The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 12/08/2015 R BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2015 December 8, 2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 8, 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 Tom Henning Georgia Hiller Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director Troy Miller, Manager, Television Operations Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority It I /. . 4111 r *zoos* -. X41 AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples FL 34112 December 08, 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 December 8, 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. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples B. Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Cadet Major Xavier Cervantes and Cadet 2nd Lieutenant Jennifer Gomez from the Immokalee High School JROTC. 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.) Page 2 December 8, 2015 B. October 27, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes C. November 3, 2015 - BCC/Water Resource Workshop D. November 10, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes 3. SERVICE AWARDS — EMPLOYEE A. 20 Year Attendees 1) Karen Clements - Building Review & Permitting 2) Thomas Ouilette - EMS 3) Tanya Williams - Library B. 30 Year Attendees 1) Alamar Smiley - Building Review & Permitting 4. PROCLAMATIONS 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation to recognize and commend Naples VFW Post 7369, the 40 & 8 Voiture Locale 795 (La Societe des Quarante Hommes et Huit Chevaux), the Brister Funeral Home, the Carter Fence Company and the Immokalee High School JROTC Battalion for their efforts to adopt as a community project the veterans section at the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Immokalee and for leading the effort to place headstones on unmarked gravesites of fourteen veterans. Accepting the recognition are Ed Messer, Ed Swank, Rick Angwia, Roger Fritchey, John Madsen, Steve Mederos, Dave Christerson, Steve Smock, Anthony Roupp, Arthur Baratone, Meade Holland, Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Robert E. Hine, United States Army; Cadet Major Xavier Cervantes and Cadet 2nd Lieutenant Jennifer Gomez. B. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December 2015 to Wells Fargo Bank. To be accepted by Jeff Ospina, Area President, Greater Southwest Florida, Wells Fargo Bank; Errol Howard, Senior Vice Page 3 December 8, 2015 President, Wells Fargo Bank; Kristi Bartlett, Vice President, Opportunity Naples, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice President, Marketing & Membership, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 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 may be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. This item continued from the October 13, 2015 BCC Meeting and further continued from the November 10, 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 #11A). B. This item may be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.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. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Ordinance No. 83-46, as amended, the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit Development by adding a 2.17 acre recreation area in the existing preserve and moving 2.17 acres of Page 4 December 8, 2015 existing preserve to small separate preserve areas throughout Parcel "F"; by adding Section 7.05 to add a deviation to allow small separate preserve areas instead of continuous preserves; by adding Section 7.06 to provide additional development standards for the recreation tract near the southwest corner of Parcel "F"; by amending the Master Plan to reflect acreages for the recreation area, preserve areas and lakes/water management, drainage and utility easement area under the recreation and open space "0" District, and to depict the recreation area and separate preserve areas; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 1093± acres, is located at the intersection of Radio Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Sections 32 and 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida [PUDA-PL20150000303]. C. This item to be heard at 10:15 a.m. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing in its entirety Ordinance No. 2009-27, relating to the licensing and regulation of motor vehicles for hire in Collier County. (This item is a companion to Item #11E) 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. This item to be heard at 9:45 a.m. Recommendation that the Board temporarily extend the County's COPCN with North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District through January 29, 2016, to provide time for a cooperative agreement to be developed. (Companion to Item #12A) (Commissioner Henning) B. Recommendation to waive the Board's Procurement Ordinance and procure services from Paradise Reef, LLC for the production and distribution of a documentary film, a three minute film, and two 30-second film spots; approve the necessary budget amendment in an amount not to exceed $527,614.00; and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (Commissioner Taylor) C. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to direct staff to participate in the Combat Wounded Parking Sign Program. (Commissioner Hiller) D. This item to be heard immediately following Item #10C. Recommendation to expand the Veteran Recognition Banner Program under Page 5 December 8,2015 similar guidelines as those established by the Board of County Commissioners on October 27, 2015. (Commissioner Hiller) E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider the attached request letter from Florida Governor Rick Scott to endorse Proposed Economic Development Incentive Policy Reforms for Enterprise Florida (the State's Economic Development Agency). (Commissioner Hiller) F. Recommendation to reappoint member(s) to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9A. This item continued from the October 13, 2015 BCC Meeting and further continued from the November 10, 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. 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 #9A). (Stephen Lenberger, Growth Management Sr. Environmental Specialist) B. Recommendation to award Contract No. 15-6519 - Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP), Wingsouth Stormwater Improvements and Sandy Lane Interconnect Stormwater Improvements, to D.N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of$3,513,224.50, Project No. 51101. (Jerry Kurtz, GMD, Principal Project Manager, Stormwater) C. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve submission of the 2015 Incentive Review and Recommendations report as required by Section 420.9076(4), Florida Statute, State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP); schedule a workshop to discuss proposed modifications to existing and additional affordable and GAP housing incentive or programs, potential funding alternatives and potential Page 6 December 8, 2015 development of a community wide affordable housing plan. (Kim Grant, Community and Human Services Director) D. Recommendation to approve Five Star Gourmet Foods of Florida as a qualified applicant to the Collier County Basic Industry Growth Promotion Incentive Program and approve the attached agreement for Project "Top Shelf." (Bruce Register, Office of Business and Economic Development Division Director) E. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9C. Recommendation to approve prorated refunds for fees paid for Vehicle for Hire licensing services in 2015 in the amount of$80,000. (Companion to Item #9C) (Jamie French, GMD Deputy Department Head) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #10A. This is a Companion to Item #10A, which seeks to extend the existing COPCN for the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Recommendation to January 29, 2016. Should the Board grant the requested extension, that the Board accept the County Attorney's request for a Shade Session with respect to a proposed settlement offer in this matter, to be held at the Board's January 12th regular meeting. If, and only if, the Board should fail to grant the requested extension, that the Board then consider the settlement offer from the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 7 December 8, 2015 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the 2016 schedule for submittals to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP), as aligned with the Florida Statutes, and to approve exemptions from the schedule. 2) Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20150001828 to quitclaim and release the County's interest in the 7.5-foot public utility easement running through the back yard of lots 26 & 27, Block 74, Naples Park, Unit 6, as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 15 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional conveyance of the sewer utility facilities for Saturnia Falls Plat 1, Phase 4, PL20130001634, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the amount of $4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. 4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Saturnia Falls Plat 1, Phase 2, PL20120000769, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent. 5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Marbella Lakes Application Number AR-7386; accept a Quit Claim Deed for Tracts "A-2" and "A-3A" (Green Blvd.) which were dedicated to the County on the plat; accept maintenance responsibility for Tracts "A-2", "A-3A', and Page 8 December 8,2015 Tract "J" (Lake); and authorize release of the maintenance security. 6) 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 minor final plat of Landings at Bears Paw Replat One, Application Number PL20150001975. 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 Verona Pointe Estates, (Application Number PL20150001537) 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 Groves at Orange Blossom, (Application Number PL20150001156) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 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 Orange Blossom Ranch, Phase 3, (Application Number PL20150001150) 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 Winding Cypress Phase 2C, (Application Number PL20150002037) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount Page 9 December 8,2015 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 for recording the final plat of Orange Blossom Ranch, Phase 2, (Application Number PL20140002203) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. 12) Recommendation to acknowledge the automatic vacation of the Temporary Drainage Easement as shown on the plat of Vercelli as recorded at Plat Book 48, Pages 11 through 13 of the public records of Collier County. 13) Recommendation to approve the release of three (3) code enforcement liens with a combined accrued value of$419,000 for payment of $450, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Sergio and Sara Garita, Code Enforcement Board Case Nos. CEAU20110011945, CEPM20110001296 and CESD20110001287, relating to property located at 420 15th Street SW, Collier County, Florida. 14) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of$137,000 for payment of$450, in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Joselino and Yolando Sanchez, Sandy Sanchez, Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEAU20110007445, relating to property located at 2530 4th Ave SE, Collier County, Florida. 15) Recommendation to approve the release of two (2) code enforcement liens with a combined accrued value of$259,200 for payment of $600, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Jorge L. Mendez, Code Enforcement Board Case Nos. CESD20120006927 and CEPM20120013078, relating to property located at 3320 2nd Avenue SE, Collier County, Florida. 16) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 4 to Contract #11- 5639 in the amount of$35,016 with TY Lin International, for "Design Page 10 December 8,2015 & Related Services for the Replacement of CR29 Bridge (#030161) over Chokoloskee Bay." Project No. 66066.9 17) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize carry forward for projects within the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of$279,133.44 (Projects #60066 and #60088). 18) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize revenue and transfer funding for projects within Transportation Capital Fund (313) in the amount of$215,156.83 (Projects #69081, #60088, and #60066.) 19) Recommendation to approve the Bentley Village Redevelopment Agreement between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and CC-Naples, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, for the partial redevelopment of the Bentley Village, a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) in the Retreat at Naples Planned Unit Development (PUD), Ordinance Number 97-71. 20) Recommendation to proceed with preliminary analysis of development of a Stormwater Utility for utilization as an alternate dedicated funding source for ongoing and future stormwater management related initiatives and operations, estimated cost $50,000-$100,000, Project Number 51144, Stormwater Feasibility and Preliminary Design, Fund 325. 21) Recommendation to approve a proposal from Humiston & Moore dated November 10, 2015, for the Collier County Beaches and Inlets Annual Monitoring for 2016; approval of a Work Order under Contract #15-6382 Grant Funded Professional Services for Coastal Zone; authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute this work order and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism (Project No. 90536). 22) Recommendation to approve the name of a Collier County artificial reef site pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Community Foundation of Collier County and accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of$98,000 for Artifical Reef Donations Page 11 December 8,2015 Project No. 44038. 23) Recommendation to approve the partial release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of$134,500, for payment of$7,837.92, in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v., Humberto L. Jaen, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. 2007070252, relating to property known as 3870 1st Avenue SW, Collier County, Florida. B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) acting as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency authorize staff to process an amendment in the 2015 Land Development Code Cycle 2 to amend LDC Section 2.03.07 G.5 Immokalee Main Street Overlay Sub-District that will allow prohibitive uses to become eligible conditional uses within the Immokalee Main Street Overlay Sub-District (MSOSD) boundary to incentivize commercial development. C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution removing uncollectible accounts receivable and their respective balances from the financial records of Collier County Public Utilities Department in the amount of$26,159.12. 2) Recommendation to approve a $296,355.34 work order under Request for Quotation #14-6213-48 to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., for the activation of North Reverse Osmosis Well 109, Project No. 70085. 3) Recommendation to approve a $329,000 work order to Hole Montes, Inc., under Contract Number 14-6345 for Construction Engineering and Inspection Services for the Master Pump Station 306 Force Main Phase III and Naples Manor Water Main Replacement Phase 2 project, Project Numbers 70044 and 71010. 4) Recommendation to adopt the Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles as presented at the Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy Page 12 December 8,2015 workshop on November 3, 2015. D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to the agreement with Community Assisted and Supported Living, Inc. for the implementation of the Shelter Plus Supportive Services Care Program in Collier County to maintain compliance with updated U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant standards (no fiscal impact). 2) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board, Inc. which will provide funds to allow twenty children to receive leadership and job training program opportunities during the school year at two Parks and Recreation Division Facilities (no net fiscal impact). 3) Recommendation to approve three releases of lien for full payment of deferral of 100 percent of countywide impact fees for owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling units. 4) Recommendation to approve Fourth Amendment to the subrecipient agreement with Big Cypress Housing Corporation and Collier County to increase funding in the amount of$401,229, revise milestones and clarify language allowing all funds be disbursed for all activities for the project known as Hatchers Preserve. 5) Recommendation to approve one State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program release of lien in the amount of$6,082.98 for an owner- occupied affordable housing dwelling unit where the obligation has been repaid in full. 6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing recovery of County funds in connection with a claim involving a Collier Area Transit bus shelter. 7) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution repealing all previous resolutions establishing and amending parts of the Collier County Page 13 December 8,2015 Parks and Recreation Division Facilities and Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy and establishing the policy anew to modify the fee categories for facility rental, childcare programs, refunds, and camping. 8) Recommendation to approve eleven mortgage satisfactions for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the amount of $71,750. 9) Recommendation to approve the first two-year extension of the Interim Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Camp Keais Strand Parcels. 10) Recommendation to approve the second two-year extension of the Interim Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Mcllvane Marsh properties. 11) Recommendation to approve the five-year update of the Final Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Railhead Scrub Preserve. 12) Recommendation to approve Third Amendment to the subrecipient agreement with Community Assisted and Supportive Living, Inc. 13) Recommendation to approve the second two-year extension of the Interim Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Red Maple Swamp Preserve. 14) Recommendation to approve the five-year update of the Final Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Wet Woods Preserve. 15) Recommendation to approve Memorandums of Understanding with Catholic Charities of Collier County, Childrens' Advocacy Center of Collier County and the Pace Center for Girls to provide volunteer opportunities for participants in the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). 16) Recommendation to approve a Residential Lease Agreement for the Pepper Ranch Preserve, 6315 Pepper Road, Immokalee, FL 34142 for Page 14 December 8,2015 overnight and weekend security presence. 17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign satisfaction of mortgage with W.L. Crawford and Dorothy L. Crawford and Jim H. Moody and Tina P. Moody for the rehabilitation of ninety-six rental units that has been repaid in full. 18) Recommendation to approve an award for Invitation to Bid #15- 6490R "Comcast Underground Conversion Vanderbilt Beach Road Phase II, III and IV, Installation and connection of new underground Comcast network" to Cable Wiring Specialist Inc., in the amount of $769,697.70. 19) Recommendation to approve the electronic submittal of a Project Application for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Aquatic Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Section Funding for the hydrologic modeling of Pepper Ranch Preserve. 20) Recommendation to approve an out-of-cycle Collier County Tourist Development Council Category "A" grant application for Beach Park Facilities in the amount of$7,200 from Florida State Parks to provide funding for mobile toll booths that will help expedite traffic into Delnor-Wiggins State Park and to make the finding that the expenditure promotes tourism. 21) Recommendation to authorize the expenditure of$51,425 to provide intersection control at an area outside of Delnor-Wiggins State Park during peak times during the year and authorize the Chairman to sign a Law Enforcement Special Detail Agreement for the provision of these services. 22) Recommendation to approve a resolution amending the Collier County State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) for Fiscal Years 13/14-15/16, to add a tiered structure approach for the purchase assistance program including increasing the maximum award to $50,000, and the addition of two new strategies to include Rental Rehabilitation and Rental Acquisition; and reaffirm implementation as administrative and Page 15 December 8,2015 ministerial. 23) Recommendation to approve the Collier County Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership and Emergency Solutions Grant for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 as required; approve the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report Resolution; and authorize the Chairman to certify the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report for submission to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 24) Recommendation to consider a request by the Collier County ATV Ad Hoc Committee to extend its sunset date to December 12, 2016, so it may pursue several potential ATV park sites, and consider changes to the "Tickets to Ride" Program to allow All Terrain Vehicles, Recreational Off Highways Vehicles, and Off Highway Motorcycles to participate. 25) Recommendation to approve FY15-16 contract with the State of Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier County Health Department in the amount of$1,378,200 and also to allocate additional funds in the amount of$249,220 to fill a funding gap due to state non-funding of the ACHA Medicaid match programs. 26) Recommendation to approve award of Request for Proposal #12- 5856S Services for Seniors, Supplemental, to add ADT LLC and Almost Family PC of SW Florida, LLC to the approved roster of service providers to homebound seniors and authorize the Chairman to execute associated agreements. (no additional fiscal impact) 27) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Landlord Payment Agreement with one landlord, allowing the County to administer the Rapid Re-Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program through the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Page 16 December 8,2015 1) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement with Filter Pro USA, LLC. d/b/a Kleen Air Research, as it relates to Invitation to Bid (ITB) #14-6304 "Air Filtration Services" for services related to removal, replacement and installation of air filters in County-owned facilities. 2) Recommendation to accept the distribution of funds from the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District to the Ochopee Fire Control MSTU and the Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue MSTU resulting from the sale of the former Fire Code Officials Office and approve the associated Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement. 3) Recommendation to approve a Fourth Amendment to Lease Agreement with Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc., on behalf of Public Services, that requires the County to directly pay the providers of electric and communications utilities at the Roberts Center where the Seniors Nutrition Program is located. 4) Recommendation to renew Collier County's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Advanced Life Support Transport for one year and authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate. 5) Recommendation to accept an award of$104,475 in grant funds from the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, which requires a local match of$34,825, for the purchase of ten hydraulic assist stretchers and to approve necessary Budget Amendments. 6) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6405, "Roofing Repairs and Inspection Services," to FA Remodeling and Repairs Inc., as the primary contractor, and CFS Roofing Services LLC as the secondary contractor, for roofing repairs and inspection services for a period of one (1) year with up to three (3) annual renewal options. 7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the removal of uncollectible accounts receivables in the amount of$3,517.12 from the financial records of the Facilities Management Division in accordance with Resolution No. 2006-252 and authorize the Chairman Page 17 December 8,2015 to execute the attached Resolution. 8) Recommendation to approve the acceptance of a Volunteer Fire Assistance Grant Award in the amount of$14,800 to purchase Urban Interface Protective Clothing for the Ochopee Fire Control District (County Match $7,400). 9) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #15-6475R, "Plumbing Parts and Supplies," to Ferguson Enterprises Inc. and Gulf Coast Winnelson Co., for facilities related repairs and installations. 10) Recommendation to approve the purchase of Group Health Reinsurance coverage for calendar year 2016 through Sun Life effective January 1, 2016 for an annual premium of$934,020. 11) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #15-6431 for replacement of the BCC agenda management system to Accela, Inc. 12) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for modifications to work orders, change orders, surplus property and other items as identified. 13) Recommendation to accept a report on the status of the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District's second submission of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for an Advanced Life Support Class 3 Certificate and not to process the application. F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to approve Resolution 2015- , modifying established procedures relating to emergency repairs of private roads by granting the County Manager the authority to order emergency repairs in the Board's absence. 2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget. 3) Recommendation to approve Tourist Tax Category `B" funding to Page 18 December 8,2015 sponsor two upcoming December 2015 sports events, The Gulfshore Holiday Hoopfest and The Naples Holiday Shootout, totaling $12,500 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. 4) Recommendation to approve Tourist Tax Category `B" funding to support three upcoming FY16 sports events up to $14,150 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. 5) Recommendation to approve Tourist Tax Category `B" funding to support the December 2015 Football University (FBU) National Championship up to $60,270 and, make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. 6) Recommendation to award RFQ #15-6477 to Atilus for Internet Marketing Services on behalf of the Tourism Division in the amount of$34, 800 and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. 7) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, a one-year extension to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Early Learning Coalition of Southwest Florida, Inc., to provide funding in the amount of$75,000 in Fiscal Year 2016. G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution authorizing execution of Joint Participation Agreement Contract No. G0615 with the Florida Department of Transportation to fund construction of a replacement AvGas Fuel Farm Facility at the Everglades Airpark, Project #33454. (Fiscal Impact $120,000 FDOT and $30,000 Local Match). 2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, adopts the attached Resolution approving the proposed rate schedules for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive Airport for 2016. Page 19 December 8,2015 H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 2) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board. 3) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Collier County Citizens Corps. 4) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Industrial Development Authority. 5) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Health Facilities Authority. 6) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous Correspondence J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) To obtain Board approval for an increase to Contract #13-6132, "Annual Audit Services," with Clifton Larson Allen LLP, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, to provide for the impact of changes in accounting and audit standards. 2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing Federal HHS Vote Program Grant Award 2011 Funds for Voting Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities in the amount of $8,305.04. 3) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the Page 20 December 8,2015 periods between October 29 and November 25, 2015 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Final Judgment in the total amount of$45,000 for Parcel 139RDUE in the case styled Collier County v. Grover C. Woody, III, et al., Case No. 15-CA-0199, which was condemned for the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to 20th Street E, Project No. 60040. (Fiscal Impact: $17,810) 2) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement for Legal Services for the Retention Agreement with Bryant Miller Olive PA extending the expiration date to December 13, 2018. 3) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Final Judgment in the amount of$11,000 for total compensation owed for the taking of Parcel 24ORDUE in the case styled Collier County v. Octavio M. Alfonso, et al., Case No. 15-CA-230 required for the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson Boulevard to 20th Street E. (Fiscal Impact: $5,320, Project #60040) 4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release in the lawsuit styled Alan R. Tortolani and Gail S. Tortolani v. Collier County (Case No. 14- CA-002017), now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida. 5) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement providing for a global settlement in the amount of$35,000 for Parcel 143DAME in the case styled Collier County v. April L. Chappell, et al., Case No. 10-3932-CA, taken as part of the Royalwood/Whitaker portion of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, Project No. 51101. (Fiscal Impact: $31,860). 6) Recommendation to accept six (6) Offers of Judgment by Respondents in five (5) pending Eminent Domain cases, relating to Project No. 60040, the expansion of Golden Gate Blvd., for total Page 21 December 8,2015 compensation, including attorneys' fees and costs, of the County's acquisition of Parcels 151 RDUE, 16ORDUEA, 16ORDUEB, 164RDUE, 252RDUE, and 267RDUE. (Fiscal Impact: $14,786) 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- PL20150002249, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 10-foot drainage easement, located in the rear yard of lot 17, Block D, Countryside at Berkshire Lakes, Section One, Plat Book 14, pages 50 through 52 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. B. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance establishing the Della Drive Municipal Service Benefit Unit for the repayment of funds in the amount of $5,162.33. C. 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 22 December 8, 2015 December 8, 2015 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Board of County Commission meeting of December 8th, 2015. At this time I would request that you assist us by silencing all devices. And any conversations that you may have during the day, please avail yourself of the corridor out here so that we can have an organized meeting. Today's invocation will be delivered by Pastor Michael Bannon of the Crossroads Community Church of Naples. I will ask you to rise and remain standing for the pledge, and I'll introduce the pledge right after the invocation. Item #1A and Item #1B INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray. Lord, how good and gracious you are to give us access to you in prayer. You know our frame, that we're just dust. You offer to us wisdom if we would just ask it and trust you for it. And so we ask. Ask on behalf of our County Commissioners, thank you for their service, thank you for giving them to us, your servants for our good. And I pray that you'd bless them today with wisdom and insight into the matters that concern us in this fine county in which you've given us, great place to live. And I pray, Lord God, that you would give us as well, the citizens of this county, humble hearts that we might be faithful citizens, serving and working together to make this a great place. So I pray that you would be pleased to glorify yourself. Amen. Page 2 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, it is our great pleasure today to have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Cadet Major Xavier Cervantes and Cadet Second Lieutenant Jennifer Gomez from the Immokalee High School JROTC. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we get started, can I make an announcement? It's very important. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's Leo's birthday. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a good one. ("Happy Birthday to You" sung in unison.) MR. OCHS: Thank you. That's very nice. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: I'm at the age where I can hardly hear that anymore. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Mr. Ochs, accounting for all your age-related infirmities, do you mind leading us through today's agenda changes, please, sir? Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA) - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: It will be my pleasure. If I can still read my change sheet. The first change this morning on the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of December 8th, 2015 is an add-on item. It's Item 4.A, brought on the agenda by Commissioner Page 3 December 8, 2015 Henning. It's a proclamation designating January 16th, 2016 as National Religious Freedom Day in Collier County. Again, that's at Commissioner Henning's request. The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.A.22 to the January 12th, 2016 -- that should be BCC meeting. That's a contract between the Board of County Commissioners and the State Department of Health. The next proposed change is to continue Item 16.D.25 to the January 12th, 2016 Board of County Commissioners meeting. That in fact is the contract between the county and the Board of Health. Item 16.A.22 has to do with the Memorandum of Understanding with the Community Foundation to accept the donation for artificial reefs. And the executive director of the Community Foundation was not going to be in town today and asked that this be continued to the January meeting. The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.13 and move that to today's regular agenda to become Item 11.F. This has to do with a status report from the staff on the status of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity renewal from the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. That is moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. And Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we include that item with the two other time certain items on similar subject, if that is acceptable to you, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: So we will hear that in conjunction with the items that are scheduled for 9:45 that I'll go over in just a moment. The last proposed change is to move Item 16.D.22 from your consent agenda to the regular agenda to become Item 11.G. That is a recommendation from staff to amend your local housing assistance plan for the three-year period of fiscal year 2013 through 2016. And Page 4 December 8, 2015 that is moved at Commissioner Henning's request for discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Fiala. MR. OCHS: And Commissioner Fiala as well, thank you, ma'am. We would like to again, Mr. Chairman, include that with the time certain item that's related to affordable housing, which is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. this morning. That's a report from your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So 11.G will be heard immediately following 11.C. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And I'll very quickly go through a lengthy list of time certain items so everyone can follow on the agenda this morning. At 9:30 we will hear items 10.0 and immediately following 10.D. Those are two items brought to the Board for consideration from Commissioner Hiller having to do with recognition of veterans in our community. At 9:45 a.m. we will hear Item 10.A, which was brought on the agenda by Commissioner Henning having to do with the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. That will be followed immediately by Item 12.A, which is also a discussion of the litigation involving North Collier Fire District and the Board of County Commissioners. It will be presented by your County Attorney. And then as the Chairman has just mentioned, Item 11.F will follow those two items, and that's another item related to the COPCN. At 10:00 a.m. you're scheduled to hear the report from your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee on the tri-annual report required under Florida Statute by the SHIP housing program. And then we will follow that item with 11.G, which was Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala's item that they moved to the regular agenda for discussion. Page 5 December 8, 2015 At 10:15 a.m. you're scheduled to hear Item 9.C. That is the recommendation to repeal the Vehicle For Hire ordinance. If the Board in fact moves forward with that action, there's a companion item 11.E which deals with the refund of some of the fees paid by the Vehicle For Hire industry that would be due for refunds if that action is taken. At one -- excuse me, Items 9.A and 9.B, which are your land use public hearing items, will be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Item 11.A will be heard immediately following 9.A. And then finally, Item 10.B, which is an item brought on to the agenda by Commissioner Taylor, is scheduled to be heard at 1 :05 p.m., immediately following your public comments on general topics. And those are all of the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Before we go to commission ex parte and other changes, my understanding, we have a speaker registered for an item on the summary agenda, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Item 17.B, we have a registered speaker, Stephen Anthony. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Anthony? MR. MILLER: Mr. Anthony, are you present? MR. ANTHONY: Yes. Good morning. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, sir. MR. ANTHONY: I'm addressing Della Drive MSBU. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you wishing to speak in opposition to the item, sir? MR. ANTHONY: In opposition to it per se and in support of maybe an MSTU. But in regard to the MSBU, you're charging the residents for repair to Della Drive, which is a private road. Which I do not Page 6 December 8, 2015 understand the definition of a private road, because we have no control of who uses it or when or how. The road is constantly used by ATVs. They come through doing doughnuts, doing whatever they like, hitting every puddle they can to make deeper holes in the road. We call the police, nothing we can do, it's a private road. Kaye Homes comes out there, builds 10 new houses on the road. No upkeep on the road, nothing done to repair the road. The residents, nothing we can do, it's a private road. They didn't do anything to improve it. But they were granted the permits to build there. We have no control. We have no say-so in this. County vehicles, utility vehicles, they all use the road, they don't do anything to maintain it. Nothing we can do. It's a private road. We have no say-so in it. But you guys want to come in and say you've got to fix it, we're going to charge you. But we have no say in who tears our road up. And there's nothing we can do, it's a private road. That's all we hear, nothing we can do, it's a private road. And I don't see the correctness in it. That's all. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I think we're obligated to move this to the regular agenda or continue it, sir. What would your recommendation be? I'll make a motion we continue it unless you have a better -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- idea. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not obligated. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should, in light of the fact that this gentleman is raising an issue. CHAIRMAN NANCE: The only problem is that we can't get it in the current year if we do so. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's move it to the regular agenda. Page 7 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you live in a gated community, the same scenario is going to happen. You're going to have Kaye Homes building in that gated community, you're going to have county vehicles in that gated community. It's the obligation on private roads for the citizens on that private roads (sic) to pay for maintenance. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's move it to the regular agenda. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this gentleman going to stay here for the remainder we're going to speak on it? MR. ANTHONY: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon? MR. ANTHONY: Yes. MR. OCHS: That could be 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It could be tomorrow. MR. OCHS: Yeah, could be tomorrow, frankly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. MS. ARNOLD: Can I -- for the record, Michelle Arnold. Can I just note that the item that's on the agenda today is merely to receive repayment for the resources used to improve the road for emergency purposes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Which is obligated. MS. ARNOLD: And we've made advertisement in those types of things. And we would need to have it done at this meeting in order to have it be effected for the next taxing year. The -- we haven't created an MSTU or making recommendation for an MSTU or BU at this point. We are going to come back to you in a future meeting for talking about the policies and how we would address improvements on private roads or creating MSTUs. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion we move it to the regular agenda and make it the first item heard after the presentations and proclamations. Page 8 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to oppose that motion. It is a very busy morning schedule with all these time certains. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in fact I don't even think that we can meet these time certains. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we're going to try, sir, I hope. We're going to try. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think either we continue it or we leave it on consent. Because based on what Michele has just said, if this is required because of accessibility to emergency service vehicles, then it doesn't address the issue that's being raised, and that issue will come forward when you properly bring a separate executive summary on private road policy and accessibility and maintenance. So I would ask that you change your motion and just -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Leave it on consent? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- leave it on consent and just let it go -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and then bring it back at the beginning of the new year with -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: If that's a motion, I'll make a motion -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- a new executive summary. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to change that and leave it on consent. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion. But that means then you'll bring out a new subject -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- at the beginning of the year, so at Page 9 December 8, 2015 least this can move along? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, let's go today to Commissioners for any additional changes and ex parte communication. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm going to wait until the afternoon specifically about the Haldeman Creek issue to make my disclosures at that time. Other than that, I have had no ex parte communications on any of the noted items that require ex parte communications. CHAIRMAN NANCE: No further changes? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And no further changes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, first I'd like to welcome Victor Rios from the Marco Island City Council. Thank you for being here with us, sir. MR. RI O S: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On our consent agenda the only Page 10 December 8, 2015 items I have to declare are 16.A.6 which is the Landings at Bear's Paw. I spoke with Nicole Johnson and other environmentally conscious groups. On 16.A.10, which is the Winding Cypress phase, I met with Rich Yovanovich, Kristi Hastings, Michael Hunnican, an email from residents of the surrounding communities. And then coming on to the summary agenda, I have nothing to declare. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I will make my declarations on the public hearings, including Item 11.A which is a companion item later. And on the consent agenda, I have no further changes and no ex parte communication. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No disclosure. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes to today's agenda or ex parte communication on today's consent or summary. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. That having been said, is there a motion to approve today's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- regular and consent agenda as amended? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to say one thing. I really -- we have a busy, busy morning with all these time certains. I hope some of these don't get continued to the afternoon, delaying people's -- or prohibiting people from speaking on these time certains. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point. Maybe we can also help that if we can limit what we have to say until the proper time and Page 11 December 8, 2015 condense it down to just, you know, hitting the subject and staying on it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Here here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Remind me to buy you a Christmas present. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wonderful. There's a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, it passes unanimously. Yes, on today's agenda I would appreciate timely motions. I think many of these things are administrative in nature and are predicate to a larger and further discussion on down the road. So all your cooperation will make it possible to perhaps finish this agenda today. I hope we resolve to try to do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I make a suggestion that we do finish it today? And if that means break for dinner, we break for dinner and we come back. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everyone's cooperation will assist. Page 12 Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting December 8,2015 Add-On Item 4A: Proclamation designating January 16,2016 as National Religious Freedom Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Greg Harper,Father Michael Orsi,Father Philemon Patitsas,Pastor Rick Baldwin and Pastor Tom Harris. (Commissioner Henning's request) Continue Item 16A22 to the January 12.2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve the name of a Collier County artificial reef site pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding with the Community Foundation of Collier County and accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $98,000 for Artificial Reef Donations Project No.44038. (Community Foundation request) Continue Item 16D25 to the January 12,2016 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve FY15- 16 contract with the State of Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier County Health Department in the amount of$1,378,200 and also to allocate additional funds in the amount of $249,220 to fill a funding gap due to state non-funding of the ACHA Medicaid match programs. (Staffs request) Move Item 16E13 to Item 11F: Recommendation to accept a report on the status of the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District's second submission of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for an Advanced Life Support Class 3 Certificate and not to process the application. (Commissioner Hiller's request) Move Item 16D22 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve a resolution amending the Collier County State Housing Initiatives Partnership(SHIP)Local Housing Assistance Plan(LHAP)for Fiscal Years 13/14-15/16,to add a tiered structure approach for the purchase assistance program including increasing the maximum award to$50,000,and the addition of two new strategies to include Rental Rehabilitation and Rental Acquisition;and reaffirm implementation as administrative and ministerial. (Commissioner Henning's request) Time Certain Requests: Item 10C to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Item 10D to be heard immediately following Item 10C Item 10A to be heard at 9:45 a.m. Item 12A to be heard immediately following Item 10A Item 11C to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Item 9C to be heard at 10:15 a.m. Item 11E to be heard following Item 9C Items 9A and 9B may be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Item 11A to be heard immediately following Item 9A 10B to be heard at 1:05 p.m. 1/5/2016 8:41 AM December 8, 2015 Items #2B, #2C and #2D BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 27, 2015, BCC WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 3, 2015 AND BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 10, 2015 — APPROVED BY CONSENSUS CHAIRMAN NANCE: That having said (sic), we have three items on minutes. The approval of the October 27th regular meeting minutes, the November 3rd water resource workshop minutes, and the November 10th -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- regular meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Unless there's an objection, I recommend we approve all by unanimous consent. Seeing no objection, we'll consider those approved unanimously by consent. Mr. Ochs, service awards. Item #3A EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 20 YEAR ATTENDEES MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, if the Board would be good enough to join us in front of the dais, we have some service awards this morning. Commissioners, we have three of our associates celebrating 20 years of service with county government today. The first from our Building Review and Permitting Department is Karen Clements. Karen? (Applause.) Page 13 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Now, all the recipients are going to realize that it's not in here. So it's a promise that you will get it before Christmas. It was a delay. Our apologies. But no, this is your little token of gift this morning. You'll receive the actual document forthcoming. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Celebrating 20 years of service with Emergency Medical Services, Thomas Ouilette. Thomas? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Celebrating 20 years of service with our Library System, Tanya Williams. Tanya? (Applause.) Item #3B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS — 30 YEAR ATTENDEE MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have one of our associates celebrating 30 years of dedicated service to county government this morning. From our Building Review and Permitting Division, Alamar Smiley. Alamar? (Applause.) MR. OCHS: That concludes our awards this morning, Commissioners, thank you. Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 16, 2016 AS NATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY GREG HARPER, FATHER MICHAEL ORSI, FATHER PHILEMON PATITSAS, PASTOR Page 14 December 8, 2015 RICK BALDWIN AND PASTOR TOM HARRIS — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to the add-on item this morning. Under proclamations, Item 4.A is a proclamation designating January 16, 2016 as National Religious Freedom Day in Collier County. To be accepted by Greg Harper, Father Philemon Patitsas, Pastor Rick Baldwin, Pastor Tom Harris, and Jerry Rutherford. If you would please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) MR. HARPER: I'd like to thank the Board of Commissioners for issuing the Religious Freedom Day Proclamation, and just to let you know that we'll be using it the week of January 10th through Religious Freedom Day, January 16th. It will be read at a number of our churches locally on Religious Freedom Sunday, January 10th. It will be read again at a Religious Liberty Past and Present presentation that's taking place at Covenant Church Wednesday evening, the 13th. And then we'll also be through Jerry Rutherford's organization distributing Bibles at our county high schools on January 15th, all in recognition of Religious Freedom Day. So thank you very much. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the proclamation. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second. There's a motion and second to approve the proclamation. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. Page 15 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: That is approved unanimously. Item #5A RECOGNIZING NAPLES VFW POST 7369, THE 40 & 8 VOITURE LOCALE 795 (LA SOCIETE DES QUARANTE HOMMES ET HUIT CHEVAUX), THE BRISTER FUNERAL HOME, THE CARTER FENCE COMPANY AND THE IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL JROTC BATTALION FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO ADOPT AS A COMMUNITY PROJECT THE VETERANS SECTION AT THE LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY IN IMMOKALEE AND FOR LEADING THE EFFORT TO PLACE HEADSTONES ON UNMARKED GRAVESITES OF FOURTEEN VETERANS. ACCEPTING THE RECOGNITION ARE ED MESSER, ED SWANK, RICK ANGWIA, ROGER FRITCHEY, JOHN MADSEN, STEVE MEDEROS, DAVE CHRISTERSON, STEVE SMOCK, ANTHONY ROUPP, ARTHUR BARATONE, MEADE HOLLAND, LIEUTENANT COLONEL (RETIRED) ROBERT E. HINE, UNITED STATES ARMY; CADET MAJOR XAVIER CERVANTES AND CADET 2ND LIEUTENANT JENNIFER GOMEZ - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5.A is a presentation to recognize and commend Naples V.F.W. Post 7369, the 40 plus 8 Voiture Locale 795, the Brister Funeral Home, the Carter Fence Company, and the Page 16 December 8, 2015 Immokalee High School JROTC Battalion for their efforts to adopt as a community project the veterans section at the Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery in Immokalee, and for leading the effort to place headstones on unmarked gravesites of 14 veterans. Accepting the recognition are Ed Messer; Ed Swank; Rick Angwia; Roger Fritchy; John Madsen; Steve Mederos; David Christerson; Steve Smock; Anthony Roupp; Arthur Baratone; Meade Holland; Lieutenant Colonel retired Robert E. Hine, United States Army; Cadet Major Xavier Cervantes, and Cadet Second Lieutenant Jennifer Gomez. If you'd please be kind enough to step forward and receive your recognition. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: I'm sure the Commissioners would like to shake each one of your hands as you receive your award. MR. ANGWIA: My name is Rick Angwia. I am the present Post Commander for 7369. And I'd like to give you a short brief rundown of what this project turned into and the detail. This started out with a question from the district commander asking -- at the present time the present commander was Ed Messer -- to find a veteran that was missing in the cemetery. He headed to Immokalee, found the cemetery, and found it a little bit overrun, looked like an abandoned back farm field. And looked it over and did a little searching and was unable to find the veteran. Went back to the post and sat down and talked with a few members and a few members of our men's auxiliary and decided that a detail needed to be formed to search for this veteran and to turn this cemetery into something that would represent the military and a military organization. A few days later they headed off to the project with lawnmowers and tools in hand, cleaned it up and did the search for the veteran and Page 17 December 8, 2015 they did find him. And the questions were presented to find 14 more, then 20, then 30. It turned into 40, 45 and I believe it's now around 90 that we found. (Applause.) MR. ANGWIA: Typical veterans organizations we usually have a flag and there was none there, so the cry went out and somebody came forward with a flag and a pole, and the flag and pole went up. Then a bench went in for family members to rest at as they wanted to go over and see their fallen soldier or their past family member. Then there was a question on putting up a fence, and that opened up a plate of worms, but as you can see in the pictures the front corners are marked out with a white fence. They continued to clean the place up. Stones have been brought in. We have 14 new stones. There are several more going to be put in. The bureaucracy within the V.A. is interesting to work through, but we're doing it. There will be some more stones put in place as we can come up with them. The project was run by Ed Messer. It was his detail. Ed Messer, would you please stand? He is standing. (Applause.) MR. ANGWIA: And your detail. And your detail. (Applause.) MR. ANGWIA: I want to personally thank you for the honor of coming up here to receive this. And I'll bring it back to the Post. And thank you for what you've done. I've also noticed in the people that are here that we have a few from World War II. I want to say thank you for your service. (Applause.) MR. ANGWIA: Thank you for the time, and I hope you have a great day. Page 18 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Thank you. Item #5B PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 2015 TO WELLS FARGO BANK. ACCEPTED BY JEFF OSPINA, AREA PRESIDENT, GREATER SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, WELLS FARGO BANK; ERROL HOWARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WELLS FARGO BANK; KRISTI BARTLETT, VICE PRESIDENT, OPPORTUNITY NAPLES, THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND ANDREA STURZENEGGER, VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING & MEMBERSHIP, THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE — PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5.B is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December, 2015 to Wells Fargo Bank. To be accepted by Jeff Ospina, Area President, Greater Southwest Florida, Wells Fargo Bank; Errol Howard, Senior Vice President, Wells Fargo Bank; Kristi Bartlett, Vice President, Opportunity Naples and the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice President of Marketing and Membership for the Greater Naples Chamber. Please step forward. (Applause.) MR. OSPINA: Good morning. I'd like to just take two minutes to say thank you to the Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. Wells Fargo, you know, we believe it's our responsibility to support the strength and vitality of our communities, and that's why just last year we donated over $3 million to the nonprofits here in our west Florida market. And that's just half of our story. We're very proud that our team members have made the choice to Page 19 December 8, 2015 make it part of our culture over 160 years. And therefore our team members made the choice to volunteer over 18,000 hours just last year. So again, thank you, we're very humbled and thank you for all you're doing in Collier County. (Applause.) Item #10C DIRECTING STAFF TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMBAT WOUNDED PARKING SIGN PROGRAM — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to our first time certain item this morning. It is Item 10.C. It's a recommendation to direct staff to participate in the Combat Wounded Parking Sign Program. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Hiller. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I had a general concern in our community about the adequacy of parking for those who are handicapped. We have certain -- a certain number of our facilities that are heavily frequented by the public. And to that end I started thinking about our combat wounded and how much they've given and how much they've sacrificed for our freedom and how they deserve to be honored and assisted at those facilities with a parking spot designated specifically for them. So that if the other ADA spots are filled, they still will have a parking spot right next to the building so that they don't have to suffer when they travel across the parking lot to get government services that they're entitled to. So with the help of many in the community and with the help of staff, we've put together a program which I think will do justice to the objective. And so I want to thank you, Leo, and I want to thank those who are sitting in the audience who worked so hard to help make this Page 20 December 8, 2015 happen. I would like to make a motion to approve and I would also like to ask staff to step forward and just very briefly explain so that this is on the record how those who are combat wounded can get the appropriate decal to be able to park in the designated combat wounded reserved parking at these facilities. And if you could please just put the photograph of how that spot will be marked on the overhead, I would appreciate that, Leo. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion and note that Home Depot has taken the initiative to already do this, it's in their parking lot. So I'm glad to see that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Commissioner Fiala, I want to thank you for bringing that up, because someone had raised a question to me as to whether we would mandate it and ask companies to do that in their lots and my response was no, because I believe that companies will do that of their own right. Companies with a conscience will do the right thing for the right reason. This is the right thing to do. And you have just proved my point, we don't need regulation, we just need to set the example. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HILLER: So thank you, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm glad that we're doing a program to where veterans, wounded veterans have some kind of decal they can put on their vehicle. That's very important. This gives our community of Naples, Collier County, a -- not only a sense of community, but patriotism in who we are. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Very well said, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I would like to thank Commissioner Hiller for bringing this forward. I note that several other communities Page 21 December 8, 2015 in the State of Florida and also other states -- I will note that Shari Minetta who's from my district sent communication back in November on this topic and so I certainly support it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually there was a number of residents, Shari being one of them, who were supportive and encouraging about this. And that's why it's important to recognize the community members that back this initiative as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, it's approved unanimously 5-0. Mr. Ochs? Item #10D EXPANDING THE VETERAN RECOGNITION BANNER PROGRAM UNDER SIMILAR GUIDELINES AS THOSE ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON OCTOBER 27, 2015 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Thank you. Commissioners, the next time certain item is Item 10.D. This was also brought forward by Commissioner Page 22 December 8, 2015 Hiller. It's a recommendation to expand the Veteran Recognition Banner Program under similar guidelines as those established by the Board on October 27th of this year. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's Christmas for our veteran community. If I may, Commissioner Nance? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Several months ago the Board of County Commissioners unanimously approved a program which was brought forward by the Freedom Flight group here in Collier County. And what we approved was 50 banners at Freedom Memorial Park honoring not only those who are veterans but also those who are on active duty. It's been an incredibly successful program. And so as a result I thought that it would be a really great idea if we made this program a countywide program. And so what I'm asking today is that each of the regional parks in each district adopt this program for three of the major holidays: For Veteran's Day, Memorial Day and July 4th, and that we have 50 banners in each of the parks, meaning that for each of the holidays we would have 250 banners throughout Collier County, and that we continue to advance the program through Dr. Lux's initiative with the Freedom Flight, and recognize those who have served and those who are serving. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Golden Gate Community Park is a nice park. However, Golden Gate Community Center gets more visitors than the Golden Gate Page 23 December 8, 2015 Community Park. I think it's an appropriate place to recognize our veterans by distributing it in areas that are in my opinion well used. So that's the only request that I have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think Commissioner Henning is right. And I think the commissioners, you know, of each district know which parks are most heavily frequented. And those are the parks that we definitely want to promote this program in. So I'll amend my motion to ensure that the recommendation includes Commissioner Henning's wishes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, Commissioner, we're going to have to be flexible, because I don't have an original park in my district. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're working on that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're working on it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We are working on that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: As long as staff is flexible -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- then I can support it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And actually this is sort of like twisting your arm, staff, so now you have to make that regional park a realty so Commissioner Nance can be part of the program, right? No pressure. And with -- before we call the vote I'd like to say that I believe we have a number of people in the audience who would like to speak. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have public speakers -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We do. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- ma'am. We're going to go to those right now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make one announcement? I want to again buy a banner. But this time I want to buy a banner for an active duty vet. CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's double. Page 24 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, not vet, but active duty Marine who is the son of one of our employees. And I get so emotional. His name is Kyle Rosen, and he is a fighter pilot, and he flies the Harrier. So basically from here to Key West, seven minutes carrying massive bombs. He's an amazing guy, graduated from Annapolis, born and raised here in Collier County, active duty, and I want to make the first banner for this second phase of the program, which would in my district be at Livingston at the regional park on Livingston Road. So again, I'd like to donate and sponsor him. Don't tell his mother. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller, let's hear from the public speakers. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, four registered public speakers. Your first speaker is Pappy Wagener. I think I'm getting the last name right. And he'll be followed by Marty Monahan. MR. WAGENER: I'd just like to -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please approach the podium, sir. Everybody needs to hear your remarks. MR. WAGENER: Thank you. Good morning. I've lived in Collier County for almost 50 years, enjoyed fishing and hunting down here. That's the reason I came here originally. But the banners I think are really great. I was at a funeral this weekend for a guy named Victor Bucket. I'd like to see his picture up there as well as the rest of us. It's really great. The guy was on the Indianapolis. It sank. It was 1,300 sailors and Marines, and there was a little over 300 of them survived. So I think somebody like that really deserves this banner more than I do. But it's great to see them all up there. My family and his family sure appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marty Monahan. He'll be followed by Heather Corace. Page 25 December 8, 2015 MR. MONAHAN: I'm a 92-year-old Navy veteran of World War II, naval aviator. And I'd like to thank the Commission for supporting this banner program. I feel quite honored to see all the veterans being honored, and I would like to thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Heather Corace. She'll be followed by Debi Lux. MS. CORACE: Good morning. My name is Heather Corace. I have the privilege of serving on the board of directors for Collier County Honor Flight. I just want to start by thanking all of you for your October 27th approval of the initial installation of our Military Tribute Banner Program in Fred Coyle Freedom Park. You know, as I was thinking about what I was going to say today to try to encourage you to allow us to expand, I kept going back to the faces that are on those 36 banners. They're the faces of the defenders of our nation's freedoms and liberties. They're the faces of American veterans and current serving members of our Armed Forces. They're men and women from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, both officers and enlisted. Their job titles range from combat troops and nurses to special ops. They served in World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, including Lieutenant Commander Salazar who is still currently serving in Afghanistan. Included on those banners are veterans that came home from their service and are still amongst us today like Marty Monahan and Pappy Wagener. Included on those banners are veterans like my Uncle Pat O'Day who came home from their service missing body parts. Included on those banners are veterans that came home from their service and enjoyed their well-deserved and earned freedom for the remainders of their lives before passing away. Included on those banners are veterans like Linda Lamore Pierre, Page 26 December 8, 2015 that sacrificed their lives on foreign soil and came home to the United States to be laid to rest in the country that they died defending. Included on those banners are veterans like my great uncle Lawrence O'Day that lost their lives in a strange faraway place, never to return to their homes and families that are still waiting for them. The amazing thing is that all of that history and heroism is represented on only 36 banners. Think of all the stories yet to be told and the amazing opportunity you would be offering our community and citizens that are waiting for their chance to honor their very own veteran in this very poignant and relevant way. That is why I urge you to vote yes today on the expansion of this very worthwhile and relevant Military Tribute Banner Program throughout Collier County. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Heather, that was very touching. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your final speaker is Debi Lux. MS. LUX: Thank you. My name is Debi Lux. My husband and I are the founders of Collier County Honor Flight. And thank you so very much for considering us and allowing us to put the banners up there. I know I was going to come back with remarks about how people felt. And I know you're time limited, so I'm just going to limit it to two. One of them was from Jake Walker. He said: I wanted to personally thank you for thinking of me with a banner at Freedom Park -- he's one of our sheriffs here in Collier County -- as you could see on Monday I was completely surprised. What you could not see because of my sunglasses that I immediately misted up, seeing my photograph on that banner. I truly appreciate you thinking of me and honoring me with a banner. It is truly an honor to have that banner at the park. Another person is a Viet Nam veteran, John Blattner. He was on Page 27 December 8, 2015 our last flight and his banner is also up there. And he says: Because of the HonorFlight a heavy weight has been lifted and I finally feel welcomed home. You can't imagine the honor and dignity you have given me. I was teary-eyed, but tears in knowing that my service was appreciated. I can't thank you all enough. You have replaced a heavy burden with joy and love for you all. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have to say, I constantly call the HonorFlight the FreedomFlight but for a reason. And I just can't help it, it's just subliminally that's what it is, it is a FreedomFlight. It is all about freedom. The photograph that you see in front of you is Kyle Rosen right now fighting for us, fighting for our freedom. Can you show us the photograph without -- and that's him without his helmet on. And like I said, he's a Harrier fighter pilot. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Very, very nice group of veterans events today. We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes unanimously. I'd just like to say it's very poignant that we've had such a wonderful bundle of nice veteran related agenda items today, the date Page 28 December 8, 2015 after Pearl Harbor Day. I think it's pretty dramatic. And I noted an article in the paper today that said the survivors of the U.S.S. Arizona met again this year in Hawaii and there was two of them that made it. Two. Last year I think they identified nine remaining. I don't know how many remain today. But two attended the bell ringing. So our thanks. And I hope everybody in the audience realizes how dedicated the Board of County Commission is to veterans affairs. The wonderful improvement that we've made over there. We've got Mr. Hartnack, we've got Alex Gardino in that office now. We're really working to elevate our service for veterans. So thank you all for coming, thank you for these wonderful agenda items. Appreciate it very much. Mr. Ochs? Item #10A TEMPORARILY EXTENDING THE COUNTY'S COPCN WITH NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT THROUGH JANUARY 29, 2016, TO PROVIDE TIME FOR A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO BE DEVELOPED — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That takes us to our 9:45 a.m. time certain. That is Item 10.A on this morning's agenda. It's a recommendation that the Board temporarily extend the county's COPCN with North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District through January 29, 2016 to provide time for a cooperative agreement to be developed. This item was brought forward by Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? Page 29 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's pretty simple; is try to attempt without any publicity to work out an agreement with North Collier to do ALS service in their district. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's very appropriate to allow more time for us to get a cooperative agreement. So I will second your motion for discussion. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: If we can extend the COPCN for one day or 28 days or 60 days, we can do it for a year. The same facts have to support the extension for this short period of time, as does for the overall extension. I'm going to support this because I would like to see this discussion continue. But the fact of the matter is this vote allowing for this 30-day extinction proves that this COPCN can and should be awarded for the next year, as has been requested by North Naples. It is also clear that the community needs the ALS services provided by North Naples, as evidenced by the fact that this request is being extended to them in order to try to come to terms with them and ask them to continue to provide ALS service. So I will vote for it, but there is a high degree of hypocrisy in the request. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, the reason I put this on there is nothing what Commissioner Hiller stated. It's all about trying to work with other government entities here in our great community. So that's why I put it on the agenda. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller, public speakers? MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers. Your first speaker is Janet Vasey. She has been ceded three additional minutes from Dennis Vasey, who I see here. She will be followed by Michael Ramsey. Page 30 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to say welcome, Janet. We haven't seen you in a long time and it's nice to see your face again. MS. VASEY: Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Janet Vasey. While I serve as the chair of your Public Safety Authority, today I'm speaking for myself as a resident in North Collier Fire District. Should we extend the fire district's COPCN until January 29th? My answer is no, and I'll tell you why. First, does this lawsuit have any merit? Everyone knows what this is about. North Collier wants its own COPCN. You said no, go back to using an interlocal agreement like the rest of the county. So as a result they've come up with a legal challenge that no one else agrees with; no one in Collier, Lee County or probably all of Florida, including your own County Attorney. North Collier operated under an interlocal agreement for years, and now they and their attorney, who had no legal objection to it in the past, have decided these agreements are illegal. Just in time to make their case for a COPCN, another case for a COPCN. They've also used the media to create anxiety among North Collier residents, insisting that you're the ones stopping the North Collier paramedics from working when in reality the decision on whether or not to use their paramedics is totally up to them. Second: This settlement agreement is really unbelievable. It provides for a COP-- their offer provides for a COPCN throughout the entire North Collier district, exactly what you denied. The COPCN then would be approved for five years instead of the normal one year, and a major reduction in the authority of the County Medical Director, where he would be required to jointly develop with the North Collier Medical Director all countywide protocols, training and certification requirements. And he would have to work under a North Collier EMS council sub-committee to manage the countywide quality assurance Page 31 December 8, 2015 quality improvement function that he currently directs alone. So in exchange for your agreement on these provisions, everything North Collier could possibly want, they will dismiss with prejudice what looks like a very questionable lawsuit. Also, North Collier is making potentially harmful decisions. On November 13th, Deputy Chief Aguilera issued a general order stating, and I quote, effective immediately under no circumstances will any North Collier Fire District credentialed paramedic provide advanced life support within the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Service delivery area. This includes when on scene and under the guidance of a Collier County paramedic. End quote. So they're saying under no circumstances will their paramedics help an EMS paramedic, even in a life and death emergency. This hardball tactic could easily jeopardize the health and safety of their own citizens. You have to wonder if they are so focused on demonstrating that nothing else will work except getting their own way with a COPCN that they're exercising poor judgment and failing to consider the consequences of their actions on the public. My recommendation would be that the -- not my recommendation, the North Collier Fire District actions, with their questionable lawsuit, unrealistic settlement demands, attempts to frighten residents and their potentially harmful general order demonstrate that your previous decision to bring them back under the county with an interlocal agreement like the rest of the fire districts and fire departments is the right thing to do. There is no reason to delay this decision until January 29th. You will only get the same intransigence and the same unrealistic demands as you have in front of you today. I recommend approving the original EMS, Fire and Interlocal Agreement, like all the others in the county, and let the North Collier Page 32 December 8, 2015 Fire Commissioners decide how they want to respond to your decision at their board meeting in two days on December 10th. If they say no fire paramedics, you will have sufficient time to activate your contingency plan for expanded EMS service on January 1st to care for the North Collier citizens yourself. Your EMS can do the job and still meet or exceed the countywide standards. If North Collier decides not to sign your standard interlocal agreement, there is the possibility of at least one beneficial outcome. A lot of recent medical literature has emphasized the importance of basic life support, and the national standard is to respond with BLS within four minutes. If North Collier doesn't want to provide paramedic support, then they can serve the public in another way, by stepping up their efforts to meet that four-minute window for BLS. Incidentally, having fire districts provide only BLS while county EMS provides the advanced life support could be the first step in moving Collier toward the highly rated King County pre-hospital emergency services model. Of course with this reduced level of support from the fire district, North Collier taxpayers and voters can decide next year if we have been well served by our fire commissioners and determine if we're getting sufficient service for the hefty $25 million in taxes that we give them each year. Now, I do have copies of the general order, if you'd like to see it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I would like to see that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioners Henning, you have a question? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to see it also. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Janet, correspondence. You know, I am really surprised that the fire commissioners allow this and other things to continue by their staff. It's truly amazing. It's Page 33 December 8, 2015 obvious that the administration does not want to work with our staff to assist our residents in need. It's amazing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I think that your agenda item is appropriate and I don't think we're -- it's not on the agenda for us to review all the different elements of this today. I believe that your agenda item to allow time to have further discussions and address these things and try to come to terms with North Collier Fire, who is a very valuable portion of our Emergency Medical Services, is appropriate. Commissioner Hiller, do you have a question for Ms. Vasey? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a statement and I have to make it on the record. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: To begin, North Naples lawsuit is anything but frivolous; it's totally legitimate and I agree with it. Secondly, Janet Vasey's presentation of this memo from North Collier Fire stating that under no circumstances that advanced life support will be provided in Big Corkscrew is legally correct and absolutely necessary and is precipitated as a result of the Board of County Commissioners denying North Naples the expansion of their COPCN into the Big Corkscrew area. Because of the majority vote of this Board denying North Naples an expansion of the boundaries of their COPCN, North Naples cannot legally provide ALS services. And so Janet's propaganda, her manner of presenting these facts as if somehow North Naples is wrongly denying the citizens ALS services is completely false. It's 100 percent as a result of this Board of County Commissioners that the citizens of North Naples and Big Corkscrew are being harmed and put at risk unnecessarily of death. Shame on this Board. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's very important for the Page 34 December 8, 2015 record to note that this memo was written November the 13th, 2015. The memo begins: Effective immediately. Now, if this memo was written January the 1st, 2016, I could understand it. But there is six to eight weeks where North Collier Fire Control and Rescue will not provide advanced life support when they could. It's that simple. It's right here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they can't. Not to Big Corkscrew. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: According to Chief, they can't. But they could -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: According to the law they can't. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- if this wasn't here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not true. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and just very quickly, Janet, that was an excellent speech. I know you want to not delay it, but I think that we -- I think Commissioner Henning is on the right track. We can get all of these things discussed and taken care of. But that was excellent information that you gave us that I was not aware of, so thank you for that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller, let's continue with public speakers. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Michael Ramsey. He'll be followed by your final speaker on this item, Bob Naegele. MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commission members. My name's Michael Ramsey. I am the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association and a resident of the Big Corkscrew Service Delivery Area, which is part of the North Collier Fire District. Also as part of being the president for the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association I have members that participate in both the Page 35 December 8, 2015 Greater Naples Fire District and the North Collier Fire District. The first thing I would like to bring up is I played a -- spent a major significant amount of time in merger discussions that created the North Collier Fire District from Big Corkscrew and North Naples. In those discussions we never discussed, in the merger agreement or in the five-year budget, about ever increasing the COPCN areas they did in the initial proposal. It was not budgeted for, nor was it discussed, nor was it planned for in the long-term strategically. For me this is not a very good decision-making process on the part of this administration and Board. Number two: In the follow-up proposal that's been presented to you by North Collier Fire, it continues to not appear to be substantially different from the initial application. In that I will continue to say that the components of an efficient, competent emergency medical system that is composed of a three-tiered system is still not present in this proposal. We recommend denial. And we think that you should go ahead and do it and start the process into creating a more efficient, competent three-tiered system. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is Bob Naegele. MR. NAEGELE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Bob Naegele, 7993 Via Vecchia, in Collier County. I just wanted to echo the points made by Janet Vasey and also Michael Ramsey. Janet's been following the North Naples Fire District, which has preceded the North Collier Fire District, for 15 years. And as we looked at the merger, she was able to provide us a great deal of information. And her information is valid from an historical point of view as well as a factual point of view. One of the things that's sad for me when I see the fire Page 36 December 8, 2015 administration on North Collier Fire Rescue District and as highlighted by Chief Aguilera's statement, we will not be helping the other districts should somebody go down is symptomatic of the arrogance gone to seed in the North Collier Fire District administration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, it's approved unanimously. Item #12A EXTENDING THE EXISTING COPCN FOR THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION TO JANUARY 29, 2016. SHOULD THE BOARD GRANT THE REQUESTED EXTENSION, THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REQUEST FOR A SHADE SESSION WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OFFER IN THIS MATTER, TO BE HELD AT THE BOARD'S JANUARY 12TH REGULAR MEETING. IF, AND ONLY IF, THE BOARD SHOULD FAIL TO GRANT THE REQUESTED EXTENSION, THAT THE BOARD THEN CONSIDER THE SETTLEMENT OFFER FROM THE NORTH Page 37 December 8, 2015 COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to the companion item to 10.A, and that is Item 12.A under your County Attorney's report. This is a recommendation that the Board accept the County Attorney's request for a shade session with respect to a proposed settlement offer in this matter, to be held at the Board's January 12th regular meeting. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any comments, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: No, the notice is in the backup. I'm asking for shade session at the next meeting to discuss this entire issue. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fine, sir, thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: 12.A passes unanimously. Thank you. Item #11F A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE Page 38 December 8, 2015 CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT'S SECOND SUBMISSION OF A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR AN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT CLASS 3 CERTIFICATE AND NOT TO PROCESS THE APPLICATION — MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the final related item to these items is Item 11.F that was formerly Item 16.E.13 that was moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Hiller's request. This is a recommendation to accept a report on the status of the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District's second submission of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for an advanced life support Class III certificate. And the recommendation is not to process the application. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I don't believe that we can legally fail to process the application. I don't believe that we can legally deny any petitioner who would apply for a COPCN to be heard by this Board on that application. I think this is an absolute violation of procedural due process and I cannot stand by and support this. It is completely wrong. And so I make a motion to deny and to allow this application to be brought forward and publicly heard by the Board. The petitioner has that constitutional right and the public has the right to hear what is being proposed. Because this is about the public's interest, it's about life and death. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that your legal opinion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. And it is also my opinion as a representative of the people. Page 39 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- interesting, I'm not going to accept your legal opinion because it isn't -- according to our ethics ordinance we cannot accept legal opinions for free. However we do -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can pay me. I don't mind. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you get paid enough. I think -- well, not I think, but in our backup material the attorney who we hire, have a contract with and is an expert on government, Florida government law disagrees. However, they agree with staff I didn't hear a second on your motion, so I'm going to make a motion to approve staffs recommendation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala seconds that. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I seconded it. Or did you too? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you can. Go ahead. I did, but it doesn't make a difference. Whomever. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow, I just wanted to make sure that it's on the record that we are going to accept this report and that they're at this point until January the 29th, I guess it would be, but there is no Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. MR. KLATZKOW: You have one that's expiring at the end of this year. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. MR. KLATZKOW: The item under consideration was in staffs opinion substantially similar to the item that the Board turned down. I concurred with staff, the proper process to report this back was through a motion to reconsider. The reconsideration never came. That's what happened here. Page 40 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, there's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the report and not process the application. Further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. And again, the reason I'm opposing it is because this is a violation of procedural due process. You cannot deny a new application based on a reconsideration. This is not a reconsideration of a preexisting vote, this is a new application with new information. And again, it's an absolutely violation of the law; it's a violation of the petitioner's rights, it's a violation of the citizens rights. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item #11C SUBMISSION OF THE 2015 INCENTIVE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 420.9076(4), FLORIDA STATUTE, STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SHIP); SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO Page 41 December 8, 2015 EXISTING AND ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE AND GAP HOUSING INCENTIVE OR PROGRAMS, POTENTIAL FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY WIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to your 10:00 a.m. time certain. That is Item 11.0 on this morning's agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the submission of the 2015 incentive review and recommendations report, as required by Florida statutes and your State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program. Further, to schedule a workshop to discuss proposed modifications to existing and additional affordable and GAP housing incentives or programs, potential funding alternatives and potential development of a community-wide affordable housing plan. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioners, this is in part an administrative process to approve submission of the 2015 incentive review and recommendations report. I'm going to make a motion to go ahead and approve. And it also sets the stage for us to schedule a workshop on a very, very important item that I think has come before us and that is workforce and GAP housing. So -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a -- I made a motion to approve. You want to second it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second on the floor. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I would like to see at the workshop, proposed workshop, I mean, there's a lot of great tools Page 42 December 8, 2015 here. We have tried the inclusionary zoning. It didn't work. And I know that in DRI's -- the Regional Planning Council mandated that they would address their housing. I think that's something that we should continue. However, I don't believe that inclusionary zoning in some of the infills is just not going to work. It's only going to work if we incentivize housing, not decentivize by mandating. We need to provide the carrot in this particular issue. That's what I would like to see done are things like deferral of impact fees, density. We have in our Land Development Code Growth Management Plan, recognizing infill pieces can apply for 16 units per acre. I think we need to clearly demonstrate within that added density that we should have a blended affordable housing product for that increase above four units per acre. That's my opinion. That's what I would like to see in the upcoming workshop instead of the shtick. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I concur 100 percent with your remarks. Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I also agree. I wanted to carry that one step further, although I was going to talk to it under 16B.22, but I'll bring that out right now, and that is to incentivize some of this middle income and GAP housing combined. Instead of incentivizing very low, which we seem to have an abundance of right now. But we're trying to attract people to the businesses. We're trying to create through Bruce Register's office. And he's not looking for -- he's not looking for any -- very low income employees, he's looking for people who are educated, just fresh out of college who are wanting to come back home to where they grew up. But there's no housing to support those people. We have the other housing, but we do not have that. And I believe -- I strongly believe we need to incentivize what we need the most. And I think that's exactly what Commissioner Henning is eluding to. And I was going to talk about it as I say a little Page 43 December 8, 2015 bit later on, but I think that's an initiative that we need to discuss thoroughly at the affordable housing workshop as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. And I agree with the statements here. I think we're on the right track. I'm excited that we're going to be having a workshop. One of the -- in conversation with the public, one suggestion was how much do we need? If we could do it on an annual basis that this is our goal, this is what we need, it gives a framework by which we in this very busy time with new projects coming on line and coming before us, we have an opportunity here to plan, not only for now but for the future. So if we could frame that with some kind of how much do we need, what are we looking for, what level are we looking for and really stick to it, I think it would be very, very helpful. It would create a very important road map. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one little more addition, and that is I think we need an accurate account of what we already have sitting on the ground rather than what is HUD approved. It is amazing the difference between HUD approved residences and what we actually have sitting on the ground. And I'll give you a real quick example. Just in the East Naples area, because that's what I know best, when I asked how many affordable housing units we had, the answer was 1,201. I said no, all of East Naples. They said 1,201 . I said, well, that couldn't even be close to the accurate figures, because figuring Naples Manor alone had 1,351. They said they didn't count. I said: What about the Section 8 housing? That doesn't count. Page 44 December 8, 2015 What about the housing that's along in the triangle? That doesn't count. What about Bayshore? What about Thommasson, what about in between? None of those count. so in other words, we've got 13,000 units that are not counted. Now, what kind of account -- you know, no wonder people are hysterical about it. We don't have any more affordable housing. They're all sitting there, they're just not counted. And so we're going to be talking about that at the affordable housing workshop as well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, we're going to have a full-blown workshop and it looks like we've got unanimous approval here. With that said, we're going to go to public speakers. Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, one registered speaker. Steve Sanderson. MR. SANDERSON: Thank you very much for this opportunity and for me to be here. I'm Steve Sanderson and I'm with the United Way of Collier County. I just want to personally echo many of the comments that you've shared. I want to thank you commissioners for addressing and taking a lead on this critical issue. I also want to acknowledge Steve Hruby, a gentleman I've gotten to know in the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee that's been grappling with this. Kim Grant, the county staff, the leadership, Mr. Ochs and Mr. Carnell. And it's not gone unnoticed in the community, and I want you all to be aware of that as I know you are. And the United Way is pleased to be a part of this. And remind us, as we all know in the end this is not about housing, it's about homes and work forces and the life blood of our community. It's about our Page 45 December 8, 2015 children's education, teachers, it's about all of our safety, police and fire and all first responders. It's about our service industry that maintains the beauty of our environment and those who provide quality experiences and services for our seasonal community. And it's also about our care providers, should any of us become ill. It is about hardworking people and employers who are making a difference in the quality of life for our county. I commend your wisdom, Commissioners, to grapple with this challenging and, yes, multifaceted issue in the recommendation to set a February session, and wholeheartedly support the concept of developing a community plan. Thank you for leading and being a model for our community and our region as this work moves forward. Have a great day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. There's a motion -- MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- by me and a second by Commissioner Hiller for approval. Any further comments? MR. OCHS: Sir? Just for the public's edification, we will -- the Board reserves the first Tuesday of each month typically for a workshop date, so we will look at that February 2nd date, which is the date that's normally reserved for your workshops. And we may want to -- well, we'll talk some more about this, but -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're going to consider that at this moment? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We're targeting February 2nd. And you may want to consider starting earlier than 1:00 p.m., given the nature of-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good idea. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely. Page 46 December 8, 2015 MR. OCHS: -- the discussion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's review that and then you can confirm it going forward. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Hearing no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes unanimously. MS. GRANT: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am. MS. GRANT: May I have just one moment to please recognize the chair of our Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, just to be recognized for all of the work. Mr. Steve Hruby is here, and he and his committee have done a fantastic job working with staff. So thank you for the opportunity -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am, thank you. MS. GRANT: -- to let us thank Mr. Hruby. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And thank you, sir. Much appreciated. We'll look forward to an excellent workshop coming forward. MR. HRUBY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That takes us to the companion item -- Page 47 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we have a break for the -- MR. OCHS: -- which was -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: You want to take a break for the court reporter, Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: If she's good 'til 10:30, I can be in and out of here. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How many speakers do we have? MR. MILLER: Are we going to 11.G? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, we are. MR. MILLER: No speakers on 11.G. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, let's go with 11.G and then we'll take a break for the court reporter. Item #11G RESOLUTION 2015-257: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (LHAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 13/14-15/16, TO ADD A TIERED STRUCTURE APPROACH FOR THE PURCHASE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING INCREASING THE MAXIMUM AWARD TO $50,000, AND THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW STRATEGIES TO INCLUDE RENTAL REHABILITATION AND RENTAL ACQUISITION; AND REAFFIRM IMPLEMENTATION AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINISTERIAL - MOTION TO APPROVE ADDING THE TWO NEW STRATEGIES BUT LEAVING THE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE AWARD AT $20,000 AND TO BRING BACK FOR DISCUSSION AFTER THE WORKSHOP — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Yes, this item was moved to the regular agenda at the request of both Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala. Page 48 December 8, 2015 This is a recommendation to approve an amendment to your State Housing Initiatives Partnership Local Housing Assistance Plan for the three-year period of FY 13 through 16. And the staff has a brief presentation that we'd like to give, to give the Board a little bit more of an explanation and the public an explanation of what's being recommended. MS. SONNTAG: Good morning, Commissioners. Kristi Sonntag, Community and Human Services, for the record. The LHAP is a three-year plan, and the current LHAP that we're requesting approval for amendment covers fiscal years '13 through '16. This mid cycle amendment proposes to modify one strategy and add two new strategies to ensure timely spending. Our first is the purchase assistance strategy where we'd like to increase the amount of funding per individual family, depending upon their income level. The second, which is a new strategy, is to add a rental rehabilitation strategy. And the third is to add a rental acquisition strategy. The purchase assistance program I know you're familiar with. What we're proposing is a tiered award under the 1316 LHAP. We're recommending that it be based on an applicant's income category. The current award that we've been operating under is 20,000, regardless of income category. And for essential service personnel an additional 5,000. The current incomes that we're proposing as follows are: ELI up to 50; very lows, those are your 50 percent area median income, that would be 40,000. Your low incomes would be -- I'm sorry, your very lows, your lows and then your moderates are you're up to 120 and your lows are 80 percent. The scenario: A tiered scenario is what we're proposing; would allow us to process 54 files. Of that 29 would be very low and low, and 25 would be your moderates under the tiered approach. Page 49 December 8, 2015 The flat rate structure is if everybody got 50,000, okay? 30 files in total we would process. We would be -- 20 would be our very lows and 10 would be our moderates. And you might be asking why did we propose a tiered approach. And the reason is as we all know home prices have been rising here in Collier. For the past three and a half years through quarter two the average house sold in Collier County increased from 201 to 300,000. This represented a 49 percent increase, which is now equal to the prices in 2008. The amount of our assistance that we've been providing has been stagnant for several years at the 20,000 for all income categories. Lenders are more conservative than they were in the past. SHIP spending requirements, we need to spend approximately 1.5 million in 18 months. 65 percent of our allocation must be spent on homeownership activities. And that includes rehabilitation or purchase assistance. And it would be difficult for us to close 75 files in 18 months at the current 20,000. Our recommendation: To address the purchase assistance challenges is adopt a tier approach per our technical assistance advisers from Florida Housing Financing Corporation. It would help to reduce homebuyers' debt to income ratios on their back ends. It's supported by our lender community and we're trying -- we looked at mirroring other communities approaches. The recommendation is that the LHAP, the second amendment to the 1316 LHAP be approved. Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, you requested to move this -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to the agenda. Would you like to make some remarks or questions, sir? Page 50 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could you put on the second slide of your presentation? No, go back. Right there. MS. SONNTAG: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The tiered approach I think is great, but I think it's kind of backwards. And here's why. And tell me you're thought. If you're at a low income, you're going to seek out houses that are on the lower end. Now, if you're a moderate income, that would be some of your professionals, I would say? MS. SONNTAG: Uh-huh. It's that 120 percent of area median income, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right. So you're going to be seeking out housing maybe close to market rate; is that a fair statement? MS. SONNTAG: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would take more of a down payment for your professionals than you're extremely low. MS. SONNTAG: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my opinion. The other thing, the concern that I have, on extremely low what is the range of housing that they're looking at? MS. SONNTAG: And I'll be honest with you, sir, we haven't had any extremely low incomes apply. And the reason that we heard from the lenders at our lender forum was because they can't get into a house. Houses are out of reach for them. However, lenders said if we could increase the amount of funds that go to your extremely low, because rent rates have raised. The fair market rate for Collier County for a two-bedroom is 990. And what they're saying is, you know, maybe they could get into 140, 150, maybe a townhouse or a condo they could afford to get into which would allow them to expend less of a housing burden cost. If in fact Page 51 December 8, 2015 their down payment was significant enough. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, significant enough like over 20 percent loan to value? MS. SONNTAG: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really? MS. SONNTAG: But there's no rules, sir, that say that -- if you want to do a flat approach, that's fine too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not saying we do a flat approach. MS. SONNTAG: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what we should do is make sure that people have skin in the game. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My concern is if they don't have a vesting in it, how important is it to them? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my God. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we're going to accept -- continue accepting HUD money, then my recommendation would flip the chart or do a percentage of down payment that they have. That would be my recommendation. But, you know, what do I know? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I find what Commissioner has just said downright offensive. We have very poor people in this community and the objective of government is to keep people off the street so we don't have wards of the state to prevent homelessness. This is not about allowing someone who is an essential worker to be in a more expensive home and give them a higher down payment so that they can have a prettier house and say that poor people who can't save money because they're living hand to mouth deserve less help. Because they don't -- Page 52 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: It isn't what I said. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is what you said, they don't have skin in the game. I really applaud you for this tiered approach. This is an absolutely wonderful way of dealing with the problem that we're facing. The banks are absolutely right, these poor people, the extremely low income who are at greatest risk of being homeless need the most assistance. And I really like the fact that you took what the bank said into consideration, that you are considering the most needy in our community. And more importantly, that as a result of this tiered approach as opposed to the flat allotment, you have substantially increased the number of people we are going to be helping in Collier County. If you go back to the slide, you show that you increase the number, that if you used the flat approach you would only help 30 families. By using the tiered approach, you're assisting 54. And in fact what you're doing is you're assisting a segment of the population that because of what's going on right now are not able to get into a home period, and this will get them there. So thank you, you're doing the right thing for the right reason. This community will benefit. It will work against homelessness, it will help the poor who need the help the most. Thanks. I support it. I make a motion to approve the tiered approach. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree with Commissioner Henning. Right now the extremely low can only qualify via the banks for a certain price range. Even if they had $50,000 but they only made $20,000 a year, the bank is not going to approve that anyway, other than Habitat for Humanity. And so let me add that for Habitat for Humanity of course the down payment is very low because it's manual Page 53 December 8, 2015 labor that gives them their down payment, and I think they have to put down $1,000. And the prices then are within range and they are eligible to buy that because the bank is financed right through Habitat rather than going to a major bank. But those people who want to come into our town and answer some of the ads, like Arthrex for instance is looking for employees all the time, they're looking for people who are skilled, they're looking for young graduates right out of high school, right out of college, but they cannot afford a place to live. And so I agree with Commissioner Henning, we need to flip that in order to give these people an opportunity. Right now we have a lot of opportunities for very low, but we don't have any for these young professionals that need to come here that we need here but they cannot find a place to live. So I make a motion that we follow Commissioner Henning's advice -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I already made the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and flip this. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I made a motion to approve -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: We already have a motion to approve. Let's -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We don't have a second on that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We don't have a second yet. Commissioner Taylor, then back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, and just point of clarification. Can this money be used at all for rent subsidation (sic)? MS. SONNTAG: Yes. Commissioners, you're going to be receiving a 17 through -- well, 16 through 19 LHAP in about six months from us, and we could, yes, employ that strategy. There's a small amount -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, to me that's where only -- Page 54 December 8, 2015 MS. SONNTAG: Yeah, there's only up to a small amount can be used for rental assistance. Under the SHIP regulations you can provide their security deposit and their first month, but we could assist, yes, ma'am -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not a lot. MS. SONNTAG: -- with this program. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the idea is if we don't use the -- go ahead. MS. SONNTAG: I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that 60 percent of our allocation that we receive from the state must be spent per statute on the very low and low income. And then of that allocation -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: 60 percent or 30 percent? MS. SONNTAG: -- then 65 percent has to be spent on homeownership. So there's a lot of, you know, regulations in there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so you're required to address the low and very low -- MS. SONNTAG: Yes, ma'am. MR. OCHS: Say it again, please, Kristi. MS. SONNTAG: 60 percent of the funds must be expended on the very low and low income populations. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that would be rent. But that's a very small amount, because it's only a security deposit and one month. You couldn't forge some kind of agreement where there would be a payment over a two-year lease and there would be a lump sum, you couldn't do that? MS. SONNTAG: No, we can pay like their utility hookups and to help them to get into the unit per the regs. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think this is -- I understand everybody's point that's been made here. I'm going to go back to Commissioner Henning, but I'm not so sure that we should not -- is this in any way a time sensitive agenda Page 55 December 8, 2015 item? MS. SONNTAG: The funds need to be expended and we have spending deadlines, so the timeliness of our spending, we can continue to operate at the 20,000. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, all I'm suggesting is perhaps we should roll this into our workshop and get a better understanding. Maybe that would be smart. Let's go back to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there wasn't a motion -- our second motion on Commissioner Hiller's. So I'm going to make a motion that we extend this item, continue this item 'til after our workshop and discuss it at the workshop. However, I think it's okay for government to give a hand up instead of a hand-out. The -- you know, people become dependent on government when you do everything for them. It's the -- they feel that it's an entitlement. You know, pay more than a down payment for a house or a free phone, cell phone or something like that. I just -- I think I can accept the role as a hand up. MS. GRANT: Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment in response to the recommendation to continue this 'til after the workshop? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am. MS. GRANT: Certainly the Commission has full latitude, so let me start with that. A couple of considerations. This item talks about not only the tiered structure but also adding two additional strategies. The two additional strategies will also help greatly for staff being able to spend the funds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me modify my motion. MS. GRANT: So that would be very helpful. And then we could continue with the 20,000 as we have it now for the down payment and implement our new strategies as well. Page 56 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's my motion. MS. GRANT: Super. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So there's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the motion is to continue this to the workshop? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. MR. OCHS: No, ma'am, it's to implement the two recommendations related to rental units and to maintain the current program for down payment assistance at $20,000 for all categories until the workshop. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments on that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a consideration. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, would you consider -- the two additional categories we added were the moderate and the other two? MS. GRANT: I put them up again. The additional strategies are rental rehabilitation strategy and a rental acquisition strategy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's -- everything changes except for the down payment assistance program and that's going to stay the same. MS. GRANT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Until the workshop. MS. GRANT: Until the workshop -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So right now but it's 20,000 across the board for all levels; is that correct? MS. GRANT: That's correct, plus -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, would you consider, Commissioner Henning, maybe upping the higher categories, the Page 57 December 8, 2015 higher income categories? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're just trying to get to the workshop, ma'am, so we -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm just trying to spend their money. I'm concerned that -- I mean, I'm listening to you, we've got to do something so that we don't lose this money. MS. GRANT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that was my thought. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not going to lose it. MS. GRANT: Which is why for consideration we put the slide up saying you could consider going to any other flat rate such as we just chose 50,000 because it was the high end. So you do have the latitude to make those choices, if you would like to. But the workshop is 60 days away, we can certainly function on the 20,000 until that point in time. So staff can function either way. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would like to make a comment with respect to addressing this at the workshop. Please bring forward the information that shows that the very low income and the low income are not qualifying for housing because they can't make the down payment assistance and to, you know, talk about handouts. To give handouts to people who are making 120 percent of median income and leave those who are closest to homelessness without Page 58 December 8, 2015 assistance and at risk of not being able to get in a home makes absolutely no sense at all. I mean, the intent of housing assistance is to prevent homelessness, not to allow someone who's making a lot of money, you know, maintain a high standard of living. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's time for a court reporter break, and when we come back we have your time certain item for your vehicle for hire. MR. MILLER: Leo, if I might, Mr. Chairman, I have 38 registered speakers for that item. And some of those slips are a little confusing. I have two that appear to be for the same person, Ray Mundy. And I have some others that appear to want to cede time to him, some that I'm not sure about. So during the break, if you've submitted a slip for 9.0 and you're Ray Mundy or want to cede time to Ray Mundy, please come see me here. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Sir, how long would you like to break? 10 minutes, 15 minutes? CHAIRMAN NANCE: 10 minutes. We're going to return at 10:51. (Recess.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Item #9C ORDINANCE 2015-65: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY ORDINANCE NO. 2009-27, RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES FOR HIRE IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Commissioners, this is your 10:15 a.m. time certain item. It's item 9.0 on your agenda. It is a recommendation to adopt an Page 59 December 8, 2015 ordinance repealing in its entirety Ordinance No. 2009-27 relating to the licensing and regulation of motor vehicles for hire in Collier County. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, we have 37 registered public speakers. The Board and the Chairman do not want to restrict the public's ability to speak, but because of the workload that we have today I'm going to adjust the public comment period per speaker from three minutes down to two minutes. I would request respectfully and remind speakers that so far on this issue there's been a very strong Board majority to deregulate this issue. If you want to talk for two hours and talk us out of it, you're certainly -- that's certainly your right to do so. But I would respectfully request that if you agree with the prior speaker, I would appreciate if you would come in, state your name on the record, state your opinion, and if the previous speakers have covered the issues that are most important to you, that you so indicate. If you have something new, please by all means please give your testimony to the Board. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a procedure in place, and Jeff, maybe you can help highlight what would apply in this circumstance. But what we have done in the past when we have so many speakers where we know that so many of them will be saying the same thing, we've asked that those on the same side of an issue appoint a spokesperson who will be given a fixed amount of time to represent that group. And I believe that amount of time is provided for in that resolution so that we don't hear the same thing over and over again and that we have, you know, one consolidated presentation on the particular issue. Jeff, what was that resolution or policy that we adopted; do you recall? Can you pull it up for us? Page 60 December 8, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: I do recall. I don't know that that particular resolution is apt here, given the nature of this particular proceeding. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that? MR. KLATZKOW: Because I think you've got a lot of divergent views on this from the -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's give it a shot. Let's see if we can get the public testimony, take everything into consideration and allow the Board to deliberate and make a determination. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you have two views: One is pro and one is against. And I believe that the arguments, from what I've heard from people who have called me, there's consistency in the arguments pro and against. And I don't mean that they're consistent with each other, I mean the group that is against whether or not they're aligned with each other or not have, you know -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Similar issues. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have the same issues and conversely for the other side. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, let's -- is there any Commissioner that wants to make any introductory remarks? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I would like -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to make a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we need to get -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would like to make the motion to go forward with rescinding this ordinance, upholding the decision we made at the previous meeting. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second that for discussion. Then let's begin, Mr. Miller. Let's start with the public speakers. Please be courteous, ladies and gentlemen, to one another and to the Board. MR. MILLER: Each speaker now will receive two minutes, and Page 61 December 8, 2015 for every speaker you've been ceded time from, that will be two additional minutes. I want to remind the speakers to use both podiums. Our first speaker is Randy Moffett, who's been ceded additional time from Amanda Dillon. Could you indicate you're here, Ms. Dillon? Thank you. It will be a total of four minutes. And he'll be followed by Victor Rios. If you could please wait at the other podium, Mr. Rios. MR. MOFFETT: Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing this today. This is an important issue. I am Randy Moffett, I teach economics at Florida Southwestern State College, but I'm not here from Florida Southwestern. And in fact I'm not even here as an economist. I'm here as a consumer. That's all. A consumer of Uber. I use Uber all the time. And I wish the deregulations to be upheld because some of us who use Uber, we do not care for taxicab service. We just don't. And Uber provides us many services that the taxicab industry does not provide us. So my first question is I know one of the motivations for this to regulate Uber has been based on consumer protection and consumer services for Uber to provide. And my question is, everybody that I know who uses Uber, everybody, no one has been asked and we are the people who are affected by this more than anybody else. So I'm wondering, where is the idea that we need the protection or that we want the protection or those extra services? That's all. Because if we're not consulted, then the regulations that only deal with the consumer side of this has not been brought to the people who are actually truly affected by it. That's why I would suggest that if you're going to have regulations you need to actually ask the people who are truly affected, the consumer side of it anyway, are truly Page 62 December 8, 2015 affected by that, and that is the Uber riders. Not the public in general and not the taxicab services or the people who ride taxicab services. Uber riders are the ones who are affected by the consumer part of the regulations implied. So that's my first point is I think that that should be asked by the Uber riders. My second point is that Uber riders are particular about what we choose. We choose Uber because that's what we choose. And Uber riders are nationwide and worldwide. So you have to consider what's going to be the effect of having Uber regulated in this county if it's not going to be regulated in other counties near us? And that is going to be an issue in the State of Florida. Perhaps this issue may be best dealt with at Tallahassee. That probably is going to be the case. But the fact is, we're going to put ourselves at a disadvantage. I know when I go someplace as a tourist I look at Uber. I see if it's there. So you're putting yourself in a situation where Collier County has regulated it, Sarasota has not. If you are a northern tourist and you're to come down, where are you going to go? By regulating Uber and driving it out, you are literally leaving advertising, free advertising that Uber gives you, not on purpose but because we're located on the maps and people who use Uber look at that, trust me. I know I do. And people who do a lot of tourism don't like taxicab service because it has a bad name. Taxicab service in town I'm sure is very good. I've used it in the past; I just don't care for it. But travelers do use Uber and they use Uber because when you go to place that you don't know, you have to trust where you're going. And Uber is more trustworthy because there's verifiable routes. You can check the next day what your route was, and if you were overcharged you can have a refund for your fare through Uber because you can check where you went. You can't do that with a taxicab service. My last point is Uber does not need to be regulated. And the Page 63 December 8, 2015 reason why it doesn't need to be regulated is because it's already regulated by the biggest baddest most strict regulator in the world, the free market consumer. Me. If Uber does not provide the services that I want, I won't use them. Not only that, but Uber is particular in that the drivers in Uber, the drivers have to compete with each other for good ratings. Because that's how we know that the driver is good. I know I'm going to get a safe drive because I have a 4.8 rating on the driver based out of 5 out of thousands of riders. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir. MR. MOFFETT: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Victor Rios. He'll -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Hiller, do you have specific questions or -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I have a question of the speaker. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it Moffett? MR. MOFFETT: Mr. Moffett, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Moffett, would you object -- and we'd have to check legally -- if we carved Uber out and kept the regulations that we have as such? MR. MOFFETT: If Uber wasn't forced to change, then I think that that's okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because for me this is about doing away with regulations, this is not about Uber. MR. MOFFETT: Well, the regulation part, if Uber was affected by this, the change, what we choose, we choose Uber because we don't like the taxicab service. So Uber then has to match what the taxicab -- they're actually taking away my choice from me. Because I don't want Page 64 December 8, 2015 that about -- I like Uber the way it is, that the rating system is what we use to determine whether we're going to get a good ride or not and all of the extra stuff that we get from Uber. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think your comment about Tallahassee weighing in on this is accurate. I think that's going on right now. MR. MOFFETT: It's not fair for Tallahassee to make you guys make a choice county by county and try to fight each other over this issue. This is a state issue, it really is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're absolutely right, this is a state issue, which is why it should not be dealt with locally, for the very reason you pointed out, that because we have intrastate and interstate travel by you as a customer, by these drivers, this has to be addressed in a uniform fashion at the highest level. Actually both federal and state. And the issue is not with respect to Uber, which is the broker, just like the taxi company is the broker. The issue is with respect to the individual drivers who are selling services for profit. And the question is, is how do you properly regulate commercial drivers with respect to intrastate and interstate travel and commerce, if you will. So to the question that was raised as to whether we can carve out Uber and move this ordinance forward, absolutely not. Because this is -- it would be an absolute violation of equal protection. Uber and the taxi company here are identical in that they are both brokers. And we can't treat similarly situated business disparately. This has to be handled at the state level. We are not exposing the public to any risk or any compromise of their safety. And thank you for your speech and making very solid points. Page 65 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would ask everyone to allow the public testimony to go on forward and then we can discuss our philosophy on this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Nance? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just briefly. County Attorney, do you believe that we can go on as we have and as we did before the motion at the last meeting, to do away with regulation, meaning leave the ordinance in place and carve Uber out of it? MR. KLATZKOW: Your existing regulations I believe cover Uber, all right, because, you know, the drivers have to register. To answer your question. Which is why I recommend you do nothing. I don't think there's an issue. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you're regulating Uber, which is not what this gentleman has -- or what you were asking. You were asking to carve out Uber. And what the County Attorney is telling you is that Uber is included, and he has -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, I understand English. I heard that very well. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But he hasn't answered the question. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He did. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he didn't. He didn't say that you could carve out Uber. CHAIRMAN NANCE: The current ordinance regulates Uber at present. So if we don't want to regulate Uber, we have to make a change. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which we've been regulating Page 66 December 8, 2015 Uber all along, I guess. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go on. Let's proceed. Thank you, sir. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Victor Rios. He'll be followed by Tom DeStefano. MR. RIOS: Thank you very much, Commissioner. Victor Rios, Marco Island. You know, there's something called -- I'm an engineer by training -- called destructive technology. And if you go back a few years when the airline industry was controlled by the Pam Ams, Eastern Airlines, then all of a sudden there was deregulation. And what happened, instead of paying $2,000 to go cross country, you can get an airline ticket today for $300, okay. And I can say the same thing for telephone service. The established players, the Ma Bell, you remember, you needed to make long distance call, you had relative in California, how much did you pay? 30, $40 just to talk to your grandson or your son or your daughter in college, okay. Nowadays I pay $25 plus tax and I can call U.S. and Canada unlimited. That's destructive technology. And that's what Uber is all about. Government overreach is not in the favor of the consumer, okay. And since I don't have much time, leaving this to Tallahassee is a joke. They are dysfunctional. And if we wait for Tallahassee, I'd be long dead before Uber becomes a reality in Collier County. So let's move on, forget about Tallahassee. If they decide whenever they get out of their own infighting let them proceed. But in the meantime, we need Uber in Collier County. Let's proceed. And just remember the word destructive technology. The established player is protected by government. Government overreach. I don't need your protection, I can protect myself, okay. I be the judge Page 67 December 8, 2015 whether Uber is good or bad. And I tell you, as somebody that has traveled 84 countries and every state of the union, I use taxi service. I can tell you every horror story for the, quote, government sanctioned regulated taxi system. And there's very good taxi drivers, but there's the good, the bad and the ugly. And unfortunately I experienced a lot of the ugly. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom DeStefano. He'll be followed by Mike Mogil. MR. DeSTEFANO: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me a chance to speak today. My name is Tom DeStefano, and I am the general manager and owner of Sunset Coast Transportation. We are a chauffeur driven company located here in Naples, Florida. I am not a taxi company, so I do believe that deregulation will not affect my business the way taxi companies will be affected. But nonetheless I did want to speak on some important issues that need to get addressed. And I understand the Commissioners have a leaning toward deregulation, but I would like you to just think on a couple of the following points. Insurance gaps. Whether we disagree on drivers who collect money that are part of a ride share program or as a taxi, insurance companies consider them a for commerce use and will not cover in case of an accident. If somebody gets in their car and gets into an accident, they, if it's in commerce, will not be covered by their insurance company. Uber, as I understand it, covers passengers while they're in the vehicle. As part of regulations here in the county we are, as professional companies, required to carry automobile insurance which covers us commercially in the vehicle, and general liability insurance which covers outside the vehicle. Page 68 December 8, 2015 And a scenario: If somebody drops a piece of luggage outside a hotel, okay, and breaks a client's foot, my company is covering that through general liability. As I understand it, Uber does not cover that; that happened outside of the vehicle. Go after the independent Uber driver's policy, the insurance will not cover it. Okay. Background checks. I don't know how they're being performed, but when you have to go for a background check in Collier County, you must do it in person. You are interviewed through the process of handing in paperwork. A county employee looks at that person and decides to give out based on having all the complete paperwork. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir, appreciate it. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mike Mogil. He'll be followed by Keith Dameron. MR. MOGIL: Good morning. My name is Mike Mogil. I'm the owner of Math Works Tutoring. I gave up tutoring time this morning to be here. I want to speak in favor of the proposal to do away with the regulations. I'm a scientist by training, and I always ask questions. I decided this year to try Uber in North Carolina and Oklahoma City. The drivers were the most knowledgeable people of the local area that I've ever experienced with a taxi service. They knew where to go, they could tell us what was going on, they drove safely, they were great. The mapping capability told us the driver was a block away. He called us on the cell phone and said: I've made a wrong turn on a one-way street going the wrong way, I'll be right there. That service -- I don't need Collier County to tell me what I need in terms of service. I rate my drivers. They rate me. If I'm a bad passenger, I get rated by them. It's a great system. I love it. But maybe the overall issue here is not just Uber and the taxis, maybe it's all the regulations that we have. I won't go into it now because I want to stay focused on where we're at. But I'm a small Page 69 December 8, 2015 business owner in Collier County. To get my business license cost me $2,000 at a public hearing because I wanted to have a tutoring center in a PUD that it wasn't approved for. It wasn't a listed business. $2,000. I couldn't use my business for three months to tutor students, I had to go to libraries, because I wasn't part of this PUD that had businesses mentioned in the 1986-1987 business listing, which is what Collier County uses now to classify businesses. It doesn't have technology businesses in there. There needs to be a way to cross-reference the 85-86 business model with current day. It's a bigger issue than Uber, but I vote for Uber. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dameron. He'll be followed by Lewis Gray. MR. DAMERON: Thank you very much. Over the past few weeks I've talked with several people about taxis versus Uber type services and have heard that there's a strong public concern about safety involving taxi drivers and service. Despite many of the sensational headlines often maybe overstated nationally about lawsuits against Uber drivers, there's also lawsuits against taxi companies. I don't doubt that there are bad taxi drivers, there are bad bankers, there are bad insurance salespeople and there are bad elected officials. But all these bad people operate under some type of regulations by a third-party agency holding them accountable for their actions and performance. With all these bad people out there, there's a solution to remove all regulations. No longer have third-party oversight. What does that fix? Maybe a thought is to review the regulations for taxis and for-hire firms to update them and actually enforce the new updated regulations. Are the current regulations governing taxis and for hire vehicles being enforced? If so, why is there such a negative perception about riding in a taxi? Page 70 December 8, 2015 I am opposed to extensive government involvement in our everyday lives, but when it comes to businesses serving the public, there's a role for government to play. The overriding motivation for government involvement should be the welfare, protection and safety of the public. I never use taxis, I never use for hire, and so this issue really doesn't apply to me. But it does apply to others. Our citizens, our visitors, our seniors who use such transportation are very dependent on taxis and for hire to get to doctors, shopping and other services. If no one else, our seniors deserve to be protected from any risk while being transported around Collier County. I'm not sure this issue has been sufficiently vetted to make a final decision at this time. I am for free enterprise. Let all of those who wish to compete in the marketplace do so. Competition is one of the best determinants of who will and who will not survive. Competition is good, so the more competitors, the better. I urge you to take up -- revisit this issue before you take a final action, because there are other elements here that are in play, and not be influenced by either personal interest or political interest. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Stephen Bracci. He'll be followed by Rob Tolp. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to Lewis Gray? MR. MILLER: He ceded time. MR. BRACCI: Chairman Nance, the rest of the Collier County Commission, my name is Steve Bracci, citizen here in Collier County. I just wanted to say that I do support the deregulation in this instance. I would encourage the county to look at its ordinances and find other areas where it might possibly deregulate. Page 71 December 8, 2015 And I would also suggest maybe that the county look at creating an environment to foster additional deregulation and allow it to happen. I believe it's not by accident that this industry is one that is subject to deregulation. In this instance the regulation of the motor vehicle for hire industry creates a veil of protection and protects the cab industry from competition. And in this case the reason I believe why they are subject to losing that veil of protection is because they are not as protected as others are in this town who sit on the various nonprofit boards and, you know, the chambers and things like that, where a lot of these decisions are made behind closed doors. And there's winners and losers being chosen where regulation is occurring. And I think the county should look at why it allows its own staff and high-ranking officials to sit side-by-side on these various area boards where they can protect and pick winners and losers for regulation. Again, I think that it's not by accident that this industry is subject to deregulation, because they don't have that same protection of the inner circle in this town. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob Tolp. He'll be followed by Jim Kelly. MR. TOLP: I would like to state to the Board that I am in favor of the local government deregulating the vehicle for hire industry in its entirety. Not just Uber alone but our local taxi companies as well. Take some of the shackles off of them and let the free market do what it will. We as consumers and as individuals who in a free country can determine who the winners and losers are in a marketplace. And to call something a free market while at the same time restricting it and Page 72 December 8, 2015 regulating it is an oxymoron. Until now local taxi and limo service companies have had an oligarchy on the vehicle for hire industry in our county. They are upset now because Uber competition has come into being here. And we are glad that it has. Competition has historically proven to breed excellence, increase quality and decrease prices. Please prove to us that you believe in a free market with your vote today. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Kelly. He's been ceded additional minutes from Joan Jaindl. Are you present? MR. KELLY: Right here. MR. MILLER: Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. So you'll have four minutes of time. And he'll be followed by Ron Kezeske. MR. KELLY: I did prepare to go ahead and chop the comment down, so I'll just go ahead. I'm here as an Uber driver. However I do not drive an Uber car as a primary source of income. I've been an airline pilot for almost 25 years. But before becoming an airline pilot, the airline industry went through a major deregulation, similar to what you're considering here today. Namely you should consider, as was mentioned before, the number of travelers, the prices per ticket, the safety's remained the same or improved as it was before. In my opinion the category of citizen that has benefited the most is the least wealthy traveler. I see it every day. No one could predict exactly what would happen. But the result was that the marketplace solved a very complicated problem by offering the most efficient solution at the least price possible for the customer. Today I believe the taxi industry worldwide is experiencing the same evolution. Page 73 December 8, 2015 I was hired -- like I said before, I was hired -- I was hired after deregulation, and I experienced lower wages, but I saw my profession increase exponentially as a result of increased traveling and professional opportunities myself. The bottom line for me is this: As the government increases regulations, competition is eliminated and consumer prices increase. The inverse could be said for what you are considering today. I don't understand the taxi industry specifically but I am pretty sure that drivers are not overly compensated for their work. If the drivers do not have a union, then I suspect that the owners and the taxi companies and the leased taxi vehicles have more control over potential compensation as well. The crony cartel-like relationship between business and government necessarily ensures that government and the management are compensated before consideration is made for the employee and the drivers. I suffered that specific thing when American Airlines went through a rather lengthy bankruptcy process and I saw my retirement disappear. Not completely but significantly. Now I realize the taxi business and the airline business are vastly different. However, the free market's the free market. Once government regulations are removed, efficiency will result when you eliminate fees that prevent entrepreneurs from entering the marketplace. Entrepreneurs will take a chance and enter the marketplace. Laws of supply and demand and inform us that the result will be less expensive, more efficient marketplace with equal safety and more satisfied customers. As a unique opportunity to look at a different way of deregulating industry, Henry Ford in 1909 was producing Model T's. His first year of production he produced 10,000 cars. He subsequently introduced the assembly line. 11 years later one million cars were built. That's a 10,000 percent increase in production. Henry Ford knew that Page 74 December 8, 2015 something good would result, but he didn't know exactly what would result. In Collier County we cannot predict the results of deregulating the taxi industry. But history tells us that the net result will be positive for the community, positive for the customer, positive for the partner drivers who engage in the profession of transport for hire. I encourage you to go ahead and deregulate. Thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ron Kezeske. MR. KEZESKE: Kezeske. MR. MILLER: Kezeske. And he's been ceded additional time from Sandy Doyle -- is she present -- for a total of four minutes. And he'll be followed by Peter Francois. MR. KEZESKE: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Ron Kezeske and I'm a Collier County resident. As an Uber user I'm also a supporter of free markets. I'm sure you've received several emails from the opposition and will hear from those individuals throughout the day. Their argument, as I understand it, seems to be that we are lowering the standard of safety in our community and putting our residents and visitors at some elusive risk. Which has evolved from an initial plea for a fair playing field which deregulation would accomplish. I've yet to hear of a situation where somebody has been forced to use an Uber or like form of transportation. To the contrary, those wishing to be protected in the traditional sense are free to continue doing so. I find these claims of diminished safety to be further flawed. I would argue allowing Uber operate in Collier County enhances our community safety. Having a convenient cost-effective form of transportation encourages a safe ride home over the dangerous alternative of driving while intoxicated. As a point of example, Commissioner Henning, you were in the last meeting I believe comparing the cost effectiveness of Uber. So I Page 75 December 8, 2015 did a little research on my own. A ride from Mercado to my house is $45. A drive with Uber from Mercado to my house is roughly 13 to $15, depending on traffic. What's changing -- after some of the comments from the Commissioners, I do want to address a further issue in terms of deregulation. My biggest concern at this point in time is when private companies begin using ordinances as a sword against competitors. Case in point, my wife and I own a dog training facility. I'm aware of two different organizations that are operating outside of proper zoning and without proper facilities, but you don't see us here urging the Commission to utilize the laws of our county to put them out of business. Instead my wife and I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into our business to make it a premier facility and operate in the proper zoning. Because of that we have attracted our clientele and we've been able to charge a premium for those services. So this is just an example of free market pursuing, and a premium product will warrant a premium price. I support deregulation and I leave you with the immortal words of another Ron, his last name was Reagan. I believe it went something to the effect of, the scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government, I'm here to help. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Peter Francois. He'll be followed by Jason Hartgrave. MR. FRANCOIS: Good morning to you all. My name is Peter and I'm with Turbo Cab. We all agree that the drivers are certainly driving on behalf of Uber and Uber also considered them to be general -- will, not general, independent contractors. And all independent contractors are regulated, if I'm not mistaken. And the State of Florida requires that all insurance companies be Page 76 December 8, 2015 under the guaranteed -- the Florida Insurance Association, which the insurance company, James River, which represent Uber, is not. Imagine having a situation where you would need the information of a driver. Uber is a private company. They have the right to refuse information to authority. As if(sic) the cab company, you could go directly to the county and get that information. How would you know if that driver is locally here, when I could be from New York and I come here and use my personal app and transport people and commit an act and then go back home? How will you determine if that particular driver is a local or not? I would also try to find out what happened in the case of an accident. Which insurance do you hand to the officer? Has the officer had the training to handle the Uber situation? Do you provide them the Uber insurance or your personal? How would the officer handle that situation? If you have the answer, I would like to know. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jason Hartgrave. He'll be followed by Carol Manning. MR. HARTGRAVE: Hi, Commissioners. Jason Hartgrave here. I addressed you before. But I'm here with one other issue and that is jobs; specifically jobs for people that are not in a position to really get jobs. Interesting facts pulled from Uber's website. 50 percent of Uber drivers on average drive fewer than 10 hours a week. Now, which local taxi company is going to hire anyone that can work less than 10 hours a week? What we're doing is we're creating an enormous number of jobs. People that can only work between a very short window of time, people that are shift workers, and this is really filling in a demand. Also, that one out of three drivers has dependents at home. 25 percent are over the age of 50. How many job opportunities are we Page 77 December 8, 2015 creating for people that are over the age of 50? So Uber is going to basically create a swell of new job opportunities for people and residents living right here in Collier County. Thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Carol Manning. She'll be followed by Bill Holderby. MS. MANNING: Hi. My name is Carol Manning and I'm on the board of directors of the Collier County Republican Executive Committee and I am representing the Executive Committee today. This issue was brought to our membership on November 2nd. We had an extensive discussion regarding the vehicle for hire ordinance elimination. And I would like to read into the record our -- the head of our committee, Michael Lyster, who is our chairman. I wanted each of you to know -- and this was an email that he sent to all of you -- I want each of you to know that tonight at our Collier County Republican Executive Committee meeting, the subject of your vote for removing restrictions on transportation services was discussed. The Executive Committee was asked is there any member that wishes to have the Commissioners revise the outcome of the previous vote? Nobody indicated a preference for revisiting your position taken at the last meeting. There was a quorum present, but the requirements for timing and voting on a resolution were not met and therefore a resolution was not presented. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But essentially the CCREC supports deregulation? MS. MANNING: That is correct. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bill Holderby. He's been ceded additional time from David Bolduc. Is David -- thank you. And he'll be followed by Jared Grifoni. Page 78 December 8, 2015 MR. HOLDERBY: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for hearing me this morning. I'll try to be brief. My name is Bill Holderby. I'm a resident and a businessman, and I've been Uber'ing part-time for the last five, six months. I have taken almost 500 trips of passengers and delivered over 1,000 people to their destination. And I enjoy it. But this is a serious business. In my driving I have taken businessmen from London, Hong Kong, Ireland, business people from all over the U.S. I've driven actresses from Los Angeles, I've driven people to work, and many a person who has a DUI and many who want to avoid a DUI. Not 50 percent, not 90 percent, but 100 percent of the people that I have driven, and I've asked every one of them, love Uber. Now, I know that's not the sole focus of today, but to hurt Uber would be doing major damage, in my opinion. But the most important thing that I can say out of this, the most important unintended consequence for me is getting drunk drivers off the road. I can only tell you that I take a fair amount of people who have already received DUIs and wished they had spent the money to drive in an Uber taxi. The stigma of taking a taxi to go out to a party or a bar or restaurant kept most people from ever taking it. But now with Uber, because it's a mobile app, it's the cool thing to do. Ifs something that more and more people are doing and I hear it every day when I'm driving people around. The old business model of taxi which, by the way, regulations gave us the taxi industry and where we're at today with it. Why would so many people choose to take Uber over a taxi? It's because of the results, the reliability, the timeliness, the lower cost, the better overall services. So what consumerism is getting is the reliable transportation, Page 79 December 8, 2015 usually five to seven minutes, to somebody up. They can see on the app when somebody is coming to pick them up. They don't have to wait for that call after 45 minutes and say I'm sorry, we're not sending you a taxi. The rating of the driver, which I'll talk about in a little bit. The lower cost, you've heard. Cleaner, safe cars. More engaging drivers. And the ability to text back or email is something is left in the vehicle. Leave something in a taxi? Good luck. Part of what makes this work is the rating system. I'm in the top 10 percent of Uber drivers, and it's not by accident. I treat my passengers with respect and manners and I go out of my way to be courteous, something that I hear from my clients they don't receive from taxi drivers. And that's not to impugn all taxi drivers; I know there's some great ones out there. But if we get bad ratings, that allows them to refuse to go with us. It is a self-regulating business. As somebody said, it's disruptive technology. The whole idea of safety though and where they're coming at is kind of a false narrative. Because if anything, this is a much safer ride. The people in my vehicle know the type of vehicle, the tag number, my name and what I look like before I get there. And if there was ever a problem with me doing something to them, it would be very easy for the police to contact Uber and have a digital record of who I am, just as if somebody did something in the vehicle there's a digital record of who they are. That's part of what makes this work. That's part of what I call the cool factor. Not allowing Uber to operate in my opinion would only hurt consumers. And as you know, Naples is a growing community and we have a lot of folks that come down here during the season. Many of them like to have some wine when they go out and drink and many of them probably shouldn't be driving. Uber can only do something and Page 80 December 8, 2015 that would be to help move them around quicker, faster and cheaper. So I am not for regulation, I'm for letting Uber itself regulate itself, which it's already proven over the last five years worldwide. It is new, it is disruptive. Sometimes it's something that makes people kind of pause. But the results have spoken for themselves. And I thank you very much for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jared Grifoni. He's been ceded additional time from Elsa Martinez and Dawn Drellos-Thompson, Jared Jones and Paul Harper for a total of 10 minutes. MR. GRIFONI: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, he'll be followed by Ray Mundy. I'm sorry, please go ahead. MR. GRIFONI: No problem. Thank you, Commissioners. I'm going to try and be brief. I know many individuals have made great comments so far. First off I just wanted to give you an update from our petition. As of last meeting there was about 720 or 721 signatures. It's up to 851 as of last night or this morning. But I think the important thing here we need to realize, I'm going to talk about what's happened in other counties, because I think that's significant. But before I get there, the difference in the arguments that you've heard and you're going to hear through the remainder of the item here today is stark. And it's because they're based on two different world views. Those in favor of regulation and government protectionism in this case, they try to present a world of fear and darkness and danger. And those -- and resistance to change. And those in favor of deregulation see a world or envision a world where entrepreneurs can flourish, where the free market regulates good businesses to hire strata and bad businesses out of Page 81 December 8, 2015 business and protects the consumer all for lower prices, better quality service. The issue has kind of been demonized a little bit in the media and we really need to not decide this issue based on who's created the largest monster, because it's not about fear, it's not about an unknown danger. That's unfortunately how big government tends to operate sometimes. We have to remember that this isn't specifically about Uber either, though Uber is over a $40 billion company that operates in 54 countries across the world. To exempt Uber from this ordinance after hearing some of the people at the last meeting or who are going to be speaking today tell you that they should be throwing Uber drivers in jail really highlights the reason why governments shouldn't be picking losers and winners, because you're operating on bad information, old information all the time. So rather than hear a couple of Uber drivers speak to you this morning, they could be sitting in jail, their car can be impounded with fines that they can't pay. They could have no jobs, they could have less money to put food on the table, et cetera. I'm glad that at least some people who were against Uber at the last meeting now think Uber is okay to keep out of this ordinance. But the reality is we need to deregulate the entire industry. We need to keep -- we need to -- there's constitutional concerns there, as Commissioner Hiller mentioned earlier as well. By granting a special privilege to one company you're therefore denying it to another. We really shouldn't forget that there are many traditional taxi companies who are embracing deregulation and embracing this new type of technology. I know if I was a taxi owner, I mean, I would be glad that this is happening. It would give me the opportunity to do so much more to grow my business. Advertise how much insurance you Page 82 December 8, 2015 have, that you have more insurance than Uber, if that's the case. Conduct more frequent background checks. I would print out a background check of every single one of my drivers and paste it on the passenger's side rear window of every single vehicle that I operated. So before someone gets in my car they know who's driving them, they know when the background check was conducted and they know that the quality of driver is up to their standards. The tourism industry. I can understand there may be some trepidation there and their feeling, but the reality is again, don't recommend companies that you don't feel comfortable with through your concierge. If you feel that you want background checks, you could conduct them yourself or have an agreement with every company that you recommend to your guest that they provide proof of insurance and quality background checks. Again, you know, big government bureaucrat will say we need government to do that, but the reality is we don't. Drunk driving fatalities, that was mentioned as well. A Temple University study, I mentioned at the last meeting, 5.6 percent reduction in alcohol-induced road facilities in California cities where Uber operates. From that study, I just want to quote briefly, with more than 13,000 deaths occurring nationally each year due to alcohol related car crashes, at a cost of$37 billion, results indicate that a complete implementation of Uber-X would create a public welfare net of over $1 .3 billion to American taxpayers and save roughly 500 lives. Deregulation should be the rallying cry of those who are trying to make this argument about public safety. Collier County is not in the wilderness on this issue either. Gainesville, Florida deregulated. They voted 6-0. They no longer require city issued permits for their drivers. Gainesville Police Chief was quote in the news as saying he's satisfied with the change. Page 83 December 8, 2015 And an interesting aside, they also have a pilot program in place that also helps connect Uber with senior citizens in the community who may not be familiar with the technology or the safety and the convenience and the lower cost. Melbourne, Florida deregulated on November 12th, so they followed in your footsteps. Los Angeles times mentioned Collier County on November 19th. It was actually in many on-line publications as well as traditional publications. I'm going to quote briefly. Policy makers across the nation could learn from their peers in Florida who may have found a way to level the playing field and still make way for innovation. Collier County joins the cities of Sarasota and Gainesville in completely deregulating vehicle for hire services, putting taxis and ride-sharing companies on equal footing. Now others including Miami-Dade, Portland, Oregon, Cambridge, Mass. are considering similar changes. And actually just a few days ago Portland, Oregon did open the market up to Uber and Lyft. So -- but what do we know is going to happen post-deregulation? We can see that in Sarasota. Sarasota voted to deregulate in September and they've actually gone ahead with it and finalized it. So it's real interesting. There's an article on-line, the Herald Tribune, I believe, and it was sent to the Commission as well. Sarasota spokeswoman Jan Thornburg was quoted as saying: If trouble is coming, it hasn't happened yet. The city has not received a single passenger complaint about taxi services, end quote. So this is post-deregulation. And that mirrors what the County Attorney had put in the executive summary on October 27th, that no one in Collier County has complained about Uber either. But what about these traditional taxi companies, how are they coping with this? The reality is that Sunset Taxi in Sarasota, the owner Page 84 December 8, 2015 stated that even though the city doesn't require a permit, he still keeps his old hack license up in the window so anybody can see it and know that they did perform those standards and they still keep up to those standards. John Nicholas, Yellow Cab Company's head of operations, stated Yellow Cab has also not cut back on its insurance or switched any of its internal policies because of deregulation. Doing so would be unwise. Clearly so. So I think this really sets up an open challenge to companies in Collier County. Are you going to stop your insurance? Are you going to stop conducting background checks on your drivers? I think the answer, if you want to stay in business, is no. So the consumer, the citizen, the tourist, the visitor in Collier County is going to be protected, not only by market-based regulation but importantly, business reputation. You're not going to get a ride from someone who just shows up on the side of the street unless you choose to do so. But that's going to be extremely rare when there is a ton of Uber drivers, a ton of great taxi companies in Collier County that are still meeting safety standards. So I encourage you to continue in your quest to deregulate. Please vote and stand firm on your convictions from October 27th. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ray Mundy. He's been ceded additional time from Lewis Gray, Lazar Juneo, Judy -- I'm not going to be able to read that last name -- Mary Piceke, Michele Byrne and Denise DeWitt. And I did verify all these people were here, sir. So that's a total of 14 minutes. He'll be followed by Fizz Papps from Dolphin Transportation. MR. MUNDY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you very much for the opportunity to address you this morning. As was said, Page 85 December 8, 2015 my name is Ray Mundy, and I'm currently a professor of Transportation and a Director of Transportation Studies at the University of Missouri. I'm also executive director of the Airport Ground Transportation Association, and I have been doing taxi studies, 25 or 30, for cities in the U.S. and Canada for over 40 years now. So having written the only textbook there is on taxicab and taxicab regulations that's current in the marketplace, hopefully you'll consider my comments to be of a learned person, of a person that's thought a great deal about this situation, and also one that I want to explain. I'm here on behalf of my interest in the industry, and at the request of ground transportation providers of the area, and I'm not being compensated for my time in this presentation. If you'd like, after my presentation I have formal remarks I could leave with you. This is not necessarily about Uber, I'll say that on the front end, even though I'll refer to them. It's about regulation in the sense of let's say understanding the difference between economic regulation, which you don't have. You've already deregulated here in this county. You've deregulated economic regulation. Any taxi company, any for hire can offer any rates they want. So any economic regulation is not there. You have no regulation with respect to entry. Anybody that wants to become a taxi company, a for hire operator, can make an application before the county and be approved if they are considered to be not of mysterious background or anything like that. Simply minimal standards. A taxicab driver, a limousine driver can all apply for and as long as they have a clean criminal background record, as long as they are -- have not been convicted of any DUIs or even drug charges, they'll be allowed to drive. So it is open. You are not a regulated county as far as terms of Page 86 December 8, 2015 ground transportation, if you take a look at the rest of the county, if you will. And look at the airlines, which were mentioned. I'm an instrument rated pilot also. And trust me, I have FAA regulations all over the place in terms of my ability to do that. There are safety regulations. And that's the only kind of regulations that you have. These are regulations that are put in place that says we as a county want to make sure that our drivers are properly vetted and only a criminal background check can do that. And that we also want to make sure that we have proper insurance. And insurance which is not to drop down in case so and so happens and so forth, but full-time 24-hour insurance, if you will. We also want to protect our automobile dealerships from having their leased vehicles, their rented vehicles being used as commercial operations, if you will. And insurance companies that you have signed your personal automobile insurance that says I will not use this vehicle as a commercial operations, yet you go out and drive for a third party, be it Uber or somebody else. So those are sort of the summary things that I really wanted to make sure I got out to you. As I said, my overall opinion with the elimination of safety regulation is that county residents and city visitors, if you will, county visitors, if you will, will be endangered. I've written extensively about research literature concerning taxicab deregulations, and just let me say that the literature, as far as the academics are concerned, it's pretty well said science that once a community, a county, a city deregulates, as we've seen in the last 40, 45 years, within five to 10 years they're back regulating. Why? Because without minimum safety regulations in place, there's a race to the bottom. Everyone is going to attempt to buy the cheapest insurance to avoid paying any fees to the city or county or Page 87 December 8, 2015 whatever. And that's what happens when you have this kind of an industry that doesn't have at least minimal safety regulations. We've done it at the federal level with respect to motor carrier industry, with respect to the airline industry, with respect to even a waterway industry. We don't have economic regulations, we have safety regulations. And those safety regulations are there because we're saying to our population and our visitors, we've got your back. If you're getting a public vehicle, which is a vehicle for hire, we're going to make sure that it is properly insured. If you get into a vehicle, we're going to make sure that the driver has been properly vetted. We're going to make sure that that vehicle is in safe condition. And that's all. That's the minimum form of so-called safety regulations I think that you would be avoiding if you continue to eliminate all regulation of your ground transportation vehicle for hire ordinance. But let me also say that I've reviewed your ordinance and there's no reason why Uber, Lyft or any other TNC couldn't operate here right now. What they're saying is that it's either our business model, and we'll do our own background checks, we'll keep our drivers secret, we'll keep our insurance -- which, by the way, James River and Company isn't even a recognized commercial automobile liability policy carrier in the State of Florida. Yet that's going to be our drop-down insurance. It takes two to four years for most insurance claims to ever green. And if it gets into a lawsuit, you literally can be five to seven, eight years out. This company's only been in existence for five years, if you're talking specifically about Uber. As I said, this isn't just about Uber. Uber, Lyft, all the TNCs have only been in business five years. Their insurance claims have really not come to fruition yet. We don't know if this is good insurance, bad insurance or will they ever pay their claims. Page 88 December 8, 2015 Most of the claims against Uber, for example, the deaths that their drivers have caused, have all been settled out of court, and settlements have been made. There really is no way to judge yet whether this is good insurance. Let me also suggest that you as Commissioners have probably been lobbied or in many cases bullied with I would say erroneous arguments about the driver and the safety of the driver and the operations of that driver. One of the things that is common in the industry, and most people, be they Uber drivers, Lyft drivers, taxi drivers, limousine drives, we all have these things known as personals. And literally I develop -- as a matter of fact, many of the best taxi drivers I've ever interviewed in over 25 or 30 studies were the ones that had a lot of personals. These are people that call us directly on their cellphones and we take someplace. Uber drivers will develop the same sort of thing. If we allow your ordinance to stay in place -- if you allow it to stay in place, I should say, then I'm going to buy personal insurance and I'm not going to worry about anything unless I have an accident. Even the Uber driver, which would be the minimal standards now if the state takes actions, which some think they will, if those become your minimum standards, even an Uber driver, when they are taking a personal, there's no insurance for the driver, the vehicle, the person in it, anyone they hit, there's absolutely no insurance. Because Uber's drop-down policy only takes effect when somebody's in the vehicle. Literally the personals -- and by the way, State of New York, City of New York, at the Port Authority did a sting this year on Uber drivers that were not operating on their app, they were offering personals. In just one month over 500 drivers were cited for not operating on their app. This is going to happen. This is what history tells us about regulation and deregulation in this industry. I'm conservative. I'm saddened to hear the Republican party is Page 89 December 8, 2015 literally in favor of this kind of safety deregulation. I don't think people understand the difference between economic regulation and safety regulations. These are important to your citizens, especially your most vulnerable citizens, be they senior citizens. They expect that when they get in a taxicab, an Uber car and that, of course it's vetted, it's a public vehicle, that they are covered by that insurance. In essence your deregulation has said hey, you're on your own. We don't know who's driving you if you allow these ordinances to be deregulated. And if you allow Uber to operate with their business model we don't know who's driving you, we don't know if they're paying local taxes, we don't know if their insurance has been kept up to date, we don't know anything about them. That's up to you, you the consumer. I'm sort of a Libertarian in that regard too; I believe in the free market system. But I also believe in safeguards for the public for systems which degenerate when you have this kind of open and free overall competition. As I lecture my students I tell them, hey, read the entire book on Adam Smith's Wealth of All Nations, The Invisible Hand of Capitalism. Don't read the cliff notes. Remember that Adam Smith was talking about companies taking a long-run view of good service and customer service, and those companies will be the ones that win out. Long-run view in a taxi or an Uber driver's day is that day, if you will. So don't allow a race to the bottom with respect to criminal background checks, insurance and also protecting the public by knowing who's driving out there. How's my time? I guess we've got a countdown clock and I've got three minutes. Okay, thank you. I've got formal remarks that basically go into what I have been Page 90 December 8, 2015 basically trying to say somewhat with not reading any notes because I know you don't want a lecture. I didn't even bring a PowerPoint presentation, which is out of character for me, to be quite honest with you. I would like to sort of reach in my last couple of minutes some summaries. This whole thing of disruptive technologies and Uber I think is great for the industry. I think it forces the industry to up their game, to do more work with respect to their own apps. And the industry in general, and I can speak broadly about it, has upped its game. In many cities you'll find an app just the same as Uber. It will operate the same way. That's good. But in none of those cities do you find safety deregulation. You may find economic deregulation saying you can come into the marketplace, such as they have in New York. There are more Uber drivers in New York, or TNC drivers, I should say, than there are Yellow Cabs. But in New York, according to the Attorney General, you have to abide by every safety regulation that the taxis do. You have to abide by every registration that the taxis do. You have to abide by all the fees being paid by the taxi industry. There are no difference. And as I said earlier, if Uber wants to operate here, they can tomorrow. All they have to do is change their business model a little bit and agree to have criminal background checks. They can charge whatever rate they want, which by the way I would suggest you may want to address, after about a year or two having what I call gouge pricing three and four times what the normal rate is. So we have to be very careful. Many states that have had Uber operating for a period of two or three years now are going back and offering state legislation that would cap their rates no more than double what their normal off peak rate would be. So you see some adjustments being made even with respect to our most innovative and new operators on the block. Uber offers a great Page 91 December 8, 2015 service, it's fantastic. It could operate here if it just simply agrees to your minimum safety regulations. And I do consider them to be minimum. I think they're good, they're very adequate. They would serve your industry well and have served your industry well for over 30 years, so I don't see any reason why you would want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply to accommodate a new operator that could provide competition, that could provide good service in the community if only they would be willing to adopt your rules as opposed to you being forced to adopt their rules. The state, and probably the state should, it's intrastate, if you will, transportation in a lot of cases. Most of its intercity, but a lot of it will be intrastate operations, and perhaps the state should set the minute qualifications. But I guarantee you, the state will set minimum safety qualifications. That is the beep that I have 30 seconds. So let me just summarize by suggesting to you what's wrong with simply taking some time in this matter, saying that we are going to continue the safety regulation that we already have in place and that if somebody wants to participate here, they certainly can. Who knows, in a year or two you may come back and actually increase the regulation with respect to age of vehicles, the kind of apps they have, and the kind of services they provide. Thank you very much for your time. I certainly appreciate it. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, excuse me. Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much for your remarks. I think you've made it very clear, a clear dividing line between economic and public safety. So thank you very much. But I am a little confused about your comments towards the end about capping rates and some states are going -- could you please? I'm Page 92 December 8, 2015 not sure who "they" are, sir. MR. MUNDY: State of Illinois and the State of New York and I'm trying to think of some other, have introduced at least state bills that say they are prohibiting gouge pricing and that they are limiting the range in which these carriers can increase their fares whenever there is a late evening bar run or rain or some other reason. As a matter of fact, the Uber drivers in New York and Chicago both and several other cities, have been written up several places, are gaming the system. They basically turn off their apps, showing there's nobody in the area until the computer system generates, okay, we're going to have to double the rate or triple the rate, and then they immediately turn back on their app in order to get the third -- I would. I mean, this is common behavior of people in ground transportation. I mean, they're gaming the system. And I did make the point about, you know, commercial liability insurance can cost an individual taxi driver, five, six, $7,000. I mean, you're doing 50, 60,000 miles a year. My personal insurance, maybe 1,000. Because people assume I'm driving 10,000 or 12,000 miles. Which one am I going to go buy if the county doesn't require it? I'm going to buy my personal insurance, maybe try to buy a secondary drop-down policy in an off-shore market or something like that to say I'm covered, or whatever. But literally I'm going to go for the much lesser cost. That's $5,000 in my pocket, and probably pockets that's getting pretty slim with all the new competition coming into town. So many good drivers will leave the industry. So I think, you know, you really have to seriously consider the difference between these two types of regulation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, first thing I'd like to ask this Page 93 December 8, 2015 Board is has anyone on this board been bullied by Uber in the position we're taking today? The gentleman said that we were bullied. I wasn't bullied. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: He said may have. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't think any of us have been bullied to any degree by Uber or Uber drivers in any way. So I want to make that very clear on the record. I will say that I feel like I was almost bullied by some of the people maybe you're representing, but that's another issue. Because I don't take any offense to anyone aggressively lobbying me on any feeling they have on any issue that they may be passionate about. You effectively argued against the position you're attempting to make before us today. And I have to say that the last points you made were clear and well made. And that is this is about intrastate commerce and possibly interstate commerce. You made the point that this is about possibly public safety regulation as opposed to economic regulation barriers of entry into market or price. And you made the point that this is typically regulated, and quite frankly for all other transportation industries, is regulated at the state and federal level for obvious reasons. And so to come full circle to why we are deregulating -- and I believe that there will be a majority of this board that will argue that deregulation is the right vote today -- it is not our duty locally because of the interstate and intrastate commerce factor to regulate on what may be needed if anything is needed, and that is to be determined with respect to licensing and insurance of these type of drivers. And that is to be determined. But that has to be done, if it is going to be done at all, at the state level. And your request for us to consider it locally is inappropriate. We don't -- I asked Nick Casalanguida, you know, we don't Page 94 December 8, 2015 regulate truckers in Collier County. We don't do background checks on truckers here. We don't do background checks on people who fly planes here commercially. We don't do background checks on quite frankly anybody in the transportation industry that does transportation here in Collier County; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And all of a sudden we're carving out an exception for taxis? So the bottom line is again, thank you for your presentation, you made the point. This is something, if it has to be regulated with respect to public safety, will be done at the state and federal level. And if those in the industry had any concern for public safety -- and as one told me that he had been in the business for 25 years, my question to him is: If you have such a great concern, why didn't you lobby for that legislation at the state and federal level except for now? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let us consider the rest of the public testimony. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Let's consider the rest of-- MR. MUNDY: Can I answer that? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't want -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we're not going to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to move on. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're not going to engage in a debate between the public speakers and the dais. MR. MUNDY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're not going to -- we're not going to engage in a debate with the public speakers. Let's conclude -- MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry, is it Fizz Papps? MR. PAPPS: It is, you said it correctly. MR. MILLER: And he'll be followed by Randy Smith. MR. PAPPS: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Page 95 December 8, 2015 I'm going to go down a little bit of a different path here with you guys today. It's all about public safety to me. I'm not in favor of deregulation. But in the course of our business, a lot of our businesses, transportation being one of them, we respond to many RFPs that come across our desk. And the RFPs we get are very similar in nature. They come from all over the nation; they contain very specific questions and language in regards to the following things. And I'm talking just about transportation RFPs across my desk. Driver training: In the driver training category, these are RFPs, we see driver drug and alcohol pre-employment at random. We see background checks yearly, sometimes every six months. Uniforms. Quarterly safety meetings. Driver safety records. And most of these RFPs there's at least 15 pages about drivers and driver safety. I'm not going to go on about insurance; there's at least four pages of insurance in these RFPs. There's over 20 pages about public safety and customer service. It goes on and on, these RFPs go on and on. They want their people to be safe, they want the customer service to be exemplary. Then in the vehicle category we've got inspections, maintenance, cleaning, public safety, overall vehicle quality, appearance, et cetera. There's at least 14 pages in these RFPs that talk about the vehicles and the condition of the vehicles. So why am I leading you down this path? Why am I talking about these RFPs that we get across our desks? And why is it so important to all these communities that -- they talk about public service and make the contract of who wins these RFPs, talk about it. This RFP belongs to the CAT and I get all my information out of this RFP. They're strongly in favor of public safety. For your system, which you seem to lack public safety for what we're trying to do. Thank you. Page 96 December 8, 2015 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is Randy Smith. He's been ceded additional time from Tony Caito and Richard Ripp. For a total of six minutes. MR. SMITH: Good afternoon now. My name is Randy Smith and I've been operating for 25 years in Collier County. Prior to three months ago, every county in the State of Florida had a vehicle for hire ordinance, and that's one of the reasons why I never had to lobby the State of Florida for safety regulations, because they've always been in place. Public safety, for the citizens of that county and for the people that visited that county has been in place for decades. And public safety has always been the reason that this ordinance has been in place in Collier County. The issue about deregulation shouldn't be about can the county enforce the ordinance. I know we haven't spoken about it today but it was spoken about it in October. In my 25 years in business, the code enforcement staff has done a great job. In fact, the industry in itself has done a great job. We self police any time we would see anyone operating illegally, it was reported to the county staff and they corrected immediately. To say county staff cannot enforce this ordinance is incorrect as it has been enforced properly for decades. And I'm sure the current county staff is fully capable of enforcing now, as we have some pretty good people managing the county. This issue shouldn't be about Uber either, as Uber technically calls themselves a software company, not a transportation company. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. In fact, the bill being presented right now in Tallahassee, Uber has placed themselves in a different category from transportation and taxi companies. So if Uber can carve themselves out from the vehicle for hire category, I believe you too can carve them from the vehicle for hire industry to allow them to operate Page 97 December 8, 2015 in Collier County but still keep this great ordinance in place for the transportation and taxi operators. Since Uber does their own background checks and provides some sort of commercial umbrella coverage, take them out of the equation for vehicles for hire in Collier County and -- but continue to regulate the transportation and taxi companies. There's very few industries where you literally put your life directly into somebody's hands. When you get in the back seat of a vehicle for hire you're trusting that driver to deliver you safely to your destination. This was the whole reason the Vehicle For hire Ordinance was put in place in Collier County and all across the United States. Why is that less important today than it has been for decades? The answer now should not be because of Uber and TNC's. The bill being considered by the State of Florida will create regulation for Uber and the TNC's and take that responsibility away from local governments. And it looks like it's probably going to pass this year. And we'll see what they put in place for commercial insurance and driver background checks. But what the state isn't doing is the state is not deregulating its vehicle for hire industry, like you are doing. If the state thought that was such a good idea, I'm sure they would be doing that as that's the easy way out for them to not deal with the real issue. But they are not deregulating the entire vehicle for hire industry because they know it's the wrong thing to do, and the wrong thing to do for public safety. And the state's not going to enact new laws to regulate the limo and taxi industry in 2016, as no legislature has been proposed for this legislative session. Please do not dish this issue to the state as that is not doing any good for Collier County citizens. I hope you take the state's lead and decide that public safety in Collier County is important and that is why you should keep the Page 98 December 8, 2015 vehicle for hire ordinance in effect. We need to ensure that the vehicles carrying people for hire are safe. We need to ensure the driver is professional with a clean driving record. We need to ensure that the vehicle has commercial insurance in case there is an accident so the passenger is protected. If you remove the Vehicle For Hire Ordinance, you remove the safety measures and you put public safety at risk. My company and many others will of course continue to operate with these safety measures, but do you realize the majority of operators in Collier County are mom and pops with one to three vehicles? And if you don't think that they're going to try to cut costs by cutting their insurance and cutting background checks and other safety measures, you're not in reality. That is the reality. That will happen, unfortunately. You also open the door for others to come into Collier County and start operating a limo or taxi without these safety measures. Please don't allow that, as the probability that something bad will happen increases dramatically if there are no rules and laws in place. In October the County Attorney recommended that you keep the Vehicle For Hire Ordinance in effect and you make no changes. I strongly urge you to follow that recommendation as it is the right thing to do for public safety in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. What is the feeling of the Commission? Do you want to break for lunch at this time or -- there's a motion and a second. What is the feeling of the Board? Do you want to continue for a few more minutes? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, these people are waiting for an outcome. I think we ought to announce our decision while they're here. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I had an email from Page 99 December 8, 2015 Randy Smith saying, you know, keep the ordinance in effect and just exempt Uber and others. However, we can't do that because there is not a companion bill in the Senate for the Governor to consider signing it, because the House has not voted on it and the Senate doesn't even have a bill. So what you're saying is exactly what Commissioner Hiller is saying, you want us to have an ordinance that's not equal, it's not constitutional. So I could support the motion based upon Randy Smith's input. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to say that I believe if we give everybody an equal playing field that the professional taxis and limousine services are going to be able to very successfully distinguish themselves as a higher level of service. I think it may well do very, very good things for them. I believe they can present themselves as a higher level of service. And this is a county that demands all levels of service, including the very, very best. If they can present themselves as such, I think they will thrive. Everybody seems to continue to dwell on criminal background checks. I don't know who's doing all these criminal background checks on all these vendors of services that are coming to people's homes. Who's doing a criminal background check on people that come to people's -- invited into their homes to provide services? The answer is nobody. People have to take responsibility for their actions. I believe that this is -- it's going to be a very dynamic situation. I don't know exactly where it's going to be, but I seconded the motion for deregulation, and I still think it's a very wise thing to try. And let's see if our free market economy can bring us better services. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I make a -- put the bright line between economic regulation and public safety regulation, and Page 100 December 8, 2015 therefore I cannot support the motion that's on the floor. I do believe we have a responsibility for public safety and I do believe deregulating this industry is advocating that responsibility. What happens in Tallahassee obviously is important. I think if there's not a companion bill at this point, I'm not sure that there will be but there may be. But that's irregardless of the issue of exposing our -- the public welfare of people that we represent. So I'm sorry I cannot support it. As far as the economic deregulation, I support that 100 percent. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wind it up then and say that I am in agreement with the motion. I believe that this is going to set us into a new stage as far as -- I think the cab companies will certainly survive. Because what they're going to do is they're going to want to compete, and they're going to want to bring up their service to a better level. That will give everybody else a better opportunity to choose which service they wanted. If they love the cab service, they'll choose that one. If they don't, they'll choose somebody else. So I don't see anything wrong with this whatsoever. And so with that I do agree. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, one thing. This should be an attempt to show citizens that we're open for business, we're not about a bunch of unnecessary regulation. In fact, one gentleman with the tutoring company, he was spot on, a lot of these old PUD ordinances, these commercial ones, don't address companies that are doing business today. And I would like to see what we can do for staff to make the interpretation of comparable businesses within these ordinances, PUD ordinances, without opening them up. That would really demonstrate that we're open for business. Thanks. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that's a good suggestion. Page 101 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Taylor in dissent. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to the extent that there is any public safety regulation required, it has to be done at the state and federal level and it has to be done in full respect of the commerce clause — Item #11E PRORATED REFUNDS FOR FEES PAID FOR VEHICLE FOR HIRE LICENSING SERVICES IN 2015 IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 — APPROVED CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to recommend that we try to quickly dispatch Item 11.E, which is a companion item, before we go to lunch. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that is a recommendation to approve prorated refunds for fees paid by Vehicle For Hire Licensing Services -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. Page 102 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve. I will -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second by Commissioner Taylor. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: That passes unanimously. We will take a lunch break and return at 1 :13. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. (Luncheon recess.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN NANCE: 1:13. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You said 1:13? CHAIRMAN NANCE: As promised. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. He's on time. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move now to public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. Page 103 December 8, 2015 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered speakers. Sandra Doyle has ceded three minutes to Dr. Joseph Doyle for a total of six minutes. So Dr. Doyle is your only speaker. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. DR. DOYLE: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle, Naples. My first comment has to do with the Tax Collector's Office in the Marketplace in Pelican Bay has been closed. I don't know if it was widely announced to the public, but when we went to pay our taxes, we got -- we saw a notice on the door that they're closing the office effective December 1st. So those of us who were there to get the 4 percent discount in November were able to do it. So I would like to point out that Pelican Bay, we've had that office there for years, and I understand that we lost the lease or something like that. But I would like to see another office put in nearby. As you know, Pelican Bay is 10 percent of the county tax base, which is about -- equates to $26 million in ad valorem revenue. And we are a donor community in the fact that we pay more in taxes than we receive in benefits through the year. And I'm not saying that we want special privileges for Pelican Bay; however, I will point out that several of the residents are seasonal. And the next closest offices would be on Orange Blossom or Greentree, and this time of year it's inconvenient to go there with the traffic, et cetera, et cetera. That -- we need an office also because it would serve not only Pelican Bay but the neighboring communities of Pine Ridge, Seagate, Vanderbilt Beach, Naples Park, and possibly even Pelican Marsh if they so choose. So there's quite a few people that are served by that little office. And like I said, it's convenient to pay the taxes, which, you know, Page 104 December 8, 2015 taxes are what you're here for in one respect, and then, of course, we could get the license plates. And I would point out something with license plates. I just renewed my license plate this year. You have to renew it every six years to get a new plate. I was told that they would not mail it to me. I had to go there and pick it up because they're having trouble with them getting stolen in the mail. So it's an inconvenience for those of us -- you know, to go to another office. So I'm just saying for many reasons I would like to see you work with the tax collector to put in a new office there. So my next comment has to do with public safety, and I know that that was a discussion this morning, but I think this is a real important issue for public safety. I come before you today to request that you support a resolution or perhaps some type of an ordinance to protect the citizens of Collier County from the negative health, safety, and financial impact of receiving refugees or illegal immigrants, especially from Syria. You recall that I spoke in June 2014 about the threat of tuberculosis and other endemic diseases from Central America and again in October 2014 about Ebola from Africa. We are now faced with the threat of ISIS from the Middle East. Most of the nation's governors, including Governor Scott, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the sabotage of the Russian jetliner and the Paris attacks, citing security concerns. The U.S. code, Article 8, Section 1522 requires refugee-helping agencies to coordinate resettlement activities with the states. So our governor is correct. It has been reported that the state department, the U.S. State Department screening process for refugees is not rigorous at all, nor can it be trusted to weed our potential Islamic terrorists. Likewise, the Page 105 December 8, 2015 FBI has publicly stated it is unable to assure us that a thorough vetting can be completed. They are simply not funded for and not technologically equipped for any thorough refugee vetting. This is further evidenced in San Bernadino, California, where the two Pakistani Islamic immigrants conducted an ISIS-style terrorist attack last week. Pakistan has a government where we theoretically could obtain some background information for security checks on immigrants. Syria, on the other hand, is a failed state with no agencies from which to obtain information on the refugees. You know, we are a generous and humanitarian people; however, we do not need to fund an unknown and put our safety at risk. The sooner we act without regard to national pause (sic) legislation, the more certain we will be that Collier County is maintaining the desirable climate both present and future residents and tourists expect. We count on the government to preserve the American dream and our safety. I think we need more of your intervention on ISIS than on UBER. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Dr. Doyle. We do need intervention on ISIS, and we do need to make an effort to do everything possible to protect ourselves not only in Collier County but in the region known as Southwest Florida. And to that end I want to add a comment, and that is that recently due to a lack of federal funding, our FBI local office in Collier County was shut down, and the resources were relocated to Fort Myers. And I will tell you that our local FBI office is taxed. I believe they are underfunded. I believe they are understaffed, and we have a great deal going on locally that doesn't have to do with terrorism, per se, that is Page 106 December 8, 2015 taking away from antiterrorism focus, notwithstanding that we have incredible coordination between our local law enforcement and the other agencies that deal with antiterrorism, like Homeland Security, like ATF. But I want to actually add ATF to the discussion. The FBI and ATF both need more funding and more staffing. And I would like to suggest that the Board write a letter to Congressman Clawson and ask that we have resources reallocated back to those agencies locally so we can have a permanent presence here in Collier County. I think it's absolutely terrible that they were not able to maintain that office. And it's through no fault of theirs. They absolutely are probably one of the best managed offices that I know of. And I have to say, it's really, really unfortunate. So if the Board would be -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Perhaps Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart can assist in that aspect. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Let's get both of them lined up. Let's write to both of them. Let's copy the -- you know, the SAC (sic) in the local office and let's say we want a full-time presence here. We want them to receive the funding to get adequate staffing and adequate office place -- space and supplies, not just for Collier County -- in specific for Collier County, but for the region as a whole. I think it's extremely important. So I want to thank Dr. Doyle for bringing up the issue of protecting ourselves in light of the terrorism that we have been facing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we do -- should I, like, draft a letter with staff and have you sign it or -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Have we got nods to do that? Have staff COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think all -- I think the -- everyone Page 107 December 8, 2015 on this Board should sign that letter to make a plea to these two Congressmen to help us. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's let Mr. Ochs' office work up something for us and bring back -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And we probably should get endorsement of the Sheriffs Office as well. I'm sure he would support that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. I'm sure -- I'm sure that he would -- and I think, again, it's for the benefit of Collier County specifically and for the region as a whole. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Dr. Doyle, you can just nod. Have you contacted the Tax Collector's Office and asked them about that, and are they going to find another location? I don't mean to belabor that, but that's very interesting. I did not know that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I talk to that? DR. DOYLE: I sent an email about a week ago, but I had no response. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I address that issue as well -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because -- thank you. And, Mr. Doyle, you know, brought that to my office's attention, and we looked into it. The bottom line is, is the distances to the existing offices of the Tax Collector are very, very close to Pelican Bay. And because of, you know, the attempt to be reasonable with resources and not to be wasteful, it really is -- I mean, it's one thing that they've had that office there for a great deal of time but, quite frankly, it probably should have been closed a lot earlier than it was closed. Because the distance, for example, between Pelican Bay and Page 108 December 8, 2015 Orange Blossom is under five miles. We're looking at about four miles as the distance. And so it's hard to justify having three offices. And I didn't actually look up the distance to Greentree, but the distances are so close that it's really -- it's -- and I know Mr. Doyle has always been very conservative on spending, and I understand where he's coming from and he would like to have the convenience, but it's hard to justify a convenience that -- at any expense when the next office is under five miles away. I mean, I think it's like -- from the furthest point in Pelican Bay -- and that's, like, if you were, like, at this end of Pelican Bay and you went all the way down here and then all the way to Orange Blossom, which is not how it works, but, like, just taking the longest route, you're looking at 4.7 miles. And it's really -- actually, you're probably looking at an average of, like, probably three miles. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess I should have just asked if you had looked into it. You have -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did, I did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and we won't belabor it any longer, but I -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I couldn't, in good conscience -- DR. DOYLE: But, Commissioner Fiala, it's not so much the distance. It's really the time. The traffic is horrendous on 41 and Vanderbilt Beach Road just too even get over -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: There actually are occasions when snail mail and a 60-cent stamp is still pretty efficient. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, there are alternatives. There are alternative times to drive, and I drive that corridor every single day. I can't see how the Tax Collector fiscally can justify an office given the proximity of the other two offices. But I do appreciate your point, and it's just, you know, donor Page 109 December 8, 2015 community or not, we have to be responsible with the taxpayer dollar, and I think that would be frivolous spending and probably, in my opinion, was open too long.. DR. DOYLE: Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Item #10B WAIVING THE BOARD'S PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE AND PROCURE SERVICES FROM PARADISE REEF, LLC FOR THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A DOCUMENTARY FILM, A THREE MINUTE FILM, AND TWO 30-SECOND FILM SPOTS; APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $527,614.00; AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to your 1:05 p.m. time-certain item. That is Item 10B on your agenda. It's a recommendation to waive the Board's procurement ordinance and procure services from Paradise Reef, LLC, for the production and distribution of a documentary film, a three-minute film, and two 20-second film spots, approve the necessary budget amendments in an amount not to exceed $527,614, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. This item was brought to the commission agenda by Commissioner Taylor. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I was very excited about the concept of this film because what it does is it finally brings to the public the incredible leadership of this Page 110 December 8, 2015 commission and of Collier County. It highlights the concept of sustainability, which is an easy word to bat around, but in today's world it's a very important word. When you think about the hundreds of tons, hundreds of thousands of tons of debris that went into a landfill and were dropped in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico to create these reefs and that these reefs are designed in order to attract different fish, and there's reefs for fishing and reefs for scuba diving. What we've done here as a county -- and I was not part of it, I'm sad to say. But what we've done here as a county is -- it is extraordinary. And this film will bring this to not only our local audiences, but certainly statewide and more than likely internationally. It's a boom for tourism. It is directly related to tourism, and I'm pleased to say that the Tourist Development Council actually passed it 8-1 two weeks ago, they liked the concept so much. So without further ado, because we are under a little bit of time pressure, I'm going to turn it over to Paradise Reef, LLC, and Harry Julian. MR. JULIAN: Thank you, Commissioners, for having us this afternoon. My name's Harry Julian. I'm the executive producer of the documentary. And I'd just like to start -- first of all, we have a brief sizzle reel or promo video we've done for the documentary highlights of some of the things we've done to date, what we've done for the last three years with respect to gaining footage of the entire process. (Video being played.) MR. JULIAN: That's all original footage. That's what you have out there in the Gulf right now. The footage of the reefs underwater, that's what's there, so grab your rods. MS. FLAGG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Diane Flagg, co-chair of the Economic Recovery Task Force. Page 111 December 8, 2015 In respect of your limited time today, what I'd like to do is be very brief The little bit of background on the reef project, there are 36 reefs 500 tons apiece that are located between 10 and 20 miles off our coastline. The first reef was deployed in January 2015. The final, or the 36th reef, went down in October of this year. Thanks to the coordinated commitment by yourselves as the commissioners, the City of Naples, and the City of Marco Island, you-all applied for a BP grant that funded the reef in addition to private donations. This project was constructed entirely without the use of taxpayers' funds. The next slide shows you the location of the artificial reefs. Collier County's reefs -- one reef is located off of Doctors Pass, the second cluster of reefs is located off of Gordon Pass. The City of Naples reefs, which is Wasmer Reef and Foote Family Reef, those clusters of reefs are located just south of Gordon Pass. The City of Marco Island reefs, Rooney Reef, is located off of Big Marco Pass, and then Marco 1 is located further south. As you know, the -- as you know, the economic recovery task force is a group of community leaders who volunteer their time to develop projects that will provide an economic benefit for our community. Before we undertook the reef project in conjunction with Peter Flood, we did a business plan to make sure that it is feasible and would be an economic benefit to our community. Evaluating the film project was no different. The following is only a few questions that we researched. The first was, how will the film be funded? We looked at the ordinance of the tourist development tax and specifically Category B. Category B, as you see, is to promote and advertise county tourism within the State of Florida, nationally and internationally, with an emphasis on off-season visitors to Collier County. The tourist development tax, or bed tax as it's frequently known, Page 112 December 8, 2015 is a tax that tourists pay when they stay in our hotels. These are -- these funds are currently available in reserves to pay for this film project, and the tourism director, Jack Wert, confirmed at a recent TDC meeting that there are no plans or projects that identify the use for the use of these reserve funds. One of the other questions that we researched was do films actually increase tourism, and we found a volume of information that yes, in fact, they do increase tourism. The tourism competitive intelligence identified that 40 million tourists choose their destination primarily by movies or TV programs they've seen. Film Florida, when we contacted them and said, do you have any data that says films increase tourism, they sent us this document where Visit Florida did a recent survey and showed that 22.7 percent domestic visitors to the state indicated viewing a movie or TV series filmed in Florida contributed to their decision to travel to the state. So next we said, okay, well, it's a great idea. The data supports funding -- tourist dollars funding a documentary, but who are these filmmakers? Do they have a track record with the film industry? Because the reality is, if you get a film made, that's really the smallest step. The biggest step is making sure that people see it. What we found is that when Hollywood needs a film team, they call on this team. Martin Scorsese has a new film Silence coming out in 2016. He's a world renowned film producer and director. And as you can see here, one of the members of this film team is in his inner circle on this film. So next we went to -- one of the other questions we asked is, has any tourism department paid for a film documentary, and what we found is that Tourism Australia is funding 1.5 million for the production cost of a documentary about their reef. We also found that the Kentucky Department of Travel and Tourism and Visit LEX and Page 113 December 8, 2015 Louisville Tourism are funding a documentary on Kentucky bourbon. Then we found that Tennessee Department of Tourist Development and Virginia Tourism Corporation are funding a documentary on the 1927 Bristol Sessions. We've researched many additional questions, including how will the film be distributed, how does the cost compare to what Collier County is already paying, how much and when can we expect return on the investment? County tourism recently spend almost $170,000 for one minute of film, two 30-second spots. With these numbers, the film project would equate to just over three minutes of film or six 30-second spots; however, you're getting so much more. You're getting a 56-minute documentary, a three-minute film that you can actually immediately push out to your convention visitors' bureau, and you're also getting two 30-second spots. Based on the data, investing $527,000 of the bed tax reserve funds will return several million dollars to our community year after year after year. This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and one that will not come around again. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Julian. MR. JULIAN: So real briefly, a history of the people involved in the project. We have a talent coordinator, we have a director, his own movie John Spula (phonetic), was released nationwide. We have over a hundred years of experience doing production work, major features, Survivor TV show, and so forth. All in all, there's over 50 Hollywood credits to our name, which kind of helps. We have worked both internationally and locally. We do have, as mentioned, a hundred years of combined experience in the greatest things. All the people involved with the project are local. We all live here in Collier County. It's our passion, and we will be using all local resources when we make this documentary as well. Page 114 December 8, 2015 Why a documentary about the artificial reef? First and foremost, tourism obviously is a big thing. There's been a lack of fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. It's a story that needs to be told. Fishing is a huge driver of business in the county. And with the closing of reefs down in the Florida Keys and Key Biscayne where people are looking for new avenues to go fishing, this is a great opportunity to let them know about it. Diving, it's a whole new tourism stream. The reefs are incredible, as you saw from the video. Lots to see. It's an easy sell to create a diving community. Also, other potential markets, underwater photography, fishing tournaments, spearfishing leagues. The options are endless if we get the word out that this is the place to come and do that. Economic impact. Florida Sea Grant study was conducted in 2011. Annual impact from visitors is $117 million annually. That was for, from Sarasota down to Lee County. Collier County did not participate in that study. But based on the analysis of the data and their modeling, $15 million annually in economic impact that these reefs will have if the story is told correctly. Cinematic highlights. The base of the story, BP Horizon had a major issue, and a small group of volunteers got together to come together and tell us incredible -- take advantage of this opportunity to use no federal money or taxpayer money to create this artificial reef structure. It's not just the reefs. The fish start in the Everglades. They feed the birds in the Everglades. It's a cinematic view of the entire county of Collier, everywhere from Immokalee to the Everglades to the reef bottom. The beauty in what there is to see here will be highlighted within the documentary. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir, let me interrupt you for a second. I've got a scheme of lights here of commissioners that want to talk, and Page 115 December 8, 2015 maybe we're best to start answering some questions. So I've got Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning. Let's start the dialogue here and see where we're going to go. Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I would like to start by making a motion to deny, and the reason I say that is because I have great trepidation about the amount of money, over a half a million dollars, into a film about a project that doesn't compare to the Great Barrier reef. This project for filming was not competitively let. You want to continue to own the film. It isn't tied to direct performance as we do with our other TDC grants. And this is not being treated as a grant. This is being treated as funding for advertising without proof that there will be the return that you haven't empirically proven will result. It concerns me. You're asking for 100 percent funding of a 56-minute film. And I'll tell you, I don't know people who today watch 56-minute films. I mean, typically, you know, the attention span of the majority is very short. I mean, you know, like a short video promotion. You know, something that could flash through, you know, Facebook or it could be used as -- you know, for advertising on TV I understand, but a 56-minute film really doesn't seem to me to be a prudent use of tax dollars. And this is being funded by taxes. This isn't being privately funded. The tourist tax is a tax, and it goes directly out of the bottom line of the hotels, because they can only raise their prices to a certain degree, which means that to the extent we're using these funds to promote any project, that does come out of their bottom line, and that goes directly against the employees who work there who will receive less in wages. And, no, there is no proof that it's going to increase tourism. We Page 116 December 8, 2015 do have a ripe fishing industry. It does deserve to be promoted with advertising. I think fishing is wonderful, but I don't believe the right way to do it is by spending over a half a million dollars without any sort of competitive bidding, without any sort of guaranteed return on this project. And so I encourage you -- from my standpoint, I think if you want to do it you should do it privately just like other film makers do such private -- do such projects privately, but I can't support it. So I have to make a motion to deny. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Coming from my standpoint, this is one of the best things that could have ever happened to us. Right now we are introducing a whole new segment of tourism to our community, and that's the diving industry, plus we're augmenting the sagging fishing industry because we've pretty well overfished because the fish have had no place to hide. These reefs are going to be the best thing, and we're going to find that they're going to pay off over and over and over again over the next 50 years easily and, of course, this reef is going to last for hundreds of years. In the beginning -- and I have to tell you, folks, I was invited to become a part of watching this begin, and I was there, and I loved it. I loved seeing every bit of it. And not only that, but there were photographers all around the county that were invited to participate. Nobody took the challenge. Only these guys came. And after all is said and done, I believe other ones now want to a part -- a piece of the cake now, but they weren't there to start off. These are the only guys that got the original, original creation of this reef. And I say we stick with them, because they're the only ones that have the real stuff, the real -- the real film on it. Page 117 December 8, 2015 I can't emphasize enough how important this is, not only to our tourism industry, fishing and diving, but also to our water environment, if you will, for the safety of the fishes. And from what I understand, this thing started growing just a couple months after it was -- after it was dumped into the water. By the way, it also saved some of our landfill, just as a side note. But as soon as it started growing, we started seeing some of the fish come back that have left this area. So I am in solid support of this, and I would say I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, there's already a motion on the table. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hold on, hold on. Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She seconded it, though. Penny. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Well, we've got all kinds of things. Commissioner Henning? We've got to have three votes one way or another, so let's see what Commissioner Henning has to say. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the gentleman's right, there are reefs being closed in the state of Florida, and particularly in the Keys. The only thing that you can do is snorkel, dive them. My understanding -- now, I don't dive. I fish. But it's my understanding from a great number of my friends who do dive, they're going over to Jupiter, they're going down to the Keys and other places, and they are staying overnight in the Keys over on the East Coast for a dive, you know. And you need to be there, you know, at a certain time when the boat leaves and so on and so forth. But the only way that it's going to -- this documentary -- it's a 50-minute documentary. It's not a commercial, correct? MR. JULIAN: Correct. Page 118 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I think some people have some misconceptions about what you're proposing. How is it going to be promoted? That's the issue, so we could determine that it does promote tourism. How's it going to be distributed? MR. JULIAN: We have an agreement in place with WGCU. We did have some feedback from the TDC that, you know, if-- based on that conversation with them, we approached the general manager at WGCU, who also happens to be president of the Florida Public Broadcasting Commission, and they've assured us that they'll release the documentary statewide to all markets, which reaches approximately nine million homes throughout the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And what are -- what's the charge? What are you going to -- are you going to sell this film to MR. JULIAN: No. This entire project from the get-go has been to release the film royalty free for eternity. So most commercial applications, they raise money, they make a film, they go and try and sell it. We're not doing that. This documentary will be free of charge. It will be distributed throughout the State of Florida, also made available to our contacts in Hollywood to other networks and outlets both domestically and internationally and also the other PBS stations. And that's the greatest thing. This documentary isn't a single ad spin like a standard campaign for CVB might be $500,000 for a three-month campaign. This documentary's going to be playing for eternity, as long as they want to keep playing it, at no additional cost. And as far as the publicity, PBS is going to be taking care of-- WGCU will be advertising it statewide. They ran a very successful campaign with Silver King and also the Pink Gold, which they got their product into, I believe it was, 156 and 350 networks respectively. Page 119 December 8, 2015 So they've got a track record and a pattern there that works in order to make sure that this thing gets picked up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is not a sitcom, so you're not going to see it on ABC-7 or something like that, but it could be viewed, like, on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, NOVA. MR. JULIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any contacts there? MR. JULIAN: We do. One of the people on our staff is actually a talent agency and rep in LA for the last 10 years. She's been pitching shows and talent to various networks consistently over that period and has the direct contacts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to use those contacts? MR. JULIAN: We're going to leverage all our contacts from a hundred years of film experience to make it available, like I said, royalty free. No charge for them to air this. That's the big difference. We're not looking for a return on this. We're just trying to cover the cost of making the documentary and making it available to everyone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now that you mention that, for a one-hour filming, once you do all the editing, what is -- is there a standard industry what you -- what that product is worth? MR. JULIAN: If you look at what they did in Australia, they spent a million and a half for a documentary. For the quality of the people involved in this product, we believe it's priced very competitively. We're all local. There's no hotel rooms, travel, airfares, all the other stuff that's involved with normal production. The budget was generated based on industry standards for this type of documentary. And I believe that, for the value you're getting, it's extremely well priced. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I saw the breakdown that was presented to the Tourist Development Council. Does that still Page 120 December 8, 2015 hold true? MR. JULIAN: That budget's been the same for about four years since we first started working. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how long will it take you to complete the 50-, 60-minute documentary? MR. JULIAN: We have a six-week shooting schedule. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. JULIAN: Really, by the time you do post production and view production, get everything lined up, you're looking at about four months. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. That's quicker than I thought. MR. JULIAN: We've been working on this for, you know, three-and-a-half years solid now so, I mean, a lot of the key footage that tells the story, if you will, the meetings and so forth, we have some of that, and that's what we used to generate what you saw today. We still need to get all the underwater photography done, we need to do all the interviews, we need to do everything to create the story that will make it what it is and make it hopefully a great piece to help promote the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the story is, this is in Naples, or -- MR. JULIAN: Collier County, as a whole. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So that's going to be the message for people to find us. It's in Collier County, Florida. MR. JULIAN: Exactly, Collier County, Florida, look at this amazing story about how we took 18,000 tons of landfill. It started from the roots of BP having a major disaster, volunteers coming together to instigate it and make it happen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not Naples, Marco Island, Florida? Page 121 December 8, 2015 MR. JULIAN: Naples, Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand -- I was told, and tell me if it's true -- that you're going to actually feature some of Lake Trafford, I think, and Immokalee. MR. JULIAN: Immokalee. The entire county is affected, you know. It's also our future generations. You know, we've left a legacy for our kids, and that affects everyone in the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then I'll speak. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'd like to just give some figures here and to put things in perspective. In the last five years, from 2011 to 2015, this represents the total dollars paid to Paradise Advertising and Marketing, $16,343,613.35. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't confuse Paradise Advertising with this company. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. But that's what we're paying right now to market. So I just wanted to put that in perspective to what they're asking for. Also, just briefly I'd like to read into the record a letter from Clark Hill, who is -- I believe he's on the Hoteliers' Association, and he is the general manager of the Hilton Hotel. Please allow me to express my support for funding the artificial reef project documentary film from TDT revenues, tourist development tax revenues. The potential return on investment from the project is unlimited, as I will explain below. The need to further promote ecotourism in Collier County has been a topic of discussion for many years but the -- on the TDC, but the marketing funding has not been available. The film provides the opportunity to present our pristine environment in a fashion that directly targets the appropriate market. The cost to create a film of this magnitude using a production company with several major motion pictures to their credit would be Page 122 December 8, 2015 prohibitively expensive. With this project, we have the assurance of professionally created representation of our unique environment by a company with the experience and relationships to maximize the film's distribution at a fraction of the normal cost. The next generation of travelers, the millennials, are adventure seekers. They love outdoor activities, new experiences, and learning new things. Ours is the perfect destination for the millennial generation, and a television documentary film is the ideal medium to reach them. The story sends an excellent message to those high-wage, job-producing companies that are the target of our business and economic development efforts. The project was a collaborative effort of several governmental agencies, many from the private sector, leadership from not-for-profit organizations, and a host of talented volunteers. Collier County performed as a cohesive unit in this major undertaking and will do so for companies that locate here. Relationships with government agencies have the ability to assist us with grant funding for beach renourishment, and they were built during the artificial reef project. The documentary -- excuse me. The documentary film will acknowledge the contribution of these agencies to the success of the project, furthering and strengthening the relationships. Thank you for allowing me the time to share some of the economic benefits of this project that may not be readily apparent. This film could have positive implications for our community for many years to come. And I think I'm going to just finish this part of what I'd like to say is we have a very athletic deputy county manager who loves to swim in the Gulf of Mexico, and he does it on the weekend. And when he swims, he swims somewhere up North Park Shore, and he swims to the peer. Page 123 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is bullshit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But he takes -- he takes part of-- he takes a break every now and then, and he comes ashore. Well, this time, this day -- and he told me this about a month ago, he came ashore. And I have a feeling the Swedish company -- or the Swedish couple standing on the beach may have thought he was -- you know, had actually saw it, because when he came ashore, just to take a breather and to stretch, there was a -- they were there, this couple, and they asked him where the reefs were, that they had heard that Collier County had reefs. And our dear Deputy Manager Casalanguida -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know what to say, ma'am. I'm a little flush. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He said, yes, there are reefs, but I wasn't swimming around them. They're 13 or more miles out there. This, you know -- again, I would ask for your support on this. I can tell you this is -- this will show the world how great our county is and, no, sir, it will not say Naples. It will say Collier County. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I'm going to make a couple comments. I love this artificial reef program. I think the artificial reef program is probably one of the best investments we've made. I think it is going to fill a gap in our summertime tourism that's going to be extraordinary, but I don't think it's going to be this year. I think it's going to be down the road a little while. And that's why I can't wholeheartedly support this documentary at this time, because I just don't think it's the right time. I think the story is compelling on how it was done. It's a source of pride. I wasn't involved with it either. I can't take credit for being a visionary on this, I cannot, but I think the people that did it have set the stage for a wonderful thing. I think right now it's just premature to talk about an hour's worth of film on what it's going to be. Page 124 December 8, 2015 I'm glad that there's film of it now, but I expect that 10 years from now, if you take the footage you've got now and the footage you'll have then, then you'll have something to attract people. I believe it's a source of pride. It's a wonderful thing that we did. It's probably a great film on how to build an artificial reef and how to start one, but right now, I think if a millennial is looking for a place to dive, he's going to say, that's great. I'm glad Collier County's doing it, but right now it's junk in the water. Ten years from now it's going to be spectacular and it's going to take your breath away. That's where I think we're at. I think it's premature. I'm probably the geekiest person on the dais, and I don't think I'd watch 56 minutes on putting stuff in the water. Maybe I would just because it's in my county, but I think somebody from Minneapolis is going to look at it, and he's going to go, well, it looks like it's going to be spectacular but not right now. So I'm more concerned about if we're going to spend half a million dollars at this moment, is this the best way to support this budding enterprise? Is this the best use of the $500,000 to promote the reef project? How much money is it going to really take to distribute the right sorts of materials to get people to come down and take a look at it for those that want to take a look at it at the earliest stages? So I'm very -- I don't want anybody to ever doubt my support for this effort, but I just don't think this is the right thing at the right time. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, thank you. I would agree with you, Commissioner Nance, about if the target market is millennials, which is what this group says it is, a 60-minute film or a 56-minute documentary is definitely not the way to reach them. I don't know any millennial that has that kind of attention span that I know of. That's not how you advertise to that group. Page 125 December 8, 2015 Commissioner Taylor, you reference Paradise Advertising, which is the company that the Board of County Commissioners has hired over the past few years to do all of the tourism advertising for the county, and you cited a very large number. That number reduced on an annual basis is three million. And this project, in effect, on a percentage of that total annual budget for the advertising of the entire county for all tourism is 15 percent, which is a very large percentage if you want to look at it relatively speaking. What's most significant about Paradise Advertising as compared to this company that also uses the word "paradise" in their name is that Paradise Advertising got the contract with the county through competitive bidding, that they had to make a proposal, and they competed with other businesses to prove that they could provide the highest level of service for the tax dollar invested in the projects that they were proposing. And, furthermore, they have performance objectives that they have to meet, and they report monthly to the Tourist Development Council and show what advertising they've done and what the return on that advertising is, and that advertising isn't just within the State of Florida. It's within the State of Florida, throughout the United States, and internationally. This project is not competitively let. It's a very large sum of money, over a half a million dollars, in a single film without any requirement that there be direct proof of the return on the investment made, without even ownership of the film by the county. I can't, in good conscience, in the interest of the taxpayers, support a project like this. This is tantamount to crony capitalism. This is a pork project, and that is something I can't abide by. It's not competitively let, there's no proof that we're going to get the return on the investment being proposed, there's no history that this company is better than any other company out there, and the notion Page 126 December 8, 2015 that, you know, because the initial parts of this project were filmed by them and, therefore, that somehow obviates the need for competitive bidding is completely untrue. That's an unfounded argument. This proposal is in violation of our purchasing ordinance. If this company wants support, they should come back. They should apply during the grant cycle. They could qualify for a grant and be selected on a competitive basis. We don't even give our grants 100 percent. We require a matching where the private company contributes so much and then we give so much in grant funding, and we demand proof. They have to sell the hotel rooms, show that they sold the hotel rooms in order to be reimbursed. So I can't support this on any level for the reasons I stated. If this company would like to come back and competitively, you know, bid and propose, just like all the other companies that get tourist development grants from us, I obviously would consider that fairly and consider what would be, you know, a fair contribution to them, but to just give them money outright, you know, letting them own the film, not requiring them to prove the return and not requiring competitive bidding is not in the taxpayers' interest. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to go back to Commissioner Taylor, then let's hear from the public speakers. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, the issue of film ownership has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Creators own their artistic creations. They have actually decided and opined -- 1976 copyright law specifically says, you create it, you own it. It is something that other folks have fought and have lost, and it has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States, and they've lost. So that's just the law. Second of all, competitively bidding a documentary is an oxymoron. Documentary is a means to document something, and there's no way anyone can recreate the beginnings, the births of the Page 127 December 8, 2015 reefs and the initial meeting and the last three-and-a-half years. Just for the history of what went on, it's my understanding, because it was testimony at the TDC, that the group, the artificial reef group, actually noticed Collier County's tourism on a monthly basis about the meetings, about all the activities. The film aspect of our advertising was notified. No one leapt and said we're going to do this. No one but this group. So the idea -- if we're going to tell the story and if we're going to talk about our vision as a county and what we've done, we can't -- we can't recreate that. They've got the footage because they decided to do it, and that's why it justifies as a sole source. It doesn't violate anything. We cleared that with the county attorney. We talked to procurement. It is the -- it's within the purview of this commission to waive our purchasing ordinance in order to allow this to happen, and it will ultimately be the decision made here. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's go to the public speakers. Let's see what they have to say, Mr. Miller. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, three registered speakers. Your first speaker is Holly Boldrin. She'll be followed by Rob Tolp. MS. BOLDRIN: Go here? MR. MILLER: Either. MS. BOLDRIN: Good afternoon. I'm Holly Boldrin. I'm the public relations director for Priority Marketing. We have the pleasure of working with the Pure Florida team, as well as we represent a number of economic development office organizations in Lee and Collier County. We work with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Lee County Sports, Lee County Economic Development Office, so we have that background and expertise with more than 23 years in this market of serving our destination marketing folks. So we are pleased to be here. And just a few things. I appreciate the concern about the return Page 128 December 8, 2015 on investment and fiscal responsibility to Collier County residents. I just wanted to address that. From WGCU, their prime time rate of 160 per 15-second spot, when you equate that to the value of the 56-minute documentary, that equates to $38,400, so -- and if you look at it in terms of the value of an advertising spend that you would normally spend for an hour documentary, there is a great return on investment. When you multiply that by the 13 markets, prime time PBS markets, that equates to $499,200. So, really, it covers your $500,000 concern there. So in looking at that spend, it really is a great value for return on investment. I think, importantly, beyond the WGCU documentary, there's an opportunity to leverage that footage that they're offering to you in terms of social media to reach those millennials, to reach those tourist development organizations to really direct market via the Internet to those organizations, to your tourists and travel organizations, directly to the consumer via Internet and social media. So we know that there's nothing more powerful than good video when we're trying to sell a story, an organization, a county, a destination, and so you have that valuable asset here. Why would you want to wait? I'm really not clear on why you would want to wait to market something that's a unique asset, that when you have beaches upon beaches across Florida, white sand, shells, hotels, resorts, pools, you have something different to show them. You have a unique asset there that they can visually see that sets Collier County apart. And I think, most importantly, it tells that Collier County is committed to its environment, its ecotourism, and it's committed to supporting the growth of the ecology here in Collier County. So I think you have a really valuable opportunity to do that and a great group of storytellers with the background, the expertise, the Page 129 December 8, 2015 connections, the network to put behind it. So I encourage you to really consider and look at, really, the return on investment that is there; aside from that, all the opportunities to market it through public relations, through Internet. And I also ask you to ask your folks in Tourist Development Council what they are doing right now to actively market that. Where's their messaging? Where's the positioning statements for this now? What is being done in this day and age right now to be able to market and sell your story and separate yourselves from the other counties in Florida that offer white beaches and shells and hotels? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me. One question. Ma'am, one question. MS. BOLDRIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN NANCE: What is your business relationship, if any, with the filmmaker? MS. BOLDRIN: Absolutely. As I mentioned when I first introduced myself, we work with and represent -- we are the marketing firm on record for Pure Florida, which is the agency that we're working with here. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob Tolp. He'll be followed by Jared Grifoni. MR. TOLP: Commissioners, thank you for this time. Some of my questions have already been answered that I was going to ask here by the film that was produced earlier of who the person was, what the company was, et cetera and so forth, but I also like -- I would say that this is way too premature to vote for an affirmative vote to fund this, and I would personally like to thank Commissioner Hiller for bringing this to the light of day on a radio -- Page 130 December 8, 2015 local radio program just this past weekend; otherwise, I would have never known about this. Thank you, Commissioner Hiller. I'm against an initial and quick funding of this project not because I'm against nature. I'm a fisherman myself. I live in District 2 of Collier County and am a Florida native, having been born in Fort Myers back in 1969. But I have a serious problem with not contacting other companies to find out if they could bid lower than this company. I also am a intellectual property creator. I am a registered songwriter in Nashville, Tennessee, so I actually am fully in favor of this company owning the rights to their own material. They have the right to do that. But there is something that's being not considered as well. If another company were to bid lower and be able to do a better job or the same job for a lower price, because he owns -- and his company owns the rights to that film and only have those initial stages on film of where this reef was -- when this reef was built, this new company would have the full ability to purchase that from him on a royalty basis or outright. So it's not beyond the scope of this taking place at all. And beyond this, in my laboring over the entire state constitution of Florida, I still do not recall anywhere where government has been delegated the authority to take in the matters regarding the film industry. Obviously, we want to promote ourselves in Collier County, and I am fully in favor of that, but I'm also in favor of free market principles where there is competition in the workplace, because competition breeds excellence. This speaks and smacks of crony capitalism to its highest. And for many who are here, I appreciate your positions on there, and we're able to disagree -- agree to disagree, but I don't recall where we -- the local government, especially Collier County Government, has the authority to get involved in the making of a film. Page 131 December 8, 2015 I thank you for your time and appreciate your consideration in my remarks. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you spell your last name, sir? MR. TOLP: Tolp. T as in Thomas, 0 as in Oscar, L as in Larry, P as in Peter. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jared Grifoni. And, Mr. Chairman, I was handed one late slip for Jim Kalvin, who will be your last speaker. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. GRIFONI: Thank you, Commissioners. First, I live on Marco Island, so I drive by the ship and all the materials quite often, and it's really interesting to see, and the video promotion that was put up there really looks very interesting. But that being said, I'm not in favor of this spending, this expenditure of county funds, tourist tax dollars. In the backup material there was a lot of information. Unfortunately what wasn't there was the return on investment for the entertainment industry incentive programs report which is put together by the State of Florida. I looked at Fiscal Years 2010, '11, '12 -- '11/12 and '12/'13, and the purpose was to develop a return on investment for the entertainment industry sales tax exemption as well as various financial incentives. So it's slightly different than what we're talking about here, but I believe it's closely related. The sales tax program actually resulted in a return on investment of .54, which means that for every dollar spent, the state received back 54 cents, so that was an operating loss of 46 cents per dollar; 46 percent. That's a lot. The FTC (sic), financial incentive program, generated a return on investment of between .25 and .43 for every dollar spent. So, again, that was even worse. That was a return of-- or a loss of 43 cents -- excuse me. A loss of 57 cents and a loss of 75 cents per dollar the way Page 132 December 8, 2015 they looked at it. The State of Florida also looked in this report at jobs. Do these types of incentives create jobs? Most that were created were low-paying part-time jobs. And the tourism generated by the incentives, according to the report, was negligible. The Florida Office of Economic Development also did research, return on investment for Visit Florida. This was January 2015. A report they looked at -- they actually surveyed -- Collier County may have been one of them that they surveyed, and they asked the individuals to rank various efforts on which is most effective for bringing in tourism and, unfortunately, films -- fortunately or unfortunately weren't even -- they were not ranked very highly, so they weren't even included in the result of the report. The other -- the backup material mentions the funding from BP and private donations, which is excellent, and specifically private donations, I wish that was the case now for this film going forward. And also, just very briefly on WGCU, when I looked at the information, it looked like WGCU is the only one that was agreeing to put the information out there which, again, is, you know, our Collier County and Southwest Florida individuals, not necessarily tourists, with no guarantee that this information was going to be put out nationally or even statewide. It would be great if that was able to be secured prior to any potential funding going forward. So I don't think this is an appropriate use of tax dollars at this time. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, one further update. I had a slip in the wrong pile, as there was no number indicated on it. So I have two speakers left, excuse me. Jim Kalvin will be followed by your final speaker, Peter Flood. MR. KALVIN: Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll be brief. I won't use all three minutes. Page 133 December 8, 2015 As a lifelong Collier County fisherman, resident, charter captain, boat delivery captain, and marine tradesman, I'm wearing two hats today. One of them is that our summer -- summertime for the Marine Industries Association has always been lacking. It's a time we take off work. It's a time we do deferred maintenance. It's time that we really don't have much to do, so we go dive other places. That's going to change. It already has. When we have structure out here off of our coast, it generates wildlife like they can't see on the east coast, like they don't have in the Keys. It doesn't take much, and it doesn't take long. We have tremendous opportunity out here. And these gentlemen here didn't wait for the competitive bid process. They took the initiative on their own, just like the Paradise Reef Foundation did, bringing together what I said at the kickoff party down there at the bridge. It's the perfect public-private partnership, bringing cities, bringing counties, bringing people, bringing nonprofits together to create this project. And another thing about the millennials, they have already got this summer's trip planned. If we don't get a video done, get some kind of promotion out there other than what's going on in social media, we're going to miss them next summer too. As far as getting the video out, I think our Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission would be very interested in this. As the president, also, and CEO of Standing Watch, which is a Florida boating coalition statewide, I'd like to see this as a template. I'd like other areas around the State of Florida to learn from what we have done and encompass this template in their areas. There's a lot of debris. A lot of landfills could be cleared, and a lot of fish habitat that we could make around the state. I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for your time proactively with no promise of any return. On behalf of the fishermen and the boaters in Page 134 December 8, 2015 Collier County, I'd like to thank the county for participating in this initiative, and I'd like to get this film done if we possibly can and get it on the road. Then we'll get those millennials in here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Peter Flood. MR. FLOOD: Good afternoon. Peter Flood. I'm the initiative -- took the vision to put this group together in regards to putting the artificial reefs in. A couple comments in regards to what's going on out there in the world, in the fishing world. Commissioner Henning made a point that there's closures going on. Well, last week I got in the mail my Saltwater Fishing Magazine, and the Biscayne Bay just closed 10,500 acres to recreational fishing. What's going on down in the Keys? There's another 26 square miles of fishing going to be closed here in the next year. So the restriction on the recreational fishing is putting more pressure on all our resources. It's going to push more people up into Collier County. Fortunately we got together, put these artificial reefs in. I'm proud of the group. I'm proud of the county, the Commissioners, everybody who participated in it. We're all talking about risk. In addition to being a lawyer, I also own a marketing company. I've owned it for 16 years. A lot of people don't know that. We bring products to the market. Everything is a risk. When you compare what's in this proposal in regards to the cost per minutes and what the 30-second spots cost based on the history, for two 30-second spots it runs approximately $170,000 right now. That's what Paradise Reef produces. I've read their contract. There is no guarantee in their contract. Nobody can guarantee you anything in marketing. All you can do is rely on statistics. Our group, we relied on the study, the sea grant study. We've relied on the experts in Page 135 December 8, 2015 regards to the filming industry and what they're proposing. So what does this transcend to? This transcends into approximately $8,700 a minute for this documentary film. The intrinsic value of this film, it's not about the reef. Everybody has a misconception that this film is strictly about the reef. This is about our ecosystem. This is about Lake Trafford. This is about our beaches. This is about our community. Three-and-a-half years ago I got together with a group of people. BP funding was available. I found it. That wasn't premature. If we would have been premature, we would have waited. It would have taken us 20 days. They have come in voluntarily and filmed this project. I'm so proud of the film and the pictures that were put out here in regards -- that's how the reefs are today, Mr. Nance. Those are the reefs. You're a fisherman. I know you are. I love it out there. I go out there with my boys, go out there all the time. We're in there dumping over the side in the 10-mile reef now, and we're looking at it. We're staring down at it. We have a great time. The story really needs to be told. It's a lot of money. Put it into perspective. The rate of returns, I think, will be tremendous. So, please, I would ask the Board to vote in favor of it. I think it really needs to be done. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala. Then I'm going back to Commissioner Henning, who's quiet as a church mouse down there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Flood said it. If it's not about the reef, then it absolutely should be competitively bid. Even if it is about the reef, it should be competitively bid. We don't waive our purchasing ordinance arbitrarily. There has to be a reason for the waiver, and there is no justified reason for Page 136 December 8, 2015 waiving competitive bidding on this project. If this project is so good, they will beat their competitors who compete against them. There has been no demonstrated evidence that there will be a positive return other than the statement that there will be a positive return. I'm sorry. We can't make investments in an industry based on a statement that, yeah, there will be a positive return. That, in and of itself, is not justifiable. Mr. Grifoni, thank you for your presentation and the statements you made about what the state has determined vis-a-vis these films. That's why more of these are not made, because the return on the investment hasn't been proven to result in what these people are saying here today. How much will your top three employees make as a result of this film? Are you going to pay yourself salaries? MR. JULIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much will you make? MR. JULIAN: Fifteen thousand for the next six months. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who will get the balance of the money? Where will the balance of the money go? MR. JULIAN: That money goes to subcontractors: Grips; lighting; the Casagrande brothers, we've been working with them. They'll be doing the underwater photography; boat captains; the guy that's going to do the score for the documentary that does the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to competitively bid the subcontractors you're going to be doing business with? MR. JULIAN: With all the people we've been working with already in the community, they will be identified in the bids that we -- or the quotes we got from them are fairly firm. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not competitively bidding who you're subbing the work to? Page 137 December 8, 2015 MR. JULIAN: The work that we're doing, the standard of the quality, it's different. You need to find the best that's available of what's here. You can pay someone to go out and get a B-rated movie, you're not going to get the exposure. You're not going to be able -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not competitively bidding? MR. JULIAN: Not for the majority of the work, no. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Competitive bidding is the only way to award public funds. Unless there's a justification for sole sourcing, which there isn't in this case, I don't see how the public -- the public's interest is served without it. Again, I can't support it. As far as the ownership of the rights go, you can give those rights to anybody. And if we're funding this 100 percent, then you should give those rights to the people. But, again, that's aside from the fact that I can't support this for all the reasons stated. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, they don't have to give their rights to anybody, for goodness sake, nor do they have to sell them if they don't want to. It sounds to me like --just the other day I was buying new car insurance, and I called the car insurance company I've had for eight years, and I said, how about giving me a little bit of a lower rate because I'm getting so many letters from other people that can give me a lower rate? And they said, you come back with your best rate, and we'll beat them. I said, no, I'm not going to give you that opportunity. You give me your best rate, and I'll see if it is the best rate. Well, that's the same thing here. I want to know how the TDC -- did they -- did the TDC vote on Page 138 December 8, 2015 this? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what did they say? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Eight to one, they wanted it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eight to one, the TDC. That's Tourist Development Council. Those are the people that put the money into this fund, and they're the ones that want to use it to promote this area, and they just voted 8-1 to invest their dollars -- it's not your dollars; it's the bed tax dollars -- into this fund. Why are we saying no to the people who want to spend their own dollars? It just makes no sense to me whatsoever. I feel that this is one of the best things we can do. I feel it's a -- by the time they get their film all put together, like Mr. Kalvin said, wherever he is, it will probably be another year till they can get it going, but at least they could get it going come next summer so that they can start moving it along and attracting people to this area. This is a whole new industry for us, and I don't think we should lose that opportunity. I strongly am in favor of buying this film. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a motion on the floor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We've got a motion to approve. The motion to deny didn't get a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do, and she does. Yes, the second is from Penny. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Motion to approve with a second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to approve down here with a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you recognize the Page 139 December 8, 2015 motion -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to approve? Okay. I just want to get that done so we can move on to other items. The breakdown from your submission to the Tourist Development Council is executive producer, $30,000; director and staff, $30,000. I don't see where you're getting rich there; production staff, 64,9-. You got, you know, equipment such as transportation, camera, lab, insurance. I mean, I don't see where you're getting rich on this, quite frankly. That's being put out there. You know, I was very concerned about the competitive bid process of this item until I understood, till I did research and found out, well, you're not going to get a better price than this, okay. And the upside of it is -- well, it's not the upside. We will get a return if it is distributed throughout the State of Florida. The bonus of it would be, if you pick it up, if somebody picks it up national, you're not going to charge them for that film; is that correct? MR. JULIAN: That's correct, sir. We're not asking for anything for redistribution or being viewed elsewhere. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my understanding is when a producer produces a product, such as the film, you charge the -- they charge the networks for that product. So you've got a better chance of Discovery or even the Travel Channel or any of them to pick it up, NOVA. That's huge. That's -- that is a lot of marketing for what we do on an annual basis. That's a lot of marketing dollars. However, I will say when somebody asks me where I'm from, I don't say "Collier County." I say "Naples." COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Then we'll make it Naples. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not telling anybody what to do with their business, but we market by the Paradise Coast, Naples, Marco Island, and the Everglades. I don't know -- I've never said I Page 140 December 8, 2015 come from Collier County. I'm not sure if they would say, well, where's that at, but when I say Naples, they know where that's at. That's just a little editorial. So let's vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sure the TDC will weigh in on that. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I want to say one thing, because I want to find a way to support this. I do. I'm not so concerned about bidding it, because I believe that you folks have film that nobody else is going to be able to recreate, because you've followed it since the beginning. But let me tell you why I have a little bit of anxiety, and maybe you can help me on this. I don't know what we're making a documentary about. There are several people that have stood up and said all kinds of stuff They said, oh, it's not about the reef It's about the ecosystem. It's about Lake Trafford. Well, wait a minute. Nobody said anything about Lake Trafford, okay. If you said, I'm going to make a documentary on how to make a reef or how the reef was made in Collier County and everybody here decides that we want to make a film about that so we can memorialize it and we think it has great value, then I'm liking that. But as part of that, I expect somebody's going to come back every year for, like, the first five or six years and show, okay, here's this thing growing. Now you've got a story. Right now you've got a story, okay, we got the junk, we threw it in there and, by golly, some day it's going to be great. I got it. But you don't need an hour to say, okay, we put junk in the water, the fish are going to come. You don't need an hour for that. It may be compelling to us because we're so excited. But for a millennial that's looking for a place to dive, he's like, okay, it -- there's junk in the water they put in October. I don't think I'm going in December to go look at a concrete pipe in the water. Page 141 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's fish there now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I know, I know. But what about our competitors, Commissioner? There are other places where it might be a little more compelling at the moment. All I'm saying is, I'd really like to make sure that this has an element where it tells -- it stretches out this story a little bit so that we actually have something that's attractive, because I don't think we've really established whether we're documenting this great project or we're actually building a promotional film to bring people here, and those might really not be quite the same thing. You know, building it might not be as exciting to somebody that wants to go look at it. You know, maybe an engineer is really excited about how to build a reef, but maybe a visitor might not be. So, you know, to me it's a little bit cloudy just because we haven't really -- I don't think it's clear what it is we're actually doing. I think it's a fantastic project, and I love the fact that we have the ability to document it. And if everybody wants to do that, I will certainly support it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm not worried about -- I'm not worried about bidding it so much because I think you have proprietary footage that nobody else can compete against you because you can't go back and -- you know, you can't set the reset button and go back three years from now and start taking some footage. Yes. MR. JULIAN: The narrative is from BP to going down. We can go out now, and we can shoot 12 months worth of growth on the reef because everything's just gone in. Second to that, we renegotiated with WGCU. The beginning of every time that year is in the state of Florida, there's 30 seconds designated there towards promoting Naples, Marco, the Everglades, Page 142 December 8, 2015 which that ad can be put together working with Jack Wert's team, with Paradise Advertising, making sure that the message is good for the county so there's added value there. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's 4-1 with Commissioner Hiller in dissent. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, would you like to take a brief court reporter break before we begin the public hearing? CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to take a brief court reporter break until 2:41. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Commissioner, this takes us to Item 9A on your agenda this afternoon. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. Item #9A (Discussed; tabled to later in the meeting) KATHLEEN RILEY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF A FINAL Page 143 December 8, 2015 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 #11A) — DISCUSSED; TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING MR. OCHS: This item is continued from the October 13, 2015, BCC meeting, was further continued from the November 10, 2015, BCC meeting. The item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and 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 the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 24 to 38 feet to accommodate a 26-slip multifamily docking facility for the benefit of a 15.61 plus-or-minus acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek docks. This is a companion item to Item 11A. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to introduce you into the process that we're going to have today to try to keep an orderly -- an orderly appeal. I want to explain to you Page 144 December 8, 2015 exactly kind of what we're going to do. The first thing that's going to occur -- I'm just going to give you a summary, and then we're going to begin. Each person that is going to testify is going to have to be sworn in and take an oath by the court reporter and speak under oath, the commissioners are going to give all ex parte disclosures regarding the item, and then we're going to have a presentation and discussion that is going to proceed as follows: The appealing party is going to present its case first for not more than an hour. Hopefully it won't take an hour. The party defending is then going to have 15 minutes to ask questions of the appellant. The party defending is then going to present their case with a limit of one hour, and the appealing party should likewise have an allowable time of 15 minutes to ask questions. The Board may ask as many questions as they want at any time with no limit. At the conclusion of the two parties, staff is available to make a presentation. It's recommended that there's going to be no time limit on that. Then we're going to take public speakers. Public speakers are going to be limited to three minutes. After public comments, the appealing party and the defending parties will each have 10 minutes to make a closing statement. And at the conclusion of the closing statement, the public hearing is going to be closed, and the board members are going to commence their discussion. The decision requires a vote of a simple majority for a determination, and the Board may affirm, affirm with conditions, or reverse, or reverse with conditions the decision of the Planning Commission. So at this time I'm going to ask the court reporter to administer the oath to all those who wish to testify in today's public hearing. Please rise and be sworn in. Page 145 December 8, 2015 (All speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Commissioners, we're now going to have ex parte disclosure on this item beginning with Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's both the items, correct? CHAIRMAN NANCE: 9A and the companion item, 11A. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. I met with staff, we did talk about this one; the growth management administrator and the deputy county attorney or, no, the deputy county manager, the county attorney; I had phone calls from Josh Maxwell with Turrell & Associates, Rich Yovanovich, and Dan Riley. The backup -- the material was sent to me, besides the emails. I have the staffs report on this one. I've received a voluminous amount of documents from Tony Pires. I read the backup material that is online that is relevant to this appeal, my emails, and that's what I have. It's all right here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a point of order. Do we go right back to the beginning, or do we go back to the Planning Commission in terms of ex parte? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everything to do with this item, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So you did a tour, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I did a tour with Mark Strain and Jeff Klatzkow. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: With fishing rods. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No fishing rods. Fishing rods? CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's not a reef there, is there? No. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No reef. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I spoke to Mr. Ochs, Mr. Page 146 December 8, 2015 Casalanguida, and Mr. Klatzkow about this. I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about it, and I spoke to Vicki Tracy about it. I reviewed all material provided by staff on the record. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I've read the staff report, I've had meetings with Mr. Yovanovich, letters from Mr. Messmer, letters from various associations and individuals, emails from associations and individuals, I've met with staff and discussed it with them, memo from the county attorney, phone calls and materials from Mr. Pires in great volume for both Items 9A and 11A. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I've also read the staff report. Now, I'm talking about all three items, 9A, 9B, and 11A, so I'm grouping them all together. Staff report -- MR. KLATZKO W: Not 9B. MR. OCHS: Not 9B. CHAIRMAN NANCE: 9B is a separate hearing, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. Just 1 1 A and this one? MR. OCHS: Yes, 9A and 11A. CHAIRMAN NANCE: 9A and 11A. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for keeping me straight, Mr. County Attorney. Staff report, I met with Tony Pires; Kathy Riley; Maurice Gutierrez; Vicki Tracy; residents including the surrounding areas; just last night I spoke with somebody else, Joyce from Windstar; meetings with the Hearing Examiner; the CRA and the MSTU meetings that I've sat in on; boat tour with Bob Messmer; Planning Commission meeting; and emails from the County Attorney. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Page 147 December 8, 2015 Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Before I was sworn in, I had a site visit at Ms. Riley's house with the neighbors. That's before I was sworn last year. I attended the six-hour public hearing by the Hearing Examine (sic) Officer at the county on November the 20th, 2014. I've met with Mr. Attorney Pires. I've met with Attorney Yovanovich. I've met with different residents. I've numerous emails. I have reviewed all the staff report, including the Hearing Examine Officer's report. I've talked to staff about it. I think that should cover it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. All right. At this time I guess we will begin. Mr. Pires, you're counsel for the appellant? MR. PIRES: I moved up, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please begin. MR. PIRES: Thank you, members of the -- Mr. Chairman, members of the County Commission, thank you for the opportunity to represent the appellant and the parties in this appeal to request that the decision of the Planning Commission and the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 15-01 be reversed. And we will go through -- I'll go through some of the argument and a brief outline of what I anticipate you will be hearing from our particular side of this particular matter. I represent Kathleen Riley individually and as trustee of the Kathleen J. Riley Revocable Trust under agreement dated June 2014, and she's also -- I believe you'll hear her testify she's the sole beneficiary of that trust and that she resides at 2998 Poplar Street, Naples, Florida. And she will testify that her property is adjacent to the property contiguous to the property owned by the applicant in this case, and her views are directly across Haldeman Creek, directly across the Page 148 December 8, 2015 waterway to where these docks are proposed. So she is definitely an adversely affected aggrieved individual, has a standing and the ability to bring this matter before the Board, and that she timely filed her appeal and timely paid the filing fee, and we've submitted additional materials pursuant to the assistance provided by staff, which was greatly appreciated as a number of the matters were done prior to my retention. And civilians and lay people following some of the processes are very difficult, and it can be awkward and confusing, and so I appreciate the staffs assistance at the outset of this matter. And additionally, Ms. Riley received separate mailed notices advising her of all the various Planning Commission meetings. I believe she will testify to that effect. And the aerial photograph and the detail of these notices are attached in my initial filing, Attachment C-1, and which all the materials were online. I appreciate the staff putting those materials online -- you can link to them -- in addition to the PDFs that were part of the executive summary in the agenda packet. As I said, the primary applicant is Kathleen Riley, also known as Kate Riley. And I've made the mistake of calling her Katie one time, and I will not do that again. It's Kate. And I appreciate her correcting me on that. And so her standing in this case is recognized and I believe is without -- should be without challenge, although you may hear something to that effect, as I've heard whispers in the past with regards to that. But she is directly across the water adjacent to this property and directly affected by what is proposed. Her property at 2998 Poplar Street is adjacent to, as I said, and contiguous to the parcel of land that's the subject of the boat dock request and the boat dock facility extension. Vicki Tracy, you will hear her testify. She lives at 3266 Lakeview Drive. And Attachment C-2 in the submittal of August 26th Page 149 December 8, 2015 -- 28th references and provides information as to where she resides, and she'll testify as to safety and navigability, as she travels up and down these waterways frequently; resides in that area. Maurice Gutierrez, at 2736 Shoreview Drive, will also be testifying. These are basically parties that are assisting and working, and I consider them appellants with Ms. Riley in this appeal. And Attachment C-3 in the submittal provides an aerial photograph and the property of his pro -- where he resides, and he can testify; as he was a previously licensed captain and utilizes the waterways frequently, he will testify as to the navigability and safety issues that are created by the proposed boat dock extension, if it is approved. As I mentioned, we will be requesting -- respectfully requesting that, for a number of reasons, that this appeal should be granted and the decision of the Collier County Planning Commission reversed resulting in a denial of BDE-PL200150000487 (sic). An additional witness that we may have is Captain Shawn Smith, a licensed captain who is familiar with this area and has recently performed his own analysis in using side-scan radar with regards to the waters, and he's a shell water fishing guide, so he has a unique perspective as to this particular waterway, particularly along the northern shoreline as it exists even at a, quote-unquote, high tide, how the navigability issue on the north side is such that it basically pushes the boat traffic to the south which, if this boat dock extension is granted as requested, again, would have safety issues and navigability issues. I've previously filed, as I mentioned, a substantial number of documents with regards to this matter, and I appreciate the fact that the Board has taken the time to review these -- the documents that we believe are all pertinent, including the complete Hearing Examiner report that was prepared and submitted by Mark Strain dated after his Page 150 December 8, 2015 hearing of November 20, 2014. A number of the issues will be -- and some of the issues we believe are a basis for this board to deny -- or to reverse the granting and deny the boat dock extension as requested. The staff report to the Planning Commission failed to reference mention or include the HEX report, Hearing Examiner report, and all of its issues, and the staff report before the Planning Commission did not address all the requirements detailed by the Hearing Examiner. The application that was approved by the Planning Commission in the Planning Commission approval did not address or incorporate the following conditions detailed by the Hearing Examiner. The resolution does not require parallel docks within the initial 107 feet from the eastern end of the proposed facility as recommended by the Hearing Examiner at Page 5 of his report, Condition 8. He -- I believe his recommendation for that parallel section being 107 feet from the eastern end was due to the narrower width of the waterway at that location which, by the way, is directly across from Ms. Riley's property. Furthermore, as prepared and as adopted, the resolution does not limit or restrict the ownership or use of the boat slips or dock facilities solely to residents of the multifamily Haldeman's Landing project. It doesn't limit it solely to the residents of the 64 dwelling units proposed for the upland portion of Haldeman's Landing, as recommended by the Hearing Examiner at Page 5 of the Hearing Examiner report, even with revised language that's in your agenda packet -- and I'll go into greater detail later on -- based upon the documents that are of record between this developer and the Windstar community. Additionally, as referenced by the Hearing Examiner -- and this was an area of great concern by the Hearing Examiner was that the Collier County Land Development Code addresses dock extensions but does not provide conditions for docks specifically located within Page 151 December 8, 2015 major drainage easements, and I think we all agree that this is a major drainage easement. Now, during the course of the presentation before the either Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission, it was mentioned that this is solely for road drainage. It is not solely for road drainage. It has evolved. If you look at the basin, in the Hearing Examiner report he a map and a graphic of the basin -- I'll reference that later on -- that shows the Haldeman Creek drainage basin. It's a huge area that ultimately drains into Haldeman Creek. So it is a significant issue. When there's a drainage easement that a governmental body has that drains and provides safety and drainage for substantial amounts of property and a proposed structure, structures -- substantial number of structures, as proposed to be placed in there, I think, goes without precedent in Collier County and could establish a dangerous precedent for Collier County if such an application or review is not conducted with detailed hydraulic modeling as opposed to an engineer just saying, I think it will work based upon the cross-section. I think it will be fine based upon the cross-section and what you're putting in there. Detailed hydraulic modeling is what the Hearing Examiner requested and has not been provided. As recognized and identified by the Hearing Examiner, the review in this case cannot be made in isolation and needs to take place in the context of all applicable codes of Collier County, including those codes relating to public health, safety, and welfare dealing with drainage. In my opinion -- and we submit to you that's an overarching issue in all reviews that you make, health, safety, and welfare. The concerns and issues raised by the Hearing Examiner report as to impact on drainage and flood control by his citing to Chapter 62-28 of Collier County Codes of Ordinances were not properly or completely addressed. Page 152 December 8, 2015 A map depicting the large Haldeman Creek drainage basin was attached as Exhibit 16 to the HEX report -- and I think you've all seen that -- showing the drainage easement in Haldeman Creek is a functional part of a much larger area including areas north of U.S. 41 and the Walmart weir. If I can take a moment. This, again, is Exhibit 16 to the Hearing Examiner's report titled "Drainage Basin Map." You can see from the red that that's the -- in that area -- hopefully you can also see in your agenda packet, that's the Drainage Basin Map for the Haldeman area. The map -- no hydraulic modeling was performed and provided to ensure that the flows within the waterway would not be impacted by the substantial proposed new dock facilities. In our opinion, we submit that the Planning Commission failed to address these overarching issues of public health, safety, and welfare that are present relating to the proposed placement of these structures in a major drainage easement that accepts flows from a large drainage basin. We submit that this board can make a determination as proposed, and without the requisite hydraulic modeling, there are no reasonable assurances that the proposed docks would not interfere with the drainage. A drainage easement is an encumbrance on a property. It's a dominant estate. It's called -- the servient estate is the underlying property owner, and the servient estate cannot interfere with the dominant estate. And I would submit to you that based upon the lack of this hydraulic modeling, you do not have that assurance that there's not that interference. And originally, also as noted in the report, while initially the drainage easement may have been granted and constructed with a cross-section for the purposes of accepting roadway runoff and draining a smaller area, like many other drainage conveyances, over the years its function has evolved to the point where it is now an Page 153 December 8, 2015 integral functioning part of a much larger area, the Haldeman Creek drainage basin. Again, there's been no competent evidence/testimony to address what effect these proposed structures in this major easement conveyance will have in severe storm events including, but not limited to, adversely affecting the rate and flow of receding waters in a severe storm event with associated upstream and downstream impacts. In addition to that concern, in our opinion, the proposed docks don't meet the necessary criteria in the Land Development Code. The preamble, I'll call it, to dock facilities in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code states that generally docks and the like are primarily intended to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access for routine maintenance and use while minimally impacting navigation within any adjacent navigable channel, the use of the waterway, and the view of the waterway by the neighboring property owners. In addition, the dock facility extensions -- it goes on to say in H of 5.03.06, in order for the Planning Commission to approve the boat dock extension request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and at least four of the six secondary criteria have been met. And the primary criteria that we believe have not been achieved is whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type, and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide. Another one is whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel, and whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. We submit that the data used to support the application would not Page 154 December 8, 2015 -- does not support that particular -- those particular primary criteria, and we submit the navigation in the waterway will be adversely affected by these multiple angled dock facilities protruding the distance into the waterway. And I believe you will hear testimony from Captain Shawn Smith with regards to that. The existence of the mangrove shoreline on the south side, which is the primary basis for the requested extension, we would submit, was a result of acts voluntarily taken by the applicant's predecessor in title and should not form a basis for, quote-unquote, meeting Primary Criteria No. 2 and Secondary Criteria No. 1, that is, whether the water depth is so shallow that the vessel cannot launch at low tide, and the other one is whether -- I'm getting to the second one, Secondary Criteria 1 and 2A. The self-created condition by the applicant's predecessor choosing the option to plant the mangroves along the shoreline in order to obtain a permit from the South Florida Water Management District to develop the adjacent uplands created the mangrove shoreline that is now asserted as a primary basis for the requested boat dock extensions. Those mangroves have grown, and they're overhanging even the riprap that was installed along that shoreline. An asserted condition of hardship that is self-created, in our opinion, we submit, should not form a basis for relief from a regulation. The reason why -- the applicant continuously has asserted in his application that the mangrove shoreline is one of the reasons -- major reasons why they need to have this extension. In the application, which is part of Attachment G, in its description of the project dated March 10, 2015, as to Primary Criteria No. 2, the applicant stated, the entire shoreline of the project contains a mangrove fringe that varies in width from 18 to 40 feet wide. See Exhibit 4 for water depths with mangrove fringe widths. This mangrove fringe is manmade and was constructed in association with work that was done Page 155 December 8, 2015 on the project site in the mid 1990s. As to Secondary Criteria No. 1 in his application, the applicant stated, the proposed docking facility will be constructed on a shoreline with mangrove vegetation, a man-made riprap planter shelf in very shallow water. At the July 2nd Planning Commission hearing, Pages 6 and Pages 8 to 9, of Attachment H, at Page 6, the second criteria is whether or not the property is so shallow that the type of vessels that are being described would be unable to launch or moor at mean low tide. In this case of this property, because of the mangrove shoreline and the mangrove fringe, the mean high-water line is within the mangroves. And going on, so from that standpoint, the low water depths and the vegetation do lead towards the applicant pursuing this boat dock extension. Then at Page 8 and Page 9, Commissioner Ebert, Diane Ebert, it is his property, so what you're telling me is the state forces you to put mangroves on your property? Mr. Hall: I wouldn't -- if you talk to the property owners, they would say yes. If you talk to the agencies, they would say that was the option that their property owner took in order to meet the criteria necessary to get the permits. Next, Mr. Hall, going on, he said, there was a berm there, and part of the permits that they got in the early '90s back at that time was to remove that berm and create this mangrove planter shelf, and that was -- and that was to offset some filling of an inland lake and all that were associated with the development that was proposed at that time. And then going on, Commissioner Ebert: But it was just a question I had. You know, do they force you to do this? It is your property. Absolutely, Mr. Hall. I would have to say, no, they don't force you, but it's one of the options you can take. Page 156 December 8, 2015 At the November 20, 2014, Hearing Examiner meeting at Page 10, Attachment H, the testimony by Mr. Hall was, because of the mangroves along the shoreline, the mangroves and other wetlands along the shoreline, there's no way to have docks on this property without going through this boat dock extension process. So what we would submit is they have created a situation that they are now asking for relief with regards to having these angle docks protruding an additional 18 feet into the waterway. Furthermore, we believe that the proposed -- and we believe testimony from Kate Riley will show the proposed dock facilities will have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property owners, contrary to the Secondary Criteria No. 4, Section 2.D. As noted in the record, from all of the prior hearings and as you will hear today, Mrs. Riley's property residence abuts and is contiguous to the applicant's property and is directly across the water from the proposed boat dock facilities. You will hear her say that's her front yard. And she is looking at the other -- the waterway and the shoreline. At the present time, as shown by all the evidence and all the materials -- and you'll see some more today, and what I believe you will hear today -- her waterfront view will change dramatically from viewing a mangrove shoreline to viewing a wall of docks and boats. And as I believe Ms. Riley will testify, she has a boat dock on her property that is directly across the proposed dock facilities that will also be adversely affected by the proposed dock facilities. Additionally, the requested and approved extension, we believe, is -- of 18 feet is not necessary for the applicant to have boat dock facilities if they have parallel docks. Now, if they believe that it's appropriate for them to have docks and they need to have some sort of an extension to be able to have these docks, we believe a 7-foot boat Page 157 December 8, 2015 dock extension will suffice if they put parallel docks, but they refuse to consider that, is my understanding, of having parallel docks the entire length of the property that is at issue. With regards to that, at Page 13 of the Planning Commission hearing of July 2, 2015, Attachment H, Commissioner Roman said, I have another question for Tim. Tim, in your comments you mentioned that if you would align the docks parallel to the shoreline, you would still need the extension, the boat dock extension. Mr. Hall: Yes, ma'am. And then Commissioner Roman, I'd like to ask you if you could clarify that a bit for me, particularly you would still dredge along the shoreline? Mr. Hall: You would still have to dredge along the shoreline because the shoreline is shallow. And so to put boats there along the shoreline, you need to get it to the depth where the boats can safely moor. So it would entail a dredging and it would entail -- and I think what -- we would still have to go through the boat dock extension process. I'd think the extension would be for less, but it wouldn't be for 18 feet. It might be for less, but it would still be a requirement of the project. And then further on, Mr. Hall, because if the boat is 10 feet wide and the mangrove fringe at its narrowest here, I think, was 12 feet, that's 22 feet, and then you have the dock itself in between there. So now you're at 27. You'd still need a 7-foot boat dock extension or BDE to do that. So I would submit to you that the request is excessive. A parallel dock, if constructed at 4-foot width, would require less of a boat dock extension if they want to not have to go through any permitting process to trim the mangrove fringe that extends over the originally planted mangrove area in the riprap which, again, there's no indication that Page 158 December 8, 2015 they are precluded from doing that which would, again, mitigate against a further boat dock extension. The resolution, in our opinion, does not -- an approval does not limit ownership or control of the docks' upland unit owners in the proposed Haldeman Landing development. The Condition No. 4 in the resolution reads as follows: Boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multi-family development or its property owners association or condominium association for the 64 dwelling units and shall not be sold, leased, or rented to any other parties. Interesting, it doesn't say, shall not be sold, leased, or rented or used by any other parties. Now, in the staff report, the staff says, well, that can be fixed. There's a typographical error. All you need to do is add another -- some additional language after the word "64" and put "upland" so that it would read, Condition 4, boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multifamily development or its property owners association or condominium association for the 64 upland dwelling units and shall not be sold, leased, or rented to any other parties. That door is wide open for Windstar to utilize that facility. And the reason I say that is that based upon the Planning Commission transcript, it appears Condition No. 4 in the resolution was inserted in an effort to address serious concerns as to the use of the boat slips as expressed by members of the Planning Commission and also by Commissioner Strain -- Mr. Strain, when he was acting as Hearing Examiner -- when he was addressing the fact that the upland owner is not Windstar. The upland owner is the applicant, and it's different than the Windstar. By virtue of the annexation agreement, the Haldeman's Landing property is encumbered by the second amended and restated master declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for Windstar Page 159 December 8, 2015 dated October 30, 2009, and that's attached as Attachment L, and referencing to our submittal, Page 11, Paragraph 20. As such, in my opinion, all property owners of the Haldeman's Landing project, including the developer and the subsequent buyers are or will be members of the Windstar Master Association. The Windstar Master Association is a property owners association for the 64 dwelling units. They don't need to have their own. They may have two. They may have one condominium association for Haldeman's Landing, but Windstar Association is a property owners association for the 64 dwelling units; even if you use the word "upland." The annexation agreement, again, Attachment L, by its very terms, by its plain language, clearly outlines that the Haldeman's Landing development is part of Windstar community. The owners of units or property in Haldeman's Landing shall be members of the Windstar Association; that's at Paragraph 20, Page 12 of the annexation agreement. The use of the boat slips and dock facilities, by virtue of the language, is not intended to be limited solely to a property owners association or condominium association whose only members are those individuals owning units in Haldeman Landing. Again, the annexation agreement, see Pages 2 through 4. The property owners association for this project -- Windstar Association is. They could -- the Windstar Association could purchase a unit in this project; another way to avoid and evade this restriction. Condition No. 4 is written, and even as proposed to be rewritten, does not preclude nor prohibit the use of the dock facilities by people not living in or owning a residential unit in the proposed 64 upland dwelling unit project known as Haldeman's Landing. It is written, and even as proposed to be rewritten, it allows the Windstar Master Association as its property owners association to own or use boats Page 160 December 8, 2015 slips. If this commission at the end of the day decides that it's appropriate to grant this boat dock extension, we would submit that it would be important and a necessary element that the Windstar Master Association not be allowed to own or use any of the docking facilities, and that even if the Windstar Association were to own an upland residential unit, which they possibly could, that they would not be allowed to own or use, rent or lease, any of the docking facilities. Another point is with regards to the dredging. The applicant will be dredging along the mangrove shoreline to a depth of four feet, and we would submit that the dredging of the waterway to a depth of four feet along the shoreline will result in a need for shorter and less extensive boat dock extension than that requested and approved by the Planning Commission, getting back to the fact that you have the ability to have parallel docks lessen the impact. The situation was created by the mangrove fringe. If you're going to dredge, you're creating the water depths to then mitigate against having to go out further into the waterway. The manner -- one of the areas of concern, too, to Ms. Riley and all the others was the manner in which the Planning Commission addressed the reconsideration request. It precluded concerned and/or affected residents and/or property owners including the parties appealing this decision from further addressing the Planning Commission. After the close of the public hearing and after the first vote resulted in a denial of the application by virtue of a tie vote, the Planning Commission improperly, in our opinion, allowed and considered new and additional testimony from the applicant's witnesses and did not provide an opportunity for other individuals, including the parties to this appeal, to provide additional testimony, comment, or evidence. Page 161 December 8, 2015 The Planning Commission passed a motion to reconsider and allowed further new and additional testimony from the applicant's witnesses while failing to re-open the public hearing. And we concede -- argue, contend that by virtue of these actions, the parties were denied procedural due process. At the time -- and you may have them try to be qualified as experts today, but in my appeal I also reference that although Mr. Yovanovich tendered various individuals as experts at the Planning Commission hearing, none of them were accepted as experts by the Planning Commission. So I would submit to you that the testimony and evidence they gave that day should not be considered as being expert testimony. I'm sure he will remedy that today at this hearing. Based on the foregoing and the evidence and testimony that we believe will be presented, it's respectfully requested that, for a number of reasons, this appeal should be granted and the decision of the Planning Commission reversed resulting in a denial of boat dock extension PL20150000487. If at the end of the hearing the Board believes that an extension should be granted, we would submit that no -- it should only be for parallel dock structures approximately 7 to 10 feet, as indicated by Mr. Hall, subject to and conditioned upon hydraulic modeling being performed of this major drainage way to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare will not be adversely impacted as well as additional protection against any ownership or use of any docking facilities, if granted, by the Windstar community. The first witness we have would be Kate Riley. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions. MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I was concerned about the process in the Planning Commission, and then I was told it's Page 162 December 8, 2015 not going to be an issue in this hearing, but I'm hearing it is an issue, about take a vote, reconsidering, and then taking another vote, and more testimony, limited testimony being brought up. So that's a concern that I have. But before I make any further comments, I have questions about the drainage easement. And we have several of them in Collier County, and they have boat docks on it. Are you saying that there should not be boat docks on drainage easements? MR. PIRES: I think when you -- and we would submit that when you have a major drainage easement of this nature, 150-foot width, and the drainage basin that you have the water flowing through and that this helps drain, that for public health, safety, and welfare considerations, the overarching issue of health, safety, and welfare needs to be addressed by having detailed hydraulic modeling to ensure that the easement is not going to be interfered with, that the flow-way will not be interfered with by the addition of a substantial amount of structures, whether it just be the pilings, the docks, the boats, the lifts, all that factored in and taken into account when reviewing whether or not to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then it should be true even if you're not building a boat dock -- or if you're not requesting a boat dock extension. The same should apply if you're building a boat dock on a drainage easement. Everybody should. MR. PIRES: If it's a multi-slip facility is where the concern would be as opposed to a single dock -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have a cumulative effect by individual boat docks. I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm not sure if this is an argument, because this is a boat dock extension, and there are certain criteria for considering a boat dock extension, and one is not hydraulic -- the movement of water, besides the fact there's an MSTU creating -- Page 163 December 8, 2015 created on this to dig Haldeman Creek deeper. Not for drainage, for navigation. So I think it's a real slippery slope when we start saying we have to have new criteria for a boat dock extension. You're saying that it's going to impediment (sic) flows, you put anything in the water, it's going to impede flows. I don't think that's true. MR. PIRES: I think it's a scale. I think there's a scale. And, again, this starts to -- when you have the large number of pilings and large number of structures in the facilities as requested, by going out at an angle into the waterway, that's when we believe that type of additional public health, safety, and welfare consideration needs to be addressed by the hydraulic modeling. It may not be so when you have the parallel docks. It may be, but it may not be. We would recommend that that be required if the Board wants to do that, but we -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're putting a post in the ground. You're not putting -- hopefully you're not putting wood in the ground to slow it down, or the decking is not going to be an issue. It's the posts. So if you do it for one, you've got to do it for them all. I don't think it's a valid argument; however, I'm very concerned about the due process that happened at the Planning Commission. And it was proposed to me whether the Hearing Examiner should -- the Hearing Examiner did not hear this boat dock extension. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It heard a different one. MR. PIRES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's another thing I'm not sure if it's really relevant to the issue. But if a procedural process is, you know, in question, I mean, I have concern with that. Should we send this to the Hearing Examiner to get his advice whether the Board should approve it or not approve it? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to speak to -- Page 164 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the issue that I have. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to go to Commissioner Taylor and then Commissioner Hiller. But what I want to do right now is I want to ask, just -- I want to get right to the crux of the matter. The original application was for 26 boat docks. MR. PIRES: I think 27, I believe. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, it says right here 26. Okay. Anyway, how many boat docks do you think are proper? I just want to know -- we've got two sides here arguing about how many docks we've got and what the impact is and everything. How many docks do you think are appropriate? MR. PIRES: I think, again, subject to -- with all due respect to Commissioner Henning -- and he and I don't agree on everything -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right. MR. PIRES: -- in regards to the need for hydraulic modeling. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I know. MR. PIRES: -- that a parallel docking facility -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. PIRES: -- with a shorter protrusion -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: How many docks -- how many boats is that? MR. PIRES: I don't know how many boats that would be. It all depends on the length of the boats, I guess, would be the answer. But we have -- you know, we have a significant amount of shoreline. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm just trying to figure out how far the two sides are apart here, because you-all are arguing maybe a certain number of boat docks are okay. I just want to know how many that is. MR. PIRES: I don't know how many -- again, it depends upon the length of the vessels and it depends upon the depth of the waterway and the draft and all that. Maybe they can indicate what they believe would be -- if you put 20-footers in there versus 25-footers, which 25 Page 165 December 8, 2015 is what's going to be the maximum allowed as proposed. Whether they're 25 feet or less would indicate how many vessels you can dock or boat in a parallel condition. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was very interested in the due process issue, and I think I'm going to reserve my questions. I guess I have one question, Mr. Pires, and maybe I've missed it. How should the document -- part of the document that talks about the ownership or use of these docks, how should it read? MR. PIRES: I would submit that it should read -- excuse me. I think it needs to have some negative language in there -- that boat slips shall be owned and used by residents of the Haldeman's Landing multifamily development -- I almost want to say period -- or its property owners association or condominium association for the 64 upland dwelling units and shall not be sold, leased, rented or used by the Windstar Association or any -- once again, whether or not Windstar owns any residential units, I can -- but that's what the focus is on. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't mean to put it on the fly. I didn't want to put you on the spot. MR. PIRES: Because, again, that's a way to evade it is that Windstar could buy a unit or Windstar is the property owners association for this property. It could be construed as such. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. PIRES: So the key is to try to close that door. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. If-- and, Mr. Klatzkow, if we -- if this is moved to the Hearing Examiner -- I mean, I don't know what the precedent is. I don't know if this has happened before. I mean, I agree due process was sadly lacking in the Planning Commission. Page 166 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: Says who? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. I mean, look, was it pretty at the end? No. All right. Initially there was a vote that Mr. Yovanovich didn't like. He pressed it. There was a flurry of activity. There was a new vote that was taken. By the way, this is coming to you on appeal. It was either going to come to you on appeal from Mr. Yovanovich from a denial or Tony, okay, from an approval. And either way, your issues are the same, all right, and that's whether or not those criteria have been demonstrated by competent and substantial evidence, all right. And you've got a side issue that's been raised whether or not we should be even having these things in drainage easements. Those are your two issues that have been raised. All right. So was it pretty at the Planning Commission? No, it wasn't. But at the end of the day, the substantial due process was done. And, really, you know, that's what we are here. I mean, you know, the Planning Commission aren't a bunch of judges sitting down, you know. They're regular people, and they do the best they can, and I think they did do the best they can under the circumstances. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, if we remand it to the Hearing Examiner, one of the parties is not going to be happy. It's going to end up on our desk again anyway; is it not? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it will. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So it's on our desk now. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, first of all, my understanding is that it didn't go to the Hearing Examiner in the first place because this was an issue of community controversy, and he has the right not to hear anything that involves controversy, and he rejected the hearing, which is why I thought it went to the Planning Commission. Page 167 December 8, 2015 MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. But the last time this went through, you -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not going to remand it to someone who's already claimed that he doesn't have the ability to make the decision because of the controversy, because the controversy exists, so that ends that discussion. The second issue is procedural due process. You're claiming that there was no violation of procedural due process? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm claiming that there was substantial due process done. Was it perfect and pretty? No. But there was substantial due process done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is the requirement under the law substantial -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- or 100 percent? MR. KLATZKOW: Substantial. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Substantial. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words -- MR. KLATZKOW: They are a quasi-judicial body. That's the standard. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. So the standard for whether or not there was due process -- was achieved. There was substantial due process. You're putting that on the record. You're opining to us that there was no due process violation; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: That is my belief, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Mr. Pires, you indicated -- I want to address, I think, from the least significant to the most significant of my concerns. You're suggesting that this property owner should not be allowed to allow anyone, except those people that own within his complex, the use of Page 168 December 8, 2015 these docks. MR. PIRES: That's correct, because as I understand it, it's -- the docks are accessory to that upland RMF6 zoned property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wouldn't that be -- and, you know, I don't know the details as well as you do, but it seems to me that that suggestion -- and if this Board adopted that restriction, they would be limiting the alienation rights which is a property right of that landowner. I don't see how we can require or mandate that they can't sell or lease or allow someone other than who they want to use that property. You know, someone telling me I can't sell my property to him? I mean, are you kidding me? I'd be in court asserting my property rights. I don't believe your request to restrain their ability as to who they want to allow to visit those docks, use those docks, lease those docks, or sell those docks is legally supportable because of, in effect, what would be a ruling on our part as a restrained in-alienation, and I'm concerned about that. I don't see that we can do that. The next issue that I have a concern over is the fact that this developer placed these mangroves in that location. When -- the previous owner -- when the first site plan was submitted on this project, where were the docks located? MR. PIRES: I believe they were in a basin, proposed to be. They weren't constructed. I believe they were in a basin in -- sort of in the middle of the property. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're telling me is this developer has voluntarily relocated -- or the previous developer relocated these docks from a basin to where the mangroves are that either this developer or the previous owner planted? MR. PIRES: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is an alternative site for these docks? Page 169 December 8, 2015 MR. PIRES: I think there was. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is -- MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if there is at the present time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why not? MR. PIRES: I'm not sure of the current status of that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to know what the current status is of alternative locations for the dock. Staff? Can someone answer that? MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, the Zoning Division. Commissioner, there was a site plan that was not approved that showed a boat basin excavated from the uplands. It did not require a boat dock extension. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And those docks in that basin on that site plan were not approved for what reason? MR. REISCHL: I believe that the developer just let it lapse. That's my memory. This was -- I looked at that time last year, so... COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that was not an approved site plan. It was a submitted site plan. MR. REISCHL: I didn't work on it. I don't even know if it was submitted or if it was a sketch asking us to take a look at it, but we did have it in the county archive. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So there's no approved site plan that shows docks in a different location? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there an alternative location on that site for docks? MR. REISCHL: This was the one that we reviewed. There's other shoreline along there. And I heard that there were restrictions on that other shoreline, but -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any location within that site that docks could be located? Are there alternative locations? Page 170 December 8, 2015 MR. REISCHL: The boat basin would work if that was excavated. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And would that be achievable without any extensions? Would that be just as a matter of right? MR. REISCHL: You'd be digging a basin out of uplands so, yes, you wouldn't be extending it to the drainage easement. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they could build docks in that alternative location as a matter of right and wouldn't have to come to us for any sort of variance? MR. REISCHL: Just for building permits. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just for the building permit, which they would get as a matter of right? MR. REISCHL: There may be other agency permits. I'm not sure of that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But as far as we're concerned, it would be as a matter of right that they would have an alternative location? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, Mr. Pires -- and you can stay up here just in case I have any other questions that might be from staff. With respect to the mangroves that were planted either by this developer or the previous developer, could a permit be pulled to cut those mangroves back to avoid the need for the extension? MR. PIRES: My understanding is that they can't be trimmed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You would have to apply for a permit to get it trimmed. MR. PIRES: Correct. And they overhang. Because they were planted behind a riprap, but they actually extend over the waterway at the present time. COMMISSIONER HILLER: In the permit to trim -- can I ask staff again? Would that permit to trim be through the state, or would it Page 171 December 8, 2015 be a local and state decision? MR. REISCHL: State only. COMMISSIONER HILLER: State only. And do you have any idea of whether or not the state would approve or deny cutting back those mangroves at that location so as not to require the need for the extension that's being asked for today? MR. REISCHL: I believe that, from talking to the original applicant, that that was part of the plan was to trim vertically the mangroves to allow access to the docks once they're constructed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that would obviate the need for the extension? MR. REISCHL: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it would only be -- MR. REISCHL: Less of an extension. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Less of. And how much less of an extension? MR. REISCHL: I didn't analyze that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is an alternative, in other words, that if a permit were pulled, that you could have shorter docks than what's being proposed? In other words -- MR. REISCHL: I review what's presented to us. I didn't look at COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I need to know if there are alternatives or if this is the only way that this property owner can get these dock rights. Because it sounds to me like you're telling me there's an alternative location; that there's an alternative solution to the extension. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Engineering Natural Resources Department. The applicant could apply to trim mangroves so, yes, they could get a permit from the DEP to do that. And there was an application. I Page 172 December 8, 2015 do recall it in my head, vaguely, that there was a boat basin originally proposed, but I don't know if they ever received agency permits for that. Tim Hall is here from the applicant. He may be able to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's irrelevant to me if it wasn't approved. What I care about is whether or not there is an alternative site within that project to allow for the construction of boat docks without the need for an extension. And what I'm hearing is, yes, there is, and what I'm also hearing you say is that the extension is not necessary if a permit were pulled to cut back the mangroves. MR. LENBERGER: I think it's not as much of an extension, the way I understood it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the third issue is that instead of the docks extending vertically if they were constructed in a parallel fashion, once again, you wouldn't need extensions? Pardon me. MR. REISCHL: I believe you would still need an extension, just not as far into the waterway. And while you were speaking, I just -- and you were talking about the basin, the upland housing development is under construction. I don't know if that could be constructed. There may be houses there now. I haven't looked at where that could go. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think I'm done with my questions for right now. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm going to let it go and let the testimony begin -- continue. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Mr. Pires, are you done with your presentation? Mr. Yovanovich, you have 15 minutes to ask questions. Sir? MR. PIRES: I think part of the presentation are some witnesses. Page 173 December 8, 2015 I thought maybe that was part of it, or not? MR. KLATZKOW: You've got 13 minutes left. Is there anything else you need? MR. PIRES: From me personally, no, but I have witnesses to testify. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do I get to ask him questions? MR. KLATZKOW: After he's done. MR. PIRES: And I guess, with the indulgence of the chairman, could I have additional time because of the back and forth and the questioning? The witnesses may go over. Thank you, very much. Kate Riley, the first witness. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Try to be as time sensitive as we can. MS. RILEY: Okay. First of all, thank you. My name is Kate Riley -- my name is Kathleen Riley. My address is 2998 Poplar Street here in Naples. I have lived in Naples for 40 years and at this address for the last 13-and-a-half years. My house is owned by me, trustee of Kathleen J. Riley Revocable Trust. I am the sole trustee and the sole beneficiary of the trust. My property is on the north side of Haldeman Creek directly across the dock project. On the 27th of July, I filed and paid $1,500 in fees to Collier County for this appeal. I've received all the mailed notices from the county and for the hearings in regard to boat dock extension. Over the last year-and-a-half I appeared and testified before Collier County Planning Commission twice, once on June 19, 2014, and then on July 2, 2015. I also gave testimony in front of the Hearing Examiner on November 20, 2014. I have given my objections and comments in writing, by phone, and in person. Okay. What is my knowledge of Haldeman Creek? First of all, it's in my front yard. It is my front yard. I'm also an avid boater. I've seen the best and the worst of boating coming down Haldeman Creek. Page 174 December 8, 2015 The worst of boating is in the winter when the wind whips from Naples Bay down the creek, and that's when these boat docks are going to be used most is in the winter. The wind can throw a boat off course in seconds. And then if they can't get back into their lifts or their boat slips because what has been dredged, the silt comes back. That has happened at my docks. That has happened at my -- in my boat lift that is on a finger canal off of the creek. Fortunately, I have a small dock that I can tie up to with mooring whips to wait for the tide to come back up and then put my boat back in the lift. These folks, if they have boat lifts and they cannot get their boat into their boat lift, they will not have any place to tie up to other than extended further into the creek. Will the docks have a negative impact on the creek? Absolutely. This was a photo taken August 26, 2012. This is a very narrow creek, especially at low tide. This photo is a reality of just how narrow the navigational part of the creek truly is. When I'm asked how the location and design of these docks will interfere with my dock and the docks of my neighbors, my response is, it interferes because the docks extend into the waterway. If they were parallel docks, they would not extend into the waterway. Boats travel this creek day and night, and it's narrow. It's narrow. That's the navigational part of the creek. When we factor in Gulf Shore Marina, 360 Marca, and the boatyard, this creek already services 400-plus boaters. It's a drainage easement never intended to have this kind of structure with a boat dock extension that far out on this creek. There may be other drainage easements that have boat docks, but are they boat dock extensions? I don't know. I'm as -- I don't know the answer to that, so... Also, the -- how this could interfere with my boat dock is that because of these boat docks being extended so far out, the existing Page 175 December 8, 2015 boaters will navigate their boats closer to my property out of the center of the creek. Will the boat docks have a negative impact on my views and property values? This is my view. This picture was taken by me on November 2014 before any construction started. So that's my view today, or that was my view before construction. There's a quadruplex up now. This picture -- photo is eight -- the eight boat docks with lifts at Admiral Point in Windstar on Naples Bay just before coming into Haldeman Creek. Picture this, 26 boat docks -- boats on boat lifts in your front yard. If you were looking to purchase my house, which would you prefer, the first picture or this one? So, yes, it does have a negative effect on the value of my house. The other issue is if the owners of the new boat docks with lifts desire to have canopies, we have been told that that would be allowed as well. The boat lifts in our area are all on finger canals right now, and none of them are on the main channel. There are no boat dock extensions on Haldeman Creek. So, yes, I have a very -- I -- my property value, I believe, will be significantly affected by this project. My friends have told me I shouldn't emphasize so much on the view, but how can I not? Again, it's my front yard. It would be like someone coming along and building a parking lot in your front yard. Will I be able to still see the water? Yes, I will be able to still see the water, but the criteria states, it asks if it would have a major impact on the waterfront view of the neighboring waterfront property and, yes, it will have a major impact on my view. This is not only about me and my property. It's about the community. That's why they showed up. The developer knew when the property was purchased that mangroves had been planted to create a boat basin inside the mangroves. They are the ones who put Page 176 December 8, 2015 themselves in this position to start with. They want housing where the boat basin was going to be. They want more and more and more. Everyone knows what this is about. It's about boat lifts and money. Some time ago I had a three-way conversation with Mark Strain and somebody else on the phone, Bob Messmer, who is here as well. Mark Strain said to us, we have a real problem in Collier County with our creeks. He said it's not only Haldeman Creek. It's also Henderson Creek and the others. Why would we add an existing problem? I mean, if he's talking on the phone to me about this, I'm sure he's talked to you guys about this. The decision each of you make today will, without a doubt, set precedence. I appeal to this board to reserve -- to reverse the decision the planning board made on July 2, 2015. And I also appreciate that you brought up the end of the Planning Commission meeting because when that took place, I personally went up to the person chairing the meeting and asked her if-- the public's stunned. Could we say something? And we were not allowed to speak about what had just happened because we actually had the votes. We actually won until the recess was called. So I appreciate that it's even mentioned today. Thank you for listening. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, unless you have any questions of Ms. Riley, we have Maurice Gutierrez, and then after that, Vicki Tracy, and then after that, Captain Shawn Smith. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to give Mr. Pires an additional eight minutes, to 3:58. He started at 2:50, and I'm going to give him eight minutes -- because we took some time questioning him -- to let his other testimony continue; is that fair, sir? MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. GUTIERREZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name Page 177 December 8, 2015 is Maurice Gutierrez. I've lived on the creek since 1978. I've been a homeowner since '84. Boy, I sure am glad this is the last piece of property on this creek for developer rights, because I don't know if I could take this much longer. I had a prepared statement but, you know, that doesn't work. I am the chairman of the MSTU, and I have learned that at any point we ask for anything, risk management has to okay it, because the county is risk averse. I'm talking FDOT; everything has to be FDOT approved. But on the water, that just doesn't apply, does it? The idea of building 12-inch pilings protruding into the creeks anyway from 10 foot out into the middle increases that risk of failure, failure during a storm, failure to trap -- or failure to allow water to flow when storms are receding, debris flow. The docks that are being built are not built to wind code. I can't put a window in my house without having Dade County Wind restrictions where it must file (sic) certain criteria, yet these docks are going to be laying on cap rock. Cap rock is only six to eight feet under the mud. You're going to put 27 docks, I'm sorry, 26, with boats on top that make them top-heavy. Now, you're going to take this whole structure and not tie it into anything. They are not core drilling. They're simply going into the mud. I know. I built a dock at my house, and the cap rock is there. This creek cannot be deepened because of that cap rock. That's why during maintenance dredging it was considered maintenance to bring it down to the original depth the state felt it was allowed to have enough water to drain this basin. To allow any protrusion into the creek is increasing the risk of failure and backing water up into our community; I'm talking the homeowners who are here first and live up the creek. Page 178 December 8, 2015 It doesn't make any sense, despite the fact I've been to every hearing, I've spoken and have stated the fact that a parallel dock poses zero risk. It's a 600-foot dock. You can fit 20 to 24 boats depending on the individual size of the boat and the individual navigating that boat. So to say you can only put T docks protruding into a drainage ditch is just not reasonable to understand the fact that the county is risk averse. So what are they doing? Let's put the risk on the existing property owners. After all, these new buildings are up so high you're never going to flood. But my home was built in late '69. Mine will flood if the water does not flow. You can't say there is no risk. I ask you to look at the criteria not from the standpoint of what is required but from common sense. It seems as if the docks at Sandpiper Bay Club have been quite efficient. They're parallel; 600-foot. In fact, the advantage of having parallel docks is, let's say one of the property owners has a bigger boat, so he buys two docks, and he puts in a 35-footer. You buy the docks; you can bring in the boat as long as you have the water. The restrictions, in my opinion, are not taken into account the risk that we face uplands when we have a storm. Debris flows; if a piling's in the middle of the creek or 30 feet out from the creek, that risk is undeniable. If the piling is 10 foot from the shoreline and you have a 100-foot-wide creek, there is no concern. If lifts are built, boats go on them. The picture that Ms. Riley showed earlier, which I would like to place again -- that's summertime. Where are the owners? Up north. Where are the hurricanes? In town. If we have a storm, those boats are up in the air. They're not wind rated to hold how many tons of weight up there, with water flow, wind, and debris. It just doesn't make sense. You know, the owners, us that are here from the Bayshore area, Page 179 December 8, 2015 have lived through Kelly Road, we've lived through bad press, we've lived through ups and downs, and we're still here. We're very resilient. Personally, I think everybody shares this comment: We only fear two things, developers and hurricanes, because you cannot assess the impact or the damage until they're both gone. Thank you. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Captain -- Vicki Tracy briefly, and then Captain Shawn Smith. MS. TRACY: Use this one. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, you can use that one. MS. TRACY: I'm Vicki Tracy. I'm in Naples 40 years. I was the vice-chair of the MSTU. I was on the CRA. I've been East Naples proud for 39 of those 40 years. I want to reiterate what Maurice and our other neighbors are saying, and I have only two concerns. First of all, I want to thank Growth Management, because if it wasn't for Growth Management, we wouldn't, as lay people, know where to go and ask these questions. We were forced, so to speak, to get an attorney because we don't know all of the ins and outs. So I want to thank Growth Management, if it wasn't for them at least giving us information. And, secondly, I applied for a boat dock extension 18 years ago. I live on this waterway. I live on Lakeview Drive. I was denied, and I was told at the time it was because of precedence. So I couldn't have a boat dock extension, and I was forced to go -- perpendicular? Right, Kevin -- parallel, okay. I can't go straight into my dock. I have no problem with the way it's now. It's uneasy to be navigated, but we do it because the county said I couldn't have an extension. Secondly, the safety. When they're showing you the pictures, and unless you really get on the waterway -- and I want to thank the entire commission for looking into what really happens out there. When Page 180 December 8, 2015 you're coming around the corner, whether you're on the inlets or the waterway, whether it's a basin, a canal, it's got water in it, and low tide happens. I'm concerned about precedence and safety. When you come around the corner, if boats are sticking out into the middle of the canal or near the middle of the canal and it's low tide when the boats are coming back and forth on the other way, what happens to the traffic? Where do they go? And that's what I'm concerned about. And I thank you for looking at this issue today. MR. PIRES: And, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to have Shawn qualified as an expert. He's a boat captain, and you'll hear some of his expertise. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let him testify. CAPTAIN SMITH: Okay. My name's Captain Shawn. I'm a U.S. Coast Guard licensed captain, also taken a master's exam, and I own two boats myself I specialize in shallow-water light-tackle fishing, know that area well, and I'm also the First Mate on the Naples Princess from time to time, so... I was asked to, by a few friends that live in that area, go check out things. I have side-imaging sonar that's on my boat. So if some of you, I understand, fish, you're probably aware of that technology. What it does is allows you to take imagery both to the sides of the boat as well as down, and it's a three-dimensional picture. From looking at some of the records that I've seen that everybody else has been using, there are cross-sections of the channel that's within the discussion. Using side-imaging sonar, because I can adjust out to 300 feet on all sides, you can actually create a picture as you're driving along of the entire area. What happens, if-- there was a picture that we had earlier. Do you have that? Is it possible I can use one of those photos to discuss this here? Page 181 December 8, 2015 And I'm, by any means, partial to this whole thing, but after seeing what I saw -- I live on the Gordon River, so I deal with dock issues all the time up there, but it's Naples City, so -- this one would be great. I know, dealing with Naples City, when I put my dock in a couple years ago I had to deal with -- mean high-water line is what we had to do all our measurements on. The problem with this area, it is so low tide and it's so shallow that if you see the encroachment in this area here -- if you go -- if you go on the mean high-water line where these measurements are taken in order to get the extension, I don't think it gives it a just reading on what we're actually dealing with as far as navigable waterway, especially on the north side of the river. When I was going through this side-imaging sonar, you could see that the depth of the water favors from center of the channel to the south side, which is where the docks are proposed to be, which would encompass -- they have less dredging to do. But the problem is that if you did the dredging at that standpoint, you're going to have deepwater -- stronger current flow will go through the deeper section, which will create more sediment on the north side, which happens in any other fishing areas when you see points and how currents go around oyster bars. So that waterway is super, super shallow on the north end, the north side. So that would be my only thing as far as a judgment call of granting an extension versus having a parallel dock is you have to negotiate all these super low tides, so... COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which way is this looking? CAPTAIN SMITH: That's looking -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it to the south or to the east or west? CAPTAIN SMITH: That's looking west. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking west, okay. Page 182 December 8, 2015 CAPTAIN SMITH: Yeah. So the south side is that one side which is actually encompassing the point. If I can have this here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your time's up. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Chair, I would like to -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's let him finish, and then we're going to go to Mr. Yovanovich. CAPTAIN SMITH: I'll hurry up as much as possible. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hurry up. CAPTAIN SMITH: Sure. Here, these lines that I've got from one of the research here, you can see if you -- if you took the 25 percent on the north side of the shoreline, which is what they have just passed the mean water -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Will you point so we know what you're talking about. CAPTAIN SMITH: Okay. The blue line, which I know is difficult to see, is the mean low-water line, okay. That's at half a foot, according to what they're saying, and that's a positive half a foot. Now, in the month of December alone, we've had 21 low tides out of 61 low tides just this month alone where they're measured at that tide or lower. So we're actually getting shallower; 21 low tides of this month alone. So you can see this low tide effect really comes into play more so than not because the water just doesn't show back up in two hours. It's a six- to sometimes seven-, eight-hour time frame between the tides that we have to deal with. So if you have these large boats that are coming in, you have to navigate around an extension that goes into the dock, you have very little water on that north side to navigate around, which is going to push people right onto the extensions of the dock to get around. So in my recommendation, since it is a judgment call on your behalf, is to not go with the extension going out that far or limit the Page 183 December 8, 2015 extension as little as possible and go with a parallel type of scenario, unless you have to dredge the entire canal in order to open it up, so... COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for you. CAPTAIN SMITH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you take County Manager's pen and point out where's the deepest part of the channel. CAPTAIN SMITH: The deepest part is from this center line here, and it connects this way to the south side. So the slope is much shallower that goes from this deep line here. It's very shallow, and you're talking ankle deep out to this red line here, which is at the 25 percent mark. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the deepest part is running the total. CAPTAIN SMITH: Is running from the 50 percent line -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me finish. CAPTAIN SMITH: -- to the -- oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't even know what I'm going to ask you. CAPTAIN SMITH: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does it run straight down the canal east and west, the deep part? CAPTAIN SMITH: Yes. From this area right about here. It gets very narrow here. But there's no docks slated, according to this diagram. So where the deepest water is, is just past the middle section, and it runs here, and they actually have deeper water along the 25 percent off those docks than you do on the 25 percent on the north side. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CAPTAIN SMITH: So it favors the south side of the navigation, according to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead and keep that pen. Page 184 December 8, 2015 CAPTAIN SMITH: Sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead and keep that pen. MR. OCHS: It's government issued. It's my birthday. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. CAPTAIN SMITH: Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Mr. Yovanovich, you're counsel for the party defending. You have 15 minutes to ask questions. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ask questions. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ask questions, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll keep the most current witness up for efficiency of time, sir. CAPTAIN SMITH: Oh, sorry. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to understand your credentials. Are you a licensed surveyor? CAPTAIN SMITH: A licensed surveyor, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you a coastal engineer? CAPTAIN SMITH: No, I'm not a co -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you any type of engineer? CAPTAIN SMITH: No, I'm not, other than making Legos with my son. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So -- and I'm assuming you're not trying to make them hurricane proof? CAPTAIN SMITH: I'm sorry? Oh, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: How much -- okay. Is four foot mean-low water deep enough water? CAPTAIN SMITH: It depends on the size of the boat. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. For a 25-foot boat. CAPTAIN SMITH: For a 25-foot boat? If it has twin engines and it's a 10-and-a-half-foot hull, it's going to be pushing it. Especially if it's inboard/outboard, it's going to be pushing it. Page 185 December 8, 2015 MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- CAPTAIN SMITH: The thing is, is on the documents that say that the mean high-water at that time was four-and-a-half feet based upon a positive five foot, what I witnessed was below those depths in a lot of those areas. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, we would rely on the testimony of a licensed surveyor to actually determine water depths? CAPTAIN SMITH: Oh, I understand that. I'm just going on the technology that I have, which was totally unbiased. MR. YOVANOVICH: And probably not the same certifications as a licensed surveyor's required to have, correct? CAPTAIN SMITH: It's very possible, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So I'm going to ask you, if you have 69 feet of width of 4-foot-deep water between the end of the boat dock extension -- because that's as far out as the boat can go. If you have 69 feet in width of 4-foot-deep water in mean-low tide, is that enough water area for boats to safely maneuver? CAPTAIN SMITH: Sixty-nine foot would be, yes, but there's not 69 feet there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, again, let me ask you. I'll ask you to look at this survey, if we could put this on the visualizer. CAPTAIN SMITH: Sure. Is it the same one that I had? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the survey. I couldn't tell. Did you review this document as part of your analysis? CAPTAIN SMITH: I didn't see that one, no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So this is the survey that we provided that shows the water depth, correct? CAPTAIN SMITH: That's what I'm assuming it is, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, look at it. I don't want to confuse you. CAPTAIN SMITH: Okay. Mean low-water tide. Page 186 December 8, 2015 MR. YOVANOVICH: That shows exactly where the docks are, correct? CAPTAIN SMITH: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it shows the width of the waterway at mean low water, correct? CAPTAIN SMITH: According to that survey. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Are you talking about a full moon, or when is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir, I'm asking the questions. I'm asking you, those distances, are those safe distances for boats to go up and down the drainage easement? CAPTAIN SMITH: The problem that I have here is -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Sir, answer the question. CAPTAIN SMITH: Sir -- MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, I think if he could allow the witness to answer the question. He's attempting to. Mr. Yovanovich is constantly interrupting him, also being argumentative. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's just have one person talk at a time. We'll ask a question, we'll give an answer, and then we'll ask another question. Please, gentlemen. CAPTAIN SMITH: If I had a legend that stated what the depth of those were taken, at what tide -- like, when I went out on Friday when I surveyed, I was at a positive one foot off of a zero tide, okay. This doesn't tell me what those measurements were taken off of. So mean low-water tide, if it's -- is it a half a foot positive, or is it two-and-a-half feet positive? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to propose -- I'm going to pose to you a hypothetical. CAPTAIN SMITH: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want you to assume that these are depths determined by a licensed professional surveyor that show at Page 187 December 8, 2015 mean low tide this will be the water depth. So I want to know, assuming this was prepared by a licensed professional surveyor and at mean low water there'll be four feet, is the width of that mean low-water area sufficient for boats to safely operate? CAPTAIN SMITH: If it is four feet, then yes it would be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for you. CAPTAIN SMITH: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ms. Riley? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask a question? No? Later. MR. YOVANOVICH: You made the statement that there are no boat dock extensions in this waterway. Do you recall making that statement? MS. RILEY: Oh, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. RILEY: There are no boat dock extensions built. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not what you testified to. You said -- so let me ask you. Are there any approved boat dock extensions on the north side of this waterway close to your home? MS. RILEY: Okay. I'm going to answer your question. According to Mark Strain, the Hearing Examiner, yes, there is one illegally approved boat dock extension on this waterway. MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I think the boat dock extension was approved by Collier County -- MS. RILEY: It was. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- correct? MS. RILEY: And he was on the -- he was on the Planning Commission when that happened. MR. YOVANOVICH: And as far as we know today that boat dock extension has not been rescinded, correct? Page 188 December 8, 2015 MS. RILEY: Correct, so far. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And that is on the north side of the dock close to your home, correct? MS. RILEY: Absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you object to that boat dock extension? MS. RILEY: When that got approved, I was getting -- no, I was -- no. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. MS. RILEY: I did not, because -- okay. No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to assume you're not an expert in environmental permitting or boat dock permitting, correct? MS. RILEY: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you a licensed boat captain? MS. RILEY: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have for you, ma'am. MS. RILEY: Thanks. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do have some questions for Mr. Pires, because I think he was providing testimony instead of-- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Pires? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- actually -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can ask him any question you want, sir. There's no qualification. Anyone that testified you may question. I think Mr. Pires -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Pires, you made reference to the mangroves that were planted by the prior property owner? MR. PIRES: Yeah, based upon the transcripts of the testimony of Mr. Hall during the course of the Hearing Examiner hearing and the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you -- did you review those permits to determine whether or not those permits reserved the right to build Page 189 December 8, 2015 boat docks waterward of the mangroves? MR. PIRES: No, I did not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Are you an expert in environmental permitting with regard to permitting boat docks? MR. PIRES: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's all I have for Mr. Pires. I'll ask questions of staff later because I think there was some confusion regarding their testimony, but I'll address it through my main presentation through Mr. Hall. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir. Are you prepared to begin that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. Can I go back over here? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to do some preliminary comments, because I'm sure you really don't want to hear from the lawyers. You actually want to hear from the experts that actually provide testimony and do the permitting of this every day. I want to put on the visualizer -- I'm going to put on the visualizer an aerial that shows exactly where this property is located and exactly, if you look -- if you look over here, this is where Ms. Tracy, Mr. Gutierrez -- they reside in this neighborhood right here, this neighborhood. Their only access to the Gulf of Mexico is across this drainage easement. That drainage easement, the bottom lands, is wholly owned by my client that owns this piece of the property on which the actual residential development is occurring and this piece of the property, the north side, which is going to be in conservation, so there will be no boat docks on the north side of the property. If you look at the -- if you look at the width of their own canals -- and we could zoom in. If you look at the width of their own canals, they are less than 60 feet wide before you even consider the boat docks that they have on their own canals. Page 190 December 8, 2015 So can you help me zoom in a little bit, Leo, please. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Technical challenge. MR. YOVANOVICH: Some of these people -- does this go in? MR. OCHS: Yeah, go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you look, some of these people where you can see when you have boat docks on both sides of the canals, they only have 25 feet or 20 feet. In one place they have 17 feet to safely utilize their own canals, and they have said they manage. They have no problems getting in and out of their canals and safely mooring their boats and safely getting out into my client's property and, ultimately, to the Gulf. What we're proposing -- and this is to scale and based upon the surveys that you have in the record. We have two depth surveys done, one by Stantec and one done by Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage. And they both showed the mean low-water tide and the width of where the mean low-water tide will be, depth of the water. When you look at this exhibit that shows not only the existing conditions but the future dredging in this crosshatching, you will see that on the eastern end closest to the bridge they're 73 feet wide, 4-foot mean low-water tide, 71, 69. It gets narrower when you get away from our project, which was previously in front of Windstar where we had some docks that we've eliminated and, thus, eliminated some dredging. You can clearly see that there is no navigation issues, and Mr. Rogers testified to that during his testimony. I'm not going to get him back up here. I am going to bring Tim Hall up here to address each of the issues. But you can see clearly, based upon the record, that there was more than sufficient width -- the angled boat docks width for there to be safe operation of these boats as proposed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask a question? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The question was posed by the Page 191 December 8, 2015 gentleman who was testifying for the neighbors that he has no indication on this map whether this is low tide or high tide. MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are measurements at low tide. And in your backup -- which I don't know whether the gentleman actually read all the application materials or not -- there are two surveys showing the depth of the water at mean low tide. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Shouldn't it say here? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does. It says mean low water; four feet, mean low water. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don't mean to speak up, but the full moon and the new moon means that -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I keep going? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. So that document -- and Tim will take you through that document in greater detail. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, let's take a couple of things off the table right away. I'll let Tony write the language he wants that says only the owners of the 64 units or their tenants or their guests, whatever language Tony wants to limit it to, can buy these docks and use these docks, because that's what we said at the Planning Commission. And if we didn't get that language right, it wasn't because we didn't try. Heidi and I tried. So if Tony's got better language to make sure that what we committed to gets codified, that's fine. Now, Mr. Strain said that the east 107 feet should be parallel, and everything else should be angled. Now, that east 107 feet was based upon the width of the channel being narrower as you go to the east. When we angled the docks, that resulted in the pier and the boat not Page 192 December 8, 2015 intruding into the 25 percent limitation. The bottom line is, we were talking about one angled pier difference between the 107 feet and what we have here today. It's not huge. So other than that, the angle was accomplished exactly like the Hearing Examiner suggested. So our -- we pose to you that the angled docks that you have in front of you with the 16 slips is 100—percent consistent with what the Hearing Examiner said. Now, the Hearing Examiner -- we're talking about this hydraulic analysis. I'm sure you've all read the backup. The Hearing Examiner's question about the hydraulic analysis started when the Hearing Examiner contacted a gentleman named Carlton Spirio who's with the Florida Department of Transportation, because the easement was granted to the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Spirio said that a hydraulic analysis should be done based upon the information that Mr. Strain provided him. We then provided to Mr. Spirio the actual plans that we planned on building and let him know we had the DEP permits that we need, and the DEP, as he knowledged, looks at drainage capacity. Mr. Spirio wrote back -- and this is in your backup -- and specifically said, based upon reviewing the plans, that he was comfortable with the hydraulic capacity of the drainage easement after the boat docks we proposed were constructed. Now, Mr. Spirio is not only a professional engineer, he is FDOT's drainage engineer. Mr. Spirio, the guy who determines drainage issues for FDOT, specifically said he's not concerned about the hydraulic capacity of that drainage easement based upon actually reviewing the plans. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Richard, can I ask you a question a moment? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Page 193 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Could you go back to your other map that shows the width of navigation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let me ask you one question. You show four feet mean-low water proposed dredge. That's underneath the area of the boat docks themselves; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct; that is correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you're going to remove four feet of material under where the boat docks are going to be constructed, basically, is what you're telling me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: So that's going to increase the water flow underneath the boat docks over the presently existing condition; is it not? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: By four feet of material? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And based upon your permitting that was recently done in the middle of the 2000s, the county only dredged a 40-foot-wide channel; 40-foot-wide channel, four feet deep. We're further -- we're wider than what the county claimed it needed -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for drainage capacity. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I just wanted to make sure that's what that meant. MR. YOVANOVICH: That is exactly what -- and if you look at the pictures that you were shown about the narrow area, that's exactly where we're going to be doing the drainage, I mean the dredging, to make that area wider. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let me allow Commissioner Fiala Page 194 December 8, 2015 to ask you a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A couple simple questions. How many docks would you be building if you could build parallel docks? MR. YOVANOVICH: It goes down to 15, and that is financially unacceptable to us. We have a 64-unit budget. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Total of 15 docks you can build if it was parallel? MR. YOVANOVICH: If it's parallel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how many docks can you build if you were having slanted docks, or whatever you call that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-six. That's what the Planning Commission approved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And how many docks could you build if they were perpendicular? MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, the original application -- if you'll let me. The original application was for 42 perpendicular docks. That's when we were sent back to the Hearing Examiner to do an analysis. He determined that it should be angled. So we angled it, and we went from 42 to what we asked for, which was 27. The Planning Commission approved 26. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is the basin still available to build docks in? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. It is not available because -- and Tim will get into this, because I'm not an expert in permitting. And Tim will -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they were -- they were originally going to build them there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And they were, and when -- and you'll also hear Tim tell you -- I'll give you the preamble or the previews. Tim will tell you that the permitting agency said put the docks exactly where you're putting them, because putting them in that little Page 195 December 8, 2015 cove would have resulted in the destruction of more mangroves, didn't make sense, and that because of the flushing requirements now in place for dredging out, that there would be required -- we couldn't get that permitted either. So we are building -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the permitting agencies felt it was okay to build them in a drainage easement but not in that little cove there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Tim will get into that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, they think it's perfectly okay? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I want you to think about this, folks. I want everybody to think about this. We've got five drainage easements within Collier County, and only one dock that was -- that was permitted erroneously years ago, one perpendicular dock. And now you just watch, because if this moves forward, he's going to be back, and he's going to start permitting docks in all these other drainage easements as well. And we're going to end up paying the price because we're going to have drainage easements that don't serve the purpose anymore because we're going to have docks all over them. And it scares me to death, I want to tell you. And I don't -- and I'm just sure that this is the preamble for the rest of them coming along. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, Commissioner Fiala, I understand the concern, but let's look at this specific project where you've had -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, no, because we have to think of-- we have to think of what's going to happen after this specific. If you did that with everybody -- you know, you're just setting the precedent here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, no. Frankly, the precedent was set Page 196 December 8, 2015 already. And everybody keeps telling me it was an illegally permitted dock yet nobody has taken any action to try to undo the approval of that previous dock. Now, I will -- I'll admit I agreed with Tony on something, and that something was my client who owns the property in which the drainage easement is located has the right to use that drainage easement as long as I don't interfere with the drainage aspects of the drainage easement. Now, you have the guy from DOT who's the drainage expert who testified I'm not impacting the drainage, capacity of that drainage easement. You have your own county engineer, Mr. Kurtz, who wrote an email saying we are not interfering with the drainage capacity of that drainage easement. You have Stan Chrzanowski, who's your appointee to the Planning Commission who's the former county engineer who, after hearing all of this, recommended approval of exactly what is in front of you today. So you've had three disinterested planning -- or professional engineers determine that we are not interfering with the use of that drainage easement. And I find it either -- I don't know the right word, maybe ironic is the right word, that everybody else who's testified today feel free to use my client's property to get out to the Gulf, but when my client wants to use his property where he has demonstrated he's not interfering with that drainage easement, they're all up in arms and saying he shouldn't be allowed to use his own property. It's a drainage easement. It is not a navigation easement. It's a drainage easement. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why would you put docks -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you want to build docks ona -- Page 197 December 8, 2015 MR. YOVANOVICH: Why are people going through my property to navigate when it's a drainage easement? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because maybe they've been grandfathered in. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't believe they have. And I'm just saying, we have always been willing to work with our neighbors to address their concerns, including going from 42 docks to now 26, which is consistent with what the Hearing Examiner recommended and is -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich -- and it was very brief, and I would like you to go over it. When I sat with the Hearing Examiner yesterday or the day before, we calculated you could get 20 parallel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we can -- I'll have my guys come up here and tell you how to do the math. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. We need to see that, please. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you have any more questions, ma'am COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- Commissioner Taylor? Then Commissioner Hiller. And I'm keeping track of the time, sir, so I'm not taking away your time. MR. YOVANOVICH: How much time do I have left? CHAIRMAN NANCE: You've got fifty minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: How much? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fifty minutes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fifteen? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fifty. MR. YOVANOVICH: Five zero, okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fifty. You started at 4:10, and we've Page 198 December 8, 2015 been -- for the last four minutes we've been taking up your time with questions. I want to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. I just want to make sure I get CHAIRMAN NANCE: But I want to allow Commissioner Hiller to ask you questions. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I have to say, the last 10 minutes you've been speaking have felt like 50, not as a negative, but just saying, for what it's worth. I was like, really? Another 50 minutes? Holy moly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you're going to hear from Tim next. I just want to make sure I don't run into a problem by talking too much. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let it go. Let it go, ma'am, but go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would you do, slap my hand? CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, no. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Be my guest. I want to ask a couple of questions just for my own clarification. How many docks could you build on this property -- and I don't care where the location is, just in any and all locations -- the total number of docks if you had them, you know, some over here, some over there, wherever you can build without a boat dock extension and considering that you could get a permit to cut back mangroves from the state? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can't build any because I know I can't get the permits necessary to build boat docks. I'm going to need a boat dock extension. But let me answer it a different way. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again, that no matter where you wanted to put docks, you would have to get a boat dock extension, even if you got a permit to cut back the mangroves? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Our permit that we're proposing includes the trimming of mangroves, okay. So we've brought it in as Page 199 December 8, 2015 tight as we can to the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Maximum trimming of mangroves has been contemplated -- you know, I'd like to hear from your expert. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me have Tim do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, I really would like to hear from your expert as soon as possible. I think we need -- we need their testimony instead of yours. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree. But under the Land Development Code, we could have 64 because we have 64 units, but I can't fit them, okay. So I'm going to let Tim come up now, take you through the actual criteria and let him answer your permitting questions so I don't use up too much of the 50 minutes I have left. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to ask my question of Tim. Hey, Tim? MR. HALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Tim Hall with Turrell Hall & Associates. I was going to start just going through the criteria. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you do that, I'd like to ask my question. MR. HALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What we were just told is that as a matter of right you can build 64 docks on the property owned by this developer. What I want to know is how many of those docks can you build without needing a boat dock extension if you were to get the -- you know, a mangrove trimming permit to the maximum degree the state would allow on this site? MR. HALL: Along the waterway itself, along the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anywhere; total. Whether it's in the basin or on the waterway, how many docks could you build without requiring a boat dock extension? Page 200 December 8, 2015 MR. HALL: I'm going to use this exhibit because it's the one I had handy. The waterway, or the waterways around this property include the main canal -- or the main Haldeman Creek, the dredged portion of it, and then the canal going along the side right here. The only place that I could do docks without needing a BDE might be this section of the canal right here. If you did parallel mooring, which would, again, create more of those conditions like Rich was showing you in the other canals where you have, you know, 15 to 25 feet between the boats going across the waterway -- and I haven't measured all of these areas, but that's the only area there. This area up here, because of the easement that's in place and the shelf that was dug, they're -- to put any boat outside there with a dock pushes you out past 20 feet from the line that the county uses to measure extension which, in this case, is the mean high-water line. Trying to put boats here, it would definitely interfere with the navigation of anybody trying to go in and out of this -- this area, so I wouldn't even consider putting boats in this area or this area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is -- based on this diagram, where are the current proposed docks? MR. HALL: Current proposed docks are right here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are along there. MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so -- and where was this basin that docks were going to be built in? MR. HALL: Well, I think there's some confusion. There was one iteration a while -- quite a while ago that showed a boat basin dug out here, which would have meant digging out all of these mangroves and voiding these conservation easements. Sometimes people refer to this as the basin, and if you tried to put boats in here, you'd be looking at even a longer extension than what Page 201 December 8, 2015 we're asking for now to get out from, you know, where the mean high water is -- mean high-water line is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how many -- if you could put docks on the back side, you can put docks along here. And how much -- if you cut back the mangroves, how much of an extension would you need? MR. HALL: Along here? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. MR. HALL: Exactly what we're asking for. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: That contemplates the maximum removal of mangroves? MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. That's cutting the overhang all the way back to the riprap that Mr. Pires talked about. The landward side of the walkway, the access walkway, is actually over the least riprap, so those mangroves will be trimmed up vertically from there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how many parallel docks could you build in that stretch? MR. HALL: You could put 630 feet of dock. So the number of boats is going to depend on the size of them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I can't -- MR. HALL: Based on -- based on a 25-foot boat length, which is what we agreed to in the Planning Commission, you'd be looking at about 18 boats. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 18. And then how many could you do parallel on the back side if you wanted to do that? MR. HALL: I don't know the answer to that. It would be whatever that distance is divided by 34. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you measure that? I'm sure you have the scale on this. I mean, how does it compare to the area over here? MR. HALL: I know from this point down, if I did docks just all Page 202 December 8, 2015 the way along there, that's 1,500 feet. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how many boats is that? Is it divided by 25? MR. HALL: Divided by -- no, you have to divide by about 34, because you can't put the boats nose to tail. You have to -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 1,500 divided by what? MR. HALL: Divided by 34. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's 44 docks? So you could put 44 docks running parallel along that line of property there and then 18 along this side. So, in effect, if you did parallel docks -- MR. HALL: Commissioner, let me clarify. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You almost -- actually, you know, come to think of it, it sounds to me like you're under developing yourself because, I mean, by my calculation -- I mean, how much is 18 plus -- what did I say? What was that number? MR. HALL: That's the number that could fit. That's not the number that you can permit. The permitted number of slips -- when docks were originally proposed back in here, you know, the different alternatives -- putting boats in here is more of an issue with regards to water quality and navigation from the standpoint -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's interesting, because I just heard from the attorney that, as a matter of right, you could put in 64, and based on this reconfiguration of parallel docks in these two locations, you're at 62. MR. HALL: The code allows one slip per unit, if that's what you mean by as a matter of right. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, how many units are they building? MR. HALL: Sixty-four. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then it sounds to me, you can put in 62. Page 203 December 8, 2015 MR. HALL: Well, what you -- the Manatee Protection Plan would allow several hundred, but what you can -- what you're allowed to put in and what you can physically do or physically permit are different numbers. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're telling me -- I'm asking what you can physically put in there, and you told me 18 if you run parallel on this side, and -- MR. HALL: Based on what the agencies told us, that's it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did I say? What was my other number? What was it? Something divided by -- 1,500 divided by 34. Yeah, 44. But here's my point. Let's say it's 44 plus 18, right, which is 62, and as a matter of right you've got 64, and you're asking for 26, which is, you know, about one-third of the 62 you could potentially build. So what I'm suggesting to you is it doesn't seem you need those boat dock extensions, and I don't think you need to configure it the way you're proposing, and it seems to me you have the potential to put in a lot more docks. MR. HALL: No, ma'am. The permitting agencies did not want us to put boats in any of this area. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why is that? MR. HALL: Because it creates more of a navigation and water-quality contamination. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did they deny you? Did you apply? MR. HALL: We didn't apply, but I mean, if you're at a meeting with the agencies and they tell you, put your boats out here in the area that -- contemplated boats that has been maintained and that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the county has -- doesn't -- I mean, you haven't been denied by the state. I mean, here's my problem. You know, you're telling -- I don't see your hardship. What I Page 204 December 8, 2015 see is your ability to put in almost 100—percent of what you're permitted by right in terms of the number of units that you have where each dock, you know, ties into a unit. And you don't have evidence that the state has denied the right to use this, and I don't see the hardship because you have the alternative of putting in parallel docks. I mean, this is not a case where you, because of hardship created by circumstances outside of your control, are not able to build docks. I mean, I just don't see it. I mean, this is -- this is new to me because, you know, I have looked at this, but given the information that's being presented, I have a very different perspective. You don't have evidence of denial. You haven't applied to the state. Oh, it's very nice to suggest, oh, yeah, let's put it over here and let's put it like that. MR. HALL: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reality is, you can run them parallel and you can run them potentially parallel in two locations. And maybe you don't have to do 100 percent across that line, but you probably still could put parallel docks along that side and -- along the side that's being proposed to come up with your 26. So the -- and what I'm saying is, like, that's like giving up 40 that potentially you still could add along there if the state might consider it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me ask Tim a question. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see it. MR. YOVANOVICH: In your professional opinion, if you -- and you've been doing -- how many boat docks have you gotten through the process with the state? MR. HALL: Several hundred. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. In your professional opinion as -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: At least. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- as an expert -- and as an expert in Page 205 December 8, 2015 applying for boat dock approvals from the state, would the state approve the parallel docks Commissioner Hiller is asking you whether or not they can get permitted? MR. HALL: What I was trying to say was, I don't believe that they would based on my experience and what we went through to get the permits for the docks that we have now. These docks have gone through the state permit. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what's interesting to me -- MR. HALL: That application was made. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It may not be for the full length, but I look where that Conservation Easement 1 is, and I see that larger body of water. I mean, that's the widest part of any of the canals that are being contemplated as possible locations for docks. I can't -- I can't understand why they wouldn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all mangroves. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't put docks there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where? Where? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all mangroves. COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm not saying where the mangroves are. It's along the line of. That's what Tim is talking about. Not within it. Beside it. We're talking about parallel. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't get to them. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't get there. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't get there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's it? What's this? What is this? This is -- what is this over here? Isn't this a -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's a conservation easement. You can't go -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is where they're -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't go through there. It's a swamp. Page 206 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. But they're developing all around it. That's where they're developing. Not where the green is, but they're developing, like, all that green down here. That's where they're developing. That's where property is going to be. It's fully accessible. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't go out in here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: He said you could. CHAIRMAN NANCE: This is a conservation. You can't go out in there. You can't get to it. How are you going to get there? COMMISSIONER HILLER: From here. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You can't go there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: If they extend docks through here, you can't walk along here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boardwalk maybe. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I mean, that's how they do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've got a boardwalk there already. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do they have a boardwalk? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought I heard somebody say. We should ask the people who live there. MR. HALL: One of the criteria that the state looks at is water quality. The state actually -- when they issue a permit, it's the water quality certification that the federal government uses when they issue their permits. And when docks were originally proposed, there was a -- there was an old 1993 permit that had a dock that came out into here for six slips, and it was for the six land lock slips or landlocked lots that were part of that project before. All of the other single-family lots that had been permitted along here still had the ability to put docks out into that creek. That has never been given up. Page 207 December 8, 2015 Mr. Pires said that when that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, Tim, could they put docks to -- and I don't know what -- if it's like -- let's just say for purposes of this photograph, to the south side of where they had the six docks extending into that area where I was thinking you could -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Show us where it is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like, over here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's looking at south of the cove. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. South of the cove area. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Go down. That's where she was looking. MR. HALL: Right here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: South of that. MR. HALL: In here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. MR. HALL: In here. The DEP, when we talked to them, did not want any docks placed within those waterways because, as a multifamily project, they want the docks clumped. That's not the right word. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Clustered. MR. HALL: Clustered, there you go. They want the docks clustered. And the best place that they said that they would consider permitting was along the waterway that was already maintenance dredged that already had better flushing that provided better access and less navigation problems than anywhere down in that little constricted waterway. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did they give you a written opinion on that? MR. HALL: Probably. I'd have to go back into the RAIs and do Page 208 December 8, 2015 that. I don't remember if that would have been part of the pre-application verbal stuff or if that was in a written RAI, but it's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so the state was restricting you only to docks along that stretch? MR. HALL: Yes, ma'am. And original -- the original BDE that was the 42 slips actually extended that further down this way over the property that the applicant owns, that our client owns, but part of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was because of the riparian issues associated with the Windstar property, even though our client owns that property, that there could still be an issue. So that section -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: What kind of issue would there be for that? MR. HALL: If the Windstar came back into the future and wanted to access their property from their riparian area -- I mean, he didn't expound on, I don't think, what the reasoning was, just that it wasn't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He did. What the Hearing Examiner said was the view issue -- that's one of your criteria -- is the view of the waterway. Can you see the water and will these docks interfere with the upland owners' right to see the water? And he said that parallel dock will interfere with Windstar's right to see the water. Even though Windstar wrote us a letter saying it's okay, he said, you can't do that. He also found that the view to be protected was the view of the water, not what is across the water. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the view that's in your criteria to be protected. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the HEX's opinion? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it in writing? Page 209 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's his personal opinion. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what he found. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's his interpretation? MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- that's his interpretation, and that's been the interpretation of every boat dock extension that we've ever done is, are we interfering with your ability to see the water, not what you will see across the water. So I know she's going to see boats from where she now sees mangroves, but that's not what the boat dock extension criteria is there to address. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's -- MR. HALL: The state uses that same criteria that your view is to the, they call it, the center of the waterway, not to the horizon. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to have to hold this thought, because we need to give a break to the court reporter here. She's about to pass out from paralysis of the lower extremities. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fingers, that's fingers. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We will take a break until 4:53. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, as the settlement discussions are informally taking place in the anteroom, we're going to go and try to check off a couple other administrative items. So please excuse us as we go ahead and try to just conduct a little business while the deliberations are taking place between the affected parties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let's table these items. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to table 9 -- we're going to go out of session, out of the public hearing on 9A, and we're going to go to a couple other items which I think Mr. Ochs can take us through here. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we go to 10E. Page 210 December 8, 2015 Item #10E CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER FROM FLORIDA GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT ENDORSING PROPOSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE POLICY REFORMS FOR ENTERPRISE FLORIDA (THE STATE'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY) — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that would take us to 10E, which is a recommendation that the Board consider a requested letter from the governor to endorse proposed economic development incentive policy reforms for Enterprise Florida. Commissioner Hiller brought that item forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And I'll second that. The govern sent -- or I should say the governor's office sent all the commissioners an outline of his economic development and incentive policy reforms for Enterprise Florida, and then they called and asked me if I would bring it forward and ask for unanimous support of the Board and then a press release to show support and let everybody know that we, you know, do back economic development throughout the state as well as here in Collier County. So thank you, Commissioner Henning, for the motion to approve. If there's no discussion -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, there's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. Page 211 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: That passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if staff could prepare that press release and let everybody know that the motion was brought forward, was approved unanimously, and that we're endorsing it -- MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and outline a little bit of what that policy is, that would be great. MR. OCHS: Will do. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'll let them know that this happened. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Item #10F RESOLUTION 2015-258: RE-APPOINTING JAMES MORRIS TO A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017 AND EVERGLADES CITY MAYOR HAMILTON TO RECOMMEND ANOTHER CANDIDATE TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE — ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 10F is a recommendation to reappoint members -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. MR. OCHS: -- to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee. Page 212 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER HILLER: No motion to approve. MR. OCHS: Mr. Klatzkow? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. I'm going to make a little bit of a comment on this. Commissioners, there's a recommendation here to reappoint two members, Mr. James Morris, and there's another individual that is seeking a reappointment; his name is McBeth Collins. Mr. Collins, unfortunately, since January of 2013 has missed 24 out of 25 meetings. So staff is saying that one of our options is to ask Mayor Hamilton to please recommend another candidate. So I'm going to make a motion to reappoint James Morris but not to reappoint McBeth Collins and, instead, to request Mayor Hamilton recommend another candidate. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to third it. 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: That passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Sir, I see the attorneys are back in the room. I don't Page 213 December 8, 2015 know that they're ready to proceed or if you want to re-open that hearing. Item #9A (Continued from earlier in the meeting; Discussed; and then tabled to later in the meeting) KATHLEEN RILEY REQUEST FOR 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 #11A) — TABLED UNTIL LATER IN THE MEETING CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to re-open the hearing on 9A. Mr. Yovanovich, have you been able to reach some sort of an agreement together with Mr. Pires? MR. YOVANOVICH: Unfortunately, no, so we'll have -- I want Mr. Hall to continue, and I think he has to clarify something on the record -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- with regard to the question asked by Commissioner Hiller, and then we'll continue on with our presentation. Page 214 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we do that, can I ask what the impasse was? What was the reason that the settlement broke down? What's the issue that's at issue? In other words, how close are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: The problem we have is they absolutely don't want any boat lifts. We were willing to go all parallel but not -- they want -- they won't let us have boat lifts. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not before us. I mean, the issue about -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Boat lifts are part of our presentation -- part of our -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they would accept everything parallel, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: But they said absolutely no to boat lifts, as I understand -- MR. PIRES: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- essentially, what the issue of the impasse is. We were willing -- I'll tell you -- Tony, if it's okay, I'll tell you what we proposed. We proposed that, go all parallel. We previously had docks in front of Windstar that Windstar didn't object to that were also parallel. So we would -- what we could do is we'd go all parallel, which would narrow the intrusion into the water, if you will, from the 18 feet to, roughly, 10 feet where we are, and we don't know exactly the distance in front of Windstar, but we previously got that permitted, so we would just simply chop off what were the perpendicular portions of the 42. That would get us to 25.8 slips, probably 25 by the time you work it all out. So we were willing to do that, make them all parallel. It's more expensive for my client because they're going to have to -- the lifts are a different type of lift, but to make that work, we were Page 215 December 8, 2015 willing to do that, which would narrow the intrusion, and they're opposed to lifts, as I understand it, so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I would like to address that. In your presentation you never addressed lifts as an issue or any reason that lifts should be denied. And I find it unbelievable that you would come up at this point, where they're willing to go parallel, for you to say, oh, well, now we're going to say no lifts as a condition. I mean, that has nothing to do -- I mean, what we're talking about here is not lifts or no lifts. The issue is whether or not there should be an extension of what would be the normal dock length. So I just don't see how that can be in if your negotiation. I mean, I'm -- I mean, I'm going to wait to hear the conclusion of the hearing, but if they're willing to do what you said you were willing to accept at the beginning and now you're adding this twist as a reason to not settle, that's problematic. MR. PIRES: Oh, I disagree that it's a twist. If you recall the testimony of Kate Riley and the photographs of what she showed of Windstar and what she would see with the docks and the lifts, that's what she testified to. And I think -- maybe Mr. Gutierrez did, too, but Ms. Riley was very clear about that as to what would be part of the view and what would be part of what she would see. Yes, the photograph she had was of boats on lifts and perpendicular docks. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That wasn't -- that wasn't what was presented as the case. I mean, the issue has not been that there would be an obstruction of the view because of the lifts. MR. PIRES: I believe it was, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: She showed a picture that showed lifts, but she did not -- that wasn't the testimony. That wasn't the statement. MR. PIRES: I believe she indicated that's what she would see Page 216 December 8, 2015 across from her house. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been here for a lot of these boat dock extensions, and it's always the understanding the view is what you have on the water, okay. That's all you have is the water, not somebody else's property. That person can paint their house purple, and you don't have anything to say about it. It's the view of the water, not the mangroves. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's riparian rights. MS. RILEY: Can I say something? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's the policy that we -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You can't. There is one aspect, though, with the dock lifts that caught my attention, and it's the fact that they aren't Dade County hurricane created, which means that they are kind of flying missiles in the air. So there may be a safety issue here I think we need to address, but that's what stuck in my mind, not the fact that, oh, my gosh, we've got boats on lifts, but that they can be launched if we have a serious Wilma/Donna. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can with anything; however, if you have a boat, you better learn how to tie it down during a hurricane. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But not on a lift, sir, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the lift -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, my gosh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you do. You tie it down. And the Coast Guard auxiliary, if somebody doesn't know, can show you how to tie them down. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But do the lifts -- do the lifts Page 217 December 8, 2015 withstand the wind, is what I understood? It's not -- it's just that the -- the lift will come -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your posts are, like, pounded down about six feet in the water -- six feet in the ground, I'm sorry, six feet in the ground. Your lifts are bolted to the posts. Where's it going to? That's like saying a hurricane's going to lift a 5,000-pound vehicle because the wind. You just can't do it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, gentlemen, listen -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got to tie down the boats. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Respectfully, his client has a right and is going to put some sort of boats on the water there. You are not going to be free of seeing boats. Now, we are fighting on and on and on between parallel boats at 15, 16, and boats on an angle at 26. You guys need to go out there and you need to come together on how you're going to split the difference. We're fighting over 10 boat slips. You need to fix this, because this is going to go on and on and on and then on and on and on again. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Cha-ching, cha-ching. CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is un -- it is impossible for us to come in here and try to go over these hundreds and hundreds of pages of testimony and review everything that's gone on and come to a settlement. The only people that can do this is you guys, and you need to -- you need to do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: We -- but this is very important, because I just spoke to the County Attorney and, you know, Commissioner Henning makes a very important point, and the point is that while I understand now what you're saying in terms of the appellant's testimony that -- she showed that picture of the lifts; that's what you're referring to, right? MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The problem with that is Page 218 December 8, 2015 that the law doesn't address that scenario. What the law addresses is what Commissioner Henning said where it's right in front of your property, not if you're looking at it across the way, because there is no view that's obstructed. She still has the full view of the water, but beyond the water you have boats with lifts. So you can't apply that argument and we, as a board, cannot approve that because that is not the law. And we can't say that's a condition. MR. PIRES: I guess I respectfully disagree with the County Attorney because -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. The County -- this is -- Commissioner Henning articulated it accurately. He's absolutely right. And the County Attorney absolutely clarified it. And, furthermore, there was testimony as to what Mark Strain had said in terms of the view obstruction and so forth. It is not -- she has full view of the water. The issue right now, what it's boiling down to is the lifts and what constitutes view. MR. PIRES: And I would submit that she would no longer have the view of the water by the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: She absolutely has a view of the water. You can put that picture back up. MR. PIRES: With the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see the water. MR. PIRES: With the docks and the boats and the lifts, she will not have the view of the water. COMMISSIONER HILLER: She does have the view of the water because it's across from her. MR. KLATZKOW: Her view is not obstructed. Her view's not being obstructed. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Her view is not being obstructed. She might not like the fact that she, in addition, will see the boats with Page 219 December 8, 2015 the lifts, but it's not being obstructed. She has a view of the water. We cannot rule on something that is not within our purview to rule on. And so what I'm telling you, Tony, is that you're negotiating on a point that I don't believe that we can legally support. MR. PIRES: Okay. I disagree. I understand what Jeff is saying and what Commissioner Henning has said and what you are saying, but the way the ordinance reads, it says view of the waterway, and that's part of the waterway. It goes all the way up to that riprap. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is -- that's actually unreasonable because, I mean, they're willing to concede, they're willing to go parallel, they're willing to give up so many docks, and your community has said they are willing to accept parallel docks, and now you're introducing the lift issue, which is not part of the law, and I don't agree with your interpretation. MR. PIRES: Okay. The question -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is no obstruction. She can -- can you put that picture back up there? MR. PIRES: Because I asked the question as to whether or not they'd have mooring pilings on the outside, and he said yes, and that -- the purpose of that is to have lifts, and -- elevator lifts and some other type of lift. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And she would have -- but there was a -- there was some -- or I thought there was some other picture. Wasn't there a picture that went that way? But the point being is she would be across from that, and she would have all that water. And, in fact, let me tell you something. It gets worse because -- MR. KLATZKOW: Could we get testimony from Mike Bosi? COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when the boats are on the lift and the boats are lifted, you can see all the water right to the dock. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everybody's light's on. Let's hear -- Mr. Page 220 December 8, 2015 Bosi, would you please come forward. Maybe you could lend some clarity -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't see it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to this issue, please, sir. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning. The policy interpretation of how the view shed is to be interpreted in terms of what would be interruption is riparian line to riparian line to the middle of the waterway. Beyond that middle of the waterway, whatever is beyond that is not part of the consideration. So as long as there's not an obstruction beyond the riparian -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it even just goes to the middle of the waterway? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. PIRES: May I ask a question of Mr. Bosi? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. MR. PIRES: Mr. Bosi, is that a formal interpretation by county staff? MR. BOSI: That is the formal application of the past practice of the boat dock extension criteria. MR. PIRES: Does the term "riparian line" appear in any of the staff reports or analyses? MR. BOSI: No, they do not. MR. KLATZKOW: We've been analyzing that way forever. That's the analysis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we continue with the hearing? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's precedent. It's precedent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, a lot of people want to speak. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Mr. Pires, do you want to negotiate further, or are you at the end of your consideration? Page 221 December 8, 2015 MR. PIRES: Can we have five more minutes? MS. RILEY: I can give it in two minutes, not even that. MR. PIRES: Okay. MS. RILEY: I would be willing to go parallel docks. I didn't say that I wasn't. And I -- they also want to extend it 200 feet. So to would be 830 feet now. That's -- I'm not sure that he told that you, but MR. YOVANOVICH: I did. MS. RILEY: That's just -- you know, that's almost 200 feet less than the Naples Pier that's going to be down Haldeman Creek. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Ma'am, this -- you understand this is three votes here that's going to decide this? MS. RILEY: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I'm asking you if you want to continue to negotiate, because I'll go outside of the hearing and let you go and negotiate this again, or we're going to start with Mr. Yovanovich again. He's got 30 more minutes of time after all these questions. So if your answer is no -- MS. RILEY: I don't know. I guess I'm asking, are you willing to go parallel just the 630 feet and -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: We can't negotiate this in front. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we have -- go to your next item, if you can. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go outside the hearing. We're going to close the hearing. I'm going to let you talk again, please. Mr. Ochs, I'm sorry, but we're back on the regular agenda. Item #11B AWARD CONTRACT NO. 15-6519 - LELY AREA Page 222 December 8, 2015 STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP), WINGSOUTH STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS AND SANDY LANE INTERCONNECT STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, TO D.N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,513,224.50, PROJECT NO. 51101 — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That would take us now to Item 11B. This is a -- it's a recommendation -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please, let us proceed here. We're trying to do this. We're trying to do as best we can. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is for the LASIP project at Wing South. The last one in the stormwater drainage system. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Hear, hear. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are there any comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nope. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Questions? (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 223 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Ochs. Item #11D FIVE STAR GOURMET FOODS OF FLORIDA AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BASIC INDUSTRY GROWTH PROMOTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND APPROVE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT "TOP SHELF ." — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The next item is 11D, and this is a recommendation to approve Five Star Gourmet Foods of Florida as a qualified applicant to the Collier County Basic Industry Growth Promotion Incentive Program. Mr. Register will present. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Register, I'm going to start the conversation. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, go ahead. I have to get to the item. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I would like to say that I think this is a wonderful good-news item. I understand, sir, that Five Star Gourmet Foods of Florida is going to -- he's going to go in the place where the crab dip man was originally and is prepared to bring forward 250 jobs; is that the case? MR. REGISTER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please give us the other highlights, if you could. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to make a motion on that? CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion for approval. Page 224 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm here at the item. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you waiting, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not okay. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hell, I've been sitting up here for how long? You think I'm okay? CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm doing my best, sir. I'm trying to take us through the forest. Please bear with me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are these -- okay. Let's see. Two hundred -- create 250 jobs with the average wage of$28,000, so COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-eight thousand? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is -- 28,000 a year. That is less than the approved ordinance as far as -- MR. REGISTER: No, sir. The basic business -- excuse me. The Basic Industry Growth Promotion Incentive Program is calibrated on a specific wage. It's pegged to a three-digit North American Industry Classification System wage for the community. The 28,000 which, by the way, I believe will probably work out to be a little higher than that, but that is very, very definitively above the average wages that are specified by the program's requirements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that very-low-income wage? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I think so. MR. REGISTER: Manufacturing has different -- I'm sorry, sir. You have a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the Board's ordinance, if I recall, it was something like $54,000, in that frame; however, in Page 225 December 8, 2015 Immokalee, it was -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Lower. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- less. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, you've updated those policies since then. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what is -- what is the -- what is the updated ordinance? Tell me about it. What does it say? MR. REGISTER: The Basic Industry Growth Promotion Program is designed to be able to capture industries that don't exactly qualify for the state's QTI program which specifies you have to have 115 percent of the MSA average or the state's average. In this case, this was designed to be -- to catch the types of industries that are still targeted industries, and they're still very valuable because they -- they generate wealth, they produce goods, commodities, or services rather than consuming goods, commodities, or services. And in this case, this is a food production manufacturer, and they clearly meet the letter of the program in the sense that they -- the wage they've applied for exceeds the three-digit NAICS code average for Collier County in food manufacturing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm just concerned about the housing and other needs that $28,000 jobs is going to bring. MR. REGISTER: There's a significant amount of managerial and administrative jobs that are well in the high, high five figures, and in some cases is going into the six figures. There's just a -- there's an overwhelming number of employees that are the line staff, and so that's why your average is looking like that. But I can tell you, Commissioner, I've seen -- I've seen the numbers that -- after their preliminary analysis, and they're much higher than this, probably in the low 30s. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The average range would Page 226 December 8, 2015 be approximately, all right, 30-. What -- do you recall what the lowest wage is or, you know, the majority of them? MR. REGISTER: They're in the neighborhood. They're in the neighborhood of 12, 13,000 -- $13 an hour, Commissioner. But what we need to remind ourselves is that these are production jobs, and they're -- for three reasons it's going to be providing a positive benefit for our economic situation. It's a productive -- this is going to increase our gross county product by about $50 million a year annually. We've done an analysis on that. We have a REMI analysis that demonstrates over a 10-year period it will average about $50 million a year to increasing the county's output. Total economic output will be increased around approximately $100 million a year. The second point that I want you to understand is that these entry-level jobs in many cases help folks begin a career level -- a career path that puts them on the ability to upwardly increase or enhance their training. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Commissioners, I know you can't -- we can't do anything about this, but do you understand my concern? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do, and I was just going to ask, does this cover health care insurance? And if not -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. Is this full time -- full-time salary? Do they get benefits? Is this benefit jobs? MR. REGISTER: There's a requirement in this program that they must receive 51 percent -- or excuse me -- more than 50 percent of the health care costs, premium costs. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, please also be cognizant that this -- that this business is replacing a business that we lost that was very similar in nature. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. No, I -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: So there's a need to try to utilize that Page 227 December 8, 2015 facility, and I think it's probably, at the end of the day, a wash, but I think it's actually a very good-news item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're spending funds to create jobs, low-wage jobs that we'll have to do something with housing and other needs. So -- and, again, it's not something that we can address here now. MR. REGISTER: Commissioner, I'd also like to point out -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's something that we should address in the future. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point, but -- you're making an excellent point. CHAIRMAN NANCE: You want to let somebody -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. I'm ready to vote on the motion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know about health care, because all of a sudden I began to see where we were going to subsidize all of these jobs. So then we're really not creating a benefit to our community; we're creating another problem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: A challenge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hmm? A challenge, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Creating a challenge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a good thing you brought that up. MR. REGISTER: Commissioner, in the case where we weren't providing a stipulation about health care, I could agree with that, but we do have a stipulation that the employer must provide at least 51 percent of the health care costs for their premiums. That is included in this program, and it's a requirement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the employee has to pay the other 50 percent of the health care out of their $28,000 a year? Page 228 December 8, 2015 MR. REGISTER: There's the inference that that provides them some level of coverage for the capacity to provide health care to that -- in that household. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They can always sign up for Obama Care. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioners Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller. Remember, Commissioners, that these jobs are really bringing -- they're bringing back positions that were lost. There are people that lost their jobs when the crab man went out that are now, theoretically, you know, in some other line of work because we had this crab dip guy that was there in this facility. So, you know, like I say, it's kind of a wash, but it's a wonderful -- I think it's a wonderful opportunity to replace that terrible loss that we had. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do the pickers make this much, or do they make more? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh -- no, they make about the same. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might, just very briefly. We've followed precisely the requirements that the Board approved back in September of 2013 and then along with the subsequent revision in January of this year. So if you want to modify the program, I can respect that, but this is an applicant who followed the rules and -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Qualified. MR. OCHS: -- qualified. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so it's not a subjective decision. It's a factual-based objective decision based on an applicant who fell within the four corners of the incentive program we have in place. I don't see that we can deny. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And, Commissioner Hiller, it also is a wonderful opportunity in the food industry, which we're trying to Page 229 December 8, 2015 advance as a whole in our area and with our agribusiness, so I certainly support it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have people who are unemployed right now and a company that's coming in to hire people who were displaced because of the other company moving. So, I mean -- and to the issue of housing, this morning staff appropriately prepared a tiered incentive program that would assist to the maximum degree the very-low-income and the low-income as opposed to heavily subsidizing the above-median-income workers, and that addresses that issue. But, you know, on the one hand, Commissioner Henning says, well, how do we help these people, and on the other hand, this morning he turned down a program that specifically is tailored to help them. And these people are qualified for this job and not other jobs. So it is a good thing. MR. OCHS: I would also say that on top of the 250 new jobs created, there's been a $10 million capital investment; six to buy the building and another four that is going into additional improvements. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is on top of what this company is bringing, because there's no capital investment required to satisfy the incentive. In effect, the $3,000 is going directly to the employees. The employer will pay 27,000. We're, in effect, supporting 3,000 to, you know, create jobs where we lost jobs. So, yeah, I mean, you know, to get rid of unemployment, it's a worthwhile investment, particularly since these people are not qualified, at least to the extent that we know, to do something different or that something equivalent is out there to give them new employment or reemployment. MR. OCHS: Finally, I'll just remind the Board these are all performance-based -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Page 230 December 8, 2015 MR. OCHS: -- that they're all paid after they're certified, and they're paid out over a period of four years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to support it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm going to support it, too, but CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. She already finished. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm going to support this as well, especially because you feel that this is an important thing. But my suggestion would be from here on in when you're -- because we have -- we have a -- we have plenty of jobs. We just don't have the people to fill the jobs as it is right now, as you can see in the construction industry. May I suggest that from here on in you try and go after businesses that could pay their employees a little bit more, I mean, like a wage that is the kind of wages we're trying to create in this county, but we're not trying to create more low-income wages. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only problem is is that to the extent that people don't have the qualifications to be at a higher wage and they are here, we don't want to see them on the street and displaced. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, nobody's on the street. As you well know, our -- we're having -- people are fighting for employees, and so we don't have a job loss. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have a -- who's the motion maker? We have a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You made the motion, and I seconded it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I made a motion, and Commissioner Page 231 December 8, 2015 Fiala seconded it. Any further comment? (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: Okay. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Commissioners. I think you're going to be really happy with the results of this. I do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm counting on you, believe me. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, except for your second public hearing and your staff and commission communications, there's nothing else left to cover. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many are here for the second public hearing, the Briarwood or -- MR. OCHS: Countryside. COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Berkshire. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Berkshire. MR. OCHS: Countryside. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One. MR. MILLER: I only have one registered speaker for that item. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question. Was there -- why was this not on summary? Was there an objection to it? Oh, there was? Okay. Page 232 December 8, 2015 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Subsequent to the hearing, I believe we had received one letter of objection. So under your rules, it had to go to the regular. MR. REISCHL: The Chairman received a letter upon returning from the Planning Commission meeting. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's hear that one. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's hear that one. Let's open the -- let's open the -- which item is it, Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: It's Item 9B. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got my papers all confused here. Let's open the public hearing on 9B. MR. OCHS: Sir, you have ex parte. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And we'll start with swearing in of any of those that would like to — Item #9A (Continued from earlier in the meeting) KATHLEEN RILEY REQUEST FOR 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, Page 233 December 8, 2015 FLORIDA (PETITION ADA-PL20150001703) (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #11A) - MOTION TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AS AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES UPON APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND BRING BACK THE SETTLEMENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING — APPROVED MR. YOVANOVICH: We've got it done. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've got it done. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. We're closing 9B and going back to 9A. MR. PIRES: We'll find out when we approach the Board. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We think, when you approach the Board? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Counsel, why don't you both approach the bench, and then we can get it done. MR. PIRES: That sounds like an excellent idea. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's have a little side bar. CHAIRMAN NANCE: If you gentlemen would jointly approach the podium and please advise the Board as to your agreement, and let's see if we can get something resolved here. MR. PIRES: I'll ask my client, and if there are any issues, to immediately throw something at me so we make sure we get it all right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. What you have in front of you is the line where we would -- do you see the -- I think that's orange color. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just with your pencil, just -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. Okay. What you have in front of you today is basically from here to here with the angled slips. Page 234 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would extend the parallel to this line right here, which means we would have a total of 850 feet of parallel dock. We would agree to elevator lifts, okay. So roughly the extension from here to here would go from 18 feet to 10 feet, and the extension from here to here would be 15 feet, because this line meanders in. So it would be all elevator lifts, no outside pilings, so everybody's comfortable with that. We would have a maximum of 26 boats. We would not be limited on the length of the boats because that will be -- it may result in fewer boats, and the depth of the water's going to limit how big the boat can be anyway. I'm going to let Tony draft the language that makes it clear that none of the lifts can be used by anybody other than the actual owners of the -- if we have a problem drafting that language -- and we'll do that in consultation with the County Attorney -- we'll come back and resolve that. I don't think that's going to be an issue. It won't be an issue. I told you Tony could draft it. I wouldn't have said that if I didn't trust him. So that's what we've proposed. This was what we were originally going to build in front of Windstar anyway, and they were comfortable with the parallel there in the first place. So hopefully you-all can agree to that as the extension request, and we can all go home and not listen to me for another 30 minutes, plus everybody else. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how do you want to do it, Jeff? Do you want to write it up and bring it back and then we close the hearing and that's what we vote on, or do you want us to vote on what -- you know, close the hearing, vote on this as a motion, and then let you guys draft it? MR. KLATZKOW: I think what you do is you kick this back to Page 235 December 8, 2015 the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission has the resolution right now. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, this is an appeal. MR. KLATZKOW: Can you let me finish? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Because you're going to have to draft a document. The document's going to have to be in a resolution form, okay. And in a sense -- in essence, it will go on the consent agenda for the Planning Commission just to make sure that everybody's on board with what was written so you don't have to see it again. So as long as you guys are in agreement, okay, it will go back to the Planning Commission just so they can amend their resolution. MR. YOVANOVICH: But they don't need to, Jeff-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: They don't. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- because they can reverse -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't want to bring it back here, and I don't -- okay? Do you want to bring it back here next time? We can do that in January. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It makes sense to -- I would much rather that they draft it and put it on consent on our agenda. MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HILLER: To give it to the Planning Commission is, like, a terrible idea. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not a terrible idea. They're the ones who did the final order. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it is, I mean, because I think it ultimately -- I actually believe this needs to be decided by us. I don't agree that the Planning Commission has the final authority to decide these things. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion to approve Page 236 December 8, 2015 the settlement offer between the two parties -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't we have to close the hearing first? CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- as described. MR. YOVANOVICH: You probably need to listen to the -- okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to close the hearing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to close the public -- we're going to close the public hearing, first of all. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion that we adopt a settlement of this appeal as described by the two parties who have agreed upon what was read into the record; is that true, gentlemen, both your cases? MR. PIRES: That's correct based upon the graphic that's on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. And we are going to -- we are going to let Mr. Klatzkow make sure that it's legally sufficient to do that, and I'm looking for a second. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: And there's a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just so -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then just put it -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we make sure that everything we've just said, that you've just said and they've just said, is actually what appears on the final settlement, because many times it doesn't appear the same way. Just make sure. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, let us know if we're going in the right direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, except for we still need to hear from the public, so we can't really close the public hearing. Page 237 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The public has the option to waive. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We haven't heard the speakers. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have not heard the speakers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The speakers, that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And talk us out of it? CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- withstanding the settlement that is agreed to by both parties? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please raise your hand. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please raise your hand if you insist on speaking despite the settlement of the parties. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's a hard question to consider, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let the record reflect that the -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let the record reflect that there are no public speakers that wish to speak. MR. PIRES: And, Mr. Chairman, if the motion passes, we suggest coming back on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We're going to bring it back on the consent agenda. All right. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 238 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much, gentlemen. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you for your patience. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you for working -- for your very hard work at resolution. Item #11A 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 #9A) - MOTION TO CONTINUE AND BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA — APPROVED MR. YOVANOVICH: You need to approve the ST resolution. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we'd like to bring 11A, the companion item, back when the consent agenda item comes at the same time. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it will also be on the consent? COMMISSIONER HILLER: It should be. Page 239 December 8, 2015 MR. OCHS: Yeah, sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Whatever. It will not be on your public portion. CHAIRMAN NANCE: So we're going to continue Item 11A? MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to continue Item 1 1A and bring it back to consent with the settlement? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just did. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: 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, Mr. Ochs. Is that fine for you? MR. OCHS: That's fantastic. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are we okay, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that works. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, now we move to Item 9B. Page 240 December 8, 2015 Item #9B ORDINANCE 2015-66: AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 83-46, AS AMENDED, THE BERKSHIRE LAKES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY ADDING A 2.17 ACRE RECREATION AREA IN THE EXISTING PRESERVE AND MOVING 2.17 ACRES OF EXISTING PRESERVE TO SMALL SEPARATE PRESERVE AREAS THROUGHOUT PARCEL "F"; BY ADDING SECTION 7.05 TO ADD A DEVIATION TO ALLOW SMALL SEPARATE PRESERVE AREAS INSTEAD OF CONTINUOUS PRESERVES; BY ADDING SECTION 7.06 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE RECREATION TRACT NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL "F"; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN TO REFLECT ACREAGES FOR THE RECREATION AREA, PRESERVE AREAS AND LAKES/WATER MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AREA UNDER THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE "0" DISTRICT, AND TO DEPICT THE RECREATION AREA AND SEPARATE PRESERVE AREAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 1093± ACRES, IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF RADIO ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA [PUDA-PL20150000303] — ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NANCE: Item 9B, all right. Thank you. We are going to give everybody a moment just to clear the room, and then we're going to go to the next public hearing, which is Item 9B. You want to describe what it is, Mr. Ochs? Page 241 December 8, 2015 MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. If everyone could please leave quietly while we can continue business. Thank you. Commissioners, this is a recommendation to approve an amendment to Ordinance No. 8346, the Berkshire Lakes Planned Unit Development, by adding a 2.17-acre recreation area in the existing preserve and moving 2.17 acres of existing preserve to small separate preserve areas throughout Parcel F, and that's essentially the petition. The item does require ex parte disclosure. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Before we go to ex parte, I will ask all of those that would like to testify on this hearing to please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. At this time we're going to have ex parte communication on Item 9B, starting with Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have had no ex parte communication except reading the agenda. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings with the County Attorney, and I've read the staff report. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have read the staff report and spoken to staff. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: No disclosure, and I reviewed staffs report. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, do you have any disclosure for Item 9B, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I believe I saw some objections, email objections. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Page 242 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: In the staff report? MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, very well. Sir, would you like to -- would you like to present? MR. HOOD: Good afternoon. Fred Hood with Davidson Engineering on behalf of Countryside Golf and Country Club, the applicant. I think we only have one speaker, and they've decided to waive their right to speak. The objections -- I can answer questions on the objections, and I can also go through the presentation if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is the person who's objecting here? MR. HOOD: No. COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not here to put their objections on the record? MR. HOOD: They are not. MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't -- CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to move approval then. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm seconding it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There's a motion to approve and a second. Any discussion by commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none -- MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I would feel more comfortable if I could at least call this name of the speaker. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please do, sir. MR. MILLER: Michael Bradfield, do you waive? MR. BRADFIELD: Yes, I do, sir. MR. MILLER: Thank you. Page 243 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry, sir. Okay. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Sir? CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. MR. OCHS: Did you close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we're going to close the public hearing right now, I guess. Okay. The public hearing is closed to deliberations. There's a motion and a second to approve. 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.) CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. That passes 5-0. Thank you for everyone's patience. MR. HOOD: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe that takes us to Item 15, staff and commission general communications. Given the lateness of the hour, I have nothing, Commissioners, except to wish you all a very happy and safe holiday season, to you and yours. Page 244 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN NANCE: Absolutely. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and I wish you a very Happy Birthday, and I hope your wife takes you out to dinner or you do something special after this day. MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN NANCE: We've made it memorable for him, indeed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I have nothing -- nothing else but to wish the viewing public and my colleagues here a wonderful, happy, and fun-filled holiday season and all the best in the new year. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Merry Christmas to everyone -- I go right for the Christmas -- and happy holiday to those others who celebrate different holidays together. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Very well. I will thank everyone today for their perseverance and collegiality in working through a most difficult day. I wish to extend holiday wishes to everyone. And before we return, I will tell you that there's going to be a ribbon cutting on the Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, I believe it's January the 5th in Immokalee, which will have -- I believe it's going to have the president of the University of Florida attend. So if you'd like to go out and like information on that, I'd be more than happy to send it to you. It will be a grand affair. I've enjoyed being your chairman for the last year. I hope I've met your approval, and I've done my very best to try to help us craft our way through the items, and I look forward to serving with you next year. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. And thank you so much, Page 245 December 8, 2015 Commissioner Nance. You were wonderful as the chair, and you managed us very nicely this year, and we appreciate everything you've brought to the dais. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Happy Birthday, Leo. Happy Birthday, Nick. Happy Birthday to everybody born in the month of December, just as a broad statement. MR. OCHS: And to you, yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You, too. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct. Happy Birthday to me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can go out to celebrate with you and your wife tonight, if you want. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll go out and celebrate with you. MR. OCHS: Come on out, yes. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- and Merry Christmas to all who celebrate Christmas, and Happy Holidays to everybody who celebrates any holiday during this month, whatever that holiday is and, most importantly, at least in my mind, is Happy New Year. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo, let's skip the dinner, and let's have a beer. MR. OCHS: That works for me, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just mention before we close that Commissioner Henning has had a prop on his desk for the last hour or so. Show them what your prop is. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's got a pacifier from his baby. Isn't it cute? COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to say he's regressing. CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think we should issue those to all Page 246 December 8, 2015 commissioners, actually. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is an orthopedic recommended pacifier. But I did buy an eco-friendly vehicle this weekend, fully not motorized by any combustible engine at all. CHAIRMAN NANCE: What is it, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a little cart that I got at Walmart for my daughter. She's got a little button there she can push. CHAIRMAN NANCE: A little horn? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Trying to move around a little bit. CHAIRMAN NANCE: There we go. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's funny. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, anyways, maybe I can get a rebate on my taxes because it's -- MR. OCHS: Tax credit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tax credit. Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Hanukkah and, most definitely, Merry Christmas. That's it. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, thank you. If there are no other comments and no other business for the good of the county, we'll call this an adjournment for this meeting and for 2015. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you've been a great chairman. CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. **** Commissioner Hiller moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Page 247 December 8, 2015 Item #16A1 THE 2016 SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTALS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP), AS ALIGNED WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND TO APPROVE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE SCHEDULE — ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 26, 2016, JUNE 24, 2016 AND OCTOBER 28, 2016 Item #16A2 PETITION VAC-PL20150001828 TO QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN THE 7.5-FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH THE BACK YARD OF LOTS 26 & 27, BLOCK 74, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 6, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 15 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOLIO #62841920109 Item #16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR SATURNIA FALLS PLAT 1, PHASE 4, PL20130001634, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND Page 248 December 8, 2015 ENGINEERING SERVICES STAFF ON AUGUST 20, 2015, AND THEY FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR SATURNIA FALLS PLAT 1, PHASE 2, PL20120000769, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING SERVICES STAFF ON AUGUST 20, 2015, AND THEY FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 2015-238: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MARBELLA LAKES APPLICATION NUMBER AR-7386; ACCEPT A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR TRACTS "A-2" AND "A-3A" (GREEN BLVD.) WHICH WERE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY ON THE PLAT; ACCEPT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACTS "A-2", "A-3A', AND TRACT "J" (LAKE); AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A6 Page 249 December 8, 2015 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF LANDINGS AT BEARS PAW REPLAT ONE, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001975 — LOCATED IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST Item #16A7 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA POINTE ESTATES, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001537) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATION Item #16A8 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GROVES AT ORANGE BLOSSOM, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001156) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATION Item #16A9 RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH, PHASE 3, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001150) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — Page 250 December 8, 2015 W/STIPULATION Item #16A10 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 2C, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150002037) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATION Item #16A11 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH, PHASE 2, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140002203) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATION Item #16Al2 ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTOMATIC VACATION OF THE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF VERCELLI AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 48, PAGES 11 THROUGH 13 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY — THE LASIP PROJECT WITHIN TREVISO BAY HAS BEEN INSPECTED, ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEGED PER THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPER'S TITLE COMPANY Page 251 December 8, 2015 Item #16A13 RELEASE OF THREE (3) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $419,000 FOR PAYMENT OF $450, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. SERGIO AND SARA GARITA, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NOS. CEAU20110011945, CEPM20110001296 AND CESD20110001287, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 15TH STREET SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS: CEAU20110011945 IS FOR BUILDING A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUIRED PERMITS WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2015; CEPM20110001296 IS FOR AN UNMAINTAINED POOL WITH BLACK WATER WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON JANUARY 11, 2012; AND CESD20110001287 FOR EXPIRED PERMITS AND NO CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION/OCCUPANCY FOR THE POOL, GAME ROOOM ADDITION, LANAI AND A SHED WITH NO PERMITS AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON OCTOBER 21, 2015 Item #16A14 RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $137,000 FOR PAYMENT OF $450, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JOSELINO AND YOLANDO SANCHEZ, SANDY SANCHEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEAU20110007445, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2530 4TH AVE SE, COLLIER Page 252 December 8, 2015 COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR BUILDING A FENCE WITHOUT OBTAINING THE REQUIRED PERMIT WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 Item #16A15 RELEASE OF TWO (2) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $259,200 FOR PAYMENT OF $600, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JORGE L. MENDEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NOS. CESD20120006927 AND CEPM20120013078, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3320 2ND AVENUE SE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CESD20120006927 IS A VIOLATION FOR UNPERMITTED ALTERATIONS TO A GARAGE CONVERTED INTO A LIVING SPACE WITH FULL BATH AND KITCHEN WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 AND CEPM20120013078IS FOR A VACANT HOME W/SCREEN ENCLOSURES AND SWIMMING POOL THAT WERE DAMAGED BY FIRE WHICH WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON AUGUST 17, 2015 Item #16A16 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 TO CONTRACT #11-5639 IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,016 WITH TY LIN INTERNATIONAL, FOR "DESIGN & RELATED SERVICES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF CR29 BRIDGE (#030161) OVER CHOKOLOSKEE BAY" (PROJECT NO. 66066.9) — PROVIDING SUFFICIENT TIME FOR FUNDING AND TO PROVIDE POST DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE DESIGNER OF RECORD TO SERVE THE PROJECT Page 253 December 8, 2015 THROUGH ADVERTISEMENT, AWARD, CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT CLOSE OUT ON AN 18 MONTH CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Item #16A17 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $279,133.44 (PROJECTS #60066 AND #60088) — FOR THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FAIR SHARE INTERSECTIONS PROJECTS AND TRAFFIC COUNTS PROGRAM Item #16A18 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND TRANSFER FUNDING FOR PROJECTS WITHIN TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUND (313) IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,156.83 (PROJECTS #69081, #60088, AND #60066) — FOR COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS PROGRAM AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW Item #16A19 BENTLEY VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CC-NAPLES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR THE PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF BENTLEY VILLAGE, A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (CCRC) IN THE RETREAT AT NAPLES Page 254 December 8, 2015 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-71 — THAT INCLUDES DEMOLISHING 84 EXISTING UNITS AND ADDING 72 NEW UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 740 UNITS IN THE PUD Item #16A20 PROCEEDING WITH THE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STORMWATER UTILITY FOR UTILIZATION AS AN ALTERNATE DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR ONGOING AND FUTURE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RELATED INITIATIVES AND OPERATIONS, ESTIMATED COST $50,000-$100,000, PROJECT NUMBER 51144, STORMWATER FEASIBILITY AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN, FUND 325 — TO ESTABLISH A USER FEE RATE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL-GENERATED STORMWATER RUNOFF DISCHARGED FROM A PROPERTY, AND THEN ENTERS THE COUNTY'S STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Item #16A21 A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE DATED NOVEMBER 10, 2015, FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES AND INLETS ANNUAL MONITORING FOR 2016; APPROVAL OF A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT #15-6382 GRANT FUNDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE; AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THIS WORK ORDER AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM (PROJECT NO. 90536) — FOR WIGGINS PASS, DOCTORS PASS, SOUTH Page 255 December 8, 2015 MARCO, VANDERBILT, PARK SHORE, PELICAN BAY AND NAPLES BEACHES Item #16A22 — Continued to the January 12, 2015 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE NAMING OF A COLLIER COUNTY ARTIFICIAL REEF SITE PURSUANT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY AND ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,000 FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF DONATIONS (PROJECT NO. 44038) Item #16A23 PARTIAL RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $134,500, FOR PAYMENT OF $7,837.92, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V., HUMBERTO L. JAEN, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. 2007070252, RELATING TO PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3870 1ST AVENUE SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CONSISTING OF NUMEROUS HOUSING VIOLATIONS WHICH WERE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON MAY 1, 2009 Item #16B1 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) ACTING AS THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY Page 256 December 8, 2015 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCESS AN AMENDMENT IN THE 2015 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CYCLE 2 TO AMEND LDC SECTION 2.03.07 G.5 IMMOKALEE MAIN STREET OVERLAY SUB- DISTRICT THAT WILL ALLOW PROHIBITIVE USES TO BECOME ELIGIBLE CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE MAIN STREET OVERLAY SUB-DISTRICT (MSOSD) BOUNDARY TO INCENTIVIZE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 2015-239: A RESOLUTION REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,159.12 Item #16C2 A $296,355.34 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-48 TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR THE ACTIVATION OF NORTH REVERSE OSMOSIS WELL 109 (PROJECT NO. 70085) — MAINTAINING THE POTABLE WATER PRODUCTION CAPABILITY AND RELIABILITY AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT Item #16C3 AWARDING A $329,000 WORK ORDER TO HOLE MONTES, Page 257 December 8, 2015 INC., UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER #14-6345 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE MASTER PUMP STATION 306 FORCE MAIN PHASE III AND NAPLES MANOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 2 PROJECT (PROJECT NUMBERS 70044 AND 71010) AFTER FINAL REVIEW BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Item #16C4 ADOPTING THE VISION, MISSION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES AS PRESENTED AT THE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY WORKSHOP ON NOVEMBER 3, 2015 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED LIVING, INC. FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SHELTER PLUS SUPPORTIVE SERVICES CARE PROGRAM IN COLLIER COUNTY TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH UPDATED U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT STANDARDS (NO FISCAL IMPACT) — LINKING THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR HOMELESS PERSONS WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL; HAVE CRONIC PROBLEMS WITH ALCOHOL, DRUGS OR BOTH; OR HAVE (AIDS) ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME AND RELATED DISEASES Page 258 December 8, 2015 Item #16D2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. WHICH WILL PROVIDE FUNDS TO ALLOW TWENTY CHILDREN TO RECEIVE LEADERSHIP AND JOB TRAINING PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR AT TWO PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION FACILITIES (NO NET FISCAL IMPACT) — FOR TWENTY STUDENTS GRADES 7 THROUGH 11 WHO WILL PARTICIPATE IN OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS PROVIDING RECREATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP CURRICULUM FOR THE YOUTH/TEENS OF IMMOKALEE; THAT INCLUDES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 7 HABITS OF HAPPY KIDS AT THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK AND IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK Item #16D3 THREE RELEASES OF LIEN FOR FULL PAYMENT OF DEFERRAL OF 100 PERCENT OF COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS — LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING: 10287 KINGDOM COURT; 4520 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE #203 AND 4500 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE #105 Item #16D4 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT Page 259 December 8, 2015 AGREEMENT WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION AND COLLIER COUNTY TO INCREASE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $401,229, REVISE MILESTONES AND CLARIFY LANGUAGE ALLOWING ALL FUNDS BE DISBURSED FOR ALL ACTIVITIES FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS HATCHERS PRESERVE — EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT TO OCTOBER 30, 2016 Item #16D5 ONE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,082.98 FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT WHERE THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL — FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3436 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE, IMMOKALEE Item #16D6 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING RECOVERY OF COUNTY FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM INVOLVING A COLLIER AREA TRANSIT BUS SHELTER - $15,128.60 REPRESENTS THE COST TO REPAIR A DAMAGED BUS SHELTER ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD JUST SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND $1,711 .00 FOR THER REPLACEMENT OF A NEW BENCH IN IMMOKALEE JUST NORTH OF ROBERTS AVENUE WEST, TOTALING $16,839.60 FOR BOTH LOCATIONS Item #16D7 Page 260 December 8, 2015 RESOLUTION 2015-240: A RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING PARTS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY AND ESTABLISHING THE POLICY ANEW TO MODIFY THE FEE CATEGORIES FOR FACILITY RENTAL, CHILDCARE PROGRAMS, REFUNDS, AND CAMPING Item #16D8 ELEVEN MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,750 — LOCATED AT THE FOLLOWING: 10287 KINGDOM CT, NAPLES; 5675 WHITAKER ROAD #101, NAPLES; 191 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, NAPLES; 3490 GOLDEN GATE BLVD., NAPLES; 3551 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE, IMMOKALEE; 5250 MCCARTY STREET, NAPLES; 3436 CARSON LAKES CIRCLE, IMMOKALEE; 8468 IBIS COVE CIRCLE, NAPLES; 4465 19TH AVE SW, NAPLES; 571 18TH STREET SE, NAPLES; 2095 DELLA DRIVE, NAPLES Item #16D9 THE FIRST TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER CAMP KEAIS STRAND PARCELS — THERE IS NO ACCESS TO THE PARCELS AND STAFF HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO INITIATE MANAGEMENT ACTION, THE PLAN IS TO REVIEW ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES EVERY TWO YEARS WITH AN UPDATED INTERIM MANAGEMENT/MONITORING PLAN UNTIL Page 261 December 8, 2015 CURRENT CONDITIONS CHANGE Item #16D10 THE SECOND TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER MCILVANE MARSH PROPERTIES — EXTENDING THE CONTINUED DIRECTION FOR THE MANAGEMENT PLAN THROUGH OCTOBER 2017 Item #16D11 FIVE-YEAR UPDATE OF THE FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE — EXTENDING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO 2025 Item #16D12 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTIVE LIVING, INC. — EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT TO MARCH 31, 2016, WITH REHABILIATION ACTIVITIES COMPLETED BY 2016 AND AFFORDABILITY PERIOD SHALL END IN 2026 Item #16D13 SECOND TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE — EXTENDING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO 2017 Page 262 December 8, 2015 Item #16D14 FIVE-YEAR UPDATE OF THE FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER WET WOODS PRESERVE Item #16D15 MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF COLLIER COUNTY, CHILDRENS' ADVOCACY CENTER OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS TO PROVIDE VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPANTS IN THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) — PROVIDING THREE NEW NON-PROFIT AGENCIES THAT WILL PARTICIPATE IN THE COUNTY'S VOLUNTEER RETIRED AND SENIOR PROGRAM Item #16D16 RESIDENTIAL LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE, 6315 PEPPER ROAD, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142 FOR OVERNIGHT AND WEEKEND SECURITY PRESENCE — THE TENANT WILL PARK AN EASILY IDENTIFIABLE AGENCY VEHICLE ON THE PORPERTY, MOW THE TWO ACRE AREA SURROUNDING THE RESIDENCE AS NEEDED, MAKE SECURITY PATROLS AND MONITOR THE PRESERVE AND CAMPGROUNDS IN RETURN FOR LIVING IN THE RESIDENCE Item #16D17 Page 263 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE WITH W.L. CRAWFORD AND DOROTHY L. CRAWFORD AND JIM H. MOODY AND TINA P. MOODY FOR THE REHABILITATION OF NINETY- SIX RENTAL UNITS THAT HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL — THE FINAL PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 Item #16D18 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #15-6490R "COMCAST UNDERGROUND CONVERSION VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PHASE II, III AND IV, INSTALLATION AND CONNECTION OF NEW UNDERGROUND COMCAST NETWORK" TO CABLE WIRING SPECIALIST INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $769,697.70 Item #16D19 ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT APPLICATION FOR FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION/ ENHANCEMENT SECTION FUNDING FOR THE HYDROLOGIC MODELING AT PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE Item #16D20 OUT-OF-CYCLE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CATEGORY "A" GRANT APPLICATION FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,200 FROM FLORIDA STATE PARKS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR MOBILE TOLL BOOTHS THAT Page 264 December 8, 2015 WILL HELP EXPEDITE TRAFFIC INTO DELNOR-WIGGINS STATE PARK AND TO MAKE THE FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — THE PARK WILL ALSO OPEN A HALF-HOUR EARLIER THAN IT CURRENTLY DOES BUT NO EARLIER THAN SUNRISE, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 8, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2016 Item #16D21 EXPENDITURE OF $51,425 TO PROVIDE INTERSECTION CONTROL AT AN AREA OUTSIDE OF DELNOR-WIGGINS STATE PARK DURING PEAK TIMES DURING THE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL DETAIL AGREEMENT FOR THE PROVISION OF THESE SERVICES — FOR EMPLOYING AN OFF-DUTY COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY FOR TRAFFIC DIRECTION AT THE INTERSECTION Item #16D22 — Moved to Item #11G (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16D23 RESOLUTION 2015-241 : COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014- 2015 AS REQUIRED; APPROVE THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT RESOLUTION; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO Page 265 December 8, 2015 CERTIFY THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Item #16D24 RESOLUTION 2015-242: A REQUEST BY THE COLLIER COUNTY ATV AD HOC COMMITTEE TO EXTEND ITS SUNSET DATE TO DECEMBER 12, 2016, SO IT MAY PURSUE SEVERAL POTENTIAL ATV PARK SITES, AND CONSIDER CHANGES TO THE "TICKETS TO RIDE" PROGRAM TO ALLOW ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES, RECREATIONAL OFF HIGHWAYS VEHICLES, AND OFF HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLES TO PARTICIPATE Item #16D25 — Continued to the January 12, 2015 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FY15-16 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,378,200 AND ALSO TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $249,220 TO FILL A FUNDING GAP DUE TO STATE NON- FUNDING OF THE ACHA MEDICAID MATCH PROGRAMS Item #16D26 AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #12-5856S SERVICES FOR SENIORS, SUPPLEMENTAL, TO ADD ADT, LLC AND ALMOST FAMILY PC OF SW FLORIDA, LLC TO THE Page 266 December 8, 2015 APPROVED ROSTER OF SERVICE PROVIDERS TO HOMEBOUND SENIORS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS (NO ADDITIONAL FISCAL IMPACT) — THE AGREEMENT WILL BE TERMINATE ON JUNE 30, 2018 Item #16D27 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A LANDLORD PAYMENT AGREEMENT WITH ONE LANDLORD, ALLOWING THE COUNTY TO ADMINISTER THE RAPID RE-HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM THROUGH THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAM — PROVIDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HOMELESS OR AT RISK OF BEING HOMELESS IN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16E1 ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH FILTER PRO USA, LLC. D/B/A KLEEN AIR RESEARCH, AS IT RELATES TO INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #14-6304 "AIR FILTRATION SERVICES" FOR SERVICES RELATED TO REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION OF AIR FILTERS IN COUNTY-OWNED FACILITIES — COUNTY STAFF WAS NOTIFIED OF THE PURCHAND AND NAME CHANGE ON AUGUST 1, 2015 Item #16E2 Page 267 December 8, 2015 DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM THE GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL MSTU AND THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE AND RESCUE MSTU RESULTING FROM THE SALE OF THE FORMER FIRE CODE OFFICIALS OFFICE AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E3 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC SERVICES, THAT REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO DIRECTLY PAY THE PROVIDERS OF ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES AT THE ROBERTS CENTER WHERE THE SENIORS NUTRITION PROGRAM IS LOCATED — IN IMMOKALEE Item #16E4 RECOMMENDATION TO RENEW COLLIER COUNTY'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT FOR ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE — FOR CONTINUED ALS SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS AND VISITORS OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #16E5 Page 268 December 8, 2015 ACCEPTING AN AWARD OF $104,475 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, WHICH REQUIRES A LOCAL MATCH OF $34,825, FOR THE PURCHASE OF TEN HYDRAULIC ASSIST STRETCHERS AND TO APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF 10 HYDRAULIC ASSISTED STRETCHERS Item #16E6 AWARDING ITB #15-6405, "ROOFING REPAIRS AND INSPECTION SERVICES," TO FA REMODELING AND REPAIRS INC., AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AND CFS ROOFING SERVICES LLC AS THE SECONDARY CONTRACTOR, FOR ROOFING REPAIRS AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR WITH UP TO THREE (3) ANNUAL RENEWAL OPTIONS — FOR THE INSPECTION AND ROOFING REPAIR SERVICES FOR ALL COLLIER COUNTY OWNED AND LEASED PROPERTIES Item #16E7 RESOLUTION 2015-243: AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,517.12 FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION Page 269 December 8, 2015 Item #16E8 ACCEPTING VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,800 TO PURCHASE URBAN INTERFACE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT (COUNTY MATCH $7,400) — FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING EVERY TEN YEARS OR IF CONTAMINATION OCCURS Item #16E9 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #15-6475R, "PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES," TO FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC. (PRIMARY) AND GULF COAST WINNELSON CO. (SECONDARY), FOR FACILIY RELATED REPAIRS AND INSTALLATIONS Item #16E10 PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016 THROUGH SUN LIFE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2016 FOR AN ANNUAL PREMIUM OF $934,020 — THE CURRENT COVERAGE EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 Item #16E11 AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #15-6431 FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE BCC AGENDA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ACCELA, INC. — THE CONTRACT IS FOR AN Page 270 December 8, 2015 INITIAL FOUR-YEAR TERM AND THEN ALLOWS FOUR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS Item #16E12 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO WORK ORDERS, CHANGE ORDERS, SURPLUS PROPERTY AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED — FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 20 THROUGH NOVEMBER 13, 2015 Item #16E13 — Moved to Item #11F (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16F1 RESOLUTION 2015-244: MODIFYING ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES RELATING TO EMERGENCY REPAIRS OF PRIVATE ROADS BY GRANTING THE COUNTY MANAGER THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER EMERGENCY REPAIRS IN THE BOARD'S ABSENCE Item #16F2 RESOLUTION 2015-245: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F3 TOURIST TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO SPONSOR TWO Page 271 December 8, 2015 UPCOMING DECEMBER 2015 SPORTS EVENTS: THE GULFSHORE HOLIDAY HOOPFEST AND THE NAPLES HOLIDAY SHOOTOUT, TOTALING $12,500 AND MAKING A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM — HOOPFESTS WILL BE HELD AT GOLDEN GATE, BARRON COLLIER AND ST. JOHN NEUMANN HIGH SCHOOLS Item #16F4 TOURIST TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO SUPPORT THREE UPCOMING FY16 SPORTS EVENTS UP TO $14,150 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM — TO BE HELD AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF 2016 Item #16F5 TOURIST TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE DECEMBER 2015 FOOTBALL UNIVERSITY (FBU) NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP UP TO $60,270 AND, MAKING A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM — THAT WILL TAKE PLACE DECEMBER 19 - 21, 2015 Item #16F6 AWARDING RFQ #15-6477 TO ATILUS FOR INTERNET MARKETING SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE TOURISM DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $34, 800 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16F7 Page 272 December 8, 2015 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2016 — THIS FOURTH EXTENSION WILL END ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 Item #16G1 RESOLUTION 2015-246: CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. G0615 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT AVGAS FUEL FARM FACILITY AT THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK, PROJECT #33454 (FISCAL IMPACT $120,000 FDOT AND $30,000 LOCAL MATCH) Item #16G2 RESOLUTION 2015-247: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ADOPTS THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FOR 2016 Item #16H1 Page 273 December 8, 2015 RESOLUTION 2015-248: REAPPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD — REAPPOINTING JOHN FUCHS AND REBECCA GIBSON- LAEMEL, WITH BOTH TERMS EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31, 2019 Item #16H2 RESOLUTION 2015-249: APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - APPOINTING GARY VENTRESS AS THE RESIDENTIAL RERESENTATIVE AND PEGGY PINTERICH AS THE COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, BOTH FILLING A VACANT SEAT WITH TERMS EXPIRING ON MARCH 31, 2018 AND APPOINTING MICHAEL SHEPHERD AS THE RESIDENTIAL REPRESENTATIVE FILLING A VACANT SEAT WITH TERM EXPIRING ON MARCH 31, 2019 Item #16H3 RESOLUTION 2015-250: APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS — APPOINTING BARRY GERENSTEIN WITH TERM EXPIRING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2018 Item #16H4 RESOLUTION 2015-251 : REAPPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — REAPPOINTING BARBARA MINCH ROSENBERG WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 9, 2019 Page 274 December 8, 2015 Item #16H5 RESOLUTION 2015-252: REAPPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY — REAPPOINTING EDWARD A. MORTON WITH TERM EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 9, 2019 Item #16H6 RESOLUTION 2015-253: APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE — APPOINTING GABRIELLA R. MIYAMOTO WITH TERM EXPIRING ON NOVEMBER 13, 2019 Item #16I1 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED Page 275 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS December 8, 2015 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. CLERK OF COURTS: 1) Items to be Authorized by BCC for Payment: 2) Letter from Clerk to BCC Chairman Tim Nance: Letter to Commissioner Tim Nance, BCC Chairman from Clerk of the Courts Dwight. E Brock, regarding a "payables report" requested by the Board of County Commissioners B. DISTRICTS: 1) Heritage Greens Community Development District: Meeting Agenda 09/21/2015 Meeting Minutes 09/21/2015 Meeting Minutes 09/21/2015 (CDD Audit Committee) 2) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District: Meeting Agenda 09/04/2015; 10/02/2015 (09/04/2015 Continuation) Meeting Minutes 09/04/2015; 10/02/2015 (09/04/2015 Continuation) C. OTHER: 1) Administrative Services Department: Fiscal Year 2015 Report on Interest Penalty Payments 2) Collier County Water & Wastewater Authority: May 13, 2015 Water& Wastewater Authority Meeting Minutes and Final Orders 2015-02, 2015-03, 2015-04 and 2015-05, adopted November 23, 2015 December 8, 2015 Item #16J1 APPROVING AN INCREASE TO CONTRACT #13-6132, "ANNUAL AUDIT SERVICES," WITH CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000, TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPACT OF CHANGES IN ACCOUNTING AND AUDIT STANDARDS Item #16J2 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FEDERAL HHS VOTE PROGRAM GRANT AWARD 2011 FUNDS FOR VOTING ACCESSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,305.04 Item #16J3 RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 29 AND NOVEMBER 25, 2015 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16K1 JOINT MOTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $45,000 FOR PARCEL 139RDUE IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GROVER C. WOODY, III, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-0199, WHICH WAS CONDEMNED FOR Page 276 December 8, 2015 THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM WILSON TO 20TH STREET E, (PROJECT NO. 60040) (FISCAL IMPACT: $17,810) Item #16K2 AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH BRYANT MILLER OLIVE PA EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO DECEMBER 13, 2018 Item #16K3 JOINT MOTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000 FOR TOTAL COMPENSATION OWED FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 240RDUE IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. OCTAVIO M. ALFONSO, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-230 REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM WILSON BOULEVARD TO 20TH STREET E (FISCAL IMPACT: $5,320, PROJECT 60040) Item #16K4 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED ALAN R. TORTOLANI AND GAIL S. TORTOLANI V. COLLIER COUNTY (CASE NO. 14-CA-002017), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FROM A VEHICLE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH 16, 2012 Page 277 December 8, 2015 Item #16K5 A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 FOR PARCEL 143DAME IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. APRIL L. CHAPPELL, ET AL., CASE NO. 10-3932-CA, TAKEN AS PART OF THE ROYALWOOD/WHITAKER PORTION OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51101) (FISCAL IMPACT: $31,860) Item #16K6 ACCEPT SIX (6) OFFERS OF JUDGMENT BY RESPONDENTS IN FIVE (5) PENDING EMINENT DOMAIN CASES, RELATING TO PROJECT NO. 60040, THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BLVD., FOR TOTAL COMPENSATION, INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, OF THE COUNTY'S ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 151RDUE, 16ORDUEA, 16ORDUEB, 164RDUE, 252RDUE, AND 267RDUE (FISCAL IMPACT: $14,786) Item #17A RESOLUTION 2015-254: PETITION VAC-PL20150002249, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT, LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF LOT 17, BLOCK D, COUNTRYSIDE AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, SECTION ONE, PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 50 THROUGH 52 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Page 278 December 8, 2015 LOCATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17B ORDINANCE 2015-64 AND RESOLUTION 2015-255: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE DELLA DRIVE MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT FOR THE REPAYMENT OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,162.33 Item #17C RESOLUTION 2015-256: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 279 December 8, 2015 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:47 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:, DWIG t E BROCK, CLERK &A._440‘.jari Attest as to Chairman's signature only. These minutes a proved by the Board on t 114) 42 , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 280