The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 10/13/2015 R BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES October 13, 2015 October 13, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 13, 2015 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tim Nance Donna Fiala Penny Taylor Tom Henning Georgia Hiller ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority 0 r (j t N N AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 October 13, 2015 9:00 AM Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 — BCC Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Vice-Chair; CRA Chair Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 — Community & Economic Develop. Chair Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Vice-Chair Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — TDC Chair; CRA Vice-Chair NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA TO BE HEARD NO SOONER THAN 1:00 P.M., OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE AGENDA; WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." Page 1 October 13. 2015 PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Reverend Dawson Taylor - Naples United Church of Christ 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.) B. September 8, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes C. September 10, 2015 - BCC/2016 Legislative Priorities Workshop Minutes Page 2 October 13. 2015 D. September 10, 2015 - BCC/Budget Hearing Minutes E. September 24, 2015 - BCC/Budget Hearing Minutes 3. SERVICE AWARDS 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation designating October 18-24 as Friends of the Library Week in Collier County, in recognition of the Friends gift of their time and commitment to our libraries. To be accepted by Jon Zoler, President; Linda Leatherbury and Bobbi Skaggs, Board Members of Friends of the Library. B. Proclamation designating October 23, 2015 as the 16th Annual Red Walk at Lely Elementary School, in celebration of Red Ribbon Week Activities. To be accepted by Dr. Kamela Patton, Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools; Mr. David Stump, Deputy Superintendent, Collier County Public Schools; Ms. Christa Crehan, Lely Elementary School Principal; and Mr. Craig Alan Greusel, Project Director. C. Proclamation designating October 2015 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Executive Director of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children, Sheriff Kevin Rambosk and State Attorney Steve Russell 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the Business of the Month for October 2015 to The Arlington of Naples. To be accepted by Rev. David G. Abrahamson, Chairman of the Board, Lutheran Life Communities; Roger Paulsberg President/CEO, Lutheran Life Communities and The Arlington; Marie Carlson, Senior Vice President of Strategic Planning, Lutheran Life Communities; Vicki Tracy, Director, The Arlington; Kristi Bartlett, Vice President, Opportunity Naples, The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice President of Membership and Marketing, The Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS A. Public Petition request from Dr. Debi Lux, representing Collier County Page 3 October 13. 2015 Honor Flight, requesting approval to display 50 military tribute banners from November 2-23, 2015, and further requesting that the county cover the costs associated with installing brackets and placing/removing the banners. Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA Item #8 and Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted. 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an amendment to ordinance number 92-23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), as amended, to add a 120-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communications tower and related facilities, add deviations relating to preserve setbacks, communication tower and related facilities setbacks and landscape buffers, amend one environmental commitment, and revise the Master Plan, for the PUD property located at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date [PUDA-PL20120001128]. B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus MPUD, as amended, to remove two- family dwellings from permitted principal uses, and add detached and attached garages, and daycare services for children to permitted accessory uses in Tract G; to reduce the minimum floor area for multi-family dwelling units from 850 square feet to 800 square feet; to remove the prohibition on one bedroom non-church-related dwelling units; to add a cross reference to a new Essential Services Personnel Housing Agreement; to remove affordable Page 4 October 13. 2015 housing developer commitments and transfer them to the new Essential Services Personnel Housing Agreement; to add new design standards for residential development on Tract G; to add a new transportation developer commitment relating to reservation of right-of-way along the southern portion of the PUD; to add a new planning developer commitment relating to disclosure of Swamp Buggy Races; and to revise the PUD Master Plan to relocate the existing access point near the southeast corner of the property to align with the entry for the Lord's Way RPUD to the south for the PUD property consisting of 69± acres located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951), approximately 1/2 mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Rd. (C.R. 864), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. (Petition Number PUDA-PL20140002461). (This item is a companion to Item #11A.) C. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Kathleen Riley requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to approve Petition BDE-PL20150000487 for an 18-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to accommodate a 26 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 15.61 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Petition ADA-PL20150001703) (This item is a companion to Item #11B). 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9B. Recommendation to approve an Agreement Confirming ESP (Essential Services Personnel) Housing Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and Restrictions on Real Property between Lord's Way Apartments, LLC and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. (This item is a companion to Item #9B). (Kim Grant, Community and Human Services Division Director) B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Page 5 October 13. 2015 Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving a Special Treatment development permit to allow construction of boat dock and dock access improvements on property owned by Standard Pacific of Florida with a zoning designation of RMF-6(3) and a Special Treatment overlay located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (This item is a companion to Item #9C). (Stephen Lenberger, GMD Sr. Environmental Specialist) C. Recommendation to consider staff's analysis of filed bills proposing regulations on high-pressure well stimulation activities. (Tim Durham, Executive Manager Corporate Business Operations) D. Recommendation to approve a Resolution directing the County Manager to take immediate action to make the minimum necessary repairs required to facilitate the transport of emergency service vehicles on Della Drive and approve all necessary budget amendments. (Michelle Arnold, Public Transportation Division Director) E. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #15-6488, Courthouse First Floor Renovations, to DEC Contracting Group, the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of$1,747,815, which includes a $100,000 allowance for unforeseen conditions. (Claude Nesbitt, Facilities Management Division Project Manager) F. Recommendation to request that the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to the scope of services enumerated in the Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, prepare and submit an expenditure report in the format and content specified by the Board. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Page 6 October 13. 2015 A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Board to invite proposals for the sale and/or redevelopment of the Gateway Triangle catalyst project located at the intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Davis Boulevard and return all proposals to the Board. 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule. 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to accept a proposal from CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. dated July 13, 2015 for the Tropical Storm Debby beach renourishment design, permitting and Engineer of Record certification, approve a Work Order under Contract #15-6382 for a not to exceed amount of$57,649, authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute this work order, and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. 2) Recommendation to accept a proposal from CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. dated August 3, 2015 for the design, permitting and Engineer of Record services for the renourishment of Clam Pass Beach Park; perform critically eroded Area Analysis for Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Cost Share funding; approval of a Work Order under Contract #15-6382 for a not to exceed amount of$68,504.40; authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute this work order; authorize necessary budget amendment; and make a finding that this expenditure promotes Page 7 October 13. 2015 tourism (Project No. 90069). 3) Recommendation to approve an easement agreement for the donation of a Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement (Parcel 336TDRE) required for improvements to be constructed as part of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge Replacements Project. (Transportation Bridge Replacement Program Project No. 66066.11.3.) Estimated fiscal impact: $100 4) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Performance Bond in the amount of$1,239,222 which was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.093, (PL20130000232) for work associated with Raffia Preserve. 5) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Letter of Credit in the amount of$388,600 which was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 59.197.4, (PL20130002029) for work associated with Ponte Rialto. 6) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash Bond in the amount of$1,060 which was posted as a development guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA) (PL20150000817) for work associated with 4774 Market Avenue Site Development Plan. 7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Vanderbilt Commons, (Application Number PL20150000968) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Willoughby Preserve, (Application Number PL20150000872) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Companion to Agenda Item #16D1. The Page 8 October 13. 2015 companion item must be approved or this item will be continued to another BCC meeting. 9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 2, (Application Number PL20150000267) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 10) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Golf Club of the Everglades 1B (Application Number PL20140002532) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 11) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Release Agreement with Orchid Cove at Port of the Islands Condominium Association, Inc. relative to sidewalk improvements associated with Orchid Cove Site Development Plan, (Application Number AR-8636) to release the Site Development Plan cash performance bond in the amount of$20,887.68 to the Association. 12) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve the offsite removal of up to 101,000 cubic yards of surplus fill from Isles of Collier Preserve (Commercial Excavation Permit Application PL20150001313) to Treviso Bay. 13) Recommendation to approve easement agreements for the purchase of a Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and Utility Easement (Parcel 122RDUE), a Temporary Construction Easement (Parcel 122TCE) and a Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement (Parcel 122TDRE) required for the construction of a replacement bridge on White Page 9 October 13. 2015 Boulevard over the Cypress Canal. (Transportation Bridge Replacement Program Project No. 66066) Estimated fiscal impact: $7,600. 14) Recommendation to approve the release of two (2) code enforcement liens with a combined accrued value of$244,584.35 for payment of $1,684.35, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Reuben Reinstein Estate, Laird Lile, PR, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20100001344 and Board of County Commissioners v. Reuben T. Reinstein, Est., Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM20100020893, relating to property located at 4460 3rd Avenue SW, Collier County, Florida. 15) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of$172,281.15 for payment of$531.15, in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Michael Zager and Paula J. Rhoads, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20110015948, relating to property located at 557 Cypress Way E., Collier County, Florida. 16) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement authorizing the acceptance of a Drainage, Access, and Maintenance Easement (Parcel 260DAME) required for the construction of stormwater improvements known as the Wing South segment of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $200. 17) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Audubon Country Club Unit 3, PL20150000226. 18) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Utility Facilities Quit-Claim Deed and Bill of Sale between Collier County and North Naples Golf Range, Inc., in order to re-convey to North Naples Golf Range, Inc., all wastewater utility facilities associated with the development project at North Naples Research and Technology Park Storage Suites, PL20140000267, which was previously erroneously conveyed to the County. Page 10 October 13. 2015 19) Recommendation to approve easement agreements for the purchase of a Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and Utility Easement (Parcel 121 RDUE) and a Temporary Driveway Restoration Easement (Parcel 121 TDRE) required for the construction of a replacement bridge on White Boulevard over the Cypress Canal. (Transportation Bridge Replacement Program Project No. 66066.10.3) Estimated fiscal impact: $51,900. 20) Recommendation to approve South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Agreement No. 4600003312 and to authorize any necessary budget amendments to recognize grant funding in the amount of up to $937,500 for the construction of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP)/Wingsouth Airpark Channels Improvements Project #51101. 21) Recommendation to approve the exchange of a 2014 International TerraStar 4x4 truck for a 2013 International DuraStar 4x4 truck with the Wallace International Trucks company. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to reauthorize for a period of one year the single source purchase of pumps, warranty-related repair, and other parts and materials not available through an aftermarket source for approved wastewater pumps. 2) Recommendation to approve Contract #15-6450, "Naples Park Infrastructure Improvements, "Project Numbers 60139, 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, and 71010, with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. 3) Recommendation to approve the use of a subcontractor under the direction of Surety Construction Company for the repair of Reactor 3 at the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project #70034. D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION 1) Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement that allows Willoughby Drive LLC to donate a 1.14-acre parcel along with Page 11 October 13. 2015 a management endowment of$4,440.30 to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention provision of the Land Development Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.l.f.iii. (b), at no cost to the County, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Donation Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close. Companion to Agenda Item #16A8. The companion item must be approved or this item will be continued to another BCC meeting. 2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to allow youth hunts for Collier County residents at Pepper Ranch Preserve in January 2016 and February 2016. 3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Collier Development Corporation, now known as CDC Land Investments, Inc., for 7.51 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $403,150. 4) Recommendation to approve a Parking License Agreement with Vanderbilt Real Estate Holdings, LTD, for temporary parking for beach maintenance equipment at an annual cost of$7,200. 5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the removal of uncollectible receivables in the amount of$5,211.87 from the financial records of the Parks and Recreation Division in accordance with Resolution No. 2006-252 and authorize the Chair to execute attached Resolution. 6) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact Amendments and Attestation Statements with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. for the Community Care for the Elderly, Alzheimer's Disease Initiative and Home Care for the Elderly programs and authorize Budget Amendments to ensure continuous funding for FY 2014/2015. (Net Fiscal Impact $26,967.41) 7) Recommendation to approve "after-the-fact" Amendments and Attestation Statements with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. for the Community Care for the Elderly and Alzheimer's Disease Initiative grant programs and budget amendments to ensure Page 12 October 13. 2015 continuous funding for FY 2015/2016. 8) Recommendation to approve Memorandums of Understanding for the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) for each volunteer station to include identification of project requirements, working relationships and mutual responsibilities. 9) Recommendation to create a pilot "Tickets to Ride" program that pays for Collier County citizens to ride at designated ATV riding locations in Florida at a cost not to exceed $10,000. 10) Recommendation to approve and sign two Long Term Community Market Agreements with Dennis L. Strausbaugh/SW Florida Markets, LLC, Market Manager of the Sugden Regional Park and Eagle Lakes Community Park Community Markets. 11) Recommendation to authorize the collection of donations by the United Way staff at a co-sponsored event with the Parks and Recreation Division on October 24, 2015 at Sugden Regional Park and make a finding the associated expenditure serves a valid public purpose. 12) Recommendation to review and adopt the Domestic Animal Services Consultation Summary prepared by Maddie's® Shelter Medicine Program at the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine and endorse the Maddie's® Recommendations Implementation Plan. 13) Recommendation to declare that the implementation of the Purchase Assistance Program under the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) as administrative and ministerial and that grant program management and administration shall continue consistent with past practices. 14) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #15-6428R, for Sidewalk/Pathway Repairs at eight (8) park locations, to Bonness, Inc. for $93,272.90 including $10,000 allowance for unforeseen repairs. 15) Recommendation to approve Resolution 2015- , modifying established procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads. Page 13 October 13. 2015 16) Recommendation to approve four (4) Administrative Closeout Reports for Disaster Recovery Initiative and Recovery Enhancement Fund Grant Agreements with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget amendments for Fiscal Year 2015 carry forward budget for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2016 for operating divisions to complete work. 2) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services County Grant Application, Request for Grant Fund Distribution form and Resolution for the funding of Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment in the amount of$65,176 and to approve a Budget Amendment. 3) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6430, "Maintenance & Minor Repairs," to FA Remodeling and Repair Inc., as the primary vendor, and Spectrum Contracting Inc., as the secondary vendor, for minor maintenance repairs for a period of one (1) year with up to three (3) annual renewal options. 4) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6473R, "Paint and Related Items," to Sherwin Williams Co. as the primary vendor and Sunshine Ace Hardware Inc. as the secondary vendor for painting supplies for a period of one (1) year with up to three (3) annual renewal options. 5) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant application in the amount of$14,800 to purchase Urban Interface Protective Clothing for the Ochopee Fire Control District (County Match $7,400). 6) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6408, Annual Contract for Uniforms, to Unifirst Corporation and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Agreement. 7) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for modifications to work orders, Page 14 October 13. 2015 change orders, surplus property and other items as identified. F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget. 2) Recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2016 Strategic Marketing Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. 3) Recommendation to approve applications for Tourist Tax Category "B" funding in the amount of$34,950 to support eight upcoming FY 2016 events under the Sports Event Assistance Program and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Contract No. 15-6382-2, "Grant Funded Professional Services for Airports" with Hole Montes, Atkins North America, Inc., and AVCON, Inc. 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Collier County Airport Authority (CCAA), approves a Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form Lease and a Rider to Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form Lease with Wholesale Shutters of South West Florida, Inc. at the Immokalee Regional Airport. H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Recommendation to appoint member to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee. 2) Recommendation to appoint four member(s) to the Housing Finance Authority. Page 15 October 13. 2015 3) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Contractors Licensing Board. 4) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Historical Archaeological Preservation Board. 5) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Water and Wastewater Authority. 6) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. 7) Proclamation honoring the relations and connections the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office has made with Southwest Florida and Collier County and welcoming those Taiwanese businesses and entrepreneurs seeking to develop business opportunities in our area. This proclamation will be sent by mail to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office. 8) Proclamation designating October 19-21 as Collier RETIS Symposium Days and welcoming the distinguished delegation of French companies and business executives to Collier County. This proclamation will be sent by mail to Cristele Couget, Executive Director, RETIS. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) To obtain Board approval for the attached lists of invoices and purchasing card transactions. J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Request that the Board of County Commissioners order that the tax roll be extended pursuant to section 197.323, Florida Statutes. 2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the periods between September 10 and September 30, 2015 pursuant to Page 16 October 13. 2015 Florida Statute 136.06. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Final Judgment in the amount of$1,400 for Parcel 172RDUE in the case styled Collier County v. Christopher Warburton, et al., Case No. 15-CA-335 required for the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard (Project No. 60040). (Fiscal Impact: $442) 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, prior to trial, in the lawsuit styled Carol A. Phillips v. Collier County, filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida (Case No. 14-2448-CA), for the sum of$10,000. 3) Recommendation that the Board take no action to amend the Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20150000986, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public interest in a portion of the 20-foot wide drainage easement located in Tract "I" of Eagle Creek Country Club as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 1 through 5 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 4, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida and to accept Page 17 October 13. 2015 Petitioner's grant of a 20-foot wide drainage easement to replace the vacated drainage easement. B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC- PL20150001456 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the public interest in the 30-foot Road Right-of-Way, Utility and Drainage easement as recorded in Official Record Book 444, pages 398 and 399 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1975-16, as amended, by limiting the reconsideration of contracts by the Board of County Commissioners to the meeting at which the matter was voted upon. D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance 97-82, as amended, which created the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit, to expand the district boundary to include County owned right- of-way identified for the purpose of constructing pedestrian streetscape improvements within the right-of-way along Thomasson Drive. E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 18 October 13. 2015 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the Board of County Commission meeting of 10/13. At this time, in order to assist us to have an orderly meeting, I would ask you all to silence your cell phones and electronic devices. At this time our invocation would be delivered by Reverend Dawson Taylor of the Naples United Church of Christ. Please rise and remain standing for the pledge to the flag. MR. OCHS: Reverend. Please. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVERAND DAWSON TAYLOR OF THE NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST REVEREND TAYLOR: Prayer first? Let us pray. Gracious and creator God, we give you thanks for the gift of this day. We give you thanks for this community of leaders, and we ask for your blessing upon this county, upon the decisions that are made this day, that they might be justly made for all people so that we might be reminded that you have called us to serve you and to serve each other. In all of your names and all of the ways that we serve, we ask this. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. At this time, Mr. Ochs, would you please take us through today's proposed agenda changes, sir. Page 2 October 13, 2015 Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROBIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of October 13, 2015. The first proposed change is to continue Item 9C to the October 27th BCC meeting. Commissioners, that will then be at that time recommended for continuation into your November meeting of November 10th for actual hearing on November 10th. This is an item having to do with an appeal of a plan commission decision with regard to a boat dock extension request. That is continued at the petitioner's request. The next proposed change is to continue Item 11B. This was the companion item to Item 9C that involved the issuance of a resolution approving a special treatment development permit to allow that boat dock extension construction. So that companion item will be heard on November 10th along with the public hearing. The next proposed change is to move Item 16D15 from your consent agenda to become Item 11G under the County Manager's report. And this is an item having to do with your resolution and modifying your existing resolution regarding procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads. This is moved at Commissioner Henning's request. The next proposed change is to continue Item 16K3 to your October 27th BCC meeting. This is a recommendation dealing with your vehicle for hire ordinance, and this is asked for continuance by Page 3 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Taylor. The next proposed change is to continue Item 17D from your summary agenda to the November 10, 2015, board meeting. This is a recommendation from your Bayshore MSTU for a street-scaping improvement along Thomasson Drive. That is made at the staffs request. And we have one additional note this morning, Commissioners, and that is the request to withdraw Item No. 4 on your administrative change order report contained on Item 16E7. This was a change order having to do with your new 800 megahertz P25 digital radio system. This is made at staffs request to do a bit more of analysis before we bring that back. And those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. At this time we will go to commission members for any additional changes and ex parte communication. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I have no further changes. No ex parte communication on the consent or summary agenda. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda, and I have one disclosure which I'll bring up again on 9B. I had a meeting related to that issue, but otherwise no disclosures. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have no ex parte on today's consent or summary agenda. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to our meeting. I hope you enjoy it today. Little entertainment to start the day. Page 4 October 13, 2015 I have -- I have no changes, no corrections, no additions to the agenda. For disclosure, on the consent agenda, I have 16A9, which is the Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek, and I've had meetings and emails on that particular item. Also, 16A10, which is the Golf Club of the Everglades, I had meetings, and I've talked with staff about that, and a long time ago, March 2010, I took a tour of it to see for myself what it was about so when we voted on it I would be familiar with it. 16A11, which is the Orchid Cove at Port of the Islands, I've had meetings, emails, and calls. I went to their clubhouse and met with a group of citizens as well. Going on down to the summary agenda, I have no disclosures. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. I have one disclosure on summary agenda, 17A. I've had meetings and discussions with staff regarding this; however, on the consent agenda, I have no disclosures. And then I do have a disclosure on 9A when we hear it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. Approval -- entertain a motion to approve today's regular, consent, and summary agendas. MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me. MR. MILLER: I have two registered speakers for consent-agenda items. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry. Mr. Miller, please, sir. MR. MILLER: That's quite all right. Item 16G1, Marvin Courtright. Mr. Courtright also wishes to speak to Item 16G2; 16G1 and G2. Page 5 October 13, 2015 MR. COURTRIGHT: I have provided handouts addressing the Immokalee federal inspection station and cargo facility at the Immokalee airport. It is far more extensive than I have even included in the first portion of it. And, by the way, my name is Marvin Courtright, business owner in Immokalee and very active in aviation in particular. It's interesting to note that the entire project which was a federal inspection station/cargo facility at Immokalee airport was developed prior to 9/11 extensively. Well done, well prepared, and had great potential as an improvement and activity at the Immokalee community. On 9/11, Mr. John Drury was sitting in this facility with a representative of the port authority and others, and the disaster took place. The representative at that time stated -- this is from Mr. Drury's own words -- that it would be the last document he would be involved in for a long time. Unfortunately, 9/11 did do that. And due to that, it literally killed the potential of the actual facility. The document I've provided here shows a picture of the building, completed, sitting at the Immokalee airport right now that was never utilized in the purpose of the original grant conditions. It's all documented from -- it's from back in -- a long time ago. And it's a pain in the neck to read it all. But the bottom line is, it is still identified as a -- as a piece of property funded with grant money with the fact that the building is still maintained in ambiguity. It is so in depth, I would appreciate if you folks would look at it and consider -- I would like to have my company, Hummingbird Flight Service, identified as the federal inspection/inspector facility at the Immokalee airport. And my goal is only to continue the grant conditions as recommended under the original grant. That's basically my reason for being here today, so, and -- Page 6 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda. MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm saying your concern is not on the agenda, Mr. Courtright. You need to speak to the item on the agenda that you want to speak to. MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay. In that case I will pursue it further. If I may, another three minutes. One of the conditions that was part of the development -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? MR. COURTRIGHT: -- was the establishment of-- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Courtright? MR. COURTRIGHT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You've concluded that item. Do you have a comment on 16G2, please, sir? MR. COURTRIGHT: Yes. Incubator No. 2, Phase 2, which has been a real fiasco for years, right now you're on the agenda to award a large grant to redevelopment of a portion of that incubator. Half of that incubator was paid for by federal funds for the cargo facility. And it has been damaged -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Courtright -- MR. COURTRIGHT: -- and argued about by documents. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- excuse me, sir. This item is a lease with Wholesale Shutters of Southwest Florida. MR. COURTRIGHT: I'm sorry. Who's speaking, please? CHAIRMAN NANCE: I am speaking, the Chair, sir, yes. MR. COURTRIGHT: Excuse me, Mr. Nance. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Do you have a comment on the lease to Wholesale Shutters of Southwest Florida? MR. COURTRIGHT: I don't -- no, I do not. My comment is in regard to them leaving or damaging the other half of the building that Page 7 October 13, 2015 the cargo facility was designed for and licensed for and permitted for. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry, Mr. Courtright, but this item is for a lease to a new firm at the Immokalee Airport. So if you have additional comments, I'm going to have to ask you to put that under comments not on the agenda; is that okay? MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay, yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you; thank you. MR. COURTRIGHT: Does this mean, now, that I've signed up to speak in regard to it? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. You can fill out a speaker slip for comments not on the agenda. MR. COURTRIGHT: I already have. MR. MILLER: He already has. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you. MR. COURTRIGHT: I apologize. I got a little ahead of myself. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that at 1 o'clock, sir? CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's at 1 o'clock or the conclusion of the agenda, which will be -- probably be at 1 o'clock time-certain because we have public hearings at 1:30. MR. COURTRIGHT: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Courtright. Okay. Do we have a motion to approve today's agenda as amended? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 8 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) Page 9 Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting October 13,2015 Continue Item 9C to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. Kathleen Riley requests an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County Planning Commission to approve Petition BDE-PL20150000487 for an 18-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to accommodate a 26 slip multi-family docking facility for the benefit of a 15.61 ±acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks in Sections 11 and 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida(Petition ADA-PL20150001703)(This item is a companion to Item 11B). (Petitioner's request) Continue Item 11B to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item,all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a Resolution approving a Special Treatment development permit to allow construction of boat dock and dock access improvements on property owned by Standard Pacific of Florida with a zoning designation of RMF-6(3) and a Special Treatment overlay located in Sections 11 and 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida (This item is a companion to Item 9C). (Staff's request) Move Item 16D15 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve Resolution 2015-_, modifying established procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads. (Commissioner Henning's request) Continue Item 16K3 to the October 27,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation that the Board take no action to amend the Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. (Commissioner Taylor's request) Continue Item 17D to the November 10,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance 97-82,as amended,which created the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit,to expand the district boundary to include County owned right-of- way identified for the purpose of constructing pedestrian streetscape improvements within the right-of-way along Thomasson Drive. (Staff's request) Note: Item 16E7: Withdraw Item 4 from the Administrative Change Order Report,for further staff review and subsequent presentation to the Board. This is a proposed Change Order for the development of the 800 MhZ P25 Radio Communications System. (Staff's request) 1012K/2015 11:31 AM October 13, 2015 Item #2B, #2C, #2D & #2E BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 2015; BCC/2016 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES WORKSHOP MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2015; BCC/BUDGET HEARING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 AND BCC/BUDGET HEARING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. I'm going to try to employ a new methodology to assist us in having a rapid meeting. On the approval of meeting minutes, Items 2B, the September 8th BCC Regular Meeting; 2C, the BCC Legislative Priorities Workshop; 2D, the BCC Budget Hearing Minutes; and 2E, the BCC Budget -- BCC Hearing -- Budget Hearing of September 24th, I'm going to make a motion that, unless there's an objection by board members, we approve all these four items by unanimous consent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Those four items are approved by unanimous consent. Mr. Ochs? Page 10 October 13, 2015 Item #4 PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 18-24 AS FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY, IN RECOGNITION OF THE FRIENDS GIFT OF THEIR TIME AND COMMITMENT TO OUR LIBRARIES. ACCEPTED BY JON ZOLER, PRESIDENT; LINDA LEATHERBURY AND BOBBI SKAGGS, BOARD MEMBERS OF FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Chairman, Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4 on your agenda this morning, Proclamations. Item 4A is a proclamation designating October 18 through 24th as Friends of the Library Week in Collier County in recognition of the Friends' gifts of their time and commitment to our libraries. To be accepted by John Zoler, President; Linda Leatherbury and Bobbi Skaggs, Board Members of the Friends of the Library. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) MR. ZOLER: Do we say anything or no? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, first you have to take a picture and be happy. MR. ZOLER: These are some of our board members who have all worked very hard to bring us here in the proclamation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wonderful. Thank you, all. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to try one more. Thank Page 11 October 13, 2015 you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to stay here for our official one now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Our official photographer. MR. ZOLER: He's our official photographer. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. Please give us some remarks, sir. MR. ZOLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. ZOLER: I have, what, three minutes? I will use them. The Friends of the Library have been the most dedicated and loyal supporters of the county libraries for over 58 years. In fact, we own the land on Central Avenue branch where it's located and where the library is built, and the county pays us a magnificent dollar-a-year lease. We have a two-way special and collaborative relationship with the library staff, and our overall objective is to make the library an important source for improving the educational and cultural life of Collier. We have nearly 3,000 dues-paying members and approximately 4,500 individual members because of dual memberships. We have contributed more than a million dollars in the last 10 years to meet the library needs. Our board consists of successful retired and still working professionals in business, finance, education, and law. Our board members are unpaid, and these are people that are dedicated to public service. Every member of the board has a specific operational responsibility since we don't have an executive director. This not only saves us about $90,000 annually, but it really leads to better and more broad-based decision-making because of the experience of the board Page 12 October 13, 2015 members. The comparison to other Friends of the Libraries in the US is, I think, fascinating. First of all, we cover the entire county and not just one branch. For example, in Fort Myers, each Friends of the Library is responsible for one branch. We have provided the largest long-term financial support, and we pay for the programs where the presenters require payment. It's interesting just to compare what we're able to do in other major successful areas such as Princeton, New Jersey, and Greenwich, Connecticut, where we come out on top. The number and the scope and the variety of the library programs, which the Friends help pay for, we believe are a cultural highlight of Greater Naples and Collier County. Now, these programs are especially valuable to county residents with limited financial means, and we think this is critical. Today to buy a ticket to the Phil is 90 bucks, to buy an exercise program or membership from the county or the Y, whatever, is 50, 60 bucks, and this is a service that we provide free. So we also help with technology. We have something called Leap. We've provided iPads, provided copying machines, et cetera, et cetera. So we're pleased to be able to be here. We thank you for the proclamation, and we hope to keep doing what we've been doing for the next 58 years. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23, 2015 AS THE 16TH ANNUAL RED WALK AT LELY ELEMENTARY Page 13 October 13, 2015 SCHOOL, IN CELEBRATION OF RED RIBBON WEEK ACTIVITIES. ACCEPTED BY DR. KAMELA PATTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MR. DAVID STUMP, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MS. CHRISTA CREHAN, LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL; AND MR. CRAIG ALAN GREUSEL, PROJECT DIRECTOR — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating October 23, 2015, as the 16th annual Red Walk at Lely Elementary School in celebration of Red Ribbon Week activities. To be accepted by Dr. Kamela Patton, superintendent of Collier County Public Schools; Mr. David Stump, Deputy Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools; Ms. Christa Crehan, Lely Elementary School Principal; and Mr. Craig Alan Greusel, Project Director. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I tell you while you go up to speak while -- just on your walk. Craig, raise your hand so they know who I'm talking about. This man has the most gorgeous voice you've ever heard. He sings out, and I'll tell you, he gets everybody in the audience singing with him. So I just wanted to note that, and you should see him with the children at the school. I go to these Red Walks, and he gets those kids so inspired about no drugs, and it's just -- it gives us goose pimples. Thank you for letting me say that. MR. GREUSEL: Thank you. I have a new album coming out this year, so. DR. PATTON: He does. He really does. He will have one. Page 14 October 13, 2015 MR. GREUSEL: No. Thank you, once again, for giving us this proclamation. It has been 16 years. When Red Ribbon was first brought out as a remembrance of Camarena being killed and murdered for his participation with the drug cartel in an undercover operation, it kind of doesn't play into elementary education. But over the years, Red Ribbon has given us an opportunity to be preventative and to provide our children a wonderful look at what they can be. Each year we have a theme. This year, the 16th annual theme is "Be a Hero." And we have members of our VFH, war veterans, all our service personnel from the firefighters to the EMS workers to the policemen, all members of our community organizations like the Red Cross, coming to show what it takes to be a hero in our community. And then in addition to that, when the kids get to see a hero in the morning, in the afternoon they are doing service projects for the community to be a hero. They'll be providing meals of hope. They're singing at an area nursing home. There's all kinds of concerts and service projects the children will be doing that day as well. So they come out and they walk, and that's what the Red Walk is about is being out there and living a healthy lifestyle and understanding that prevention is a way for us to have a great life ahead of us. But this year's theme of "Be a Hero" extends that just a little bit more and says, look at the people that are around us. Look what we have accomplished and look what you can accomplish. It's a great way to open up our eyes to our youth and let them grow and understand what we all do and what they can do. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2015 AS Page 15 October 13, 2015 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY LINDA OBERHAUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN, SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK AND STATE ATTORNEY STEVE RUSSELL — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating October 2015 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Executive Director of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children; Sheriff Kevin Rambosk; and State Attorney Steve Russell. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) MS. OBERHAUS: Hi. Good morning. I'm Linda Oberhaus, the executive director at the Shelter for Abused Women and Children, and I just want to thank the commissioners for recognizing October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Many of you know that domestic violence is a national epidemic in our country where one in four women will be a victim of domestic or sexual violence at some point during their lifetime. At the shelter, we're very fortunate to have the support of our local law enforcement and State Attorney's Office in declaring a zero-tolerance attitude toward domestic violence. This past year alone there were over 1,500 calls to 911 as a result of domestic violence. All of our beds this morning in our shelter are full, all 60 of them. We have 29 women, 31 children, as well as their four dogs and one cat from those family homes. I just want to also mention that, you know, when we look into the future in terms of domestic violence, I think it's really important that we get out ahead of this issue and begin really working on prevention initiatives. And we're very fortunate also to have our school Page 16 October 13, 2015 superintendent, Dr. Kamela Patton, here today who's allowed the shelter to be in the elementary, middle, and high schools to help prevent the next generation of victims and perpetrators. So also for the month of October, we have many events happening during this month. I would just encourage members of the community to visit our website at NaplesShelter.org for a whole listing of those events. Thank you, again. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Linda, I just want to say the partnership you have with our sheriff, Sheriff Rambosk, and with the State Attorney's Office with State Attorney Russell is nothing short of remarkable, and the way you have reached out into this community to educate us and to help victims has been exemplary. So I really want to thank you. Domestic violence cannot be tolerated. I know that we as a board also have a zero-tolerance approach and attitude towards domestic violence. And it's not just physical. I mean, you've got psychological abuse, mental abuse, as well as the physical abuse, all of which are intolerable. So thank you again. And I really applaud you for everything you do. And any way I can help you personally in my official capacity or as a woman, I'm there for you. MS. OBERHAUS: I appreciate that. Thank you so much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could get a motion to approve the proclamations. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to approve today's Page 17 October 13, 2015 proclamations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and a second. Discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: The proclamations are unanimously approved. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR OCTOBER 2015 TO THE ARLINGTON OF NAPLES. ACCEPTED BY REV. DAVID G. ABRAHAMSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, LUTHERAN LIFE COMMUNITIES; ROGER PAULSBERG PRESIDENT/CEO, LUTHERAN LIFE COMMUNITIES AND THE ARLINGTON; MARIE CARLSON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, LUTHERAN LIFE COMMUNITIES; VICKI TRACY, DIRECTOR, THE ARLINGTON; KRISTI BARTLETT, VICE PRESIDENT, OPPORTUNITY NAPLES, THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND ANDREA STURZENEGGER, VICE PRESIDENT OF MEMBERSHIP AND MARKETING, THE Page 18 October 13, 2015 GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Business of the Month for October 2015 to The Arlington of Naples. To be accepted by Reverend David Abrahamson, Chairman of the Board, Lutheran Life Communities; Roger Paulsberg, president, CEO of Lutheran Life Communities and The Arlington; Marie Carlson, Senior Vice President of Strategic Planning, Lutheran Life Communities; Vicki Tracy, Director, The Arlington; Kristi Bartlett, Vice President, Opportunity Naples with the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice President of Membership and Marketing for the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. If you'd please step forward and receive your recognition. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't move. Here comes another one or two. (Photos being taking.) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: One more for you. Thank you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would the reverend like to get up and tell us a little bit about his company? REVEREND ABRAHAMSON: Mr. Chairman and distinguished commissioners, members and friends of the Chamber of Commerce, thank you on behalf of The Arlington of Naples and Lutheran Life Communities. We started this project, as you know, some years back somewhere when things were not as happy or as prosperous as they are now, and we stood before you and said we want to build a $200 million facility at a time when nobody was building anything. And you became partners in that endeavor with us. I stood before Page 19 October 13, 2015 you and I said at that time and I remember -- every now and then I remember a few things even though I'm not quite ready for the memory unit at The Arlington. I said we know how to fund, finance, and finish a project. And I'm pleased to stand here today and say your faith in us and our partnership with you has been well blessed and rewarded. We have already now had one family enter a villa. We begin -- is it next week -- next week the main part of the building, and we are just excited that this will be a part of Naples, the county, and serving the state and elsewhere as we empower vibrant grace-filled living across all generations. So thank you for your partnership in this, for your support, even when there was some very difficult days. We appreciate that, and we look forward; what's the next project we're going to do? Maybe it will have to be 300 million. But thank you very much. God bless the chamber and all of you. We appreciate your support, your love, and your blessing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And I want to really thank The Arlington for being a wonderful corporate citizen and a special thanks to your executive director, Vicki Tracy, who has been outstanding in the community representing The Arlington and for the incredible work you did with the Board with respect to the industrial revenue bond. I believe you brought in, what, a hundred million? I believe that's what you negotiated and got done through us. Thank you for doing that, because without your involvement, it would not have happened, and it would not have been built. So thanks for all that economic development and making a lot of senior citizens very happy. Vicki, thank you. Page 20 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. (Applause.) Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a fast comment to say welcome, welcome to our community. You're going to be a great asset and a needed commodity for us. The people are already lining up and wonderful people coming from all over Collier County to live there in their final many, many, many years. And we just want to welcome you. Thank you. REVEREND ABRAHAMSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Vicki. MR. PAULSBERG: One final word, "Go Cubs." COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just flew in from Chicago. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Despite what the County Manager thinks, that's not on today's agenda. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. He did a double-take on that one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's blushing now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't know they were a team. MR. OCHS: But I'm a Sox fan. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to say, I didn't even know the Cubs were a team. MR. OCHS: Oh, boy. Oh, boy. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just saying. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. All right. Let's restore order here. Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM DR. DEBI LUX, REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY HONOR FLIGHT, Page 21 October 13, 2015 REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DISPLAY 50 MILITARY TRIBUTE BANNERS FROM NOVEMBER 2-23, 2015, AND FURTHER REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY COVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING BRACKETS AND PLACING/REMOVING THE BANNERS - MOTION DIRECTING COUNTY MANAGER TO BRING BACK OPTIONS WITH NO COST TO THE COUNTY — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving right along. That takes us to Item 6 on your agenda this morning, Public Petitions. Item 6A is a public petition request from Dr. Debi Lux representing Collier County Honor Flight, requesting approval to display 50 Military Tribute Banners from November 2nd through the 23rd, and further requesting that the county cover the costs associated with installing brackets in placing and removing those banners. Debi, good morning. DR. LUX: Good morning. Thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak. My name is Dr. Debi Lux. Two years ago my husband, Sean Lux, and I, both veterans, started a 100 percent volunteer nonprofit called Collier County Honor Flight. We take our senior citizens, our World War II heros, to Washington, D.C., to visit and reflect at their memorial that wasn't built until almost 60 years after the war had ended. We start with World War II and will continue on to the Korean War and Vietnam time war (sic) as time permits with us. I want to ask how many people in this room are veterans. I want to thank you very much for your service. And how many people in here love our veterans, have family members, know somebody? I think you're going to love what I have to propose today. Collier County Honor Flight is dedicated to supporting and Page 22 October 13, 2015 honoring our veterans. The State of Florida is a Purple Heart state, and we would like to see Collier County a Purple Heart county. In addition, we'd like to introduce the miliary banner program to recognize our veterans of yesterday and today. The military banner program was created and beautifully designed to honor the men and women who have served or currently serve our nation honorably. We would like to propose the initiative of giving the residents and citizens of Collier County the opportunity to pay tribute to those who have defended the liberties and freedoms through this tremendous program, which will allow family members, friends, and local businesses to showcase their pride and support their own beloved veteran in a very special way. Marty? The banners are 2-and-a-half feet wide by 5 feet long, they're made of a quality material, and they're done by a local veteran community business here. Many people are unaware of our local residents who are in the military or who have served in the military. This is Marty Monahan. He's our World War II veteran. He lives here in Naples, and he was in the Navy. This is a picture of him when he was in World War II. Marty, do you want to show the public and then show the back of it as well? We have spoken with the Collier County staff. With their assistance to help make this program a success, we have gone through steps and the requirements for placing the banners. We respectfully request the initial installation of 50 military tribute banners with Collier County areas. We initially wanted to request 125, but thought this was a bit bold, so we're going to ask to pilot 50 of them to commemorate our military veterans for Veterans Day. If permission allows, we'd like to place the banners around the Collier County Courthouse, the Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park, North Collier Regional Park, and the Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Community Page 23 October 13, 2015 Park. We have identified 50 poles on government property that we would like to place these banners. And we will give information to the facility people so that they know where they will be placed. Now, the City of Cape Coral has this program in effect. They actually have 65 banners down the Cape Coral Parkway. There has been an extremely positive response from the community, and they continue to place banners throughout the community for the residents to reflect upon. Ralph Santillo from the Southwest Florida Military Museum sent me this letter, and he says, after gaining approval, we printed 65 banners in the month of May and had hung 65 light poles on Cape Coral Parkway. We coincided the hanging of the first round of banners with Memorial Day weekend to celebrate it. One city employee with a bucket truck installed 35 brackets and 35 banners from 8 a.m. to noon on Thursday and the balance of the 30 brackets and banners on Friday in the same four hours. So the installation time was very minimal. The response that we and the city have had has been wonderful. We have people calling daily to see where their loved one's banners are hung so they can take their friends and visitors to them. I have personally seen the veterans with their families standing under with the tears in their eyes. It is so moving. They will be doing this every 90 days with newly installed designs and new veterans being honored as to keep a fresh look and a renewed interest. Every city should do this to honor their veterans to beautify their city streets. Now, we at Collier County Honor Flight wholeheartedly believe that this miliary tribute banner will be nothing but a positive addition to Collier County's already fine reputation as a veteran-supporting and caregiving community. Perhaps more importantly this program will Page 24 October 13, 2015 allow Collier County family members, friends, and local businesses to showcase their pride and support for their own beloved veterans in a very special way. Are your arms getting tired, Marty? The initial date we'd like to be is in November for 2015. In order to have enough time to order and place the banners, we respectfully request approval as quickly as possible. Now, we know that you cannot take formal action today, but we would like to ask you -- because we're paying out of pocket for these banners, we'd respectfully request a good-faith concurrence of support so that we know we may be able to move forward with this worthy project. And since we are 100 percent volunteer, we respectfully request Collier County to contribute and commit to the Collier County's fine banner program by paying for installation and the cost of the brackets to be placed and removed and then for the brackets to stay up for future placement of banners. We believe this will be much less than $3,000 to do this. After the installation, placement, and removal of the banners, we would like to provide the commissioners with the positive feedback for the community requesting approval for future placements of the banners on a regular basis. So to summarize, we're asking for 50 banners to be placed on public property, the banners to be displayed for the month of November, and a contribution of up to $3,000 in fiscal support for brackets and in-kind services for installation and for Collier County to become a purple heart county. I also would like to enjoy -- and I know this isn't on it, but please join us on November 7th. It will be our seventh flight with 70 World War II heros. If you go to RSW airport, you'll see what this means to these men and women by watching them come home from a day at Washington, D.C. Page 25 October 13, 2015 Thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Many comments. We're going to start with Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dr. Lux, thank you so much. You have designed a beautiful banner, and the general concept is a very positive one. I do have a concern, and the concern is we can't advertise for any private organization on public property. So the banner having, you know, your organization's website on it and that, you know, you're sponsoring this I think is problematic. We've turned down -- for example, the YMCA has a program for children, and they wanted to advertise that there was a bus route that took the children from Golden Gate Estates directly to the Y for, you know, the children's program, and they wanted to put signs up in our buses, you know, talking about, you know, this wonderful program for kids and letting everybody know that there was a dedicated bus route, and the Board declined for the reason that I'm saying. Like, naming your organization is problematic. If we do it for you, then, you know, what about the Home Base Program, what about Wounded Warriors, and what about all the other nonprofits out there that would also like to have banners for very valid reasons. Notwithstanding, I think the banners are very elegant. I think they're beautifully designed, and I think the general concept of having banners, again, without labeling any organization as the donor is a good one. And I'm wondering, how much does each banner cost? DR. LUX: We're looking at about $300 for the banner. But may I respond to what you have to say? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second. So 300 times 50 is how much? That's, what, $1,500, approximately? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Fifteen thousand. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, how much? Oh, 30 times 50? Page 26 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: It's 300. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's 300? Oh, I'm sorry, 300. I thought you said 30. My apologies. I was doing 30 times 50. So 300 times 50 is 15,000, and then 3,000 labor. So it's, like, $18,000 for this -- DR. LUX: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- program. So how --just so that I understand, you're willing to make a $15,000 investment for putting one set of photographs of 50 veterans on these banners? DR. LUX: No. What we are doing is we're actually soliciting to individuals and businesses to be the support for the banner. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. DR. LUX: So they're doing this for their loved ones. So this is the one that we actually made, so that's why it says sponsored by Collier County Honor Flight. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I see. So every banner would have a different sponsor? DR. LUX: It would say "sponsored by" an individual family member or a business. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So -- DR. LUX: It's not -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- everybody pays for their own? DR. LUX: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Honor Flight would only just show up on that one; is that what you're -- DR. LUX: Yes, ma'am. And the reason why it says "CollierCountyHonorFlight.org" is because the residents and anybody who looks at these will be able to go to our website, look at the person's name, and see the history about this person. So we will have it on our website who they are. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we could do that on our Page 27 October 13, 2015 website, for example, the county's website. DR. LUX: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the link could be to that. Again, the whole issue of allowing one organization to promote themselves will, ultimately, become a slippery slope, I think. I'm not sure that the general idea is a bad one. I actually think, you know, having banners at various parks and in front of the courthouse for, you know, a limited period of time is a good one. I don't know if there's any way, you know, we could have our own banner program, Leo. Would that be possible? I mean, it's -- is that something -- and is there any way that these banners could be made where the photographs are interchangeable so that it doesn't have to be done over and over again and that we could save monies? I mean, is it something that we could do without sponsorship? Because it might be nice. I mean, so many communities do have, you know, banners commemorating different events, and maybe that's something -- you know, if they're special causes like supporting veterans that are general community events, not organizational events that we could do at our parks for special occasions. MR. OCHS: I'm sure it's doable, ma'am. I haven't, frankly, looked into the cost or the operational details. If that's something the board would like me to investigate, I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to listen to what the other commissioners have to say. I just -- I have -- I just have a concern with a private entity doing it, but I think if, you know, having these banners, like, 50 within these four locations commemorating a special event like this might make sense, and if the cost isn't prohibitive, I think -- you know, it's a valuable community statement. But, you know, I defer to the other members of the board. But I could not support any, you know, private entities advertising for themselves on these banners at these locations. Page 28 October 13, 2015 DR. LUX: May I say something, Commissioner? I know it is an absolute wonderful thing. If you figure out for the county to try to put in their time and effort to find ways to fund it and everything, that's what we, as 100 percent volunteer, don't get paid for, and we do this on our own to actually try to help this out. It's not that we're trying to find glory. We're actually giving glory to our veterans and our heros of today and yesterday. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is why I think it's a great idea and why I think if we, as the county, can do it without private involvement so that all organizations are represented and all the veterans are represented, I think it would really be wonderful -- DR. LUX: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- rather than, you know, one organization, you know -- and I also think that we need to, you know, figure out how to not only look -- I'm glad you brought up the other wars, because it's not only the Second World War. I mean, we've got, you know, Vietnam. We've got so many -- we've got far too many wars. We need to recognize all the veterans. DR. LUX: And that's what this is doing. It's recognizing veterans of yesterday and today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Exactly, which is wonderful, and I'm glad you brought that up. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Usually not-for-profits in the past has come to the county, and we've directed them to United Way. We support United Way for not-for-profit organizations. Also, we have Little League teams that would like to sell advertising in our parks on the fences, and it's repeatedly been turned down by staff; however, the concept of your idea is great. I'm not sure if it really belongs in the park. I think you get -- I think the community Page 29 October 13, 2015 gets more exposures on our roadways, on the intersections. And if something that we do, like on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, it's something that we can use on 4th of July, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents' Day, and so on and so forth, but that's -- and they do that in certain communities, but that's a bigger picture type thing and bigger costs. I mean, if we're going to do it for one, we should do it for -- try to get a bigger net and have it at our intersections on the traffic light poles or something like that, a banner, bracket, to -- for those to be put on there, but there is a cost associated with that. DR. LUX: That's why we'd be willing to absorb the cost as well. If the Collier County didn't want to invest in it, we as Collier County Honor Flight would be willing to invest. This is how much we believe in this. We would also like to have them on the streets and everything, but we thought this right now would be the safest way to do it right now, requesting with the code enforcement for us to place them in the parks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, if you're willing to take up all the cost, I'm willing to write a check or donation, but what your public petition is for the county to participate in the cost, which is setting precedence about supporting not-for-profits. DR. LUX: And we'd be willing to do that, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great, if we can partnership and put it in our parks; however, the advertising on the banners is problematic, in my opinion. I mean, if it's strictly to honor a particular -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- veteran without sponsorship sponsored by ABC or A to Z Rentals, or whatever it is, then it's -- you know, we take away that -- other fights that we have about people Page 30 October 13, 2015 advertising on public property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. You said it doesn't bother you, the advertising? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it does. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It does, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Meaning, just if we allow it for one, we have to allow it for everybody else. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I just -- I misheard you. Okay. DR. LUX: So my question would be, would it be okay for individuals to sponsor it instead of businesses? So you're saying even a family member sponsoring something would not be okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd have to think about that. DR. LUX: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Taylor. You want to speak? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Taylor, then back to Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller had some good ideas that I could hear down there also. And I think -- I actually talked to Dr. Debi about this, and it was me that suggested that I don't know that the county would accept them on the light poles, because I think that's where they really wanted to go. And I said, maybe we should just ask for something in the parks. If you prefer on the light poles, I bet they would love that idea. And so that -- I think that they would eagerly accept that proposal. There is a time limitation, as she said, because what they're trying to do is get them up for Veterans Day, but they'd have to make them all. Page 31 October 13, 2015 DR. LUX: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked her how they get paid for as well and, for instance, I can buy one for my brother, who was a Vietnam veteran and just died last year, but they don't have to be dead. You know, they can -- look at this lively guy right here. So people could buy one, and then after it's been up for, I don't know, two weeks or something like that or three weeks, then they can claim it as their own so that new ones can go up of other veterans so they can have a rotation of veterans' names. We have so many veterans in Collier County. And so that would honor a lot of veterans. And I just wanted to mention about the time limitation. I think it's good -- I can hear everybody wanting to do this because we all feel so grateful to the sacrifices our veterans have made for all of us. We just want to try and find the way to get it done. And the problem is, I don't know if we can get it done at this meeting because you can't really vote on anything, unless we can get approval from the county attorney, but now we're all over the board with what we want to do. So, yeah, I don't know if we'll get that done here, but I think it's -- we should put it back on a regular agenda so we can discuss it thoroughly. That means it would be two weeks before we would discuss it again. It might really delay your project, unless you get a few people in there who want to just invest and make some. And then if the time comes and we say, okay, let's go with it, at the next meeting, then they could still get it up in time. I don't know. I'm throwing that on the table. But I thank you for trying to do this. And I know a few of us have been to the Honor Flights, and we love seeing these veterans. I think they're the backbone of our community, quite frankly. So that's all I have to say at this moment. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a comment, and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Taylor. Page 32 October 13, 2015 I believe that our veterans and their service to our nation, they represent a very, very special group of people in our community. That said, I believe that it would be most appropriate for this to be a program that's done at Freedom Park during the appropriate times of the year. And I believe that a display would be certainly appropriate. I share Commissioner Henning's concern about advertising. I believe that the banner program could be conducted in a way where donors and donations could be so noted at such a display in a tasteful way rather than it be an advertising program. So I would certainly support something at Freedom Park. I think that we are on a slippery slope with all of our wonderful not-for-profits if we start flying flags on the streets. With that said, I'll go to Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You echo my thoughts about Freedom Park. That's my stomping ground, and there's no exposure like that mall, and that sweep of the road that you come -- when I heard this and I read that you were thinking about Freedom Park, I could see it; I could see it. It gives me chills. I would like to ask our county attorney, would it be also prohibitive and custom breaking if we had a person's name on the banner as an individual sponsor of each veteran? MR. KLATZKOW: I think the appropriate thing would be to direct the County Manager to come back at the next meeting, give the Board various options, and we can go through that. I'm hearing various diverse opinions from the Board. I don't think there's a consensus here. But I do think you could develop a public/private sort of relationship here. You don't need, for example, the Internet address over there. It could be Collier.gov on all these and, Commissioner Hiller's idea, just have the biography on Collier.gov, so we could probably work something out. But I think the County Manager would need some time Page 33 October 13, 2015 to go through the various possibilities for the Board. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We're going to go on our second round. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the first thing I'd like to do is make a motion that we direct the County Manager to bring back in a number of options for us to consider on this. The second thing I would like to do is -- adding to what I said earlier is, number one, I think we ought to look at whether or not TDC funds could be used to fund a program like this, and if anybody wants to make a donation, they could make a donation -- you know, for example, we could have a donation program to the county where an individual, if they want to sponsor a flag, you know, in memory of a particular veteran, can do so, and then part of the cost would be defrayed by the donation, and part of the cost would be defrayed by TDC funds, because I do believe that this would be -- it would have a tourism purpose, especially if it is at Freedom Park and if it is done commemorating those holidays when people, you know, do come to the county for a special event. You could see -- for example, if we host a special event and, you know, a family member is posted on one of these flags, you could see, like, the whole family coming, for example, for that dedication that particular November, you know, either Veterans Day or Memorial Day or whichever holiday. So I have to concur with both what Commissioner Nance said and what Commissioner Taylor said with respect to Freedom Park. I think we should start there. That's an excellent location. I really like what Commissioner Fiala said where, you know, someone could make a donation towards a flag remembering their relative -- the donor's name doesn't have to be part of it, because we're not recognizing the donor. I mean, we're recognizing the veteran -- and that we look at TDC Page 34 October 13, 2015 funding to defray the cost once we know what that cost is for the flags, and then the determination of how many flags would be appropriate at Freedom Park is something that, you know, you would have to come up with. I don't know that it's necessarily 50. But it definitely makes really good sense to start with, you know, at a minimum, Freedom Park as the location for this program, and then we can see where it goes from there. So, I mean, we could do that as early as, you know, the -- and we may not be able to do it necessarily as early as November 2nd but, you know, as close enough to November 11th as possible, and maybe for, you know, the last two weeks of the month of November as opposed to the first three weeks, you know, for the first season, and then we can modify it as we go forward. And then, as Jeff echoed, put the biographies of the veterans that are on display on our website under veteran services, and people can go to veteran services and then click on the biography. And that would have to be submitted by the family. You know, we would not make the effort to go out and get that information. They would have to solicit it when they make their donation towards the purchase of one of these, and then it would go on our website. So they would -- you know, they would produce it and then, you know, our PR staff would make sure it's articulately -- you know, properly written and then post it to our website, I would think, would be the easiest way to get done quickly. DR. LUX: My question, Commissioner Hiller, is who are you soliciting to to get this? How are you going to do this by November 11th? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we'll do it to the extent we can. And that's the whole thing. I mean, we can ask you if you have individuals who already have an interest, and we can post it to our website. We can advertise it in the paper. I mean, we -- I don't think Page 35 October 13, 2015 that we'll have a shortage of people who want to participate. I don't see that as an issue. I think that the objective is to make it as broad-based as possible and as non-organizationally driven as possible to, you know, really get everyone involved. And I'm sure there are people in the Home Base Program that would love to do it. I'm sure there are people with, you know, Wounded Warriors who would like to do it. You know, I'm sure -- once word gets out, I'm sure there will be a lot of people that will be interested in it -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- flying (sic) a banner. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have a motion to let the County Manager go to work on this conceptually. Let's go to Commissioner Henning, and let's see if we can reach a consensus on what to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's a long-winded motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's not the motion. I was just adding suggestions to the county manager. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The motion is on the table, and the motion is to direct the County Manager to come back with options for us considering what all the commissioners have said here today and somehow, you know, give us options based on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you would put in the motion at no cost to the county, I would second the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think TDC funding is an option, and that is obviously a cost to the county, because TDC funds come from our taxpayers, just from a different source of funding. And I think TDC dollars are the kind of-- this is the kind of project TDC funding is well used for, and promoting Freedom Park and these Page 36 October 13, 2015 holidays is a tourism function. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you need a legal opinion on that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're advertising within the county not without of the county, so I don't agree with -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. We advertise within the county for TDC all the time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me finish up. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Henning has the floor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let me finish up. I could support it. I think it's great to have a public/private partnership with no cost to the county. What I've heard is the county take over this project. And you have a resident, a business resident that is involved in a not-for-profit that wants to be a partner in it. And what is being suggested is to grow government and take away from that not-for-profit. Let us do it instead of not-for-profit. I don't agree with that. I mean, we can be a partner. I could support that if there's an alternative motion than what's being suggested. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So tell me what you can support, would you please? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can support a motion that says to direct the County Manager to bring it back -- bring back options to the county with no cost to the county taxpayers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't support that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think that in this particular case, they would -- people would love to buy one of these to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there's still a cost to the taxpayer. Page 37 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, but let me just finish. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala has the floor, then we're going to go to Commissioner Taylor. Please, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they would love to -- like, for instance, I was saying I would buy one for my brother, and then I could keep it afterwards. And they said that the brackets, if that is not something that the county feels they can do, that they would do their own fund raising to put them up. So I don't think there would be any cost. We might need to ask somebody to install them on brackets they buy just because we -- maybe we have a bucket truck or something like that to get them up there, but that's the only thing. I think right now -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I could support that if you're going to make that a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll make a -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, wait a second. We have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We don't have a second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have Commissioner Henning with a concern about the cost to the public. I share his concern. Commissioner Fiala has stated her thinking. Commissioner Taylor? And let's see if we can find some -- we had a motion, but we don't have a second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you have two motions on the floor. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have one motion on the floor without a second. If we could dispatch that one, then we can ask for a second motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So ask for a second on the first motion. Page 38 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a second on the first motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: My motion is to direct the County Manager to bring back us -- to bring us alternatives on how we can approach this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that was your entire motion, yeah, well, I could second that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There's a second. Commissioner Henning has expressed concern. I've expressed concern. Let's have -- any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm opposed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's with all the options -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not opposed to it because there wasn't all that added stuff to the motion. It's bringing back -- telling the County Manager to bring us back some options of what we can do. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the motion is approved. The County Manager will bring us back options. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3-2. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I can bring you back as many rocks as you want to see, and you can tell me which one you like or to keep bringing you some more. But in terms of the schedule that's been requested here, I don't see any way to bring you back a full set of options and have anything implemented for November 2nd, just as long as the Board understands that. Page 39 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I mean, I think it's understood, and even November the 11th -- MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- but that it's a good start in November, that's a whole other -- that's another thing. MR. OCHS: Yeah. And it will somewhat depend on whether you want this to be a county-operated program subject to our procurement practices and -- or whether you want this to be a public/private partnership with some joint funding, or you want it to be a completely private event with the county just providing locations. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We'll make that decision maybe when you bring us the -- everything on the -- MR. OCHS: My only point is this isn't going to happen, you know, next month. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if it's -- this is their idea, and they're going to be funding it, and they've come up with solutions as to how to get it done, they just need our approval to put them out, then, you know, I don't think we should be -- I agree with Commissioner Henning; we shouldn't go in and say, well, we're going to take over your program and we'll find the funding. That isn't what the program was about. And I think that if we just say to them, yes, if you can -- if you can manufacture these maybe -- as some of the commissioners said, they didn't want an advertising on the bottom. That's fine. They can go along with that. But I think that we're making it very complicated when we don't need to do that. I think we should be able to just move forward with this and, Leo, maybe just come up with one or two options that say no funding involved, but we can use it at this park or we can hang it on these streets or whatever, and the banners will be paid for not by taxpayer dollars, and the brackets the agency will put together the money for but Page 40 October 13, 2015 maybe will need help to hang them or something, you know. But I don't think we need to get into all of that other folderol. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. One moment. Let's be clear. The public petitioner came in asking the county to spend staff time and money. I'm looking for nods right now across the commissioners, do you want to spend staff time and county money for this project or no? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff time -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Clarify staff time. You mean -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Staff time and money. They were asking for staff time and money to operate this program is what they were asking for. They were asking for staff to be putting stuff up, taking stuff down, and they wanted county money. Commissioner Taylor says no public money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think staff time we would need to if they're hanging in our parks, but I can understand no money. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I say no. Commissioner Hiller? I think there are options for them to get it through various means, but I'm just trying to do something in the short term. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- my concern is if we allow one organization to have a banner program, we have to allow other organizations to have banner programs, and I can't -- I cannot support it as a private initiative. I can support it as a fully public initiative. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So that's no. Commissioner Henning, you have the floor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With who? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner -- the Chairman. Page 41 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So, Mr. Ochs, please come back with options for a private program. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Say that again. CHAIRMAN NANCE: For a privately funded program at this time. That looks like the will of the Board is that we not spend public money. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So can I ask the Board, if I have another organization that wants to put up banners in our parks and will fully fund it, will we accept them also? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Mr. Ochs is going to have to tell us how we're going to work these programs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- if somebody petitions the Board, we should consider it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like if-- DR. LUX: Would it be best -- I'm sorry. I don't know if I can interrupt at this point. We'd be willing to pay for it. If you want the site to go to the Collier County site and that directs it to our Collier County Honor Flight website so that it can look at the information of these veterans, we'd be happy to do this. This is about our veterans. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Dr. Lux, you are going to have to work with the County Manager. He's got quite a task on his hands here, so I'm going to ask you to work with him. DR. LUX: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think we need to move forward. But thank you. I think it's a wonderful program. It's just getting it put together. DR. LUX: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to write you a check. Page 42 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. I think probably all of us will donate to your activities. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 11. I didn't know if you wanted to take an earlier break for your court reporter this morning, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's -- since we're likely to have considerable public comment on the -- MR. OCHS: Yeah, I concur. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- item ahead, let's take a 15-minute break until 10:25 for the court reporter's fingers and her well-being. MR. OCHS: Very good. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Item #11C STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF FILED BILLS PROPOSING REGULATIONS ON HIGH-PRESSURE WELL STIMULATION ACTIVITIES - THE LOBBYISTS ARE TO WORK WITH DEP, SENATOR RICHTER AND SENATOR RODRIGUEZ REGARDING ACID MATRIX CONCERNS AND APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED Mr. Chairman, this takes us to Item 11C on this morning's agenda. This is a recommendation to consider staffs analysis of the filed bills proposing regulations on high-pressure well stimulation activities. Mr. Durham will make the presentation. Right there, on queue. Page 43 October 13, 2015 MR. DURHAM: Thank you, Commissioners. Not as fast as I used to be. My name's Tim Durham. I'm here for Item 11C. At the September 22nd BCC meeting, the Board approved our legislative priorities except for as it related to Senate Bill 318. So we were asked to do an analysis on the bill, and we've done that. And we have three things that we'd like to bring to your attention. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Get your breath, Mr. Durham. MR. DURHAM: I'm working on it. I'm not 20 anymore, Commissioner. Feeling every day of it. Holy cow. I'm running down the hallway. I'm in the men's room, I hear Leo go, you have a live mike, Commissioner. So that was -- thank you, Boss. I appreciate that. MR. OCHS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, perhaps we should investigate the opportunities for broadcasting from the public facilities. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. DURHAM: Very good, sir. Very good. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't you have a microphone in there so that they can hear what's going on? MR. OCHS: There are some limits to the technology. MR. DURHAM: And there needs to be, ma'am. So you've asked us to look at Senate Bill 318. There's Senate Bill 318 from Senator Richter, House Bill 191 from Representative Rodriguez. They're identical in all material ways. They've both been filed. And going through each element of the bill, there were three things that we would like to get your direction on so we could direct our lobbyists going forward when there's a chance to influence the bill to see if we can make these changes. And the first one is the state preemption provision within the bill. Page 44 October 13, 2015 We think that as a matter of home rule power and your ability to appropriately zone and establish setbacks to incompatible uses, it's staffs position that you should retain that home rule power and seek to change this particular feature of the bill which preempts this activity exclusively to the state, including things like zoning. So that's a big one. MR. OCHS: Tim, let me just interrupt. It preempts you, Commissioners, for land use rules that are implemented after January 1 of 2015. Zoning ordinances that are existing, in place as of January 1, 2015, are otherwise valid. MR. DURHAM: And, Commissioner, I'm going to -- let me do this, and I'll be happy to elaborate on any of these as we go forward. Staff was satisfied with the definitions for a high-pressure well stimulation and how the activity is being defined for purposes of additional permitting. Mind you, as the Chairman has brought up on numerous occasions, right now this is a barely regulated activity from the sense of hydraulic fracking, and we're not technically talking about hydraulic fracking. But currently under Florida rules, it is a work-over procedure. This bill seeks to correct that and add some significant restrictions and regulation to the activity, and we're happy to see that. This was not in your backup materials, but it is something worth discussing just briefly. There's different types of asset applications that could be used regarding wells and drilling activities. The first and least intrusive is something called acid washing which is typically to remove scaling and rust from inside the well itself. Low amount of acid is used under that process, and it's something that's routinely done regardless the type of production well. Matrix acidizing is another activity where acid is introduced below the pressures to create fractures in the rock formations, and it's used to Page 45 October 13, 2015 clear the wellbore in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore. And the way that works is the activity that occurs here is these wells are 11,000 to 12,000 feet into the ground, up to 2 miles deep. And then a shaft -- that's vertically down, and then a shaft is pushed out horizontally. It's blocked at the end. There's perforations in the end of the -- near the end of the horizontal extension, and that's where the oil is poured through. Matrix acidizing is a process pretty clearly defined in the textbooks, et cetera, where they're clearing out around the immediate area of the perforated piping. And then the last is acid fracturing. It's what's being addressed in the bill, and this is where -- in our situation with the type of rock formation that we have, it's where acid is introduced into the well under pressure sufficient to create it -- to create fissures within the surrounding rock formation. And I can go back to that if necessary. We're pleased with the bill's provisions for future rule-making authority. The bonding requirements, I've provided some information on that, and I do have a little bit of an update on this particular slide. As you read through the staff notes, we asked FDEP to provide typical -- typical bonds that they see for oil drillers around the state. And one of the biggest ones in South Florida, the bond that they put up is approximately $300,000 per production well. Under Florida Statutes there's a way to provide an annual fee in lieu of the bonding requirements. And when you look at the dollar amounts in the statute, you see that they're somewhat modest. But I can report to you that the statute was drafted in 1993, and it's been CPI adjusted by rule ever since. So these amounts are much higher than what you see in this particular slide. There's inspection provisions both in the rules and as part of the permitting process that are pretty robust that are included in the bill. There's provisions regarding past violations for operators and Page 46 October 13, 2015 limitations on either their ability to get a permit or how much bond that they would have to post. There's a moratorium on high pressure well stimulation in the bill until the rule-making is finalized. This is an area that we would like to pay a little bit of attention to. As you know, there's a study that's being funded by the legislature at a $1 million price. And in talking with representatives from the FDEP, their intent is, and what they've been telling us, is that the final permitting rule-making authority won't take place until after the study is completed, but that doesn't mean that prior to then they make other rule-making -- engage in rule-making short of permitting the activity as preparatory to seeing this through. In other words, they may make definitional changes in the rules and some things like that as a part of implementing what's found in this bill. But this is one thing we would ask our lobbyist just to be attentive to, because it would be staffs position we don't want final permitting rule-making until the study's been completed and incorporated. And they've given us a verbal agreement that that's their intent with this. There is a peer-reviewed study, as I talked about a little bit before. These are the civil penalties. I looked up what the civil penalties were in other states regarding this type of activity. California had very similar provisions with -- their maximum penalty on a day-by-day basis for an infraction is $25,000. In the bill, the civil penalties increased from 10,000 to 25,000. And this seems in line with what we see in other states. And then regarding chemical disclosure -- and I'd like to -- I'd like to shift to another document here one second. But what we're asking for with the chemical disclosure piece, as you know, some of the information is protected from public consumption through trade secret protections. And the FDEP will receive chemical disclosure at two points in Page 47 October 13, 2015 the process, one with the initial permitting, and then once the activity begins, within 60 days of that activity there's a follow-on report that must go to FDEP. In reviewing what goes on in other states, we -- staff is asking that our lobbyist be directed to create a first responder and emergency management exception to these trade secret provisions. And the idea is, think of our emergency management director. It would be good if he knew very early in the process what the intent is so he can devise appropriate plans so that we should have to send first responders. And I do have backup information on the other states should you like to see it. And, finally, there's a waste management or disposal provision in the bill. This was a part of the 18 points that we've had dialogue with FDEP where they've agreed to us their intent regarding disposal, and disposal is also specifically mentioned in the study that's preceding all the rule-making with this. So staff doesn't -- we just -- all we ask is that FDEP just abide by what they've agreed to with the 18 points. We're not -- we think the bill's satisfactory in that regard. And sorry about taking so long to catch my breath. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So, Mr. Durham, let me try to repeat what you're telling me. The three major issues are -- that staffs recommending, they're recommending that we not have state preemption of home rule on land use and be able to create reasonable setbacks related to zoning. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Number 2 would be have the moratorium remain in place until the commission study is completed that relates to several of your points, and then, finally, have reasonable chemical disclosure to allow for first responders and emergency management. Is that pretty much -- Page 48 October 13, 2015 MR. DURHAM: That is correct, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, we have everybody's light on, so we're going to start with Commissioner Taylor, then we're going to go to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: As we talk about the chemical -- the chemical disclosure, I think it's important to emphasize real-time chemical disclosure, because at this point -- and this is how it was explained to me -- and Mr. Durham did it correctly. When they -- before they start the process, there's a list of chemicals and they send it into the emergency place, the Frack Foc -- it's not Frack Focus, but it's DEP, and there's -- and they have these wonderful meta data sheets that are up and posted, but -- the chemicals are listed, but it says trade secrets. You know, they'll talk about a specific blend of chemicals, but then it says trade secrets, but there's a phone number you can call. Well, when it's a first responder, no one's going to do that. So what happens then, they can wait 60 days and then file the chemicals used again, which kind of leaves that a big window here. So if we could speak about real-time chemical disclosure as it -- as it unfolds, I think it would help. And I like the idea of the county being -- wherever these wells are dug, whether it's Collier County or Lee County or wherever, that there is a source within the county that has that list. I don't want us to make it public to us as commissioners or to the public. I just think it's very important for the first responders. And we've had this conversation, and we've been talking for a couple of weeks, so I really appreciate it -- this opportunity. Now, unfortunately, there was another discussion we had that we couldn't really air it out, but if I could ask my colleagues to indulge, I just have a very -- five-minute little series of thought-process regarding the well stimulation. If I could ask Tim to put it on the projector or -- Page 49 October 13, 2015 MR. DURHAM: And, ma'am, if I may, just so -- before we get too many different ideas. But your first point I'd like to show the board something that may take a concern away regarding the disclosure to first responders. And what they do in a number of other states -- and I'm, you know, obviously not going to go through them all. But what they do is when the trade secret information is released to, let's say, it's the local emergency management authority, they could require, if they're worried about unwanted disclosure, require that you sign some sort of confidentiality agreement; that it would only be used for first responder emergency management purposes. And when you look at what other states have done, that's kind of how they balance that. Okay. And so, ma'am, I'll -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, Durham, is that -- are we really talking about, like, OSHA, Level 5 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- hazardous materials that would be disclosed to the first response teams? MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir; yes, sir, absolutely. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. DURHAM: Ma'am, this is -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So about two weeks ago I had some questions, and these are my questions. And I sent this to you, and I do apologize. This came last night, then I thought, well, let me just bring it up again. These were my questions. And what caught my eye, and in discussions with Mr. Ochs and Mr. Durham yesterday was the matrix acidizing. And the sentence that caught my eye was matrix acidizing is routinely used to improve flow in potable water wells, and it's an activity that is already regulated by the FDEP. And I said, well, fine and good, but then I said -- trust me. This is about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I said, wait a minute. If it improves the flow to water wells, Page 50 October 13, 2015 why isn't it -- why isn't it used or is it used for oil wells. So then, the next slide, please. That was my question. And the next slide, I went to the AECOM, our consultant's report, and I looked under acid stimulization -- stimulation techniques, and I read -- now, it's -- again, you have it, but it's two long paragraphs, but forgive me. In that, I shortened it to, in matrix acidizing, the acid is pumped in at or slightly above the reservoir pressure, not exceeding the formation's fracture pressure. Well, okay. Because in high pressure acid fracking, it exceeds that gradient, but this doesn't. But then it says, this type of acid treatment can more than double the production rate of the well. And they leave a reference there of Mr. Kalfayan 2008. So I go online and find out who Mr. Kalfayan is, and that's the next slide. And he has written a consent guide on the acid treatment and design for oil wells. And if you go to the next slide, this is what his book is. And it's updated to 2008. He has updated his book on acid stimulization -- stimulation, one of the primary methods for improving productivity of oil, gas, injection, and disposal wells. So I said, well, then, maybe matrix acidizing is used in oil wells, because there it is. It goes from our consultant to this book and this -- I don't have the book. I just -- again, this is the back cover. But this is not about water. There's not oil (sic). It's oil, gas injection, and disposal wells. So then I said, okay, maybe what we need to do is just slightly tweak what is in the bill. And these are my suggestions. We strike high pressure and talk about well stimulations in the definition, and we talk about well stimulation meaning all stages of well intervention -- again, this is the -- this is exactly the wording within the bill. So we're striking high pressure, we're saying well stimulations means all stages of well intervention performed by injecting fluids into a rock formation, and strike, again, high pressure -- Page 51 October 13, 2015 because matrix acidizing can also do this, according to what I discovered yesterday -- in order to increase production at an oil or gas well. So, once again, we're not -- we're using their words. We're not talking about water. Water wells are regulated by FDEP. We're talking specifically oil or gas well by improving the follow of hydrocarbons from the formation into the wellbore. This term does not include well cleaning or any conventional work-over procedures that affect the formation within three feet of the wellbore. And yesterday Mr. Durham and I talked about that 3-foot radius, that l-to-3-foot radius that can happen. When you clean with matrix, which is the original definition, what happens is, it did go out. But they've figured out it's a l-to-3-foot radius. So everything that stays within that three feet would not be put under that definition. So, anyway, I wanted to bring this up to you. I think it's something that I'm not so sure that -- and, again, I do apologize to staff. I'm backing up. I apologize to staff. I wish I had done this a week earlier. But I really believe that we should ask our lobbyist to work on this with our legislators in Tallahassee. And that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, Tim. I think you did a wonderful job. MR. DURHAM: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I like the idea of the chemical disclosure to our first responders. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even though it is under OSHA, they need to have a Material Safety Data Sheet on site. It's still an added protection. Page 52 October 13, 2015 Now, as far as acid matrix, my understanding, when we had the -- I think a workshop with the -- our consultant, or was it on a regular meeting? Anyways, he was talking about that, that it applies -- widely applies, applied, like in water wells. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir, and that's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, if I recall, the process between water wells and oil production is different; high pressure, low pressure. And I followed up with that with a -- somebody I know that's in the well drilling business. And what I was -- if I recall this, what he said was, the older wells, the two-inch wells that we have in various areas -- which we're using four-inch wells now -- the two-inch wells can lose its production due to calcium buildup and so on and so forth mainly in the sleeving of the well. That -- I think that's -- correct me if I'm wrong, that is why the consultant -- our consultant brought it up was to say, you know, stimulation has been used -- widely being used, and it's been used in water wells with an acid stimulation but a different process. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that your understanding? MR. DURHAM: It is, sir, and this is -- and, again, sorry for the -- I didn't get some of this material until late yesterday evening. This is the seminal textbook in this area of endeavor. It's a 2012 publication with the foremost experts. And they talk about the difference between matrix acidizing, which they look to be a relatively routine process that's confined immediately around the wellbore itself. And as you look at this, it talks -- its role in oil production, and it's largely to dissolve sentiment that builds up around the holes around the wellbore as opposed to pushing through rock. Now, it is regulated and, like I said, it's used in other types of wells. And right out of the textbook it says that matrix acidizing Page 53 October 13, 2015 should not be confused with acid fracturing. The concentration of the acid is different, the pressure that it's under is different, and the type of operation being done is different. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But -- so they're using the matrix acidization in oil well production? MR. DURHAM: Yeah. It can be used in pretty much any type of well to basically -- and the way I understand this conceptually, on that horizontal piece of piping near the end, it's perforated so that when they draw out whatever they're trying to draw out, whether it's oil, water, whatever, that that's cleared. It's like clearing those perforations to draw. The purpose is not to punch through rock but to clear the immediate area so that they could draw. And they look at it -- this is an engineering textbook. They view it as two completely different processes as opposed to, like, breaking through rock formations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In your research, does it show the different layers of piping like what we were told on how it's being drawn? MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DURHAM: Yep, absolutely. And everything you said is absolutely correct as far as the clean -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put that in writing? MR. DURHAM: I think it's part of the record, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put in a letter to the editor or something like that. Okay, thank you. MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. Going back to part of this, the proposal -- and it speaks to the study. They wanted to wait until the study is completed, but it doesn't Page 54 October 13, 2015 mention that the results are presented. The study could be completed in April, and the results could come in two years later. So they're operating under something that is as clear as oil. So I think that that needs to be changed just a little bit to mention that we would want the results brought back before you could move forward. MR. OCHS: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. OCHS: Excuse me. I'm sorry. But on that topic, there is a provision in the bill, ma'am, that -- and I'll read it to you; it's very short. This is regarding the study. It says, the department, and which is FDEP, shall submit the findings of the study to the governor or the president of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by June 30, 2017, and shall prominently post the findings on its website, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean that they can't do anything at all with regard to acid stimulation until after those findings? It wasn't clear to me. MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. What -- and it wasn't exactly clear to the staff; that's why it was one of the three elements that we asked to try to get some clarification in the final bill, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So study completed, it's all left up to interpretation. MR. DURHAM: We have informal agreement from FDEP that final permitting rules will not take place until after the study, but it doesn't stop them from doing things like -- rule-making process can be pretty elaborate. There's public notification, interaction with stakeholders. A lot of due process involved. There may be portions of the rule-making that don't -- that would not allow the activity to go forward but set the stage for them to build the rules over a period, which makes a lot of sense, operationally, if you're worried about Page 55 October 13, 2015 making some fundamental rule change. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just looking at the words. You stopped short again at study, "until the study," but the study findings have been presented? I mean, just add -- to me that makes it a little clearer because when anybody wants to do anything, they're going to play with those words. We see that happening here all the time, all the time. MR. DURHAM: Well, and that's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I would just suggest -- and it's up to the other commissioners also. I would suggest that just that word, "the study is completed and findings presented" or however. I just wanted to make it most clear. The second thing I wanted to say with regard to chemical disclosure, I think that that's -- that should be mandatory for the emergency personnel because they need to have that. We need to have that for their safety and for their -- for their health. And, thirdly, this matrix acidizing that you were bringing out, it sounds like a good thing to explore, so I wanted to throw that in as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Taylor, and I think we need to move to hear -- I think we have many public speakers, don't we, Mr. Miller? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir; 15. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's see if we can wrap up with the Board and then hear what the public wants to say. Commissioner Hiller, please. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with the Board regarding chemical disclosure. I think it's absolutely essential that we have that information. And it's very easy to obtain, no different than, you know, we have security plans for our airport which are not subject to public disclosure and, you know, we all sign statements saying we won't Page 56 October 13, 2015 disclose the information that we have with respect to it, and we don't. But it's essential for us to know, and not just emergency services, but us as well. I think it should be, you know, county, staff, and the Board, so that if we have any concerns, we can be responsive. So I totally agree on that. With respect to preemption, I think preemption is also something that is a matter of concern. We have to have home rule to the extent necessary that we can promote public health, safety, and welfare, and however we define that is what we should push for in this bill. And I can only imagine that all other jurisdictions that are facing this will want the same. So, you know, that's up to staff to figure out how far we have to push to get home rule to allow us to be able to protect the public. On the other hand, we have to be mindful of the fact that we can't engage in takings and so whatever, you know, restrictions we put in place -- MR. DURHAM: Are defensible. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- are defensible. And there has to be a balance between the two because otherwise we're going to find ourselves in untenable litigation, and it's going to be very difficult. And what I don't want us to do is lose our ability to protect the public because we have engaged in a takings and that gets overturned and then there's no public protection, so there has to be a balance with respect to the constitutional property rights when we ask for that home rule provision. With respect to the moratorium, you know, I have always been in favor of that moratorium, but I want to know from the County Attorney, legally, can we impose a moratorium like this? Now, I think there is a market tendency not to move forward because the price of oil has gone down so much that I don't see much fracking going on anywhere in the country. Page 57 October 13, 2015 And my understanding is that, you know, the Saudis were very shrewd and said, like, we don't want to compete with the frackers, so we're going to drive the price of oil down as much as possible and put them out of business, and they've successfully done that nationally. So, in effect, you know, the marketplace has created a fracking moratorium. But, legally, are we in a position to impose a moratorium while this legislation is making its way through the pipeline? MR. KLATZKOW: I would very much counsel against that. You have no upside to that because it's not going to happen anyway, as you said, because of market conditions, and your downside is potential litigation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is that, notwithstanding the discussion we've had here, we legally cannot impose a moratorium? MR. KLATZKOW: I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that you have no upside to do it. Nobody's going to be drilling down there for the immediate future. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I recognize that. I'm just saying -- MR. KLATZKOW: So what you're doing is you're risking litigation for no purpose. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So if I understand correctly, you think there's a potential that imposing a moratorium would not be deemed legal and that because of what I just described as market conditions, we, in effect, have a de facto moratorium, and we should just live with that till circumstances change? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I concur with that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Don't we have a voluntary moratorium that's agreed upon by all parties at this moment, this -- agreed-upon moratorium? Page 58 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have a voluntarily moratorium from the individuals who had given the rights to drill to the Hogan well. But let's say, you know, there's -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: And the agency as well, is it not, Mr. Durham? MR. DURHAM: Yes, sir. And just a friendly reminder. This is already a part of the bill, so it would be the legislature that's imposing a moratorium till the study's concluded, not a local jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I understand, but pending the approval between the time that this bill is adopt -- because we, in effect, had imposed -- we didn't impose a moratorium. The -- what's the name of the company? Collier Resources. MR. DURHAM: Collier Resources. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Collier Resources had voluntarily submitted to us that they would not do any sort of this type of drilling pending this legislation moving through the house and the Senate. We have not imposed a local legal moratorium while this bill is moving through the state. MR. OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is the possibility -- which I don't believe will happen. But let's say hypothetically that there is some other company other than Collier Resources that could try to come forward for a permit. We don't have the ability to legally deny them because there is no state moratorium, and we haven't imposed a local county moratorium because, on advice of counsel -- I don't necessarily believe anyone's going to come forward, but I'm just saying we are not imposing a formal moratorium locally while this bill is pending. MR. OCHS: We're not recommending that, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. DURHAM: That's correct. Page 59 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: As part of this -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. What the state does and how they chose to impose a moratorium is a different issue. And if someone wants to sue the state, that's fine. And if the state imposes it, you know, we respect it. But I just want to make sure we have a clear understanding of this issue. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't think anyone's going to come forward -- MR. DURHAM: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because it doesn't make economic sense to. And I'm not worried about Collier Resources. I'm worried about people out there other than them. But I don't think that the market will encourage that. So I just wanted to clarify that. So, I mean, I think you've done a great job, as the other commissioners have said. Tim, thank you so much for bringing this forward. And I see that we have our lobbyists sitting in the audience, so I think they understand, you know, what everyone has said. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are important issues. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Taylor. And then would the Board like to hear the public speakers? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Taylor, and then we'll go to public speakers, Mr. Miller, in a moment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll just be brief. And I'm going to ask Leigh to -- who gave this to me just now, to pass it out to you and certainly to the County Manager and Mr. Durham. But under the -- from the website of the American Petroleum Institute -- and their website talks about acidizing. And they talk about acidizing basis -- basics, excuse me. And they state, the purpose of Page 60 October 13, 2015 matrix or fracture acidizing is to restore or improve an oil or gas well's productivity by dissolving the material in the productive formation that is restricting flow or to dissolve formation rock itself to enhance existing or to create a new flow path to the wellbore. And I'm not suggesting that we say, oh, my gosh, we can't do this. I'm just suggesting, let's just make it part of the definition and let it fall under the regulations within the legislation or at least let's give the notice to our lobbyist that we want this to be considered because, frankly, what we're talking about now and what we'd like to see now is probably not something that's going to be at the very end. I mean, it's a document that's going to change, but I think it's important that we send our message to the legislators through our lobbyist that we really want them to consider this. That's it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, commissioners should all remember that this -- once again, this is a two-step process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. CHAIRMAN NANCE: This is legislation and then rule-making, okay. And we've got -- there's a lot that can be accomplished. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, our first -- I would like to remind the speakers to use both podiums and the second speaker called to wait at the second podium. Our first speaker is Dona Knapp. She will be followed by Dr. John Dwyer. MS. KNAPP: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you about this important matter. We must have home rule. If we don't have home rule, we're nothing more than a police state. And I have traveled to other countries quite a lot in my lifetime, and I've seen what it's like when the people have no voice. To me it all boils down to protecting water, something that's very sacred to us. We can't go for three days without water, good, pure Page 61 October 13, 2015 water, and we need to protect it for future generations, your children, your grandchildren. We're all in this together. And as our elected officials, I respectfully ask you to listen to our voices and carry out our wishes to ban this irresponsible fracking in Collier County. Water is in short supply. NASA's new data has shown aquifers that are thousands of years old, and they're drying up across the land. I think of all of us here in Florida. There's more tourists that are coming. There's even more seasonal people that have decided to make Florida their home permanently. Where is all the water going to come from for these people if it's polluted, and the large amounts of water that are used for each fracking well? And that water can never, never be used again. It's permanently taken out of circulation, pumped into the ground in hopes that it won't seep out into our water supply. And that, to me, is a risk that we cannot take. It seems irresponsible in the least that we would use millions of gallons. I sat for 10 days a couple of months ago in the capitol of South Dakota, Pierre, and I sat there just to listen to KXL, the pipeline hearings that they were having up there where TransCanada is trying to get new permits so they can go across the state of South Dakota and across the Iguala aquifer, also 300 bodies of waters. I learned quite a bit. I listened to a very eminent biologist. His name is Dr. Arden Davis. He informed us that benzine -- and this is one of the carcinogenic chemicals used in fracking -- is odorless, tasteless, and invisible. We would never know until it is too late if it had entered our water supply, and it only takes 15 drops to pollute 500 gallons of drinking water. And illness and eventually death comes. In the case of sickness caused by the deadly chemicals pumped through our aquifers, hospitals and first responders have not been trained. They wouldn't know what to treat for, and that's if we could even -- even prove that those chemicals had come from a fracking Page 62 October 13, 2015 well. I also listened to Evan Volks, a whistleblower who worked for TransCanada, and I assure you that these corporations have no scruples. Their sole focus is to make money and profit. They don't give two beans for human life, to the fact that 95 percent -- some of their pipelines, 95 percent, are corroded through before they've even done anything. I could go on. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. MS. KNAPP: And I'd like to, but thank you for hearing me. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is -- MS. KNAPP: Please ban fracking. Don't let it happen here in Collier County. Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. John Dwyer. He'll be followed by Dr. Karen Dwyer. DR. JOHN DWYER: I believe Eduardo has given me three extra minutes. MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. I did not see that, sir. DR. JOHN DWYER: In politics, friends are preeminently important but are not always a source of good or ethical decision making. You elected officials serve at the pleasure of the public. We do not want the oil industry in South Florida. Mr. Richter's SB318 as well as Mr. Rodriguez's companion HB 1205 will nullify and prohibit the people's voices from opposing new oil drilling. I prefer no bill rather than these bills that cancel home rule and create loopholes for the industry. They do not, as claimed, incorporate our recommendations for regulations. Someone is inundating our local government officials with the meme that they serve at the pleasure of very important people. Tell the public something is better than nothing, they say. Page 63 October 13, 2015 SB318 is a something that is far worse than nothing. It hobbles local government so that they cannot defend their citizens against the dangers of the oil industry, the traffic, the noise, the pollution, the damage of natural resources, the health risks. Imposing state regulations and rules, as proposed, cancels the local rights we now have to create zoning and land use restrictions, rules and regulations that are far more effective than the DEP's or the EPA's. Neither our commissioners nor our legislators should embrace the unscientific assertion that Collier County is, quote, one of the safest places in the U.S. for oil production. That's on the website that you were referring to, Mrs. Taylor. Neither did scientific objectivity produce the CAD drawings or the black metal pipe models in walnut that Hughes executives showed us. These idealized versions of oil drilling have an interpretative and subjective character allowing oilmen and their biases to politicize issues. Think of both the hard science and the real history of drilling, fracking, pipelines, and transporting deadly poisonous materials. Contrast that with the fiction of 70 years of history of safe drilling in South Florida and of our karstiology as not already fractured. The Sunniland trend has produced only 120 million barrels since oil was first discovered 12 miles south of Immokalee in 1943. Sounds like a lot? U.S. output in barrels per day is 9.8 billion. The Sunniland trend, 2,800 barrels per day, less than .0003 percent. Dr. Hein (phonetic) writes, one of the reasons little gas and oil has ever been found here is that our carbonates are filled with holes, many of which lead to the surface, opposite of the claim impermeable and hydrate layers that confine pooled fluids two miles below the surface. Your dismissal of the hard science and true history will not make the VIPs more than briefly happy. Page 64 October 13, 2015 Scientists employed by the oil industry cannot speak with candor or with scientific objectivity. Do not believe them. Like the employees of the DEP, they must protect their jobs. These Richter-Rodriguez bills betray the public interest. Withdraw your support. The Florida legislature passed special tax breaks to oil companies. As little as one percent oil severance tax may now be charged to companies that drill in formerly tapped-out fields due to Mr. Hudson's HB87 in 2013. Furthermore, whatever oil is extracted from Southwest Florida would hardly make a cent of difference in global oil prices. Sunniland oil is only sour crude, not the more valuable sweet crude. The quantity is small; the quality is poor. Both bills declare existing ordinances and regulations relating to oil void. These Dick Cheney like bills may pass -- may please very important people like the Coke brothers, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tom Jones, Mr. Christian Spilker, Mr. Miles Collier, the DEP, and the EPA, and the oil industry, but not us. We have had it with Halliburton loopholes. We don't approve of the heartless Richter loopholes. Offer your support instead to Senators Dwight Bullard and Darren Soto and SB 166. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Karen Dwyer. She'll be followed by Caitlin Weber. DR. KAREN DWYER: We need you to not support Senator Richter's pro-fracking bill because it would cause more harm than good and take away rather than add protections. This bill does not represent community concerns. It does not ban fracking, restrict water use, impose buffer, plug abandoned bore holes, or significantly increase fines. It is not the strong oil and gas laws we were promised; quite the opposite. Page 65 October 13, 2015 It would continue to allow fracking and the nondisclosure of toxics chemicals. Worse yet, it would take away the home rule right of local government to protect itself with bans, setbacks, traffic restrictions, and everything else the state does not and will not consider when issuing drilling permits. This is not responsible regulation but an unfriendly bill. Presently counties have the power to safeguard public safety, community character, and quality of life by limiting drilling in inappropriate areas because of zoning issues in incompatible land use. These powers exist and have been successfully exercised by Bonita Springs and Broward County to name just two. To endorse a bill that would strip local governments of their home rule right is not in the public interest. It is a betraying of the worst kind, especially because we know drilling may strain water supplies, increase truck traffic, produce noise and light pollution, reduce property values, and disturb residents. Only local government can address these issues, not the state. There are no state standards that address these local impacts; therefore, it is imperative to allow local government to oversee these critical safeguards under their existing home rule authority. Communities should not be left defenseless. We know DEP won't protect us. They're overworked, underfunded, and crippled by laws written by and for the oil industry. We would rather have no new legislation than this bad bill that would take away rather than add protections. Reject Richter's bill or any bill that would preempt home rule, diminish public safety, and fast track fracking in Florida. If you want stronger oil and gas laws, echo your constituents, support legislation that would ban all well stimulation, restrict freshwater use, impose one-mile buffers, plug abandoned bore holes, disclose all chemicals, significantly increase fines, and secure Page 66 October 13, 2015 enforcement power. In short, endorse Senator Bullard's fracking ban as well as more stringent regulation on all drilling. And, finally, listen to the Pope. Support clean energy. There is no future in fossil fuel. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Caitlin Weber. She'll be followed by Pamela Duran. MS. WEBER: Good morning. Caitlin Weber here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our more than 6,000 supporters. Thank you for carefully reviewing the proposed oil and gas legislation, Senate Bill 318, and House Bill 191. It is critical that the county identify its concerns with the legislation and engage its lobbyists to address these issues. The Conservancy supports staff recommendations on issues in the proposed legislation. We support the protection of home rule authority, chemical disclosure to emergency management agencies, and clarification on the study timeline. Staff found that the bills should clarify that no well stimulation will occur until completion of a study, and we agree -- while stimulation should be suspended until studied. But the legislation currently does not include all types of well stimulation involving the injection of chemicals and, therefore, will not study all oil well stimulation treatments. The definition of high pressure well stimulation in the legislation needs to be revised to capture acid stimulation to enhance oil production that dissolves rock without the use of high pressure. The bill is addressing oil drilling only, and so none of the language applies to the use of acid in water wells. Moreover, it only addresses stimulation to enhance oil production, so does -- not regulating any type of well cleaning. Acid cleaning targets the well. Matrix acidization targets the rock. Page 67 October 13, 2015 California regulations on oil well stimulation include matrix acidizing along with acid and hydraulic fracturing while simply excluding well cleaning. The California defines well stimulation as a short-term non-continual process for the purpose of opening and stimulating channels for the flow of hydrocarbons. Examples of well stimulation treatments include hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, and acid matrix stimulation. The definition goes on to say, well stimulation treatment does not include routine well cleanout. This ensures all fracking-like extraction is addressed without capturing cleaning. Existing rule-making authorities haven't been used to update rules in nearly two years since the Hogan incident. Legislation is the opportunity for the county to get the assurance it is seeking. In closing, the Conservancy urges the county to engage its lobbyists to address staffs concerns with the deficiencies in these bills. We hope the county will also consider the inadequacy of the high pressure well stimulation definition when developing its position. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Pamela Duran. She'll be followed by Jaime Duran. MS. DURAN: Thank you. I would like to comment on some of the things that were said at the last meeting. First, it seems this commission is under the impression that fracking is safe. New York's acting health commissioner, Howard Zucker, said the state's examination found significant public health risk associated with fracking because of drinking water contamination and increased air pollutants. The potential risks are too great. He said, in fact, they are not even fully known. We also know that there's been fracking contamination firsthand Page 68 October 13, 2015 from one of the commissioners in Ohio. I ask you, don't the citizens of Florida deserve the same protection as New York? Fracking needs to be banned in Florida also. Second, the statement that Senate Bill 318 is better than nothing. On July 18, 2014, the DEP revoked all permits by the Dan A. Hughes and filed a $100,000 lawsuit and penalties. Senate Bill 318 is supported by the oil, gas, and energy companies. Everyone knows they will find loopholes in these regulations. The truth is Senate Bill 318 is better for the oil industry and does nothing to protect the citizens of Florida. Third, for the last two-and-a-half years I have heard the oil industry representatives and Collier Resources tell me the same things that some of you have said, that the facts we present are emotional -- they're not facts; they're just emotional -- or it's your geologist that says it's okay. And the kicker that I've heard from all these people is, Mrs. Duran, don't worry, you'll be gone. So when Commissioner Henning stated at the last meeting, I don't care, quote, this was no surprise. His attitude and treatment has shown this over the past years. But then he added, I won't be here. I find anything short of banning fracking is premeditated murder. Think of the future generations. You won't be here. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Jaime Duran. He'll be followed by Gaylene Vasaturo. MR. DURAN: Thank you again for the opportunity to address this board. I am Jaime Duran and live on 24th Avenue Southeast. This board believes a geologist that tells you what you want to hear, not the overwhelming majority of scientists that have determined that fracking and all related procedures are harmful to human health and all aspects of the environment, a geologist that was clearly chosen by the oil industry. Page 69 October 13, 2015 Fracking fluids contain over 630 chemicals: 25 percent are listed as cancer-causing agents; 37 percent affect hormones; 40 to 50 percent affect the kidneys and cardiovascular systems; 75 percent affect sensory organs, respiratory, and gastrointestinal systems. Sixty percent of wells leak over a 30-year period; 30 to 70 percent present of spent (sic) fluids not recovered and stay in the ground. These are all facts that have been proven and verified by even the oil industry scientists. These are not the rantings of an environmentalist, as some of you have been told. Just because fracking is possible does not mean that it is a good idea. You know that Florida public officials have the reputation of being among the most corrupt in the nation. Today I really hope to address some of the new -- some of the few exceptions to my statement. You already know all the issues around extreme exploration in this delicate environment, and by now you should understand the risks to human health and the environment damage that can be expected if you fail to act decisively to protect the citizens of Collier County. We, your constituents, are your only and most important obligations, not the couple of mineral rights owners or a handful of landowners, but the thousands of citizens that selected you to represent them. We demand that you do what is right. Choose to support the legislation that truly protects all the residents of Collier County, not the oil companies' interests. Senators Dwight Bullard and Darren Soto, Bill HB 166, accomplish real protections as propose -- as opposed to the bills proposed by Senator Richter and Representative Rodriguez, which only reflect the wishes of the oil industry. But I do not need to tell you the obvious. I am sure you're intelligent enough to see through a ruse. Page 70 October 13, 2015 Thank you, and remember karma. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo. She'll be followed by Brian Lee. MS. VASATURO: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I'm Gaylene Vasaturo. Today I just want to ask you to seek changes to the legislation that will address some of the gaps and some of the limited applications that are in the bill. That's the focus of my comments. It's based on many years of experience with environmental law and regulation. But before I do that, I wanted to say I support all the -- Mr. Duran's suggestions, the three revisions that the commissioners' going to seek. Just to comment briefly about them, exception for the home rule pre-exemption (sic) to me seems too narrow. I think the county's own consultant had recommended that the county retain control and oversight of comprehensive planning, zoning, site design standards, and public notice requirements with regard to aboveground activities of oil and gas exploration. I think at the very least what -- you need to seek an exception from the preemption for -- so the county retains authority to regulate land use impacts of the oil and gas activities. The second, on the study, I wholeheartedly support that. I think the legislation, as written, if-- once DEP has its regulations in place, they will not have authority to prohibit -- to not grant a permit legally. So it needs to be in the legislation that the study needs to preclude the final regulations or something along that line in order for DEP to have legal authority to do that. And I would say that that's -- I highly recommend that because normal rule-making across the country, agencies gather their data first and then develop the regulations based on what they've gotten from that data, and so it will help them. Third, the full disclosure to first responders is great. I only ask that you add medical personnel dealing with exposure problems to that Page 71 October 13, 2015 list. OSHA and MSDS regulations has an exemption for medical personnel, exemption to the trade secret exemption. And, finally, wholeheartedly support Commissioner Taylor's suggestion on the acid well stimulation. My understanding is it does work by dissolving limestone and -- so I ask that you look into that. I only have a few seconds here. The gaps that I see, I would ask that the county seek to get a bond to cover all costs of remediation should site or aquifer contamination occur. That was recommended by your own consultant. Don't leave the taxpayers on the hook should something go wrong. Too, I think -- on the disclosure requirements, I think you should revise the language to require all chemical identities and quantities be disclosed to the DEP. As written, it's clear that it doesn't cover all chemicals. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just -- you mentioned the bond. The bond to? MS. VASATURO: The bond to cover all cost of site remediation should site or aquifer contamination occur. The state -- the proposed legislation has a requirement in 377.22(F), which is Senator Richter's bill, for reasonable bond conditioned upon properly drilling, casing, producing, and operating each well and properly plugging each dry and abandoned well and upon restoration of the site to its original condition. That does not cover remediation should contamination of the site or the aquifer occur, and that would be probably found at a later date after they've gone and left the state. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not familiar with the federal laws that may apply, but if you have contamination, you know, Page 72 October 13, 2015 typically there's some sort of superfund available and some sort of EPA oversight with respect to remediation. How does that tie in with what you're proposing, I mean, if this is already being addressed by the EPA? MS. VASATURO: It's not being addressed by EPA. Oil has been exempted from many of the federal laws. Oil is not considered a hazardous substance under superfund. It's not a hazardous waste under the RCRA, if you're familiar with RCRA. Oil -- drilling fluids for fracking are excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act, which governs underground injection wells. There is some activity at EPA to address some of the problems, but it's in the early stages. They're looking into addressing air pollution, and they're looking into developing pretreatment standards for the waste disposal of these fluids at publicly owned treatment works. But it's not -- because of-- oil has always been -- drilling has always been in a special protected category from regulation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand the oil is exempted, but the chemicals involved in the drilling are not being considered as part of the Clean Water Act in the superfund protection? MS. VASATURO: I'm not sure what you mean. In terms of if a site is contaminated with a particular -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because of the chemicals. I mean, we're talking about groundwater contamination of chemicals. MS. VASATURO: Well, you're asking me -- I have -- I have looked into some of the statutes. And I don't know if you-all want to take your time now. Perhaps -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's something -- MS. VASATURO: I could send you the information. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just send it. You can send it. MS. VASATURO: Because it's not a one-sentence answer that I can give you. Page 73 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, because -- the only reason I raise it is, you know, if the EPA through the Clean Water Act has, you know, contemplated groundwater contamination by chemicals as being protected -- and we don't have to -- I don't want to get into the discussion. If you don't know the answer off the top of your head, we can address it after. I just want to make sure that, you know, we're -- you know, we only can have -- we want to have as many arguments as possible, but we want to win on as many as we can. And I don't want to fight something where, you know, they come back and say but it's, you know, considered already in federal law. MS. VASATURO: Well, people will say that, but it's not true. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA has authority if there is a spill that goes into a water on the surface, they can get it that way. Groundwater contamination would not -- that would not be covered under the Clean Water Act, and that -- you've got the Safe Drinking Water Act for aquifers, but -- so, I mean -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Or if there is any other. Well, you can just send me what information you have on that. I'd be interested. Thank you very much. MS. VASATURO: I will. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me. But it's your position that we need a bond to cover all costs of site remediation should contamination of the site or aquifer occur? MS. VASATURO: I think to protect from the taxpayers being on the hook should that happen, that -- and that's what your consultant recommended. You know, I took that in part from your consultant. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. VASATURO: So, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, good. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Brian Lee. He'll be Page 74 October 13, 2015 followed by Nancy R. Koerner. MR. LEE: Good morning. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is Brian Lee. I live in Tallahassee, Florida. I am a Leon Soil and Water Conservation district supervisor, and I serve the over 280,000 citizens of Leon County in that capacity. I also am a cofounder of Rethink Energy Florida, a statewide 501(c)3, whose mission is to educate, engage, and empower citizens to take action towards energy independence in a cleaner, healthier environment. Rethink Energy Florida is a member of the Floridians Against Fracking Coalition. This is a statewide coalition that also includes the Florida Federation of Garden Clubs, the Florida Medical Association, the Florida Clean Water Network, the NAACP statewide, AFL-CIO statewide, and is joined by many of the dozens of municipalities who have passed either a resolution or -- with a local ban on fracking or have passed a -- I'm sorry -- an ordinance with a local ban on fracking, like Bonita Springs, or a resolution asking for a statewide ban on fracking, like Fort Myers Beach. And there are dozens of these municipalities, including the counties Alachua, Flagler, Hamilton, Madison, Monroe, Union, Jefferson, Broward, Gadsden, Leon, and Miami-Dade, St. Lucie, and Escambia, and then several cities as well, including Bonita Springs with their ordinance, Coconut Creek, Davie, Deerfield Beach, Fernandina Beach, Fort Myers Beach, which is very nearby here, has passed a resolution asking for a statewide ban on fracking, Hollywood, Marietta, Miramar, Monticello, Pembroke Pines, St. Augustine, Sunrise, South Miami, the City of Tallahassee, and the City of Tampa. As you may be able to tell from this long list of municipalities that are wanting to see a ban on fracking, the home rule portion of this bill is considered to be very dangerous by the Florida Coalition Page 75 October 13, 2015 Against Fracking, and we would absolutely advise that you please vote to turn down this legislation, particularly on that matter. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Nancy Koerner. She'll be followed by Judy Dempsey. MS. KOERNER: Thank you, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I represent the everyday voter, the local business owner, property owner, and grandmother. There is an elephant in the room. I should not be standing here trying to explain why high pressure injection of unidentified poisonous chemicals into the earth is a bad idea. A child can understand this. And no amount of money can make it a good idea. It is obvious. The emperor has no clothes. I submit to you today that this issue is a study in cognitive bias, specifically selective perception. Another cognitive bias is called a choice-supported bias. When you choose something, you tend to feel positive about it even if your choice has flaws, like how you think your dog is awesome even though he bites people once in a while. OSHA Level 5. So we're accepting then that it's a matter of-- not a matter of if but a matter of when? You're already looking at emergency procedures here? By the time there's an emergency, it's already too late. There was mention made earlier of the downside being litigation. The downside is widespread poisoning of the population. We have the opportunity to learn from other states. Fracking results in an unprecedented amount of earthquakes. We've learned that from Oklahoma, which is home to hundreds of fracking sites. It is now more earthquake prone than California. Between 1990 and 2008, Page 76 October 13, 2015 Oklahoma had only three earthquakes per year that registered 3.0 or more on the Richter scale and now -- in 2013 Oklahoma had 109 earthquakes, and that number has increased to 238 since June 2014. Fracking results in extreme water contamination. We know that 40,000 gallons of 600 different kinds of chemicals are used in each fracking well, including formaldehyde, mercury, uranium, and hydrochloric acid. And if we haven't learned from other states, just think about Florida. What do you know about Florida topography? It's even more fragile because of the karst. I happen to be a caver. I'm a cave enthusiast, and I know what karst looks like from the inside. And there are aquifers, and there's water that feeds; it percolates down, it percolates up, but it all comes back to the aquifer. Over time, the acidic waters of a natural decomposition eat away at the limestone, and this is what causes these channels and fissures going through old seabed. If the caverns are close enough to the surface and become large enough, the top collapses and produces a sink hole. Each fracking project in the United States requires as much as 8 million gallons of water to complete. And Florida, as we know, already has major water issues. The Everglades are going dry. The Lake 0 discharges -- are discharging filthy water out the St. Lucie estuary, and the Caloosahatchee River as well. Fracking also depletes the value of your home. It's interesting that one of the largest companies, Exxon, there was an ironic twist where the Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson, became a fracking protester when well drilling was about to happen next to his home. He wasn't concerned so much about the environmental impact but his property values. And fracking can reduce a home's value by 25 percent. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, thank you very much. MS. KOERNER: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Judy Dempsey. She'll be Page 77 October 13, 2015 followed by Ruth McGregor. MS. DEMPSEY: Hi. I'm Judy Dempsey. I've lived in Naples, Florida, since '74, and I love Naples, and I don't want it to change. So I am telling you today that I'm concerned because if we have no rights, if the fear of preventing litigation is going to stop us, what's the point? They have already won if that's the fear. I do appreciate the fact that some of you were considering and thought about a moratorium. And I think a moratorium is a great idea, but I understand that you feel there's a way of directing the litigation to the state if they decide to go with a ban. So that's why, for those of you that were considering that, I would support Bullard's bill, because that would be the right way to go. It seems like some of you were thinking about that, and I feel that is definitely the answer. I want you to understand that the law is on the citizens' side. We have the Public Trust Doctrine. You have to believe in it. It will work for us. Don't let the big oil think that they're always going to win. We have to stand up; we have to fight. I think we really need to bring this to the courts if it needs to go that far. I don't want anyone to be afraid of that anymore. We really need to do that. And you also need to understand that if you're trying to calculate, oh, gosh, how much is this going to cost our county, we're going to go bankrupt if we try to fight big oil interests, well, others -- other cities and states that have been affected by fracking have already estimated the cost. New York City estimated that it would cost $6 million to construct a filtration plant if fracking pollutants entered their watershed. Others counties have talked about -- have seen increases in their health costs where residents have been affected. The number of 911 calls that have gone up, the so -- in one county, 50 percent increase in 911 calls in areas that have fracking in their counties. So I just want to end here that I want you to really think about not letting -- not being afraid of litigation, because this is what's going -- Page 78 October 13, 2015 we need to go to the courts to protect people, okay. So let's do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Beth -- Ruth McGregor, excuse me. She'll be followed by Ray Judah. MS. McGREGOR: Good morning, Board, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this morning. I basically echo everything that my fellow comrades had come here to say today. I urge you to support Senate Bill 166 and House Bill 119. I urge you to oppose 318 and House Bill 191. The risks far outweigh the benefits for the oil that we have here in Florida. As you all know, we have a sour crude. It's just not worth it. I grew up in Texas. I grew up in the heartland of oil and gas. I saw what this does. It's not worth it. It's not worth the risk of our water supply. It's not worth the health of our community, our citizens. It just really isn't. And, you know, it was appalling to me when I found out that this was something that they wanted to do here in Florida. I'd never thought in a million years I would see this happening here. I moved here in 1992, and when I found out about the Hogan well, I came out here outraged and I was just like, what are these people thinking? Kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I mean, the majority of income in this state is based on tourism, and we want to turn this into a frackland wasteland? It's ludicrous. I mean, you know, I represent the Sierra Club/Calusa Group. We have over 1,500 members. I'm the conservation chair. And everybody is outraged about this. And, you know, I ask you to consider the oath that you-all took when you took your positions with the Board and to see which bill that aligns itself with. Does it align itself with Senate Bill 318, House Bill 191, or does your oath align itself with Senate Bill 166 and House Bill 19 (sic)? Page 79 October 13, 2015 Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak today. MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Ray Judah. He'll be followed by Patty Whitehead. MR. JUDAH: Mr. Chairman, Collier County Commission, Ray Judah, coordinator with the Florida Coastland Ocean Coalition. I just wanted to be upfront with you. I have been becoming increasingly more and more impressed with this Collier County Commission. I was very appreciative of the presentation from Tim Durham, also your own discussion, the homework that you've been doing. I can tell you Collier County community owes you a deep debt of gratitude for your interest in protecting the public water supply, and I see that with your position and your -- as I said, your line of questioning. I also recognize, and I think all of you also understand, that it's been said that government operates best closest to the people, and I think that alone should tell you, just as it does for me as a former County Commissioner in Lee County, that you don't want to see the state preempt your rightful authority to protect your constituency. And so I do appreciate the fact that you've expressed that concern, that local government should have the opportunity through land use, zoning, through the opportunity to even ban fracking as Bonita Springs has done and what Estero is considering. Let the local communities take care of their constituency. So I'm pleased to see that you're looking at asking Garrett Richter and certainly Ray Rodriguez to eliminate that provision, the preemption provision in the bill. With acid well stimulation, again, I appreciate the discussion that took place, but clearly it's appropriate that the state is going to do this comprehensive study but, unfortunately, it is not so comprehensive because they are, in fact, leaving a gaping loophole with the acid well Page 80 October 13, 2015 stimulation, particularly with regards to low pressure acid stimulation. We all understand the acid rinse and the cleaning of the piping, but when we're talking about low pressure acid stimulation, it actually is used to free up the oil. You're allowing the very acid toxic brew to get into, potentially, the water supply. And so as this study goes forward, a complete definition should include the pressure acid stimulation. The list of chemicals, I think you're right on track. Certainly the first responders should have that list. It would be nice to open it up to the public at large, but I well understand the legalities of proprietary information, but certainly the first responders, the emergency management agencies should have that list. With regards to waste disposal, this bill just doesn't cover adequately what happens with the disposal of the drilling fluids. We all know that even if it goes into the boulder zone, that's the lower Floridan, and the acid chemicals will make quick work of being able to erode the dolomite, the limestone, potentially contaminating the Floridan aquifer. And, finally, the performance bond absolutely should have a performance or surety bond because how do you remediate an aquifer? And if we do, let's put it on the backs of the oil and gas industry, the potentially contaminated aquifer, and not the taxpayers. Thank you so very much. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on Item 11C is Patty Whitehead. MS. WHITEHEAD: Good morning, good afternoon? Good morning, Commissioners. I want to touch on three issues that were of key concern to you. One being the acidization of oil wells versus water wells; the second being the issue of preemption and home rule and plays into, you know, maintaining home rule within the context of this issue of well Page 81 October 13, 2015 stimulation. In the context of fracking, the interests of state and local governments diverge. Although the state statutes may contain statements relating to protecting the health and welfare of communities and the environment, the primary purpose of these statutes is to promote the development of natural -- of fossil fuel resources. They are written to facilitate the growth of the industry. Government officials who operate at a statewide level are less likely than local officials to notice or be concerned about how fracking affects their particular communities. And local officials often do not have the resources to advocate further for their interests. Fracking has an intense impact on the character of the land, and its affect are felt most by the communities in which it takes place. Preemption eliminates the ability of these communities to make land use decisions tailored to localized concerns and to specifically with the impacts of fracking on the environmental, roads, and other local infrastructure and quality of life. The seminal case involving takings was Penn Central Transportation -- Penn Central Transportation Company versus City of New York. Penn Central laid out three factors to determine whether a taking has occurred. First, the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; second, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations; but the third is equally important, the character of the government action. However, according to Penn Central, a taking is not as readily found when the interference arises from some public program done at the local level adjusting the benefits of-- benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good. So there are key issues with safety, health, and welfare with fracking and well stimulation. These are factors that must be taken into consideration, and they could -- they could obviate the entire takings Page 82 October 13, 2015 argument. Regarding the acidization issue. Acidization of a petroleum well is different than a water well. Acidization of a petroleum well is one -- THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down? MS. WHITEHEAD: Sure, certainly. Acidization of a petroleum well is one of important -- is an important stimulation for enhancing oil production. It is commonly brought about by forcing a solution of 15 to 28 percent hydrochloric acid into the well through N80 tubing and to open up near bore channels in the formation and hence to increase a flow boil (sic). THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I can't keep up with you. MS. WHITEHEAD: I'm sorry. Yes, I will slow down. To reduce the aggressive attack of the acid on tubing and casing materials, inhibitors are added to the acid solution during the acidifying process. The effective acidizing inhibitors that are usually found are biocides, all right. These are highly contaminative to our water resources. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Commissioners, Commissioner Henning, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The majority of speakers that I heard, a good amount of them, believes in the home rule except for -- I mean, there were some of them just want outright bans, and the Conservancy didn't support the home rule, at least they didn't say it. So I like -- Tim, again, I like what you did, and I'm going to make a motion to approve staffs recommendation. And I do want to say, if this bill passed, there will be a study to find what additional regulations there needs to be. And it says in the statutes, a study of high pressure well stimulation, the department shall Page 83 October 13, 2015 conduct a study on high pressure stimulation wells. The study must evaluate the underlying geology of the future presence of the county where oil wells are being permitted to analyze potential impacts to high pressure well stimulations, and well boring construction may have the underlying feature. And it goes on to, you know, protecting the groundwater. And if there are more regulations that can be done, I'm sure they can do that in the rule-making under the Florida administration code. So that's my motion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There's a motion to accept staffs recommendation and act accordingly. Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just -- I'm just throwing in a question here. It was mentioned once by one of the speakers, and that is the water that they use on these wells -- and it's all freshwater. I was wondering if anybody even has an answer. Why do they use freshwater? Why can't they use IQ water? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We can let staff-- ma'am, I believe that the water resources that are utilized are regulated by the water management districts -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- in the areas in which the activity take place. So those districts define which waters are to be utilized and how those waters are supposed to be disposed. If I'm not right, if staff has other information -- isn't the -- are not the water management districts in charge of regulation of water use associated with oil and gas? MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering and Natural Resources director. The consumptive use would be regulated by the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN NANCE: As well as the disposal methodologies Page 84 October 13, 2015 and all related permits; am I right? MR. LORENZ: Well, the disposal methodologies would be with FDEP. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. OCHS: IQ water availability at those locations, Bill? MR. LORENZ: I'll need to have somebody else speak to that. I'm not -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or even if it isn't IQ, brackish water. What I'm thinking of is, as we were talking about the water -- and our most productive industry in Collier County is tourism, and much of it is based on our water. And so we need to preserve our water especially as we go on into the future now. And I would think that rather than use our freshwater, maybe brackish water could be used in this process. And I'm just wondering, is that something that we can introduce along the way here? MR. LORENZ: I'm not familiar with the technical requirements of the need for the water and what kind of-- what quality of water they would need for it. We'd have to look at that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, I've had this conversation with Representative Rodriguez, and he too is concerned. And -- but on this bill, that was the past. But he always felt that some other water besides the water that we drink should be used for these wells. But then in just conversation, we talked about, well, why wouldn't they reuse the water that they're using? Why couldn't we ask them, insist that the water, whatever source is used, it's reused? Why are we using even freshwater every time? So this is a conversation that -- I think it needs to go to our legislators. I think our lobbyists need to address this because it is our most precious commodity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree with you there. Page 85 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And our industry -- I mean, their industry is just for them. We don't benefit by the oil industry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But our industry is benefited by good water, and we certainly don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot if there's a way that we can require them to use water that doesn't deplete our own freshwater supply. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Durham, thank you for -- you're at the podium. It's my understanding that the legislation as passed, the rule-making will be strictly pertaining to the legislation. MR. DURHAM: And any other areas that it happens to touch on. So there may be modifications of other areas in the rules also, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. But the umbrella or the house that this sits in is the legislation that's passed in Tallahassee and, from that, there's -- the rule-making continues or is created and modified and -- but it's specifically about that. I think that's why it's so important, I think, to -- again, we're not writing this legislation. The legislation's written. But if we don't send a strong message to Tallahassee through our lobbyists of what we want or what our concerns are, then they're not going to lobby on this behalf. And I do think the comments about a bond to cover all costs of site remediation should contamination of a site or aquifer occur is just great good sense. How could we not? And then, of course, the issue of changing the definition, which is huge, but it's important, from high pressure well stimulation to well stimulation, as I presented before. This is something that we need to allow our lobbyists to work on. The chemical disclosure is very important. I love the idea of it being brought even home to us in Collier County. I think Commissioner Hiller's comments were right on. And then -- and then Page 86 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Fiala -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Home rule. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then, Commissioner Fiala, the idea of understanding and underscoring how important it is that we preserve our water, not only for drinking but for recreation and for our wildlife. So I think there are -- there's areas that -- again, we're not writing this legislation, but we are allowing our lobbyists to work on our behalf. So, Commissioner Henning, I would second your motion if you would include those three areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the item that you wanted to put in, in the legislation, does not protect the citizens. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which item is that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's the email that was sent to us on the requested strikethrough and underline added. I mean, three feet is not the protection area, okay. It's the high pressure that is -- has a potential of-- that needs to be regulated. That's why they pressurize the casing on there so they can see if there's any differential on there. The pressure is -- potentially could infiltrate other zones, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not low pressure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I mean, my concern is -- is the cross -- crossing out of wording where you have high pressure, okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, what it does is it broadens the definition, because when -- it's not negating high pressure. It's Page 87 October 13, 2015 saying well stimulation. And, again, I wanted to go to the words of the -- of what was there just to show you this is a -- minor changes, but what it does is it broadens the definition to include matrix acidizing which, according to -- which I'm sorry that it's -- again, this is kind of moving -- a moving issue here, but the American Petroleum Institute says, matrix acidizing is used to enhance or create the flow of paths to the wellbore if matrix acidizing doesn't travel any further than three feet away from the wellbore, according to what I discussed with Mr. Durham and also according to California legislation who have the same geology as we do in some areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who does? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: California. COMMISSIONER HENNING: California has -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think that's where Mr. Durham read about it, too, in the California legislation. If-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you keep it on the three definitions? MR. DURHAM: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So if, indeed, you can -- you can do two kinds of matrix acidizing or you can use matrix acidizing for two purposes, one to clean and to unplug and the other one to actually increase productivity -- which the American Petroleum Institute says you can, right? You have it in front of you now. I'm just suggesting that we send, through our lobbyists, the concerns we have that this needs to be regulated and to allow our lobbyists to do this in Tallahassee, along with the bond to -- and the home rule, and certainly when the study -- when the moratorium, the voluntary moratorium -- when we think we should allow business to resume with the fracking after the study and the results -- the results. And then also -- I'm missing one thing. Oh, yes, the chemical, the Page 88 October 13, 2015 chemical registry. So there's -- I think that's five I counted. So would you consider including those? Understanding we're not negating acidization or high pressure acidization. What we are doing is broadening that definition or asking our legislators to consider broadening that definition. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, the three feet is not going to help. My motion is not seconded, and so -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Commissioner, let me speak one moment. I'm going to second Commissioner Henning's motion, and let me tell you why I'm going to do that. I think staff has done a very credible job of identifying the sorts of issues that we had discussed previously in depth. And we've had a very long consideration and given staff a lot of work to do to bring forward. I don't think any of the commissioners on this dais, regardless of how well educated we are or how much study we've done on this, are prepared to engage some of these issues. That is why I do not think it is prudent on our part to begin to engage through a strikethrough and underline suggested methodology of working on these bills. There are citizens in the room, there are people all over the State of Florida that would be more than happy to go through and write, rewrite, or strikethrough and underline the bills that are being proposed by our legislative delegation. We asked them to go forward and to get developed the best bill that we could get passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, and I think that is the task that remains before us, in my view. I think these concerns should be communicated to Senator Richter and Representative Rodriguez. I think they should be communicated to our legislative lobbyists. And, you know, our methodology the last time I remember it was that we were going to let Senator Richter be Page 89 October 13, 2015 the lead on that and work with our lobbyists to help do the very best that we could do. So I'm going to support Commissioner Henning's motion just because I think we're going to engage in a very, very slippery slope of issue after issue. And there are many -- there are many things that we could discuss over a very long time that I think will be -- that we will have an opportunity to discuss when it comes to rule-making. I don't think we should feel like this is the end of the issue. I think we should feel like this is the beginning of the issue and I, frankly, feel like we're going in a very, very good direction, and so I'm going to second Commissioner Henning's motion. Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Does that -- does that motion include retaining our home rule? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I just want to clarify just so that everybody understands what we're doing, because these things were very important to us. And also does it include the chemical disclosure for our emergency personnel? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But not Commissioner Hiller's comments about not only for our personnel but that Collier County staff, beyond Mr. Summers' department, would know about it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And should -- is that something that you feel that would be necessary to do, or can we -- like you said, Commissioner Nance, you know, things can still be adjusted after we move forward, but that might be an adjustment that we want to make sure is included and maybe just not at this moment. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, yes, ma'am. I think OSHA Level 5 Page 90 October 13, 2015 disclosures for emergency management and first responders, that's a pretty straightforward program. I mean, that is -- this is not the first time or the only example where this is done. I think a thoughtful discussion on this will get us the results -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Real time. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- that we need. Yeah, these are for people that are responding to an emergency at a site where there is something that's gone awry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Very good. Let me see. Was there any other question that I had? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The water. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That water is really an important part to me, and I don't know if we have anything in there at all, but that isn't even really included, really, from what I can see. And is that a part of further discussion that we can then introduce, or -- I don't know what's been done about that. MR. DURHAM: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is that not another agency, sir? Isn't there a whole other body of law associated with that that's regulated by the Water Management District together with others or -- MR. DURHAM: I think it's probably based on availability of the water that they need to do the process, and I think No. 2 is the chemistry of the water that they're using, because whatever they're using's kind of sensitive. But I do have maybe one -- one other thing I want to interject is the Florida Department of Environmental Protection does have a trust fund that these bonds and securities go into for the purpose of dealing with disasters, and I know that was one question that was raised earlier. One thing I humbly would maybe suggest to the Board that would accommodate a lot of the comments that were made today, what if, like in Commissioner Henning's recommendation, the deal with the Page 91 October 13, 2015 preemption issue, deal with the clarification of the study and how it relates to the permitting of activities, the first responders and emergency management personnel dealing with the disclosure, what if we asked just one more thing, just one thing, that in the study that the FDEP is -- that would be required to be done by a peer-reviewed outside independent entity, that if they would look at other acid applications and let the rule-making take its course and direct how the rules and regulations are ultimately shaped. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Durham, just a question. And, you know what, I forgot to ask you. I got busy talking so much. Because you're very familiar with this process, is that correct, I mean, the rule-making versus legislation? MR. DURHAM: In a different context, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So is it important to -- if we send that message in the study or whatever about the issue of the matrix acidizing to promote well production, oil well -- oil well production and underlining oil, if we put that in the study, request that it be dealt with in the study, it's not necessary to change the legislation -- okay. MR. DURHAM: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go back to Commissioner Fiala, because she's not completed with her questions. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Back on the water. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You were inquiring about the motion, ma'am; is that where you were? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was on the water now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Just looking for water, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all my other questions are answered except that can the utilization of other types of water that Page 92 October 13, 2015 wouldn't deplete our freshwater system be incorporated into that study? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, let me give you a frame of reference. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. OCHS: Every day your water and sewer utility produces about 28 to 30 million gallons per day of water. This Hogan well operation, I think, used 700,000 gallons one time. So, again, on an order of magnitude, you'll have to draw your own conclusions about, you know, whether there's an overutilization of the available water for these types of operations or how frequently they're done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just one well. But how many wells do we have? MR. OCHS: Well, they're not drilling any wells right now, but I don't know how many wells will be permitted in the future. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just feel that it should be incorporated into the study somehow just for our own protection. There's nothing wrong with taking a look at it. MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's nothing wrong with suggesting that possibly there are other water sources that could be used rather than our freshwater. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just my thought. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. I want to start with the issue of acidizing versus fracking. Am I understanding correctly that this legislation would not address acidizing, and acidizing would remain unregulated? MR. DURHAM: Ma'am, matrix acidizing's already modestly Page 93 October 13, 2015 regulated under the rule, so there is some regulation of it now. The focus has been on high pressure well stimulation because of the potential threat that that raises, but it's currently not as a part of this legislation but in Florida rules. It's addressed elsewhere. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is acidizing addressed? MR. DURHAM: Give me a second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And just while you're looking that up, the difference between the acidizing and the fracturing is a hydrochloric acid, and the hydrochloric acid is what's of greatest risk. And there are three areas of risk. There's one, the employees who work the wells; two, the public that lives in the proximity of the wells; and, three, the environment, including but not limited to the water. And the fracking poses the greatest risk with the acidizing which uses different chemicals that are far more expensive posing the lesser risk. So I need to get an understanding of how this legislation is going to incentivize acidizing over fracking to the extent that this type of drilling is permitted at all. MR. DURHAM: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the hydrochloric acid, again, is at issue, which is not what's used in the acidizing. And as you point out in your schedule -- MR. DURHAM: Well, actually, it is -- actually, hydrochloric acid is used at different concentrations, but I believe it's even used in the acid washing process. So it's all about concentration and pressure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the predominant risk is the type of chemicals which are cheaper, including but not limited to hydrochloric acid in the fracking. So -- and I'm not a chemical engineer and, you know, I'm not a driller, so I'm not going to get into a discussion. This is just my, you know, layperson's understanding. I want to understand how acidization -- and since -- if you go Page 94 October 13, 2015 back to that definitional chart you had, you see that we use the acidization with respect to our potable water wells. So I'm assuming there's some sort of regulation, you know, if we're already using this process for water wells. MR. DURHAM: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I don't know what the difference is for how it's used for oil wells. But I think somehow -- I don't have enough information to make a decision on this, but I think we do need to address, you know, what the regulation is or is going to be with respect to acidizing and how to -- to the extent, if it is -- if this type of drilling is allowed at all -- and I don't know if it will be. I mean, that's going to be up to the legislature whether or not, you know, they're going to incentivize acidizing and how they're going to regulate acidizing over fracking. That's issue No. 1. And I think -- I mean, I want more information on that. I think that's a very important issue. The second issue that concerns me is the disposal of the wastewater. Can you go back to the recommendation on that? MR. DURHAM: And this is taken from the -- those 18 points that we have with the FDEP, and they agreed to establish site-specific waste management plan, including the testing and disposal protocols, and staff believes that that's, you know, appropriate course of action. And it is specifically mentioned as a part of the study that's taking place. It is one of the explicit components of the study. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that needs to be more specific. I mean, to merely state that FDEP is going to come up with a waste management plan. So what's going to happen is someone's going to recommend and some, you know, staff is going to approve a plan and, you know, I think there has to be broader guidelines that dictate what that plan will be made of, because the real big issue here is the disposal of the waste. MR. DURHAM: Right. Page 95 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we need to know, you know, statute -- there really ought to be a statutory definition of how that waste is going to be disposed of and not limited to the discretion of some staff person approving a management plan submitted by some engineer. MR. DURHAM: And I think where staff-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is overly broad and far too discretionary. MR. DURHAM: And I think where staff has comfort with this is, like, again, it's specifically part of the study that's going to take place. The study's going to inform the appropriate processes and procedures, and we don't know enough about it to even provide an informed opinion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, but that's why I'm saying that the statute will have to provide for whatever the statute -- I mean, this statute is never going to be finalized till that study is finalized because there's not enough of an understanding. But my concern is, what this provides for, which is nothing more than, you know, basically a staff-approved, you know, permit-holder submitted management plan. Without anything in the statute that specifically provides for off-site waste management leaves me concerned. MR. DURHAM: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so I can't accept this recommendation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner, that's what this agency does. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. I'm going back to the bill. The bill needs to provide for off-site management. It shouldn't be limited strictly to an ad hoc determination by an administrator. There has to be some specific guidance on disposal of waste. That's the issue. Page 96 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Put it in the bill. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, that's what I'm saying. It needs to be -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: How can you do that before you do the study to determine what everybody thinks is required? I think if you jump into specificity before you even do the evaluation, you're getting the cart before the horse, but that's just me. COMMISSIONER HILLER: However they get it done, whether they have to do it within two sessions and, you know, reserve a spot in the bill, but this is not -- this is not an option. And, lastly -- can you go back to the bond provision? MR. DURHAM: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you spoke earlier and you said in the event of a loss that we would have -- are we limited to accessing the bond for recovery, or are we accessing the pool that the contribution will be made to? And I'm not really sure I understand -- I mean, this -- this is a bond, and I expect that it's just temporary for the duration of the job. How long will the bond be outstanding? You know, what if we find, you know, contamination down the road, you know, after the well is sealed? I mean, I just -- I don't really understand that. It's not typically how it's done. MR. DURHAM: Per the rule, there's multiple places where a bond can be required depending on the activity, and that's also true currently under the permitting. They not only can require permitting for the initial permitting to engage in the activity, but once operations start, depending on what's going on, there could be another permitting process taking place at that time. Also, with the bonds, at different places throughout the process bonds and security can be required, and it's kind of general language under the rule. For folks availing themselves to the annual fee, which is adjusted Page 97 October 13, 2015 to CPI since 1993 -- so I don't know what it's currently at now, but it's much greater than what's displayed here -- that goes into a trust fund that's used to mitigate emergencies or things that can happen. But also in the current rule -- now, this is an emergency that takes place on site. It reads like this -- this is out of 62C-28.005, and it talks about various types of emergencies. The operator shall, in the event of a blowout or other emergency, bring the situation under control as rapidly as possible. If not, the FDEP shall do so at the operator's expense. So I think what's contemplated in a live emergency of some kind is that if they're required by rule to mitigate the emergency to do it as immediately as possible to notify the FDEP, and if for some reason they fail to do so, FDEP has the authority to address the emergency and then make the operator directly pay for whatever that -- those costs are. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Regardless of what the cost is, where does it say that? Where were you reading from? MR. DURHAM: That's one of the rules that governs oil and gas regulation, and it's 62C-28.005. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So regardless of the type of drilling, there's a provision on the books that says there's indemnification in the event of harm? MR. DURHAM: What I just specifically read, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's in force and that's going to stay in force. MR. DURHAM: That's unchanged as of-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's funded through what? That's just -- I mean, that's basically funded by the drilling company directly? MR. DURHAM: Any fees, fines that are collected go into something called the Department of Environmental Protection Page 98 October 13, 2015 petroleum trust account. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that trust account is -- so if we had -- I mean, I guess all of this contemplates that something will go wrong. And if something goes wrong locally, we would petition FDEP, and then they would come and do whatever -- MR. DURHAM: That would be my understanding, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need clarification on that. MR. DURHAM: Bill, do you have anything to -- any further knowledge on that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- I mean, we under -- we need an understanding of how we're indemnified in the event of something going wrong. MR. LORENZ: My understanding is the way it's configured is the proposed legislation adds additional -- adds additional components of the drilling construction and operation to be bonded. So those items will then be subject to rule-making to determine what the appropriate bond level would be. Because right now the legislation just addresses abandonment. So that's part of the -- that's part of bonding requirements. Then there is the -- as Tim noted, the trust fund that deals with remediation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is a state trust fund? MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, under this section that's before us on the visualizer right now, the legislation has a component here that adopts rules. And to jump ahead to the language, it says, to accomplish the full and complete restoration by the applicant of the area over which geophysical exploration drilling or production is conducted to the similar contour and general condition in existence before such operation. Page 99 October 13, 2015 That is a -- that covers a lot of ground. That's the complete restoration of the natural condition prior to any operations. I think the bonding required to accomplish that is going to have to be substantial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would think so, too. So this is -- Section 3 is in the statute? MR. DURHAM: That's in the current bill. That's in the proposed bill, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's going to have to be substantial. Well, I just want to make sure that, you know -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're covered. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For one, I want to make sure that nothing goes wrong. But in the event something goes wrong, and that can happen in any instance with any activity, that there is a superfund and that we are protected and, you know, to the extent that something doesn't reach the superfund, that there is adequacy of bonding beyond that. So, generally, how you get there, I don't know because I don't know, you know, what's involved, but that's the objective. CHAIRMAN NANCE: To me, I get substantial comfort from the knowledge that we're going to have this rule-making that's going to -- not only is it going to be tied to this legislation, but I don't think the legislation is going to prohibit, unless specifically stated, additional rules by FDEP. FDEP is going to have the latitude to work with us over time and is being authorized to do so by this legislation on a complete -- a very large number of issues. But I don't think that the legislation and the rule-making are mutually exclusive, at least it's not in my authority, unless so stipulated in something that I haven't seen. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Commissioner Taylor, then Page 100 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to comment on this since you were addressing what I said. The rule-making authority is what you see before you, and it's limited to what's going to be in the bill. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was my question to Mr. Durham. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that may be sufficient. I mean, that may be fine, I mean, based on some of the discussion we had. But we just need to make sure that everybody understands what's before us. CHAIRMAN NANCE: But that does not exclude them from other than rules pursuant to these sections. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think it does. I think what this says is that they will -- they shall -- they can -- the way departments work is they are limited by the statutes that authorize them to act. They can't go beyond what the statute provides. So they shall issue orders and adopt rules pursuant to those statutory sections. They can't go beyond that. That's their limit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if we -- if we suggested -- again, this is just a suggestion, and I don't want anyone to think that we're presumptive to think this is the way it is. But as a board, if we work on the wording under Section 3, rule-making -- for instance, one of the issues I brought up, instead of saying high pressure well stimulation, just say well stimulation, the injection of gas and recovery from gas. To modify that would send, I think, a fairly clear message to our lobbyists and, therefore, they can carry it to Tallahassee, that these are the areas we're concerned, and maybe this is the area that we modify or, to make it less complicated and maybe wordsmithing and time-consuming, we just agree there are certain areas that we want explored, water being one, and the bond, making sure that we are Page 101 October 13, 2015 indemnified in case of a disaster, chemical, the matrix acidizing and the preemption, and list those -- I think that's it -- and as a board, to vote on -- and I know we have a motion on the floor and a second -- but maybe those areas could be amended that do not include in the original motion, then we just let staff and our lobbyists go. These are our concerns. We don't think they're addressed here. Maybe they are. Please carry this to Tallahassee. Would the motion maker agree to that? Was that too long-winded? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I was listening. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's -- my recommendation is let's vote on the motion. If it fails, we'll take a lunch break, unless we want to keep on talking about it, and then I think we ought to take a lunch break. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, I think we ought to -- it's almost 12:30 now. So we have a motion and a second to support the recommendations of staff on the three items, the state preemption, home rule, and land use, the moratorium and the study and the completion of that, and then the chemical disclosure for first responders and emergency management. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would support it if you add the disposal of the waste, the wastewater. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, just -- Tim has a slide that may help or may not on that, but it's Page 9, I believe, Tim. MR. DURHAM: That's it there, sir. MR. OCHS: That bullet, that final bullet in the study, there was a requirement to deal with the whole disposition of those fluids. That's essentially the waste stream as part of the study that will drive the rule-making in that area. Page 102 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want something in the statute about the handling of the waste. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We're doing -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: A study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- everything on the fly. Let me tell you that we have a resident in Collier County that has demonstrated that those fluids, liquids can be cleaned up and brought back to water standards, like, you can use it for -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. That can be included in the waste disposal. I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And those type things are supposed to be in the rule-making because, you know, some dispose of it deep well injection, some, like Hogan, was hauled off to Miami. It doesn't belong in the Florida Statutes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Neither does the pregnant pig belong in the Florida Constitution. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does. I mean, the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anyways, it was my motion. I'm calling it. Let's see where it goes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to say one final thing. I think the package that we have here is exhaustive. I think the study is going to answer a lot of the questions, and I think we're heading in a good direction. I don't -- I really can't support getting started on a strikethrough and underline of different provisions of it. I think we need to let this study take place, and I -- that's why I support the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I want to finish the comments. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was speaking. Page 103 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make this real quick, before I vote. Can we suggest then to our legislators to also ask them to include in that study addressing the water that's used in these wells and other types of water to preserve our own water sources? I'm not saying that clearly because I went too fast on that. But, I mean, if they would study that as well, I think that that will answer a lot of our questions, and I would vote for it then. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can ask if it's going to be included within this study. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, what it does is it does review and evaluate the ultimate disposition of high pressure well stimulation fluids -- that would include the water -- after use in high pressure well stimulation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but this is before. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And so then it does say assess the potential impacts of high pressure well stimulation on drinking water. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Impacts, but -- well, okay, maybe that can -- maybe they can read into that the use of other types of water rather than fresh drinking water. I don't know that. Do you feel that that might include that, Commissioner Henning? So -- I mean, being that they're addressing drinking water, but, you know, it's in a roundabout way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the waste is going to be addressed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the waste. I'm talking about the water that they use before it becomes waste. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But your concern is that they're using, and what staff says is, a very small amount of our drinking water. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Page 104 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what I know is there's a resident -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that was interesting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is using it to re -- stimulate it back into the system, so that's going to be a part of the study, and the recommendation -- and maybe the recommendations through the rule-making would be to restore that reuse water -- restore that water to reused condition. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we -- once this is done, does it come back to us for, then, acceptance and approval, once this study is done? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. MR. OCHS: No. It goes to the governor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We vote on this, this is it? We don't get another bite of the apple, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not till next year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's all right. I mean, to next year when the study comes back to us, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have to control everything. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I figure you're pretty knowledgeable, though. That's why I'm asking you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but, you know, I spent some time with the DEP people. And their mission, under the Florida Statutes, is to protect the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I want to vote for this really badly. I just wanted to, you know -- I just want to make sure that I know what I'm voting for. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We're going to go to Commissioner Hiller for one last statement, and then we're going to Page 105 October 13, 2015 take a vote. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tim, where in the statute does it address the disposal of wastewater? And don't refer me back to the peer-review study. Because if it doesn't direct the department in some fashion, the department doesn't have the jurisdiction to address it. MR. OCHS: Go to the waste disposal piece. MR. DURHAM: Yeah. Truthfully, I don't have the waste disposal. All -- I have oil-related stuff. I don't -- I just don't have the part that regulates the more general aspect of disposal which this would fit into. MR. OCHS: Go to your waste management side. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Hiller, it's my understanding that the Hogan well wastewater was transported to Miami, that -- what I'm saying is -- it doesn't absolve it, but what I'm saying is they have to do something with it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to know where it is in the bill. I want to know -- and if it's not in this bill, where is it? MR. DURHAM: Yeah. It's not addressed in the bill, but there is regu -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if it's not addressed in the bill, the department doesn't have jurisdiction to start writing rules about it because it's not part of the scope of this law. I mean, they are limited to writing law. And someone tell me that that's not the case. I mean, you can tell me. I mean, you're our lobbyist. I want to hear from our lobbyist. CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's an element of the study, ma'am, by which these rules are going to be made. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. The study -- what the study -- what it says specifically is that the material elements of this study will be used to assist in rule-making. It doesn't -- but if the removal of the waste is not addressed in the statute, it's not going to be part of the Page 106 October 13, 2015 rule-making as it relates to this bill. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's an element of the process -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I hear from our lobbyist? I want to hear from our lobbyist. MR. DURHAM: I was going to ask, if I could, if George -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: George who? MR. DURHAM: Yilmaz. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I want to hear from our lobbyist. This is about law and the making of law. I don't need to hear from Dr. George. I want to understand whether or not -- what is the scope of the department's rule-making authority given the bill as proposed as it relates to waste management. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Keith Arnold with Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rooney. Rule-making -- administrative law is codified in Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes. Rules must always be based on the laws. Rules cannot go beyond the law. And so rules are an agency's interpretation of the law. Now, the legislature can broadly give an agency discretionary powers to adopt rules. More typically they narrow that. And unless it's specifically stated in the law that the legislature can go beyond this scope then, of course, the rules must reflect the intent of the law. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's my understanding. So given the proposed bill, what do we have in front of us as it relates to waste management? MR. KLATZKOW: It's in the statute. MR. ARNOLD: That's the study. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the what? MR. KLATZKOW: It's in the statute. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is it in -- I'm just asking for that one question. Page 107 October 13, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: It's in the statute. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is it? MR. KLATZKOW: If you can get it on the overhead, Packet Page 453. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all I'm asking. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, which is why I'm interrupting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. DURHAM: 453, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Packet Page 453. And this deals with the study that they're requiring. And it's review and evaluate the ultimate disposition of the well stimulation fluids. MR. OCHS: That's what we just talked about in the study. MR. KLATZKOW: So they will be studying that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that they will be studying it, but where do they get the authority to specifically create rules? What I read is that they only will create rules related to what they deem material in the study, which may or may not include whatever conclusions they come to with respect to waste management. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. The legislation COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, if it's not in there, it just should be added. MR. KLATZKOW: The legislature is specifically directing that the department study this and then bring back the results. CHAIRMAN NANCE: If they've enumerated it, clearly they think it's of importance. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it doesn't say that. It says -- you know, it basically says they will disclose the findings, and then it says that, you know -- on that previous slide that was presented by staff -- it doesn't say it on the page you're showing me here -- it addresses Page 108 October 13, 2015 that is it will -- that the rule-making will consider what the study comes out with as it's deemed to be material. But what I'm saying is, it's to what Keith just said, if waste management is not included in this bill, then even if the study addresses it, since it's not contemplated as one of the elements of the bill, the study is separate. The study isn't one and the same as the components of the bill. It just says, we will study and we will present the findings, and then we will pick out what's most important. Nowhere in the bill does it address waste management, and I think it needs to. I mean, you know, whether the bill says -- and I'd be fine with a bill saying, you know, waste management will be, you know, governed by the, you know, findings in the study, and rules will be made accordingly, but I want the agency to have the authority to specifically address waste management, because I believe that is really one of the most significant issues we have in acidization or in fracking -- and/or in fracking. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I guess I would follow Commissioner Hiller's question but also relate it to the acidizing of wells that produce oil that are not high pressure. It's my understanding that we can't just ask it to be studied. It has to be put into the legislation; is that correct? MR. SAUNDERS: For the record, Burt Saunders. Let me make a suggestion, if I might. This is not the only piece of legislation that has rule-making authority in it. DEP already has rule-making authority to deal with different disposal of waste products, so we don't know if there's other legislation that covers the topic that you're talking about. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I want the answer to. MR. SAUNDERS: So I think what I would suggest is that you -- if this bill's acceptable and that -- but that's your one issue, direct us, Page 109 October 13, 2015 direct your attorney to determine if there is sufficient rule-making authority already in Florida Statutes to cover your concerns. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Under some other statute if that addresses it. MR. SAUNDERS: There would be other statutes that would cover the disposal of waste. This would not be the only one. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I would support the motion on the floor if that were added to it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It would be predicated on what the County Attorney tells us. And if indeed it isn't covered, then we just ask our lobbyist to make sure it's covered, right? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, and it's not a big deal to add it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And would you agree to the acidization, matrix acidization of wells that -- specifically for oil wells; would you agree to that? Leave the wording as it is, but if it is not covered -- if we can't study it unless it's in the bill, then we ask our lobbyist to, indeed, lobby in order to make sure that at least our voice as a commission is heard in Tallahassee. Would you agree to that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's take a break, Mr. Chairman. You know, our court reporter's been going on forever, and it's not fair. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And maybe over the break the County Attorney can work with our environmental staff and our lobbyists to see, you know, where waste management is addressed elsewhere in the statutes and where -- and where acidization is addressed, because if we're already doing the low -- you know, the water wells with acidization it might be all encompassing, and we don't have any issues, and it's all taken care of. But let's just make sure we've covered all the issues. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's take a recess for lunch until 1 :45. Page 110 October 13, 2015 (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We need to begin again. And we are trying to conclude here on Item 11C, a recommendation to consider staffs analysis of filed bills and provide some direction to staff regarding the concerns of the Board, so... MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: Just one point of class -- excuse me, staff clarification -- that's easy for me to say -- with regard to Commissioner Fiala's issue that she raised on the idea of using reuse or other alternative water supplies to potable water in the well stimulation and drilling activities. Mr. Durham has put up the bill, Page 21 of 27. And, Commissioner, I apologize that -- the study did contemplate evaluating that as a potential, and I'll ask Tim to show you exactly where that is, and beginning with Line 605 is the sentence. MR. DURHAM: Yes. So it reads at 605, the study must assess the potential impacts of high pressure well stimulation on drinking water resources and identify the main factors affecting the severity and frequency of impacts -- and then this is the key portion -- and must analyze the potential for the use or reuse of recycled water in well stimulation fluids while meeting appropriate water-quality standards. So that's one of the specific line items in the study. MR. OCHS: Just wanted to point that out because you had an interest in that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm glad you did, because I wasn't going to be able to vote for it otherwise, to be perfectly honest with you. If we can't do something about protecting our water sources, then I wasn't going there. Thank you. Page 111 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I had the opportunity over the lunch break to speak to our staff and to our lobbyists, and I believe the suggestion was to add the, you know, one sentence which would be to ask Senator Richter to consider a line in the bill that would say, you know, for the -- to give the -- to give the department the authority to develop rules regarding waste management, as simple as that. And, you know, they'll take from the study whatever they want. And, of course, it's always Senator Richter's choice to accept or reject. But to the extent that it's in there, I think a lot of people will have a higher level of comfort and then, you know, the agency will develop the rules based on the input from the study. But without giving them the authority, it says -- our lobbyist said they don't have the authority, and it leaves a gaping hole in the intent of this bill as it relates to fracking. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did anybody look at the Florida Statutes to find out -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They did. And the statute that they looked at was -- there was nothing specific. There was one that was more general. And what I suggested if-- you know, after Senator Richter's staff looks at that particular law that generally references waste disposal more closely, if they can, what I suggested is, you know, the -- if there is -- if there are other rules through a different statute, that this statute merely reference the other statute which is what is typically done in law making, and then it ties it all in. But I think Senator Richter's staff needs to evaluate it and, you know, draw a conclusion as to which is the more appropriate approach to ensure that waste disposal of the chemical water is properly addressed. And we're not in a position to do that here now. It would Page 112 October 13, 2015 be just to recommend, as we're doing with the other recommendations, to consider. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we did put up on your viewer an email exchange between Mr. Brian Accardo, the counsel for the FDEP, and Mr. Casalanguida, that occurred over the lunch hour. Just for the Board's information, this is Brian on behalf of the agency and how they view the current legislation with regard to the waste disposal question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in response to this email, this email confirms what staff said, which is that the study does consider it, but the statute itself doesn't give the agency the authority to create the rules, and that's why, you know, it would -- it would benefit to have some clarification where it says, perhaps clarification in the bill is warranted. And I do believe that is what is intended. It's just not clearly articulated. And you have to take the law as written. So you don't want to -- no one's going to argue that, you know, the wastewater -- you know, the disposal of the wastewater has to be contemplated and can't be left as an issue that's not regulated. And this is a way to do it in a reasonable fashion, and it just -- it's -- I mean, you might look at it as just a small error in the drafting of the bill that's, you know, easily closed with a simple sentence either referenced in another statute or stating that the agency has the authority and should consider the study in doing so. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll include that in my motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also, Commissioner Taylor had some concerns about low pressure acidization or matrix acidization. If they do it for well water, why is there concern for drilling of wells? Page 113 October 13, 2015 However, since you brought it up as a concern, that part of the motion would be that we direct our lobbyist to work with DEP and Senator Richter and Senator Rodriguez about the concerns of acid matrix stimulation. MR. DURHAM: Matrix acidizing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And my second will reflect that as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Further comment? Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: None. Okay. Hearing no further comment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We've got five different concerns. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: See how easy that was. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Durham, for all your follow-up information and your work over break and, Mr. Ochs, thank you, sir. MR. DURHAM: No worries, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done. Very well done on staff. And, again, thank you for this, Commission. I mean, we heard Page 114 October 13, 2015 this two meetings ago, and you agreed to ask staff to look into it. This is wonderful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very, very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad you're pleased. Happy Birthday. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Oh, is that -- now, that's -- oh, now I'm going to get emotional. CHAIRMAN NANCE: But she does not have enough cake for all of you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But there is cake back there. CHAIRMAN NANCE: But there is cake. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, there is. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's also gluten-free brownies. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I believe we're to public comment, is that correct, sir? Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURREN OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 7 on your agenda, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker, Marvin Courtright. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think he went home and came back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I said, I don't think he went home Page 115 October 13, 2015 and came back from Immokalee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, he doesn't live in Immokalee. MR. COURTRIGHT: Good afternoon. I seemed to have managed to really mess things up here today. I thought that I had signed up to speak on a public subject, not public speaker. The Phase II incubator system at the cargo -- and the cargo facility in Immokalee, and the other one was the federal inspection station at Immokalee, so I'm at your disposal. Help me straighten this out and address it in a manner that we can put it all to bed, okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Mr. Courtright, I think if you have a proposal for your services, you should take them to the airport and have them consider what it is you're proposing. If you would like to provide service or rent facilities, I would recommend that you do that. MR. COURTRIGHT: No, sir, that's not my intent. CHAIRMAN NANCE: What's your intent? MR. COURTRIGHT: My intent is to identify the fact that Incubator No. 2 has been contentious and in violation in regard to one-half of the cargo federal inspection station procedure, and it ties into the other document which has been distributed to everybody addressing the insurance and the program itself, the code, the ordinance, and all the violations. That was my intent, because the two go together, the federal inspection station and the Incubator 2 program, because it's documented in my possession that the half-- and I don't know where this came from -- but perhaps -- should I just stop now? Am I out of order here? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN NANCE: No. You can talk about whatever you want to, sir. MR. COURTRIGHT: Okay, thank you. This document actually shows where a firewall had been installed, by needed (sic), to accommodate and meet the requirements Page 116 October 13, 2015 for the federal inspection station. It was to provide a safe facility on landside. And it was funded -- funded by money from the airport authority and grant money, and it's documented. So at the same time they're trying to lease that facility. So what I'm going to do now, based upon this document -- and my intent is, yes, I will submit a request to lease to the airport authority, because I didn't know we even had an airport authority anymore, and I was on it when it was formed, when it was autonomous. CHAIRMAN NANCE: The Board is the Airport Authority, sir. MR. COURTRIGHT: I understand -- I know that now; however, I didn't even think you existed anymore. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. COURTRIGHT: So, anyway, that's how this whole thing came about. I'll do better. I will proceed with this. And my intent is to acquire the -- that portion that's identified here with the line. And I've got the floor plan for it and everything identifying it as part of the original -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. COURTRIGHT: -- program. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Bring it forward to staff. Thank you. MR. MILLER: That was your only registered speaker for public comment, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, would you like to proceed now with your advertised public hearings? CHAIRMAN NANCE: If it pleases the Board, I think it's time to do that. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are going to begin with -- Page 117 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: Item 9A. Item #9A ORDINANCE 2015-54: AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, TO ADD A 120-FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE, ADD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES, ADD DEVIATIONS RELATING TO PRESERVE SETBACKS, COMMUNICATION TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, AMEND ONE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT, AND REVISE THE MASTER PLAN, FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE [PUDA-PL20120001128] — MOTION TO DENY FOR HEIGHT AND SEPARATION OF THE TOWERS — FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS — FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF SUPER- MAJORITY; MOTION TO RECONSIDER — APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS — ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- Item 9A. We will declare the opening of the public hearing, and we will have ex parte communications from commissioners beginning with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is on? Page 118 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we want to swear everybody in first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should start with Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, one second. Which agenda item? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 9A. CHAIRMAN NANCE: 9A. MR. OCHS: For the public's edification, this is a -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. OCHS: -- a proposed amendment to Ordinance 92-23, the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development to add a 120-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted principal use, add development standards for the communication tower and related facilities, and this property is located on the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You want to swear everyone in? (All speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Okay. Let's have ex parte communications. You want to start with Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I've had conversation in person and by telephone, I've received emails and, of course, our staff meetings about this issue. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, about the same for me. I read the staff report, I had a meeting with Lauralee Westine. Actually, I spoke to a number of other people including a couple of the Planning Commissioners to get their information on it, and I've spoken to our staff members. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have read the staff report and had meetings with staff Page 119 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I read the staff report, and I attended the Planning Commission meeting, and I sat in the audience and listened to the hearing, and otherwise I spoke to no parties involved in this hearing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received emails and read the staffs report. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. Mr. Ochs, who is -- who's going to present? MR. OCHS: The petitioner will present first. If you'd identify yourself for the record, please, ma'am. MS. WESTINE: I can. Good afternoon. My name is Lauralee Westine. I'm here on behalf of SBA and AT&T. I have been sworn. An address is 800 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34685. I have with me here today Dan Mullin, who is AT&T's radio frequency engineer. I have his CV, which I'll put up on the Elmo, that I would move into -- depending on whether he testifies or not, that I would eventually move into evidence. I also have with me Keith Tindall, who is a vice president with Sabre Towers. Before I begin and before I go much further, I had asked this question at Planning Commission. I wanted to make sure that both the staff report and the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting were a part of the -- were a part of this record. My apologies if they're automatically there, but I haven't been before you before. MR. OCHS: I'll ask Mr. Reischl to respond, please. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Zoning Division. The Planning Commission staff report is attached. The minutes were not. MS. WESTINE: With that said, I would ask that the minutes of Page 120 October 13, 2015 the Planning Commission be moved into evidence. I don't know exactly the right -- or accepted into evidence. I'm not sure the right words. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can we -- MR. KLATZKOW: How are we going to do that? They don't have the chance to read it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got to read it. MS. WESTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to continue your petition? MS. WESTINE: No. We are absolutely fine going forward. I just -- in many jurisdictions that I practice in, that automatically occurs, and I didn't know, sir. I am before you with a -- per your professional staffs recommendation of approval for a monopine tower, and I'll put one up. It is as MP 1. It's 120 feet. It's located at the Wilson Professional Center PUD. We are asking to be a permitted use with four deviations and adding some dimensional standards that go along with the use. At Planning Commission -- we had originally asked for 150 feet, and then at Planning Commission I think they balanced the interest of the neighbors to the south as well as balancing the engineering testimony and the need for the height, and they recommended approval of a 120-foot monopine. We have since gone back, and our engineers have taken a look at that, and basically we find the same thing. Out of respect for the community and the balancing and the compromise, we have amended our -- amended our application to 120 feet. Not only have we amended our site plan, we've amended our fall zone letter to 120 feet, as well as we have amended the planned unit development document with your legal team as well. Page 121 October 13, 2015 I have put -- I have put -- thank you. MR. OCHS: Will that help you? Just talk. MS. WESTINE: Yes, thanks. Just talk, okay. I have put MP 1, which is a monopine located in Pinellas County. It's approximately 120 feet, this is designated as MP2, which is also that same monopine located in Pinellas County just from a different view, and then we have -- as MP3 I have -- that is a tower in Hillsborough County, and that one is -- I believe that's 150 feet. It's a little taller. This present -- even going from 150 to 120, we had committed to providing room for up to four users, and we are still able to provide for that. Our compound is still able to provide for that. AT&T will be the first carrier, but we have since, during -- between Planning Commission and now, gotten an application from Verizon Wireless to also co-locate on this tower. The deviations, briefly, that we are requesting are -- the first one is the preserve setback that's simply memorializing what was originally approved. Number 2 is the two-and-a-half times the tower height. Within your telecommunication code, you require a tower to be located 2.5 times the tower height from any residential. In this particular instance, that would be 300 feet, and we are located 229 feet and change from that. What we have done in order to alleviate any concerns -- generally those type of height restrictions -- or I'm sorry. Those type of residential separations are put on the books out of kind of safety concerns, because when your code was originally written, towers weren't designed with what we call fall zones now, and people generally tend to pick these giant distances. In this particular instance, we did go back to our tower manufacturer, Sabre Industries -- and I'm putting on and entering into the record FZ 1. This was actually done for the 120-foot. We went Page 122 October 13, 2015 back and actually had it modified after the Planning Commission meeting, and it has been done for a 32-foot -- and that's down here. I'm pointing to it -- 32-foot collapse zone or fall zone. And I do have the vice president of Sabre Industries who flew in from Iowa today to answer any questions you may have. A fall zone is -- any of us who have lived in Florida and lived through hurricanes or any kind of storms, if you pass the light poles on I-75, you'll see that they bend over at the top like -- I call it a bendy straw because I have a child. But they bend over like a bendy straw. This top hinge part doesn't fall off. It doesn't go anywhere. But what it does is it designs a weakness within the pole so that the entire pole doesn't give, just that one portion does. And in this particular case, we've designed it at 32 feet, which is our smallest setback to our property line. Again, I don't want to lead anybody with the belief that it falls off and just drops to the ground, but we have designed it so that it has -- so that it has that smallest distance that we could. Our next deviation is No. 3, and No. 3 and No. 4 really go together. They're buffering -- they're buffering deviations. We are proposing to the -- we are proposing the amount of landscaping that is required. We are not asking for less landscaping. What we are doing is asking for a smaller buffer, and that's what those two -- that's what those two address. Our preserve area, we're required to have .51. We are actually providing 1.31. That's on your master concept plan, Exhibit A, and that's found on the bottom corner of that. Again, both your Planning Commission and your staff have found us consistent with your GMP as well as the surrounding area. Your environmental staff has found us consistent with your conservation and Coastal Management Element. One of the concerns that came up -- and I read lots of codes. And Page 123 October 13, 2015 your code talks quite a bit about the environment and birds and wildlife. One of the things that we did right off the bat was provide you with our, what we call our NEPA report. NEPA what we provide is the FCC, as I'm digging through. Commissioner Strain had found that we had actually -- there was a scrivener's error in it. And I just wanted to put it up. It's as NEPA 1. But what this does is it talks about we revised the original request from a 130-foot monopine to a 150-foot. Now I'm back before you with 120 feet. But with that said, we did revise our NEPA. There was no impact to any of the surrounding wildlife for any of the types -- any of the birds, and that's something that your code -- about the first page of your code talks about, so I felt it was something important to address. We've talked about -- I'm kind of trying to go through my notes quickly because I know I've got some -- you guys have had a long day. We have had -- we had two NIMs in this situation. We had two NIMs. We had -- the first one was simply -- it was a little lonely. It was me, the owner of the property's representative, and staff. The second one we did have three other attendees, two folks that live to the north, one gentleman that lived to the south. The two that lived to the north were not in objection to it particularly because it was designed as a camouflage tower as the monopine, and they felt that it would blend within the area. Before I started this project -- and this is a habit of mine -- I send out what I call neighborhood letters. So everyone who will get -- 247 folks that got noticed for this hearing or for Planning Commission, I send out a notice. That was back in 2012 when I went back through my items last night. But when we first sent out that initial letter right to 247 folks, we didn't get any response at that time. I'm going to -- I also had a meeting with the Poinciana Civic Association Board on April 27th of 2015. Once I found out they had Page 124 October 13, 2015 objections, I did go to meet with them to see if I could alleviate any of their concerns. One of their concerns at that time was height. At that time -- at that time we weren't in a place where we could reduce the height, so I don't know whether the Planning Commission's determination of 120 versus 150 made any difference to them. This is an eight-acre site. And I'm going to put up an aerial. This is marked Al -- I'm sorry, AR 1. This is -- am I better? Here we go. You'll see the green dot. It says SBA Bailey Lane. This is the parent tract here. Its current use is offices. This is -- it's more warehouse or garage-type uses. You've got your heavier trucks parked there. You've got your equipment housed in there. We are proposing the tower right here. This is the community to the south that, in all candor, you do have an objection letter from. This is the community to the south. We are -- as you can see, you've got a dense vegetative buffer here on the southern property line, and then you've also got the building itself that's going to screen the compound. I've said -- I said at Planning Commission, and it somewhat came back to bite me, and so I guess I don't learn, but the reality is, is at 120 feet someone's going to see the top of this tower. But one of the things that we do try to screen -- and that's why you have landscape provisions -- is the compound. So not only do we have the compound landscaped in this particular instance, but we also have the building there that's going to screen it as well as the dense vegetation that's there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have a sample of another project where you've done a similar combination so that we can see what the visibility is? MS. WESTINE: The two -- I'm going to flip back. This is an actual tower. This is not a simulation. I have simulations at 120, if that's what you're -- can I show you those? Page 125 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like the simulation, but I'd like to see what it actually looks like in its original form. MS. WESTINE: This is an actual monopine. Bear with me. This is that same tower that -- that's actually what it looks like. There's a neighborhood very close to this tower, and I actually took it from the neighborhood -- the cul-de-sac closest to it so that you could see the visibility. We also did -- after Planning Commission, we redid our photo simulations. How we do photo simulations are we take a balloon and we actually fly it so that we can know how tall we're going to simulate in a tower. And what this is you'll see A, B, C, D, and E. Those are all points where the tower -- where the photographs were taken. And then you'll see the star in the middle, and that is where the actual location is. Looking at PS2, or Photo Sim 2, you'll see the before photograph, and you'll see the after photograph, and you'll see the tower has been simulated in right there. Moving to B, which is PS3, you'll see the before and you'll see the after. Photo Sim, PS4, you'll see the before and the after, and in this particular instance you really don't see it because it's behind those larger pine trees. PS5, again, you're before, and there is your simulated tree. PS6, again, you're before and then again your pines and your simulated tree up there. One of the things that I always ask folks to keep in mind in these type of hearings is that when we look out, we don't look like this; we don't look straight up. We tend to look out and look up. So if you've got something that's blocking your view for that, say 40- to 50- or 60-foot range, that's what's going to be your primary -- in your primary view sheds. With that said, will it be seen from Airport-Pulling? Yes. Will it Page 126 October 13, 2015 be seen from the neighborhood? Yes. I don't try to hide that. Let me see if I -- I'm trying to kind of skip through some things. With that said, as it relates to the criteria of approval on this matter, 10.02.13.B.5 and 10.03.05.I and 5.05.09.G.2 within your staff report, staff did a very good job of actually going through each of those criteria and talking about how this project meets those criteria, and I will defer to staffs -- staffs done a very good job explaining that. With that said, we are asking to amend an existing PD (sic). Within your executive summary there were -- you were given multiple -- probably 14 or 15 things to consider, which is part of your code for criteria. With that said, I'm just going to -- I'm not going to go through each one of them, but I am going to hit the highlights. We're not -- we are not creating a PD. This is an existing commercial PD that we're adding a use to. Our PD boundaries are not being altered. The property's already commercially impacted, and we are screened by a -- I'll call it a garage'y warehouse'y building, and then some existing vegetation. We only use power and tel-co. We don't impact your roads. We don't impact water. We don't impact sewer. That's one of the things, when you look at the criteria, that you need to determine is whether or not we're impacting the surrounding areas. Are there those types of amenities that are available? We only use power and tel-co. Is the tower compatible with the uses on site? In this particular instance you already have a commercial -- a commercial-type site, and we've located the tower back in an area where there's more of a garage or a warehouse'y area. I lost my place; I'm sorry. Open space, has that been preserved. Not only have we upgraded your master concept plan from a standpoint of back in '87 when it was originally proposed, it now is readable. So we have brought it up to speed. We have shown what is Page 127 October 13, 2015 required on there, and we've actually designated preserve areas, which is something that, although your code back then didn't necessarily require things, we have -- we have designated it now. We've proposed a camouflage-style pole so that we can blend in with the area as best we can. We understand that we're a tower. We understand that we're 120 feet. But with that said, if there's a mechanism in place to actually hide the antennas and hide the cables, we try to do that. One of the things -- one of the conditions that you saw the Planning Commission put in place was that the antennas had to be hidden by the branches. What that will require us to do is actually buy a, what -- I call it a medium density, but a medium-density tower that has branches. It's 2.25 branches per foot. In all candor, I've never known the actual math until I got to know Commissioner Strain, and he wanted to know what the math was. So medium-density tower is 2.25 feet per -- branches per foot. I talked about that. Our open space still is in excess of what is required. Traffic impact is minimal. It's one trip per month per carrier. We have four carriers on this pole; you're talking about four trips per month. And with all due respect, that's only if something really goes wrong, if we get some kind of a message back from the antenna site that we need to come out there. So we don't impact traffic. One of the things that your Planning Commission -- we do have plots that were provided to you, and we did go into substantial engineering discussion and testimony at the Planning Commission. I do have my engineer here in the event that you have any questions for him, but I'm going to let you ask him questions directly as opposed to putting him on up front. One of the things that I always bring to folks whenever I come to a new jurisdiction is their 911 statistics from wireless calls, and you all Page 128 October 13, 2015 win; 79.3 percent of wireless calls in Collier County as of June 2015 came from wireless phones. That's -- Hillsborough County is next at 74 percent. One of the things that you look at when I'm asking to modify a PD is what conditions have changed, and that goes back to these 911 calls. In 1987 no one was thinking about cell phones; no one was thinking about towers. With that said, nowadays they are a necessity. They are no longer a luxury. When I got into this industry in '99, I called them car phones because that's where we used them. Nowadays we use them everywhere. They are part of our -- they are just part of our life. So I would suggest to you that if you're looking for a change of circumstance of why this PD needs to be amended, it's simply that wireless technology is now very much a part of our life. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, would you like to begin? I believe it's your district, ma'am; is that correct? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, it is. And thank you very much. And I have a question, and I'm trying to find it here in my papers, but I can't seem to find it. There were two circles, one, a red circle and a yellow circle. And I think the yellow circle was further back than the red circle. Do you know what I'm talking about? You had an option of siting this tower in two different places, my understanding. MS. WESTINE: Let me -- there are two different locations on the property that are available. I did not -- just for the record, I do not know what you're talking about. I don't know -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. WESTINE: -- to be honest with you, who created that document; I didn't. But with that said, I do know what document you're talking about, so I can address it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Page 129 October 13, 2015 MS. WESTINE: Your -- there's two different locations. The first is where we've proposed it, which is -- and if I can go back to the aerial. Where we've proposed it is in this back corner back by the garage area. Where you're talking about is proposing it up here in this area. Is that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I believe so. I just -- I remember that's correct. MS. WESTINE: Yes, ma'am, you're correct. What that -- what that did -- and very candidly -- and the landlord's attorney is here, and he can answer any questions you may have -- that was not -- that area was not available to us by the -- by the present owners. This was the area that was provided to us. Candidly, if you had to compare these two sites, this site up here still would require -- if you did the math, would still require a residential separation. It would also put it right on Airport-Pulling as opposed to where we're located where we've located it off Airport-Pulling Road. And it's something that -- while we weren't given it as an option, candidly, I think you screen and you buffer the site itself when you come back here towards the back area of this parcel. I don't know if I answered your question; I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. No, no; you did. The other question is, I know you mentioned 911 calls. Are you part of law enforcement or federal agency, or are you a private enterprise that makes money building towers? MS. WESTINE: AT&T is a carrier, and SBA is a tower company that makes money building towers. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. WESTINE: With that said, we support -- for example, emergency services will come and co-locate on our towers. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Page 130 October 13, 2015 MS. WESTINE: We also, though -- AT- -- for example, AT&T and Verizon are required -- as part of their spectrum, they are required to provide E-911 so they can be located. So if I call 911 from my cell phone, there is a certain distance that they must be able to find me at so that someone can come and help me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So if this -- this application is denied for whatever reason -- and I'm not saying I'm going to. I just would like to know -- MS. WESTINE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- what your options where. I mean, I looked at one -- and, again, I'm scrolling through here. We have so many towers in our area. What are your options? MS. WESTINE: My options? Let me think this through before I answer this. First, there's a couple things I want to show you so that you can understand. When folks talk about there's lots of towers, towers can't just be located anywhere. I'm putting on the screen what's been marked as RF4. Towers have to -- these are the towers that AT&T is currently located on. The center is the Bailey Lane site, and these are the towers that I've highlighted -- actually, and Sprint's down here. These are the towers that AT&T's on. So as you can see, you've got a hole smack dab in the middle of this area. I talked to -- Dan Mullins is my radio frequency engineer, and he's been with AT&T for 20-something years. They started looking in this area for a site back in the '90s. When you -- and one of the -- and I'll explain it as briefly as I can. But when AT&T finds that there's a gap in coverage, they then send out a site-acquisition team. And what they say is, okay, our search area so that we can talk to all these -- the surrounding towers, the search area is about an eighth of a mile. Page 131 October 13, 2015 And let me -- I printed this out last night, and I've marked it as Z 1. If you take that general -- that general one-and-a-quarter -- where did I just put it? If you take that one-and-a-quarter ring -- and you're going to have to bear with me because I don't pretend to be technologically savvy. This is marked as SA, and this is the search area. So this ring basically designates the search area that AT&T was looking within. So when you go back and you look at these towers and where they're located, it generally tells you that a tower needs to be located in this area, which then I put this back up and it gives you a more -- a more defined area of where we can look. When you then really over -- you take the zoning map, and this is Z 1. When you take the zoning map of what that search area is, you've got two parcels. You've got the church next door to me, and you've got the Wilson Professional Center that I have options on to serve this area. Other than that, I am in PUD, PUD, PUD, estate; this is all estate. So I have two options. One of the questions that was asked to me at Planning Commission was, did we ask anybody else. And, candidly, I wasn't involved back in the day, but I've since found out we did ask the church if they were interested, and we were told at the time that the church wasn't interested in locating a tower on their property because of-- they potentially wanted to expand. With that said, even if I were at the church property, I would still be here asking you for a residential separation variance because of where -- when you really take a look, the church is surrounded by residential as well. So as my backup plan, if I were denied, I would take back to my client what their options are. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. WESTINE: But if you're asking is there a backup site, no. Page 132 October 13, 2015 We've been in this process since 2012. If there were a backup site, I would have recommended it to my client probably about a year and a half ago. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can you reduce it down to what, is it 75 feet, which is, I think, the -- within the PUD? I think that's the -- can you reduce it? MS. WESTINE: At 120 is as far down as I think AT&T can go. One fifty got us -- 150 met the engineering need; 120 made everyone swallow hard. But if you read the minutes or you were there at Planning Commission, I was very candid that I would rather come before you with a recommendation of approval than no recommendation at all. We took it back. We did explore it. AT&T then ran the propagation studies, and we aren't meeting what our goal is for the -- as we call them, the population that we want to serve in this area. But I'll let Dan answer it directly if I can ask, because I don't -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's fine. MS. WESTINE: I don't pretend to be the engineer. I know the answer. Come on up and state your name. State your name and your address, whether you've been sworn. MR. MULLIN: My name's Daniel Mullin. My address is 1310 Southeast 15th Street, Cape Coral, Florida. MS. WESTINE: And if you can -- MR. MULLIN: I have been sworn. MS. WESTINE: And if you'll tell them where you're employed, how long you've been employed, and what your academic background is, please. MR. MULLIN: I'm employed at AT&T. I've been with AT&T for 24 years. My background is I have an associate degree in science, in computer science. I've taken additional training from Washington Page 133 October 13, 2015 University and the various vendors, Ericcson, Nokia, Motorola, Panasonic, and others. MS. WESTINE: I'm going to ask -- I'm going to summarize it very bluntly. Would AT&T move forward with this tower at 75 feet? MR. MULLIN: No, we wouldn't. MS. WESTINE: And can you explain why -- MR. MULLIN: We -- it wouldn't cover the population that we need to cover, it wouldn't cover the area we need to cover, and it wouldn't be profitable at 75 feet. MS. WESTINE: Let me ask, taking profit out of it altogether, would there still be gaps in service in the area where we would -- MR. MULLIN: Yes. If we went at 75 feet, we would still need possibly three, four more sites at 75 feet around it to fill in the area we need. So at 120 feet, we can do it with one, but if you go down to 75 feet, we're going to need multiple sites. MS. WESTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. WESTINE: With that said -- and I would just -- just to bring this full circle, if you go back to Z1 and you look at what the other zoning districts are and where else you could place a tower, there's simply nowhere. I mean, unless we get into the neighborhoods, there simply isn't another location to place three or four other 75-foot towers that's commercial and already impacted or office or something like that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Keeping your information up there, back in the transcript from the neighborhood information meeting, it says -- you describe the cellular grid as a honeycomb where the towers have to be located close enough Page 134 October 13, 2015 to talk to one another, and it says there are going to be three. So where are the other two? What are they talking to each other about? MS. WESTINE: Well, the existing tower is what I was referencing, and I'm going to go back. When I say they have to talk to each other, this is our proposed new tower, and these are the existing towers. There aren't other towers proposed. There's one proposed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're already built? MS. WESTINE: They're already built and they're already on air, and they're struggling to -- struggling to serve this area. So these are the existing ones, and this tower, then, has to talk to -- I know I'm oversimplifying it. It has to talk to those towers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Are any of the other ones looking like a tree? MS. WESTINE: I don't believe they are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's the coolest idea, by the way. I mean, one way to disguise it. And according to the Planning Commission meeting notes, anyway, they even wanted to be assured that the tree branches are going to cover everything so that they were well hidden, and I thought, now, that is the coolest idea. MS. WESTINE: And we certainly don't object to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. That's good. Okay. I have a number of other questions, if I may. Let's see. You'd mentioned a smaller buffer compared to landscaping. What does that mean? MS. WESTINE: Let me find my plans. I'm showing you what has been marked as A-1.1, and this is our site plan that is within your package. What we are talking about the buffering is this side right here. What you'll note in your PUD is that what we've tried to do is we are proposing the appropriate amount of landscaping, but because we're up against a -- there's an easement here that I wasn't allowed to build -- Page 135 October 13, 2015 that I wasn't allowed to build in. So I couldn't put -- I couldn't put -- I couldn't use that as a width, if that makes sense. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this is right on the WilsonMiller property, right? MS. WESTINE: Absolutely, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, the lack of landscaping isn't going to bother them as much as it would be glaringly missing in a neighborhood; is that what you're saying? MS. WESTINE: The actual amount of landscaping is going to be as required. It's actually the width of the buffer. So if we were required to do a 10-foot buffer, we're simply going to put the proper amount of landscaping in an area -- in a foot or two -- probably a 2-foot area so that it survives. It has to still be able to grow and be safe. But with that said, the requirement is a 10-foot buffer, and we're asking that it go down -- that only the buffer width go down. The amount of landscaping proposed is still in compliance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's meeting -- it meets the agreement that you have with the WilsonMiller people, right? MS. WESTINE: Yes. They have signed off on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever the name is now. It's StanTech now, isn't it? MS. WESTINE: I don't know. Their lawyer is here to watch me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wilson Professional Building. Okay. I have a couple other questions, if I may. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fine Canadian company. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't take too long. I just want to hit the subject and get off of the subject. Let's see. About the collapsing tower. And it's determined that it will fall right in place. How can you be assured of that? MS. WESTINE: I'm going to have my engineer come up. If you could come up, introduce yourself, I'll give you that mike. If you'll Page 136 October 13, 2015 state your name, your address, whether you've been sworn. MR. TINDALL: Okay. Keith Tindall, 552 Joy Court, South Sue City, Nebraska. I have been sworn. MS. WESTINE: And where -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. TINDALL: I have been sworn. MS. WESTINE: And who do you work for? MR. TINDALL: Sabre Industries. MS. WESTINE: What is your position there? MR. TINDALL: Vice president and chief engineer. MS. WESTINE: Have you had an opportunity to review -- to review a fall zone letter? MR. TINDALL: Yes. MS. WESTINE: I've designated as FZ 1. But would you please explain to the commissioner how that hinge works at the top, the fall zone? MR. TINDALL: Sure. What we do is we put a connection in the tower at a point where you want it to fall with -- so that the piece above it is smaller than the fall radius that you want to have, so -- MS. WESTINE: When you say "fall," can you clarify. It doesn't actually fall to the ground? MR. TINDALL: Right. MS. WESTINE: How does it fall? MR. TINDALL: So at that connection there's 18 bolts, and what would happen if-- I mean, this is if the code wind speed is exceeded by quite a bit. So, you know, it meets code and won't fall, but if that -- if it goes beyond that, what would happen is one of those bolts would fail, the rest of them would see some more load, another bolt would fail. It would be a slower process than just all of a sudden it falls, okay. So -- and then even if-- you know, by the time you get down just a few bolts left, it would have to -- the thing would be leaning, the wall of the pole shaft would buckle, and it would basically tip over and Page 137 October 13, 2015 likely hang there. And you're talking about branches and other antennas and things that it would get caught up in so -- yeah. So the chances of it actually coming down to the ground and falling like that is extremely slim. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. And is this located, like, in the parking lot of WilsonMiller so that there aren't even any homes in the area? MS. WESTINE: There are -- the closest residential property line is 229 feet. I'm showing you again AR 1. The green is where the tower is located. So we have kind of a warehouse/garage area here. You have the office building here. This is the church over here. This is a large -- the church parking lot is here. This is a large grass area for the church, and then your homes don't start until 229 feet down to the south. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, good. Now let me see. I just have a couple more. Okay. It says this is the third communication tower, but I already asked you that one. I already asked you this one. Oh, yes. The compound will have security lighting, it says. It doesn't mention, is the security lighting, like, above? Will it shine into people's homes? Is it shelter -- or screened or shuttered or anything at all? MS. WESTINE: By security lighting, what it is is there is a light that a tech can turn on if they go out there. It is not -- it is not lit in the evening, so there will be no lighting that spills out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except for airplanes, right? MS. WESTINE: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are going to have something for airplanes, right? MS. WESTINE: This tower is not required to be lighted. We have our FAA determination, and we are not required to be lighted. So Page 138 October 13, 2015 there will be no red flashing light, no strobe light, or anything like that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I think that's all the questions I have for you. Thank you. MS. WESTINE: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you please go back to the diagram where you show the location of the other towers and their heights. MS. WESTINE: Yes, ma'am. This RF4, is that what you're -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. MS. WESTINE: Okay. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ifs really interesting to me to see the height of the other structures. You have one almost two miles away at 251 feet. MS. WESTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: One that's 170 feet. It doesn't state what the other -- yeah, it doesn't state what that tower -- MS. WESTINE: This one's 282. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's -- yeah, sorry, 282 there. MS. WESTINE: This one's 110 down here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So is the reason you don't have service in that area because you have that 110 tower? MS. WESTINE: No. They're just simply -- it doesn't go that far. And I realize I'm probably butchering engineering. But coverage has to go -- let me ask Dan to come up. My non-engineering answer is is that coverage can only go so far. And being that far away, you still need a tower to actually provide -- you know, actually generating the signal within that area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you saying that towers have to be two miles apart and that, you know, if you don't have coverage within that two-mile radius, it doesn't happen? Page 139 October 13, 2015 MS. WESTINE: Sometimes, depending on -- depending on what your -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or closer than two miles, really? Because that's what you're showing here. I mean, everything is two miles apart. MS. WESTINE: Depending on your topography, depending on your -- particularly with the iPhones now and with the amount of-- I'm going to use the word power but I'm not sure it's the right word. But iPhones and iPads and things likes that use more signal strength than just back in the day when we had cell phones. So everybody wanting to be on their iPad and everybody wanting to use their iPhone and their, I don't even -- Samsung is what I have. But that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the question I have is why you can't increase the height of existing towers as opposed to building another tower. I mean, I see that you have two that are substantially higher. But you've got one already that's at 110, and you've got one that's at 170. You know, given that you've got one at 251 and 282, I just question why we need another tower and not increase the height of the ones you already own. MR. MULLIN: We are not -- MS. WESTINE: First, we don't own them. I want to make sure. We lease off of them, but I understand what -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you leasing this one? MS. WESTINE: SBA will own this tower. AT&T will be a tenant on this tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the same holds true for the other towers? MS. WESTINE: I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are the other towers AT&T towers? MR. MULLIN: No. The other towers are not AT&T towers, and Page 140 October 13, 2015 we are not at the heights that are listed. Those are the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Iberia Bank tower is not an AT&T tower? MR. MULLIN: That's a bank building. We're on the rooftop. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, they're on the roof. MR. MULLIN: With other carriers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the Golden Gate North is not an AT&T tower? I mean, whether you lease it or not, I mean, that's -- MR. MULLIN: Golden Gate North is what we call our Seagate tower, and it says we're at -- it says the tower height is 170 feet. We are actually much lower than the tower height. We're not at the top of the tower on these towers. We're not at 251 over on the Shirley Street tower. MS. WESTINE: You call that Seagate. I'm going to put it back up here. Directing your attention to RF4 where you called out the Golden Gate tower. If you see Seagate, they're actually at 136. The overall height of the tower is 170, but AT&T's antennas are located at 136. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, again, my question is, why can't you adjust, you know, where you're located on existing towers to have more coverage as opposed to building another tower? MR. MULLIN: Well, we can take the Shirley Street tower for an example, if you don't mind. There's two towers right next to each other. They're very tall. We used to be at 280 feet, but at 280 feet, the tower broadcast's so far that it overloads the capacity there and, because of our capacity limits, we have to -- we lowered it so that it's equal to the other towers in the general area to try and equal out the capacity for each tower in the area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not take the height of those other towers down so we don't have, you know, 280-foot towers and 251-foot towers in those locations, for example? I mean, if what Page 141 October 13, 2015 you're saying is is that those towers are too high -- you're not located at 250 feet. You just said you're located at 170. MS. WESTINE: The towers are actually owned by other -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's not their tower. MS. WESTINE: They're not ours to take down. MR. MULLIN: They're not AT&T towers. MS. WESTINE: And there are other co-locate -- your code requires that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we're permitting the towers. We're -- I understand that. We're not permitting AT&T. You as a user of this tower is between you and the person who's building the tower. MR. MULLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not really the petitioner. The petitioner is the company that's building the tower, notwithstanding that you're speaking because you're the intended user. I mean, if you're going to speak as the petitioner on this, there's no difference than you speaking as the petitioner on these other towers regardless of who owns them. I mean, you -- you know, I just -- I don't understand why we have these massive towers if they're unused and you're the primary user on these towers. MS. WESTINE: That's the answer. We're not the primary user. There are multiple users on these towers that we are not necessarily on. I mean, we are on, but there are multiple users. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who are the multiple users on this tower? MS. WESTINE: On this tower, as it stands right now, AT&T has committed to the tower, and then Verizon just within two weeks ago sent in application to be on this tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, I think -- what I'm hearing is -- and, you know, I'm new to the tower business, so you Page 142 October 13, 2015 have to forgive me. I'm trying to get -- well, I don't -- I'm not new to the phone business. I mean -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's why they need more towers, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I sleep with this. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everybody's got two or three of these. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I know. But here's the thing. I mean, it's one -- it's one thing -- I completely understand the need to have towers, and signaling is obviously important, because I'm with AT&T -- and, by the way, I don't like how much you charge me. I'm going to say that up front, and I am a customer, so I do have a conflict. Yeah, really, it's high. But -- you can work on that. But, no, in all seriousness, my concern is that, you know, if we don't have to build so many towers, we shouldn't. And to the extent you can co-locate and minimize building towers all over the place, the better for the community, clearly. So what I'm asking is, you know, to what extent we can minimize the height of the other towers if they're not being used. I mean, I'm sure everybody is in the same boat with respect to what level they need to be at and, secondly, with respect to -- do you own any of the other towers? I'm asking the engineer. Are any of these other towers your towers? MS. WESTINE: He's the tower engineer. COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the company that owns the towers? MS. WESTINE: No. That's -- Sabre is different from SBA. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So is anyone here representing the people who own the tower who are building the tower? MS. WESTINE: Just me. I'm their attorney. No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you represent AT&T or SBA? MS. WESTINE: I represent both of them. Page 143 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you are representing the owners of the tower? MS. WESTINE: I do. I represent SBA and AT&T. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So does SBA own any of the other surrounding towers? MS. WESTINE: Not that I'm aware of. And let me go back to a quick question. When you were talking about can you increase the height or can you decrease the height, only looking at AT&T, AT&T -- what Dan was saying, I think, is when you increase or decrease height, especially when you go up, signal goes much further. Then all of a sudden you've got this tower interfering with this tower or this tower interfering with this tower. So there's a lot of-- and I'm going to use the word tweaking, which is very technical. But there's a lot of tweaking that goes on in finding where the right height is that will provide you the right coverage. Unlike, for example, an AM tower, like a radio station where bigger is better and -- I mean, I'm building an 1,100-foot tower in St. Pete right now for an AM radio station. Bigger is better. In wireless, that's not necessarily the case. There is a happy medium where all your towers can talk to each other, and there's a happy medium where they're not overlapping each other. If we were to increase our -- say we were -- say there was available height and say they could make a deal and nobody was at the top and we could move that up, that might make a tiny little bit of a difference, but at the end of the day, you still have to look at it as it works with that honeycomb. Your code -- you were talking about towers that aren't getting used. Your code does have something where if it's not used, you have a provision where it comes down. It's called an abandonment provision, and your code has that within it. Page 144 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would hope so. MS. WESTINE: Absolutely, it does. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that's my concern with the heights. You know, these are materially higher towers than what's being proposed here for what seems to be the same level of coverage. MS. WESTINE: Well, I think what you'll find over here are these areas are move your, what I'll call heavy HC, heavy commercial/industrial type areas where, for example, a guide tower or where a self-support tower may be appropriate. Once you get over into the Iberia Bank, you're talking about a rooftop. So wherever the Iberia Bank is over in this area, there wasn't either ground space or there wasn't something that was available, and they were able to -- they were able to co-locate on that rooftop. One of the things that these carriers will always do is if they can co-locate and have a building permit and have their antennas up in eight weeks as opposed to spending quality time with me for two years trying to get -- three years to get something through, they always will. So you'll see, for example, this rooftop was the first choice before -- you know, the height worked for them, and the rooftop was a first choice. But if-- in this particular instance we don't have any buildings of substantial height that we can put a rooftop on. I don't know that I answered your question. I tried. I don't know that I did a good job, but I tried. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speakers? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. You want -- Mr. Miller, do we have public speakers? MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we do. I do have registered Mr. Mullin and Mr. Tindall. That was just if you needed them to speak? Okay. MS. WESTINE: They're with me. MR. MILLER: I also have registered Brad Estes, and he has been Page 145 October 13, 2015 ceded three additional minutes from Hunter Estes, and they are both here. MR. ESTES: Good afternoon. Please don't make up your mind yet. I'm Brad Estes. I'm a resident of Poinciana Village and a board member of the Poinciana Civic Association. Poinciana Village is immediately south of the Wilson Professional Center. This is a photo of our current skyline view to the northeast looking toward the Wilson Professional Center from our neighborhood park. The tower would be noticeable about where you see the road end on the east side above the existing vegetation. Our board of directors respectfully requests that you reject any tower height above 75 feet. The Wilson center is a low-intensity commercial use. The application, if approved, changes this. The application requests C4 use as a principal use in, essentially, C 1 zoning, as the executive summary states. You, as commissioners in rejecting this application related to the tower height, will be acting consistently with community standards and the existing public policy that protects residential use from adverse impacts of commercial development. Let me first, though, point out that the testimony and statements made at the Planning Commission hearing about tree heights, while inadvertent, may have misled the Planning Commission in their 4-3 vote to recommend a 120-foot tower height. Testimony regarding the height of the existing pine trees was that they are 80 to 90 feet in general. In other words, pine trees -- the testimony was pine trees in general are 80 to 90 feet. These pine trees at the Wilson Professional Center are about 65 feet. So, thus, you'll see the difference. And you'll see, if you read the minutes of the Planning Commission, where there was reference to the vegetation height and, as a result, the 120 -- 120-foot tower was Page 146 October 13, 2015 recommended. Secondly, there was a statement by a planning commissioner about seeing Norfolk Island pine trees in Poinciana Village -- in the Poinciana Village skyline, and they can grow up to 120 feet. Our Norfolk Island pines in that vicinity are 80 feet. Based on evidence we have submitted to you in late August and evidence in the public record, there are at least five reasons to reject the proposed tower height. Number one -- tell me if I'm going too fast -- the proposed 120-foot tower is out of character with the adjoining neighborhoods because of its disproportion height. You could take a picture right next to the Wilson Professional Center, and you probably wouldn't see the tower. But if you go to the west, you -- it will be readily -- readily viewable, especially in that photograph. Even though camouflage is proposed, the structure would be 55 feet above the existing tree canopy. The canopy may not exist in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I interrupt you just for one minute. MR. ESTES: Absolutely, sure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please, can you make sure his time is preserved. You live right there. MR. ESTES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's your signaling like? What's -- do you have AT&T? Who do you use? MR. ESTES: No. I have Verizon, and my signal's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have Verizon. I'm just curious, you know, if there really is a problem in the area. MR. ESTES: Yes, there is an AT&T problem there, and I'll explain to you our suggestion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. ESTES: Yes, there is AT -- I did have AT&T at one time, Page 147 October 13, 2015 and there was a signal problem. Even though I could see the tower from my house on Shirley Street. I could walk out and see the tower at night, so... Anyway, the canopy may not always exist, so we can't depend on that canopy, because the tower can be there for 50 years. It's in perpetuity. Even if it blows down, it could be replaced. Secondly, both staff and the applicant acknowledge the adverse visual impact on adjacent residential property. The staff report states the visual impact as the greatest concern and that a monopine tower would be visually conspicuous since it will be significantly taller than the natural vegetation canopy. Those are the statements of the staff. There's an alternative to a 120-foot tower. The alternative is for multiple 75-foot towers located adjacent to intense wireless use areas, which the Wilson center is not adjacent to it. The intense wireless use areas are at Airport Road and Pine Ridge, and I-75 and Pine Ridge. We suggest that that's the alternative, and the engineer for AT&T agreed with that when requested or actually asked by Commissioner Doyle what would be the alternative, and he said that it would be three towers at 75 feet; one at Wilson, one at Pine Ridge and Airport, and one at I-75 and Pine Ridge Road. I have the actual statements if you'd like to see them. The issue becomes a higher cost and cost -- capital costs for tower and wireless service providers measured against neighborhood aesthetics. Obviously, three towers would cost more than one, but at the same time commercial developers have been paying for years in Collier County for additional requirements for aesthetics. The proposed tower violates the compatibility assurances of our neighborhood made by the County Commission in 1987. Compatibility means that there will be no use or condition that unduly negatively impacts directly or indirectly -- no condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by the other use or condition. Page 148 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir. Thank you very much. MR. ESTES: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You answered my concern and that is, you know, the alternative to providing coverage would be three towers, which I view as a negative. I think we want fewer towers, not more towers. And to the extent that they've been able to reduce the height to 120 feet, I think that's positive. What I would like to ask staff-- and this is as an aside but something to be discussed after this vote -- are we looking at abandonment of the height in existing towers, and are we asking the tower owners to reduce the height where there has been abandonment? Because I think that's really important. I mean, I think we want to have as few towers and towers as low as possible with maximum coverage, you know, to have the benefit of both the service but without the visual impact where we can avoid it. MR. BOSI: Commissioner, Mike Bosi, the zoning director. We most certainly do adhere to that policy. And as clarified by the applicant, there's five individual wireless carriers that provide wireless service within Collier County. Each of those needs location, so each tower has to service a number of different users, as well as radio communication as the normal use for towers. So those towers that were existing were not simply isolated for -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. BOSI: We do look at that on a regular basis, and we do make sure that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, are you looking at abandonment? MR. BOSI: -- there's utilization -- utilization of towers. And Page 149 October 13, 2015 those towers that were in the location were all -- all had individual users on those. But we most certainly will re-review it, but we continuously look and make sure that there's utilization of that existing infrastructure. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I thought the technology was changing and that, you know, these high towers were basically anachronisms and, you know, we were -- MR. BOSI: They are. The towers need to go shorter -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. BOSI: -- and the coverage, what it used to be -- because I used to work in the industry -- used to be at a higher tower because it was voice communication and it covered a broader area. Now that we have 3- and 4G technology sort of bandwidth requirements for these cell phone and bandwidth connectivity, it shrinks the cell, so what that means is more locations. That's why when we do -- and one of the things we have talked about within our Land Development Code amendment team is we need to look at our wireless communication policy and see where we can make some improvements recognizing the changes within the industry. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I'm addressing. And so I don't want to bring it into this hearing. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think that is something that staff should bring back. I want to turn to Commissioner Taylor and ask her, do you feel comfortable with this? Could I make a motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. The motion is to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: To accept, because the alternative is three towers and, I mean, obviously, according to, you know, the resident from the area, the people who do have AT&T have bad coverage. And I understand there are alternative supplier -- you know, Page 150 October 13, 2015 but at the same time, if someone wants to be with AT&T -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Henning, and then maybe we have a motion here somewhere. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There is a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike or Fred, where is cell towers permitted by right in Collier County? MR. REISCHL: By right in commercial districts, depending on the height, the height of 75 in most commercial districts would be by right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that straight zoning? MR. REISCHL: Straight zoning and some PUDs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And some PUDs. Because I'm thinking the area of I-75 and Pine Ridge, those are all PUDs. MR. REISCHL: For the most part, yes. Some estates, but mostly, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The commercial part is PUDs -- MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the Estates is residential, and it's not allowed in residential. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let's see. Pine Ridge and Airport Road, those are all PUDs? Yeah. MR. REISCHL: The majority. There is, I believe, straight commercial on the northeast quadrant. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, like Yahl Street and that area is straight zoning. MR. REISCHL: Straight zoning, C5, and industrial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's, I would imagine, allowed in those. MR. REISCHL: Up to higher than 75 feet, yes. Page 151 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Up to 75 feet? MR. REISCHL: No, higher than. They're allowed, by right, higher than that in industrial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Higher in industrial. MR. REISCHL: One hundred eighty-five feet in industrial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hundred and eighty-five feet? MR. REISCHL: By right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about your Commercial 4 districts; do you know? MR. BOSI: C4 and -- your C4 and C5 zoning districts are up to 185 feet as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BOSI: That's a cutoff point, and then after that it goes into a conditional-use process, anything higher than that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have residential around the Pine Ridge industrial area. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Across the street. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Across the street. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, and in back of it, too. You have -- MR. REISCHL: Autumn Woods and those neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one in Golden Gate is a flagpole monopole. And sometimes they put a flag up there; sometimes they don't. That's in the commercial C4 district. So that was permitted by right, unless there was some deviations. MR. REISCHL: I don't know the height of that one offhand. But if it was up to 185, then it would have been by right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what is -- the gentleman said it was -- what was the height on that one in Golden Gate? You Page 152 October 13, 2015 said Seagate? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought it was 170. MR. REISCHL: That's the Seagate Baptist Church over at Pine Ridge and I-75. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the one in Golden Gate. MR. REISCHL: Right, near the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: One seventy. And that's a C4 district. And C4 is at 180 feet. So unless they had some deviations, it would have had to have been permitted by right. MR. REISCHL: Yes. I didn't work on that, but I -- what you're saying is correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm trying to go by memory if it ever had to come to the board. I don't know. One block away from that is residential. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And across Collier Boulevard is residential estates, too. So I used to have AT&T/Sprint. Had to give it up. I couldn't get coverage. I mean, I get dropped calls and even -- living in the Estates, close by this mono, I couldn't get coverage. That's a concern that I have if that's the only means that you have of communication, so... MR. BOSI: And, Commissioner, one of the things that we've spoken with Mr. Van Lengen, as we go out and do the Golden Gate Master Plan, is looking at the telecommunication restrictions within the Estates Zoning District, as maybe there has to be a re-evaluation, because it's those residential users that basically place the demands for these facilities. So in the appropriate location, we have to make sure that those opportunities can be provided for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then Page 153 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There is a -- did you make a motion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I haven't yet. I was going to. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I would like to make a -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I'd like to hear from Commissioner Hiller, but my motion is deny based on the fact that the separation requirement is two-and-a-half times the distance from residential. It's not. It's not that at all. And also the height issue. The folks in -- that built the WilsonMiller complex were required to place their utilities underground for a reason. You know, they didn't want, you know, things protruding up above. And I just think this is the wrong place. I'm sorry AT&T hasn't got coverage here but, you know, it's not like they're the only carrier we have. I'm sorry, Commissioner Hiller. I also just -- I just feel this is just improper for a neighborhood and residential. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do I have a second? No second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If AT&T doesn't have coverage in this area based on where the towers are located, nor would really any other carrier. The only one that might have better coverage based on what I'm seeing here, if they're collocated on the other towers, is Sprint. You know, Sprint has that tower. That's a 75-foot tower .6 miles away from that location. MS. WESTINE: It's at the school. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but it says Sprint tower, 75. MS. WESTINE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you explored co-locating on that Sprint tower? Page 154 October 13, 2015 MS. WESTINE: Yes, we had initially. I'm sorry, Lauralee Westine again. Yes, we had initially looked at it, and then staff made us look at it again to make sure that we could not co-locate on that tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was the reason you couldn't co-locate on the tower because -- MS. WESTINE: Couldn't get the height. Because Sprint is already at 75 feet, and so we would go 75 -- so you're talking probably 55 feet, which simply isn't going to -- you're still going to have a gap in the center of those towers. You know, you've got the towers all around, and you're still going to have a gap in the center. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because you're -- at the location you're looking at, you want to be at 120, and the owner of that tower wouldn't consider increasing it to 120 so you could be at that location so we don't have to build an additional tower, if that's on a school property? I mean, I don't know who owns that one. MS. WESTINE: There was considerable -- I wasn't a part of it. That's my disclosure; I was not a part of it. But there was considerable backlash from the community when I believe that tower was tried to be -- tried to be increased or it was built. I wasn't around -- I wasn't handling it. But the community was considerably upset about that tower either going up or trying to be expanded. I don't know which. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Commissioner Taylor, did you -- I mean, this is your district. I'm very interested in this issue just from the standpoint of, you know, how we're handling this will, you know, address how we're probably going to be looking at the same issue throughout other parts of the county as we see increasing development and increased, you know, need for coverage. Did you address the co-location on the Sprint tower and whether or not that could be increased in height as an alternative? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I just -- I have a great Page 155 October 13, 2015 deal of faith in 21st century technology. I know these folks are doing it the most expedient and cost-effective way. I am not -- I do not necessarily agree that the only alternative is to build more towers. And I think today's technology will change for tomorrow. And I -- I don't see the industry building towers. No cities are going to put up with it. We can't be a city of communication towers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just interrupt for a minute, because she doesn't have a second yet. I'm going to just second so that we can be having this discussion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, yeah. No, that's fine. What was your motion again? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To deny. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, okay. MS. WESTINE: Am I permitted rebuttal? I have just three points. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead. MS. WESTINE: Three points. One is, is that there was discussion earlier that if Verizon had coverage, AT&T didn't necessarily need it. The Telecommunication Act of 1986 actually prohibits you, first of all, saying -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- MS. WESTINE: You hadn't been the one who said it. I think Commissioner Taylor has said that somebody was already providing coverage in the area, and I just wanted to make sure -- and I look over to your lawyer, because nobody believes me. But the Telecommunication Act does -- simply because one carrier provides service in an area does not mean that other carriers can be excluded. So Page 156 October 13, 2015 that was my first comment. And I think what you're seeing when we talked earlier about building three 75-foot towers, what you're finding is, is Sprint did go and build a 75-foot tower at the school, and no one will co-locate on it. And the reason no one will co-locate on it is because 55 feet simply isn't going to -- it doesn't work. So I think that goes back to the, if you build three individual AT&T towers, you're still not going to serve those four other carriers that are serving in this area. And then I have one last picture that I'm going to throw up on a screen. One of the Planning Commission commissioners -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's really not an AT&T tower. I mean, you keep saying that, but the reality is it's a tower owned by this other company, and they could have other -- MS. WESTINE: True, but I can't -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- users. MS. WESTINE: I can't be before you without a carrier. Your code does not allow me to come before you with what I call a naked tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand that. MS. WESTINE: I have to prove to you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No, I understand that. No, sure. And that makes sense, because we want to have users on these towers; otherwise, why have the tower, so I get that. MS. WESTINE: These are -- at Planning Commission, one of the commissioners mentioned that there were huge Norfolk pines located just off of the Golden Gate Parkway. And so these photos -- and I'm circling where -- this is the general area. So you have Golden Gate here. You have somebody -- Goodlette-Frank. But these trees are here. And I just wanted to point out, I mean, we talk about how high these trees are going to be, but these are actually real trees, not monopines. And I actually sent my associate out on a mission after Page 157 October 13, 2015 that hearing to go and try and find these two to show that we do actually in Florida grow some pretty big. But with that said, that's Pine Photo 1 and 2 and Pine Photo Map. That said, I don't -- I'm here for any other questions. I realize there's a -- thank you for letting me do a rebuttal. I realize there's a motion and a second on the table. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor, that location where Sprint is at the school -- or I should really ask staff. Is that -- would that be a location permitted by right, or is that a location that would need a conditional use to get to the 120? MR. REISCHL: At Poinciana Elementary? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. MR. REISCHL: It's zoned -- the school is zoned agricultural. It's a little bit of a county surrounded by the city. I think it was two years ago there was a replacement of the tower to the exact height, 75 feet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was it before? MR. REISCHL: Seventy-five feet. They physically replaced the structure of the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Put in a new tower. MR. REISCHL: -- that tower. And, yes, that would be permitted by right at 75. COMMISSIONER HILLER: By right. Could you put another tower at that location? MR. REISCHL: You would have to demonstrate the criteria -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, instead, if these -- well, if they have a need, could they be at this location as opposed to at the location that they're proposing by right? MR. REISCHL: At 75 feet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is the maximum you could have at that location 75 feet? MR. REISCHL: By right. You could go higher -- Page 158 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. At the school -- MR. REISCHL: -- with a conditional use. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So you're limited to 75, but they say 75 is inadequate for them? MR. REISCHL: Because it's not -- what was explained to me was that the tower is 75, but the available antenna position would be at 55, which they say is inadequate. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they could -- they could -- but 75 is sufficient for them. I mean, it's sufficient for Sprint. So I guess that they could put -- because they were talking about the alternative towers being 75. Could they put a tower at 75 feet by right at the elementary school? MR. REISCHL: They would have to separate. MR. BOSI: By the code and by acquiescence from the School Board, who did take a lot of resistance from the neighborhood over the replacement of that existing facility, if the School Board was agreeable, they could place another tower on that facility -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it depends how it's zoned. I mean, where do -- MR. BOSI: Ag. MR. REISCHL: Ag. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not zoned to have a tower by right? MR. BOSI: It could accommodate another tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well -- because if you look to the -- I think it's the north, you've got two towers co-located on Shirley Street and what looks like Naples Boulevard. I don't know. I'm not sure if that's Naples Boulevard. Maybe they're both on Shirley Street. MS. WESTINE: Ma'am, the School Board was given enough of a -- I've had the opportunity to read the newspaper articles about that tower. The School Board was not interested in allowing the tower to Page 159 October 13, 2015 be increased in height. My perception would be is that if they weren't allowed -- if they weren't going to allow it to be increased in height, they certainly weren't going to allow us a new 75-foot there. COMMISSIONER.HILLER: Well, I'm not sure they have jurisdiction. I mean -- MS. WESTINE: It's their -- they're the landlord. They own the property. So you're lease -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They own the property? MS. WESTINE: Yeah. Your lease would be with the School -- that's why I'm saying I couldn't -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I didn't know who owns it. I'm not sure -- I didn't know if it was, like, on the school. I mean, I'm on -- you know, it's not really clear from here. MS. WESTINE: No. It's -- the school owns the property on which the tower's on, and the School Board was not inclined after what I read about to either increase the height -- and my inclination would be, is they don't want to go through that again. With that said -- and I can't repeat it enough -- 75 feet wouldn't work, so we would have to come in for a conditional use at whether it be -- actually, candidly, it would probably have to be bigger than 150 because now we're moving south, so it would have to be bigger than even what we're asking for to continue to fill that hole. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I just want to make a couple comments. I live in District 5, which is well east of this subject area right here today. But I will tell you that in my area there's only one supplier of service and that -- that works, and that's Verizon. Now, that might not seem to be a big problem today, but as the east part of the county builds out, everybody wants this service. I don't know any other service that our citizens are getting that is more highly used than smart phones. Now, I don't know what the future's going to bring, but I do know -- you know, I just find -- I find Page 160 October 13, 2015 it troubling that everybody wants to look at their phone every minute but nobody wants to see a tower. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's not a question -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: They want the service, and we have to find a way to provide the service. So certainly I think we can find reasons under our current code that make these things incompatible, but I do believe that we're in a little bit of a conundrum because there's a problem. In the east we're going to have almost nothing but residential properties. We're going to have a very, very difficult time meeting the demand for service if we don't come to grips with towers. That's all I'm going to say. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we call the question, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion to deny and a second. Is there any further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. All those opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So the motion fails 3-2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you were in favor of the motion? CHAIRMAN NANCE: I was in favor of the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: The motion fails 3-2. Is there another motion? Page 161 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll just say one thing, and that is I listened very carefully to your last comments, and you're right. You know, people want their service. They want to get the service. They just don't want it close to them and yet -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: I understand. That's why I supported Commissioner Taylor on -- you know, on her motion, and I respect her because of that. But, you know, I do feel like there's something we've got to come to grips with somehow. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, again, it's not having as much information as I would like. What are the alternatives to this type of tower for service, and not three other towers? Staff, are there -- I want to hear from staff. What else can be done? MR. BOSI: Currently our code allows for rooftop locations within residential, say, multifamily zoning where you have taller structures. Any tall structures can accommodate rooftop locations. Whether there's rooftop locations to accommodate, I wouldn't be able to know. I have not performed a due diligence search within that. But what I can tell you, the code speaks to towers as the means -- the primary means. Rooftop locations are the secondary means to provide these wireless services. And, really, one of the things that you need to -- I think that has to be thought of, this is the 21st century infrastructure required for business in communication. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's essential that we have Page 162 October 13, 2015 communication. MR. BOSI: But the compatibility and the appropriateness in location to the residential structures have to be adhered to. But we have to understand that this is -- this is a necessary infrastructure for competitive advantages that Collier County citizens demand. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, you know, Mr. Bosi, you know, we're going to have all the growth management plans come up. You know, we're going to have four of them in the east and, frankly, I believe we're going to have to find a way, perhaps in Estates zoning if they're properly located away from existing dwellings, that we could possibly put some of these monopine towers out there. Because we actually do have a tree canopy that's as high as 80 feet. I don't think 120-foot monopine, if properly positioned in the Estates, would be something that would be, you know, awful. And certainly the people out there need something. So I think these sorts of thoughtful changes are going to be something that we're going to have to take a hard look at going forward because, like I say, these -- these smart phones are so powerful, and the service that's coming to them now is getting greater, you know, each year. So I think Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and sort of piggybacking onto that thought. Just understand, the technology's changing. These folks build towers; that's why they're here. I bet if we got -- if we went out and asked what is the future of the technology, something tells me that it may not be towers. And how old is our LDC? MR. BOSI: Mid '90s. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. In the mid '90s we said that rooftop towers are not what are second to the regular towers. This is 2015. We don't know. Technology is moving at the speed of light. It is unbelievable the changes as a photographer that I've seen in the Page 163 October 13, 2015 course of the last 10 years. And I know the telecommunications is doing the same. These folks are here to sell a product. It's a very important product. I'm not suggesting that it isn't, but I'm just saying we really don't have the final answer on the technology of the future, especially as we look at building out in the Estates and what needs to be out there. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Boy, I'm trying to add all of this stuff up in my head, but so many good points are made. I never even thought of rooftop towers. In other words, we don't have to have a tower that's in the middle of a neighborhood; we could have rooftop towers. Is that what you were referring to? And as -- and if we're going that way, why not start here, right? MR. BOSI: Our current regulations don't have any provisions for those type -- for that future. One of the things, I think, that we -- when we do study the improvements to the wireless communications section of the tower, is these -- those smaller system augmenters where they're located within your existing infrastructure that aren't specific towers but are provided for the industry for individual cell booths that are within these smaller cell areas. But as of now, the current regulations, we have towers and rooftops as the two location options to provide for these services. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll tell you how I'm torn. I'm torn between wanting the people to be able to get all of these signals that they need in order to carry on conversations. That doesn't mean that they can't switch to another phone system, of course. I would like to -- I don't think towers are very beautiful. But this one they've at least adorned with branches, so it makes it acceptable. But like Commissioner Taylor, she's thinking of her neighborhood, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. Page 164 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I like that, too. So I think I'm with you on that. Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to support Commissioner Henning at this time. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see what the problem is. I mean, right now we only allow towers, like you said, on rooftops or this type of tower. So we are not allowing the smaller towers; like, we're not allowing, for example, the use of existing infrastructure like a light pole. MR. BOSI: Currently that would not be something the code would require. I am not aware of any -- of our -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But to service smaller areas. Because you could have -- MR. BOSI: Yes. I'm not aware of any of the providers making that request to us yet. But I know that that will be something that we will most certainly address when we look at the code improvement. But that hasn't been -- that hasn't been an idea that has been requested from the industry to Development Services for that type of service yet, but I know that that is on the horizon. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's already existing in a lot of metropolitan jurisdictions. MR. BOSI: Your more denser urban areas you will have -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what's the density of this area? MR. BOSI: Basically -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't this a -- MR. BOSI: -- within Collier County's urbanized areas three to four units per acre. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this area over here, I mean, isn't this a denser area? I mean, when I'm looking at it it looks -- I Page 165 October 13, 2015 mean, I see, you know, the area where the golf course is empty. But the area over here is very dense. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Poinciana Village, there's multifamily plus single-family homes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, this is like a -- you know, Marbella and that whole area is densely populated. MR. BOSI: And that's directly correspondent, I think, to the reason why they need a tower at this location. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, no. I understand that. I'm just -- I'm disappointed that we don't have the ability to provide the alternative other than the rooftop or a regular tower. MR. BOSI: Well, our code does suggest that when we are in closer proximity that the design -- the concealment, as they're suggesting, with the monopine be more acceptable to be able to be more compatible. Whether that's a final determination of the Board as to whether that's acceptable, ultimately, that's the Board's decision. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. It looks like we have a lot of work to do on this issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought this was going to be so easy, you know, a nice little tree and no problem, and we're going to get more coverage, and all of a sudden this stuff is going on. It tears you apart inside. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's -- I think one of the reasons -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to have to vote, because since 10 o'clock we've done two agenda items, ladies and gentlemen, okay? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a big deal. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's you're fault. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning is getting ready to pass out over here, and he's got a motion on the floor. Did Page 166 October 13, 2015 somebody second it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You seconded it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we have any final comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the motion was? CHAIRMAN NANCE: The motion was to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: To approve it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve the Planning Commission's recommendations. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It fails because it needs a supermajority. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It needs a supermajority. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Oh, it needs a supermajority? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then, you know -- okay. I probably should do this just because of the -- oh, gosh. Oh, gosh. I should probably do this just because they need the coverage. And I'm thinking safety reasons and all of that business as well. I'm going to have to change my vote, and I'm going to vote with them 4-1 just because I think it's important for everybody to be able to Page 167 October 13, 2015 get coverage. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to reconsider your vote? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you want to reconsider your -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Make a motion to reconsider. MR. KLATZKOW: Make a motion to reconsider. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Make a motion to reconsider, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to reconsider. Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor of reconsideration, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Now, we're going to reconsider the vote. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we do it at the same meeting, or do we -- MR. KLATZKOW: Do it right now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to do it right now. There's a COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to approve and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Page 168 October 13, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: That's with the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning Commission's recommendation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Those opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the motion passes 4-1. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the reason I'm -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: With Commissioner Taylor in dissent. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the reason I'm opposing is that the cell tower in the LDC should be 75 feet. This is, I believe, 120. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is why they're before us for a conditional approval. MR. OCHS: Sir, I believe it's -- our court reporter could benefit from a small break. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just say one thing? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We get one agenda item and one break. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's your fault. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to come back at 3:45. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ten minutes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: 3:42 -- 3:32. MR. OCHS: 3:32. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm trying to give her a break here. I feel sorry for her; 3:32. Page 169 October 13, 2015 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's taken us two hours per agenda item. At this rate we're going to -- Halloween's going to be here, and we're not going to be done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: One thing really, really fast. This highlights that we have a problem with the LDC, and I think we really need to look at that. I don't know what you have to do to update the LDC for cell phone service, but there are real alternatives. And as we're developing to the east, we don't need towers. And I think what we ought to do -- and if I could make a suggestion in this -- talk to Bob Crown from Crown Corporation. He was the largest -- you know, the number -- the lead cell phone tower builder and owner in the country. He lives right here. And I think it would be well worth our while to get input from him as to what's going on as the future trend, because Commissioner Taylor is right, I mean, things are changing. And the problem we had this afternoon is this tower owner didn't have any choice except to build a new tower -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to the next item -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- or go to the rooftop, and that's a problem. That's a limitation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are going to go -- I think, Mr. Ochs, are we on the next public hearing, sir? Item #9B ORDINANCE 2015-55: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 08-41, THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD, AS AMENDED, TO REMOVE TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS FROM PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, AND ADD Page 170 October 13, 2015 DETACHED AND ATTACHED GARAGES, AND DAYCARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN TO PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES IN TRACT G; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FROM 850 SQUARE FEET TO 800 SQUARE FEET; TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION ON ONE BEDROOM NON-CHURCH-RELATED DWELLING UNITS; TO ADD A CROSS REFERENCE TO A NEW ESSENTIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL HOUSING AGREEMENT; TO REMOVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS AND TRANSFER THEM TO THE NEW ESSENTIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL HOUSING AGREEMENT; TO ADD NEW DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT G; TO ADD A NEW TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPER COMMITMENT RELATING TO RESERVATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PUD; TO ADD A NEW PLANNING DEVELOPER COMMITMENT RELATING TO DISCLOSURE OF SWAMP BUGGY RACES; AND TO REVISE THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING ACCESS POINT NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO ALIGN WITH THE ENTRY FOR THE LORD'S WAY RPUD TO THE SOUTH FOR THE PUD PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 69+ ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BLVD. (C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK RD. (C.R. 864), IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - ADOPTED W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS MR. OCHS: Yes, you are, Mr. Chairman. That's Item 9B on your Page 171 October 13, 2015 agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 8 -- excuse me -- 08-41, the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD. And, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate to swear in -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Swear everyone in. MR. OCHS: And then make ex parte disclosure. (All speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Ex parte communication. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs report and emails. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Staff report and a meeting with Mr. Yovanovich. I'd also like to disclose that -- and I communicated with the County Attorney and got his opinion -- that I don't have a conflict on this case, but I do want to disclose, just for the record, that Mr. Torres owns a fence company, a fence and gate company. And my contractor hired him to fence in my property, which he did, but the project isn't completed because the gate still hasn't been manufactured or installed. So that's pending. And I discussed that with the County Attorney to have him determine whether or not that created a conflict for me to vote on this case. And his -- in his opinion, it does not, but I did want to disclose that. County Attorney, would you state so for the record to make sure that the Board is comfortable with that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Well, based on what you told me, I don't think this is a special private gain or loss. Richard, do you have any issue with this? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure. Do any of the commissioners have any issue with this or -- Page 172 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the Ethics Commission say? COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's ask them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you'd like me to abstain, I can abstain. It's whatever the pleasure of the Board is, you know. I don't want to -- that's why I'm disclosing it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have no problem with it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think Commissioner Henning's correct. Now, you can participate, is what I understand; you can participate, ask questions, lodge an opinion, but you do not have to vote if you feel -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's not about whether I feel, because the issue is that if I don't have a conflict and don't vote, that's a problem. It's the opposite. It's not -- and I'm not -- there's no personal gain to me. I mean, in fact, it's -- you know, it's -- I'm not even the one in contract with him. It's my contractor who is in contract with Mr. Torres. Mr. Torres, you can state so for the record if you'd like. MR. TORRES: Yeah, that's correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Just another point of order to remind the Board that there's also a companion item to this Item 9B, which is Item 11 A on your agenda having to do with an essential service personnel housing agreement. And the question for the County Attorney is whether or not these two items should be heard together and voted on separately or whether they can be separate items or if you have a preference, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: You should hear them both together; vote on them separately. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Page 173 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We will do that then. I have read the staff report, I've had meetings with the petitioner, and I've had discussions with staff. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had -- I had meetings, many meetings and many emails. I mean, I have a whole stack of emails here, and also calls. I've met with staff, I've met with Rich Yovanovich, I've met with Bob Mulhere a couple times, met with David Torres. I met with David Torres' financier, George -- come on, Donna, say his name -- George Bauer, just a super guy. I met with the Hearing Examiner, met with the CCPC planners, and I also got a number of calls from people that Rich Yovanovich called to ask them to call me to vote for this. So I'm disclosing everything on the record. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I've had meeting with staff, there were some emails, and I just spoke to the petitioners just now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Henning wants to speak. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, what's the statute governing voting conflicts? MR. KLATZKOW: The statute boils down to whether or not Commissioner Hiller has a special private gain or loss here. From what she described to me, you know, in the conversation, I don't think she does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If she votes no for this, she's not going to personally gain or -- MR. KLATZKOW: The vote has nothing to do with this, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The bottom line, the vote has nothing to do with this? Page 174 October 13, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: This particular issue has nothing to do with her issue with Randy Johns, which is what this arises out of. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So she can vote on this. MR. KLATZKOW: She can vote on this, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So she needs to vote yes or no? MR. KLATZKOW: I think she does. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nobody asked me how I'd feel. CHAIRMAN NANCE: How do you feel? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you would be honest about it. That's how I'd feel. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Me too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to do whatever I'm advised to do, so I defer to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't see how one interferes with the other. MR. KLATZKOW: This item has nothing to do with your issue with Mr. Johns. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that Mr. Johns had an agreement with Mr. Torres to do work and that it hasn't been completed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why didn't you complete it? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. That's not on the agenda. And we're going to try to get another agenda item in here by 5:39, so Mr. Mulhere -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because Mr. Johns abandoned the job. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Mulhere, good afternoon -- good evening. MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes, here on behalf of the Page 175 October 13, 2015 applicants. And with me -- well, it's not evening yet. With me also here this afternoon, David Torres, who is the applicant; Gary Haines, who works with David Torres; Rich Yovanovich, who's our Land Use Attorney; and Emilio Rubau who is our Civil Engineer. I'll put this on the visualizer. So this is the subject site and surrounding area. The First Assembly's Ministries PUD is shown in the yellow box, Collier Boulevard. Naples Lakes Country Club is across the street, across Collier Boulevard. Now you'll note that the property that is the subject of this amendment is hatched. And we have no control over this. We don't own this piece of the PUD. We have no control over it. We're not affecting it. What we are amending deals with this piece right here, Tract G. And also I want to point out that Hacienda Lakes DRI and the Lord's Way 30-acre PUD surround this project on three sides. And Mr. Torres, with others, is the developer of those two projects. So, obviously, he has a significant interest in ensuring that this project is well done. This is the PUD Master Plan. And just to give you a little bit of background, the PUD is 69 acres in total size. It was approved first in 1999 and then amended in 2008, which is when the essential service personnel housing provisions were added to the PUD. At the time, Mike Davis was involved in having a bill passed in the state legislature that supported essential service personnel, and there was a lot of concern about the lack of affordable housing for the workforce. And I think there's some of that concern resurfacing now. And this project has now come back to life through this PUD amendment. I'm going to go over what we are proposing, but that exhibit right there is an overall colorized site plan which shows you the project. I'll leave that on there because I will be going over some components of Page 176 October 13, 2015 the site plan that we've agreed to which I think make this project somewhat unique and address the concerns that were raised in our public outreach. Tract G allows 296 multifamily dwelling units. What's interesting about this is that the GMP, the Future Land Use Element, was also amended in 2008 to create a subdistrict. And the GMP contains very specific language. We're not amending the GMP, so we have to adhere to that language that's in the GMP. We're only amending the PUD. And some of that language that's in the GMP and the PUD that we're adhering to requires that a minimum of 147 of those 296 units become available and offered first to persons involved in providing that essential service personnel housing that -- who provide essential services in Collier County. We are required to enter into an agreement with Collier County, and that is the companion affordable housing -- workforce -- affordable housing/workforce agreement that we -- that you are also entertaining at the time that you're looking at this PUD. So as I said, no fewer than 147 workforce and market-rate housing units are to be constructed and to be available to the essential service personnel. Thirty-five of those units are to be made available to those earning no more that than 150 percent of the median income, and a minimum of 25 are to be made available to those earning no more than 80 percent of the median income. So this project will focus on providing housing for the workforce for essential service personnel. We will be -- we have already met with and written to and discussed this project with many of the essential service providers in Collier County, including the hospitals, School Board, Collier County, as well as some of the ALF -- larger ALF providers, assisted living providers. So what are we proposing to change? We're not changing the density of 296 units. We are asking to reduce the -- to allow for Page 177 October 13, 2015 one-bedroom -- a certain number of one-bedroom; that's capped at 20 percent -- no more than 20 percent of the 296. We're also asking to reduce the minimum -- the minimum square footage which presently is 850 square feet for two-bedroom, because there are no one-bedroom permitted right now, to allow for 800 square feet for one-bedroom units for that 20 percent maximum. We want to add daycare as an allowable use but only incidentally to the residential use. It would not be commercial daycare. It would only be daycare for the residents. We are clarifying -- clarifying the 147 affordable/workforce housing units are for essential service personnel as we are now defining it in working with county staff. We're revising the affordable housing agreement, as I indicated. We've revised language regarding phasing, because the phasing was tied to roadway improvements which have already occurred. We've revised some transportation commitments and some setback commitments after meeting with staff and working through that language, again, to meet the staffs requests. And we've provided a number of commitments to address both the Planning Commission and the public's requests. We did have an NIM, and we also met twice independently with Naples Lakes Country Club. And that's a very active community. I've met with them on a number of other projects, and they were very involved in this project. And they requested a certain amount of construction commitments, and so we agreed to site design and construction commitments. We agreed to include in the PUD that we would provide a resort style swimming pool and clubhouse, which we depict on our site plan and is a condition of the PUD. We're also providing outdoor barbecue facilities, a fitness center, a dog park, a children's play area or tot area, tot lot, a tennis court, Page 178 October 13, 2015 bocce ball or pickle ball courts. We'll have a gated entry. We'll have on-site property management. This is intended to be a rental community. We will have on-site property management. As far as construction goes, we will use concrete masonry construction or otherwise concrete construction and stucco. We will either have cement or slate tile roofs. We will not use slate shingles; those are prohibited. We'll have a minimum of 9-foot ceiling heights within the first floor units, and we'll use paver accents at the project entry and real nice landscaping. There are some other amenities. There are some walkways around the project to engage the active community. We -- as far as we know, staff has received no letters of objection. We received some letters either supporting this project or generally supporting the need to provide more essential service personnel housing. As I said, we met with Naples Lakes. I think we've addressed their issues. We've met with -- there were others in the neighborhood information meeting who were not from Naples Lakes who also asked questions, and I believe we've addressed those issues. That concludes my presentation. I know you had a long previous item. I'm sure you have some questions on this one. I'm available, as well as these gentlemen are available to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. We are going to be completely around the horn. We're going to begin with Commissioner Taylor and then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm excited about this project. I'm excited about 147 units for essential service tenants; however, what happens if someone doesn't make the 14 days? Does it turn to full rent, or how does that work? MR. MULHERE: Well, after 14 days, the developer -- the management entity would no longer be required to hold that, that unit, Page 179 October 13, 2015 for -- they could lease that unit to anybody, not just a qualifying individual, if within that 14-day period that unit was -- somebody who was qualified didn't show up to rent that unit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's certain things we don't know about it, but I know a little bit about renting. And, generally, when you rent you usually, depending on the place, have to give a 30- to 60-day notice that you do not want to rent this apartment anymore. That's generally what you have to do. And, generally, management knows in advance who's going to stay and who's not going to stay. They know, generally. And so we have a situation where you're giving a 14-day notice with folks that may would -- would maybe want to rent it but it's not enough time wherever they are. Because I'm assuming people are going from rental spot to rental spot. I'm not assuming someone is moving into town and, you know, from a house they own, selling the house, and moving to rent. The rental -- the rental is a very unique market in that way. So I'm asking you, how can we work this out where folks in Collier County employees and the Sheriffs Department and the School Board and the Naples Police Department and the Marco Police Department and the Marco Fire Department, how can we -- how can we give them the ease of renting these spots by giving them enough notice so that wherever they are they can make arrangements? They can think ahead and plan ahead. MR. MULHERE: So I think in most circumstances you sign a lease wherever you are, and there's a period that that lease is good for. Typically seven months at a minimum, but maybe as much as a year, maybe six months. So you know, if you're renting -- unless you're renting month to month. I'm not saying there wouldn't be some circumstances like that. But most of the rental facilities that are in town here that are in the business of renting units have a lease period. Page 180 October 13, 2015 Typically six months minimum; usually longer. So you know when that lease period is up, and you begin to look prior to that time frame. You're not going to pay double rent. You're going to, you know, be looking to move in, as soon as your lease expires, to a new location. There may be some circumstances where that doesn't hold true and there's a month-to-month lease and somebody may be obligated to provide some sort of notice. And I don't disagree with that. The flip side, and what we're looking to balance here, is maintaining an economic competitive balance with the other rental facilities in town that don't have this same restriction. We still have to be economically competitive. And so that's where we came up with the 14 days and -- because anything like 60 days would be way too long. That would be just a competitive disadvantage. So I see Rich is standing behind me. Maybe he has a solution. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think to address your concern about the 30 or 60 days, we can include in our lease a requirement that the tenant give us 60 days' notice if they're going to renew. That way we have 60 days to put on the market and solicit a future tenant. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And I'm really okay with that, but I'm worried about that initial, because you're not going to hold these units. You're going to go to market, and it's a new product. So perhaps what we need to do is have a substantial and -- there's a word for it, and I'm reaching for it, but to make sure that everybody in Collier County Government gets a notice that there are apartments at this place that are available at this price. And everybody in the Sheriffs Department, well before, well before -- six months before. You haven't built them yet. Let's just figure this out so that we can make sure that we do everything we can to get these apartments rented to essential service personnel at a rent that keeps them in Collier Page 181 October 13, 2015 County and they don't have to travel from Lee. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. You know, I guess when we briefly spoke, I didn't totally understand your concern. The initial period of time, we can wait longer. We can do a 30-day period, 45-day period to -- for the initial lease of the unit. It's the releasing of the unit that we were concerned about. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we can, obviously, notify Collier County. We can notify all the hospitals, we can notify the Sheriffs Department. My understanding is, you would like to have the county also notify those people so they'll get at least two notices that these units are available and they should be getting a CO soon. So we can provide advance notice of these -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Advance, advance notice. MR. YOVANOVICH: Advance notice of the initial lease period for the apartments. So that -- that's not a problem is that -- you know, that 30-day period to let people know we're coming to the market. Do you want to come rent into this community. It's when that person decides to leave, we would like to have that shorter period to refill the rental. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So let's think about what would happen. We've got someone that rents it at the essential service rent, whatever that is. Let's just say for this conversation it's -- I mean, do we have a price point yet? Do you want to come forward with it? If you don't want to -- if you don't feel comfortable, don't do it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's going to be based upon the income level, obviously. Now, remember, some of the units are income qualified. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: The remainder of them are market rate. Page 182 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, there's 35 units that are at 150 percent or less -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- of the median income, and then there are 25 units that are at the 80 percent or less. So the vast majority of these units, whether they're market rate units or essential service personnel, are at the market rate, and even the 80 percent's going to be close. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So let's just say you have someone who would qualify for the base rate going in, and then -- and they rent it for a year and then they move, and then the -- it's not filled within whatever time frame we decide, and so it goes to market rate. MR. YOVANOVICH: It goes to anybody who is -- it doesn't have to be essential service person. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be someone who's not essential, like a lawyer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not considered essential service personnel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But then -- but then -- it's -- and it would be at a higher -- higher rent; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: It depends, because remember you have -- most of the units are at the market rate anyway. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All I'm asking is does it ever go backwards? Does it ever go backwards? So you have someone who is leaving, and they're paying -- an attorney is paying X amount, but then you have someone that is a teacher who wants the Page 183 October 13, 2015 same unit; do you ever go backwards? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. You have to still meet those numbers, the 25 units for the 80 percent or less, and then the 35 for the 150 percent or less. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We always have to meet those numbers. So we have to -- if there was somebody who is at the 80 percent income threshold, that vacates. We have to try to find someone in that category. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's for -- that's grandfathered in. That apartment must -- that unit must -- MR. YOVANOVICH: For a period of time. If somebody who's qualified doesn't come, then we can go to somebody that is not qualified. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then can you go back to someone that is not qualified? MR. YOVANOVICH: When that unit comes available again, it could revert back to being one of those units that is set aside for -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you will advertise -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you will let us -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And we have a continuing obligation to do that and report to you every year that we are meeting those obligations. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the agreement, Section 3, the efforts to attract ESP renters, the developer will provide a written notification to Collier County School Board. It's on -- but anyways, what is the definition of Collier County? Is that including the Page 184 October 13, 2015 constitutional officers, like the Sheriffs Department, or is it just one -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I need to -- I thought we had mentioned also that we would be contacting -- we can add "and the constitutional officers." It was the generic Collier County, so we can add "and its constitutional officers." COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which right now I think would -- under the definition I think it would be the Sheriffs Department would fit the definition of essential service personnel. Because you're already EMS. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're essential. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. So that would be the constitutional officer that comes to mind that we'd absolutely have to notify. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the ordinance, the PUD ordinance, it could be units for sale, too, right? I mean, it's not just rentals. It could be sold? MR. YOVANOVICH: Technically in the ordinance we can go either way, for sale or rental. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: But we're intending to go rental, just so we're all clear on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know. I mean, I always have great intentions, too, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way. I wanted to go fishing this weekend, but the weather didn't cooperate. So let's say your mind changes and they're condos. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't go to condo without coming back to you first and amending my affordable housing agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I have to come back and say, the world's changed. Would you allow me now go to the condo route, and we would renegotiate a new agreement. So although the PUD would Page 185 October 13, 2015 allow it, the agreement does not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all the questions I have. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We are adopting a policy today that provide for bonuses for essential services personnel housing. I want to go over again what is defined as essential services personnel. If staff could put the list on the board, or on the overhead. MR. KLATZKOW: That is Packet Page 185. MR. MULHERE: It's probably on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not all of us have agendas today. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. I wanted the public to see it. There's a reason. MR. YOVANOVICH: Your pages are different -- your page numbers are different than ours. Do you have it, Kim? MS. GRANT: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can correct one thing, Commissioner Hiller. We're not asking for a bonus for this. This is already in the Comp Plan, and it's already required for us to do this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what my understanding was -- and this is why I want to address it. It was -- before it was as part of your affordable housing requirement, I thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. The Comp Plan has always said that we were targeting essential service personnel, which is very different than affordable housing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because I thought -- then it's my misunderstanding, and this is based on our meeting. My understanding was that you had an affordable housing requirement, Page 186 October 13, 2015 and that's what I wanted to highlight, the difference between what the standards were for affordable housing, which is the income requirement, versus what we're doing which is targeting housing for essential service providers which is a list of different service providers that we deem to be, you know, essential, and not based on the HUD, you know, affordable standard. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a combination of the two. What we're saying is we want to target essential service personnel, which is the list of people that's on the visualizer; 147 of those units are targeted for essential service personnel. Within that 147 units, 60 of those units are, in fact, income qualified. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so you're maintaining the income qualification? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We're not getting rid of income qualifications that already exist in the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. So I misunderstood, because I thought what we were doing was something different. I thought we were substituting the affordable housing for essential services, and I want to highlight that one is, like, income qualified versus one is a list of service providers that are essential to the community. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not doing that, and if-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you put that list up? MR. OCHS: It's up, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, thank you. Forgive me. MR. OCHS: Under No. 2. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I see that. And so when you -- so if I understand -- I mean, this is kind of like a hybrid approach, because you've got the affordable housing now and the other. Like -- my mistake, because I misunderstood. So going to the income qualified, what if you have income Page 187 October 13, 2015 qualified that are not part of the list of individuals employed that are considered essential? Would they still qualify because they're income qualified? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They would not. So -- MR. YOVANOVICH: They would not. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're proposing is that they both be, for those units which are deemed to be affordable units, affordable and essential service providers? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I understand. And I do want to highlight, you know, when we talked about advertising, an issue that Commissioner Henning was bringing up, you know, obviously we can't -- I think it's inappropriate to ask you to target, for example, the constitutionals based on the list over here because this is -- what's identified as essential is teachers, educators, school district employees, community college/university employees, police and fire personnel, health care, personnel, skilled building trade personnel, and it says "and government employees." So for us to advertise only to the constitutionals, obviously, you have to advertise -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean -- and I don't understand quite how you're going to -- I guess you'll advertise to hospitals, you'll advertise through the CBIA, or how would you advertise, the -- you know, the -- I'm just not quite sure how you're going to -- and I'm not sure that we should be asking you to target advertise. I think that's probably asking too much. Wouldn't it be better to merely state you have certain units which are to serve this group of employees as just part of your advertising disclosure in general as opposed to target Page 188 October 13, 2015 advertising? I mean, you can do that if you want, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we committed to that because, one, we're committed to the program of-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- essential service personnel. And the only way for us to let people know is for us -- and we were going to take the burden, but we're happy to have the county help us with that burden of sending to probably the human resources departments of all the hospitals, the school district, the Sheriffs Office, Collier County. All of you-all have human resources departments, and I'm sure you can do an email blast to everybody saying, hey, here's a new apartment complex getting ready to open up. It's targeted for you. You-all qualify. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Will you have a general statement on your general advertising, you know, as a footnote that you have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- affordable housing and that you also have essential? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have essential service personnel housing. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that is a requirement that we let -- in our general advertising, let people know we're a complex that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- specializes in that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I do have another question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, all right. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. And then the other thing with the change in square footage from 850 to 800 square feet, these are going to be one-bedroom apartments? Page 189 October 13, 2015 MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically, like, a single-family one-bedroom apartment; is that -- MR. MULHERE: It could be a single person or maybe a husband and wife, but yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Got it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. So what we have here is two -- 23 acres, 23.6 with what, 296 units? MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So about 10 units per acre, which qualifies for affordable housing, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes. I mean, this is what the Comp Plan allows for, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And your description now, from affordable housing, has changed to essential services. But down through the years now, that affordable housing has changed to all kinds of different descriptions. From affordable housing, it became workforce housing, but then there were groups of people who said no, you know, our people work, too, so it's all workforce housing and affordable housing, and it's continued to change. So -- and essential services, although we're all talking about teachers and so forth, I don't know of many teachers who -- with husband and wife who want to live in an 800-square-foot unit with not room to -- no room to grow. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have two-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom apartments as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me ask you then -- and I've got many more questions. I understand that. Your salesman just took the podium there, huh? Page 190 October 13, 2015 MR. MULHERE: I was going to say that, you know, sometimes people for a year -- maybe they're looking -- maybe they're looking to buy, maybe they're not sure they're going to stay here. So, you know, they don't want to -- you know, maybe they don't want to waste money. Maybe it's a single person or couple that will stay in an 800-square-foot unit to save some money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, give me some answers then. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's what I was trying to do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We hear 35 will be below 150 percent. We don't know how far below. Twenty-five will be below 80 percent; we don't know how far below. Then that means that we have 147 units left of that initial -- 147 of that -- how many more do you have -- that would be anything? What are -- what are they in the 147? Is that 60 -- you've got the 60 in the top. MR. MULHERE: Well, there's 60 that are income restricted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Then there's number -- 147 minus 60, those whatever -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eighty-seven units. MR. MULHERE: Eighty-seven. Those would also be targeted to essential service personnel. Beyond that, there are no restrictions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then of the 296 units -- and you've got 147 accounted for -- what are the other 149? MR. MULHERE: Market rate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Market. And tell me what market rate is, because I don't know. MR. TORRES: Anybody. MR. MULHERE: No, I think -- you're talking about a dollar amount or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anything. I mean -- Page 191 October 13, 2015 MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not restricted. Anybody -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you asked me. I'm asking you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And what I'm saying is, generally we assume we would be -- those market rate units would very similar -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear from him. MR. MULHERE: -- very similar to the units across the street, the Aster, those types of units that are -- those complexes are full, and they're renting at market rate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But they had to qualify for the affordable housing qualifications. So tell me why this is different, and tell me they're going to -- what I'm getting at -- and let me tell you. We've said this before. You've got three commissioners here who have a great deal of affordable housing in their districts already, but what we don't have are the moderate income. We don't have moderate income, and people are screaming all over, we need -- well, they call it affordable housing, but I'll tell you folks, wait till you find out how the figures lie. It's very interesting, and I'll tell you about it. But anyway -- not these figures, not these; all figures. MR. MULHERE: But that's exactly what this project is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what -- that's what we're looking for. I don't know of a fireman -- well, my son. My son is an EMT, right, and he went to get some rental units, actually, at Aster, except he didn't qualify. You know why? He made too much money. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Making too much money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. So if that's moderate income -- and he certainly doesn't make a whole heck of a lot at EMTs -- what are you targeting then? MR. MULHERE: So in this circumstance there are only, as I said, 60 units that are income restricted and -- that we're trying to attract some folks to those units. We have an obligation to do that first. The rest of them -- use your son as an example; there are 236 Page 192 October 13, 2015 additional units there that would be rented at market rate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is market rate? MR. MULHERE: You're asking for a dollar amount, and I don't know if I -- I don't know if I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're trying to find housing for these young people. We're trying to get our college graduates back home. We're trying to lure people here to take some of the jobs, but they're entry-level jobs. But they're not going to go into -- they're not going to go into affordable housing. MR. MULHERE: No, no, I understand that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you and I both know essential services can imply whatever you want it to imply. I'm just trying to make sure that that part of the market, which we need so badly, is going to be taken care of, and I don't see how that's going to happen. MR. MULHERE: Let me just say this. Nobody else is making the commitments that we're making right here and right now to address that issue. Nobody else is doing that. And lack -- not having these units will not address the problem that you raise. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what I'm trying to do is -- I've been asking you all along. Make them a little bit bigger. Make them so that you can get families. Like an 800-square-foot unit for three people, that's what it is, one bedroom for three people. I don't know where the third one's going to sleep. MR. MULHERE: Maybe it's a baby. COMMISSIONER FIALA: These are pretty small. If you can't just -- if you can't move it up so that you can then attract -- I realize you can't get as many units in there. This was first designed for duplexes. Now it's not anymore. Now you've got four stories. And I just feel that -- MR. MULHERE: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if I were a teacher or if Page 193 October 13, 2015 I were a nurse or if I were a policeman or deputy, I wouldn't want to live in a little cracker box. MR. MULHERE: But that's only -- that's only going to be a maximum of 20 percent of the units. And just let me say this, the 800 that we're committing to is larger than the minimum size of the other two rental apartments across the street from us, which are 775. And we did start out at 750, to keep the record clear, and we were -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, you started out at 700. MR. MULHERE: And we raised it based on comments we heard from you and from -- also from the Planning Commission, and that's where we ended up at 800. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You started at 7-, then went up to 750 then 800. MR. MULHERE: Then 800. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, just to get the record straight. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So -- and I understand your concern. I do, and we -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And my concern is because I want those young professionals here. We need them in our schools. We need those young professionals who are out in the world who are bringing a different level of employees here. We need them to mix with our kids in these schools, because right now we're way out of-- we've got six Title 1 schools. MR. MULHERE: Well, the reason we asked for that, the one-bedroom, is to be competitive in the marketplace because everybody -- you have to have a mix, one, two, and three, and I think we discussed that with you. The second thing is, you know, our minimum size for the two-bedroom is 850. We're actually larger than that. We're closer to 900, so -- Page 194 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Minimum size is 850 for two people. MR. MULHERE: I'm looking to see, to get an exact size there. But -- so obviously there's a differential between a two-bedroom and a one-bedroom so that you can have less costs for the one-bedroom so that someone has a choice. They have a choice. They can say, well, I'll take that one-bedroom, you know. I may move to the two-bedroom after a while, but for now I'll take that one-bedroom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, they only have to -- they only have to rent for seven months, right? They don't have to rent for a year, right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We've reduced that to create flexibility, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, I asked you this yesterday, and you gave me a good answer, but I'll put it on the record even -- MR. MULHERE: I hope I remember what I said. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you will. It says here to remove the pool and the cabana, but then -- MR. MULHERE: So we didn't want people to be confused. The old PUD master plan had a building and a recreation -- it referred to a recreational tract up here. We are proposing to have a substantial clubhouse, pool, recreational facilities and, as I said, tennis or bocce ball or pickle ball, that type of stuff, the dog park, a walkway around here. So we really weren't removing -- I'm sorry. I should be speaking on the microphone. We really weren't removing the pool as much as relocating it. We are still going to use that facility that exists there. We're going to refurbish it and use it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So again back to, there are 149 extra units. What are they going to be? MR. MULHERE: The -- so there's actually more than -- there's Page 195 October 13, 2015 147 that are -- need to be marketed towards essential service personnel; 60 are income restricted; the difference, the 87, would still be marketed to essential personnel. All of the additional units, 296 minus 147, all those units -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: A hundred and forty-nine. MR. MULHERE: Are market rate. And those will be rents that are similar to the other rental complexes that are in the area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like? MR. MULHERE: Like the Aster or like Sierra Grande. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I give you a number? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I'm trying to -- I'm trying to see how -- you know, essential services are anything. We all think teachers and sheriffs. They are also the people who are the cooks in the school and the people who mow the lawns at the schools. I mean, we've got a lot of people that are crowded into that area. I wanted to know what price points you're actually going to -- MR. MULHERE: She's asking for a price. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I thought, and that's what I was trying to help Bob with, because I know the price point, that I could tell you in today's dollars, would range from 1,100 to $1,600 a month. So this is going to be a luxury apartment complex to attract young professionals with or without children who want to live here with all the amenities we're providing to diversify an area of Collier County especially -- and I know this is near and dear to your heart, Commissioner Fiala -- is the school system, is to bring in -- is to bring in those young professional families to the area, and at the price points we're talking about and the level of amenities we're talking about, we're talking about competing with the luxury apartment complex. We're not -- we're not targeting low income, if I could say it, Whistler's Cove type housing. We are targeting what the Aster provides. That's who our competition is. Page 196 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I want to believe you. I do. When I see this sprinkled all throughout this thing saying "affordable housing," "density bonuses," et cetera, no matter what you call it, it makes me think that maybe you're painting a picture for me that is better than what it's going to be. MR. MULHERE: That's not the case but, unfortunately, we have to use the terminology that we're required to use. It comes right out of the Comp Plan and the LDC. So it's a subset of the larger affordable housing provisions that we have already in our code. So we don't call it an essential service personnel housing agreement. We call it an affordable housing agreement. So we're constrained to use that kind of language. But we're not -- what we're telling you, that's what you're going to get. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you also committed then to base how you build and what you build and what you charge according to the commitments you make to the affordable housing? MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: And I did -- I think I mentioned, but in case I didn't, I just -- I mentioned that we committed to all of the changes that the Planning Commission requested. That's obviously how we got -- we did have a 7-0 vote from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, Commissioner Fiala, I had the same questions in my head that you have in yours which is why I was raising what I was raising, and I was getting confused between whether there was a complete elimination of affordable housing or not. And I actually thought there was and that we were going 100 percent to essential service provider housing, which is where we have identified there's a clear need. And that income qualification makes it difficult for those essential service providers to get the homes, because they do make above the Page 197 October 13, 2015 limit. So if someone -- you know, if they, for a family of four, say one -- for affordable housing, they say anything, you know, up to 150 percent of median income, and if median income is 60,000, then a family, let's say, of four, is making 90,000 but you take, you know, for example, a fireman who's maybe making -- or an EMT who's making, let's say, 60,000 and his wife who's a teacher who makes 40-, and that means they have 100,000. Now, suddenly, they don't qualify to have one of these homes, which is why we need that essential workforce housing category that bypasses the HUD threshold, because they're being excluded from that better-priced housing because of-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: This doesn't -- this doesn't -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It only does it for, like, 60 units. How many units are you preserving? MR. MULHERE: Sixty-seven. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sixty. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixty. MR. MULHERE: Sixty. No, no, no. That wasn't your question, I don't think. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it was. MR. MULHERE: Oh, I thought you asked how many -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many are affordable housing? MR. MULHERE: Under affordable, 60. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And how many are going to be non-income qualified essential services? MR. MULHERE: Essential services. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. How many is that? MR. MULHERE: Eighty-seven. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So we have 60 that's affordable but still will be targeted towards the essential workforce but it has an income qualification. And then we'll have 87 that will be Page 198 October 13, 2015 non-income restricted, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus there's another 149. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Plus 149, which is to anybody which could be essential or nonessential, affordable or non-affordable. That's just regular market pricing. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that was my concern. I echo your concern. So they are -- they're maintaining the 60, but they're adding, basically, 90 units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've already told me all of that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's what I -- I was confused. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, you sound like Rich, almost. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I was just very confused. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the last thing I wanted to ask you -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- oh, boy -- is you're talking about maintenance now, maintenance -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- of this, and rental needs close maintenance -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as you all know, right. Now, we had a place built on Bayshore. It's called Botanical Place, Botanical Place. They've had so many problems there because they had the different categories in there. And I'm sure that other people can tell you about that. I've sat in meetings where they've come in exasperated with the things that they've had to deal with. I'm guessing -- and I don't know this. I'm guessing it's because they weren't properly maintained; they weren't properly interviewed. I Page 199 October 13, 2015 don't know that. But the only way you're going to get a place that doesn't have the woes that some of these others have where they mix them all up is to have somebody in there that's guaranteeing that they're going to watch over it. I mean, you could get somebody like these gentlemen here, and they could say -- but they're not going to be living there. They're going to hire somebody, and that's -- you know, they've got to hire somebody that's going to be there on the property and be a good maintenance person; otherwise, it's going downhill just like the others. MR. MULHERE: I agree. And you actually have more control in a rental facility if you apply that control than you do in a fee-simple condition. You actually can maintain that both -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, these were rental, too, so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes -- through the leasing agreement as well as through on-site management. COMMISSIONER. FIALA: On-site management is important. MR. MULHERE: You know, it's an investment. You either take care of it or you suffer the consequences economically, you know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a bunch that probably are suffering economically. MR. MULHERE: I think there are some and, you know, we see them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's why I'm so nervous about this, folks. It's not like -- I know what we need. We're not having it. I see what has happened in other places. They tell me that won't happen here. I want to believe them, but I'm afraid to anymore. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: You know, I just would repeat -- which may be just -- again, the three surrounding, the east, the north, and the south properties all also under the control of the same applicant. So it's -- again, I think it goes without saying, it's really important that they do a good job here for their own investment on those other properties. Page 200 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, I'm trying to understand your concern. I hear a lot of emotion in your voice. Is your concern that there is more affordable housing in East Naples -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, uh-uh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or if you want a professional, like the firefighters -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got just as much in yours. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm trying to figure this out, because I think that we can -- may work it out if I understand your concern. If your concern is the other people that is deemed essential services along with the deputy, the firefighter, the teacher, if your concern is the janitor or the kitchen -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that isn't it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Your concern isn't that then? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That isn't it at all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm telling you -- here's what my real concern is, and I'll put it flat out. I'm afraid to believe anybody anymore because the rug has been pulled out from under us so often, all of us so often, and I'm afraid to believe the beautiful picture they painted for us. And then Rich had to go knock on people's doors to get them to ask me to vote for this. That makes me even a little bit more nervous. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to do about changing what they're proposing then? What are you going to do -- any suggestion you're going to change about their proposal? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can't do anything about it. Page 201 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just hoping to make them a little bit bigger, hoping to make it a little bit more of what I said initially, what we need is for the moderate income. MR. MULHERE: And I'm hoping that the conditions that we've put in place here that are all above and beyond what you would typically see, those were all directly requests from you and from other residents near Naples Lakes and also the Planning Commission. They're all in here. I guess the one area that we -- that you're still concerned about is the minimum size for the one-bedrooms, which are 800 square feet instead of, say, 850. We're still larger than the competition across the street. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would you build -- MR. MULHERE: Let me put a -- maybe if I show you a floor plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would you build an 800 one-bedroom if it's not going to be occupied? MR. MULHERE: We believe it will be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will be. I mean, I had lived in a couple that -- in two different occasions, a one-bedroom, and I'm sure a lot of other people have, too. I've lived in a two-bedroom unit with around 800 square feet. You've got to do what you've got to do, you know. And, quite frankly, when I get older, I hope I get around 800 square feet then, because I don't want to maintain it. MR. MULHERE: It might just help a little bit. I didn't think of this; I apologize. I should have thought of it, but this is a floor plan for a one-bedroom model. This would be the bedroom here. You have a great room here. There's a little lanai over here, dining area, bathroom, kitchen area. It's really a nice unit, and that's 800 square feet. Page 202 October 13, 2015 So, you know, again, the PUD allows presently for 850 for two-bedroom. We're going to be larger than that for the two-bedroom. But this was the size. We had the architects design these, and this was a size that worked well for the one-bedroom and kept the price reasonable in the marketplace. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, you know, I think that for some of the essential services people, the issue is the price point. If there's a quality facility that's got amenities and fits the price point, I think if it's a little bit smaller, they're going to make it. But if it's over their income options, they can't make it. It doesn't make any difference how nice it is if they can't afford it. If it's $3,000 a month -- it doesn't make any difference what it is -- they're not going to be able to come to Collier County. And I think the problem in Collier County is affordability and having the sort of new accommodations that people are really looking for with the new lifestyle. So, you know, I -- personally I went over the -- I went over the design and -- Mr. Torres, you know, a statement was made that you -- you were involved with the residential communities surrounding this entity; is that the case? MR. TORRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you're, I'm sure, interested in making this compatible with your other development. You're not going to want to put something in there that's going to be incompatible. And I see also where you have a proposal to add some connectivity, which I think is thoughtful. So I'm going to go to Commissioner Taylor and then Commissioner Hiller, and I hope there's a motion here somewhere. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to see if we have agreement on our board, because the monitoring, as I've heard from staff, it's hard to follow this through. So just tossing some ideas back Page 203 October 13, 2015 and forth. I'd like to have, County Manager, if you agree, your department to be the ones that the developer's required to basically send information of what's going on and that sometimes your department will be doing spot audits on it, and that's going forward. And I'd like that written into the agreement. MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask Kim to comment on that, ma'am. MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Those provisions are currently in the agreement. Let me see if I can find them for you quickly. Item No. 9 refers to annual progress and monitoring report whereby the developer should provide an annual report to my division. There is also, No. 16, where the delegation of authority to monitor is given to my division. And there's another location that does say we have the opportunity to do spot monitoring. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. GRANT: See if I can find that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are they monitoring? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Monitoring to make sure that the -- that these apartments are held for essential services or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not how they're maintained? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, not the -- no. MS. GRANT: I'm not able to quickly find the other element, but there is another element in here that indicates that we have the authority to, essentially, spot monitor and make sure that all the required documents are being provided and that the agreement is being adhered to. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Good. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Anything else, ma'am? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that's it. I'd like to make a motion to approve this item with some changes, Page 204 October 13, 2015 which would be changing the 14 days to 60 day. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's going to hurt them. MR. MULHERE: Initial. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I thought we talked about a 30- to 45-day period for the initial leasing of the unit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The initial, and then the 60 -- the 60 days would be afterwards. That would be, your tenants would have to give you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then -- so we're talking how many days, 30 -- I'm sorry -- for the initial? MR. YOVANOVICH: We talked about, I don't care, 30, 45 days, you pick. I know you're going to say 45. So we would -- the initial leasing the unit would be held open; the 147 units would be held open for a 45-day period. Then when that unit becomes available, we would include in our lease a 60-day notice requirement, and then we could notify people as those units become available, which means we would keep it open for another -- what would be the number of days at that point -- 30 days after the vacation -- yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Another 30 days after vacation, so -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that okay? MR. TORRES: Not after vacation. Let me just clarify. I mean, if we put a termination clause in our contract with our tenant asking them to let us know within 60 days, at that point in time we would go to the ESPs and say, hey, the unit's available. Can you please make a decision within 30 days, and that would provide us some room so that we don't have vacancy -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. MR. TORRES: -- to find somebody else in case those people don't decide -- decide not to. Page 205 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's fine. Were we -- are we okay with that as a board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. My biggest thing is I'm going to watch real carefully to see how they're going. I'm going to try and believe it like you guys believe it, and I'm going to watch everything. But boy, oh, boy, if you don't -- if you don't make this a credit to the community -- you've got all of those high-end communities sitting right around there -- you'll never hear the end of it from me. I guarantee that. MR. TORRES: I agree. And a lot of those residents have my number. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but they've only heard the picture you've painted, so I understand that as well. Okay. Just like these people. Okay. MR. TORRES: We will deliver. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'll second your motion with that proviso. How do you like that? MR. MULHERE: Fantastic. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I know Commissioner Hiller has no further comments because we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, wait. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's approving 11A. That's the agreement. And also a friendly amendment that notification also be given to the county's constitutional officers. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Essential services. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I would agree. And at the same time, if it's not too cumbersome, Mr. Ochs, I would like the -- almost double notification. I would like our developer to notify Ms. Page 206 October 13, 2015 Grant's office and allow her also to contact the human resources so it's double. I just -- I think it's so important. I do believe if this is a very successful project, word of mouth will carry a lot of it, but initially we've just got to get the folks in there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do want to say -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. That's a motion for 11A; is that where we're at with the agreement? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, 11A is the agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Go ahead. MR. KLATZKOW: Can we do the rezone first? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's do the rezone first, yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We've got Commissioner Hiller. Let's see what she has to say, and then we'll -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to withdraw my motion and make it a lot cleaner. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So with respect to the notification, I go back to this before. It is all government employees, not just the constitutional officers, not just Collier County Government. And I think to do advertising to a select group and not deal with all government agencies equally -- maybe the easiest thing is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I said. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you said the county constitutional officers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To include it, because if you read -- I know you don't have an agenda. If you read the agreement, it calls for the county, the School Board, the hospital, so on and so forth. So the question was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're missing -- no, no, you're missing the point. Page 207 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question was, did county include constitutional officers? MR. KLATZKOW: Are we talking the rezone, or are we talking about the agreement? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're talking about the agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They were talking about the agreement. That was the motion for -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'm saying is that government includes all governmental agencies. MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I understand, but my understanding is you were going to vote on the rezone first -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and when you took that, you were going to take care of the affordable housing agreement second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, but the motion was about the agreement. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I made a mistake -- I did not deal with the rezone. CHAIRMAN NANCE: The motion's been withdrawn. Let's talk about the rezone. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Call the question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. Page 208 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? MR. KLATZKOW: Before you do that, is that with the Planning Commission's recommendations? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Including the Planning Commission's recommendations and qualifications. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. So that is approved unanimously, 5-0. Item #11A AN AGREEMENT CONFIRMING ESP (ESSENTIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL) HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN LORD'S WAY APARTMENTS, LLC AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES AND STIPULATIONS THAT INCLUDE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS, CITY OF MARCO, CITY OF NAPLES, CITY OF EVERGLADES, FIRE DISTRICTS, SCHOOL BOARD AND NOTIFICATION TO ALL HR'S DEPARTMENTS THROUGH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT — APPROVED CHAIRMAN NANCE: Now we go to the agreement, which is Page 209 October 13, 2015 the companion Item 11A, which is a recommendation to approve an agreement confirming essential services personnel housing, density bonus, and imposing covenants and restrictions between the applicant and the county. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor, do you want to restate that? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I would like to make a motion to approve this, changing the notification day from 14 days to initial 45 days and to request that Ms. Grant's office, Mr. Ochs' office, receive notification when these specific units for essential service personnel are available so that Mr. Ochs' office can notify the proper -- or the agencies as identified as employing essential service personnel. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And Commissioner Henning's concern with the constitutionals are added? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I add to that? I really have a problem with us advertising just to the constitutionals when we have social security, water district, we have all these other governmental agencies, and what we should just say, generally, I think, is that all local -- all Collier County Government agencies will be notified by the builder via email that this housing is available for their personnel, and not limit it just to the constitutionals of the county. I mean, we've got social security workers, we have water district workers. I mean, what are we going to do, exclude them? Mosquito district workers. They're all essential. MR. KLATZKOW: May I make a suggestion? Can we go to the agreement? COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what we're at. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But if you look at Paragraph 3 of the agreement. Page 210 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what I was talking about. She doesn't have the agenda, so she can't follow. So he needs to put it on the viewer so she can -- MR. KLATZKOW: If we can put Paragraph 3 on the viewer, please. I'm trying to get clarification here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it wasn't trying to advertise just to the constitutional officers. You've got to read it. I know -- you've got to be along -- you've got to be prepared. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't have -- the question was, what does Collier County mean? Is it just Collier County Government? And I said, what about the Sheriffs Office, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Can I make a suggestion? To Paragraph 3 I think we need to add Collier County constitutional officers. I also think we need to add City of Marco Island, because I missed that one. But it was intended -- it wasn't intended -- the list of essential service personnel was not intended to be so broad to include every governmental agency. I think it was intended to be the specific ones in the PUD which is the School Board, your agency, City of Naples, I think, by extension City of Marco Island and probably Everglades. I think those are all the cities. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's inappropriate. That's what I'm trying to say. I don't accept that. I think if you're going to do -- if-- the intent is essential service providers is government employees. That's how it's being defined. And now you're going to selectively market to a few and exclude the others. I mean, like I said, if you -- if you're going to do it, I mean, you can do it. We have the executive -- we have the email addresses of the governmental agencies. We -- you know, it's easy to send an eblast to all of them and notify them. I mean, that's exactly my point. My point is is now you're targeting, you know, a select class of government and Page 211 October 13, 2015 excluding the others, and I don't think that's fair. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Isn't there a definition? MR. KLATZKOW: You could do "and all agencies identified by Collier County Housing." COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we are. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. MR. KLATZKOW: And then Kim can just give them the email blast. MR. YOVANOVICH: Why don't you-all just give us a list so I'm not in violation because I missed somebody. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's how it should be. Because, again, I don't think we should be targeting and not treating everybody equally. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, the goal of the law is all government agencies, government employees, not limited to these. MR. KLATZKOW: So we will add the phrase, after all independent fire districts, "together with all government entities identified by Collier County Housing." COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't agree with that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you take a look at the agreement, it's talking about essential service employees. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That we have identified as government employees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- well, you may have, but the actual -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think a prosecutor is an essential employee, and I can tell you they make very little money. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's speak one at a time. Let's Page 212 October 13, 2015 let Commissioner Henning speak for a moment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is there a second on your COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I don't have a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second it with the addition of No. 3, county constitutional essentials, Marco Island, Everglades, Naples. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: As recommended by our attorney. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he said -- the County Attorney said something different. MR. KLATZKOW: No. Commissioner Henning's made -- you've made a motion, Commissioner Henning's seconded it with the proviso that you're limiting it to the Collier County, Collier County constitutionals, City of Marco Island, City of Naples, and Everglades City. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the School Board -- MR. KLATZKOW: And the School Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and the local hospitals, independent fire districts. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically that excludes marketing to the State's Attorney's Office, the public defender, people who make very little money and who have the hardest time. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I can't approve that. I can't accept excluding those people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You see, it was objected to have just the constitutional, county's constitutionals off there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I want all government agencies. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, it's changing. Page 213 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, Commissioners. We have to speak one at a time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the objection of what I have. It's not the real issue. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support what -- the recommendation of the County Attorney, which is all government -- MR. KLATZKOW: That will be a different motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. It is a different motion. But what the County Attorney said was all government agencies, you know, identified by housing, and that's fair; otherwise, you're excluding, you know, so many government workers from the opportunity. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think there's a difference between all government workers and essential services. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's what we're talking about, essential service providers. You don't think a prosecutor is important? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Boy. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Just to ask the developer. Completely off the subject of who qualifies, by the way. We have a problem in my community. I live in Lakewood. But there is also a problem in Naples Manor where a couple will come in and rent a unit, and they qualify -- I don't even know if you have qualifications or if you will have qualifications -- and then lo and behold we find out that they've been parking cars behind the unit and so forth, and all of a sudden you have six people living in a one-bedroom or, as we had in Lakewood, 23 people living in a three-bedroom house, and -- but they were all related, of course, you know, and we have problems like that. How will you be able to keep a close watch on things like that? MR. TORRES: Yeah. In this case, the PUD has maximum Page 214 October 13, 2015 occupancies for each type of unit, which is something that is really not customary in other PUDs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I saw that in here, yes. MR. TORRES: So, one, we would be out of compliance, you know, with the PUD, so it gives the county an opportunity to say something. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So somebody will be watching that? MR. TORRES: We would also put a provision in our contract with the tenants. Now, if they don't follow those, we still have to follow the law and go through an eviction process and go through the legal way, which is -- which is not quick sometimes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you'll have an on-site person there so that the neighbors who do see what's going on can go to them and tell them that they're having a problem? MR. TORRES: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to call the question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have -- do you have another comment, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is passed 4-1 with Commissioner Page 215 October 13, 2015 Hiller in dissent. MS. GRANT: Mr. Chair, may I ask a clarifying question to the motion, please? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. MS. GRANT: The request for my department to make communication, is that just the first time that these are available or every time a unit becomes available? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I may be wrong, but it was my intention definitely the first time. MS. GRANT: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Going forward, I think word of mouth is what happens. MS. GRANT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And for clarity, because I'm not sure this was captured by the motion. If you go to Paragraph 4, you've changed the 14 days to 30 days? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes; no, 45. MR. KLATZKOW: Forty-five. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Initial. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the initial leasing of the unit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Forty-five days for the initial leasing of the unit and after that -- MR. KLATZKOW: After that is 30 days. MR. YOVANOVICH: After that what we said is we were going to include a provision in our lease requiring 60 days' notice and that we would hold that unit available for 30 days. So, basically, the way the timing would work is when the tenant moves out, because they've given us 60 days' notice, we could find the replacement. MR. KLATZKOW: So it's 45 days for initial, 30 days thereafter? I don't care about your arrangements with your leases. MR. YOVANOVICH: That works. That's fine; 30 days from Page 216 October 13, 2015 when we -- yes, when we offer it. That works. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Sir, that takes you to Item 11D. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got a question. Are we going to have a time that we're going to recess and finish up the other items tomorrow -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: We can -- MR. OCHS: -- like 6 o'clock? CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- or we can make a run at it here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm saying let's quit at 6 and come back. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's see if we can get done prior to 6 o'clock. Item #11D RESOLUTION 2015-213: A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO MAKE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY REPAIRS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE TRANSPORT OF EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES ON DELLA DRIVE AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO APPROVE THE EMERGENCY REPAIR FOR BLOCKS 20 & 21; THE COUNTY MANAGER & STAFF BRING BACK A RESOLUTION AND PROCESS FOR AN MSTU AT THE NOVEMBER 10TH BCC MEETING — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: 11D is a recommendation to approve a resolution directing the County Manager to take immediate action to make the minimum necessary repairs required to facilitate the transport of emergency service vehicles on Della Drive and approve all necessary Page 217 October 13, 2015 budget amendments. Ms. Arnold can make the presentation or respond to Board questions at the pleasure of the Board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I move approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and second. Commissioner Henning, and then public speakers. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sony, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a public petition to create an MSTU for Della Drive a few months ago. What happened to that? MS. ARNOLD: That was for Birdsong. For the record, Michelle Arnold. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Birdsong? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, for Birdsong. And, you know, if you are -- this action is to actually allow for the emergency repairs, and we would have to come back to create an MSTU for this -- for Della Drive. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand there's residents that are opposed to creating an MSTU? MR. ARNOLD: There are residents that are opposed to creating an MSBU. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you can't create an MSBU unless you have unanimous support. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not true. MS. ARNOLD: What you-all have done with Platt Road, for example, is you created an MSBU, essentially. They have to pay it back -- their -- the costs for the emergency repairs over a two-year period. Page 218 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So my concern is we do emergency repairs on a private property, and then you have a ton of people come in here objecting to it, of creating an MSTU. My preference is that we do them simultaneously, because commissioners change their mind when the public gets up here and say, oh, no, I don't want this done. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I believe there's a reasonable -- not to interrupt you, but I think there's a reasonable majority of people that support the MSTU at this time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those are the ones that are not going to be the vocal ones that come to this meeting. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: The ones that are going to come to this meeting, just like the anti-fracking people, are the ones who oppose it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, I do have letters from the -- from residents that are in favor of the MSTU, and I think we have at least one resident that stayed. There were a few people that were here earlier that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michelle, the Chairman said there are more than 50 percent in favor of it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I know there are people in favor of it. But I'm saying when you -- you should have the taxing unit in place before doing the emergency repair. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But -- and this is a point of order. Can we do this as its not advertised? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can't do it right now. We can bring this back. This is a board -- understand, this is a board policy. You can change your policy. Right now the policy is you've got an emergency repair, so we'll do the repair now, and we'll worry about Page 219 October 13, 2015 getting paid back later. If you want to combine it all into one meeting, that's your prerogative. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I believe that the policy is when the essential service -- when first responders, like the fire district and EMS, can no longer get there, the county, I think, has an obligation for -- based on health, safety, and welfare to do something. Now, the fact that we got there to begin with is very unfortunate, but -- and I did tell you that an MSTU in this area has been discussed for years, I think the whole time I've lived there and, you know, I think there have always been more people against it than not. At this point, I believe -- and I give the credit to Harry and Michelle for going out and meeting with these people repeatedly and talking about this and trying to, you know, demonstrate to them the benefits of this. I believe that we're there. But I do -- I don't believe when we have an emergency situation, respectfully, Commissioner Henning, that we can afford to delay if the fire chief is telling us that the road's not passible and somebody's not going to be able to receive service. So, you know, I support going ahead and working with this community to do the MSTU, and I've pledged that, you know, when they're ready, I will go out there, and I will do my very best to support what Harry has done and Michelle in reaching out to them. And that's what we've done in the past. I have not been heavy-handed and just been one to dictate, you know. Because usually when people understand and they have enough opportunities to discuss, they do realize that, and I think they usually do the right thing. That's what's happened in the past. So I -- Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, is there any way we could handle this the same way we handle seawalls, which is where a seawall is in a state of disrepair where -- Page 220 October 13, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to talk about seawalls. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's, essentially, similar, because if there's a state of disrepair -- in this case, they can't fix it themselves. Well, they could possibly, you know, jointly contract to hire someone to come in and fix it, but they choose not to. There is a public, health, safety issue. We have to come in and fix it for them and then turn around and lien the property pro rata for the cost. Because it's no different than with a seawall. I mean, it's privately owned property. They could choose to join together to fix it. They're choosing not to. And we have to get it done. I mean, the -- it's -- there's no difference between the MSTU and the lien. MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, this is board policy. Whatever the Board deems appropriate. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So can we weave the liening into the motion without having to go for an advertising? It's a different motion -- it's a different agenda item, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: It would be a different agenda item. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. No matter what we do, we have to -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right now, ma'am, I believe that our policy has been, when we have to do one of these emergency repairs, that they're going to have an MSTU imposed on them to repay the county. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's what occurs. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We fix it. They have to pay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Now, whether that MSTU goes and continues past that date, we hope we can be compelling and get them Page 221 October 13, 2015 to go ahead and extend that for everybody's benefit. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Commissioner, you have in Resolution 2013-221, it sets the procedures where, as Commissioner Nance has said, if an emergency official notifies you-all of a condition that needs attention, you-all have the ability to waive notice, which is what you did today, and direct the County Manager to proceed to correct the emergency -- the repairs, and then we come back to you-all with an ordinance establishing an MSTU to get the funds collected. There's also a provision in that policy that says that the -- you're giving the community an opportunity to do it voluntarily. But if they don't, then you have the ability to come back and impose that upon them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have the ability statutorily to impose the MSTU? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Without a vote? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, and then let's hear from public speakers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the same as liening it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. This road has been in disrepair forever, and it hasn't changed from what it is today from what it is (sic) in the past. The only thing is is we're dealing with it. And I'm telling you, I've been up here for too long when people come up here and say, oh, I don't want to pay for that. I'm just saying it's more appropriate to handle it all at once. The emergency was five years ago, 10 years ago. It's not going to change if it's two weeks from now. The emergency's still going to be there, okay. That's the only thing I'm saying. With these emergency Page 222 October 13, 2015 repairs, put it all together at once. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't disagree. County Attorney, I mean, is there -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's your policy, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But hang on a second. We've been put on notice by the fire district that there's -- MR. KLATZKOW: They can't get through. That's what they saying; they can't get through. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there a liability risk to us if we defer getting this repaired by two weeks? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a liability issue. It's public, health, safety, and welfare. If somebody has a heart attack down there and you can't get an ambulance down there because the road's not passible, that's a problem. If there's a fire, you can't get a vehicle down there, it's a problem. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'm saying is given that we've been put on notice by fire that it's impassable, do we have to act on it now because we've been put on notice, or can we wait two weeks? MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning's right. This road hasn't changed. What happened is the fire district just finally gave you notice. We didn't have a sudden storm event that wiped out this road. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. Do we have the ability to wait two weeks? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I withdraw my motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Why do we want to wait two weeks? MS. ARNOLD: We could bring an ordinance back in November. Page 223 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why do we want to wait two weeks? COMMISSIONER HILLER: To tie up the funding with it at the same time so it's all done at once. So the funding will be taken care of simultaneous with the direction to the County Manager to get it done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, what do you say? MS. ARNOLD: But you could -- you could direct the County Manager to do -- take care of the problem now and still come back in a couple meetings to do what you're wanting to do and take care of all -- that's the step anyway. You're not -- you're not delaying anything or -- you're not creating an additional step if you were to create an ordinance in a couple meetings. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why would we -- why would we delay on this repair? COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have an unfunded liability. I mean, if we're going to do it now without approving the funding -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Nance? MS. ARNOLD: You are approving the funding now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How are we approving the funding? MS. ARNOLD: You're authorizing the County Manager to go ahead and do the repairs with this action, which is what was being requested. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And get money from where? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to force them to pay it back, just like we -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's -- Commissioner Henning's right, because you're going to have to come back to form the MSTU, and you could change your minds. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we haven't changed our mind to grant it in the past. There was an item -- did we not? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There was -- Platt Road Page 224 October 13, 2015 was a slippery slope. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Platt Road was a slippery slope. And neither one of those the people came to us and said, create an MSTU. It was the fire department saying, you know, you need to have this fixed. You don't want to have that dialogue up here. And if you want to have that dialogue, have it all at once. I mean, I'm not here to play Santa Claus and then come back and be the Grinch later on by saying you're going to have to pay for this when all the intent was to do that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. What's the methodology? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the methodology is do it all at once. You create the MSTU, you loan the money, do it in budget amendment -- and, by the way, where are these funds coming out of? Is it coming out of your budget? MR. CASALANGUIDA: General Fund reserves, sir. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You have to do that budget amendment at the same time; do it all at once. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because right now you don't have a budget for this expenditure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And part of the request is doing a budget amendment? MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, for it to be a valid expenditure you have to have -- for it to be a valid expenditure, you have to have the budgetary award. MS. ARNOLD: Right. Part of the request is to do a budget amendment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, if I could -- because we talked a little bit about this before. Page 225 October 13, 2015 One of the issues, a companion item, is to deal with this in the summertime when we get that notice. And it is a concern when the fire department gives us a letter that says we can't get down there anymore. The County Manager, through the Emergency Ordinance, is allowed to expend funds as it is, but it's on private property. You're amending this by resolution now by saying that he could go forward and do this. To address Commissioner Henning's concern, you might want to say, a meeting immediately following that expenditure, he would bring that MSTU back to the Board for approval. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't agree. I think Commissioner Henning is correct. Okay. You've got -- I mean, this should have been thought of before you brought it forward today. I mean, the bottom line is you have what, in effect, will be a loan, what hasn't been budgeted for. It is on private property. I mean, this goes to the whole issue of public purpose. Now you've got an expenditure which will occur, let's say, next week, and it's not for a public purpose because it's on private property. Now, if we're lending the money, then we're not actually expending it because we're lending it, and we're going to be paid back. There's a difference between a loan and an outright expenditure, but we don't have that in place. MR. OCHS: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: How? MR. OCHS: You have a resolution in place that provides for what's being recommended by staff. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's not on our agenda. We don't have -- MR. OCHS: Yes, it is. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have on our agenda a Page 226 October 13, 2015 resolution that says we're creating an MSTU and we're giving a loan and getting paid back? MR. OCHS: No. The resolution you have adopted allows for a notification by the fire chief that a road is impassable for emergency vehicles. Once that notification is received, I have a duty to bring it to the Board on the agenda and ask for you to allow me to make the emergency repairs. Then the benefiting parties under the resolution have six months to repay the cost of that improvement. If they fail to do that, then I'm obligated, under the current ordinance, Commissioner, to bring it back to the Board and ask you to impose an MSTU to recover the county's costs. That's exactly what happened in the Platt Road situation, chapter and verse. I think what Commissioner Henning is saying that, you know, there were many people on Platt Road, when it came time to impose the MSTU, had selective forgettery or, you know, didn't want to go forward with that, so the commissioner is suggesting let's short-circuit that resolution and find maybe a better way and make the commitment up front. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Because what you have is -- if you're imposing -- if you're creating a situation where you're imposing a loan on these people, and it's essentially forced, it's a lien, because you can't have, like, a non-secured loan and -- it's not an unsecured loan. It's going to be secured by some repayment through this property. And whether the repayment is through a lien on the property or through an MSTU, which obligates them in their taxes, it's one and the same. MR. OCHS: I guess we should have had this discussion a year ago when we did Platt Road, because we've followed the procedure Page 227 October 13, 2015 precisely as it was adopted by this board in your resolution. If you want to change that policy, then let's do that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: If Commissioner Henning wants to go direct to it, I'm in favor of it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we have a motion? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? Let's hear the public speakers as well. We've got one gentleman that's been here all day. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. All I'm saying is the policy doesn't work. Now, I read an editorial chastising the Board, why didn't you think of that before? It's not -- it wasn't in front of me before, Leo. It's in front of me today. And I'm telling you it doesn't work. I like to do it better. Even though it's a policy, I would like to do them both simultaneously, so I'm going to make a motion to continue this item, bring back an ordinance of creating an MSTU for the repair, maintenance. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, we're going to have to advertise that, so you're going to have that delay. MR. OCHS: We'll come in November. MS. ARNOLD: November. MR. KLATZKOW: It will be coming in November. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I can't support it because our -- through our policy with emergency services, they've said we've got to -- we have an emergency problem that they cannot respond. So, I mean, going forward I can support that methodology, but I don't want to delay anymore because I don't want somebody coming back and saying, look, you had due notification. You had an emergency situation -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can lien the property. Page 228 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and did not take action. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can lien the property. MR. KLATZKOW: You can't lien the property. Under what basis can you lien the property? COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the property that we're making -- on the basis that we're making -- no different than what we're doing with the boat docks -- sorry -- yeah, not the boat docks, the seawalls. MR. KLATZKOW: But the seawalls must be -- that was supposed to be an MSTU. It just -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not talking the seawall related to Marco Island. I'm talking about our seawall ordinance that provides that if there is a failing seawall and a repair has to be made on an emergency basis, that the private property owner doesn't make, we make the repair and we lien the property. There's no difference. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was that a motion? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, then we'll need a whole new ordinance for that then. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then maybe that's what we have to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear the public speakers, and then we'll continue this conversation. MR. MILLER: Dr. Joseph Curione will be followed by William D. White. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, based upon what was said -- MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Curione left. He had to leave. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- here and your comments, I can support this item. I have to support this item. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I just think when we -- when we have a situation where we have a board policy that says when we have Page 229 October 13, 2015 a need to make an emergency repair, we need to do it. If we want to change it hereafter, I support it fully. But I don't want to leave somebody hanging and then have some disaster and then everybody go, well, wait a minute. It got caught in procedure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Based upon that we change the policy, then -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will support it, absolutely. MR. MITCHELL: Your first speaker will then be William D. White. He will be followed by James France. MR. WHITE: Jim is gone. MR. MITCHELL: So this will be your only speaker then; Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Well, I guess it's good evening, Commissioners. This has been a very interesting day here. I have been a resident and owner of Della Drive for 20 years. And Commissioner Henning is correct, the road hasn't changed in 20 years. I've presented you with what I'm going to talk about, which is basically laying out the groundwork for the current conditions. But for the public, the Della Drive private roadway is bordered by 80 half-acre lots and seven one-acre lots. For the most part, the first 18 lots pay individually and through group cooperation to maintain their individually owned roadway property in acceptable condition. The roadway condition deteriorates dramatically from that point to the north end of the private road. The unacceptable condition referred to by the local emergency officials exists in the northern two-thirds of the roadway, which county land records identify as Blocks 20 and 21. The southern portion of the acceptable roadway is identified as Block 40. To declare the entire roadway as impassable is an overstatement. The problem does not exist in Block 40, as it does not raise itself to Page 230 October 13, 2015 that kind of condition. I would request that the Board of County Commissioners pass the recommendations being made but only for Blocks 20 and 21, and that the owners of the properties in Blocks 20 and 21 be assessed for the emergency repairs which are now needed due to their failure to provide adequate maintenance of their property, much like Commissioner Hiller has mentioned about the waterway areas. I would also like to request that the Board of County Commissioners establish an MSTU, which was earlier discussed, to make permanent impervious improvements to the entire roadway length, 20 foot wide, 10 foot either side of center line, for the entire length of the road, taxing each property owner for improvements and the subsequent maintenance of the improvement. The formation of the MSTU is the only way to ensure the future maintenance. I further request that the Board of County Commissioners appoint a committee of property owners on Della Drive to assist the designated county officials in determining the scope and schedule of the improvements and the maintenance in the future. And thank you very much for your time. It's only taken me 14 hours to say this. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. White, for your determination. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This should be the motion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion -- I'm going to make a motion to approve Item 11D, and I'm going to make -- include in the motion to request that the County Manager and staff come back with an amended resolution and process for following up emergency repairs to private roads with MSTU formation and allow our staff to go forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second by Page 231 October 13, 2015 Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't support that because those -- the facts of the case as presented by the speaker are different than, you know, what has been, you know, recommended by staff. What the speaker has presented makes absolute sense. And I'm very concerned by what I'm hearing, that a fire official has made a determination that something's an emergency that Commissioner Henning and the citizen has said have been the condition of the road for the last -- how many years did you say? MR. WHITE: Twenty. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sony, 20 years. I think what we need to do -- because to -- you know, I am concerned about the county's liability if we don't repair. I'm also concerned the Fire making a claim that something is an emergency, which apparently has been the condition for 20 years. And I think what staff needs to do is call Fire and say, is this really an emergency as it relates to Blocks 20 and 21. As it relates to the MSTU beyond 20 and 21, that certainly can wait till the next meeting, and we can create the MSTU to do exactly what's being requested here to pave the entire road. But as to the emergency repair, I don't believe it's real, based on what Commissioner Henning said and based on what Mr. White has said. And so, you know, we have a fire commissioner, for whatever reason, has made a claim that something's an emergency that clearly has never been an emergency. And unless conditions have changed, based on the representations of a commissioner and a resident on that road, I mean, I don't believe that we have the pressure to approve this as Commissioner Nance is saying. And we're setting a very dangerous precedent. And Fire, you know, can't do this if it isn't real. I mean, you can't scream fire when Page 232 October 13, 2015 there's no fire. Isn't that how -- or wolf, sorry. Is it crying wolf? CHAIRMAN NANCE: When the fire chief sends an official letter, I'm going to take him at his word. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm not -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- not based on what I'm hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I drove Della, and Mr. White is spot on what he wrote, and that's actually what the motion should be, just put this in the record for that to be the motion, because he's absolutely correct. You enter Della Drive. The front half is maintained, and then the middle half is not pass -- or is a concern. I mean, it's going to slow down responses. That should be repaired, like Mr. White has said, then the Board creates the MSTU to have the continuance (sic) maintenance. Now, I talked to the chief this morning. He says, what happened was a citizen contacted them and asked, would you have your staff go down Della Drive and see if you can get your fire truck down there. And the letter's within the backup, okay. So we are put on notice, there's a problem. MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the problem is in the middle section, like Mr. White outlined. You don't have to spend a whole bunch of money at the initial; just fix it to the minimum, that certain area -- it's not going to take $11,000, in my opinion -- and create the MSTU and continually maintain it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I agree, and I believe staff has demonstrated a very good ability to develop these programs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you consider amending your motion -- Page 233 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- to reflect what -- and would the seconder agree? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll call the question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There's a motion and a second. MS. ARNOLD: Could I just say that I did receive other letters that I promised that I would give them to the commissioners for this particular item as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to vote on accepting those or not. Because if it's a part of our consideration, we need to vote on accepting it. MS. ARNOLD: Do you not want to accept the letters? COMMISSIONER HILLER: How long were they -- when were they submitted to you? How long ago have you -- when did you receive them? COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long have you had the letters? MS. ARNOLD: They came to me last night. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you should have sent them to us this morning by email ahead of the meeting. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The county -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) Page 234 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's let staff-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify. That motion said that we're going to impose the MSTU at the next board meeting, right? That's part of the direction? MR. OCHS: No. Ma'am, I believe we said November because we have some notice requirements. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have notice requirements. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it is going to -- but we've -- that's part of the motion that we're creating the MSTU? MR. OCHS: Yes, yes, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. MS. ARNOLD: And we're not making the repairs at this time. MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we're making the repairs. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, we are? Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But only -- only to -- only to the area that's defined as Blocks 20 and 21. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's needed. We don't know for sure that that's needed. CHAIRMAN NANCE: What's needed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But, you know, I really have a concern with what Fire has done here. If the condition hasn't changed, how can they suddenly -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we on break now? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you want to take -- do you want to take a break for the court reporter? Let's take one until 5:23. (A brief recess was had.) Page 235 October 13, 2015 Item #11F REQUEST THAT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO THE SCOPE OF SERVICES ENUMERATED IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PREPARE AND SUBMIT AN EXPENDITURE REPORT IN THE FORMAT AND CONTENT SPECIFIED BY THE BOARD - MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING — APPROVED COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make a motion to continue 11F. MR. OCHS: To next meeting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eleven what? COMMISSIONER HILLER: 11 F. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to continue Item 11F to the next meeting. Any discussion? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: Call the question. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed? Page 236 October 13, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It's continued. Item #11E AWARDING INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #15-6488, COURTHOUSE FIRST FLOOR RENOVATIONS, TO DEC CONTRACTING GROUP, THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,747,815, WHICH INCLUDES A $100,000 ALLOWANCE FOR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to 11E, which is a recommendation to award invitation to bid for Courthouse First Floor Renovations to DEC Contracting Group. They were the lowest responsive bidder in the amount of$1,774,815 (sic). COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and two seconds. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) Page 237 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's approved 5-0. Item #11G RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2015- , MODIFYING ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES RELATING TO EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF PRIVATE ROADS - MOTION TO REVISE THE POLICY AND BRING BACK AN ACTION ITEM — APPROVED MR. OCHS: The next item was Item 11G, and was previously 16D15, moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Henning's request, and that was the recommendation to approve resolution modifying established procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads, and this is the resolution we've just been talking about. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? MR. OCHS: Sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The policy needs to change that an MSTU will be formed at -- simultaneously when the repair is made. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree to that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: To fund the loan? COMMISSIONER HENNING: To fund the loan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fund the loan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, do you also support or reject the other element of this, which was to allow the County Manager, during the Board's official vacation, to approve? Page 238 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: I support that, in which case it would have to -- the MSTU would have to be set up upon return of the Board, though. MR. OCHS: Yes. So would you like me to address that in the revisions to the resolution? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have to approve an ordinance creating the MSTU. That's -- and do the repair. And, again, these roads don't change. It was an emergency the day that you get the letter from the chief; it was last year, too. So I don't see what the emergency is. The only emergency is you're made aware of it. Do you see what I mean? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't think that's necessarily the case, Commissioner Henning. I think there can be circumstances that create an emergency, and I believe those are the ones we need to attend to. The chronic problems, that's another issue, but we have a lot of-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think we have to define, you know, emergency and who has the authority to recognize something as an emergency. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the Florida Statute says only the Board of Commissioners can create an emergency. MR. OCHS: Create an emergency? I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are living proof of that today. We have met the enemy, and we are it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it is up to us to define exigent circumstances, and I think it should be up to us. And we have staff that can go out and can, you know, talk to emergency service providers and get their input as to whether they deem something to be passible. But I think Commissioner Henning is correct, we, ultimately, are the ones who should make that decision. MR. OCHS: All this item was was -- you have already adopted a Page 239 October 13, 2015 long time ago a resolution that allowed me to take certain actions while you're off on your summer break. The question here was, if I get a notification from a fire chief that there's a private road that's impassible in the -- late July which you're not here, do you want me to wait till September when you get back, or do you want me to do something about it? CHAIRMAN NANCE: I am going to make a motion that we adopt this item today pending revision of the policy just so we don't leave ourselves in a lurch and find ourselves where we cannot act. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that, but we can still keep the same policy if we so choose, correct -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we've had in place so that the County Manager can just jump if need be? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, that's what we're allowing him to do with this item. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first of all, the recommendation is when we're on break over the summer, right? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So with all due respect, I think that we can do revisions to our policy prior to our break. Second of all, we have an emergency, like a storm event, we're called back in. Why don't we just give all that stuff-- from what you're saying, we'll give all that stuff to the County Manager, let him do it, that way we -- you guys could stay on break. Just -- I mean, it doesn't make sense. Again, there's no emergency. These roads are -- the condition that they are, they have been for six months, a year. Mr. White said 20 years. So there's not a need for it. Page 240 October 13, 2015 The direction should be bring back a revision that an MSTU and action item for repair be -- happen simultaneously. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Didn't we just do that? MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We just did that, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: But that was specific to Della. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: So we'd have to change -- this is looking at your existing policy. And so we would bring back the policy to allow for that to exist -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- whenever these items are created. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I mean, that's the motion I would make. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, I'll change my motion to that. If it gets support to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can support that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- work on the policy and bring it back, I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is that okay with the second? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's fine. That's fine. We're going to have another, you know, bite at the apple, so -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think in bringing it back, number one, you know, exigent circumstances has to be defined, and who makes the determination as to these exigent circumstances has to be identified as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I agree. Okay. Any further discussion? Page 241 October 13, 2015 (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Very good. I believe we have — Item #14B1 THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) BOARD TO INVITE PROPOSALS FOR THE SALE AND/OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CATALYST PROJECT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND DAVIS BOULEVARD AND RETURN ALL PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD — APPROVED MR. OCHS: We have Item 14B1. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a second. This is an invitation for proposals on pricing concept. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 242 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: 5-0, unanimous. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 15, staff and commission general communications. A couple of quick reminders, Commissioners. You have your November workshop scheduled for November 3rd at 1 p.m. for presentation on our Water Resource Management Program. Also this Thursday, a reminder of the Collier County legislative delegation hearing meeting at North Collier Regional Park from 9 to 11 a.m., if any of you are interested in attending. And, finally, after a long day we can leave on a good-news note -- I don't even have to put this up. I can read it. But I just wanted to advise the Board we got notification today that our community rating -- system rating is going to be reduced from a current Class 6 to a Class 5, and that includes the City of Naples as well as Collier County, and Marco Island is working toward that. That means that there's an aggregate total flood insurance premium savings of more than one-and-a-half million dollars by the reduction from 6 to 5 in our CRS rating, so that's a very positive development. CHAIRMAN NANCE: What do we attribute that to, Mr. Ochs? Page 243 October 13, 2015 MR. OCHS: Well, a lot of good work by our Floodplain Management Committee looking at our codes, make sure that we're doing all of the right things in terms of flood mitigation that FEMA has outlined. Nick, anything else I'm missing there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Just a couple years ago we were a Class 7. So the last four years we've gone from a 7 to a 6 to a 5. That's outstanding. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done. MR. OCHS: That's all I have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's because of the regulations we've adopted? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do the LiDAR maps get into that in any way, or did they help us any? Or are we not doing any more LiDAR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, ma'am? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the LiDAR maps help us with that reduction? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's everything. It's the county having policies and procedures in place, us notifying residents. It's public outreach. It's the way we maintain our facilities. It is a litany of tests we have to pass, and we, you know, got from a 7 to a 5 in the last four years. That's fantastic. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But did it also have to do with redoing the where, you know, we had so many areas -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that were identified in the flood zone because -- and -- but they were incorrect, and then they were redone? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And in the fact that out in the Estates we were undesignated zones. Now they're designated. So the maps, Page 244 October 13, 2015 but more importantly it's what staff did, ma'am. It's your floodplain coordinators, what they submitted to the ISO that got the certification from 6 to 5. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's good. Congratulations. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner comments. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, thank you. Thank you. As chairman of the TDC at our last meeting, there was a public presentation, and it was echoed by the majority, really unanimously, on our board that the TDC at our next meeting is going to undertake exploration of re -- oh, boy. Here we go. It's the end of day — re- appropriating or rejiggering the TDC money that was done two years ago to take a look at it again. There's a great deal of concern that the reserves for the beach are not enough in case of a catastrophic event. So this is not going to be put in stone. It has to come to us. But I would like to see if I got -- I have support to allow the staff to assist Mr. Wert and Mr. McAlpin to present to the TDC at the end of this month, and that's it. That's what I would like. Do I have consensus to allow the staff to do that? CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can discuss anything you want by me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and to bring the staff-- to have the staff assist in the process. MR. OCHS: This is a pretty controversial move, Commissioners. And I'm fine with it. Obviously, whatever the Board directs. But I did discuss this with Commissioner Taylor, and she was kind enough to bring it forward first so I could see if there's consensus before we engage in a lot of staff work on reallocating dollars that this board's not interested in reallocating. This is reallocating the four cents among the different categories, sir. Page 245 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: How much work is anticipated, Commissioner Taylor? I mean, do you just want statistics on this, or do we want some sort of huge evaluation? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's just -- it's really looking at it -- I think the statistics are there, but to have staff assist so that whatever's presented at the end of October is accurate, and whatever -- if it does come to us, whatever's brought to us is accurate based on staffs assistance, and there would be -- MR. OCHS: I'm obviously not concerned about the volume of staff effort. I just want to make sure from a policy standpoint there's consensus on the Board to start down that path. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. We just did this. I mean, we, literally, over the last couple of years did a full reevaluation of our reserve requirements, of the allocation of TDC dollars between re-nourishment and marketing. I think to do did it at this point doesn't make any sense. It -- what we did has worked and has proved to be very positive on all fronts. I mean, we're good on beaches, and we're -- we've, you know, been really good on marketing and have had good results. I think to go back and try to change what we just changed, in light of the success that we've had, doesn't make any sense. I don't see the benefit of doing that. I don't see a problem. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The stated purpose is to build up the reserves of the beach -- the beach fund, which are -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the beach reserves are being properly built up based on the cost of the re-nourishment plan, and -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Didn't we just get $7 million, Mr. Ochs, for that? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Page 246 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no need to build up reserves. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much are we short, Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The feeling of Mr. McAlpin is that the every-two-years or every-year beach re-nourishment is spot re- nourishing, and that if we're going to do something that builds up the beach, we eventually are going to have to do a hopper dredge. And we're not talking about next year, but we're talking about building up to doing that. And if we need the money to do it, that's -- that is the concept behind it. And at this point the reserves of Mr. Wert's marketing advertising are so great that he's now putting money aside for a sports facility. He's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me back up to just -- first of all, Mr. McAlpin is not a feely person. He's a factual person. Are you saying going back beyond the policy -- going above and beyond the policy, I think it's a 100-foot beach width? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying that the big hopper is to extend that policy of 100-foot, or are we going to be short on the 100-foot? MR. OCHS: No, I'm not saying that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm just kind of talking in the mike and looking over that way. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So -- I don't know what you mean by that. I know that the feeling -- excuse me. Mr. McAlpin -- and I wish he was here because he could articulate this better than I. The feeling of-- the concept is to build up the reserves in the beach fund in order to do -- eventually do a hopper dredge. Page 247 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The discussion on the TDC is that there is a support to look again at looking at -- excuse me -- I can't even say -- it's the end of the day -- reapportion -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Widening the beaches? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not widening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Re-nourishing the beaches. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Re-nourishing the beaches. But on the TDC Board itself, there is, I would say, close -- including, except for one, all the hoteliers who want to take a look at changing the way we apportion the money coming in. So we're talking about looking at it from 2013 and going back, I believe, to that. Certainly within the statute there's no -- there's not a question of not doing it. But the question is, these every-two-year beach re-nourishments are a quick fix but not what we should be doing in order to maintain our beaches which is why people come. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. If Coastal Management thinks there's a problem, then they need to prepare information and bring it before the Board. If they don't think it's a problem -- MR. OCHS: No. They need to prepare information and bring it to me. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bring it to you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, yeah, right. Well, one step at a time, certainly. MR. OCHS: Well, we're going to have a little talk about that, first of all. But what I might suggest is, you're going to see your AUIR at the November meeting. That includes a review of all your capital projects, including your beaches. I might suggest that the Board maybe reserve judgment on this, ma'am, until you have that presentation and you get all your questions Page 248 October 13, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think that's a great idea. MR. OCHS: -- asked and answered. And you'll have all of the factual information included in your packet on your current level of service on your beaches, and that way, you know, we could maybe have a, you know, more detailed discussion at that meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think Mr. McAlpin could also speak to this. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. He'll be here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second. Mr. McAlpin doesn't set policy. He presents recommendations, if he has any, to the County Manager, who then approves or disapproves suggestions about being brought before the Board. I mean, I don't think it's appropriate for him to be coming up with game plans like this without even you knowing about it. And I will say, you know, this decision to re-nourish every two years is to avoid the massive erosion and then rebuilding and spending so much time without beaches that are at 100 feet, which is why the policy was changed, because the other policy doesn't work and is ineffective, and we can't have the hoteliers -- especially where you don't have expansive beaches, like, for example, wide beaches in Commissioner Fiala's district, but in the north end, for example, in front of LaPlaya or Vanderbilt, the beaches are narrow, and you can't wait six years and then re-nourish to 100 feet, so -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The concept behind it -- and I know this much about it. When you do a hopper dredge, you don't have to do it every two years. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even know what a hopper dredge is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Bringing it outside of the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not going to do a hopper Page 249 October 13, 2015 dredge. This is not Captiva. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's all agree to wait for the AUIR, and we can have a detailed discussion. Let's go to Commissioner comments from Commissioner Fiala, who is also uplifting, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will uplift you and say have a nice evening. That's it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, thank you for your remarks. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. A question, Commissioner Taylor. It will be real quick. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to be here, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the females are going to be very important to help me understand that. If there's a tree that falls in the woods and nobody's there to hear it, is there a sound? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to say, is it the man's fault? And the answer would be absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: If he wanted the females to answer, yes, it's always the man's fault; men. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't my question, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just helping out, right? He asked, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a sound if the tree falls and nobody's there to hear it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, of course there is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Nobody's there to hear it. Nobody's there to witness it, so how would you know? Page 250 October 13, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's still a sound. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's still a sound. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Huh? COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's still a sound. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a noise. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a vibration, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And your point is, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: My point is -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: If there's a beach and it erodes and there's no one there to use it, does it matter? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, good. Let's go home. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're adjourned. ***** **** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Taylor and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 PROPOSAL FROM CB&I ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. DATED JULY 13, 2015 FOR THE TROPICAL STORM DEBBY BEACH RENOURISHMENT DESIGN, PERMITTING AND ENGINEER OF RECORD CERTIFICATION, APPROVING A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #15-6382 FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $57,649, AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS Page 251 October 13, 2015 DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THIS WORK ORDER, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT TO REPAIR DAMAGES THAT OCCURRED IN JUNE OF 2012 Item #16A2 PROPOSAL FROM CB&I ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. DATED AUGUST 3, 2015 FOR THE DESIGN, PERMITTING AND ENGINEER OF RECORD SERVICES FOR THE RENOURISHMENT OF CLAM PASS BEACH PARK; PERFORM CRITICALLY ERODED AREA ANALYSIS FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) COST SHARE FUNDING; APPROVING A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #15-6382 FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $68,504.40; AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THIS WORK ORDER; AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT; AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM (PROJECT NO. 90069) — THE MODIFICATION WILL NOT BE SUBMITTED UNTIL THE 15 YEAR PERMIT IS ISSUED Item #16A3 AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DONATION OF A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENT (PARCEL 336TDRE) REQUIRED FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE VANDERBILT DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS PROJECT. (TRANSPORTATION Page 252 October 13, 2015 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 66066. 11.3) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $100) — FOLIO #59620000004, A PORTION OF #00156160001 Item #16A4 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,239,222 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.093, (PL20130000232) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH RAFFIA PRESERVE — THE AS-BUILT LAKE CROSS SECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION HAS INSPECTED THE LAKES Item #16A5 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $388,600 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59. 197.4, (PL20130002029) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH PONTE RIALTO — THE AS-BUILT LAKE CROSS SECTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION HAS INSPECTED THE LAKES Item #16A6 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,060 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20150000817) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH 4774 MARKET AVENUE SITE Page 253 October 13, 2015 DEVELOPMENT PLAN — THE SITE DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 8, 2015 AND NO LONGER REQUIRES A BOND Item #16A7 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VANDERBILT COMMONS, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000968) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL LETTER AND PLAT RECORDATION Item #16A8 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WILLOUGHBY PRESERVE (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000872), APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY. (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16D1) THE COMPANION ITEM MUST BE APPROVED OR THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO ANOTHER BCC MEETING — THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL LETTER AND PLAT RECORDATION Page 254 October 13, 2015 Item #16A9 APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF OYSTER HARBOR AT FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000267) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL LETTER AND PLAT RECORDATION Item #16A10 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES 1B (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140002532) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — THE DEVELOPER HAS RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES BUT THE RECORDING OF THE PLAT WILL BE DELAYED UNTIL A CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND A SUITABLE SECURITY HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Item #16A11 RELEASE AGREEMENT WITH ORCHID COVE AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. RELATIVE TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED Page 255 October 13, 2015 WITH ORCHID COVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, (APPLICATION NUMBER AR-8636) TO RELEASE THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASH PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,887.68 TO THE ASSOCIATION — LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST Item #16Al2 THE OFFSITE REMOVAL OF UP TO 101,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SURPLUS FILL FROM ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE (COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT APPLICATION PL20150001313) TO TREVISO BAY — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A13 EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL 122RDUE), A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (PARCEL 122TCE) AND A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENT (PARCEL 122TDRE) REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT BRIDGE ON WHITE BOULEVARD OVER THE CYPRESS CANAL. (TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 66066) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $7,600) — FOLIO #37340920004 Item #16A14 RELEASE OF TWO (2) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $244,584.35 FOR Page 256 October 13, 2015 PAYMENT OF $1,684.35, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. REUBEN REINSTEIN ESTATE, LAIRD LILE, PR, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20100001344 AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. REUBEN T. REINSTEIN, EST., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM20100020893, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4460 3RD AVENUE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CEB CASE #CESD20100001344 WAS A VIOLATION FOR A POOL PERMIT THAT NEVER RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (NOW CANCELED) WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON MAY 15, 2015; THE CESM CASE #CEPM20100020893 WAS A VIOLATION FOR AN UNPERMITTED POOL THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 16, 2011 Item #16A15 RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $172,281. 15 FOR PAYMENT OF $531.15, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. MICHAEL ZAGER AND PAULA J. RHOADS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20110015948, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 557 CYPRESS WAY E., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CODE VIOLATION THAT INCLUDE REMODELING AND ALTERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT PERMITS WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON AUGUST 17, 2015 Item #16A16 Page 257 October 13, 2015 EASEMENT AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DRAINAGE, ACCESS, AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (PARCEL 260DAME) REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE WING SOUTH SEGMENT OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 51101) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $200) — FOLIO #62030000283 Item #16A17 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 3, PL20150000226 — THE FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IN COORDINATION BY THE ENGINEERING AND RIGHT-OF-WAY INSPECTION STAFF AND PUBLIC UTILITIES ON FEBRUARY 3, 2015 AND HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTIORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A18 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE UTILITY FACILITIES QUIT-CLAIM DEED AND BILL OF SALE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., IN ORDER TO RECONVEY TO NORTH NAPLES GOLF RANGE, INC., ALL WASTEWATER UTILITY FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK STORAGE SUITES, PL20140000267, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ERRONEOUSLY Page 258 October 13, 2015 CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY — THE ONLY UTILITY CONVEYED WAS POTABLE WATER Item #16A19 EASEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL 121RDUE) AND A TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENT (PARCEL 121TDRE) REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT BRIDGE ON WHITE BOULEVARD OVER THE CYPRESS CANAL. (TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 66066. 10.3) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $51,900) — FOLIO #37340840003 Item #16A20 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) AGREEMENT NO. 4600003312 AND TO AUTHORIZE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF UP TO $937,500 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP)/ WINGSOUTH AIRPARK CHANNELS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT #51101 — AGREEMENT #4600003312 SHALL TERMINATE ON DECEMBER 31, 2016 Item #16A21 THE EXCHANGE OF A 2014 INTERNATIONAL TERRASTAR 4X4 TRUCK FOR A 2013 INTERNATIONAL DURASTAR 4X4 Page 259 October 13, 2015 TRUCK WITH THE WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS COMPANY — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C1 REAUTHORIZING FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR THE SINGLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF PUMPS, WARRANTY-RELATED REPAIR, AND OTHER PARTS AND MATERIALS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH AN AFTERMARKET SOURCE FOR APPROVED WASTEWATER PUMPS Item #16C2 CONTRACT #15-6450, "NAPLES PARK INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS," PROJECT NUMBERS 60139, 70043, 70044, 70046, 70050, 70051, AND 71010, WITH Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES — FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT WILL ADDRESS WATER, WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER CUSTOMER RELIABLIY, SUSTAINABLY AND IN REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Item #16C3 USE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE REPAIR OF REACTOR 3 AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT #70034 — DUE TO THE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT #10-5510 WHICH STIPULATES THAT WORK PERFORMED BY A SUBCONTRACTOR MAY NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE ENTIRE WORK Page 260 October 13, 2015 Item #16D1 A STANDARD DONATION AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS WILLOUGHBY DRIVE LLC TO DONATE A 1.14-ACRE PARCEL ALONG WITH A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $4,440.30 TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC SEC 3.05.07H. 1.F.III. (B), AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO CLOSE. (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 16A8) THE COMPANION ITEM MUST BE APPROVED OR THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO ANOTHER BCC MEETING — FOR FOLIO #39959320006 LOCATED WITHIN THE WINCHESTER HEAD PRESERVE IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES Item #16D2 THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO ALLOW YOUTH HUNT'S FOR COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS AT PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE IN JANUARY 2016 AND FEBRUARY 2016 — JANUARY 15-17, 2016 WILL BE HOG HUNTING AND FEBRUARY 26-28, 2016 WILL BE FOR TURKEY HUNTING Item #16D3 Page 261 October 13, 2015 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH COLLIER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NOW KNOWN AS CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC., FOR 7.51 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $403,150 — LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST Item #16D4 A PARKING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH VANDERBILT REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LTD, FOR TEMPORARY PARKING FOR BEACH MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $7,200 — THE CURRENT LEASE EXPIRES ON OCTOBER 31, 2015 AND THE EXTENSION WILL BE EFFECTIVE AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2015 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2017 Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 2015-201 : THE REMOVAL OF UNCOLLECTIBLE RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,211 .87 FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION Item #16D6 AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR Page 262 October 13, 2015 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY, ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE AND HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING FOR FY 2014/2015. (NET FISCAL IMPACT $26,967.41) — PROVIDING UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO COLLIER COUNTY'S SENIOR SERVICES FOR ELDERLY CLIENTS FROM JULY 2015 TO JUNE 2016 Item #16D7 "AFTER-THE-FACT" AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY AND ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAMS AND BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING FOR FY 2015/2016 — PROVIDING UNINTERRUPTED SUPPORT SERVICES TO COLLIER COUNTY'S SENIOR SERVICES FOR ELDERLY CLIENTS FROM JULY 2015 THROUGH JUNE 2016 Item #16D8 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) FOR EACH VOLUNTEER STATION TO INCLUDE IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, WORKING RELATIONSHIPS AND MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES — PROVIDING Page 263 October 13, 2015 UNINTERRUPTED OPERATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER GRANT PROGRAM Item #16D9 CREATE A PILOT "TICKETS TO RIDE" PROGRAM THAT PAYS FOR COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS TO RIDE AT DESIGNATED ATV RIDING LOCATIONS IN FLORIDA AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D10 TWO LONG TERM COMMUNITY MARKET AGREEMENTS WITH DENNIS L. STRAUSBAUGH/SW FLORIDA MARKETS, LLC, MARKET MANAGER OF THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK AND EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK COMMUNITY MARKETS — THE SUGDEN COMMUNTY MARKET WILL OPERATE FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2015 TO APRIL 24, 2016 AND THE EAGLE LAKES THE COMMUNITY MARKET WILL OPERATE FROM NOVEMBER 6, 2015 TO APRIL 29, 2016 Item #16D11 THE COLLECTION OF DONATIONS BY THE UNITED WAY STAFF AT A CO-SPONSORED EVENT WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION ON OCTOBER 24, 2015 AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK AND MAKE A FINDING THE ASSOCIATED EXPENDITURE SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE — THE Page 264 October 13, 2015 ACTIVITIES WILL INCLUDE ZUMBA, KARATE AND PICKLEBALL DEMONSTRATIONS Item #16D12 THE DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES CONSULTATION SUMMARY PREPARED BY MADDIE'S® SHELTER MEDICINE PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AND ENDORSE THE MADDIE'S® RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D13 DECLARING THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNDER THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP) AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINISTERIAL AND THAT GRANT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION SHALL CONTINUE CONSISTENT WITH PAST PRACTICES Item #16D14 AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #15-6428R, FOR SIDEWALK/PATHWAY REPAIRS AT EIGHT (8) PARK LOCATIONS, TO BONNESS, INC. FOR $93,272.90 INCLUDING $10,000 ALLOWANCE FOR UNFORESEEN REPAIRS Item #16D15 — Moved to Item #11G (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Page 265 October 13, 2015 Item #16D16 FOUR (4) ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSEOUT REPORTS FOR DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE AND RECOVERY ENHANCEMENT FUND GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E1 ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET FOR APPROVED OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS INTO FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR OPERATING DIVISIONS TO COMPLETE WORK — THE FY2016 BUDGET NEEDS TO RE-APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS AND ALLOW PAYMENTS AGAINST PURCHASE ORDERS ISSUED ON OR PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 2015-202: A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, REQUEST FOR GRANT FUND DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE FUNDING OF TRAINING AND MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,176 AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT Item #16E3 AWARD ITB #15-6430, "MAINTENANCE & MINOR REPAIRS," TO FA REMODELING AND REPAIR INC., AS THE PRIMARY Page 266 October 13, 2015 VENDOR, AND SPECTRUM CONTRACTING INC., AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR, FOR MINOR MAINTENANCE REPAIRS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR WITH UP TO THREE (3) ANNUAL RENEWAL OPTIONS — SERVICES INCLUDE BY NOT LIMITED TO DOOR REPAIR, INSTALLATIONS, WINDOW REPLACEMENTS AND REPAIRS, PRESSURE WASHING, CONSTRUTION/INSTALLATION 0 FCABINETS, DRYWALL INSTALLATIONAND REPAIR, CARPENTRY, GUTTER INSTALLATION, CLEANING AND REPAIR, FURNITURE REPAIR, AND MINOR RENOVATIONS Item #16E4 AWARD ITB #15-6473R, "PAINT AND RELATED ITEMS," TO SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR AND SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE INC. AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR FOR PAINTING SUPPLIES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR WITH UP TO THREE (3) ANNUAL RENEWAL OPTIONS — USED TO MAINTAIN THE PAINT OF FACILITIES, MIMINIZING THE AMOUNT OF WEAR AND PROTECT/EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURES Item #16E5 THE SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,800 TO PURCHASE URBAN INTERFACE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT (COUNTY MATCH $7,400) — MEETING THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARD OF REPLACING PROTECTIVE CLOTHING EVERY TEN YEARS Page 267 October 13, 2015 Item #16E6 AWARD ITB #15-6408, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNIFORMS, TO UNIFIRST CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT — THE CONTRACT INCLUDES WORK SHIRTS, WORK PANTS, POLOS, SHORTS, HIGH VISIBILITY SHIRTS, COVERALLS, LAB COATS, LOGOED RUGS, SHOP TOWELS AND OPTIONS TO LEASE, LAUNDER AND PURCHASE ALL ITEMS Item #16E7 — With Changes (Per Agenda Change Sheet) THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO WORK ORDERS, CHANGE ORDERS, SURPLUS PROPERTY AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED Item #16F1 RESOLUTION 2015-203: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F2 THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN FOR THE NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM Page 268 October 13, 2015 Item #16F3 APPLICATIONS FOR TOURIST TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,950 TO SUPPORT EIGHT UPCOMING FY 2016 EVENTS UNDER THE SPORTS EVENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM — THE EVENTS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: COLUMBUS DAY CUP (YOUTH SOCCER 10/11-12/15); USSSA FALL NATIONALS (YOUTH BASEBALL 10/24-26/15); THE GULFCOAST CUP (YOUTH SOCCER 12/12-13/15); KELME CUP 1ST WEEKEND (YOUTH SOCCER 1/16-17/16); KELME CUP 2ND WEEKEND (YOUTH SOCCER 1/23-24/16); KELME CUP 3RD WEEKEND (YOUTH SOCCER 1/30-31/16); ADIDAS SPRING CLASSIC (YOUTH SOCCER 4/30-5/1/16) AND SWEETBAY MEMORIAL DAY CUP (YOUTH SOCCER 5/28-30/16) Item #16G1 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382-2, "GRANT FUNDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR AIRPORTS" WITH HOLE MONTES, ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND AVCON, INC. — THE CONTRACTS ALLOW SMALL WORK ORDERS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES Item #16G2 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY (CCAA), Page 269 October 13, 2015 APPROVES A COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE AND A RIDER TO COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE WITH WHOLESALE SHUTTERS OF SOUTH WEST FLORIDA, INC. AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT — THE LEASE TERM WILL COMMENCE ON NOVEMBER 1, 2015 AND END ON OCTOBER 31, 2020 Item #16H1 RESOLUTION 2015-204: APPOINT MEMBER TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE — APPOINTING JERILYN NEUHAOUS TO FILL A VACANT SEAT WHO'S TERM EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31, 2017 Item #16H2 RESOLUTION 2015-205: APPOINTING FOUR MEMBER(S) TO THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY — REAPPOINTING GARY D. LIND, SUZANNE BRADACH AND GLEN D. HARRELL AND APPOINTING MICHAEL PRIOLETTI AS A NEW MEMBER WITH ALL TERMS TO EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 Item #16H3 RESOLUTION 2015-206: APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD — REAPPOINTING PATRICK G. WHITE AS THE CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 20, 2018 AND Page 270 October 13, 2015 APPOINTING ELLE HUNT TO FILL A VACANT SEAT WITH TERM EXPITING JUNE 30, 2016 Item #16H4 RESOLUTION 2015-207: REAPPOINT A MEMBER TO THE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD — REAPPOINTING PATRICIA HUFF WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 1, 2018 Item #16H5 RESOLUTION 2015-208: APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY — APPOINTING ELOY RICARDO WITH TERM EXPIRING ON MAY 21, 2019 Item #16H6 RESOLUTION 2015-209: APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE — REAPPOINTING CHRISTIAN DAVIS WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 1, 2018 AND APPOINTING LITHA BERGER FILLING A VACANT SEAT WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 1, 2016 AND APPOINTING TAYLOR MCLAUGHLIN WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 1, 2018 Item #16H7 PROCLAMATION HONORING THE RELATIONS AND CONNECTIONS THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE HAS MADE WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND Page 271 October 13, 2015 COLLIER COUNTY AND WELCOMING THOSE TAIWANESE BUSINESSES AND ENTREPRENEURS SEEKING TO DEVELOP BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR AREA. THIS PROCLAMATION WILL BE SENT BY MAIL TO THE TAIPEI ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL OFFICE — ADOPTED Item #16H8 A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 19-21 AS COLLIER RETIS SYMPOSIUM DAYS AND WELCOMING THE DISTINGUISHED DELEGATION OF FRENCH COMPANIES AND BUSINESS EXECUTIVES TO COLLIER COUNTY. THIS PROCLAMATION WILL BE SENT BY MAIL TO CRISTELE COUGET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RETIS — ADOPTED Item #16I1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED — Page 272 October 13, 2015 Item #16J1 THE TAX COLLECTOR LARRY RAY REQUESTS THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDER THE TAX ROLL BE EXTENDED PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, FLORIDA STATUTES — DUE TO THE VOLUME OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PETITIONS Item #16J2 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 10 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16K1 A JOINT MOTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,400 FOR PARCEL 172RDUE IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CHRISTOPHER WARBURTON, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-335 REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO. 60040) (FISCAL IMPACT: $442) — FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RIGHT-OF- WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Item #16K2 THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT Page 273 October 13, 2015 AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE, PRIOR TO TRIAL, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CAROL A. PHILLIPS V. COLLIER COUNTY, FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CASE NO. 14-2448- CA), FOR THE SUM OF $10,000 — FOR AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON AUGUST 19, 2013 WHERE THE PLAINTFF ALLEGES SHE TRIPPED OVER A PORTION OF SIDEWALK OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY Item #16K3 — Continued to the October 27, 2015 BCC Meeting RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION TO AMEND THE VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE Item #17A RESOLUTION 2015-210: PETITION VAC-PL20150000986, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 20-FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN TRACT "I" OF EAGLE CREEK COUNTRY CLUB AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 1 THROUGH 5 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND TO ACCEPT PETITIONER'S GRANT OF A 20- FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO REPLACE THE VACATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT Item #17B RESOLUTION 2015-211 : PETITION VAC-PL20150001456 TO Page 274 October 13, 2015 DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE 30-FOOT ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY, UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 444, PAGES 398 AND 399 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17C ORDINANCE 2015-53: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1975-16, AS AMENDED, BY LIMITING THE RECONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTS BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE MATTER WAS VOTED UPON Item #17D — Continued to the November 10, 2015 BCC Meeting RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-82, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, TO EXPAND THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE COUNTY OWNED RIGHT-OF-WAY IDENTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING PEDESTRIAN STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THOMASSON DRIVE Item #17E RESOLUTION 2015-212: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, Page 275 October 13, 2015 TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST , a. , DWIMT.E B OCK, CLERK 4 • .. 4 est as to hairna' ;, sipnat��m only. These minutes approved by the Board on I 110 20( S , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 276