to see what the planned capacity expenses are
before we make a final -- before we pull the trigger on this.
It's -- there's no argument there's a lot of moving parts, and
there's no argument that costs are going up every single day, but on
the same token, as was mentioned, we do have -- we do have
affordability issues, have had for quite some time.
The other side of the equation is we have to have the necessary
revenues in order to move forward.
MR. BELLONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So if -- I'll be quiet for a
minute till I regather.
MR. BELLONE: Commissioner, the data that you want -- just
a piece, just so that you have it, since we had a speaker from
NABOR. From the NABOR site, the average home price in 2020,
which is the last time impact fees are updated, average median home
price in Collier County in 2020 was $425,000. According to the
May statistics published by NABOR, 2024, May of 2024 the average
home price -- single-family home price is $850,000 in Collier
July 9, 2024
Page 48
County. I don't think we can attribute all of that to impact fees,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's not all due -- that's
not all due to impact fees.
MR. BELLONE: No, just for the record.
CHAIRMAN HALL: That's due to Freedom Town USA.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALL: You know, to the public, "growth" is a
bad word. I mean, you know, they immediately -- they immediately
put growth to traffic, which we have our traffic issues. But growth is
not necessarily a burden; it's also a benefit. Just as you mentioned,
there's extra revenue coming from it. We're talking about adding
22,000-plus residential units out east in the future, and that's a lot
of -- that's a lot of people.
But at the same time, what people need to realize is they're not
just going to live out there and then drive all the way in to where we
have existing businesses to eat and buy their groceries and buy their
gas. There's going to be over a million square feet of commercial
out there where they're going to be able to get their services without
having to come in, and so that's a positive thing.
I can definitely support the need and the discussion for a
phased-in approach. I think the 80 -- I think the ultimate figure is
going to be needed for our growth; the numbers don't lie. But
whether we need to jump it in there all at the same time seems
to -- you know, is a -- I think that's a -- that warrants a good
discussion amongst us.
As far as affordability, the impact fees are not going to make an
affordable house unaffordable. Those discussions can -- you know,
as projects come forward, we can talk about that. But we don't
necessarily have to say, "All affordable projects are going to pay this
figure," because those things are going to come to us on a
July 9, 2024
Page 49
case-by-case basis that we can make decisions to keep those projects
affordable, and that's a high priority of mine as well, and --
But overall, what are you thinking, Commissioner McDaniel, as
far as making the decision on this? Do you want to see the data
come back for just a future meeting?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Well -- because right
now we're just -- we're advertising an ordinance to come up and -- to
be advertised and then ultimately adopted. So in order to -- I think
for us to make a good decision, we need to weigh the impacts of the
increase in relationship to the needs that are, in fact, in place.
We have an AUIR. We have a five-year CIE. They know
what our capital exposures, in fact, are. They don't know what the
cost associated -- the risk associated with borrowing in relationship to
the revenue stream, in fact, is.
And so I'd like to see -- I'd like to see that weighed against the
necessities that are there before we make a final decision as to
whether we go forward or not.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I can buy in on that.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
Joe, just a couple of quick questions. As we discussed
yesterday in my office with you and your team, you know, I have
grave concerns about the 80 percent jump. Commissioner McDaniel
was talking about a phased-in approach, but in my office, you said
that was the plan already. Was that just going to be the
recommendation, or you already have a plan to propose to us a
phase-in and it wouldn't be an immediate jump to 80? It was
something -- it sounded -- I mean, in my office, you said that was
already the plan. What was it?
MR. BELLONE: Well, the recommendation actually was a full
implementation. The ordinance is written that's attached is full
July 9, 2024
Page 50
implementation for those recommended rates to become effective on
December 1st, 2020 [sic].
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: With no phase-in?
MR. BELLONE: No phase-in.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh. So maybe what you
said in my office is "we could phase it in" when we were just talking
back and forth. Was that -- was that our conversation yesterday
that --
MR. BELLONE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- you know, you-all had
given some thought -- so if our direction -- because I agree with
Commissioner McDaniel, but I thought we had that conversation
yesterday. And maybe you said, "We could phase it in," correct?
MR. BELLONE: We could. Just as an example, I put a
couple of quick figures together this morning. If you did a two-year
implementation, say 50 percent December 11th and 50 percent next
year, that would represent a 40 percent increase versus the
80 percent. If you did a three-year phase-in, that would represent 27
percent, or a $1796 increase.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I hate that less than
the -- right?
MR. BELLONE: Yeah. The two-year would be 26- -- all in,
water and sewer together, a two-year phase-in, represent an increase
of $2694 versus 5,388.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me ask you about this
slide here just for historical purposes.
So, of course, you know, things have changed in the last couple
of years when it comes to expenses, and so that's why there's such a
significant jump.
But, you know, you go back to this slide in 2005 and, you know,
you look at the dollar percent change, and it's -- you know, it's in the
July 9, 2024
Page 51
single digits or low two digits, and then, of course -- and you've
already explained that, you know, over the last couple years, a lot of
things have changed since 2005.
But explain to me, like, if you look at the top of the slide, it has
the years. So, you know, in 2005, here's the numbers, 2006, here's
the numbers, 2007. So, you know, every year those numbers -- and
maybe this is just a sample. Maybe there's stuff in the middle, and
just for the sake of showing the trend you've made this slide.
But my initial takeaway when I saw this slide is, you know,
former commissioners looked at it in 2005, they looked at it in 2006,
they looked at it in 2007, they looked at it in 2008, then for some
reason they skipped a few years, and they jumped to 2011, then 2015,
then 2017, then 2019, then 2024.
So it was like -- were they looking at it every year, and then, it,
went to three years? Then it went to two years? Now it's five
years? Is there -- you know, is there data in the middle that's
missing and this is just sort of a sample size, or every year this was
talked about?
MS. PATTERSON: So, yes, sort of, to all of that.
So there's a long history with the impact fee program in the way
that the studies were handled. When you look at those earlier years,
the 2005, 2006, 2007, we were in a high-growth environment, and we
had a Board that was aggressively pursuing a capital program on the
heels of the nine -- late '90s and a lot of the '90s where we didn't build
anything. Hit a crisis point in 2000 with capacity for water and
sewer as well as transportation.
So we not only had the requirement to update impact fees every
three years, we were actually indexing them in the midyear. So we
were looking at the impact fees every single year.
In 2006, the statutory -- the specific statutory guidance on
impact fees was implemented, and that started to change the way that
July 9, 2024
Page 52
we did things. So we were still looking at the three-year cycles, but
the legislature was starting to put more controls around what we
could do.
Fast forward, then, in the recession -- in the recessionary period,
Collier County approached their impact fees actually differently than
a lot of other places that either completely had moratoriums, which is
interesting, because with no building permits, a moratorium doesn't
do anything -- you're not collecting any money anyway -- or they sat
on their fees at the place that they basically were frozen in time,
which would have been a high-growth environment, and Collier
County continued to adjust their fees down because the equity of the
system is that the impact fees should reflect the true costs, and
therefore, if costs are up, they go up, but if costs are down, they go
down. And so that -- you'll see the downturn there.
So we started picking the studies back up, but we had stayed on
this three-year cycle, and we've now had the ability for indexing,
essentially, completely removed. And when you're starting to see
these longer gaps in time between the studies, it has a lot to do with
getting our arms around changes at the legislative level, at the state
level, and making sure that we conform.
And the picture moving forward is going to look a lot different.
There's -- other than utilities, who right now stand away from most of
the statutory provisions, the legislature dictates how often we can
increase the fees, how we're going to increase the fees. The phase-in
becomes basically automatic, and the Board has very little they can
do without extenuating circumstances, supermajority votes, and
additional public hearings to trump those statutory requirements.
So that's what's happened. You're going to hear a lot more
about this when we bring the rest of the impact fee program forward
to bring it into compliance with statute, but you'll see we'll continue
to update the utilities impact fees as long as -- the way that we have
July 9, 2024
Page 53
every three years as long as we can. But indexing is done. We
won't be making those annual visits anymore because of -- because of
those requirements of statute.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean -- and I might be
misunderstanding you, but it would seem that because these fees have
the potential that if there is a big shift in the economy or expenses, or
what have you, as there has been recently, this can affect the
homeowner significantly.
Yes, everybody's happy their home values doubled, but this is
still, you know, real money. And, boom, you know, just like
Ms. Hudson said, you know, it's 80 percent. Wow, it really jumps
out at you.
I mean, I would think we'd -- we would want to aggressively
look at this every single year the way they did back in 2005, '6, '7, '8
and not have these big jumps.
And to your point, it sounded like the staff is looking at it every
year, but I mean, for it to come up here every year, is that our plan
going forward or no?
MS. PATTERSON: No. No. You're preempted by the
legislature.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: So there is no more. I mean, Utilities has
a little bit of wiggle room because they're exempt from certain
portions of statute, but otherwise the statute tells us when and how
we can do things exactly --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Got it.
MS. PATTERSON: -- up to and including caps on how much
we can increase the fees without, again, an extraordinary
circumstance and a supermajority vote of the Board, as well as
additional hoops.
Now, not to say we wouldn't pursue that, but there's really no
July 9, 2024
Page 54
path forward to how we were managing the impact fee program in the
mid 2000s. Now, we'll do the best we can, and we're committed still
to maintaining that equity. So, again, if we go into a situation where
you're in a down economy, it doesn't mean that we're going to sit here
and keep these fees artificially high. That's part of the argument for
what we've done is that we treat the program fairly, not just to our
advantage, is that if times -- if things are expensive, it reflects in the
impact fees. But as costs come down, we feel that it's important that
the studies reflect that as well.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So all 11B is doing is exactly
what it says: We're voting here to recommend that the County
Attorney can advertise this as a -- I don't want to say a possibility, but
as the proposal. But I think, in the advertisement, I agree with
Commissioner McDaniel, there should be some language in there that
we're considering or we're going to, or whatever the proper language
is, on phasing, if that matters, you know, at this early juncture.
MR. KLATZKOW: You advertise what the Board approves as
the final ordinance. If the Board wants this to come back to consider
it, we'll advertise it later.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Yeah, that's what I
would be in favor of.
MS. PATTERSON: We can come back with the phasing
options, and based on that discussion, then we would advertise and
adopt. It will shift out. So probably something else we just need to
put on the record for the viewing public is that you cannot just
implement these fees. There's a statutory 90-day wait period for the
fees to go into effect.
So upon adoption, whatever that turns out to be, there's 90 days
before we can implement the new fees at whatever level we're
implementing them at. That gives people, builders, developers time
July 9, 2024
Page 55
to deal with projects they have in process.
And the impact fee rate that will be applied to those building
permits is locked at building permit application. So, essentially,
there's 90 days for people that are close to being ready to apply for
building permits to get in here and apply for those permits.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I've got a
couple questions for the County Attorney and for our staff.
Mr. Klatzkow, in terms of our legal requirements, do we have
any legal requirement to build plants and extend lines? You know, a
developer comes in, and we've got 22,000 units out east. They're all
willing to pay impact fees in advance and all of that. Are we
required to provide service to any of those developers?
MR. KLATZKOW: This board has approved multiple
towns/villages in the RLSA with the assurance that they would be
getting these utilities. Now, we can always put off and have the
developer put in their own system. The problem with that is that
these systems tend to be less than what we would build, and then
we've got to take it over and deal with that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, theoretically, we don't
have to do some of the things we're talking about doing. The
individual developers would then be required, if they're going to
develop, to provide their own package plants and that sort of thing
as --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just like Ave Maria did. Ave Maria did
that because we didn't have the capability of hooking up then.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. So -- because the
statement was made that, you know, the property owners are out
there, and we have an obligation to provide the plants and the lines,
and I just -- I don't think we have a legal obligation to do that. We
may have a moral obligation. We may have approved things with
July 9, 2024
Page 56
the understanding that, yeah, we're going to try to do this. But I'm
just asking the legal question, and it sounds like we don't have a legal
obligation, for example, today to approve an increased impact fee so
we can build plants and lines to service future development.
Now, if impact fees have been paid in advance, maybe we have
to refund those, but that's a whole different story. But I think I've
got the answer to that question.
So then my question to you is, what if we just don't do this, we
keep the impact fees the way they are? What -- does the sky fall? I
mean, what happens?
MR. KLATZKOW: You would need to raise the user fee to
make up for the difference.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, no. I'm asking, what
if we don't raise these impact fees, which basically means we don't
move forward with some of the construction plans that we're talking
about?
MR. BELLONE: Commissioner, I think if we don't -- if we
don't build the capacity that the growth models are telling us are
going to be required as new people connect, we'll have to stop
connections, essentially. So there would be no services available as
we approached the capacity of existing capacity.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In that scenario, people
would not be able to build a house unless they had on-site water and
sewer septic systems and wells. They wouldn't be getting county
service. They could still build one unit per five acres or one unit per
two and a half acres as long as they had the septic system. Is that -- I
mean, obviously, you're not going to build 2200 units with a septic
system. But, again, what would happen if we just simply say,
"Okay. We're going to take a pause here. We're not going to build
these facilities right now"?
MR. BELLONE: Again, not being an expert -- I mean, Jeff,
July 9, 2024
Page 57
you may want to take it. But I think the village -- the concept of the
towns and villages was to build more densely and leave space.
Leave free space as opposed to say, for instance, building in the
Estates where you've got the large, you know, one home per two and
a half or five acres. So that's where it would be feasible to have
an -- to have a well and a septic versus in a town or a village that
wouldn't be feasible.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And they would
have to build their own package plant.
MR. BELLONE: That would be the only other alternative,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But, I guess, my question is,
what does that do to our ongoing plans -- not our ongoing plans, but
projects that are already under construction? Does this -- is there
something under construction that is in reliance on this at this point?
What's the --
MR. BELLONE: No. The projects that are under construction
we've already bonded, and so there's funding available to continue
those. For instance, we just started the deep injection wells up on
the northeast site. Those were a prerequisite for building the
wastewater treatment plant. It doesn't mean that you have to build
the wastewater treatment plant, but you have to have the deep
injection wells before you have the plant. So anything that's under
construction, the transmission water mains in Golden Gate City are
underway, and they'll be -- they'll be -- they'll be completed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In reference to affordability,
I want to -- I think I tend to disagree with one of the comments
concerning whether these impact fees would affect affordability. If
we take a look at the Renaissance project, which I don't know if
necessarily that's a good project for comparison purposes, but that's,
ultimately, a 360-, 380-unit facility over at the Golden Gate Golf
July 9, 2024
Page 58
Course, in order to be able to obtain financing for that project
because of the reduced rental rates, the county actually provided
impact fee -- I'm not sure if you call them impact fee waivers or
deferrals. I know that we went through a lot of issues dealing with,
"Okay, how can we close the gap between the financing that's
available at current financing rates to fund a project where the rental
rates are reduced because they're affordable?"
And so we wound up, if you -- Amy, if you could perhaps fill us
in as to how we filled that gap, at least that portion of the gap dealing
with impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: So, essentially, we're using various
funding mechanisms to pay impact fees on behalf of the developer.
Ultimately, there's going to be a repayment -- long-term repayment
on that money. So it's essentially a longer-term deferral. We
don't -- in connection to that project, we don't use the term "deferral".
And it's actually similar to another one that we were working on at
Ekos. That's another low-income -- it's a tax credit project where
they needed a longer period of time to be able to address those impact
fees, so we've used one funding source to pay them with an ultimate
payback coming back to the county.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What is that time period?
MS. PATTERSON: They needed about 18 years on that. I
think that one stretched out to maybe 30 years maximum. But to
talk about maybe something that's a little bit more simple, these two
projects are complicated because of all of the various funding streams
coming into them. The county does have several impact fee deferral
programs that are heavily utilized. One is for
single-family -- owner-occupied single-family homes. Habitat is a
big user of that particular program where they -- a certain portion of
their impact fees are deferred for the lifetime of homeownership. A
triggering event would be loss of homestead, sale, or transfer of the
July 9, 2024
Page 59
home. Otherwise, a person can live in the home and have their
impact fees deferred until one of those -- one of those triggering
mechanisms.
We do have a traditional deferral program for affordable
housing rentals. You'll see those utilized a lot in the mixed type of
developments that we have where you may have some market rate,
but then a portion has been dedicated to affordable housing. They
have a 10-year deferral, straight deferral, that can be extended by the
Board, and that tends to work well in a project that has some market
rate, because they can make that financing work.
We've really been looking at ways to address the impact fees
through various funding sources to be able to provide that
longer-term deferral to projects without getting away from the point
that you don't want to term on a deferral longer than the useful life of
the infrastructure it's intended to fund. So keeping that balance.
Now, water and sewer impact fees in a lot of these programs are
treated differently. But when you're looking at being able to
essentially defer the majority of the impact fees, the payment of those
water and sewer impact fees becomes way less of an issue.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are we able to defer
payment of water and sewer impact fees?
MS. PATTERSON: We typically do not, but we can use other
funding sources to pay them. We've used -- in the past, we had a
revolving fund that paid impact fees for water and sewer. It was
funded in by the General Fund. And, again, we've used some of the
SLFRF money, COVID money to be able to pay water and sewer
impact fees on behalf of developers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the bottom line is, we can
more freely defer road impact fees and those types of impact fees, but
when it comes to water and sewer, because of statutory provisions,
we're not -- we don't have as much flexibility?
July 9, 2024
Page 60
MS. PATTERSON: It has to do with some of their bond
covenants and also simply that even though -- I hate to say it because,
you know, I managed the impact fee program for however long it
was. You know, we try to treat all of the kids equally. The facts
are that if you can't turn on the tap or flush the toilet, that's the most
important component of infrastructure that we have. You can sit in
traffic and you're probably not going to die. You might get really
mad, but you have to have clean water and you have to be able to
flush the toilet, and that's just the simple facts.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Especially if you're stuck in
traffic and you bring plenty of bottled water with you, you should
be --
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, right. So Trinity's going to hate me
forever. Sorry, Trinity.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then again, just another
question for the County Attorney. So we have a lot of the workforce
and affordable housing that's going up in the urban area where
service is already available. Are we able to have sort of a double
impact fee system where if you're in an area where service is
currently available, you don't need a new plant built for -- we'll use
the Renaissance project as an example. We don't need a new plant
built in order to provide capacity for the Renaissance project.
Are we able to have, perhaps, two different types of impact fee
programs where if you're in an area that is currently -- where service
is currently available, that the impact fee structure stays the same, but
if you're in an area where the development's going to require new
infrastructure, that you have a higher impact fee?
MR. KLATZKOW: We would have to bifurcate the county to,
like, eastern utility and then the western utility and then, at that point
in time, do separate rate studies to see what the costs would be.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the reason I'm asking
July 9, 2024
Page 61
that is I am persuaded that affordability of housing is probably the
number-one housing issue we have in this community. I think it's
probably the number-one issue almost anywhere in the country. And
when we take little steps -- and this 4,000 or $6,000 increase in
impact fees may sound like a little bit of a small step compared to the
overall price -- it does affect affordability.
And I'm wondering if there's a way where we can have our cake
and eat it too, if you will, where we increase impact fees for these
new developments that are going to require the new facilities, but we
don't increase the impact fees for development within the areas that
are currently being served with existing facilities.
MR. KLATZKOW: If the Board wishes to do that, we could
bring back -- we can bring an item back to the Board. We're
going -- we would have to set up separate districts at that point in
time, and I would have to check the special statute that created the
district to see if we could even do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand it would be
complicated, and it would be painful for staff to have to even take a
look at something like this. But, again, just throwing this out as a
possibility where NABOR has indicated that this will have an impact
on affordability in terms of affordable housing. I tend to agree with
it. Maybe there's a way we can do this without that major impact, at
least in the -- in the current urban area.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is like a balloon. If you reduce
the impact fees for part of the county, the other county's going to be
paying even more impact fees.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood.
MS. PATTERSON: So if I may, we looked at this exact issue
relative to transportation impact fees. Commissioner McDaniel
knows this well. Due to the extent -- so road impact fees, looking at
trip lengths, same argument. Urban area, trip lengths are short, and
July 9, 2024
Page 62
then when you get out into the rural areas, trip lengths are very long.
It has a direct impact on the rate setting.
And when we looked at that, it was absolutely disproportionate
and burdensome to the eastern areas to try to move towards that type
of -- that type of district. So Jeff's exactly right, it could squeeze
down one side, and you're going to watch the eastern portion of this
county really be affected.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're essentially subsidizing the eastern
expansion with charging the same rates throughout the county.
That's essentially what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood. And that -- I
guess what I'm suggesting is maybe we shouldn't do that. But if
we -- if we did this -- and obviously it would require a lot of
evaluation. But if we did this, then you'll have developers -- and you
take a look at the 22,000 units. So they have a high impact fee. If
they're -- if they're going to pay it, that's one thing. But if they don't
want to because of the increased costs, they always have the option to
do their own package plants to promote the development of these
22,000 units.
MS. PATTERSON: We would -- within the boundaries of the
Water/Sewer District, we would have to -- we would have to agree to
that. That is part of the issue that we've been trying to actually get
away from with the expansion of the boundaries of the Water/Sewer
District is to control how many of those private or independent
utilities are out there. They've been problematic for us in the past.
It's not something that, under the current model, is encouraged.
MR. BELLONE: And was -- the intent of the special act is to
reduce the proliferation of package treatment plants. That was the
whole idea behind this -- the legislature creating the Water/Sewer
District in terms of preventing that from happening in the future.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, times have changed,
July 9, 2024
Page 63
circumstances have changed, and maybe we need to just have a little
bit different thinking in terms of how to proceed. I'm not suggesting
that we do any of that. I just wanted to get on the record that we do
have some potential options that may facilitate development of
workforce and affordable housing, certainly in the western part of the
county, even though that may have an impact -- a negative impact on
the eastern part of the county.
So just food for thought. I don't know where the -- if the Board
has any interest in even exploring any of that, but I think that might
be something worth looking at.
MS. PATTERSON: If I may, we may be -- we may be better
off looking at different ways to address the impact of these -- and this
is not going to be the last time that we have this conversation. We
have 12 individual impact fees; 10ish of them are going to be coming
back for a conversation.
If the -- if the impact on those rate increases is something that
is -- the Board has an appetite for discussing relative to affordable
housing, we're back to the conversation about how do we -- how do
we handle or otherwise subsidize those impact fees to bring down
that cost burden on the developer?
So we're back to looking at a funding source, at another
mechanism that's better than a deferral.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think -- I've always been a
supporter of impact fees going back many, many years. So I don't
want to be in a position where our current ratepayers or our current
taxpayers are subsidizing the future growth. That would not be an
objective at all. So if we started looking at reducing impact fees or
eliminating them and looking for other funding sources, I don't know
that that's a path that I would want to go down.
MS. PATTERSON: No, sir. I was only saying relative to
specific affordable housing projects is getting more aggressive in
July 9, 2024
Page 64
pursuing other funding sources that could help to buy down the
impact fees for those specific projects, not a reduction in impact fees
overall. It would be keeping the impact fee program intact, because
of the importance of it, and it is part of the reason that we are able to
do a lot of the things that we do here, because we are not burdening
our taxpayers with those -- with that growth, but rather to look at
ways that we can handle the impact fees differently for specific
affordable housing projects.
It may just mean looking -- you know, we've stayed sort of in
the traditional deferral lane for a pretty long time. There's not a lot
of things that are better than that, but we could get -- we can take
another look at it and see if there are ways that they could be handled
differently that would speak to the fact that it's a cost being borne
rather than trying to rework the entire system.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm fully aware of how it's
easy for me or for the Board to suggest certain things to look at and
how difficult it will be for staff to take a look at those things.
Having been in your position and various positions in the past, I
understand that it's simple for me to raise some issues. It's a whole
lot more difficult to get you to get your arms around it.
But I think that the bottom line is I would like to see us perhaps
being a little bit more creative in our thinking, because we do have
new problems. We don't -- we didn't have an affordability problem
10 years ago in terms of workforce housing. That's something that's
really, really developed in the last -- I think, probably last four or five
years to the extent that we have it now.
And so, again, just looking at maybe some other approaches that
we can look at that that, perhaps, will help deal with that problem.
At least I would support phasing of this at a very minimum.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the housing
July 9, 2024
Page 65
affordability issue's been going on for quite some time. You and I
came into office in 2016. The colleagues that were predecessors to
this board hired the ULI to come and do a rate study to diagnosis the
affordability, and in the last paragraph of their however long report,
the last page is the most important part of that.
Housing affordability's been around for -- ever since I've
been -- ever since we've been here. I mean, it's changed. It changes
with the economic circumstances. It changes with our population.
It changes all the time. But one of the most important statements
that come -- that came out of that report from the ULI was every
thousand-dollar incremental increase in the price of a house
precluded 131 people in our demographic with the income ratios that
we have from affording that home.
So this tax -- impact fees are a tax on the first person coming in.
These are new fees that are being paid by new developers and new
home buyers. So this slippery -- I consider it to be a slippery slope
to be heading down to a differentiation between old impact fee payers
and ratepayers and new impact fee payers and ratepayers.
I presume it to be a slippery slope for us to enter into
circumstances where -- you remember how dilapidated the
Orangetree facility was when -- you were the lawyer that actually put
that together in the first place when Collier County had to take it over
and the subordinate infrastructure that was in place, we had to take
that system over because it was failing.
And the Golden Gate FGUA, when we took over Golden Gate
City's utility, same circumstance. The ratepayers were getting
whacked with enormous amounts of expense, and no capital was
being put back in place for the repairs, the maintenance, and the
necessary upkeep of that facility of that utility.
I think -- I think it would be prudent for us to explore the
phasing of this -- this proposal. Staff's proposal coming to us today
July 9, 2024
Page 66
has -- is a one-time shot, and I think we should defer this decision at
least for two weeks to have an analysis done against the necessities,
as I talked about, the weighed -- the known necessities, the known
capital expenditures in relationship to the fee increases that are being
proposed.
And I think phasing it -- again, whether it -- I mean, Joe did a
nice job. It's -- I'm not talking about a complicated phasing process.
If it's two years, it's a 50 percent increase. If it's three years, it's a
third, a third, and a third -- and then having that weighed against the
necessities for us to be able to make the decisions that we've got
forthcoming.
I also think it's important for us to remember we're in the middle
of our budget discussions. I've been a huge advocate for looking at
different ways to manage our revenue streams. I've never been a fan
of impact fees. You were and have been, but I've never been a fan.
When I -- when I came into office in 2016, we did not have a
Capital Asset Replacement and Maintenance Fund. We do now. I
think it's called a 301 fund. We have it now. It's, in fact, in place.
We hadn't been -- and I think when we had our first budget
workshop, if I recall, Ed Finn had a slide up during that workshop
that close to $105 million a year needs to be put away in order for
ultimate repairs and maintenance and ultimate replacement of the
infrastructure that we have of the assets that the county has.
We fund about 77, I think -- if I recall from the slide, there was
about 70 -- just shy of $80 million a year that we do fund in the
PayGo process that we've always had. We didn't ever have any kind
of a reserve for capital asset replacement, ultimate replacement, and
then interim maintenance.
And so I think it was suggested -- and I would really like to
explore it -- how -- you know, we're in the middle of our budget
discussions right now. We're going to have a discussion today on
July 9, 2024
Page 67
the millage rate. We saw a slide from the consultants at ResourceX
that talked about somewhere between 87 million and 157 million of
reallocation and new funding without new taxation. He wasn't
able -- the consultant wasn't able to give me the delineation between
the reallocation and the new funding. We still don't know what that
is. We haven't seen that final report yet. We're supposed to see it
here soon, I hope, and -- but I know -- and words of "reallocation"
mean something's getting cut.
When you're moving money from one place to another,
something's getting -- expenses are being reallocated, and so
something's not getting funded when something is getting funded.
And that, again, needs to be weighed against and measured against
the priority and the necessity of the expense in relationship to the cost
associated with it.
So we do have new budgeting processes in place. We do have
a Capital Asset Replacement and Maintenance Fund that is, in fact,
established. It's not being funded to the level that it needs to be in
order to be met. But I'm concerned about going to a separate rate
structure between the urban area and the rural area, and it's not just
because I'm elected by the people that live in the rural area. It's -- it
puts us on a slippery slope of ending up where we were at before with
developers putting in substandard infrastructure at a lower expense
and then the government is burdened at a later date for that
acquisition to provide those services.
So for now, as you've already said, Commissioner Saunders,
we're pretty well tied up by the legislature with regard to what we can
and can't do with water and sewer. We pretty much have to go along
these lines. We don't have a lot of latitude, not nearly as much as we
do in some of the other impact fees that we're going to ultimately get
to study.
So I think for today's discussion it would be prudent for us to set
July 9, 2024
Page 68
this aside for a couple of weeks, come back, have a discussion about
the phasing potential and the impacts of that phasing, and then make
our decision. Because we have to advertise -- Commissioner
LoCastro, you brought up a very valid point, and that -- whatever we
advertise is what we're going to be voting on. We technically can't
change it once it's advertised. So we can't just throw things up
against the wall. We have to -- we have to advertise what we're
going to ultimately vote on.
So I think it would be prudent for us to set this aside for a couple
of weeks, come back, have that discussion, and make a determination
then as to whether we go for the full -- the full boat that staff's
recommending or a phased approach.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
I just want to summarize what I've heard. Obviously, you're
coming back, Joe -- I think we can count noses, like you say,
so -- with a phasing option. But I just wanted to add a couple things.
So, you know, Commissioner Saunders when he said, "Hey,
what if we just didn't do this?" And we're talking hypothetically just
to get some ideas, and I liked his idea about, you know, hey, let's just
come -- let's think creatively out of the box. Some things are going
to fall out very quickly; some aren't.
But what I would like to see -- and maybe you don't have to
burn too many brain cells on it. But 80 percent is what the
algorithm, you know, sort of says and supports. Going to zero and
not doing it, you answered that question for Commissioner Saunders,
"Hey, it's not really realistic."
But just as part of the options to present to us so that they either
fall out quickly because it doesn't make sense but at least we're
touching all the bases, what if we went less than 80 percent? And
I'm not talking phasing. I'm just saying, if we went 60 percent, how
July 9, 2024
Page 69
would that affect things?
I would just like to see that so that, much like how you just
answered quickly here, "Oh, okay. That would really be difficult to
do."
I wouldn't be a supporter of the separate districts, similar to what
Commissioner McDaniel just said. It reminds me of people that
send me e-mails and say, "I don't have any children. Why do I have
to pay a school tax?" You know, "My house will never burn down.
Why am I paying for fire departments?" You know, and so -- and
we don't -- that's not really how county government works, you
know. It's spread out across the entire county.
But if that's an option to just to sort of show how it could be
done and then why it may or may not be a viable option. I don't
think anybody up here was implying that it's a viable option. It's
just, could it be? Why wouldn't it? So that at least we're touching
all the different things.
So that's what I'm sort of hearing: A phasing option; maybe
separate districts, although I don't think that one's going to have
a -- that one's going to fall out, at least in my mind, pretty quickly.
But then also what damage do we do if we went less than 80 percent?
Not zero, but just -- I'll just make a wild guess here. What if we did
50 percent; what would be the impact? And then hearing that
answer would probably start to funnel us into, you know, some very,
you know, specific approvals just so we could, you know, look at all
the different options of being creative and not swallowing this in
one -- I think everybody feels phasing -- and you even said in my
office it would make sense. But maybe some of the other things
incorporate into your proposal so we really are shaking the tree as
hard as we can before we vote on it.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, just so you-all know, the
study sets the maximum legal limit for the fees. The Board does
July 9, 2024
Page 70
have the authority to adopt a lower fee. It doesn't have to be in
phase. It could be a lower fee just at one time. What we'll bring
back to you is what the -- what will happen is --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. What's the
ramifications?
MS. PATTERSON: -- things will fall out of the capital plan.
We'll bring that back to you with some options along with the
phasing option.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Eighty's the high mark.
MS. PATTERSON: It's the maximum legal limit. You cannot
go above it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, yeah, it would be nice to
see a couple of, you know, just examples of if we went 40, if we went
60, you know, what the -- like you said, what the ramifications would
be, so we really have, you know, a full set of parameters to consider
and then vote on. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah. Just right off the bat, I'd like to just make a comment
that I agree with a lot of the things my constituents have said up here.
I would be interested in seeing some language with the possible
phase-in-type language coming back to us so we have the opportunity
to see what that would look like and what impact that would be
overall.
I surely don't think separating the county into the districts would
be a good idea. I'm not in favor of that. But, you know, I know
Dani at NABOR, and I do respect a lot of what she has to say.
And I think -- I just want to separate -- I think we're talking
about two different things sometimes up here when we sit on the dais.
I know we referred to a couple projects as affordable housing but,
you know, in reality, those are apartments. Those aren't true people
July 9, 2024
Page 71
owning a piece of dirt in Collier County. And I think when Dani
speaks, I think she's speaking more on the basis of actually
median-income people, families, you know, 2.1 children owning
actually a home in Collier County, not so much living in an
apartment where we do have -- according to the County Manager, we
do have programs in place to work with people that want to invest
their own money in developers to create affordable apartments for
workforce housing, things of that nature.
I think overall we have to start looking at, you know, people that
actually have a piece of this county and become part of this county
and living that American dream and actually have the ability to own a
house in this county.
And I think when you put the cost back on the developer or the
builder to create their own water and sewer infrastructures in these
developments, they just put that cost right back on the price of those
homes, you know, they roll back, and that's no way to create
affordable housing -- or affordable houses that people can actually
own and call their own and make that investment, the most important
investment in their lives here in Collier County.
You know, I think that falls on us to provide some of these
services to these communities we already agreed on because that does
make a difference when it comes down to it.
And the number-one driver, we all have to understand, for the
lower-priced housing is inventory. And if we can't provide the
infrastructure for the inventory, then -- you know, like the County
Manager said, if you can't drink the water and can't flush the toilet,
you can't get a CO. You know, so the house will never be built.
And if we diminish the inventory, we basically just drive the prices
up.
So, you know, I think -- and like Commissioner LoCastro said,
you know, I get those same things all the time, you know, "I don't
July 9, 2024
Page 72
have any children in school." You know, 50 percent of the public
don't have children in our public schools, but they still pay school
taxes, so -- and a lot of times these developers, they understand.
They have to budget for these impact fees down the road. You
know, maybe they don't build 2,000 homes in this particular project;
they build 1500 or whatever.
But in reality, typically the homeowner usually, their portion of
it's covered in their loan anyways. It's just written into their loan.
The few extra dollars that they're going to take out financial, I don't
think it affects them up front as much as we think.
But, yes, I think we need a little bit more time. I would like to
see some language in there for a phase-in and see what that can do
and what exactly -- like Commissioner LoCastro said, why
80 percent? What would 60 or 75 or 55 percent look like? Will it
still achieve the same thing down the road?
So that's just kind of my opinion just from sitting back and
listening, you know, what I'm getting from it. But I think we have to
understand that there's more to just building apartments and calling
them affordable housing. This is about people wanting to be part of
Collier County, wanting to have a piece of their own land to call their
home. We are definitely failing on that point.
So that's pretty much what I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, Commissioner.
I want to work toward a court reporter break for 10 minutes, but
I want to go to Commissioner McDaniel, and if we can get a motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm going to do that if you
call on me.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Do it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. The point that
Commissioner Kowal was making was extremely valid, and it comes
back around to us as a government looking at how we're doing what
July 9, 2024
Page 73
we're doing. We're taking -- and I'm just going to cite this as an
example. We're taking a -- there aren't very many $20,000 lots, but
we're taking a $20,000 lot, and we've been collecting taxes -- real
estate taxes on that forever, and we're creating a $500,000 home, and
then we collect new real estate taxes on the spread between the
20- and the new 500-. And a shift in how we're accounting for the
increased tax revenue needs to be accounted for at some particular
stage, and that's something that I would like for us to explore as we're
looking at all of these different alternatives in a re-appropriation of
the tax revenues that we're, in fact, receiving to support the
life-sustaining infrastructure that we have already and will, in fact, be
creating. That's the -- that's the discussion that I'd like for us to
follow.
So with that, I'm going to make a motion we defer this for two
weeks, staff comes back to us with phasing proposals for a two-year
phase-in and a three-year phase in weighed against the necessities in
regard to our capital exposures.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Do we want to look at more options
other than just a two-year and three-year? Do we want to extend that
a little bit?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, and also the change in
the percentage, you know, what the impact will be if we went less
than 80 percent. You know, I think you wrote down all the --
MR. BELLONE: I have it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- all the different options.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not -- I don't mind
amending my motion to add those in. I mean, it's -- you know, it's a
fairly -- what I'm proposing is a fairly simple delineation weighed
against our -- weighed against our exposures. And, you know,
I'm -- we can certainly look at it. For information purposes, we can
July 9, 2024
Page 74
look at it, but the -- you know, the algorithm that spit out this number
is what it is based upon what those exposures are. But we can
certainly add that in. I'll add that to my motion, Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll amend the second, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Great. So we have a motion and a
second to come back with the new data. 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: So moved.
All right. Let's come back at 11:15 for a short court reporter
break, and then we'll finish up.
(A brief recess was had from 11:06 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.)
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. That brings us to the millage.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2024-136: ADOPT A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATES TO
BE LEVIED IN FY 2024/25 AND REAFFIRM THE ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARING DATES IN SEPTEMBER 2024 FOR THE
BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS. (CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON,
DIRECTOR - CORPORATE FINANCIAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES) (ALL DISTRICTS) - MOTION TO
July 9, 2024
Page 75
KEEP THE MAXIMUM MILLAGE RATES NEUTRAL BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HALL - ADOPTED – 5/0; MOTION TO KEEP
THE MAXIMUM MSTU MILLAGE RATES AS PROPOSED BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER KOWAL – ADOPTED
MS. PATTERSON: It does. Item 11C is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution establishing the maximum property tax rates to be
levied in FY '2024/'25 and reaffirm the advertised public hearing
dates in September 2024 for the budget approval process. Mr. Chris
Johnson, your director of Corporate Financial Planning and
Management Services, is here to present.
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Chris Johnson, your Corporate Financial Management
Services director. And as Ms. Patterson said, today we are looking
to adopt a resolution which establishes the maximum property tax
rates to be levied in FY '24/'25 and reaffirm our advertised public
hearing dates for adoption of the FY '24/'25 amended tentative
budgets on September 5th, 2024, and the FY '24/'25 millage rates and
final adopted Collier County budget on September 19th, 2024.
Today, briefly, what we're going to go through, I'm going to
touch back on the budget timeline to show you where we're at in the
process. We're going to go over the July taxable values that were
received on July 1st, we'll show you the MSTU proposed maximum
millage rates, and then we'll have a discussion on the countywide and
unincorporated area maximum millage rate ranges and then, finally,
we'll go through and adopt the maximum millage resolution.
It's important to note that adopting this resolution will establish
the maximum millage rates to be levied for FY '24/25. With that
said, the Board will have opportunities through September to
July 9, 2024
Page 76
maintain the lower millage rates in each -- to maintain or lower the
millage rates in each taxing district.
Moving on to the schedule, I know you guys are all familiar
with this by now. I'll just go through it briefly. We're turning it
kind of that peach color very slowly. It looks like we're about
halfway through at this point. You can see in bold there, today at
7/9, the Board adopts the proposed millage rates and the maximum
property taxes to be levied.
On 7/12, we will be providing the Board with a tentative FY '25
budget by fund. This will include a change log with any changes
that have been made since your priority-based budget public hearing
last month on June 20th.
From there, on or before 8/24/24, the property appraiser will
mail the TRIM notices to all the property owners within the county.
The TRIM notice will include the last year's tax rate, tax levy, this
year's rolled-back rate, potential tax levy related to that rolled-back
rate, and the maximum millage rates and the tax levy related with
those millage rates, along with the date for the first public hearing.
The first public hearing is scheduled, as I stated before, for
September 5th. The second public hearing is scheduled for
September 19th, and that will be the final public hearing where the
millage rates and the budget will be adopted.
Any questions on the schedule?
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: All right. Let's go to the certified taxable
value. We received -- we received this from the Property Appraiser
on July 1st, as I stated earlier. The countywide taxable value
increased $14.3 billion, from about 138 billion to $152 billion
overall. Of that, 4.6 billion is net new taxable value. That is
in -- that net -- the tax levy associated with that net new taxable value
is included in the rolled-back rate.
July 9, 2024
Page 77
In the unincorporated area, the tax value increased 9.2 billion
from $87 billion to $96.5 billion. In the unincorporated area, the net
new taxable value is $3.2 billion.
And I know you've seen the bottom of the slide at the workshop,
but I just wanted to reiterate it again: According to the state ad
valorem estimating conference, they're projecting continued tax base
increases of 10.2 and 7.1 percent through tax year 2025 and 2026.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quick. The 14 million -- is
9.2 billion included in the 14 million --
MR. JOHNSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- or is that in addition to?
MR. JOHNSON: It's included in it. So the 9.2 is a portion of
the countywide 14 point --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. You just distinguish
it because of the unincorporated area in relationship to the
incorporated. I gotcha.
MR. JOHNSON: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: You're welcome.
Any other questions on this slide?
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: All right. So moving into the MSTU
proposed millage rates. Per budget policy, the MSTU budgets were
established to cover the operational needs for FY '25 and any planned
capital allocations for those MSTUs. The proposed maximum
millage rates you see here were set to support those budgets that we
went through during the workshop.
Of note here is the Radio Road Beautification MSTU was
re-established. The proposed maximum millage rate for that is .1
mills, and also, we have a newly established private road MSTU with
a proposed maximum millage rate of 1 mill.
July 9, 2024
Page 78
Any questions on any of those at all? Those were all set per
policy.
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: All right. Moving on to the ranges that we
need to discuss today. So what you're going to see here are the
millage rate ranges for the three countywide taxing districts and the
unincorporated area taxing district.
The ranges you see here are from the rolled-back rate to the
millage-neutral rate. I'll just run through them real quick. The
General Fund rolled-back rate is 3.0107. The millage-neutral rate
would be 3.2043.
The water pollution control rolled-back rate is 0.0246, and the
millage-neutral rate would be 0.0263.
Conservation Collier rolled-back rate, 0.2096, and the
millage-neutral rate would be 0.2242.
As we go down to the Unincorporated Area General Fund there
at the bottom, the rolled-back rate would be 0.6844, and
millage-neutral rate would be 0.7280. And I know you're probably
staring at me like, "What does that mean, Chris," so we'll go on to the
next slide to show you the dollars associated with that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Oh, I thought you were going to ignore it
like, "What does that mean?" Just moving on.
MR. JOHNSON: So as you can see here. This slide depicts
the tax levy associated with those millage rates I just went through.
The column there in the green shows the increase over last year's
adopted tax dollars for the rolled-back rates in each of these funds,
and then the column in the blue shows the tax dollars associated with
the millage-neutral rate based on last year's tax, and finally the
yellow column shows the difference between a millage-neutral and a
rolled-back rate.
Any questions on that slide at all?
July 9, 2024
Page 79
(No response.)
MR. JOHNSON: This is kind of where we probably should
have the discussion on what we want to do with the maximum
millage rate going forward. As you noticed in the executive
summary, this year we kind of left those ranges open per kind of the
policy discussions we had in February and in -- actually, and in
March and at our workshop in June.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So just so I'm clear on this, you've got
$15 million is an increase in money based on the rolled-back rate?
MR. JOHNSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Because of growth?
MR. JOHNSON: And that's attributable to that $4.6 billion in
growth.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Gotcha.
MR. JOHNSON: No other questions on this?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, all right. Well, then, I guess at this
point, we need to decide where we want to move with the maximum
millage rates for those four taxing districts, the three countywide and
the unincorporated. The MSTU districts, as I stated, were -- the
proposed rate was calculated based on the budgetary need in those
areas.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So we need a -- how many -- how many
have we got to adopt? Can we just do countywide, or have we got to
do all of them?
MR. JOHNSON: At the moment, we just need direction on the
countywide and the unincorporated, and then at the end -- and then
once we have that, we can move forward with a motion to adopt
maximum millage rates in all those areas.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Troy, how many public speakers have
we got? Two. Let's hear them now.
July 9, 2024
Page 80
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Brad Cornell, and he'll be
followed by Michele Lenhard.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners.
I'm Brad Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western
Everglades and Audubon Florida. Appreciate the opportunity to
address you on the budget maximum-millage-rate hearing you have
today.
Audubon strongly recommends the maximum millage rate for
Conservation Collier be set at the original 0.25 mills. This is clearly
needed for the following program functions -- and I'll go through and
tick them off one by one so it's clear where we stand on this.
First, discussions and commitments variously made by
individual Board members over the past year and in the March
ordinance revisions have indicated your intention to definitely refrain
from transferring any further Conservation Collier trust funds to
nonconservation uses except in emergencies, and to restore the funds
transferred in the current Fiscal Year '24 budget.
Second, the Board has also emphasized the value of
Conservation Collier's fully invested trust funds, especially the Land
Management Trust Fund, being available as a de facto emergency
reserve which was the role it played after Hurricane Irma in 2017,
because previous boards had wisely invested religiously in that trust
fund.
Third, with -- I want to point out that the land management costs
are rising. You saw in your budget director's analysis that land
values have increased over 10 percent in the past year, so that directly
influences the ability of Conservation Collier to buy land.
The Management Trust Fund has been set up for 20 years as an
endowment fund, and that Management Trust Fund, prior to budget
transfers last year, had approximately $42 million, which was
anticipated to generate about $1.2 million annually in interest. That
July 9, 2024
Page 81
must be doubled to meet current long-term annual management
obligations as you acquire more land.
Next, the target protection areas list coming to you in August is
robust and builds on your existing preserves all over the county.
With this year's rolled-back tax rate and a possible rollback of that
rolled-back rate for Fiscal Year '25, the Board would be keeping tax
revenues for Conservation Collier flat while prices for land and land
management costs continue to escalate. That is a significant cut in
Conservation Collier's effectiveness at a critical time in the balance
of development and preservation.
Finally, I just want to reiterate Audubon recommends the Board
levy the usual 0.25 mills for Conservation Collier per public
expectation and support in order to continue your aggressive
conservation land acquisition pace and replenishing the funds in the
Land Management Trust Fund, which if you want to do this in
perpetuity, which is kind of the name of the game, that's what we
need to do.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker is Michele
Lenhard.
MS. LENHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm
Michele Lenhard, chair of Conservation Collier Committee, your
committee.
I want to thank you for your continued support of the
Conservation Collier program, also for your work strengthening
during the ordinance revision process and the work you've done to
strengthen our ordinance and to expedite the acquisition process and
accelerate it.
CCLAC has been a partner in this, and I wanted you to know
that I watch the recordings of your meetings and share your feelings
with our committee so that we can really stay on track with your
July 9, 2024
Page 82
direction.
As you approach this budget season for '24/'25, I just wanted to
highlight again the increasing costs on our acquisition and
maintenance budget. Using the Williams Farm application as an
example, our 5,000 acres currently in protection would go, for that
application alone, to 6400 acres, and with that, additional
maintenance costs which would increase the maintenance budget
pressured to an additional million dollars for that property alone. So
our management obligations are significant and worthy of
consideration.
You'll be seeing the Target Protection Mailing Area Maps
coming up shortly in August. Within those maps is the
I-75/Everglades Boulevard area that's of interest to this board, and
that includes 550 acres alone for that section of our county.
So there is important work to be done, and your continued
support is very critical on this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I want to
say -- repeat it again, today all we're doing is setting the maximum
millage rate that we can, in fact, go to. We don't have all of the data
yet. We don't have the report from ResourceX yet. We don't have
the -- we have not had the discussion on potential reallocation and/or
new revenue streams without new taxation.
So it would be my preference today to set the maximum millage
rate at rate neutral, which is -- which is highlighted here in blue, and
then once we have the balance of the data, then we can make our
decisions accordingly with regard to rolled-back rate or
whatever -- whatever, in fact, we're going to do in September.
So I'll make a motion to stay at rate neutral.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second it, and we should have that
report this afternoon.
July 9, 2024
Page 83
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You figure?
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'm in discussions moving forth this
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So we have a motion to keep the millage
neutral and a second.
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: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: And if I could, the MSTU rates as proposed,
with another motion, by chance? Can we do that, Jeff?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are they separate rates?
MR. JOHNSON: They are -- the MSTUs are the separate ones
that were done. We put a proposed based on the needs and the
capital expenditures. So those -- unless you want all those to be
millage neutral down the line. Some of those are rolled-back in that
list.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are any of them above
rolled-back -- I mean, are any of them above millage neutral?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, because we have a re-established
MSTU, and we have a private road --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Just the new one.
MR. JOHNSON: -- newly established MSTU.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There was one point -- if I
may.
July 9, 2024
Page 84
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the private road MSTU, I
know we capped it at 1 percent, but there was a -- I think I had
proposed a half a mill to stage it in.
MR. JOHNSON: And currently this would be the maximum,
so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: -- if we decide to go that route later, we
could.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. And then we'll have
a look at the actual expenditures associated with those private roads
then. So I'll make a motion for this proposed millage rate for the
MSTUs as well.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Moved and seconded to keep these rates.
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: So moved.
MR. JOHNSON: Appreciate it.
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #15A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA BY INDIVIDUALS NOT
July 9, 2024
Page 85
ALREADY HEARD DURING PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS
IN THIS MEETING
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 15.
Item 15A is public comments on general topics not on the current or
future agenda by individuals not already heard during previous public
comment in this meeting.
MR. MILLER: We have no registered speakers at this time.
MS. PATTERSON: Very good.
Item #15B
STAFF PROJECT UPDATES
That brings us to Item 15B, which is staff project updates. I
just wanted to touch briefly on a couple of things here. First, just an
update on DAS. DAS Building 5 is under construction now, or
under demolition -- no. We're taking out the insides, the insulation.
MR. FINN: Renovations.
MS. PATTERSON: Renovations, thank you.
It looked like a spaceship landing out there last week. We had
folks in Haz-Mat suits and all sorts of interesting stuff going in there
to deal -- to deal with that building, so that's well underway.
We are continuing to improve all of the daily activities there,
cleaning processes. Big thank you to all of the county staff that's
been helping out as well as our DAS staff that continues to hang in
there with us while we go through this. We do have a number of
dogs that are being boarded at an offsite location to be able to make
space for this work, and we do have a connection with another group.
They're actually -- we have somebody there that's doing dog play
groups for the next two months, thanks to the hard work of our
July 9, 2024
Page 86
volunteers. It's Dog Playing for Life. They potentially would be
able to take a few dogs for us and maybe help get them adopted out
or at least board them, so as we continue to be sure that we can
provide space for those animals in need while we go through this
process.
All of our adoptions are back open. You recall that we did have
a little bit of cat illness going through, which is common during
kitten season, but we're back open. We had 19 cat adoptions on
Saturday or Sunday, so that was great. A number of dog adoptions.
So it's very exciting. So we're very thankful to the Board for your
support and, again, to the county staff for all the hard work that
they're putting in. And if Mr. French has anything he wants to add.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you. For the record, Jamie French,
your department head for Growth Management.
On Building 5, just so you know, for those that may have been
out there, Building 5 is currently -- it is a -- it is considered a
demolition permit under the state law for the state building code.
It's interior demolition -- again, we're taking a building that's
better than 20 years old that was never air-conditioned, not designed
for air-conditioning, and as we move forward with that progress to
remodel the building, we will be issuing additional permits, and we'll
be taking that hopefully through the procurement process and put that
quick underway.
But this is to address all of the building needs for the internal as
well as for the life-safety requirements identified within the Florida
Fire Prevention Code.
The buildings were under fire watch for a period of time, but all
of that has been restored, permitted, contracted out by a fire design
professional firm that came in. And so we're well underway.
Ms. Cook and I are currently looking at the environmental
resource permit that exists on that property. You do have designated
July 9, 2024
Page 87
wetlands that exist just to the east. We're mindful of that. Although
that's county property, the State of Florida does recognize that it is a
Red-cockaded woodpecker area. And it's -- it needs to be
maintained to those preserve standards. So we're looking at all of
that as well as the safety of our volunteers, you know, in addition to
the staff and those unfortunate animals that need to spend a little time
with us.
But well underway. We're hopeful that it won't take too much
longer, but we recognize that with construction we're also tied up
with materials as well as -- material needs, any type of contract labor,
so it's going to take a little bit of time.
MS. PATTERSON: The second item for the Board is our burn
ban was officially lifted on July 1st. It's a requirement of our burn
ban ordinance to notify the Board that that has been lifted, and it has,
as of July 1st.
With that, I think Mr. Finn wanted to give a brief update on the
work at Sun-N-Fun.
MR. FINN: Sure do. Thank you, ma'am.
Edward Finn, Deputy County Manager.
At the aquatics facility, one of the items that came up is seasonal
passholders for Sun-N-Fun. Staff has moved out with offering either
a reimbursement of those fees or the option to utilize our other
facilities, the other five facilities that are operating, as well as a
four-month extension for Sun-N-Fun when that comes back online.
We've moved out with that.
Sun-N-Fun continues to be under the guidance of both our hired
professional engineers, staff, and the folks at Facilities Management.
That is proceeding, but that's kind of on a longer -- longer track.
Our other facilities, those that had geothermal systems, that is
the heating and cooling system concerns, those have been resolved at
this point in time. Essentially, all those facilities continue to operate
July 9, 2024
Page 88
and are showing signs of improvement with some of the pump issues
that were discussed previously fixed up.
One of the nominal outliers is the slide at the Golden Gate
facility. That's awaiting repairs to the stair system. That will be
conducted this month. Hopeful to get that opened up or reopened up
at the end of the month, early -- early August.
With that, if I may, I'll talk maybe briefly -- briefly about the
drone show or the Drones in Paradise show on Saturday. The show
generally went well. There was a lot of lessons learned from the last
one that were applied, and that includes getting in -- getting people in
earlier, having activities to get them there earlier, having activities at
the -- after the drone show to try to retain them there, and there was
some success.
There was considerably more parking provided on site. There
was an enormous amount of effort to coordinate that parking. I will
not say that it went absolutely perfect, but our goal is to just make
sure that we learn from previous experiences and improve. The
improvement probably could be shown -- generally speaking, people
getting back out onto 951. Instead of a two-hour, 80 percent of it
was moved out in 45 minutes is what I'm told.
The coordination with the Sheriff's Office, fire districts, our
staff, transportation staff, park staff, parks, sports park staff, it was an
all-hands-on-deck thing. We, of course, have an after-action
meeting planned to learn lessons from this one and try to extend those
and continue to improve our performance.
With that, that's all I have.
Item #15C
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
July 9, 2024
Page 89
MS. PATTERSON: All right. That brings us to Item 15C,
staff and commission general communications. We probably just
gave you everything we have, so County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just going with what Ed said, I attended
the drone show, and it was by far the best county event I ever
attended. Staff did a wonderful job.
MR. FINN: Thank you, Jeff.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Were you in the 20 percent that didn't
get out in 45 minutes?
MR. KLATZKOW: I waited, but it's fine. I mean, it's like
New York Giant games. I mean, you wait forever.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
I don't have a whole lot to say. I just want to thank you guys
for allowing me to participate today remotely. You know, I'd like to
be there in person, but it just happened to be plans didn't allow me to
do that this time.
But, yeah, once again -- and, you know, it's funny we were
talking -- talking about our impact fees and the dates that
were -- coincided with some things we were talking about earlier, like
this chart, the 2005 up to 2023, and just for the heck of it, I
just -- because I had an opportunity to play on my other computer
here, I was looking at the Property Appraiser's website and just
looking at just that -- not to pick on that person or to beat a dead
horse, but I kind of looked up that property in question we discussed
earlier in the other agenda item.
In 2005, that property was at $89,500, and it sold in 2023 for
$551,000. So when you see that discrepancy in cost of building and
cost of homes and correlate that with the discussion we had with the
impact fees, it kind of shows it just -- you know, you're talking about
July 9, 2024
Page 90
a large percentage change over time.
And I really like how the county approaches this with kind of
like not a stagnant view. We look it -- at the market, and we adjust
to the market. Like in the downfall, you know, the great downfall
between 2008 and 2009, and we actually lowered impact fees, you
know, to mirror what was going on with the market.
And when housing prices went down and you couldn't get
people to build new structures, you know, we were fluid; we weren't
stagnant. And I think we have to always take that approach, even
moving forward.
So that being said, once again, I thank you guys for allowing me
to participate today and look forward to seeing you guys next
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Do you have a tie on?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I do have a collared shirt on.
CHAIRMAN HALL: There you go.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I was also at
the drone show, and it was -- it was pretty spectacular. I didn't really
see anything that went wrong, but of course, I was up in the stands,
so I didn't see some of the innerworkings. But I think there must
have been 10,000 people there, because the stands were full, the
fields were full. Over by the Cove area, that was full of folks as
well.
Did you get an estimate of the number of people that were
actually there?
MR. FINN: The estimate is in excess of 8,000. The previous
estimate from -- I'm sorry -- from the previous event was in the 6- to
7,000 range, so we definitely increased the number.
And I think we saw more people come in earlier. And while we
would have liked to retain more of our guests to ease the egress, we
July 9, 2024
Page 91
did have a good number remaining, and that will continue to be a
model we try to maximum.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So it was a spectacular
event. I think everyone I talked to had a great time, and staff did a
wonderful job with that, so thank you.
I did travel over to DAS on Saturday and Sunday, and the
County Manager was there on Friday and Saturday. Actually, I was
there on Friday and Saturday and Sunday.
I talked to a lot of the volunteers, and they are so thrilled with
the work that's going on out there, so I just wanted to mention that the
Manager, along with a lot of other county staff folks, were out there
on Friday as well as the weekend doing some hard work. And the
volunteers I spoke to were really pretty pleased with the changes out
there.
As a matter of fact, we adopted a little dog for my
mother-in-law, a little one-eyed chihuahua. A cute little dog. Not
very attractive, but a cute little dog. Anyway, that was -- it was just
rewarding to go there and see how wonderful things are turning
around there.
You mentioned the cooling issue at the Golden Gate Park
that -- I know there was -- there was one pump that was out, and then
the existing pump was questionable. And you've said that the
cooling issue has been resolved. Does that mean that there are no
other issues remaining in terms of cooling for the summer?
Obviously, the slide is a different issue, but just the concern
about the cooling, because the water was heating up.
MR. FINN: Subject to normal breakdowns. It has been
restored, and it's anticipated to be solid through the summer. But
equipment breaks. And the pump that you referenced is, in fact, on
the list as having been repaired as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. But there was
July 9, 2024
Page 92
another one that, I believe, was on order so there would be a backup.
MR. FINN: I'll check on that for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because there used to be two
pumps there. One of them completely broke, and the other one's
almost ready to break.
MR. FINN: Copy that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Other than that,
just, again, thank staff for your efforts and look forward to the next
meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have two things.
Happy -- I'm going to do the happy first and then the -- and then the
not so happy second.
The happy is our kids at Max Hasse, the 9-, 10-, and 11-year-old
kids Little Leaguers won Sections, and they are now in the top eight
teams in the state of Florida, and they are traveling to Tampa this
coming weekend to compete at states. And so forgive me in advance
if -- I'm probably going to drag them all in here and give them a
resolution or something from us and get a picture taken.
I'm very proud of those children. I was -- I'm friends with a lot
of the parents of those kids, and it's quite an event. It's the first time
a team from Max Hasse has made Sections, won Sections, and
headed to state. So that's a -- that's an exciting -- exciting piece of
news.
The second thing, I have a very dear friend. His name is Huey
Howard, cattleman, long-time cattleman, rancher here in the state of
Florida and in Collier County. He lives in Immokalee. He's not
long for this world.
And so I'd like to -- there's a couple of ways to rename a
state -- rename a street, and one of the ways is to go get a thousand
July 9, 2024
Page 93
petitions on a signature [sic] and rename the street.
I would like, if it meets with consent of this board to wave the
magic wand and rename Eustis Avenue in Immokalee to Howard
Avenue.
Now, I'll still go through the motions, and we'll still do all of the
proper process, but I wanted to bring it up here today to not go
through that thousand petition [sic] adventure and rename it. He
lives on Eustis, and I'd like to -- I'd like to rename the street "Howard
Avenue."
CHAIRMAN HALL: I don't have any problem with that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You okay with that?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. The head nod
thing -- I can't see what Kowal's thinking, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. That's all I
have.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think I'm okay with that,
but --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm nodding my head.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only question I would
ask is, I don't know the number of businesses and that sort of thing on
that particular street.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There aren't any.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a private road off of 1st
when you come in. When --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So there's not going
to be an impact on people in terms of losing their stationery and all
that kind of stuff?
July 9, 2024
Page 94
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we will -- just for your
brain, we will go through the necessary motions to make sure that
there's -- that there's consent to do this. I'm not even sure that Huey's
aware that I'm proposing this, so...
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm not in favor of, like, Bill
McDaniel Boulevard or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quit it. We've got to have at
least one.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We shoot -- we shoot that
down immediately.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe a short dead-end
street there we can name --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, something where, you
know, there's a bunch of dumpsters at the end of the dead-end street.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Rock crusher.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's a set of plans sitting
around here somewhere with McDaniel Parkway on it, just so you
know.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, well, we'll shred those.
Oh, just a couple of thanks. We had our county teams, Coastal
Zone and everybody, working really hard on 4th of July and also the
next day. I can only speak for the beaches that are in my district,
and it's mostly Marco and some of those surrounding areas of, you
know, Keewaydin and some of those other connector areas. But I
got really great reports that soon after the 4th immediately at
oh-dark-thirty on the 5th, you know, garbage cans were emptied,
beaches were clean.
And then another triple check of that is on Marco, there's a
July 9, 2024
Page 95
group called Friends of Tigertail that did a beach cleanup on their
own just in case, and James from Parks and Rec and a few others
joined them and went out there. I actually was out of town, but, you
know, James came back to me and said, "They actually didn't pick up
as much as they usually do when they just do, you know, the beach
cleanup," he says, "because the county had done, you know, basically
such a good job."
And so -- and I did get a few notes from people that just said,
"Wow, you know, great job." So I just want to make sure that just
didn't get lost in translation because it was -- you know, the beaches
were -- you know, we had a fireworks show on the 4th on Marco and
in some other areas where people could see it, and you know, beach
cleanup was impressive by all accounts that came to me.
You know, the drone show, obviously, did have more people,
but it really wasn't apples to apples because if you remember, we did
the fireworks on the 4th of July, but there was -- we weren't the only
game in town.
So it was good to see -- I'm not taking anything away
from -- you know, there was more people there, but I actually liked
that idea of, you know, let Marco do their fireworks on the 4th, let the
pier do their fireworks on the 4th, and then people can go enjoy those
shows. But if the drone idea for the stadium -- for several reasons,
it's -- there's no sound, you know. We don't have any kind of big fire
issues, and it just might make the most sense, and it's a perfect venue
for it.
I think having it a day or two after, you know, so that people can
sort of enjoy the Independence weekend, that -- maybe it just sort of
worked out that way this time. I know I got a few questions from
people: "Why are they doing something on the 6th?" So, you
know, the answer was because we want it to be the only game in
town, and it was on the weekend. It was a Saturday, so it made the
July 9, 2024
Page 96
most sense.
But in the after-action meeting, a couple things that I'm sure
aren't lost for your checklist but -- you know, that I wrote down.
You know, I was there as well. And Ed and I already spoke. But
we had a heavy CCSO presence, but we need some sort of traffic
directional presence inside the parking lot. So once you made it out
of the parking lot, then it was great to see a thousand cops out there
all waving flashlights, but we were already clear of the traffic inside
the parking lot.
And as we spoke yesterday, you had a lot of pedestrians that
were all walking to their cars, and if you're sitting in your car with
your car running, you can't run over these people. If there were
people in key locations telling the pedestrians, you know, "Hold up.
I'm going to let 20 cars through," we probably could have done a
much better job.
And the reason that's important is, you know, this drone show
might have been a one-time deal -- and we'll see how we do next
year -- but we're on the heels of FC Naples, and they're going to bring
crowds -- a crowd of that size possibly, or we hope, for 16 games.
So -- although I did have to give some people a bit of reality.
Who's -- who -- I think the County Manager -- or County Attorney
was talking about Giants games. You know, you had some folks,
"Oh, I can't believe it took me 30 minutes to get out of the parking
lot," and I had to say to them, "Have you never gone to a Buccaneer
game? Have you never gone to see the Rolling Stones in concert?
You don't move for two hours." But it doesn't mean we can't do
better, so that was one thing.
And then also as part of the after-action, Ed, the sale of food and
beverage -- and I think we spoke in more detail in my office -- was
good but not great. You know, having to run over to the food truck
to buy an incredible barbecue platter but they weren't allowed to sell
July 9, 2024
Page 97
beverages, and then you had to go all the way on the other side of the
stadium to wait in line again with food you already purchased to buy
a bottle of water didn't seem to make sense to me.
The only place where you could actually buy food and drink was
at one or two locations. Everything else was sort of spread out.
And when I talked to some of the vendors, they said, "Well, that was
the rules of the sports complex." So it might be something to just
take a look at because it just -- you know, people want to get their
food and drink quickly and then get back to watching the soccer
game. So we need to do that, you know, a lot better.
And then I was really disappointed that every 30 minutes on the
big jumbo billion-dollar TV that we have out there the FC Naples
commercial wasn't running in a loop. And when I asked the FC
Naples folks, they said they asked, quote, "county leadership" -- and
it's probably nobody in this room, but somebody at a level in between
all of us made a command decision that I think was the wrong one.
You had a captured audience there, and for them watching this
unbelievably professional commercial that has been blasted
everywhere -- you know, I had lunch with some FC Naples people
yesterday at a restaurant where the owner came out and said, "Wow,
that drone show was amazing." And then I said, oh, here's -- I want
to introduce you to some leadership for FC Naples, the professional
soccer team that's coming here, and he said, "What soccer team?"
And so he went to the drone show and could -- and they had a
little tent, and they were doing season tickets. But, you know, FC
Naples is part of the county. So, you know, integrating them into
every event and, you know, going overboard, if you will, as much as
possible, I think, to market that the team is coming here helps all of
us. So I don't know why we would have artificially stifled not
showing that commercial. Nobody here would have agreed to that,
but somewhere halfway up someone made a decision. It went to FC
July 9, 2024
Page 98
Naples. They didn't question it and, you know, missed an
opportunity, because 80 percent of the time that big jumbo screen,
which is beautiful and perfectly clear, just had the Drones in Paradise
graphic on it. Then they showed the movie Night at the Museum,
they ran our little commercials, and then they went back to the -- you
know, the Drones in Paradise graphic, and that could have really been
incorporated. So, you know, enough of that.
But -- and I'm going to talk a little bit about this at my TDC
meetings as well, because the TDC's highly involved. So I'll just say
that.
But I agree as well, it was -- you know, these are -- we could sit
here for an hour and talk about all the great and wonderful things.
But, you know, we've got to improve every single time, because that
stadium's not going to get less full. We've got bigger things coming.
Then Great Wolf Lodge is going to cut a ribbon, and people are going
to come over from that. So I'm glad to hear that you have an
after-action meeting.
And I can maybe the short, condensed version of what comes
out of that after-action meeting maybe, you know, presenting it to us
so that we know, "Hey, here were the problems, here was the
solutions, and here's how it's going to get better" would be something
I think all of us would benefit from. Because we're getting notes
from constituents all the time, and I'd like us to have concise answers
that all match, you know. So that would be -- that would be helpful,
you know.
MR. FINN: Thanks -- thanks for the input. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But, yep, thank you.
MR. FINN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I did not get to make the drone
show. After 10 days of five grandkids --
MS. HALL: Eleven.
July 9, 2024
Page 99
CHAIRMAN HALL: -- eleven, I was asleep. But I heard
amazing things about it and, in particular, I think the feedback was
amazing. And I would agree that the FC Naples could have
been -- that was a great opportunity to toot their horn.
County Attorney, if we -- is there anything that -- if we don't
make the two-week mark, is there anything that's pressing about the
impact fee study that, if we move it to August the 13th --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN HALL: -- it's going to put you behind? Okay.
I brought it up last month and -- or last meeting. And so,
if -- you know, we decided we were going to work through the
summer, and if we want to work, we want to work. If we have
something to do, I'm all -- I want to do it.
But other than that discussion, there's not a whole lot going on.
I'll bring this up again, because in talking to ResourceX, we're going
to get that report this afternoon. The report is ready. He just
wanted to take a look at it and make sure it was just spot-on perfect.
So he's promised to have that to us this afternoon. That report's
coming to senior staff, and then senior staff will put it to the
directors.
In talking with him, I said, "What is the normal process? What
normally takes place?"
And he said, "What normally takes place is they'll get my
report," and he said, "just like you brought up in the previous
meeting," he said, "they'll focus on the high-cost, low-impact things
and the low-cost, low-impact things first as basically the low-hanging
fruit." And he said, "Usually, they take about -- about a month to
look at that and to bring back to the Board their recommendations
how they can implement those things, and when they bring that back,
we either say, 'we like that, let's implement that,' or 'no, let's don't do
that. Let's keep that.'" Then we have some -- we have some
July 9, 2024
Page 100
information to make decisions.
If we come back in two weeks, I don't think that's going to be
enough time for us to have those discussions. And trust me, I'm
ready to have those discussions. This is something that's been going
on now for a year, and I'm chomping at the bits to get -- to get to the
root of everything. So if we want to meet, we'll meet, and if we
don't -- I'll just leave it up to y'all.
So I'm going to make a motion that we skip July 23rd and that
we come back on August the 13th not because we're not going to
work, just -- we're just not going to meet. So I'll throw it out there.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I certainly have
no objection to not having a meeting when we don't have a lot to deal
with; however, my understanding is in reference to the Renaissance
workforce housing project that there is a deadline for approval of
some documentation that has to be done before the 1st of August.
And so I know Steve Kirk was planning on being here on the 23rd of
July to finalize a few of the -- basically form documents, but they're
documents that have to be approved by this board or by the County
Manager.
Perhaps, Ms. Patterson, you can elaborate, or Mr. Finn.
MS. PATTERSON: That's what we were just looking at to
see -- to make sure we're on track for the 23rd and then to find out if
you all -- if we're not going to have a meeting on the 23rd, if I can
sign them and then bring them back to get them ratified by the Board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you can do that.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Will that satisfy the various
entities that are involved with those documents, having you authorize
them but that authorization being contingent on it being approved by
the Board in August? I don't know the answer to that question.
July 9, 2024
Page 101
MR. KLATZKOW: We've done this process many, many
times over the years. We've never had an issue. I can't tell you you
won't have an issue on this one, but we've never had one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Can I make a
suggestion? Would you contact Mr. Kirk and make sure that that's
not a problem? Because I'd hate to lose a project because of a
deadline that is really only a technical --
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- need. And assuming that
that process works, then, of course, we don't have the meeting on
July 23rd, but if we do have that one item, I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that we -- even if it's a five-minute meeting, that we
do meet to take care of that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: If we need to, we can.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We probably won't have to,
but I just want everybody to be prepared just in case.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if you want certainty, just
authorize Amy to sign documents but don't come back for
ratification, and that takes that issue off. Amy has full authority to
do this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no problem making
that motion, even though we don't have the documents in front of us
and we don't know exactly what those documents are. I don't have a
problem, because I assume that Ms. Patterson will use her judgment
if there's something that's unacceptable there, so...
MR. KLATZKOW: As will my office.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So I'll make that
motion, then, that in terms of the documentation for the Renaissance
project that has to be approved in July, that the manager's authorized
to sign without having to come back to this board for retroactive
approval, and that the County Attorney will work with the manager to
July 9, 2024
Page 102
make sure that everything is as it should be. So I'll make that
motion, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll second that. And, Amy,
you can always send us a one-way communication --
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- if there was, like, some
concern or something that you had to weigh or something. But I
would second that.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Motion and second. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm opposed to not having the
meeting in July. You've been waiting a year to go through this stuff.
I've been waiting seven.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We have meetings with our
CRAs that were scheduled for that -- for that date and now apparently
have been moved because it's got winded that we weren't going to
have a meeting in July. We're going to push everything with regard
to our budget discussions back into our August meetings.
There are other things that need to be talked about by this
government. Again, these are not necessarily pressing issues.
These aren't things that have to happen at our second meeting in July.
But we have a landfill out there. You, Commissioner LoCastro,
July 9, 2024
Page 103
Commissioner Kowal, hasn't even been briefed on our -- formally
briefed on our landfill and its capacity and its term, when it's actually
expiring, decisions that we need to be starting to talk about now in
order to extend the life of that landfill so that our -- so that your 11
grandchildren who come and visit you have a place for their trash to,
in fact, go.
These are discussions that need to happen. And we don't need
to make -- and the reason I voted against the motion for allowing
County Manager to sign off is we don't have to make special
exceptions if we just have the meeting.
Have the annual briefings coming from our CRAs that we were
planning on, having a report on the landfill, having our discussion on
our first take of the ResourceX. I mean, we're going to have two
weeks to review that report if he gets it to us today. Having
our -- having our first-blush discussions to help guide our staff with
regard to the reallocation and the new funding and that sort of thing.
So my obstinance in the vote wasn't to take away the authority
of the County Manager. We don't need to make special exceptions if
we just have our meeting and fill it up -- I say "fill it up." Utilize the
time. I mean, there are things that we can actually do that we aren't.
That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No, I totally agree. And I'm all for
an -- for a day's meeting, I mean, just to come in here just to have,
you know, three or four hours of discussion. It's like -- like I said,
I'm not talking about taking off. I'm talking about just not meeting
until we can get those things lined up.
So, Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, everyone knows I
was a big supporter of having meetings scheduled throughout the
summer, but I always caveated that by saying, "When we got an
agenda or if it looked like the agenda was kind of thin, we always,
July 9, 2024
Page 104
you know, have the option to say, 'Hey, there's only one or two things
on here.'"
So maybe it's premature to make the decision today if we're not
going to have a meeting next time. I mean, we don't want to maybe,
you know, cancel it 24 hours prior and then throw everybody into a
tailspin. But you just laundry-listed a whole bunch of things that
could or might be or maybe definitely would be on next week's
meeting. Ten minutes ago I didn't -- like, you could always put
something on the agenda.
But I would agree, if it looks like it's an agenda that has some
weight to it, we should have it. But, you know, the reality was that,
you know, we voted to keep meetings on the books, but the Chair
always had the option to propose, or any of us, that, "Hey, I just took
a look at the agenda. It looks pretty thin. I think I could use the
extra time." Like you said, it's not like we're in the Bahamas, but
maybe, you know, we're digesting ResourceX stuff or we're talking to
constituents or whatever.
So I don't know if it's premature to decide two weeks in advance
when we don't even know what would be on the agenda. If
everything you just laundry-listed would be on the agenda on the
29th, all of us would probably say, "Wow, it sounds like that's going
to be kind of a busy meeting." But if it's not time-critical and we
could use the time more efficiently, then, you know, I'd be for, you
know, not having a meeting just to have one. But if there were all
these items on there, and it was throwing some things into a
tailspin -- I mean, County Manager, can you shed some light on your
thoughts?
MS. PATTERSON: So regarding the annual meeting of the
CRAs, we had just polled the CRA members to find out what their
availability was through the summer, so there's -- that's not a -- it's
not time-sensitive per se. They're available both July, August, and
July 9, 2024
Page 105
then into September. So we were going to, you know, try to slot that
in. I think they had kind of homed in on the 23rd, but when we had
this conversation last meeting, they also provided their availability
for those other dates.
As far as the conversation about the landfill, we are planning to
bring that to the Board. This is something that we've been working
on for a little while now behind the scenes. We're not quite ready
for a presentation on that to the level that it needs to be for you-all.
However, again, if you -- we're here at your pleasure. If you
want to have a meeting, there's regular business that's done, but
there's also processes in place for that regular business to get done
through our abstentia process.
I would say, though, that the decision should -- it would be
better for the decision to be made because, obviously, we have to
give meeting notices. We have staff members slotting in agenda
items, even just our regular business, where we would want to know,
if we're not going to have an in-person meeting on the 23rd, there are
certain items that will stay and can be done in abstentia, and then
there are things that will say, "Well, this will be a better item for the
August meeting."
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I mean, if we want to meet, you-all
can vote. So I'm just going to make a motion that we skip the 23rd
meeting and come back on the 12th with a full agenda -- or the 13th,
August the 13th with a full agenda.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, for the County
Manager, do you have enough knowledge now to be able to say
there's -- you know, and there can always be some sort of pop-up, and
then that's when you can send a note out and go, "Hey, I know
you-all decided not to have a meeting, but we have a hurricane
approaching," you know, or something like that. So you always
have that knowledge. But do you have enough depth right now to
July 9, 2024
Page 106
look at the next meeting and feel like it's thinner than normal?
MS. PATTERSON: The most pressing issue we had coming
for the next meeting was the Renaissance Hall item. The impact fee
item, obviously, based on the course of action today, could have gone
on the 23rd, but it's -- it's not -- that's not make or break for it to go
the 23rd or the 13th. There isn't any land-use -- obviously, no
controversial land use. So we have generally routine items. I'll
look at Mr. Finn and see if he has anything else planned to pop on
that agenda. It's -- Renaissance Hall was our big item.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And if this motion
doesn't pass, then we'll have a meeting on the 23rd, and in that case,
you can bring the documents to us for --
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Well, forget that. With that,
we're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You didn't call for the
motion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. So are we having the
meeting or not? Because you --
CHAIRMAN HALL: No. I made a motion. It was never
seconded.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I didn't -- you didn't -- I
didn't hear you call for a second. I thought we were still talking.
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, okay. Nope. Come on back.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I'll make a motion that we skip the
23rd.
MS. PATTERSON: There you go.
CHAIRMAN HALL: And if there's no second, then we'll meet,
and if there's a second, we'll vote.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll make a second just to
July 9, 2024
Page 107
throw it out there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, cut it out. Let it fail.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It fails 3-2.
CHAIRMAN HALL: We have a motion and second to skip the
23rd meeting so that we can work with ResourceX and staff. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
All opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Motion fails. We'll see you the 23rd.
*******
****Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner
LoCastro, and carried that the following items under the consent and
summary agendas be approved and/or adopted****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX AND EVENT CENTER
- PHASE 2, PL20230012609. (DISTRICT 3) - FINAL INSPECTION
CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON APRIL 16, 2024, FOUND THESE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE.
Item #16A2
July 9, 2024
Page 108
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES AND
APPURTENANT UTILITY EASEMENT FOR COLLIER COUNTY
RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK INTERCONNECT,
PL20220005993. (DISTRICT 3)
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES
AND APPURTENANT UTILITY EASEMENT FOR GREAT WOLF
LODGE, PL20240005649. (DISTRICT 3) - AS DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS (O.R.) BOOK 6364, PAGE (PG) 3436
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2024-127: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT
DEDICATIONS, FOR THE FINAL PLAT OYSTER HARBOR AT
FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 1, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20130002036, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $336,125.
(DISTRICT 1)
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
July 9, 2024
Page 109
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR
REDLINE AUTO SUITES, PL20240002566. (DISTRICT 2) -
FINAL INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON APRIL 16,
2024, FOUND THESE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE.
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR RITZ-CARLTON NAPLES CENTRAL
EQUIPMENT PLANT, PL20240005467. (DISTRICT 2) - FINAL
INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON MAY 21, 2024,
FOUND THESE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE.
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF DEL WEBB NAPLES
PARCELS 304-306 (APPLICATION PL20230017431), APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND APPROVAL OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,009,779.75. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TREE FARM TRACT “A”
REPLAT APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,166,706.78. (PL20230014384). (DISTRICT 3)
July 9, 2024
Page 110
Item #16A9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
WITH 1) JEFFREY AND MELISSA HUGHES FOR A 1.59-ACRE
PARCEL AT A COST OF $46,110, AND 2) KYLE WILSON AND
LISA MASON FOR A 1.59-ACRE PARCEL AT A COST OF
$46,110, FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $95,460,
INCLUSIVE OF CLOSING COSTS. (DISTRICT 5) – TWO
PARCELS TOTALING 3.18 ACRES WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER PANTHER WALK PRESERVE
MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT AREA.
Item #16B1
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PARCEL (PARCEL
543FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE 62ND AVE NE BRIDGE
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60212). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$192,000. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 23- 8079,
TREELINE DRIVE & LOGAN BLVD. NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
RD. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THOMAS MARINE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., ADDING SEVENTEEN DAYS TO THE
AGREEMENT AND UTILIZING $41,882.00 FOR UNFORESEEN
ADDITIONAL ITEMS FROM THE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED
CHANGE ORDER. (PROJECT NO. 60245) (DISTRICT 2,
DISTRICT 3)
July 9, 2024
Page 111
Item #16B3
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE
FUNDS IN THE LANDSCAPE FUND (1012) FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $126,912. (DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 3, DISTRICT 4)
– LOCATED WITHIN THE PINE RIDGE I-75 LIMITED ACCESS
AREA AND THE GOLDEN GATE INTERCHANGE AREA.
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND
TRANSFER FUNDING FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (3083) AND
TRANSPORTATION & CDES CAPITAL FUND (3081) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $384,812.43. (PROJECT No.s 60085, 60066, 60088,
69331, 69333, 69336, 68338, AND 69339) (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16B5
REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST OF $44,879.00 TO THE CITY OF
NAPLES FROM TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS
RELATIVE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY
ADEPT PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC, FOR A TOURISM IMPACT
STUDY FOR THE NAPLES GULF OF MEXICO BEACH
STORMWATER OUTFALL PIPE REMOVAL & WATER
QUALITY PROJECT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 4)
Item #16B6
THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANT
July 9, 2024
Page 112
AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC TRANSIT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM CONTRACT NO. G2F05 BETWEEN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR
DESIGNEE, TO PERFORM THE MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF
EXECUTING FUTURE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16B7
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ADDING TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-
SEVEN (237) DAYS AND THE REALLOCATION OF FUNDS
FOR MATERIALS TESTING AND FIELD OFFICE EXPENSES
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 21-7877 WITH KISINGER CAMPO &
ASSOCIATES, CORP FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT GENERATING ECONOMIC
RECOVERY (TIGER) GRANT IMMOKALEE AREA
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CHANGE ORDER. (PROJECT NO.
33563) (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16B8
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP-RANKED FIRM, AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
CONCERNING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO.
24-8220, “CEI AND PEER REVIEW SERVICES FOR BRIDGES
WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,” SO THAT STAFF CAN
July 9, 2024
Page 113
BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S
CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING. (PROJECT NO.
60212) (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16B9
AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 23- 8153
“IMMOKALEE RD (C.R. 846E) PAVED SHOULDER
IMPROVEMENTS – FPID 449668-1-54-01-SCOP” TO THOMAS
MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$946,146.00, APPROVE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $50,000,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT. (PROJECT 60253,
FUNDS 1841 AND 3083) (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16B10
RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE REVENUE TO THE TRAFFIC
OPERATIONS COST CENTER (163630) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$209,692.48 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, AND AUTHORIZE THE
ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16B11
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE WITH QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., RELATED TO THE “DESIGN-BUILD
OF WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND MARBELLA LAKES DRIVE
CONNECTION” PROJECT, UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 20-7735,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $304,670.75. (PROJECT NO. 60219)
(DISTRICT 2)
July 9, 2024
Page 114
Item #16B12
THE SUBMITTAL OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING
REQUEST (LGFR) BEACH PROJECT APPLICATIONS TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(FDEP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026. (DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT
4)
Item #16B13
THE FY2024 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZE
ITS SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT). (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C1
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO MEET WITH
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GREATER NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT AND THE NORTH
COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT TO
REVIEW, REAFFIRM, AND UPDATE THE 2013 AGREEMENT
REGARDING ACCESS TO RAW WATER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
USE FOR FIGHTING FIRES AND BRING THE UPDATE BACK
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AS THE EX-OFFICIO THE GOVERNING
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT,
FOR CONSIDERATION. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C2
July 9, 2024
Page 115
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REALLOCATE CAPITAL
PROJECT FUNDING WITHIN WATER USER FEE CAPITAL
PROJECT FUND (4012) IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 AND
WASTEWATER USER FEE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND (4014) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,500,000 TO FUND CURRENT PROJECT
NEEDS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C3
RESOLUTIONS 2024-128; RESOLUTION 2024-129:
RESOLUTIONS TO SET THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR
AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THE BOARD
WILL ADOPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE COLLECTED
ON THE NON-AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR
CURBSIDE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES TO SET A NOT-TO -EXCEED FEE OF $330.00 FROM
FY2025 THROUGH FY2029 AND APPROVE THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED NOTIFICATION TO CUSTOMERS.
(ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C4
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 23- 8190, “MASTER
PUMP STATION (MPS) 302 FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT,” TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,797,365.80, APPROVE AN OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF
$150,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 1)
Item #16D1
July 9, 2024
Page 116
HUD FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT SF-425 TO CLOSE OUT
THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT-CV FOR THE
PROGRAM YEAR 2020, THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS
GRANT PROGRAM YEAR 2020, AND THE EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM YEAR 2021. (NO FISCAL
IMPACT) (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D2
THE REIMBURSEMENT OF A ONE-TIME PAYMENT FOR
$18,192.77 TO AMERICORPS FOR THE RETIRED SENIOR
VOLUNTEER GRANT #18SRSFL005. (FISCAL IMPACT
$18,192.77) (COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES GRANT
SUPPORT FUND 1806) (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2024-130: THE CHAIRMAN TO (A) SIGN TWO
(2) 2025-2027 URBAN COUNTY COOPERATION
AGREEMENTS, ONE WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AND ONE
WITH THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, (B) APPROVE THE
ASSOCIATED RESOLUTION, AND (C) AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
FORWARD THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TO COMPLY WITH HUD’S URBAN COUNTY RE-
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. (NO FISCAL IMPACT)
(ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16E1
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
July 9, 2024
Page 117
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR AFTER-THE-FACT
PURCHASES REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE
AND THE PROCUREMENT MANUAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,853.99 AND RATIFY AFTER-THE-FACT PURCHASES MADE
WITH PURCHASING CARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,024.45.
(ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16F1
LETTERS OF INTENT FROM GARGIULO EDUCATION
CENTER, INC., A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, AND
FROM UP IN SMOKE, LLC, BOTH PROPOSING TO PURCHASE
COLLIER COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON 16140
AND 16144 PERFORMANCE WAY, AND AUTHORIZE AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO TAKE
ANY AND ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO SURPLUS THE
PROPERTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPETITIVE
BIDDING PROCESS SET FORTH IN SECTION 125.35, FLORIDA
STATUTES, ALLOWING ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES TO
COMPETE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. (DISTRICT 2)
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2024-131: A RESOLUTION FIXING SEPTEMBER
5, 2024, 5:05 P.M., IN THE THIRD FLOOR BOARD ROOM, 3299
EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, AS THE DATE,
TIME, AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR
APPROVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENT) TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
July 9, 2024
Page 118
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT FOR MAINTENANCE
OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION
OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS AND
MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS,
MANAGEMENT OF THE DREDGING AND MAINTENANCE
ACTIVITIES FOR CLAM PASS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ENHANCING THE HEALTH OF THE AFFECTED MANGROVE
FOREST AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE
FUNDS FOR AMBIENT NOISE MANAGEMENT,
MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS,
INCLUDING THE RESTORATION OF THE MANGROVE
FOREST, U.S. 41 BERM, STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS
WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS, LANDSCAPING
IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES AND BEACH
RENOURISHMENT, ALL WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT.
(DISTRICT 2)
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2024-132: 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)
Item #16F4
July 9, 2024
Page 119
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE $1,000,000 TO BE
RECEIVED FROM LODGE ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC,
PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING LOT ON TRACT 10,
WIGGINS BAY, PHASE I WHICH WAS RECENTLY CONVEYED
TO COLLIER COUNTY AND ACCEPT AN UPDATE ON THE
COUNTY’S DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT THE
PARKING LOT. (DISTRICT 2)
Item #16F5
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER BUDGETS TO FACILITATE THE PARTIAL
TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM CONSERVATION COLLIER
ACQUISITION FUND AND THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
MANAGEMENT FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND IN A TOTAL
AMOUNT $29,619,397. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16F6 - Moved to Item #16L1 (Correct Placement, Per Agenda
Change Sheet)
Item #16F7
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY MANGER
OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN EMS COUNTY GRANT
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
FOR MEDICAL AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $78,658.02 AND TO AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS)
July 9, 2024
Page 120
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$260,000, AND FOR IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $200,000, TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASED
FUEL PURCHASES AND ASSOCIATED OPERATING
EXPENSES OVER BUDGETED LEVELS. (DISTRICT 1,
DISTRICT 5)
Item #16J1
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 $32,887,883.67 WERE DRAWN FOR THE
PERIODS BETWEEN JUNE 13, 2024, AND JUNE 26, 2024
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16J2
THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JULY 3, 2024. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16K1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
ELIZABETH MARX V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 24-CA-
1039, NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
July 9, 2024
Page 121
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $10,000. (ALL
DISTRICTS)
Item #16K2
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
PATRICK KLIMA V. COLLIER COUNTY, (CASE NO. 22-CA-
2166), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $75,000. (ALL
DISTRICTS)
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2024-133: APPOINT DONALD MUNKSGAARD
TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – WITH TERM EXPIRING ON MAY 21, 2026
Item #16L1 - (Moved from Item #16F6 - Correct Placement (Per
Agenda Change sheet)
A DONATION OF PUBLIC ART TO BE INSTALLED IN THE
BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA PARKING LOT, 3321 BAYSHORE
DRIVE. (DISTRICT 4) - THE PUBLIC ART WILL BE INCLUDED
IN THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC ART COLLECTION.
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2024-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
July 9, 2024
Page 122
RENAMING A STREET FROM BELLERAWALK CIRCLE TO
BELLERAWALK WAY, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF AVE
MARIA UNIT 5, BELLERAWALK PHASE 1A, AND LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
AVE MARIA BOULEVARD AND BELLARAWALK
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20240001579]
(DISTRICT 5) (29080)
July 9, 2024
Page 123
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:11 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
____________________________
CHRIS HALL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
____________________________
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as
presented ______________ or as corrected _____________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY
PUBLIC.