BCC Minutes 02/28/2017 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
February 28, 2017
February 28, 2017
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
February 28, 2017
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: Penny Taylor
Andy Solis
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Donna Fiala
Burt L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Accounting
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
r` *zoo -.
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
February 28, 2017
9:00 AM
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — CRAB Vice-Chair TDC Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5
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
February 28, 2017
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. Invocation
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 and summary
agendas.)
B. February 3, 2017 - BCC/ULI Housing Study Meeting
Page 2
February 28,2017
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to review a presentation highlighting accomplishments of
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council during 2016. To be
presented by Margaret Wuerstle, Executive Director, Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council.
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 & Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard at 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 a Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals
of Collier County, Florida, for a Variance from Section 4.02.03.A, Table 4
of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum rear yard accessory
structure setback line from 20 feet to 6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa,
pool deck and stairs on a waterfront lot within the Residential Single-Family
(RSF-3) zoning district on property located at 342 Trade Winds Avenue, in
Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
[VA-PL20160001181].
Page 3
February 28,2017
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC), approve a resolution authorizing the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency to enter into a Loan Agreement with TD Bank, N.A.
and issue a Series 2017 Taxable Note in the principal amount up to
$5,500,000 to evidence a loan under the loan agreement, all with respect to
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; and authorize all
necessary budget amendments. (Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and
Management Services Division Director) (This item is a companion to Item
#14B1)
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #14B2.
Recommendation to adopt the FY 2018 Budget Policy. (Mark Isackson,
Corporate Financial and Management Services Division Director)
C. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation to evaluate the site
feasibility and financial requirements of developing a regional tournament
caliber sports facility and to provide guidance on future actions. (Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager)
D. Recommendation to approve initial funding in the amount of$1.8 million
plus a 10% contingency for conversion of multipurpose natural turf fields to
artificial turf for budget purposes, authorize necessary Tourist Development
Council (TDC) Category "B" Tourism Promotion Fund (184) budget
amendments in the amount of$1.8 million, and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism. (Barry Williams, Director, Parks &
Recreation Division)
E. Recommendation to award Bid #16-7020, "107th Avenue North Public
Utility Renewal Project," Project Nos. 60139 and 70120, to Douglas N.
Higgins, Inc., in the amount of$3,837,675, and authorize the necessary
budget amendments. (This is a companion to Agenda Item #16C2) (Tom
Chmelik, Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division
Director)
Page 4
February 28,2017
F. Recommendation to award Bid Number 16-7035, "110th Avenue North
Public Utility Renewal Project," Project Numbers 60139 and 70120, to
Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., in the amount of$5,182,405, and authorize the
necessary budget amendments. (This is a companion to Agenda Item 16.C.3)
(Tom Chmelik, Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management
Division Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) This item to be heard at 11:45 a.m. Recommendation that the
Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve a
resolution approving the form of a Loan Agreement between the CRA
and TD Bank, N.A. and authorize the issuance of the Series 2017
Note (Taxable) in the principal amount up to $5,500,000; authorize
the CRA Chairman to sign the authorizing resolution and to execute
and deliver the Loan Agreement and the Series 2017 Note, all with
respect to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; and
authorize all necessary budget amendments. Pursuant to Notice
required under Section 163.346, Florida Statutes. (This is a
companion to Agenda Item #11A)
2) This item to be heard immediately following Item #5A.
Recommendation to authorize the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
to proceed with the design and permitting of the Thomasson
Drive/Hamilton Harbor Streetscape Design Project provided for in
Exhibit "A" to promote safer traffic patterns for both vehicle and
pedestrian traffic by incorporating a roundabout into the design.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 5
February 28,2017
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 and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement ("Agreement")
between Collier County and RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. for landscape
improvements within the Radio Road right-of-way.
2) Recommendation to approve the ranking of professional engineering
consultants, to enter into negotiations with the top ranked firm of
Kisinger Campo & Associates, Corporation, pursuant to Solicitation
No. 16-7016 Independent Peer Review of Bridge Replacement or
Rehabilitation Projects, Project Number 66066.
3) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$162,726.71 for payment of$576.71 in the
code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Dukens Pierre, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20130006038 relating to property located at 4473 18th Place
SW, Collier County, Florida.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Quarry Phase 7,
Application Number PL20130002458, with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained and to authorize the release
of the maintenance security and acceptance of the plat dedications.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Riverstone— Plat Seven,
Application Number 20140000666 with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained; acceptance of the plat
dedications and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Page 6
February 28,2017
Vintage Reserve at the Vineyards, PL20120001915, and to authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security bond in the total amount of$3,017.87 to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Phase 1 A, PL20150000273 and PL20150000400,
and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the
(2) Final Obligation Bonds in the total amount of$8,000 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Phase 1B, PL20150000899, and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond
in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Winding Cypress Phase 1C, PL20150001272, and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond
in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Utility Facilities Quit-Claim Deed and Bill of Sale between Collier
County, as Ex Officio Governing Board of the Collier County Water
Sewer District, and Gordon R. Jenkins, in order to reconvey to
Gordon R. Jenkins, all potable water utility facilities associated with
the development project at Carica Water Main Extension,
PL20150001113, which were previously erroneously conveyed to the
County.
11) Recommendation to award Bid #16-6667 to Simmonds Electrical of
Naples, Inc. for the Traffic Signal Upgrade at the intersection of
Golden Gate Parkway at 50th Street SW in the amount of
$479,490.80, Project #60172.
Page 7
February 28,2017
12) Recommendation to award Bid #16-6572R to Quality Enterprises
USA, Inc., for construction of the "Golden Gate Parkway at
Livingston Road Intersection Improvements" project in the amount of
$289,129.70, Project 33431, authorize the Chairman to execute the
contract, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
13) Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting an application
by the South Florida Water Management District to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office for
Coastal Management for a Coastal Resilience Grant to develop and
implement a comprehensive approach for resilience with respect to
flooding and other impacts of coastal storms in the presence of sea
level rise within Collier County.
14) Recommendation to execute a Local Agency Program (LAP)
Agreement Termination between Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County Board of County
Commissioners in connection with design, construction, and
construction engineering and inspection (CEI) of Golden Gate Bridge
Canal Crossings at 8th Street NE, 16th Street NE, and 47th Avenue
NE, Project No. 33340, thus allowing FDOT to expedite the 8th Street
NE bridge project through a Design-Build contract.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution memorializing a previously
approved Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Utility Work
Agreement and to authorize the Chairman or her designee to execute
the Resolution.
2) Recommendation to approve a $502,324 purchase order to Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., under Contract #14-6345 for Construction,
Engineering, and Inspection Services for the 107th Avenue North
Public Utility Renewal Project, Project Nos. 60139 and 70120. (This
is a companion to Agenda Item #11E)
3) Recommendation to approve a $618,550 purchase order to Stantec
Consulting Services, Inc., under Contract #14-6345 for Construction,
Page 8
February 28,2017
Engineering, and Inspection Services for the 110th Avenue North
Public Utility Renewal Project, Project Numbers 60139 and 70120.
(This is a companion to Agenda Item #11F)
4) Recommendation to approve the ranking of professional engineering
consultants, enter into negotiations with the top ranked firm of AMEC
Foster Wheeler under Request for Proposal #16-7039, "CEI Services
for the Northeast Recycling Drop-off Center".
5) Recommendation to approve the selection committee's rankings of
Request for Proposal #15-6485, "Biosolids Management Facility,"
with the three top scored firms Synagro, Veolia, and Quasar and begin
the second step of the process consisting of an evaluation of technical
proposals to design, build, own, operate and maintain a Biosolids
Facility.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to recognize interest earned on advanced library
funding received from the Florida Department of State to support
library services and equipment for the use of Collier County residents.
2) Recommendation to approve Second Amendment to State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Program Agreement with Community Assisted
and Supportive Living, Inc. d/b/a Renaissance Manor ("Sponsor").
3) Recommendation to approve two mortgage satisfactions for the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan program in the combined
amount of$7,500.
4) Recommendation to authorize advertisement of an ordinance for
future consideration that would amend Ordinance No. 2006-56, the
Rock Road Improvement Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), to
disband the three-person Rock Road Improvement MSTU Advisory
Committee.
5) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact Amendment to the Home
Care for the Elderly Program and Attestation Statement with Area
Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. for Services for Seniors
programs. (No Fiscal Impact)
Page 9
February 28, 2017
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$66,000 for a variety of pathway and roadway repairs in various
community parks.
7) Recommendation to approve Change Order #1 to Au Miller Pools,
LLC for an additional cost of$109,642 and additional time of 93 days
for repairing unforeseen defects revealed during the resurfacing of the
Lazy River at the Sun-N-Fun Lagoon at North Collier Regional Park.
8) Recommendation to approve the expenditure of Category "A" Beach
Park Facility Tourist Tax Funds and approve a Work Order to McGee
& Associates, for landscape and irrigation design services in the
amount of$2,777.50 at North Gulf Shore Boulevard/ Seagate Beach
Access and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to renew the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for
Advanced Life Support non-transport services for one year and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate. (This is
a companion to Agenda Item #16E2)
2) Recommendation to approve 1) a First Amendment to Interlocal
Agreement with North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
providing for automatic renewals subject to termination; and 2) a First
Amendment to Combined HIPAA Privacy Business Associate,
HIPAA Security Rule, Hitech Act Compliance and Confidentiality
Agreement to comply with U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services published guidance on cloud storage of data. (This is a
companion to Agenda Item #16E1)
3) Recommendation to accept and appropriate a private donation for
EMS equipment in the amount of$10,000.
4) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation claim files settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Division Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15
for the first quarter of FY17.
Page 10
February 28, 2017
5) Recommendation to extend Contract #12-5812 Fire Alarm, Sprinkler,
Suppression, and Extinguisher Testing; Inspection; Repair;
Certification; Maintenance; and Installation with Cintas Corporation
No. 2 d/b/a Cintas Fire Protection for six months or until a new
contract is awarded, whichever is sooner, while public request for
proposals are solicited.
6) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate revenue to the
Facilities Management Division cost center in the amount of
$136,744.04 for the period of October 2016 through January 2017 of
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 and approve all necessary Budget
Amendments.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$68,818.64 to re-appropriate funds previously approved in Fiscal Year
2015/2016 from the GAC Land Trust to reimburse the Greater Naples
Fire & Rescue District for equipment to retrofit previously acquired
vehicles with firefighting apparatus.
8) Recommendation to approve Lease No. 57-4209-15-003 with the
United States of America on behalf of the United States Department
of Agriculture for the continued use of office space within the Collier
County University Extension Office which is being resubmitted to
modify the termination date.
9) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders, property
disposal and other items as identified.
10) Recommendation to waive competition for legal notices and general
advertisements and broadcasting services for Collier County
community based programs.
11) Recommendation to approve a Joint Resolution between the County
and the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District (GNFD) supporting the
assignment of an interlocal agreement between the County and the
Florida Department of Transportation addressing the funding,
equipping and provision of fire, rescue and emergency services at
Mile Marker 63 on Alligator Alley to the GNFD.
Page11
February 28, 2017
12) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise an
Amendment to Ordinance No. 2013, as amended, commonly known
as the Collier County Procurement Ordinance.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to renew Contract #16-6566 to Cision US Inc. for
year 2 through 4 for Media Monitoring Services and make a finding
that this action promotes tourism.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation to authorize payment of an outstanding invoice
under the equitable principle of quantum meruit for plants supplied by
Isael Carrasco d/b/a IC Brokers Nursery in the amount of$7,132.50.
4) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and RETIS, the French Business Accelerator organization sponsor,
designating Collier County exclusive rights to host the March 9-10,
2017 RETIS FACE 11 Executive Training Program and authorize
funding to help offset participant travel and lodging cost associated
with the event in an amount not to exceed $8,000 and provide for the
County's annual membership in the RETIS organization in an amount
not to exceed $5,300.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to terminate for cause the lease agreement between
Collier County Airport Authority and William K. Glass and authorize
the County Attorney's Office to take all action necessary, including
litigation, to have Mr. Glass removed as a tenant from the property
and recover all outstanding monies owed.
2) Recommendation to approve and execute the First Amendment to a
Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form Lease with Raven
Air Marco Island, LLC, d/b/a Island Hoppers at the Marco Island
Executive Airport.
Page 12
February 28,2017
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to select Carlos Ruiz as the recipient of the 2017
"Against All Odds" award, and to present the award at the March 14,
2017 Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve the use of$5,000 from the Confiscated
Trust Funds to support the ACT-SO (Academic, Cultural Technical
Scientific Olympic) Program for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners,
the check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between February 2 through February 15, 2017 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06.
3) Pursuant to the Board's Purchasing Ordinance 2013-69, as amended,
request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for
invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of February 22,
2017.
4) To provide to the Board of County Commissioners the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Internal Audit Report 2017-3, 2015 Facilities
Management Division: 2015 Fiscal Year-End Inventory.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Black Affairs Advisory
Board.
2) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board.
3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
Page 13
February 28,2017
4) Request Board to set the place and time for the Clerk, with the
assistance of the County Attorney's office, to open and count the mail
ballots of the nominees to fill the vacancies on the Pelican Bay
Services Division Board.
5) Recommendation to accept a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment for the taking of Parcel
244RDUE in the pending case styled Collier County v. Christopher
DiFabio, et al., Case No. 15-CA-0363, required for the Golden Gate
Blvd. Project No. 60040 (West of 16th St. E. to 18th St. E.). (Fiscal
Impact: $30,683.00)
6) Recommendation to accept a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment for the taking of Parcel
268RDUE required for the Golden Gate Blvd. Project No. 60040
(west of 18th St. E. to east of Everglades Blvd.), in the pending case
styled Collier County v. Taimy Morales, et al., Case No. 15-CA-0393.
(Fiscal Impact: $36,113)
7) Report Back to the Board with a Primer on the Collier County Ethics
Ordinance.
8) Recommendation to accept an Offer of Judgment and approve a
proposed Stipulated Final Judgment as full compensation for the
taking of Parcel 342RDUE, in the pending case styled Collier County
v. James Dean White, et al., Case No. 16-CA-1280, required for the
Golden Gate Blvd. Project No. 60145 (from 20th Street E. to east of
Everglades Blvd.). (Fiscal Impact: $4,992)
9) Recommendation to approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment
for the taking of Parcel 239DAME required for LASIP Project No.
51101, (Crews Road, Cope Lane and Sandy Lane/Wing South
Interconnect), in the pending case styled Collier County v. John
Lespade, et al., Case No. 14-CA-2316. (Fiscal Impact: $18,557)
10) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee.
11) Recommendation to accept a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment for the taking of Parcel
Page 14
February 28,2017
222RDUE in the pending case styled Collier County v. Estilita
Rodriguez, et al, Case No. 15-CA-333, required for the Golden Gate
Blvd. Project No. 60040 (8th Street East to west of 16th Street East).
(Fiscal Impact: $42,072.50)
12) Recommendation to accept an Offer of Judgment and approve a
proposed Stipulated Final Judgment for the taking of Parcel
400RDUE in the pending case styled Collier County v. Jarrett Cox, et
al, Case No. 16-CA-1313, required for the widening of Golden Gate
Boulevard from 20th Street East to East of Everglades Boulevard,
Project No. 60145. (Fiscal Impact: $5,624.00)
13) Recommendation to accept a Third Offer of Judgment in the amount
of$49,040 excluding attorney's fees, expert fees, and costs, and
approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment for the taking of Parcel
196RDUE in the pending case styled Collier County v. Juan E.
Navarro, et al, Case No. 15-CA-154, required for the Golden Gate
Blvd. Project No. 60040 (12th Street East to west of 16th Street East).
(Fiscal Impact: $28,444.20)
14) Recommendation for the Board to authorize, pursuant to County
Resolution No. 95-632, the County Attorney's Office, to select and
retain outside counsel to represent current and former County
Commissioners, several County Code Enforcement Department
employees, and other employees named as Defendants in their
individual capacities in a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit filed in the
U.S. Middle District Court of Florida, styled Dion Jackson ("Uber-
G') v. City of Naples and County of Collier, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
666-FtM-99cm.
15) Recommendation to approve Fourth Amendments to Agreements for
Legal Services relating to Contract #06-4047 Eminent Domain Legal
Services with the law firms of Fixel & Willis and Smolker Bartlett
Loeb Hinds & Sheppard (f/k/a Smolker Bartlett Schlosser Loeb &
Hinds) extending the expiration date to April 22, 2019 and to increase
the hourly rates of Smolker Bartlett Loeb Hinds & Sheppard. (There is
no new fiscal impact associated with these Amendments.)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
Page 15
February 28,2017
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 1978-49,
in its entirety, which created the Isles of Capri Municipal Fire Services
Taxing District, accept the September 6, 2016 Inventory List, as the final
inventory list to be transferred to the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District
(GNFD), remit any remaining MSTU funds to GNFD upon completing of
audited financial statements, and terminate the Agreement between the
parties.
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2015-18
in its entirety, which created the Fiddlers Creek Municipal Rescue and Fire
Services District, remit any remaining MSTU funds to GNFD upon
completing of audited financial statements, and terminate the Agreement
between the parties.
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 1984-84
in its entirety, which created the Collier County Fire Control Municipal
Service Taxing Unit and remit any remaining MSTU funds to GNFD upon
completing of audited financial statements.
E. This item is being continued to the March 14, 2017 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 Petition VAC-PL20160003293, to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion
of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility
Page 16
February 28, 2017
easement located along the rear border of Lot 50, The Lodgings of
Wyndemere, Section One, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 8 of the public
records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 19, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 17
February 28, 2017
February 28, 2017
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chair. You have a live
mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning, Collier County. It's a
beautiful morning. My goodness, the birds were singing and the sun is
shining, so we're very happy to be here and very happy to have you
here in our audience and in the gallery.
We now have to stand and say the Pledge of-- no, we'll do the
invocation first.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MR. OCHS: The invocation this morning is by Pastor Greg Ball
of Destiny Church.
PASTOR BALL: Hi. Good morning, everybody. As he said, I
am Pastor Greg from Destiny Church.
Prayer is the most important thing that we could do. The Bible
makes special mentioning of praying for those in positions of
authority.
In Romans 13:1, it says, let every soul be subject to governing
authorities. For there's no authority except from God and the
authorities that exist are appointed by God. And I know that you are
all elected officials, but I believe that you are appointed by God. And I
pray for you, and I ask that God would give you wisdom as you meet
today.
In first Timothy 2, 1 and 2, it says, therefore, I exhort you, first of
all, with supplications, prayers, and intercession, and giving thanks that
it may be made by all men for kings and all who are in authority that
we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all goodness and reverence.
I pray for your health and safety, and I pray that God would
Page 2
February 28, 2017
accomplish his purpose through each of you.
One of the shortest prayers in the Bible is the prayer of Jabez, and
it says this: Oh, that he would bless me and enlarge my territory. Let
your hand be with me and keep me from harm; that I may be free from
pain. And the Bible says God granted his request; four things: God's
blessing, the expansion of territory, the presence of God's hand, and
the protection from harm. That's my prayer for you and for our city.
God, we thank you for this wonderful opportunity to get together,
and I ask that you would guide each leader and every person that is
here; that our conversation be edifying and glorifying to you, bless this
meeting, and prosper our city, and we give you thanks in Jesus' name.
Amen.
Thank you, everybody.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, would you lead
us, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS.) - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners.
Madam Chair, these are the proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners meeting of February 28th, 2017.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 11D to the March
28th, 2017, BCC meeting. This is a staff request. Your Tourist
Development Council asked for some additional data, and they will
Page3
February 28, 2017
make their final recommendation to the Board following their March
meeting. So we will move this item behind that meeting.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16A13 from your
consent agenda and become Item 11G under your regular agenda. This
item is moved at Commissioner Saunders' request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16K7 from your
County Attorney consent agenda to become Item 12A under the
County Attorney regular agenda. This item is moved at Commissioner
McDaniel's request.
I have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners. Last
Friday we sent you a resolution that was part of the 16A14 item on
your growth management consent agenda. This is your local agency
program agreement with Florida Department of Transportation.
We were advised by FDOT that they wanted that action of the
board memorialized with the resolution, so we sent that out to you last
Friday and simply noting that that is now added as part of that
particular item.
We have a number of time-certain or time-sensitive items on
today's agenda, Commissioners. Let me just run through these quickly
for the benefit of the Board and the audience.
Item 14B2, this is an item having to do with the design of
improvements proposed for Thomasson Drive; will be heard
immediately following this morning's presentation item, which is Item
5A. You will hear from your executive director of the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council. Right after her presentation we'll
hear that item, 14B2.
Then following 14B2, we will hear Item 11B. That is the
discussion of your FY 18 budget policy. Item 11C, which is the
discussion about the proposed amateur sports venue. It is scheduled to
be heard at 11 :30 a.m. (sic).
And then Item 14B1, this is an item having to do with a proposed
Page 4
February 28, 2017
restructuring of a loan with your Bayshore CRA. It is scheduled to be
heard at 11:45 a.m. I should note parenthetically that the title on that
executive summary incorrectly indicated a time-certain hearing of 10
a.m. That's corrected to 11:45 a.m. And there's a companion item on
your County Manager regular agenda that will be heard immediately
following 14B1.
Then, finally, Item 8A is your Board of Zoning Appeals hearing.
This is a variance request having to do with a swimming pool setback,
and that's scheduled to be heard at 1 p.m. And those are all of the
changes that I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, just a
clarification. I think the County Manager may have mis-spoke. The
Item 11C I think you said would be at 11 :30, and on our sheet it says
10:30.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you. It is at 10:30; if I said 11 :30, I
misspoke.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I may have misheard.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. Actually, I hit my light as
well, because it does say 10:30.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good catch.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then Item 8A you've
indicated will be at 1 o'clock. I think what we generally do is it will be
at 1 o'clock unless we get to it sooner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, not today.
MR. OCHS: No, in this case, sir, we did notify everyone that it
would be heard at 1 :00.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do we have public comment,
which was usually at 1:00; do we move that behind or forward, or how
are we going to do that?
Page 5
February 28, 2017
MR. OCHS: Well, we'll see. We usually take that right after
your lunch break, and then we go to the advertised public hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we are going to definitely try to
break between 12 and 1 today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm looking at you, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll fade away, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How about Commissioner
McDaniel?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not at all. Yes, okay.
Commissioner McDaniel, any -- no?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I just said -- when talking
about breaks, I was just wanting to make sure you remembered me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, County Manager, you were
you pointing?
MR. OCHS: No, I was just going to say, usually you check with
the County Attorney if he's got any.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yeah. I am there. I was still back
on making sure Commissioner Fiala had a lunch.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a busy enough meeting; no
additional matters.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No additional, okay.
Commissioner McDaniel, anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ex parte?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, you're doing ex parte now?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, but not for Item 8A. That will be
done at 1:30 (sic).
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have none.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am, other than
Page 6
February 28, 2017
proposed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes, no
corrections to the agenda. And as far as ex parte goes, on Item 17E
was the only one, and I don't have anything to report on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's being continued anyway, so
I'm the same way, no changes, no ex parte to declare until Item 8A.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have no changes and no ex parte
communications until we get to the other items.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No ex parte and no changes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Very good. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the agenda as it
stands.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Page 7
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 28,2017
Continue Item 11D to the March 28,2017 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve initial
funding in the amount of$1.8 million plus a 10% contingency for conversion of multipurpose
natural turf fields to artificial turf for budget purposes,authorize necessary Tourist Development
Council(TDC)Category"B"Tourism Promotion Fund (184) budget amendments in the amount
of$1.8 million,and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. (Staffs request)
Move Item 16A13 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting an
application by the South Florida Water Management District to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's(NOAA)Office for Coastal Management for a Coastal Resilience
Grant to develop and implement a comprehensive approach for resilience with respect to flooding
and other impacts of coastal storms in the presence of sea level rise within Collier County.
(Commissioner Saunder's request)
Move Item 16K7 to Item 12A: Report Back to the Board with a Primer on the Collier County
Ethics Ordinance. (Commissioner McDaniel's request)
Note:
Item 16A14 title should read: Recommendation to execute a Local Agency Program (LAP)
Agreement Termination between Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)and Collier
County Board of County Commissioners,and approve the accompanying Resolution,in connection
with design,construction,and construction engineering and inspection(CEI)of Golden Gate Bridge
Canal Crossings at 8th Street NE, 16th Street NE,and 47th Avenue NE,Project No.33340,thus
allowing FDOT to expedite the 8th Street NE bridge project through a Design-Build contract.
(Staffs request; Resolution has been forwarded to Commission and Staff Members)
Time Certain Items:
Item 14B2 to be heard immediately following Item 5A
Item 11B to be heard immediately following Item 14B2
Item 11C to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
Item 14B1 to be heard at 11:45 a.m.
Item 8A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
2/28/2017 8:27 AM
February 28, 2017
Item #2B
FEBRUARY 3, 2017 - BCC/ULI HOUSING STUDY MEETING
MINUTES - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2B is approval of your February 3rd, 2017,
BCC/ULI Housing Study meeting minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #5A
REVIEW OF A PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTING
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL DURING 2016. PRESENTED
BY MARGARET WUERSTLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5A on your
Page 8
February 28, 2017
agenda this morning. This is a recommendation to review a
presentation highlighting accomplishments of the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council during 2016. We're pleased to have
Margaret Wuerstle, the Executive Director of the Regional Planning
Council, here to make this morning's presentation.
Good morning, Margaret.
MS. WUERSTLE: Good morning. Good morning,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. WUERSTLE: I have two reasons that I wanted to be here.
One is to show you a short three-minute video on our accomplishments
for 2016 so you're aware of what your assessments are paying for, and
also I want to give you a brief update on the Promise Zone so that all
of you are aware of what is going on with that and what the potential is
for that project.
So I will --
(A video was played.)
"The mission of the Southwest Regional
Planning Council is to work together across
neighboring communities to consistently
protect and improve the unique and relatively
unspoiled character of the physical,
economic, and social worlds we share for the
benefit of our future generations.
This annual report spotlights the many
services we provided this past year to the
southwest region. For Fiscal Year 2016, our
revenues totaled $1.8 million. In addition,
the sale of the Regional Planning Council's
building and our subsequent move to a rental
property resulted in significant cost savings
Page 9
February 28, 2017
to the agency as well as improvements in
efficiency.
Now, let's take a look at some of the
accomplishments in the individual planning
areas. In the area of public safety, all
revenues were used to fund the training of
230 public-safety officials for hazardous
materials response.
In natural resources, we funded the
development of a total ecosystem services
value system for Southwest Florida using the
eco-serve method. In the area of economic
development, we updated the Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy which has
leveraged $110 million of investments in the
region through strong partnerships and
collaboration.
We also helped our members apply for two
grants for the Immokalee Culinary Accelerator
totaling $1.6 million. And we are one of
only four areas in the nation to be awarded a
10-year rural Promise Zone designation for
the Glades, Hendry, and Immokalee areas.
This designation provides access to federal
investments, involvement of federal staff,
assignment ofAmeriCorps VISTA volunteers and
the potential of tax incentives if enacted by
Congress.
We are pleased that our revenues could
be used to provide over 17,000 lifesaving
trips to people in Glades and Hendry
Page 10
February 28, 2017
Counties. Our grants and contracts funded
over $600,000 for community planning, which
demonstrates the positive social, economic,
and national resources in our region.
And in 2016 we were awarded six federal
and state grants totaling over $400,000 and
have an additional four applications under
review totaling over $440,000.
This past fiscal year our staff
conducted 44 reviews which provided community
development recommendations. And we are
happy to report that we closed the year
financially stronger, with over $22,000 in
net earnings, which means there's now more
technical assistance that we can provide to
our members.
Overall, the diligent oversight of our
operations and finances has resulted in five
years of clean audit reports with no adverse
opinions, material weakness, or significant
deficiencies.
We are proud of our team's dedication
and accomplishments this past year and look
forward to working together across
neighboring communities for the benefit of
our future generations. "
(Video concluded.)
MS. WUERSTLE: Most people that have asked what the RPC
does would say that we do growth management, we review comp
plans, we review existing DRIs but, as you can see, we do much more
than this. Most people do not realize that we are a federal economic
Page 11
February 28, 2017
development district and, as such, we're required to put together a
comprehensive economic development strategy.
We update that each year, and every five years we have to do a
major overhaul. This year, 2017, is the year that we have to do the
major overhaul. And along with this, the Florida Chamber Foundation
is also doing their 2030 plan and the State Department of Economic
Opportunity is preparing their new economic development strategy.
So it's important that we make all of these different moving parts
fit together, and it's also important, this federal district, because when
any municipality or government goes to apply for federal economic
development funds, they have to be consistent with this plan, and they
will come to us to ensure that it is. So we need to be sure that we have
all your projects in here and that when you want to apply for these
funds they're available.
One of-- our focus for 2017, and probably for the next 10 years,
will be the Promise Zone. This is a 10-year designation, federal
designation, that was given to Hendry, Glades, and Immokalee. It's
important because we get priority in funding when we apply for any
grants that are federal.
We've also been talking to the state and educating them on the
benefits of the Promise Zone so that when we apply for state funding,
they will also give us priority. They've been very receptive to this.
We also get five VISTA volunteers each year for the next 10
years. We've just completed the training on that, and we are ready to
start hiring, and there will be at least one in each of the counties that
are in the Promise Zone. If Congress enacts the tax incentives, any
new businesses in the Promise Zone will be able to receive those tax
incentives.
To date, we have received over $2 million in funding, and this
designation has only been in place for eight months. We also have $3
million that are pending for funding within the region.
Page 12
February 28, 2017
I've placed in front of you a blue folder that lists all of the 42
projects that we are looking for funding for, and it gives a description.
There's a summary and then a description of each one. So you can see
your projects and everybody else's projects.
I've also included a list of all of the federal programs that are
providing funding to us, the priority points for the funding.
We initially had five goals in our strategy and we've created task
forces around each one of those goals, and we've added a sixth, which
is agricultural.
To date we have approximately 80 individuals that sit on these
task forces, and we have six representatives that sit on the steering
committee; two from each county. So we are moving forward.
And I guess the best thing I can say about the Promise Zone is
that we need to be aggressive now. This is a 10-year designation, and
hopefully we're not going to wait until Year 5 to say we have this.
We're going to identify the grants, we're going to apply for them, and
we're going to move this forward, but we can only move as quickly as
our partners move, our counties and our municipal governments.
So I encourage you, if you have any questions, to please call me.
We'll help you with the status of where we are, the status of any grants,
and we'll certainly help in applying for any funding.
I should mention that one of the benefits is that we have a liaison
in Washington that helps us navigate through all the barriers and
challenges with finding funding. We also have a liaison at USDA in
Florida that helps us identify funding for our projects. So we need to
take advantage of that. I mean, that's a huge benefit to us.
So if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question.
MS. WUERSTLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You said that this Promise Zone is one
Page 13
February 28, 2017
of how many in the United States, in the world?
MS. WUERSTLE: One of four rural. There's urban, but there's
only four rural.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Good. Thank you.
No other questions. I think it was good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I would just like to say
that, you know, we, as a board, whenever we're investing our funds,
are looking for relevancy. And I was honored to be nominated by our
board to represent us on the Council, and I have found just in two
meetings in a very, very brief period of time an enormous amount of
collaborative effort, initiatives that we have going on even outside of
the Promise Zone, I mean, which is an amazing opportunity for our
communities.
But just the communication that's afforded for us as a community
with similar circumstances of other coastal communities up the west
coast with all of the things that we're about to be dealing with, the sea
level rise, population, infrastructure, water quality, all the way across
the board, it's been an amazing enlightenment to me to have an
opportunity to speak with other elected officials all the way up the
coast.
And Margaret is doing a very, very good job, amazing job, with
helping with that.
MS. WUERSTLE: It's the only forum in Southwest Florida
where all the elected officials can get together once a month and
discuss these issues that you just talked about.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine, thank you.
Page 14
February 28, 2017
I just want to say I'm delighted that you're so excited about this.
We haven't been as attentive as we should be as a county to attend
these, and with your enthusiasm now -- and I'm sure that you're going
to love working with Margaret -- I think that we're going to do a lot
better and be a lot more supportive as a county, and not only that, but
we'll also benefit by it. So thank you very much for being here. Thank
you for wanting to serve. That's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's my honor. It's my honor.
MS. WUERSTLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to your next agenda
item, which is 14B2 on this morning's agenda under your Community
Redevelopment Agency.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just as a point of order, Troy, we
have no public petitions? No one wants to speak on any topic that's
not on this agenda; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Oh, we won't get to that till --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. You want to do that -- I'm sorry.
I misunderstood.
Item #14B2
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU TO PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN
AND PERMITTING OF THE THOMASSON DRIVE/HAMILTON
HARBOR STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROJECT PROVIDED FOR
IN EXHIBIT "A" TO PROMOTE SAFER TRAFFIC PATTERNS
FOR BOTH VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC BY
INCORPORATING A ROUNDABOUT INTO THE DESIGN -
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE MARCH 14, 2017 BCC
MEETING AND STAFF TO WORK WITH MR. ACKERMAN IN
Page 15
February 28, 2017
REGARDS TO THE IMPACT ON HIS PROPERTY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: No problem. So 14B2 is a recommendation to
authorize the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit
to proceed with the design and permitting of the Thomasson
Drive/Hamilton Harbor streetscape design project provided for in your
agenda and to promote safer traffic patterns for both vehicle and
pedestrian traffic, and Michelle Arnold will begin this morning's
presentation.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Michelle Arnold.
This project will provide, as the County Manager indicated,
streetscape improvements along Thomasson Drive extending from Bay
Street to Orchid Way. And this is being done in an area that's heavily
traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists.
The improvements will consist of pedestrian pathways,
pedestrian-level lighting, landscaping, bicycle paths to accommodate
those that are already along Bayshore Drive.
The project is being performed under Contract 130 -- 136012,
which is with RWA, the consultants. And this project has been going
on for some time, as it was approved by the Board back in June of
2014.
The scope, however, has been modified slightly to address some
right-of-way issues that were discovered at the northeast corner of
Thomasson and Bayshore Drive. As a part of that evaluation, the
MSTU for Bayshore asked the engineers to evaluate the feasibility of
constructing roundabouts to address not only the right-of-way issues
that were discovered but to also address the vehicular and pedestrian
safety.
There was a study commissioned, and after completion of the
study, the consultants concluded that incorporation of a roundabout
Page 16
February 28, 2017
into the design of the roadway would not only address the limited
right-of-way issues that were discovered but also provide safer
vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement in the area.
Initially, there was some reservations about the roundabout, but
after many public meetings with both MSTU and the CRA as well as
several different community outreach, the area is embracing the
incorporation of a roundabout at that intersection.
With the planned development that's in the area, that intersection
is probably going to fail within the near future. The community, as a
result, desires to develop a solution that would maintain the
community's character and, with the information that was provided
about the roundabout, overwhelmingly -- sorry -- support the
roundabout at the intersection over a signal or a four-way stop.
Some of the community outreach that was done: In addition to
several MSTU and CRA meetings, we had an open house for the
Bayshore community on December 7th, 2016. Over 3,000 cards were
mailed out. And three of the four stakeholders at the intersection of
Bayshore and Thomasson are in support of the roundabout.
I have here today Norm Trebilcock who is the engineer that has
been working with the community and educating the community about
the proposed efforts along Thomasson Drive. He's here to provide a
little bit more detail about the study efforts that have been done.
In addition, I just wanted to point out that we do have letters of
support from the CRA committee, advisory committee, the MSTU, as
well as the Botanical Gardens. And, Norm, if you want to take the
mike.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you, Michelle.
Good morning. For the record, my name is Norman Trebilcock.
I'm a Professional Engineer and Certified Planner, and I've been
working in this area since 1990, a little over 27 years.
And I'm part of the RWA Consulting team that is working on the
Page 17
February 28, 2017
improvements of Thomasson Drive and kind of focusing on this
intersection. In addition, on our team is Michael Wallwork. He's with
Alternate Street Designs, and he's a world-renowned or a nationally
renowned and certainly Florida-renowned roundabout designer. He's
designed more than 800 roundabouts throughout the world, and he is
one of two consulting firms that the FDOT uses as a peer reviewer.
Whenever anybody designs a roundabout in the state of Florida,
his firm is one of the two firms that they trust to review roundabouts.
So we really have the best in Michael Wallwork to help us with this
roundabout for the project to look at its evaluation. And most of the
material I'll be providing is really what he has provided for us here
today as well.
What we're really looking at are a number of options, and it's kind
of focused on the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Bayshore. So
Bayshore is a north/south road. It's what we call a multi-lane roadway.
It has four travel lanes and on-street bike lanes and 5-foot sidewalks.
And at the intersection with Thomasson Drive, it comes down to a
two-lane roadway south of Thomasson Drive itself.
And then Thomasson Drive, running east/west, is two-lane
roadway. At the intersection, though, the existing condition, there are
some turn lanes, there are some shared lanes, and part of the project
improvements at Thomasson Drive is to put on-street bike lanes on the
roadway that don't exist today and then to have sidewalks on both
sides, 6-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides, again, to address
pedestrians.
A couple of key properties, though, on the northwest and the
northeast corner are undeveloped PUDs, and they're slated for
multifamily assisted living type development, also some mixed-use
potentially there, too. So that's coming down the road there.
In the southwest corner, the key is Botanical Gardens right there
as a key feature, and then certainly on the southeast corner is Del's,
Page 18
February 28, 2017
which is an important business in this area in the southeast corner that's
been here over 50 years. So it's a very important business to look at
there.
So the first option is to leave it as it is as a four-way stop, and
what we would do in that situation is put in the crosswalks and stop
bars and those kind of things, and that's how that would be addressed.
There's still a big wide opening, but we would put sidewalks in the
corner.
The issue here with a four-way stop to remain, it really has
limited capacity. So in time, we're going to eat up that capacity
depending on when the development's coming in, and it's going to be
just a number of years before that happens, and it really depends on
when the development occurs as well. So with that understanding we
want to look at some other options and such.
And so the next one is then to look at signalization, and
essentially with signalization, it's very similar in terms of geometry if
we left it as a four-way stop. The difference is some of the lanes may
be different in terms of the shared and the through lanes.
But one of the key things to understand and think about in the
signalization, currently, as a four-way stop, everybody comes up to this
intersection today and stops. And when you have a signal, though,
somebody's going to have green and somebody's going to have red. So
the characteristics are going to change.
Those vehicles that get the green light, they're coming through at
the speed limit, we hope, which will be 30 or 35 miles per hour coming
through that intersection, and that really changes the characteristics, in
particular, the lands on the corner in terms of access and such because,
you know, a car coming through at 30 miles per hour versus one that is
starting from a dead stop to move forward, there's some big differences
there from a safety standpoint.
And so oftentimes what we find in the long run, when we have a
Page 19
February 28, 2017
signalized intersection, it starts to impact those corner parcels and we
start to need to move those driveways further away because of the
speeds of that oncoming traffic, et cetera.
So based on that, we want to look at, well, is there yet another
option that maybe can maintain a slow speed environment but still take
care of the capacity of the roadway, and that really comes into the
option of the roundabout. And what we're looking at here is, based on
the traffic volumes that are projected in the future and extending those
out, we can do a what we call a one-lane, a single-lane roundabout to
come in.
And what happens in the single-lane roundabout, the traffic, it
comes in, it's got a singular lane in all directions, and it enters the
roundabout through what we call a yield condition. And it's going at a
much slower speed.
You're typically going at 15 or 20 miles per hour at the most
there. And so that's what we call a low-speed environment. So it
allows folks to stop for the pedestrians as needed, because you are
going at a lower speed, and to yield, and it makes it much safer for all
the traffic, but you still have capacity because everybody's in a yield
versus being forced to stop.
In terms of the bicyclists, we're going to have on-street bike lanes,
and the bicyclists, they have an option. They can either what we call --
the more experienced bicyclists, the faster bicyclists, can what they call
claim the lane. They can go -- let me get my mouse here. They can go
right in the roundabout and become a stream -- part of the stream of
traffic, or the other option is we have a little sidewalk flair that they
can come into, and then the sidewalk widens out to nine feet in width
to allow the pedestrians and the bicyclists to interact and be able to
cross.
For the pedestrians, what's easier for them with a one-lane
roundabout is you're dealing with a single lane at a time that you deal
Page 20
February 28, 2017
with as a pedestrian versus multiple lanes. When you come up to an
intersection that has multiple rights, lefts, and throughs and such, it can
be intimidating for pedestrians.
So the idea with a roundabout is you have a single lane you're
coming up to, and you deal with one lane at a time, so you'll cross the
one lane and then in the median you have a refuge area a minimum of
six feet in width so you'd feel comfortable as a pedestrian to then wait
for the next lane to go through. So it's very accommodating for the
pedestrians as well.
In the center island, this is a 64-foot diameter center island, and
the hatched area that you see, that's what we call a truck apron. It's
raised by about three inches, and what that allows is the truck trailers
that -- their rear wheels, as they try and take the turn, those trailers can
go up on the truck apron and don't cause any issues, yet for cars, cars
see it as something that they're not going to drive over because it's
slightly raised.
So in the roundabout everybody will, again, go the lower speeds
because of the geometry and the engineered environment that causes
us to really do the right thing because of the conditions. Because we
all, as drivers, drive to the conditions that we see as drivers. And so
what a roundabout really creates is a safe environment for you to feel
comfortable to drive in. So it's good from that standpoint.
So the reasons for considering roundabouts is it can be a gateway,
it helps with the capacity of the intersection, it has slower vehicle
speeds so it makes it safer for your pedestrians and your bicyclists to
feel comfortable. It's also cheaper and safer than a signal, because if
we're able to implement this roundabout as part of the reconstruction
project, it becomes incidental to the construction project, and it's there
in place for us.
So it's not any additional cost, and what we avoid is the cost of a
signal. What we're looking at for a mast-arm-type signal in this
Page 21
February 28, 2017
location is probably between 300- and $350,000 for that. And also
then you have annual maintenance and then you're looking at
maintaining technology for that system as well.
And, again, it's a system that really changes the characteristics of
this intersection as well significantly from where it is today from a stop
condition.
Big proponents of roundabouts starts with the Federal Highway
Administration. They have nine safety countermeasures that are
proven measures that improve the safety of roadway systems and
transportation systems, and roundabouts is one of those keys that they
have. And this translates down to the Florida DOT. Any project that
Florida DOT undertakes when they look at intersections, they look at
roundabouts as a potential improvement for a project versus a signal
and another option. So it's an important countermeasure to look at.
And, again, it's about speed and pedestrians. You know, we can
lower that speed. That's really what makes a difference for the
pedestrians. You keep the speed down to 20 miles per hour, and the
interaction, the pedestrians have a 90 percent chance of surviving.
You raise it up 10 miles per hour, it goes to 50 percent; and then to 40
miles per hour they only have a 10 percent chance. So that's it. You
know, speed kills, and it's an important issue. So if we can do a feature
that really lowers that speed and operation and the interactions
between the two, it really makes a difference.
Again, when we talk about capacity, the four-way stop, you
know, when we look at an infrastructure project, we look to the future.
We're not designing just for today or tomorrow or five years. We
really look down the road for this.
And in looking at the all-way stop, its future is going to be a
future of failure. And a roundabout coming in is going to give us a
great level of service based on the traffic projections we're looking at.
For the same traffic projections, you have a choice between a Level of
Page 22
February 28, 2017
Service E or F system versus an A system there.
A signal would provide us with a similar type level of service as a
roundabout as well.
Michelle had mentioned the public outreach. We've had extensive
public outreach. Nobody embraced the roundabout from the get-go, I
can tell you that. When we started in 2015, you ask anybody if they
want it, they'll say no because it's a difference, and it instills some fears
and misunderstandings and stuff, and that was the key to have Michael
come in.
And what we're able to do is work through with folks and answer
their questions and modify the design, because there are a lot of
excellent suggestions from the community in terms of the types of
vehicles that are going to use this facility, and we've been able to
accommodate them and accommodate all the neighbors, look at the
different folks, the school, the transit. All these are users out there and
stakeholders that have interest in this area as well and were able to take
in their ideas and update and modify the design to really address those.
And as Michelle said, at the -- in December, we had our open
house meeting and was able to present the information and answer
more questions for folks and present video testimony of other parts of
the country that weren't in favor and now are in favor, especially once
they see it and how successful it can be. And it really resulted in --
here's one example: Naples Botanical Gardens has written a letter in
favor of this, and they're one of the key stakeholders right there at the
southwest corner.
But another key stakeholder is Del's. They're very important. It's
an important business, and so when we initially looked at the
roundabout and we looked at kind of our channelizing to look at the
roadway as a priority, this is the design we came up with. And we had
a -- in the middle there's a longer median that we have here. There's an
existing median in there. This is going slightly longer. And we also
Page 23
February 28, 2017
had raised sidewalks and curbing along here, too.
And after meeting with Del and even going out and looking at
operations there that they were kind enough to let me take a look at, we
went ahead and modified our design to this next depiction.
What we did is we shortened the median. It's actually shorter
than it is today out there. We shortened it up to improve access, and
then we held the access -- we have held this all open in here.
So currently the cars that are there, they're parking on site, but
they're using the right-of-way to turn around and stuff, and that would
be maintained for them. But we would have our designated crosswalk
area there for our pedestrians to walk across. We'd have the designated
bike lane. But we maintain the opening because that was one of the
concerns that Del had given us, that he wanted to make sure he had
good access, because he explained how the boats come in and such,
and we need to accommodate that, which we've done here.
And on the west side of his site, we haven't touched any of that,
and actually the cars are parking in the right-of-way there, and we're
not changing that condition. That's just to remain.
The only thing we've done, and we'd do this on any project, what
we do is we want to have the sidewalk around the corner because you
don't want cars coming across diagonally on the corner of the
intersection. You don't want it. You would think it wouldn't happen,
but it does. And in particular when you get more specific, you don't
want to see that.
So that's one of the key safety features with any of these. So this
is really not much different than any other option and, quite frankly,
would be less impactive.
And, again, one of the key points from the community was to
look at trucks. And our designer, what he's able to do to these is a
thing called auto turn, and they're able to accommodate the trucks.
Those are kind of what we call spaghetti plots, and it shows the
Page 24
February 28, 2017
tracking of the truck wheels with the different colors, and it stays
totally within the road or on the table in the center of the island as well.
And also large trucks can even do a U-turn in a roundabout, and
that's something you can't currently do. And these are large trucks;
WB-50 or WB-62, which is an interstate-type truck.
And as a matter of fact --
(A video was played.)
"Here comes our first tractor trailer
truck Let's see how he does. "
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How long is this truck?
MR. TREBILCOCK: This would be a WB-50 truck. It would be
an interstate-type truck, tractor trailer. It would have -- it would be 50
feet normally from the axles between the axles:
"It did not run over either curb. "
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'll show you a little -- well -- so when they
see, like, a WB-50, what they're talking about is the distance between
the axles it's 50 feet. A WB-62 has 62 feet between the axles. The
physical truck is actually longer than that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: So this would be -- this would be a longer
truck. And, again, that's a similar roundabout size there that Michael
did in South Carolina.
Also, again, with -- the other point was dealing with transit buses
as well. Whoops. Okay. We have transit buses that would also use
this -- what am I doing here? Okay. Sorry about that. Technical
difficulty there on my part.
I'll show you the school buses that use it. These are two
roundabouts that Michael did in Sarasota. It's Honore Avenue in
Sarasota. This is at Fruitville Elementary School. The elementary
school is --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How does this intersection, with the
Page 25
February 28, 2017
video buses, compare to the intersection at Thomasson and Bayshore?
MR. TREBILCOCK: The difference is, this is a three-legged
intersection, but you'll see it's a very -- it's got plenty of traffic flowing
in. What I was trying to really depict for you-all is to see that the
school buses are able to take the roundabout. Here they're going to go
90 degrees around. The other one's going straight through. But
volumes would be heavier -- on this particular section of roadway are
similar, yes.
MR. OCHS: Radius is similar?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, it's a similar type radius. The
difference would be that -- well, one thing you notice is the school
buses actually didn't go on the table, on the truck apron, and that's a
beneficial thing because then they don't feel the bump or anything like
that. The same with the transit buses as well. They're able to take that
without --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With that big, long truck that you
had, that --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- bed rode over, would that be the
kind that Botanical Garden would use to deliver trees and things?
They get a lot of trees that are donated to them, exotic trees or old trees
or whatever that are beautiful.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I wouldn't anticipate that large for them,
but where that would come into play, though, is for, like, the boats and
stuff like that. That's what they had identified to us in the meetings.
And so Michael's made sure he's designed it to accommodate those
longer trailers.
But what we'd see is the typical trucks that will come through can
be well accommodated in this roundabout. And I'm sorry, yeah, these
-- both of these roundabouts that I'm showing you are of similar size
that Michael did elsewhere. So it accommodates the same kind of
Page 26
February 28, 2017
traffic and similar volumes.
This is what we call a three-legged intersection instead of four
legs, but it has similar features.
So with that in mind, I'm available to answer any questions that
you may have to help consider things.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you do have registered speakers as
well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I don't see -- awe, Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to ask a couple
quick questions.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My concern -- I expressed this
with staff yesterday and with you this morning -- is making sure that
Del's isn't negatively impacted. And I think what you said is that's
actually going to improve access to Del's. Did I hear that correctly?
MR. TREBILCOCK: It would improve access to Del's versus
other options we have, yes. Because a signalized condition, what we
typically will have to do is we'd have to move the median nose further
back, and that would impact him more significantly. And also, just
from an observation standpoint, staff would have to look at conditions,
because normally you'll want to have those driveways further away
from the corner.
But, again, due to the roundabout low-speed environment, it
allows us to be more flexible to work with him. And on a similar
project that I worked with Michael on up in Bonita at Old 41 there at
Pennsylvania, we had a similar thing with another shop, and what
we're able to do is shorten up the medians and stuff, just like this, to
accommodate a long-standing business owner.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're familiar with the
operations there; you've been out there. In your professional opinion,
Page 27
February 28, 2017
this will not hurt either the parking or the access, egress and exits from
-- ingress and egress from Del's?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. We're maintaining the access for his
site there, you know.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I noticed on the sheet where
you had the different responses from the community that there were
two that were opposed; one was the fire district. They were looking to
make sure that response times would be consistent with or without the
roundabout. I assume that they've resolved that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, they're -- exactly. What they are is
what I call cautious. What they want to do is see -- we'll work through
the design with them and keep showing them that we're able to
accommodate their vehicle needs, which they're good with, as far as --
like we can show them that we can accommodate the fire trucks and
such, then they'll be satisfied with that; make sure we meet the width.
So it's a cautious approach for them. And I wanted to be -- you know,
make sure we're cognizant of that, because it's something different.
They don't always openly welcome traffic-calming-type
improvements.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. And then I think under
the comment that Del had, that his concern was the length of the
median and to make sure that access along his -- that right-of-way
there was completely open. So that's change -- that's not changing.
You're going to have the --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. What we did is really, through
the County Manager's Office, had help facilitate looking at and
maintaining his access there, and that's really where we modified the
plans that we initially had for him to better accommodate his needs and
also seeing firsthand, myself, the operations. They were good enough
to invite me out there to look at it one early Saturday morning. I was
able to see some of the stuff they were talking about. It was helpful.
Page 28
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I appreciate your talking
to Del this morning. I actually got to speak to Del. I don't know if that
calmed some of the concerns, but we'll find out in a few minutes.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I appreciate you taking the
effort to discuss these issues with Del. Thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I have a couple -- a
question for you, Norm, and then I'd like to speak to Michelle after
this.
But do you have any statistical information with managing the
pedestrian traffic? You spoke a lot about hypothecation as to how
people would be more comfortable in crossing a single-lane facility
that's not signalized than a signalized intersection where you've got the
light and this hand and the time and such.
Do you have any statistical data you can provide us with
managing pedestrian traffic? We have a lot of kids, schools.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. Yeah. No, that's really the key
reason for these -- for the roundabouts is really for -- from a safety
standpoint. I can forward that to you, but the DOT has some -- a lot of
safety data that they look at.
You know, basically there's a significant improvement that they
see for all users on a facility like this, that it doesn't -- it's not -- it's
borne by factual data that I can provide as a follow-up if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. You mentioned that the
cost of signalization and improvements for the intersection was 300-.
What are the costs associated with the roundabout facility?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Good question. Really, when we do
it as a reconstruction project, it's incidental to that. So -- because when
you do a normal intersection footprint, you're going to have long turn
Page 29
February 28, 2017
lanes that extend out and everything like that.
There's a smaller footprint with a roundabout because you don't
have all those extensive turn lanes. You have more expense in that
center circle area, but what you don't have is all the turn lanes that are
being extended out. So instead of reconstructing all those existing turn
lanes and rebuilding them, what we're be able to do is consolidate them
into single lanes.
So in this case what we're able to do is able -- it's really a wash is
what we're looking at. When you have to come out and do a
roundabout after the fact, though, that would be, you know, hundreds
of thousands of dollars. But if we're doing it as part of an existing
roadway improvement project, it's what I call incidental to the project.
So instead of doing a linear stretch of road, we're doing a
concentrated footprint for the curbing and such like that. So there's
actually, you know, overall less impactiveness there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that was a really long
answer to a very short question.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Necessarily, there's no
differentiation --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- in the cost between
signalization and a roundabout?
MR. TREBILCOCK: In a reconstruction project, yes. Well, no,
no. I'm sorry. The signal is more expensive, because when we rebuild
this intersection, if we build it in a traditional way, we're going to put
in the turn lanes and et cetera and then after the fact we're going to put
in a signal that costs an additional 300-, $350,000.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're not talking about the
signalization after the fact, Norm. That's the question I'm asking.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. I
Page 30
February 28, 2017
misunderstood.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understood you to say the
• straight signalization was 300,000. I'm asking you for what the cost is
associated with the roundabout in comparison.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I see what you mean.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, necessary -- did I
understand you to say that it is incidental? There's no difference
between the two; about the same expense?
MR. TREBILCOCK: As long as we're rebuilding the
intersection, yes, it's incidental. If we're just building a roundabout
here, it's a few hundred thousand dollars is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are rebuilding the
intersection in some form or fashion. It's a given.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So -- and I don't mean to be --
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I understand.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't mean to be short with
you. I just want to make this very clear, and you're not.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, for me you're not. So --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You told -- I couldn't find
anything in the documentation that talked about the expenses
associated with the construction of a roundabout. You shared with us
that that expense was $300,000 during your presentation, and then I --
in the documentation that I had, I just would like to know if we -- we
know that there are certain things that need to occur when we do an
intersection improvement with signalization.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are not doing signalization.
It is being proposed to us that we do a roundabout.
Page 31
February 28, 2017
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so I'd like to know the cost
differentiation between the two intersection improvements.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. And that's what I'm providing you.
The net difference is really the cost of the signal itself is really what
we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The same?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So i s about the same?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Three hundred and -- no, no. A signal's
going to cost more.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's net even plus 300,000 for the
signal. In other words, what Norman is say:Jig is the pavement work is
an incidental difference between those two. Then you add --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Plus there's actually a $300,000
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then you add some conduit, mast
arms, the bases, and then you've got the cost of O&M that goes with a
signal as well, too.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sorry about that, Norm.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, no. Thank you for the English. It's
the engineering.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my question is --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I want to make sure I
understand it's because -- it's not only saving the cost of the signal,
350,000, but even if we put in the signalization, it's still going to fail in
the future.
Page 32
February 28, 2017
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. The signal will have a similar
capacity as the roundabout.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: As the roundabout.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That was my question.
MR. TREBILCOCK: The four-way stop is going to be the
failure. But the signal would have a similar type capacity. I mean,
they're probably within a 20 percent difference of each other, but both
systems would be longstanding there, you know.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. How many public speakers,
Troy?
MR. MILLER: We have eight registered public speakers on this
item. Your first speaker is Patricia Young. She'll be followed by
Sandra E. Arafet.
MR. OCHS: Use both podiums, please.
MR. MILLER: Yes. Ms. Arafet, if I could have you come up to
the second podium and be ready.
Please state your name for the record.
MS. YOUNG: Patricia Young.
Good morning. I'm a resident of the Isles of Collier Preserve
located on Route 41 just past Thomasson. Although the Isles does not
officially fall into the CRA boundaries, we utilize the roads there and
patronize the businesses in this tucked-away southeast corner of
Naples.
Even before I moved to the Isles, when it just opened two years
ago, I had become aware of the CRA and its ongoing study of
Thomasson Drive. Curious, I regularly attended meetings to find out
what would be in the final plan. Little did I know, because it did not
even exist until a year after I moved in, that there would be egress from
the Isles onto Thomasson. It turns out that for me and for a high
Page 33
February 28, 2017
percentage of residents of the Isles, it is the access choice over Route
41 egress.
Traveling on Thomasson makes a trip o downtown for us shorter,
safer, and more comfortable because we are accessing onto
two-lane-only Thomasson. So Isles residents are big users of
Thomasson, and we will be 1,600 homes at buildout.
As a regular attendee of the CRA meetings, I communicate CRA
plans to the residents of the Isles. And we are looking forward to the
improvements of landscaping, planted medians, sidewalks, bike lanes
and, yes, a roundabout on Thomasson to take us to many amenities in
the CRA area and to have safer bike/ped access to Bayview Park.
These improvements will add character to the area and bring
Thomasson in line with the look on Bayshot:e and be a bookend to
similar improvements in Downtown Naples like there is on Central
Avenue.
The improvements will also enhance Thomasson as one of the
major entranceways to the Botanical Gardens, which is now Naples'
third most visited attraction, as well as for the national pickleball
attendees.
The Thomasson/Bayshore corridor is important not just to people
who live there but to the entire county. And Minto, the developer of
the Isles, has been a financial backer of many of the activities going on
in the CRA area. We are geographically connected, we are direct
neighbors, and we are enthusiastic about the proposed improvements
on Thomasson.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sandra Arafet. She'll be
followed by Sheila Dugan.
MS. ARAFET: Good morning, and thank you for speaking (sic)
today. My name is Sandra Arafet. I am a member of the MSTU
Page 34
February 28, 2017
advisory committee. I'm also a resident of Danforth Street near the
intersection.
I would like to convey to you my supprt for the design and
construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Bayshore Drive
and Thomasson Drive.
I really ask for you to look at the future of the community because
right now we have this community that is used to the pathway, the stop
sign, but we are really looking forward to our new residents, as you
just heard, and our childrens in the school. And by my experience in
Wyndemere, I know the roundabout near a school is the best that you
can have.
I'd really ask for your vote today, and we're looking for it to
continue this project. Thank you so much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sheila Dugan. She'll be
followed by Theresa Ackerman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Ackerman, if you'd come up to the
other podium.
MS. ACKERMAN: Del is going to.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's Del.
MS. DUGAN: Okay. Good morning, Sheila Dugan, 2705
Shoreview Drive. I've been a Collier County resident for over 26
years, and I've resided at my current address for over 21 years. I've
been an MSTU committee member since September 2010, and I
currently serve as a vice-chair of the committee.
And I certainly support comments that you've heard prior, and I
want to compliment staff and the consultant on being so thorough on
their presentation and providing the background, but I think there's a
few things that I would like to emphasize.
The Bayshore Beautification MSTU was created by Collier
County ordinance for specific purposes to be funded by the property
owners within the MSTU boundary. The improvements for
Page 35
February 28, 2017
Thomasson Drive fall well within MSTU purposes, and the
roundabout specifically will provide traffic-calming improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle mobility improvements, along with
beautification of the area, and all within the existing right-of-way.
The Thomasson Drive improvement p�'oject, along with the
roundabout, has been discussed during many MSTU public meetings,
and each committee member gave careful and considerate thought to
this project and to the betterment of our community.
And I ask that you vote in favor of this project as presented and as
supported by the advisory committee and its stakeholders. And thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speakers -- and I've been corrected
here. I guess Del -- you've had some additional time ceded to Del
Ackerman from Theresa Ackerman and from Clifton Massey. So Del
will have a total time of nine minutes to speak on this subject.
MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry. I have to use this. I've lost my
legs and right hand. I'll do the best I can, okay.
MR. OCHS: You need to use the mike.
MR. ACKERMAN: I don't think I'll need it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, but we need you on the record, sir.
MR. ACKERMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, of course, I am not
for this program at all.
You've heard a lot of lies here today. Oh, yeah, it's going to make
everything beautiful. I thought for sure we were talking about Royal
Harbor, Downtown Naples, a turnaround, or over by the Waterway.
They didn't tell you the truth.
First of all, I was the first one at the meeting that offered to pay
$350,000, Mr. McNeal (sic). As you stated, I offered to pay for the
light.
They still have not told you how much the roundabout is going to
Page 36
February 28, 2017
cost. They heehaw around about it, and they're not telling you the
truth.
Let me show you something. I'm havi - g a hell of a time here, but
I'm going to show you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Staff can help you with it.
MR. ACKERMAN: I'm going to put it right there. Leave that
right there. Okay. Let me show you somet ging. There is -- there's
Del's. Here's the ground right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to talk into the
microphone.
MR. ACKERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry-. Donna Fiala. She always tells
me what to do. You're very good. You should own the place, Donna.
Really, you should own it.
There's Del's sitting right there. This is all ground around here.
You know how long I've looked at this ground? You know how long
I've heard about the building here and the building there and the
building over here; 50 years, Mr. Saunders; 50 years I've heard about
the building that's going on at Del's. You know what building's there?
Del's. The only improvement, Del's.
A hundred and fifty thousand dollars of my money went into this
community. Ten thousand dollars alone for the bait shrimp for the
Sheriffs Department. And all the other -- Rush Limbaugh and I raised
over $100,000 for the troops last year just from Del's. Fifty-four years.
All I'm asking for is one thing -- did I talk to Norm this morning?
No. Did I offer to pay -- did I offer to pay for the light? Yes. The
light costs exactly the same as the roundabout.
I have semis coming in. Semis do not anymore -- semis do not
anymore go into a -- they go into a garage. And the semis are kept in
the garage.
The beer is not in a cooler anymore. It's in the garage. Every
truck on the road now is a semi. Have you ever seen a semi? The
Page 37
February 28, 2017
places they're showing you must be Hollywood, Florida, because it
sure as hell is not Bayshore and Thomassor1.
You know, I had the pleasure of meeti ig you at Burt's party the
other day. The oniy gentleman I didn't -- and I want to introduce
myself. My name is Del and --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nice to meet you.
MR. ACKERMAN: -- I would appreciate your vote.
Yeah, it's nice to drive down the road and be able to do this and
do that, but when in the hell are we going tc start building something?
The art center, when's that going to start? Loes anybody -- can
anybody tell me when that's going to start? They've been working on
it for 12 years. Is there anything on Bayshoi e and Thomasson that's
been built in the last 12 years?
And Norm didn't tell you -- he's a nice guy. I like him. I'm not
against him. Did he tell you at the first meeting I said I would pay for
the light? Why don't we have a light on Bayshore and 41? Why don't
we have a light on Thomasson and 41?
And, by the way, Penny, I thought it was Del's Corner. I didn't
know it was Bayshore and Thomasson anymore. I thought it was
called Del's Corner.
A lot of things have been told today. Yeah, I would like to drive
down Port Royal and all the time this and that. Thomasson has got
seven accidents. They've had seven accidents in one year. It's the
lowest area in Naples, Florida. Call the Sheriffs Department. Call
your Sheriffs Department. Seven fender bumpers -- benders in the last
seven years.
We don't need that corner. And then we're going to take a
sidewalk and put it up on top of my place when I poured the blacktop
for the kids to go across the street? When my wife and daughter, who
died three years ago, took the kids across the street for the Sheriffs
Department when they didn't have anybody to show up that day.
Page 38
February 28, 2017
Come on, folks. I've been there for 50 years. There's my store.
There's the land. I've looked at the same damn land for 50 years, and
nothing has been done.
Could you please -- I'm 80 years old. i've had 18 surgeries.
Could you give me five or six years at least to let me finish off the 60
years? Then you can -- I'll give you the core_er.
Bill, I'll give you the corner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think that's against our ethics
code that we have coming up here, sir, but..
MR. ACKERMAN: No. I just say, I would like a few years,
because what you're telling me about is you re telling me -- you're
showing me situations that should be in Royal Harbor. This is
Bayshore and Thomasson.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think it's Del's Corner now.
MR. ACKERMAN: -Yeah, yeah, than you. Thank you, Bill.
It's Del's Corner.
And I would like after 53-and-a-half years -- all these people that
first come into town, oh, let's do this and let s do this and let's do that.
What about 53-and-a-half years of paying taxes?
Why should it be taken away from me? This -- nothing's been
done in 50 years. Burt, nothing's been done in 50 years. Go look at it.
Appreciate your vote, folks. Donna, you've done a lot for this
town. I appreciate you.
Penny Taylor, thanks for calling the meeting and giving me an
opportunity.
And would I pay $350,000 for that light, you're damn well I
would, because every corner in our town has a light. There's only one
place that I know where there's a turnaround. There's one over here by
the ice cream store, there's one uptown by the city dock, and you have
to wait two hours to park because they sit there, the old timers from --
in March and April. You sit there a half a day parking to get into a
Page 39
February 28, 2017
store.
The one over here by the ice cream stc_re is way in the back. I
don't know what its doing back there.
The semis go over the top of it. They ':.urn around.
One other thing I'd like to know. How do you -- you asked a very
good question. How do you control the kid h? You've got kids on that
corner. How do you control the kids? Instead of one guard, do you use
one -- four guards? Do you use two guards' What do you do?
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Peter Dvorak. He'll be
followed by Maurice Gutierrez.
MR. DVORAK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Peter Dvorak, and I do serve on the Baysho-e/Gateway CRA Advisory
Board and have, obviously, watched the progress of this project with
great interest for many years.
But I'm here to speak personally. I've oeen a resident and an
investor in that area since the 1990's, and I'll excited with all the
progress that we are seeing.
Some of the things that have -- obviou3ly, Collier -- Isles of
Collier Preserve, but we've got the new Montessori school that's going
up right now south of the Thomasson intersection on Bayshore. We've
got the corner that the apartments used to be on is going to be
redeveloped very soon.
I personally live on Jeepers two blocks up kind of where the fire
station is.
I've previously lived in communities that were slow to warm to
the concept of roundabouts and have been able to see the progress after
those roundabouts have been completed as far as the flow of traffic and
reduction in accidents.
I walk, I ride my bike, and I drive that intersection every day, and
Page 40
February 28, 2017
I would much rather negotiate a roundabou than a signalized
intersection or even the current four-way step.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Maurice
Gutierrez.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Maurice Gutierrez. I'm the Chairman of the MSTU Board.
Everything that's been said here is fact.gal, very interesting, and
emotional. But, you know, MSTUs were c. eated so that the cost of
improvements would not be borne to all of :.he taxpayers but to specific
districts, which means those districts have a vision, and the vision
doesn't mean wait until the county decides tJ do something. Gives us
the opportunity to expedite, to think outside the box, outside of
government regulation, and to see how we ran improve the area.
If we did nothing, the intersection would fail, the county would be
on the hook for a signalized intersection. To date the residents of
Bayshore -- and I'll say with the exclusion c f Windstar -- is
predominantly not affluent. So the fact that we're taxing ourselves on
top of our regular taxes speaks a lot for the community that we live in.
If we did nothing, we would save a lot of money. Let me
compare that. To date we have spent over 500,000 in studies and
meetings and ideas primarily because the right-of-way that we were
assured was incorrect. The county then -- Transportation Department
addressed us as we have to do something or the signalization will
occur, and the options of roundabouts were put on the table. We didn't
think of this. We didn't pull it out of our hats. This was projected as a
solution.
We could have sat back, as a chairman I say, you know, we have
charged a 3 percent millage rate for many years now. We could have
dropped it back to 1 percent. Said, you know what, let the county pay
for this. We don't need to get involved in this fight. But the reality is
Page 41
February 28, 2017
the community is behind us. Whether we have an intersection with a
light or a roundabout I think has more to do with traffic flow, but the
interesting part is nobody talks about the numbers of cars that are there
and what's projected.
We were informed by a resident of the Isles about what's coming.
Mattamay Homes is coming; South Bayshore will have an exit onto
Thomasson. So then the question is, do we sit back and let the county
take care of it -- because, after all, that's their job, not ours -- or do we
step forward and be bold and different?
I'm kind of ashamed as a chairman to sit here four years into this
vision and to see the City of Bonita Springs not only thought it,
planned it, financed it, and they're almost done, included two bridges
and two or three roundabouts, and we are not even 60 percent done
with construction plans. Not bidding. Plans.
So we're hoping, the commissioners, you look at this and you
look at Bayshore and make a decision, because half a million bucks
into it we got nothing to show. When we did Bayshore and I was
newly elected to the board, which is an advisory board, we spent a
million dollars on Bayshore, to do it, to light it, plan it, and fix the
bridge.
I'm in business. I would have been bankrupt two years ago if I
would have my operation the way this is running. We need directive.
We need an answer. If you don't want a roundabout, let us know.
Maybe we'll step back and let you-all pay for it, and we'll reduce our
millage rate. I'm sure the taxpayers won't mind that. But if they're
burdening themselves to pay extra, please support the idea. Let us
know that we're not failing but we're bold, we are Bayshore, we are
different.
We look for your comments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it?
MR. MILLER: That's all of our speakers, ma'am.
Page 42
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I believe we have two
lights. And who was first? Commissioner Fiala, I'll defer to my right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much.
My first comment was, I know that the Botanical Garden was
very supportive of this; is that correct? Ana they've said that they
would do the landscaping in the center of the roundabout; is that
correct?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct. The Botanical Garden has
provided a support letter, and they are offering to work with us for
whatever landscaping we are proposing within the center of this
roundabout.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I remember hearing so many
times of all of the hundreds of people that go to their different events,
hats in the garden, and you have these people coming from all over.
You know, there's a lot of traffic that goes through there, and I would
think that if it would hamper the Botanical Garden in any way they
wouldn't be supportive of this. It's just my assumption, you know. I
don't have anything to go by except that they have the deliveries of
trees, and they have all of the events, and I just thought that that added
up in my head.
So the second thing is I went to the CRA meeting where they
were giving a presentation on roundabouts. And I have to tell you, I
went in there with rather a closed mind. I didn't want to see a
roundabout there. I like it the way it was. I didn't really -- I wasn't
really interested in that.
As I sat there and they were telling me how great they are and
they were showing the trucks going and buses and also ambulances
and so forth going through there, I thought, well, you know, maybe
that's just this. It was in Sarasota. So, actually, I drove up to Sarasota
to take a look at that roundabout. I wanted to see for myself. You
know, you can put anything in a movie. How do you know it's really
Page 43
February 28, 2017
Sarasota? So I went up there to the -- it's called something like Honore
Road or something like that.
And I went and just kind of pulled over to the side and watched
the traffic. Man, oh, man, everything was going so smoothly. I was
quite impressed with that. So that was my second thing.
And then I know we have some in the City of Naples. Do you
have -- can you tell us how they function in the City of Naples?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we have a brand new one on
Central.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then we have more -- in terms of
ambulances, I can't attest to that. And basically the way they've
changed Central Avenue, it's pretty much prohibitive, the truck traffic
is, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. So you don't have any
over there?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm not sure where the trucks are going
to go, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I'm looking at my notes.
I think that's -- that's all of the notes I have right at the moment.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
All right. Commissioner McDaniel, and then Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Michelle, could you
reiterate how much money we have spent so far in planning to get to
this point?
MS. ARNOLD: If the chairman of the MSTU's correct, over
$500,000 to date.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I understand what
you're saying, Mr. Chairman, with regard to -- because I remember
Page 44
February 28, 2017
when Bayshore Drive was Kelly Road and we four-laned it all the way
down, I remember.
MR. GUTIERREZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, Mr. Del, just so you know
-- and I appreciate -- I've been stopping at your store and buying my
bait for 35 years. And I have to say out loud, I am not an advocate of
roundabouts. I drive an F350 four-door 8-foot bed. I cannot traverse
the roundabouts in the City of Naples without running over
somebody's posies in the medians.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'm looking at this --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're the one?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I was. I'm the one.
Somebody write it down. Not right now, Mr. Del.
And I'm looking at this design, and I can see where I can get into
Del's store to buy my bait, but I'm wondering how I'm going to get out
and get back over to go back into -- on Thomasson and get over to the
ramp to put my boat in. And that's a concern that I have with the
existing design as I see it here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, that's good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So -- and there are -- this is an
inordinate -- and one of the other folks that were up on the information
sheet was the folks down at Hamilton Harbor, and they expressed
concerns with regard to the boat traffic that comes through there;
people pulling boats to get through there, in and out of the ramps that
they have, not to mention our public ramp that's at the end of
Thomasson.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. In terms of the vehicular traffic,
what I've observed in terms of folks that are coming into Del's, they
come in a couple different ways. And some folks, if they're coming
from the east, they'll park on the shoulder there, and really what we
Page 45
February 28, 2017
have is this kind of pull-off area. That's an opportunity if somebody
wants to stop there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to -- we need to somehow
indicate that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm moving my little arrow.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
MR. TREBILCOCK: I've got -- so what you currently see is
folks will come in here, and they'll pull up in the parking area like right
here. If they've got a boat or something, they're going to pull up there,
and so they'll -- whoops.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Troy keeps hitting the button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Poor Troy.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. But they'll continue to still be able
to do that. I mean, so we're leaving this whole area open for folks to
come into the parking lot. The only thing that we're closing off-- and
we'd do this with any design -- is right around -- wrapped around the
corner.
And you're right, Commissioner, I've seen folks drive through --
let me see here -- drive through diagonally through the intersection.
That's not a maneuver I'd ever recommend, you know, in particular
when we've got a signal. It's really problematic. And so we need to
prevent that.
So what we're doing, though, is we're leaving this whole area
open. Our initial design did not have that whole area open, but we're
looking to do that based on what you've observed in terms of folks
needing to parallel in. So I think we have that covered.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But -- so ask the question again.
MS. ARNOLD: I just reiterated: How do they get out?
MR. TREBILCOCK: So what they do is you come in here. If
you pull in here, you would stop here, and then you'd -- then you can --
Page 46
February 28, 2017
gosh, I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It happens every time.
MR. TREBILCOCK: How about that? I'm clicking something, I
think.
So then you pull out here, and then you can pull back out again
into the roundabout, and then you go through the circle and you go on
your way.
Likewise, if you're wanting to come into the site, you're coming
the other way, you're leaving, you can pull in here, and then you can
either pull into the parking lot -- you still have areas to back out of the
parking lot. All this is available to his customers to be able to pull out.
I mean, they're currently using the county right-of-way. They'll
continue to be able to use the county right-of-way if we propose it. As
a matter of fact, we're kind of pushing things further north with the
roundabout as well, the roadway, so it gives them a little more room.
You know, these are pathway areas that -- we're trying to define
the walk areas for the pedestrians, you know. But they have room.
You know, a long boat with a trailer would parallel park in here, and
that's what I notice they do today. And so that's what I would see them
continuing to be able to do.
Cars can pull in and pull out. They have room to pull in and pull
out. There's no obstruction in the median. Right now the median ends
right here, and we've lessened that area so that allows that boat-trailer
guy to pull out a little better.
So I feel we really are accommodating them with the diameters. I
know the Central -- the roundabouts in the City of Naples, those mini
ones that you're talking about, those aren't this same design at all. I
will tell you, Michael Wallwork, his number one statement to me is the
worst thing about roundabouts is bad designs. And so that's why we
wanted to make sure he's a -- we got the top-notch designer to
accommodate the designed vehicle. They're not bad in the city, don't
Page 47
February 28, 2017
get me wrong, but they're designed for a different vehicle.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Different vehicles.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Exactly. So that's what's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. Not -- one size doesn't fit
all.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Absolutely right. And that's why -- this
has been paired specifically to the vehicles. Michael's listening to the
folks at Hamilton Harbor and others about the long trailers and make
sure we can accommodate it, and he's done that here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. My -- I think you may
have answered my questions. My concern, as I indicated at the
beginning, was whether this was going to have any negative impact at
all on egress and ingress into and out of Del's, and parking. And what
you've said is that you're actually shortening the median.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. We're improving it. We're -- we are
not impeding what I call legal access, you know, but folks that want to
go diagonal through across the intersection, of course, we're preventing
that, you know, which is sound design, I believe.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. McDaniel, does that
answer your question in terms of the boats and that sort of thing?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Whether he wants to do it or not.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My question has been
answered. I'm not buying it. Because I'm the one that drives my truck.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now what I'd like to suggest and to see
and get some information on, if we left the intersection as it is today --
because what I heard from this testimony before us is that you're
planning for the future, and I applaud you for that. It's not today. It's
for the future.
I also heard that four-way stops are as safe as roundabouts
because what it does is slows the traffic down in the intersection.
Page 48
February 28, 2017
Maybe that's in a stretch, maybe not as safe, but the idea that the
traffic is slowed down, that it's much, much safer than a signalized
light, is that correct, a four-way stop, as it exists today?
MR. TREBILCOCK: The roundabout is safer than a four-way
stop. You know, a four-way stop, what you're looking at is what I call
legal compliance, you know, that the folks are going to stop at that stop
sign. And what we're realistically seeing, and it's evidenced by the
Sheriffs Department going out there to monitor, is as things get packed
up, you get some folks that don't necessarily follow the rules or their
idea of, well, do I stop first or that other guy stop first? And you start
to create a real stressor.
So I would say, again, the four-way stop is consistent in terms of
a lower speed environment than a signal. That was the main thing I
was trying to point there is the conditions change once you go to a
signal because you've got green time and red.
But in terms of a four-way stop, as it starts to reach its capacity,
there's a real stressor. We've all been to those four-way stops, and
especially multi lanes are worse, because you don't know who stopped
first. And it can be very stressful. And, again, some folks that tend not
to comply, it makes it more difficult, you know.
And folks do run red lights, you know. So that's the key thing
here with good design in a roundabout, it really improves the safety.
That's why Federal Highway is pushing it so significantly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: When it is it going to reach its
capacity?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Good question. It's a -- it's really a guess
there in terms of when, because it's when is the development coming
there to make it reach its capacity?
But I can tell you, you implement this roundabout, you're going to
immediately see the benefits of it for the pedestrians, for the vehicles
to have good flow, and it's going to help the community that way, right
Page 49
February 28, 2017
from the outset, and it had a signature. Whether it's five years, 10
years, that's a bit of a guess. And we've seen this before on
infrastructure where we try and guess when that's going to reach its
capacity, and I can tell you, every time we look to do that, it's too late
because we held off on doing infrastructure. I can look around the
county where we've done this and said, you know, what year is that
going to happen? And it's very hard to predict.
But the key is, is this is something that can be done incidental to
the project, and that's what's really important for you-all. It's a great
investment from the county.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The problem that I have is it affects a
business, a sole proprietor, a man who has established himself in
Naples but also on this corner for 53 years, and I'm having a huge
problem with that.
What if-- and I'm asking for the price differentiation, if that's the
correct word, Nick, but what I want to know is, if we held -- because
we're not talking about it failing today. We're talking five years,
maybe before, but certainly not this year, maybe not even next year.
What if we improved and beautified -- and I hate that word, but
gentrified Thomasson and Bayshore in the plans that were before us
but kept the intersection the way it is with a four-way stop so that at
such time maybe Del's will sell, maybe he'll decide he wants to have a
quiet life somewhere else, which I think his wife has told me he wants
to do, or she would like to do.
What if we left it as it is and improved it -- the drive, and then at
such time came back and did the roundabout there? What would the
problem be with that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: And there's not, if that's the desire of the
Board. The only thing I think for you-all to consider is what happens
to businesses when we have construction going on; it has impacts on
folks. So if we're improving this roadway, there is going to be an
Page 50
February 28, 2017
impact during construction. So if we go in and do some construction
now and then we come back in a few years and do construction again,
it's a bit of a double whammy versus looking to do construction in one
singular shot. We're all better off for that.
I can tell you personally the 41, Old 41 in Bonita project has been
very difficult for the businesses and everything like that. But they see
the future and the vision, and that's the key here, too, is, you know --
it's really to look towards that.
You know, I'm -- I've got this -- this is an interesting one in La
Holla, California, a roundabout that was put there, and this business
that was on the corner, they were just a bike shop that rented bicycles
and everything. And you can see here, this was when it was first built.
You can see the low hedge there. And now here's a roundabout. This
is that same location. See that wavy wall? Look what's on the side
there. That's side seating for a little restaurant on -- right next to a
roundabout.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that bicycle shop still in business?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. He's right off to the side right over
there. So that's the whole thing.
And then there's a CVS on the corner over there. Roundabouts
are good for business that way. And so -- but there is pain, but there's
in any construction project, and that's understandable.
So the only thing I'd say is -- when you make a decision is to look
at, are we best to go through with this and make it as painless as
possible and then to be very accommodating, which I feel we are, or do
we want to do it, you know, partial, and then I think it's going to be
more painful in the long run.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Fiala was next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, the reason you see
Page51
February 28, 2017
us struggling is because everybody loves Del. I mean, everybody
loves Del, and he's been -- he's been a patriarch for the community for
a hundred years, practically.
On the other hand, we also have hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of people that are going to be affected by our decision -- it's
not one person; it's hundreds of people -- and another big business on
the other corner who is absolutely in favor of it. So now the pull
comes.
We all love Del; on the other hand, we want to do the right thing
for the community as well. And so what I'm asking, if I can ask this
clearly -- oh, and by the way, we were talking about stop signs,
keeping the four-way stop signs, but when people blow a stop sign,
that's when you see people killed. We hear that all the time where
somebody blew the stop sign, and somebody was hit and killed, and
that's not so good.
But what I was thinking is, if we give it, say, a two-year time
limit, so by the time we get going and get the rest of the street done
and we have to modify things, anyway, maybe that would give Del
time if they want to move up north or something and to sell his
property and at the same time it would give you guys time to get all the
bids taken care of and the permitting done and so forth. It's going to
take a long time to do that anyway.
Possibly we could then plan on having the roundabout built the
last phase of this beautification of Thomasson. Do you think that that
would be a decision that everybody could live with?
I would like to make a motion to do that, as a matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hearing no second, the motion fails.
Commissioner Solis?
Page 52
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think Commissioner McDaniel was
before me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I would like to make
the suggestion irrespective of this. If we can't make -- if we can't get
happy with the access for the people that are actually doing business
on this intersection, I think we need to give -- we need to give credence
to that, and I'm not quite sure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which business?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Del's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, not the Botanical Garden?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the Botanical Gardens
are -- you know, they're -- the other people that are impacted by this
intersection can function. And, again, we have to recall or remember
when we're giving statistical information that there is -- there is truth
with regard to signalization in lieu of a roundabout with regard to the
accidents that, in fact, occur.
But when someone does something illegal at an intersection, it's
dangerous. I don't care whether it's a stop sign, blowing a stop sign or
running a red light or anything along those lines. Any change to an
intersection is, in fact, change.
And when you're comparing statistical -- I think we just have to
be able careful about the comparison of the statistical data that comes
about in regard to signalization, which is typical in how our
intersections typically work, and comparison to the roundabouts that
are still out there new. And I've heard that said regularly.
No matter what we do today, I would like to assure the chairman
of the CRA that we are done spending money in consultation with
regard to this. We're going to make a decision and, in fact, go forward,
just so you know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis?
Page 53
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have a couple questions with regard
to what the intersection is like now. As I understood it, the median
there now is longer, and I'm referring to the median to Thomasson in
front of Del's.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so that median is there and
affects people that are taking a left out of Del's right now.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. Where I have the arrow is where the
median currently exists right there. You can see; yep. And that affects
it. Again, we've pulled it back in with this project. Again, we're trying
to give deference to the long-term business owner. That's our focus as
well, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the MSTU has been collecting
taxes for the property owners within the MSTU for these
improvements on Thomasson and Bayshore?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. They've been collecting not just for this
project but for years and years and for beautification on Bayshore as
well as Thomasson Drive, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: And they've set aside funding specifically for
this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Specifically for this. And both the
MSTU board and the CRA has recommended --
MS. ARNOLD: Moving forward with the project.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Moving forward, okay.
So with what's being proposed, other than the people that would
cut diagonally through the intersection, which I think everybody can
agree is not something we want...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not prudent.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right? That's just a bad idea.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can see how it can happen,
'II
Page 54
February 28, 2017
but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I've actually seen that happen
once.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It wasn't me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Was it a truck, F150?
I'm just trying to reconcile how we have an MSTU that was
created to do this kind of work, and the property owners within there
are paying for this kind of work to be done, including Del. I mean,
obviously he's part of it as well. And if we -- if the access is going to
be not only at least the same access but better access, I guess I'm -- I
don't understand the concern. And the fact that, I think as
Commissioner Fiala was pointing out, that I don't know how many
people or how many property owners there are within the MSTU, but I
would expect that it's a pretty good number.
You know, I have concerns of not doing what the MSTU board is
recommending since that's their job is to recommend what needs to be
done in there. I just -- I'm having a hard time reconciling that.
And I understand Del's concerns about his business, and any
construction in the right-of-way in front of your business is going to
affect you, but that's going to be true, as you were saying, for whatever
happens there. There's going to be a negative impact just because there
is construction, whatever is being constructed.
I'm just having a hard time reconciling not doing what's being
recommended by the MSTU board and the CRA.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And as a point -- as a
point of reference, I may have left -- I may have left a few of you
hanging with regard to this. I don't think that the issue here is whether
or not the intersection is in need of improvement. It's, in fact, how it
goes.
And I would like to make a motion that we move this back two
Page 55
February 28, 2017
weeks, allow staff an opportunity to physically work with the -- with
Mr. Ackerman with regard to the physical impacts of his business and
his staff to assure him that the improvements that are being proposed
are not going to negatively impact his business.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With, perhaps -- and I'm going to ask if
you would incorporate what Commissioner Fiala said with the concept
that there might even be a delay in this roundabout which would give
the Ackermans an opportunity -- if they really, after the two weeks, do
not want this, they would have an opportunity to change -- you know,
make the changes that are necessary in their business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would rather not add anything
into it at this particular stage of the game. I would like to allow our
consultants, staff, to work with Mr. Ackerman to endeavor to appease
his concerns with regard to the improvements to the intersection.
There's no argument that health, safety, and welfare issues are at
hand here, and it is necessary for us, as our consultant has shared, that
the improvements need to be made in advance of the failure of the
intersection. So without adding a lot of stipulation into staff and
negotiations from the motion, if we just set this aside for a couple of
weeks, allow staff to work further with Mr. Ackerman to address those
concerns, we can bring it back and vote on it then.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So the motion is to continue
until the next meeting or maybe the next meeting depending on what
they could work out, but no later than --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If two weeks is okay, I'll make
it a -- I'll move it to a 30-day thing.
MR. OCHS: Two weeks is plenty. Two weeks is plenty. We've
had this discussion before; we'll do it again.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would think so.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a second to that motion.
Page 56
February 28, 2017
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis wanted to
say something first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just wanted to add one thing to
what I was saying is -- and I don't know if he really meant this, but Mr.
Ackerman had mentioned that he would pay for the signal.
MR. ACKERMAN: Yes. I will, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I don't know if that's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not -- we don't want to
go there from -- not from this format, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't want to put a signal.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We don't want to put a signal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We don't want to talk about
who's paying for what from this format.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I wanted to second the motion.
My concern has been, and I've expressed this to Del, in terms of any
negative impact at all on his business.
Now, staff has said, and our professional consultant -- and I know
Mr. Trebilcock does a great job and a guy that when he says
something, you can take it to the bank. And their position is that this
will not have a negative impact on access to your property or have any
negative impacts on vehicles being able to get in and out at all.
So you have two weeks -- staff has two weeks to convince Del of
that, and hopefully everybody will walk away convinced, but if not,
then we have an issue to deal with.
And Del has, I will tell you -- going way, way back there were
times when Del was not treated properly by the county in terms of
condemnation of his property out on 951, and I don't want to see a
repeat of him not being treated properly. So that's why I'm seconding
Page 57
February 28, 2017
the motion. Let's get with Del and see if that can be resolved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? Just in terms of our time-certains
that we announced earlier --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, our time-certains.
MR. OCHS: -- I think we're going to have to make some
adjustments if it's okay with the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we talk about this and let our --
MR. OCHS: Well, I was just going to suggest the 10:30, we
continue with that right after the court reporter break. We will push
the budget policy presentation later in the day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Perfect; perfect.
MR. OCHS: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thanks. Ten-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
And just by way of reminder, this is your 10:30 time-certain
hearing item. You have 10 -- 11 public speakers, and you have an
11 :45 a.m. time-certain. So we'll try to move this presentation along as
quickly as we can, Madam Chair.
Item #11C
Page 58
February 28, 2017
RECOMMENDATION TO EVALUATE THE SITE FEASIBILITY
AND FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS OF DEVELOPING A
REGIONAL TOURNAMENT CALIBER SPORTS FACILITY
AND TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON FUTURE ACTIONS -
MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM, LOOK FOR
FUNDING SOURCES THAT INCLUDE TOURIST TAX
DOLLARS AND PRESENT FINDINGS TO THE TDC ON
MARCH 27TH AND BCC ON MARCH 28TH — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This is Item -- this is Item 11C on your agenda this
morning. It's a recommendation to evaluate the site feasibility and
financial requirements of developing a regional tournament caliber
sports facility and to provide guidance on future actions.
Mr. Casalanguida, your Deputy County Manager, will begin the
presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
Good morning, Commissioners. I've had the pleasure of working
on this project in two capacities: One was your Braves concept
feasibility study, and we know that didn't end well, and this one here, I
think, is a little bit different.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Contraire. It did quite -- yeah,
that did end well, actually.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It did very well.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When I say it didn't end well, for the
person who worked on it, it was a -- didn't end well.
This is a little bit different. I'm going to give you a little bit of
background first for the new commissioners because there's a little
history that goes with this project.
This is Gantt chart that we used when we brought something to
the TDC and to the Board to bring on your new sports tourism deputy
assistant director, which the Board approved. It gives you a feel for
Page 59
February 28, 2017
some of the projects we worked on and gives you basically an FY16
timeline.
Notice on the top of the screen on the right-hand side there's a
little gap over there. That's a lot of the times during the June/July
period where we're giving the field a rest and we're pushing, you know,
things off in terms of tournament play and even local play.
In 2005 your Parks Department and your Tourism Department
recognized the deficiencies we had in our facilities. We were starting
to, you know, back up in our events management. We were delaying
local field play. So we reached out to Hunden Strategic Partners,
which is here today, and had them do an analysis of what is available
in Collier County, determine our existing capacity, the demand, and do
a presentation to the Board.
As part of that presentation, they suggested a certain type of play
or tournament caliber facility that would be able to provide the level of
demand that we have here in Collier County.
We started out with six sites that was presented to the Board. It
gives you an overview map with North Collier Park being on the top of
the screen, the locations around I-75/951, there were four of them, and
one down in the south which is Manatee Elementary School location
off of 41, Manatee Road and Roost Road.
So that was presented to the Board, discussed at length, and a
couple of these came off.
We then started with North Collier Regional Park, and the
comment was, let's take a look at this but let's do some public
involvement. There was a lot of discussion about the preserve area in
the middle here.
With Hunden's recommendation, they looked at eight fields, both
multi-purpose fields and softball/baseball as well as the determined
need that we don't have a sports championship venue or what we call --
you know, not a stadium but a chairmanships venue caliber facility as
Page 60
February 28, 2017
well, too.
So we went to the public, and the feedback was, don't touch the
preserve. So we converted North Collier Park to just a turf analysis. It
was supposed to be an item that was going to follow this. The TDC
heard it Monday. They wanted some additional information, as the
County Manager pointed out, and that will come back to you in a
month. So we left North Collier off the table in terms of this review.
Manatee Middle School superimposed three fields. It's residential
all around it, it takes access off Roost Road, Manatee, and 41. The site
can't be expanded. That was taken off fairly easily. I think Hunden
suggested 60 acres was the minimum, so we looked at it. Clearly, it
wasn't going to accommodate what we were trying to accomplish.
We looked at the golf course site, superimposed three fields. This
is 167 acres. This -- at the time it was suggested, there was a lot of
discussion about the existing use of the golf course and the developer
at the time who owns the golf course, the land developer suggested
putting multifamily around here. It became quite controversial, so it
was taken off due to that.
I think there's still an opportunity to look at that. And we
received interest from the owner that says, if you're still looking, I'm
interested in talking to the county. So right now that is not in your
feasibility study, but it is a viable alternative to a sports location site.
Next is Magnolia Pond. Mr. Beyrent, who's spent quite a bit of
time -- I think he's in the audience -- bringing proposals to us. This is
multi-owner site. This location here is owned by one owner, this is a
firm in Miami, and this is Mr. Benderson that owns the property here.
Just to the right is 951.
Had the engineer do a layout of this site showing that the venue
could accommodate the fields. There was some complications with
some preserves and drainage easements. Really, when we looked at
this site, Commissioners, it boiled down to trying to work with four
Page 61
February 28, 2017
different owners, county being one of them, trying to manage the
traffic and capacity improvements that are controlled by this owner,
and the fact that this owner has the property entitled or committed
under a purchase and sale right now.
So this, out of all the sites, has the most complications, although
it's in a very good location.
We next evaluated the City Gate site. City Gate has a long
relationship with the county. We've had three or four developer
contribution agreements with City Gate Development. They're
building and designed a four-lane road that connects to 951. We are
now completing that road all the way over to the Collier County 305
site. It's going to provide access to the resource recovery park and
ultimately to the Wilson/Benfield Road.
So we had a different firm work with that -- that's the same firm
that's doing some of the City Gate work -- for expediency and cost.
Collier County's 305 is next door. We are -- purchased that site
already for approximately $5 million going back a few years. At one
point in time we were considering making an offer for 18 million. We
picked this up from Mellon Bank as a distressed property when they
were able to write off some of the bad loans. So the county owns this
property right now.
It is going to be a -- in our long-term plans has the potential for a
landfill expansion, buyer reactor site, a future county road that's in our
Long Range Transportation Plan, and also access to the resource
recovery park. There's about 165 useful acres there that we can
accommodate future development.
So we've laid out what we call the full complex that Hunden
Strategic Partners suggested on both sites. Going to City Gate first,
there's one main access road off this road that's being constructed right
now. Secondary access road to the west. It has the complement of the
eight facility fields and the championship fields and also
Page 62
February 28, 2017
accommodates a future field house.
So the site is large enough at about 105 acres. Concern with this
is the price. The positive with this is, obviously, it's zoned, shovel
ready, and within 12 to 24 months you could be turning dirt on this site
and be moving forward.
Had very good conversations with the owners of City Gate. They
said they're interested in talking to us further. And we didn't have
authority to negotiate, so we left it as it's a viable site.
Collier County 305, same complement of facilities; identical to
City Gate and allows and considers the future road development of
Wilson/Benfield. Complications with this site, you are looking at three
to five years to turn dirt on this site because of the permitting that's
required, public involvement, Federal Highway in terms of crossing
I-75, an alignment that's there, and quite a bit of mitigation.
We have five million of sun (sic) cost in this. We're going to
develop the site at some point in time. You have the benefit of
multiple departments; in other words, transportation is going to have to
do a lot of the site infrastructure improvements to build the road and do
the drainage. I know we're looking at a restore project for drainage
here as well as expansion from public utilities.
So this site is viable. It's a time component issue for that. And
our costs, all in, you know, get to the higher end of 200,000 per acre to
get it developable.
Our recommendations boil down to four important components,
and I'm going to give some time for Hunden Strategic Partners to talk
about the demand and also our public speakers, but this is important.
As part of our financing plan when we looked at this, it's not
going to get done without some sort of TD pledge, tourist development
tax. In terms of where we are right now in Collier County, you're at 4
percent tourist development tax. Obviously, 1 percent per hundred of
room means a dollar a night, so average room is 250, you're looking at
Page 63
February 28, 2017
$2.50 more per room night added for a 1 percent tax.
We're one of the only communities that's at the current 4 percent
rate. Most communities are at 5. Some of the coastal high-impact
communities are at 6.
One percent in TD revenue generates about $5.2 million. The
ranges we've given you in this site development is 60 to 100 million
dollars. Obviously, the high end of that is based on the price range
that's in City Gate at the top value of$400,000 per acre. That would
be significantly reduced if we went to the 305 site or if City Gate was
able to work with us on the price coming down.
Ten to $15 million of that range that's in there is the field house
building. That could be delayed or done at a second phase. I think
Hunden will talk a little bit about the field house building as well, too.
So you're looking at about $50 million on a -- you know, a low
price land acquisition developable complex. The 1 percent generates
about 5 million. Your debt service, to get to 50 to 60 million with
assuming some sort of general fund buy-down, is about $4 million a
year. So financially it's feasible to do that.
And I'm spending a little bit of time on Item 1 because I think, in
fairness to the folks that we're going to have to work with at the next
phase, if there's no real commitment to really explore that financial
plan, it really shouldn't go to the next phase because it's quite
expensive and coming back with the detailed pro formas on both the
sites without a commitment to do that, really a little disingenuous
negotiating with these folks.
Now, the second part of the recommendation is the meet with
City Gate folks. I think they've talked to us several times and said the
price is negotiable; they can come down. They've also talked about
some nonmonetary exchanges. And from explaining that to you a little
bit is when you're designing a site, there's things such as drainage,
other improvements that could be done in shared berms where if we
Page 64
February 28, 2017
co-locate that site, we can reduce the price as well, too.
And I'd like to -- part of that Item 4 is allow some additional
funds for me to spend some time with the engineers and see what kind
of nonmonetary value we can get by developing that site.
We expect to deliver to you, when we come back, a final
comparison of the two sites. If I were to add anything to this
recommendation, it would be to maybe include the golf course as a
sniff test as well, too, to see if there's any interest in that and what that
might bring.
I did want to address a couple comments as we've had with the
board members regarding some of the locations. I know
Commissioner Solis suggested yesterday there was a concern about
industrial property, so you kind of perked my curiosity. I wanted to
get through and see what was left over. His concern was we have very
light industrial property in the county, and if we chew up 105 acres at
City Gate, what's left over?
I reached out to the Rice's. We did an analysis in-house. There's
still quite a bit of acreage left over. There's about another 105 that
would be left over; enough for a Hertz-type industrial complex plus 10
more, 100,000-square-foot building. So the site does have the
flexibility to take this on and still have some light industrial left over.
There's also the component that we could do a little balance
development on this as well, too, and I think we'll look at that if the
Board decides to go forward, meaning that we would look at both sites,
and maybe we could start with a portion on City Gate and develop the
rest on Collier 305 if that made sense. But I think from a staff
perspective,'what our goal would be in the next 120 days is bring you
several financing plan options with the TD kind of revenue built into
that equation.
There'd be a General Fund component for a buy-down we would
talk about, because there would be a lot of public use that would go
Page 65
February 28, 2017
into this as well, too. And then really do a pro forma on City Gate,
Collier County 305, and potentially the golf course as well, too, so that
you'd be looking at some, really, better numbers and better time frames
on a project like this.
That's my end of the presentation. I think you -- I would like to
bring up Hunden Strategic Partners, because their expertise is in
demand, and evaluate. And we've asked them to evaluate what we had
done and also take a look and brief the Board on some of the demand
components and facility components that we asked them to look at
about six to nine months ago.
So with that, I'll ask Mr. Hunden to come forward.
MR. HUNDEN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
MR. OCHS: Introduce yourself on the record.
MR. HUNDEN: Will do. My name is Rob Hunden, president of
Hunden Strategics Partners. I have with me Nick D'Onofrio who has
also worked on this quite extensively, both the prior analysis and the
current additional work that we just completed.
Very happy to be here and go through this presentation. I think
that -- you've heard, I think, most of the results, but I'm going to go
into a little bit of detail.
So first, for those of you who weren't involved in the prior study,
I wanted to just give you an overview of what was found. I'll try to
keep this pretty brief. We have -- I know that we're beyond the
time-certain, so it's a good thing we probably don't work at NASA.
But I will tell you I am from the community that has more
roundabouts than any other in the country in Carmel, Indiana. And see
me afterwards, but definitely, definitely highly recommend them. They
have over 100.
So the overview of the prior study: What we learned is that you
are really -- it's my least favorite term in economic development, but
you're leaking demand and money and spending to other communities
Page 66
February 28, 2017
through these because you're losing the opportunity for additional
sports utilization for tournaments, people traveling for tournaments,
and of course Florida and your county in particular are very attractive
for youth sports tournaments of all kind, both indoor and out, primarily
outdoor because of your weather, but also indoor as well has become a
big trend.
And so we did the analysis and, as you can see here on Slide 4,
we projected from the recommended number of facilities -- let me
actually go back. So just to give you a broad overview of the number
of minimum facilities that we recommended as a result of doing our
demand and financial analysis, as well as economic impact analysis, is
that we recommended at least eight multi-purpose fields and at least
eight diamonds; however, again, that would be the minimum.
So if that's going to take up 60 acres when you include parking,
we actually believe that down the road in terms of phasing you could
go certainly to double that number and then also add an indoor facility,
and I'll talk about indoor in a second.
So we're talking about something that's pretty robust and takes up
a lot of space, which is why it narrowed down the 29 sites that we
looked at before to just these handful that we're talking about today.
In terms of the economic fiscal and employment impact, it's really
driven by the day trips and overnights and, primarily, here you're going
to get into the overnights which, of course, is going to generate a lot of
TDT and other taxes related to the spending at hotels, restaurants, and
retail, primarily.
So from that we broke down the estimated stabilized hotel room
nights and other spending from that that was over 40,000 broken up
into soccer, baseball, softball, football, lacrosse. That did not include
any indoor which, again, we'll talk about, so that is up and coming.
On Slide 5, we have an estimate of the 20 years of impacts, and I
consider these to be net new impacts. We don't talk about cannibalized
Page 67
February 28, 2017
spending that's sort of recycled in the community. We're only talking
about net new, folks that are coming from outside the community for
day trips or overnights and spending those dollars here.
So pretty significant. Over 20 years, 468 million just from that
eight and eight outdoor facility. If you did indoor, if you did more than
eight and eight, these numbers would be higher, and about 5.3 million
in the 4 percent TDT. So -- and supporting about 400 jobs full-time
equivalent.
So pretty -- and, again, these are based on actual results in other
places. We've worked on probably about 30 sports rec and tournament
facilities around the country, and many -- it's a big trend right now
that's continuing to increase. At some point it will peak out, but sort of
first-mover advantage, you want to establish your presence in the
industry so that you can have a positive reputation and continue to
grow that business.
So in terms of the key questions, we were asked to assess three
proposed sites that seemed to start to fit the bill, narrowed down from
the 29. Also look at the site and parking plans. I won't go into a huge
amount of detail, although it is in your packet there. And then talk to
you a little bit about indoor, because that wasn't a super focus of the
last study, so we want to sort of get you educated and up to speed on
just kind of where that's going, and then also talk about the
management and governance structure a little bit.
So with that, I'll move forward. So the -- so you have already sort
of seen an overview of the three primary sites, and this is how they lay
out. And just so you know, the City Gate site, you're really only getting
about half of that, and so that's what was focused on in the prior
presentation is that there's a possibility that you could potentially use
both sites and have them combine in such a way as to be most
beneficial for the immediate and long term.
So, I know this is probably hard to read but, big picture, all three
Page 68
February 28, 2017
sites are large, but in terms of the minimum site size, especially if
we're talking about future phasing, it really sort of knocks the
Magnolia Pond site out of the box right away and really forces you to
focus on the 305 site and the City Gate site.
So, again, Magnolia Pond is several parcels, and access for all
those parcels is going to -- you're just going to have to do a lot of
legwork to get everything assembled in order to make that work. And
so this is how it could lay out. This is another slide showing how that
-- it could lay out if you added the formerly proposed preserve site to
that. But, again, the parking and all of the amenities and uses are not
necessarily easy to access if you're walking -- parking and then
walking, and then, of course, we have multiple parcels to purchase and
assemble, and so that could take some time and effort.
And, again, the overall ability to expand is not there, and so that
makes it a challenge, because then you'd have to be looking for another
site if you wanted to do that. And the way this industry is going is that
the tournaments are trying to be in as -- in one place if they can be.
And five, 10 years ago, they were used to having to use multiple
facilities all over the place. These days enough communities have
built all-in-one-place sort of category killers, kind of the big box effect,
that they're sort of getting spoiled, right, to have everything in one
place.
And so, unfortunately, the Magnolia Pond site doesn't really set
up well for that. So I'm not going to really spend a lot of time on the
positives and negatives, because the negatives, like I said, sort of
knock it out of the box.
Let's look at the City Gate site plan assessment. You saw some of
the visuals up here before. Here is sort of a closeup of one of those.
And so, obviously, the site is large enough. There are only two access
points into the complex that are planned at this time. We do believe
there would be an ease of way finding throughout so both vehicles and
Page 69
February 28, 2017
pedestrians could easily navigate through.
You could design the setup to allow for multiple simultaneous
events. Although there's no perfect situation, this lays out fairly nicely,
and it does suit all the needs of what our recommendations suggest at
this time.
The parking is -- gets you -- at least in terms of the analysis that
was done on the site suggested 1,800 parking spaces, which is 106 per
field. Really, the max you should ever need is about 100 per field.
You can sometimes get away with less; 70 to 80. So this parking ratio
does match the requirements of the event organizers. And I'm sure you
can work a roundabout in there somewhere.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quit.
MR. HUNDEN: So then in terms of--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He did say that, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Twice.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Twice, okay. All right. Just checking.
I had to do a double-take there.
MR. HUNDEN: And so the site conclusions are that this
particular site does offer the county a flexible and contiguous base for
the development of the recommended sports complex and amenities
plus the ability to expand. And because it is adjacent to the 305 site, it
does give you those added options for expansion as well.
It's -- of course, they're all sort of in the same area, so they're all
near the same nodes, the support nodes of hotels and restaurants.
As was mentioned, the major challenge is the expected cost to
acquire the site from the private owner but, again, they have indicated
that they would be willing to have a conversation about that. So we do
recommend that this be considered along with the 305 site as one of
the options.
Now, let's move on to the Collier County 305 site. This is the
largest of the sites. Certainly undeveloped at this point in time. It also
Page 70
February 28, 2017
has two access points and would allow for ease of access for vehicles
and pedestrians.
The site is generally ideal for tournament-quality play and
development. There did not appear to be anything that would really be
a deal killer for this site. It just, obviously, would need to be prepped
for this appropriate type of a use. And so, there are some timing issues
with that, too. But, again, having this adjacent to the other site is a
great benefit.
The parking that's available, again, is more than the 100 spaces
per field, which is more than adequate. And, again, this could be
designed and done in such a way that you could add other types of uses
as well in terms of indoor and additional outdoor.
So because you own the site, you have a lot more control of what
happens here, and it provides more than the required acreage for the
minimum site and certainly allows you plenty of opportunity to
expand.
The other thing that it allows you to do -- and this is one of the
things that is either in the -- it's in the back of our presentation here, but
a lot of these complexes are designing the amenities right into the
complex if they have room. So they've put, like, a Hampton Inn and a
restaurant and maybe a doctor's office that works on bone injuries or
whatever right on site, and so that's handy for all those --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Those bone injuries derived
from lit intersections, not roundabouts.
MR. HUNDEN: Correct, correct.
So with that said, this site certainly provides you a lot of options
and also the fact that it is adjacent to the other site gives you some
options.
So those two we do recommend you continue to consider, and it's
great that you can sort of play them off of each other and use those to
leverage, right? Use those for leverage to get your best project
Page 71
February 28, 2017
developed.
Now, in terms of indoor facilities, those have become a big focus
recently. Outdoor has historically been the driver, but there's a lot
going on in indoor, and it's not just basketball and volleyball. It's
dance, cheer, wrestling, you name it. So there are a lot of things going
on. And we've worked on a number of these that are being developed
or have been developed or are under development.
But I want to bring a reality check to all of these, and whether
you're talking about an indoor facility or an outdoor facility, in general,
they don't make enough money, and sometimes they don't make any
money at all internally in order to support their operations or debt
service. And so if people are coming and saying, hey, do I have a deal
for you, we want to get you to invest in this and everybody's going to
make a bunch of money, just be careful, because these are economic
development projects and, typically, the public sector does backstop
the funding for whether it's indoor or outdoor, and then you can have
private management if you so choose, which we'll discuss.
But in terms of the facilities themselves being profit makers for
individual investors, we've seen that play out negatively in other
places. So we just want to give you some overview education on that.
So there have been several large ones developed. We highlight
four here: Frisco, Texas; Rockford, Illinois, which we worked on, just
opened last year; Emerson, Georgia, which is called Lake Point. We
were just there about a week ago, and they have 12 indoor courts; and
then also we worked on the Grand Park in Westfield, Indiana, which is
just north of all those roundabouts.
But, anyway, big picture, they cost about 3 million on average per
court to develop, and so if you're doing, say, a 10-court facility, that's
about a $30 million investment.
The case studies show that a spectrum of facilities have been
established, and they are very busy when they're open, and they do
Page 72
February 28, 2017
generate a lot of room nights, and certainly because they're indoor,
they have seasonality -- they're buffered against some seasonality that
outdoor fields can sometimes struggle with.
They tend to be booked on weekends all the time, and so there's a
-- they make a nice counterbalance to an outdoor set of fields that can
tend to get overused or burned up in certain times of the year or some
types of the year. If you're not in Florida, you can't use the outdoor
fields at all.
But in terms of just some of the highlights, most of these are
booked between 30 and 45 weekends a year, and they're getting a
significant amount of room nights and visitors per year in the many
tens of thousands.
So on to the governance structure. If you build it, will they
come? And the answer is not necessarily. I used to speak at a
conference called, if you build it, will they come, because that's the
kinds of things we specialize in, convention centers and conference
centers and youth sports and stadiums and professional arenas and that
sort of thing. And it has to be executed well.
So unlike most government operations, such as passive parks or
general services, sports complexes operate within a very competitive
marketplace. You're competing against cities and communities and
private entities all around the country for all types of things, and so you
want to be -- you want to have nimble, experienced, and aggressive
management that's proven themselves. You need to have dedicated
funding so you can have nice facilities that are continuously, you
know, sort of at the top of their game, so to speak, and your managers
and marketers need to be very knowledgeable of both the sports and
the people in each of those sports so -- because it's sort of like concert
promotion. It's not the facility itself. It's the promoter and what their
relationships are and how well they treat people when they're here.
So you've got a great convention and visitors bureau that does a
Page 73
February 28, 2017
great job now and treats people really well. People love coming here.
That's not always the case in other places that we work, and so your
reputation goes a long way to serve you down the road. If somebody
comes and has a bad experience, they won't necessarily come back.
So, what are the primary models? So we have public
management, which is parks and rec and generally government
orientation; we have private management; and then we would have an
authority or maybe an enterprise model within government. And I
know that you-all are probably very aware of these very different
governance models, but just to give you a sense of it, within public
management if you're, you know, inside sort of a parks and rec, that
can -- can be constrained by government bureaucracy and rules that
don't necessarily recognize the sort of nimbleness that's needed within
a competitive market-oriented environment.
We've seen where the revenue and expense sides of the ledger are
not always related or know what -- kind of know what's going on
between the right and the left hand.
It can limit the ability to make quick or creative decisions.
Incentives are often not in place to act like a business enterprise. We
actually have a client in California where the public sector operates it
and the private sector developed it, and the reviews, unfortunately, are
coming in that there's not the connection by the folks running it who
understand that this is supposed to be for the public good, and so it's
supposed to incentivize and drive room nights and all of that, and so
the way they're treating the customers is not necessarily customer
friendly and not necessarily inviting them back. We're giving them
parking problems and things like that.
So -- and it's not the people's fault. They're just in a different
environment where their goals and what's driving their, sort of,
nine-to-five work ethic is different than if you were running it as your
own entrepreneurial business.
Page 74
February 28, 2017
Sometimes you can be influenced by political or public sector
personalities. If you do choose this option, though, it can work if it's
created as more of an enterprise unit within government where they're
sort of allowed to operate within their own environment of customer
service and setting goals of impact and high utilization as well as high
customer service.
Private management tends to -- when you go out for bid then, you
can get those groups competing for you to offer you sort of the best
deal to operate your facility. They should have experience in the
management of these and marketing of these as well as driving,
potentially, sponsorships in advertising, which is a really big deal for
these kinds of facilities. They should have relationships with national
and regional event promoters.
And you need to have knowledge on your side of it, though, and
we can actually -- and Mike Malay, who worked with us on the first
phase of this, I would recommend that he be sort of reengaged as you
go forward because he sets up these sports commissions or these
governance types of things so that no matter what governance model
you go with, that the people running it -- and ultimately it would be
owned by you -- are educated enough to know how to ask the right
questions and set up the right incentives for whatever model is
eventually structured. So in any event, I would recommend you talk
with Mike down the road.
But -- and he used to run ESPN Wide World of Sports and has set
up multiple sports authorities. So they operate in a private market
environment, and so they should be very reactive and receptive to that.
And then there's a third way which is sort of an authority or an
independent model which is something that's sort of quasi in between.
And we like this a lot because it still allows you to have a great
influence. And you can either hire a private manager or just an
individual management team within an authority model that allows
Page 75
February 28, 2017
you to sort of have the best of both worlds from the public and private
sector.
So we can get into more details of this. There are no hard and fast
rules, but the structures can protect you from bad eggs. You can have
great operators that are in bad structures, but it's hard to have great
operations within a bad structure -- or the good structures protect you
from bad operators, in our experience.
So with that, we have some other detail if you want to, but I know
that you're behind on time. So we just wanted to get through and make
those points and see if you had and questions about the overall
movement down the road.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I didn't have any
questions. I just wanted to make a statement, if I may, with regard to --
I'd like to move this along and get to our public opinion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, well, if you don't have a question
-- anyone has a question up here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not of him.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not of him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But of staff?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, of staff, I do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So let's bring staff back. Let's
bring Nick back to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And that was why my
light was up, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many?
MR. MILLER: Eleven.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Eleven.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Speakers first, or do you want me to
take questions?
Page 76
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. We have some questions, and
that's fine.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Sure. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Am I allowed to go? Yes,
please.
And I wanted to say this out loud. If you could bring up the
screen that you talked about the four points that you brought up with
regard to prioritization for us. Not that one. The one that had the --
that one right there.
And I kind of hung on this at the beginning in regard to
apologizing to you for your theory on wasting time on that other
endeavor with regard to the professional sports stadium. It wasn't
wasted time. It's a process that we have to necessarily go through.
But I hung on the statement that you made, in that our efforts,
without a funding device in place in advance, are kind of disingenuous,
and I don't think -- I don't think any of us, or at least I know personally
I don't think that is a -- there's an issue with regard to the need for this
type of facility for our community. That was the whole process of
moving the professional facilities along and move over to here.
But I would -- I would much prefer as we go through this that we
really focus our energies in short order with regard to the funding
sources first and then back into it with -- from a comparison standpoint
with regard to the alternatives, the management, the layout, the indoor,
the outdoor, although those were very interesting -- interesting thought
processes, that I think we need to stay very pragmatic with how we
move through this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For clarification, it doesn't have to be
in place. I just think that as a board, collectively, if we're going to go
through this effort, there's got to be an interest to look at that and be
willing to do that. If there's not, then we should stop here.
So question one would probably want to be answered.
Page 77
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. A couple
questions, Nick. I may have misheard this. It won't be the first time.
But you were talking about the 305 property, and you said -- or I made
a note of this -- that it would cost $200,000 per acre to get it into a
developable state.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what he said.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I don't understand that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In other words, our costs, sun costs to
buy in are about 28,000 an acre, what we spent already to buy the
property. So now the next phase is you've got to go through the
permitting process with the Army Corps. You've got to get it to a
certain phase, like City Gate. In other words, if you were going to
raise it to be equal to City Gate, which is entitled, permitted, all the
zoning processes in place, your now per-acre cost starts to get in that
$200,000 range, because we bought it as raw land.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I wanted to make sure I
understood that. That's a phenomenal cost --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- for that.
And to the comment in terms of the financing plan, the only way
to finance this is with the 1 percent tourist tax, and so that raises two
questions: One, has this been discussed with the Tourist Development
Council? I suspect probably not, but --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only to the extent that we're doing
these feasibility processes. The idea was, if it's feasible, then we'll go
through, develop some sort of finance package, bring it to the Tourist
Development Council, and bring it back to the Board.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And just -- this is a question
for the County Attorney, but my understanding is to impose a 1 percent
tourist tax for these types of facilities requires a supermajority vote of
Page 78
February 28, 2017
the County Commissioner. It doesn't require referendum; just a
supermajority vote of the Commission, so -- is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're correct on both counts.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So I think what you're
asking is, is there a desire on the part of this commission to consider a
1 percent tourist tax increase for this project. If there isn't, then there's
no point in going forward, I think is what your question is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's a question for us,
Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A couple of questions: One is -- and
I like the way that we've laid out what the initial discussion should be
or consideration for the Board, because I think the financing is a
threshold issue, but I want to express my concern. One, if$200,000 is
the cost per acre to get the 305 property up to, you know, where we're
ready to build something -- I mean, that's half of the number that's out
there right now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the City Gate.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For the City Gate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Number two, has any
consideration been given at this point to kind of co-developing this?
Because what occurred to me was, we could phase it, right? We could
-- and my concern, as you said, is we have such limited light
industrially zoned land. There's virtually, I think, five or six areas in
the county where we have this. To use what little we have of that kind
of land for fields and things, even if it's a revenue source, is still just --
I don't know if it's counterintuitive. It's not counterintuitive. It just
doesn't make sense to me from an economic development standpoint.
But putting that aside, if we could leverage the ownership of the
Page 79
February 28, 2017
305 property with the need to get this done if we work out the
financing issues, the need to get something built expeditiously that
would benefit the community, I would really want to look at that,
because, one, we could phase it. We could get some of it done
quickly. We could work on the total cost and leverage, you know, the
county-owned land as opposed to using up the light industrial land.
So I think there's a lot there that could be done there to work on
what this is all going to cost, how it would happen, that I think we need
to think very, very seriously about.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, to your point -- I think I touched
on it, but I'll elaborate a little bit more with the cursor, if I could here.
Under the C is -- this is the championship venue. And the way it's
broken out is the four diamonds and then some more multipurpose
fields.
Rob, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think as I read in the report,
the multipurpose fields are the highest demand. And as you'll hear
from, I think, Mr. Berman from FBU, if you were to do a
complementary side-by-side project, you might do the championship
venue laid out with six or eight multipurpose fields, leverage what you
said, only take down the back half of City Gate, then develop the
baseball championship on ours, so you've got something you could
start on fairly quickly that addresses the demand for the multipurpose
fields and that championship venue, allow Collier County 305 to run
its course over the next three to five years, take down the back half,
and you've got both the expansion prospect as well as some immediate
relief. And I think that's our plan is to give you a pure City Gate, a
pure 305, and then maybe a hybrid approach when we come back as to
something in between.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just see that that would be
one way of hopefully lowering the total cost for providing the venue.
And that's all I have.
Page 80
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it? Okay.
You know, when we talk about this investment, we talk about
price and what we're going to do, and we talk about economic diversity
and economic development. To me this is the -- you know, the new
century economic development. It's a nine billion -- is that correct? --
"nine billion dollar a year" industry throughout the United States of
America, and we are turning -- I sent you an email that shows we are
turning groups away. And so it's extremely important that we look at
this.
We've seen the paper where tourism is flat. We've got Cuba at our
doorstep, right? You know, but this is -- this kind of tourism, to me,
such a wonderful tourism because it doesn't matter if the sun is shining
or not; they're going to come because they're here to play and they're
here to compete.
And the parents come and maybe, depending on where they come
from, the relatives come. And building this helps our community
because our kids are short fields. And so it's a wonderful blending of a
positive active step in the right direction where we're -- we are looking
at the next generation.
So to me it's everything wrapped up in one, but the price is
concerning to me, and I always go back to our five-year projection;
129 million in recommended projects in excess that we don't know
where the funding is going to come in the next five years; $129
million.
We need to be very careful how we go through this and what
we're going to spend our money on even though this is a wonderful
thing to do.
Deputy Manager Casalanguida, you've got to shapen your pencil,
sir. I mean, I'm very concerned about that. We cannot overspend; no
matter how exciting this is, we've got to be judicious in how we apply
this money.
Page 81
February 28, 2017
And one thing I'd like to see -- and I don't know if we want to
make a motion right now. We could do that afterwards, perhaps, after
we hear from the speakers. But as we look at raising the tourist tax 1
percent, we need to look at reallocation of that money. That has to be
factored into it, so -- in my opinion.
All right. So thank you very much, and I guess we'll hear from
our speakers right now.
Before we do that, we have a minute and a half, right?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So this is a little --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Go ahead, Troy.
(A video was played.)
"MR. OCHS: We love having all of you
here. Enjoy your week here. Enjoy all the
wonderful amenities that Collier County has
to offer."
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maybe you ought to let it spool
up first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Let's try it another time. Try it
at the end. It's not working.
MR. OCHS: Looks like me at a board meeting.
MR. MILLER: I am pushing play and pausing, and I'm -- it's a
computer issue, I guess. Oh, there we go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's stopping again. All right.
MR. MILLER: It's a computer file, and I don't know if it's just
not running fast enough or what.
MR. OCHS: We'll try to come back to it after the speakers.
MR. MILLER: Okay. We'll do that. Your first speaker -- I'm
going to ask the speakers to use -- I'm going to ask the speakers to
dance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Part of speaking. Part of speaking is
Page 82
February 28, 2017
you have to dance to the music as you come up here, so let's play that
again.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Come on down.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker -- I'll ask the speakers to use
both podiums and remind the speakers to state your name for the
record when you come up.
Your first speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He'll be followed by Nora
B eyrent.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garret FX Beyrent. I've
been a developer in Collier County for 46 years. I'm much older than I
look.
In any case, I'd like to actually ask the chairman of the board,
chairwoman of the board, I'd like to be sworn in for testimony, and I'd
like to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You don't have to be sworn in for this,
sir.
MR. BEYRENT: No, I want to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well --
MR. BEYRENT: Donna Fiala did it last time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Did you?
MR. BEYRENT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not the Chair anymore.
MR. BEYRENT: I know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well --
MR. BEYRENT: No, it's a quasi-judicial --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, sir, it's not.
MR. BEYRENT: It's not anymore?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it's not.
MR. BEYRENT: Burt?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No.
MR. BEYRENT: No, all right. Okay.
Page 83
February 28, 2017
In any case, I'd like to give one of these blueprints I've got of the
Magnolia Pond PUD to Mr. Klatzkow and the other one to the co --
could I give it to the court reporter?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can.
MR. BEYRENT: And it would be part of public record, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it would be.
MR. BEYRENT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You now have 10 seconds left.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Your clock's ticking Garrett.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Your clock is ticking.
MR. BEYRENT: My daughter won't be speaking. She was going
to secede (sic) her three minutes to me. She's back there. She's going
to stand up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She is.
MR. BEYRENT: That's her. That's my daughter.
MS. BEYRENT: I relinquish my three minutes to my father.
MR. BEYRENT: She grew up here in Naples and went to all the
schools, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Quite beautiful.
MR. BEYRENT: -- played baseball left field; boring, okay.
So in any case, I'm here because I'm on the list there, I was on the
list, till the Hunden study said that magic word; they said they knocked
Magnolia Pond out of the box. That's a baseball euphemism.
And my argument is always that baseball is yesterday, because in
1962 I went to New York City to watch the New York Yankees play.
Mickey Mantle was there and Roger Maris and all the big guys. It was
boring. And today it's even more boring.
So when I designed my PUD, I went with the lady that knows
more about sports than I do; Commissioner Fiala. So I put 72
pickleball courts in my design plan, and I don't see any in the other
plans. But -- I've got three minutes left, right?
Page 84
February 28, 2017
Okay. And very long story -- everybody's got copies of the site
plan that I proposed. But I should tell you that yesterday I actually
went over to see my buddy Jace Kentner, and I said, hey, can you give
me a copy of that fast track ordinance. He said, how fast would you
like it? I said, right now. So he gave it to me, and then I went over to
my other buddy, Ray Bellows, and I said, Ray, I need to have an
appointment to have a sit down with you guys because I want to fast
track my sports complex.
He said, your sports complex? I said, yeah, my sports complex,
because I don't want to wait around for this thing to get developed
because there will be 22 more studies done to tell me baseball is better
than pickleball. I disagree.
So in any case, I guess it was around 2 o'clock yesterday
afternoon I submitted my plan with my $500 check, and on -- let me
see, March the 1st I'm having my first sit down with staff to go over
my preliminary application, and on March the 3rd I've got to get
surgery because the VA says I have howitzer hearing and a bad leg
from my combat service. I'm pretty sure I was in the army.
Anyhow, that pretty much wraps it up. So what I want to just say
is that I kind of jumped the gun on you guys because I'm too old and I
can't wait around because my kids and my grandchildren need a sports
complex, and the future is pickleball and another thing called
spaceball, which is high-intensity version of boring baseball.
So, anyhow, I'm moving forward, and I hope all you people are,
too. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mary Shea. She'll be
followed by Douglas Berman.
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could use both
podiums, that would be helpful. Thank you.
MS. SHEA: My name is Mary Shea, and I hope after today I
Page 85
February 28, 2017
don't get a nickname. I'm the president of the Sports Council for
Collier County. The Sports Council in Collier County consists of about
60-plus members, and the members are anywhere from a hotelier to a
restaurant to a country club to a realtor, transportation company,
director of any type of tournament.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Attractions.
MS. SHEA: I'm sorry, Robin. Pure Naples and Naples Princess
as well -- and more attractions.
Our goal is to partner with Jack and his team. We're an extension
of his team. He books them, and we take care of them. We make sure
they're happy, and we certainly want them to return.
I think everybody in the room with -- the members that are in the
room know the year to date this hasn't been the best season. I don't
know if we're ever going to see 2015 again, but I think everybody
that's going to be speaking after me knows the importance of sports
and the importance of tourism, not just the first quarter of the year but
12 months out of the year, and sports is what's to feed all of us.
So we need this, and it's such a no-brainer, and I think it's going to
help us with revenue. It's going to obviously give more jobs and bring
more millennials down here and help us old folks even play some
sports.
So thank you for your time and enjoy the next 10 speakers.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Douglas Berman. He'll be
followed by Roger B. Rice.
MR. BERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's
Doug Berman. I'm the Chairman of All American Games, and we're
the company that puts on that football university national
championship event.
I'm the former State Treasurer/Chief Operating Officer of the
State of New Jersey, so I well understand and appreciate the challenge
you-all have in trying to figure out what are appropriate investments
Page 86
February 28, 2017
that lead to economic development. They're not easy choices,
particularly with this question of how do you finance something that
you believe will make long-term investments.
Seventeen years ago I helped found All American Games, and we
develop high school and youth sporting events across the country. We
do roughly 300 events a year from small assemblies to 800 to 900-kid
training events and this football university national championship.
Among the properties we've developed is the U.S. Army All
American Bowl. Sixteen years ago we moved that event to San
Antonio and have been anchored there throughout. It's now the largest
high school sporting event in the country every single year.
Anchoring events is critical, as the deputy manager suggested.
Think of Cooperstown. They run youth baseball tournaments all year
in a private facility right next to the Hall of Fame, or Williamsport,
Pennsylvania, and its unique facilities for the Little League World
Series.
Four years ago, roughly now, All American Games came and
started the conversations with Collier County about bringing the finals
of the FBU national championship down to Naples. That event has
grown.
This past year we brought eight teams in each of the six divisions,
sixth, seventh, eighth grade. To give you a sense of what this event
means, because it's the one true national championship, the Maryland
team won this past season. They were recognized yesterday in the
Maryland state house by the State Assembly for their achievements
beating teams from Seattle to Florida to Massachusetts to San Diego,
all of who came down.
We're looking at trying to build this tournament with 40 teams,
nearly 1,500 kids and their parents this coming year. The challenge is
actually finding enough fields to play it on. We've gotta play 20 games
a day to make that event happen.
Page 87
February 28, 2017
Long term, we're solicited every single day by your competitors
to move the event. We think Naples is the great long-term home for
this, but I will tell you I don't think we could do year in year out trying
to find the right high school fields. Ultimately, it needs a facility
something like on the table.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Roger B. Rice. He'll be
followed by Steven Gyorkos.
MR. RICE: And again, my name is Roger Rice. I represent City
Gate Development.
I want to reiterate that we believe that if we engage in
negotiations that it would be productive and that we could reach an
acceptable price.
Further, we believe that City Gate is an ideal location for this
sports complex. We have existing permits. We have the zoning. We
have the roadway.
Just to be very brief, again, we reiterate, I think that negotiations
would be productive.
We have -- our location adjoining the 305 gives us some
opportunities that could minimize our price. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good news. Thank you very
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Steven Gyorkos. He'll be
followed by Tom White. My apologies for the last name
pronunciation.
MR. GYORKOS: Perfect. Yes, good morning. Thank you,
Commissioners, for allowing me the opportunity to speak. My name is
Steven Gyorkos. I have been fortunate enough to live and work in
Collier County for the last 12 years. I'm currently the Director of Sales
for the Residence Inn by Marriott here in Naples.
There's two items I'd like to speak to: One are the facts about the
Page 88
February 28, 2017
growth of sports. It's evident that for the state of Florida it's a
year-round play. I am very involved. I have two young boys that are
very involved in sports in Collier County. I devote a lot of money to
the progression for them to grow in the sports.
But first I'd like to talk more about the business side and then
about the quality of life that it brings. We have seen historically that
we have lost very large sporting tournaments to other facilities where
-- if I can recall back in November we had a girls lacrosse team that
was so successful that we were actually going to make it part of our
calendar as lacrosse week. Unfortunately, we lost that because we
weren't big enough. They left. And that benefits more of the hotels
that need it the most than those hotels that are beachfront. Those
hotels that are east of 41 really rely more on the sports ambiance of
revenues than other hotels.
So in addition to the quality of life that it brings to the
community, you know, for me to travel with my kids for soccer, I've
been involved in seven different clubhouse here in Naples, and I have
to drive to Jet Blue Stadium, I have to drive to Veterans Park, to
Corkscrew, to North Collier. I have to drive all over the place because
there's really no one facility that they can practice on.
There's only two major clubs in Collier County that could be
more, but there's not enough space for them to practice.
And I'd like to, you know, mention the quality of life. I'm able to
do this for my kids because financially I'm set, but there's others that
aren't, that they're not able to drive that far. They don't have the finance
or the time to be able to drive to all these different locations for their
kids to grow up.
So the quality of life, aside from the business impact that is
obviously/evident that we've lost and is there is something to be
occurred, and I thank you for your time on that.
(Applause.)
Page 89
February 28, 2017
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom White. He'll be
followed by Janet Marlowe.
MR. WHITE: Thank you for pronouncing my name correctly,
last name. I appreciate it. My name is Tom White. I've been a citizen
of Collier County for approximately 17 years. I've worked in the
community. I built the Hawthorne Suites with five partners. I've
owned and operated it for -- ever since.
In addition to that, we have a unique community to build a hotel
in Sarasota. I had 12 partners up there; Hyatt Place. The Sarasota
market with the sports it does is phenomenal. They have so many
fields there. I was always surprised whenever I'd go up there, I'd see,
like every weekend we had a different sporting event taking place,
filling all the hotels, filling the restaurants, filling the dry cleaners,
filling the gas stations, keeping the attractions busy, keeping the town
happy.
And it's not just in the seasonal months. It's year round. And it's
not just for the weekends. I said the weekends, but many times you go
up there in the summer, there would be baseball teams, softball teams,
soccer teams. They were playing for one-, two-week tournaments,
series, training events. It's just a great opportunity.
And we talk about economic stimulus. I can't think of a better,
cleaner, more socially responsible way to grow the community than
sports. It's great for everyone in the community and with -- outside the
community.
So the other thing that's brought up is Nick's county -- deputy
county commissioner -- or manager's --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Don't put me there.
MR. WHITE: Nick -- is the point about who's going to be --
who's going to burdened with collecting the tax, and no one wants to
increase tax. No one wants to collect. But as someone that would be
burdened with that and someone that would have to help facilitate that,
Page 90
February 28, 2017
I just want to let you know that I personally would support that
recommendation, so --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Janet Marlowe. She'll
be followed by Liz Sanders.
MS. MARLOWE: Hi. Thank you for having me today. My
name is Janet Marlowe. I don't have a fancy title. I'm just a
43-year-old Naples resident. Grew up here playing softball. Had to
travel a lot. There wasn't enough facilities here to facilitate
tournaments and stuff like that.
I now have an 11- and 14-year-old son -- two boys that also play
baseball. We're going every weekend. We're going up to Sarasota,
Bradenton, Miami, Orlando. And just seeing what all of those places
are making, I just -- I hope that this can move on to the next phase and
you-all can -- and find it in your budget to really look into something
that is going to bring a lot of revenue to this county. It is a
billion-dollar-a-year industry, and I really think it is something all
youth sports can utilize.
I've never heard of pickleball, but I guess that is growing. And
maybe we could add pickleball courts to that as well. But, you know --
and like he said, a lot of people aren't able to play youth sports or travel
because they don't have the funds. So if there is something that can be
built in this community, I think that would help kids get out of their
houses, get off their iPad, and get out there and enjoy this beautiful
weather year-round like, you know, some of us are able to do.
So I really hope this does move on to the next phase and we can
push this forward. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Liz Sanders. She'll be
followed by Jim Ludwig.
Page 91
February 28, 2017
MS. SANDERS: Good morning, everybody. My name is Liz
Sanders, and I believe the reason why I was asked to speak today is
because I have a little bit of a unique perspective.
THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down a little bit.
MS. SANDERS: That is my slow. I'm sorry. That is my slow.
Trust me, I've been married to a southerner for 30 years.
Anyway, quite honestly, I'm here because -- what brought me to
Naples, Florida, was to work for Collier County Parks and Recreation
back in 1987. And back in that era was when they were building a park
a year if not more, right, Murdo?
I don't know. There was a lot of parks being built back there in
the late '80s and early '90s, and it was phenomenal. I mean, it was
great for the new community. It was great. It was awesome.
Everything was growing, and then things lulled down a little bit, and
then all of a sudden they build North Regional.
And my issue with it is the fact that my husband has coached
everything in town from flag football -- both Commissioner Saunders
and Commissioner Solis, you know my husband's coached your kids at
one point or another -- and with Greater Naples Little League, NFL,
Naples Football League, travel ball.
And what brought to my attention about the issue being need -- to
have more sports in town was that I was a secretary for Greater Naples
Little League, and all of a sudden, they told me, hey, Liz, you've got to
get hotel rooms over in West Palm for Father's Day weekend for seven
teams. I'm like, holiday weekend? What's that? I wasn't even in the
hospitality business back then.
And when I realized that I was booking all of these rooms for
seven teams to go over there for six years in a row, I came immediately
right back to my old friends at Collier County Parks and Rec and said
to Jim Thomas, the athletic director, god rest his soul, why is North
Collier just softball and soccer? And he was -- basically was -- at that
Page 92
February 28, 2017
time was the most lucrative leagues. No idea about destination sports
marketing, you know. Where here I am personally taking out all this
money out of Collier County.
And if you just look at all the different leagues in town, all the
different high schools, public and private, I know that, you know, my
sons -- I raised athletes. They're both captains of their teams at Naples
High. My older son, I probably spent 20 grand -- I asked my husband
the number last night, and he goes, easy 20 grand -- on going to
showcases across the state just to get my kid to play ball in
Tallahassee. He played one season. You know what I mean? I want
that 20 grand back.
But we -- you know, at least he got one college season down, you
know. But, you know, I got to go all over the state and spend all of the
money in every other county. Places like Palatka and Lakeland. If
they can figure it out, I do believe we can figure out.
And that's what I'd like to have to say. And I hope we can move
forward with this and make Collier County a year-round economic
impact for everybody.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Ludwig. He'll be
followed by Vivian Walton.
MR. LUDWIG: Hello. I'm Jim Ludwig. Considered the
pickleball guy. And, Gary, I enjoy baseball and pickleball, and
baseball is not boring. I played it.
And this poor young lady here doesn't know what pickleball is.
That's because she's traveling all over the state. We are in the
pickleball capital of the world, and this young lady doesn't know what
it is. So we're making her travel when she doesn't have it.
But as you know, we've done a lot with pickleball here, and it
started out with a dream a few years ago, and we talked to Donna.
And Donna said, yeah, sure. Come on. Let's go. Let's get this thing
Page 93
February 28, 2017
going.
Well, the county and the TDC had faith in what we were doing.
And we put this phenomenal tournament together last year, and we had
825 people come in and play. This year we're at 1,300. These people
are coming down here seeing how beautiful it is, and they're taking it
back home. Why can't we do this with other sports? It's the same
thing. People are moving here because of pickleball. Let's get them to
move here because of other sports.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here, here.
MR. LUDWIG: It's a great opportunity for all of us. Let's take
advantage of it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many nations -- where -- last year,
how many different nations were represented?
MR. LUDWIG: We had seven countries and 39 states
represented.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Vivian Walton. She'll be
followed by Murdo Smith.
MS. WALTON: Hi, good morning. My name is actually
Victoria. Sorry for the chicken scratch.
MR. MILLER: Sorry.
MS. WALTON: I am here as a board member with Gulf Coast
Little League and with USSSA Pride Softball. I am a sports mom. I
am a crazy hotel manager on my spare time.
But much like Janet, I spend two to three weekends a month
traveling the state of Florida spending my money on hotels and
restaurants in other cities, other counties.
I moved here from Clearwater where the hotel tax is 13 percent.
We're only at 10. And I think in many of those counties that you look
at, they're at 12 and 13 percent at this point because they've invested in
their future. And I think now's the time to do that. We are trying to
attract more industry here. Those are people that have kids that are our
Page 94
February 28, 2017
age, and they need something to do. Right now if people ask, what is
there to do in Collier County for your kids, sports is the answer.
Being part of the Little League, it's not just about my kids. My
kids will probably be grown up before this is done, but all those cute
T-ballers that we're bringing in. We're not just developing baseball
players and softball players hoping for college scholarships. We are
developing productive citizens.
So you guys have been very supportive in the past, and we're
looking forward to the same thing happening with this.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Murdo Smith.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners, or maybe good
afternoon. I wasn't going to speak on this issue, but I think it's a great
idea for sports in general for -- to have this coming down to Collier
County.
I do have one question, and I heard it kind of talked about here a
minute ago. The youth here are always looking for fields to play and
practice on, and I was just wondering if, when this facility is built, if
the youth and adults and so forth from this community will be able to
play on the fields versus just the tourists that come down.
I think that's very important because we've always been saying we
want to build fields for the kids, and I just want to make sure that we
look at this and have a place for them to practice and play games here
locally and what the -- bringing in the teams that are big, powerful
travel teams, that's great, it's great for our community, great for
everybody, but just don't forget the kids that live here that need to
practice and have ballfields. Okay?
Thank you.
(Applause.)
(A video was played.)
"MR. OCHS: We love having all of you
Page 95
February 28, 2017
here. Enjoy your week here. Enjoy all the
wonderful amenities that Collier County has
to offer.
Who is going to win the national
championship. "
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Our girls. Our girls.
"MR. QUINN: Wow. From the time they
got here on Friday night"...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Work on the last half and --
"MR. QUINN: Beautiful sunshine,
85-degree weather here in Naples on this
beautiful beach party at the Beach Club has
been non" --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right.
MR. OCHS: That was great.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's all right. That's all right. By the
way, those young cheerleaders, our girls. They live here. They
volunteer.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's FBU. It's FBU that's made us
aware of the importance and the potential for this kind of industry here,
this kind of light -- it's not industrial, but light industry. Diversification
of our economy.
We've heard a lot of testimony and certainly heard from our
public. Do we have a motion? Does anyone want to put together -- ah,
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I only hit my button once this
time.
I would like to make a motion that we move this forward for a lot
of the reasons that you just got done saying, Madam Chair. I mean, it's
imperative that we diversify our economy as we continue to grow.
Page 96
February 28, 2017
I would like to give positive direction to staff that we bring this
back in two weeks to start with the exploration to get consensus and
start with what I believe is paramount from a funding source
standpoint to stipulate the funding sources so that our future
negotiations, and as we go, are with a financial plan. That's going to
allow us to not be disingenuous in any of our efforts as long as there is
a consensus on the payment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have a motion that says that we
want to go ahead with this and that we would like it -- the beginning of
a discussion of the financing comes back to us in two weeks; is that
right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a motion and second. So,
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think there's some questions
that need to be discussed by the Board. I don't know that there's any
other way to finance this other than tourist taxes.
And correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Ochs, but is that kind of the
option?
MR. OCHS: Well, that's the recommended option, sir. I mean,
you have other opportunities, but they're competing interests for those
dollars that are even more --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only other alternative is ad
valorem taxes.
MR. OCHS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, Madam Chair, I think the
Board needs to -- I think we need to discuss whether or not we're
willing to even consider a 1 percent increase in the tourist tax.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And doesn't that -- forgive me
for -- I don't mean to interrupt, Madam Chair, but I mean --
Page 97
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Shh.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that's part of the motion that,
you know, we're willing to consider that, then -- and a positive vote on
the motion means that you're willing to consider a 1 percent tourist tax,
that's fine. I just want to make sure that we're not telling staff to go off
and do something, they're going to come back with a financing plan
which is going to be tourist taxes, and I don't want three of us to say,
well, we're not interested in it, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. That was my
understanding. And my understanding also was that the tourist tax had
to go through the TDC before it could come to us, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that was going to be my
next question as to whether or not this can be presented to the TDC
pretty quickly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just -- I wanted to make
it clear with regard to the motion that the two weeks wasn't drop dead.
If we don't have time frames to move it through the system to get back
to us with regard to that, then, you know, 30 days is certainly
sufficient. I just want the public to know that the Board sees the
necessity for this type of industry for our community for the benefit.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple more points on the
motion, because I think that what staff is looking for is an affirmation
that we're interested in pursuing the financing, which we know will be
tourist taxes, and for staff to be directed to talk to the folks at City
Gate, to talk to the folks that own the Golden Gate golf course --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and to come back to us with
some discussion after they've had those negotiations. Two weeks isn't
going to be sufficient for that.
Page 98
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I wasn't -- I wasn't talking
about those negotiations, sir. I'm just strictly moving this forward and
to explore within -- at our next meeting the financing alternatives with
detail. I mean, because there's --just for the record, there are even
more moving parts to this equation than what has been mentioned
today.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So maybe we can ask staff,
because you had recommendations. Maybe you can put them back up
there so that we are very clear so we can follow -- not necessarily
follow along but are guided by Deputy County Manager's
recommendations here in the presentation.
And while we do this, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm next.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, Commissioner Fiala. No more
pickleball courts right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. At least for this moment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They have called you up, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
I think, Commissioner McDaniel, I think what you're asking is to
lay out, like, a pro forma and where the revenue would come from. In
terms of a financing plan, there's a revenue and expense side of that
component, and I'd want to wait for that financing plan till I got a little
bit into that portion of it. But I think what you're saying is bring back a
formal item that would look at what a TD tax would look like, the
revenue it would generate --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Bondable amount, the
interest/expense associated with it, the aggregate amount that we're
looking at raising as we go through this process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I'd give you a range --
Page 99
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So 50, 70 million, come back --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Has to be. All depends on
term, interest rates.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt him,
but --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think the recommendation
would be to look at it and then direct staff to incorporate that into the
120-day analysis with the negotiation that you'd be comfortable
moving forward doing some sort of TD tax with that analysis. That's
what you're asking.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't know if I'm allowed to
speak or not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Stay where you are.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would probably be difficult in two
weeks for you to come up with all of that stuff that he rambled on --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We already have it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because we don't even know the
price of the land yet. It's rather difficult. Not only that, we don't know
the response from the TDC, and that does have to go before them.
They just met yesterday, so it will be on the 27th of March before they
meet again and deliberate over the idea of doing something like this.
So I think -- you know, I don't want to jump ahead of something
and then discuss it and then have to delay it again and again because
we don't have the answers to anything.
I would -- I personally would love to see this go forward. That's
my own opinion, but it's just my own opinion. And I believe that we
Page 100
February 28, 2017
can get there, but we have to make sure that we get there in the right
direction rather than rush it and then have it crumble.
So I would suggest that maybe two weeks isn't the proper amount
of time to wait for the meeting but four weeks from today instead so
we get some answers back. But the motion isn't that at all on the floor,
so -- and I seconded the other one, so I'll pull my motion -- or my
second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So there's a motion on the
floor now without a second.
Would you agree, Commissioner McDaniel, to pull the motion
from the floor until we discuss this fully, and then we'll come with
another motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER S OLI S: I actually was going to waive my
time. Commissioner McDaniel very eloquently raised the issues, and
Commissioner Saunders as well, as to the issues.
I wanted to make sure that I understood what the motion was, and
if the motion is just to come back and have more clarity as to what the
financing option's going to look like in numbers, then I'm fine with the
motion as it was. Now it's gone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let me --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My light's back on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let me see if you would agree to the
120 days, sir, within one hundred -- report back to the Board, which
gives everyone some opportunity.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And -- well --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Maybe one way to
Page 101
February 28, 2017
deal with this is to ask Mr. Casalanguida what type of direction would
work for them in terms of moving -- we all want to move this project
along. We all need more information. Perhaps you could give us a
little guidance on what direction you need, because I perceive that part
of this is you need some direction to start talking to property owners
and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if you could help us with
that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I get from the discussion,
commissioners, that I think, to Recommendation 1, as I said in the
presentation, I think we want clarity that there's a palate or a taste to
move this thing forward with the financing plan. I think
Commissioner McDaniel is saying, let's get that off the table right
away that we're willing to do that. We've already run some numbers
with some interest rate figures. We can bring that back in two weeks,
tell you what the impact is. And if there's -- that's an easy one to do.
And if-- it's bring that back in two weeks, and then over the next 120
days, assuming that in two weeks you say, yeah, that's reasonable, we
could do that, we could start with the negotiations after the two weeks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Why didn't you say that
before?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was your motion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't get a button, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How about a do-over?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So let's try for this motion
again.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I don't mean to interrupt or belabor
this, but if you want your TDC to have some input before you
deliberate on that financing plan, then back to Commissioner Fiala's
point, they meet again on March the 27th.
Page 102
February 28, 2017
An alternative may be to present the kind of general financing
information that Commissioner McDaniel asked about first to the
TDC, then bring that back to the Board subsequent with the input from
the TDC; in the meantime, allow us to proceed immediately with
discussions with the landowners at City Gate and the landowners at the
Golden Gate Golf Course to begin to see if we can make the numbers
work ultimately.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that your motion, Commissioner
McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I believe so. I said it once
before and, again, I have to say it out loud again. It's imperative that
staff is aware that we are all -- we're looking to move this forward, but
I really think it's key for us to be working on the financing mechanism
first without commingling negotiations. Doesn't mean we can stop. I
mean, we've all had meetings with property owners and other
interested parties along the way. I don't want to stop those things, but I
just wanted to give very specific direction as to our focus as to what we
wish to do.
Now, if we need to extend it out for 30 days, take it to the TDC --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Don't talk us out of it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm not talking us out of it. I
am actually --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's just -- we've got a motion. Do we
have a --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- accommodating
Commissioner Fiala with regard to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have second? Do we have a
second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thirty days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second to the motion is come back
in 30 days with a plan and after discussing it with TDC; is that what
Page 103
February 28, 2017
you were just saying?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's exactly it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what I said.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, with the financing piece of it, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. OCHS: It will allow us to begin discussions with two
landowners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what your motion was?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That is my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So the motion --
MR. OCHS: Just so you know, the TDC meeting is a day before
your board meeting on the 28th of March. So if you want that
information the next day at the board meeting, we're not going to have
time to get it all in a packet. We'll prepare what we prepared for the
TDC, but their feedback will have to come to you verbally at that
point.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we have a motion on the
floor and a second to start the process, and the process needs to be
followed, needs to go to the TDC first, then it will come back to us.
Meanwhile, staff will start negotiating on the site; is that correct? Are
we all in agreement that that is the motion?
MR. OCHS: That's our understanding, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
(No response.)
Page 104
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's unanimous.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to do it.
So our court reporter is fading here, but I think we have one more
thing to do, is that correct, with the CRA?
MR. OCHS: If you could indulge me, Commissioners. It will
only take a few moments, I believe.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move approval.
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 2017-33: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(BCC), APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY TO ENTER INTO A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH TD
BANK, N.A. AND ISSUE A SERIES 2017 TAXABLE NOTE IN
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT UP TO $5,500,000 TO EVIDENCE A
LOAN UNDER THE LOAN AGREEMENT, ALL WITH RESPECT
TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA; AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
Item #14B1
CRA RESOLUTION 2017-34: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA), APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FORM OF A LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA
AND TD BANK, N.A. AND AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF
THE SERIES 2017 NOTE (TAXABLE) IN THE PRINCIPAL
Page 105
February 28, 2017
AMOUNT UP TO $5,500,000; AUTHORIZE THE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION AND
TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER THE LOAN AGREEMENT AND
THE SERIES 2017 NOTE, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE
BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT
AREA; AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. PURSUANT TO NOTICE REQUIRED UNDER
SECTION 163.346, FLORIDA STATUTE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Isackson. These are the -- actually the 11:45
time-certains. So these have to do with Item 14B1, and the companion
item is Item 11A. This is a proposed restructuring of a loan agreement
between the Bayshore Triangle CRA and TD Bank.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to interrupt our
speaker, but I'd like to make a motion to approve both of those items. I
don't think there's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- any objection to that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The ayes carry it.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 106
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Very well done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I say, a great presentation.
Wonderful, wonderful going.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Commissioner Fiala, if you could stick around a few minutes at
lunch break to sign some of the documents, please.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're back here at one everyone.
We're back here at 1:00.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, County
Manager Ochs. Where are we, and what are we going to next?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Our next item is No. 7, public comments on general
topics not on the current or future agenda. Are there any speakers?
MR. MILLER: I have none at this time, sir. I do you have a
handful of slips. They're not sure the item number, but I don't think it's
public comment.
MR. OCHS: Okay. That being said, Madam Chair and
Commissioners, we would move to our 1 p.m. time-certain.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, if I might
interrupt, our computers aren't on. Mine's not. Maybe I hit the wrong
button.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we're set.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've got to hit your space bar.
Page 107
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now they're on. Okay. So you're set.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Miller, we still good on public comment?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2017-35: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 4.02.03.A, TABLE 4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 6.55 FEET
FOR A SWIMMING POOL, SPA, POOL DECK AND STAIRS ON
A WATERFRONT LOT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-
FAMILY (RSF-3) ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 342 TRADE WINDS AVENUE, IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA [VA-PL20160001181] — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: So the one o'clock time hearing, Commissioners, is
Item 8A on your agenda. This item does require that participants be
sworn in and that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
This is a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a variance from Section
4.02.03.A, Table 4 of the Land Development Code, to reduce the
minimum rear yard accessory structure setback line from 20 feet to
6.55 feet for a swimming pool, spa, pool deck, and stairs on a
waterfront lot within the residential single-family zoning district on
property located at 342 Tradewinds Avenue in Collier County, Florida.
Madam Chair, ex parte disclosure at this time, please.
Page 108
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have had meetings,
correspondence, and emails.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. I have
had meetings and emails, and I met with Patrick Neale and Mr. George
Marks, and I also read the staff report and spoke with staff, rather.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll declare. I met with Patrick Neale
and George Marks. I've had telephone calls, emails, and a meeting just
previous -- before this meeting, so I guess I met a couple of times with
both of those, plus emails and correspondence. I know I said that
twice.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have had a meeting with Mr. Neale
and numerous emails about this matter, and I've also -- I spoke with
Mark Strain.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I had some
correspondence and communication with neighbors as well as with Pat
Neale. I had some emails.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. So I
think --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, just as a point of
clarifi -- do I need to name the people that I had meetings,
correspondence, and emails with?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. If asked, but otherwise, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think we should have those who
are going to give testimony to stand and swear. If you're going to
speak, you're going to be at all public speaking in this meeting, please
stand and be sworn in.
Page 109
February 28, 2017
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So the way we're going to conduct this meeting -- and, Jeff, you
can help me -- we are going to hear from, I believe, the petitioner first
and then our staff.
MR. KLATZKOW: For this context, I'd recommend staff first.
Staff will give you an overview of what's happened and everything
else.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then it's really a contested -- this is a
contested variance, so I would hear from the -- first the individual who
is requesting the variance and then the opposition, and give them as
much time as, you know, is appropriate for a hearing like this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And we're not going to be
burdened by the three-minute rule?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that you will have time to come
before us and make your position known. We just ask you that -- try
not to be repetitive of the person in front of you, but we're very
interested in hearing this, so --
MR. KLATZKOW: And, Madam Chair, you have a lot of
discretion to cut it off if you believe it's becoming repetitive and of no
further value to the board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make an observation. I
think all of our cursors are stuck on the same place and they don't -- it
doesn't want to move.
MR. KLATZKOW: Bad computer day.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mine's moving.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yours is?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Are you running your
Page 110
February 28, 2017
little --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is yours?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I can't even -- I don't even know
where --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, wait a minute, it's because I'm --
operator error. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: OE, OE.
MR. OCHS: There you go.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's the same one up there,
okay. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we're up and running
here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is everyone? Okay. Very good.
Thank you very much.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is Fred
Reischl with Planning and Zoning.
This is a variance request that was prompted by staff error in
approving the setback for a pool and patio and spa.
The normal setback for an accessory structure would be 10 feet
from the water. Because the pool is elevated more than four feet from
the top of the seawall, the setback changes to 20 feet.
This was not caught during the review of the plans. It was
approved at 10; however, at that point it was also not caught that a
stairway that was in -- usually exempted was bigger than the stairway
that meets the exemption criteria; therefore, the stairway also counts
and is counted as part of encroachment.
This was -- the error was caught by a neighbor. They called
Contractor Licensing; they came out, called Code Enforcement. It was
brought to Planning and Zoning's attention, and we started the variance
process.
Page 111
February 28, 2017
I don't know how much more detail you want me to get into, but
that's the background of the request.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, at this point I want to see if
there's any questions. We will question you as you give us your
testimony, so thank you very much.
MR. REISCHL: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At this point we may call you back, but
thank you very much for that.
MR. REISCHL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Anyone else from staff would like to
present?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No?
MR. FRENCH: Good morning, Commissioners, or good
afternoon. For the record, Jamie French, the Deputy Department Head
for Growth Management.
Just for the commissioners' information, staff has followed up
with Mr. Marks. We've sat down with him. We have gone over the
code, and no doubt in no way we missed this on the review. Staff
reviews, as you would imagine, thousands of these per month, and one
got away.
At the end of the day, we have worked with the contractor. We've
also worked with Patrick Neale and Mr. Marks. We've sat down.
We've actually identified code language, and this code language that
Fred was referring to dates back to 1996. In fact, it actually makes
mention of Marco Island in the code.
And so what we've done is we've actually gone back -- and you
will see this at an up and coming meeting for LDC amendments to
where we've actually created language which would be much more
user friendly for both the staff review as well as for the applicant. But,
again, Fred has summarized everything very well, and we're here to
Page 112
February 28, 2017
answer any questions you may have throughout this process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I do have one question. Oh,
goodness. I'm sorry. Commissioner Saunders, would you go first.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One of the concerns that the
neighbors had is that once this is approved, this variance, that other
neighbors will be able to come in and say, well, you've got the pool at
10 feet here, we want the same thing. So I'm assuming that, from what
you've said, that that is not a potential problem; that would not happen.
MR. FRENCH: I would defer to the County Attorney's Office for
that; however, I would tell you in this particular case this pool is
two-and-a-half feet, 2.51 feet higher than what it would be -- what it
would be allowed to be built.
The encroachment into the stairwell, you're allowed to have a
3-foot encroachment into that -- into that setback. This stairwell was at
3.5 feet.
So when -- so the pool itself is still within the 10 feet. The
additional space that they're seeking is for a three-and-a-half foot
stairwell, not a 3-foot stairwell.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, this sets no precedence.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And then the second
question, I'm assuming that there was a local planner and/or architect
that submitted the plans. Would they have not been aware of the
county ordinance?
MR. FRENCH: So based on their application, the applicant,
whether it is the owner/builder or whether it is a licensed contractor, is
always responsible to follow the code.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So my question is, you mentioned that
you're looking again at the language, are you changing the code at all,
or are you just making -- what do you mean making it user friendly?
MR. FRENCH: Primarily what we're doing is rather than
Page 113
February 28, 2017
offering the least restrictive, the table has been rearranged to a way
where it will always follow the most restrictive at 20 feet unless you
meet these conditions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: Currently, the way it's written is that it offers the
least restrictive at 10 feet unless you're at four-and-a-half feet above
the seawall.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: So it's quite confusing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. FRENCH: We did have discussion at the Planning
Commission about this, and so that's what -- after speaking with Mr.
Casalanguida, Mr. Wilkinson, we went back with staff, our LDC staff,
Caroline Cilek and Jeremy Frantz. We've gone back, and so we've
already got that draft language. And, quite honestly, Mr. Marks has
read the language and has offered us some updates that we appreciate.
We've enjoyed our conversations with him. But this will be coming
forward in the next LDC amendment -- amendments for consideration.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it would not -- assuming -- if you
compared the new language, assuming it goes through the process and
it's approved with what is before us today, it would not negate the need
for a variance; is that correct?
MR. FRENCH: A variance would still be required for this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. That's what I need. Some
clarification. Very good.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions here?
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A comment, if I may, just a
comment. I'd like to commend staff just for -- it takes a lot of nerve to
stand up there and share that you've -- that an error has been made. No
Page 114
February 28, 2017
one is infallible. And I commend our staff for doing that. It's one of
the things that I would like our staff to continue to do. I don't think
anybody expects perfection as we're going along. And if we -- there
has been a propensity for things to not be owned up to that were
necessarily in error, and I want to commend you and all of our staff
with regard to this.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we get a time frame, Mr. French,
on this? I mean, when was this non-conformity discovered?
MR. FRENCH: Thank you. The original permit would have
been issued in April of 2015. That would have been for the seawall.
And not that I want to -- I want to give a lesson on how it was
constructed but, primarily, would have it happened is they would have
demoed the house -- I'll let the contractor correct me if I am wrong --
they would have gone in, a seawall repair would have been required,
then what they would have done is drove their batten piles. So this
pool, the house, everything's on pilings.
And then they would have tiebacks to the seawall to prevent any
future seawall failure for 20, 30 years in the future. Then what
happens, they build a retaining wall, and within that retaining wall the
house sits as well as the pool deck, and the pool actually would sit
within that footprint of those retaining walls that are all tied back in a
system.
So that came in in 2015. That would have been September of
2015. And then the pool was applied for in January of 2016. The pool
permit is an accessory permit; however, two separate permits -- three
separate permits if you count the seawall; however, they cannot gain
occupancy to the home because of our drowning prevention rules
within the Florida Building Code that would prevent them at this point,
unless they could show that the pool was secure, that would protect the
habitants of the home.
Page 115
February 28, 2017
So the home is probably nearly done, but the pool, we understand
that they have -- under their own risk they've started up construction
again on the pool. But our understanding was, once they were put on
notice, they allowed the permit to expire, and now they've recently
come within the last few weeks, and they've asked that that pool permit
be extended so that they can begin work again.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And when were they noticed?
MR. FRENCH: It looks like that would have been May of 2016.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's almost a year; ten months?
MR. FRENCH: And they've been working on the house.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Working on the house, but now they've
started to work on the pool.
MR. FRENCH: That's right. And they have an active permit to
work on the home.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Good. Thank you.
Is that all, staff?
MR. FRENCH: That's all I have.
Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Good.
So now we'll hear, I would assume, from Mr. Marks and --
MR. NEALE: The applicant first.
MR. SHAPIRO: You want me to go to that podium?
MR. OCHS: Yes. It would be easier, ma'am --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's good. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: -- if he's got visuals.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Take down the -- maybe the Paradise
Reef, and you want to put them up.
MR. SHAPIRO: I also brought some items. I have the Planning
Commission transcript, the staff report.
MR. OCHS: Could you identify yourself for the record.
MR. SHAPIRO: Oh, I'm sorry. I am Marc Shapiro, and I am the
Page 116
February 28, 2017
Attorney for the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. SHAPIRO: So I have some things -- I didn't know if I
needed to put these into evidence. I'm not really going to be discussing
them, but I just wanted to create a record.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You do now. You do now.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Court reporter. She can take them.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Good afternoon. Again, I'm Marc
Shapiro, and I represent the owners of 342 Tradewinds, Nancy Koepler
and Roxanne Stone Jeske.
So by way of background, this comes before the Commission
having first been approved by county staff and then having a hearing in
front of the planning committee which recommended that the variance
be approved unanimously.
This matter involves a variance application by Ms. Koepler and
Ms. Stone to reduce the rear setback from 20 feet to 6.55 feet. And the
Land Development Code mandates that the swimming pool deck
exceeding four feet in height over and above the seawall must be set
back 20 feet from the seawall.
If it is more than four feet -- I'm sorry. If it's less -- if it's four feet
or less, then this would have been the proper setback. So, really, we're
asking for the setback to be reduced, but we could very well ask for a
variance to allow the seawall to be, I think it's 2.51 feet taller, because
that's how far above the four feet that it exceeds. It's, I think, 6.51 feet
when it's required -- if it was four feet, then the setbacks would be fine.
So due to the objection by neighbors across the canal and several
houses west of Mr. Koepler (sic), this matter is before the committee.
So by way of background, Ms. Koepler and Ms. Jeske purchased
the property on Tradewinds, they demolished the existing residence,
and then they went through the necessary permit -- permitting to
Page 117
February 28, 2017
construct the new residence, including the pool and pool deck.
The plans they submitted to the county indicated the proposed
elevation of the pool deck at 6.59 feet over the seawall. And -- so
these that I've labeled Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, these are the actual
plans. Now, on the plans in several spaces they have the elevation, and
they also have the -- this setback requirement, as you'll see listed on the
plan itself.
So I just wanted to point out that on the plans itself, it was very
clearly marked the proposed elevation of the pool deck and the
setbacks which, again, was erroneously approved by the county, but,
you know, this wasn't something that was trying to be hidden or
something. This was completely on the initial plans that were -- that
were approved.
Now -- so the property went through all phases of permitting to
construct the pool, and the permit was issued. The pool was
constructed, and during the construction, the pool was inspected
several times by the county building officials, and at no time did the
county ever object to any facet of the construction or the height of the
pool.
So it was after the pool was entirely completed. Now, understand
the way this house was built is you constructed the pool first, and then
the house was done after, because if you did the house first, it would be
very difficult to get materials back to the pool area.
So, basically, this was brought to their attention when one of the
neighborhoods basically trespassed on the property and took
measurements and then reported it. By the time it was brought to the
owner's attention, this had already -- the pool was already constructed.
So -- and I think when the staff said that they commenced re --
doing the pool, you know, within the past few days, that's not correct.
The pool was completely done and has been completely done for a
long time. Now, they've been working on the house. What they're
Page 118
February 28, 2017
referring to is Mr. Marks took pictures, which I think were a couple
days ago, and there was, I think, a Bobcat in the backyard. That was
strictly for grading purposes. They were grading the back, but the pool
had been constructed long before the owners found out about -- that it
didn't meet with the code.
Now -- so the actual code itself, and this was, I guess, some
contention at the planning committee, but it actually reads, it says,
before any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission shall consider and be
guided by the following standards in making a determination.
So while the Planning Commission must consider and be guided
by the standards that I'm about to read, nothing mandates or otherwise
provides that each of the standards has to be met in order to grant a
variance.
The standards are especially important in light of the arguments
it
being made by the property owners of across the canal. So, basically,
my interpretation -- and I believe last time when we were in front of
the planning committee, they -- Mark Strand (sic) asked the -- for the
attorney's interpretation of this, and he agreed that the interpretation of
this meant that the Board has to consider the guidelines before making
a determination, but not every guideline has to be met so long as those
guidelines are considered.
So the -- in front of planning committee, they considered the
guidelines and came to their decision after consideration of the
guidelines.
Now, I think the opposition says, well, if one or more of those
aren't met, it's fatal to the variance application, but that's not what the
plain meaning of that statute -- or of that language says. It says that
they shall consider and be guided by. If it meant to -- that each one of
those had to be complied with, they would have used language that
each one of these must be complied with before a variance can be
Page 119
February 28, 2017
granted.
So -- and I don't -- I guess I was going to go through each one of
the criteria and basically put what staff counsel recommended, but I
don't want to take up more time than is necessary. So if you think that
you would like me to go through that or if you -- it's actually in the
report, so if you've already read that, I don't want to kind of eat up your
time with that. Okay.
So one I do want to mention is about the hardship, and that's B,
and it says, are there special conditions and circumstances which do
not result from the action of the applicant such as preexisting
conditions relative to the property which are the subject of the variance
request, and it says, yes, the applicant applied and received a pool
permit from the county citing an incorrect rear accessory pool setback,
and the applicant utilized the erroneously approved setbacks unaware
of any violations.
And the other one I want to bring up, will granting of the variance
be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Land
Development Code?
It says, staff has received objections to the requested variance
attached which state that the reduced rear setback would impact the
neighboring views and set a precedent for future variances but, as
you've heard -- and I think Mr. Marks has maybe riled up some
neighbors thinking that this would set a precedent and now you're
going to have all kinds of people that are going to only build their --
build their pool deck higher than the four feet inside the -- and only be
set back 10 feet.
But, again, this doesn't set a precedence. This is a unique
circumstance, and it probably won't happen again. My understanding
of what took place -- and I have an exhibit that I'll introduce later -- is
that the Land Development Code has -- it basically says that the
setback is 10 feet. Now, it makes an exception only for the Vanderbilt
Page 120
February 28, 2017
Beach area. So, in other words, Marco Island, Port of the Islands, you
can build with a 10-foot setback and have a six-foot seawall.
So the exception for the Vanderbilt Beach area is in a footnote,
and it's -- it's kind of the third footnote in. So my understanding is that
this has actually been missed by quite a few people, but what happens
is, then the county, before issuing the permit, usually catches it, and
says, oh, well, that's not quite correct because Vanderbilt Beach has a
different requirement than the other places.
Well, in this particular situation, we had a relatively new person
that was issuing permits. Not that he was new, but he came from
Marco Island where you could have a 10-foot setback instead of a
20-foot setback, and therein, I think, lies the problem where the
erroneous approval took place. So this isn't something that typically
happens. And, again, if they're changing the code, this won't be
something that will probably happen in the future.
Now, the other -- the last thing I wanted to mention is -- because I
think this is a point of contention between the objectors and the
petitioner, and that is, will a literal interpretation of the provisions of
the zoning code work unnecessarily an undue hardship on the applicant
or create practical difficulties for the applicant.
The staff counsel said yes, per the applicant, the pool is already
construction (sic), and to abide by the required accessory 20-foot
setback would require the applicant to remove the existing pool. This
is a poured slab in pilings, so they would have to remove the existing
pool and build a new one. And not only that, but because the house is
already built and because the area between houses is very small, you
can't get big trucks back there to bring materials.
So, basically, the way they would probably have to do this is
remove the dock and get a barge to bring the materials in because the
house is constructed and it would be, you know, very difficult to
reconstruct the pool at this time.
Page 121
February 28, 2017
They estimated at the time that it would cost about 50,000. We
have since -- and I have some exhibits that I'll be introducing where
they have a quote of$65,000 to redo that to basically lower the seawall
two-and-a-half feet. And that's what we're really talking about is
two-and-a-half feet.
So to me, and this is the bone of contention, that is a severe
hardship over two-and-a-half feet to have to spend in upwards of
$65,000 to put this in compliance when it's a relatively minor violation.
And I'll point that out in just a moment.
The other thing -- the one last thing I'd like to point out with
regard to the requirements is it said, will the granting of the variance be
consistent with the Growth Management Plan. So this is the Growth
Management Plan. It says, the subject property is located in the urban
residential sub-district of the urban mixed-use district land use
classification on the county's Future Land Use Map.
The purpose of this sub-district, to provide for higher densities in
the area with fewer natural resources constraints and where existing
and planned facilities are concentrated. The GMP does not address
individual variance requests. The plan deals with the larger issue of
the actual use.
So this is a big deal because Mr. Marks keeps stressing that the
variance would somehow alter the Growth Management Plan, but as
noted above, the variance doesn't, any way, shape, or form serve to
alter the Growth Management Plan.
So right now I'd like to introduce a couple more exhibits which
are photographs. I'll put these up on the board. These are meant to
demonstrate what it looks like from across the canal from the point of
view of the objectors.
So this would be the view corridor, and this is the subject
property in question. This is actually a different property which shows
that, you know, there are similar properties in the area, and that can be
Page 122
February 28, 2017
-- the view can be, I guess, softened with a planting of hedges and
shrubberies, so that's what this is for. But this shows the view corridor.
Now -- from across the way.
Now, it doesn't really block the view -- the view might be
blocked, but it's not blocked by this. I mean, it's blocked by palm
trees. It's blocked by screen enclosures which, by the way, my client
doesn't have a screen enclosure. In fact, there's nothing that would
prevent someone from having a screen enclosure and having kind of
the blurred out bottom part of it, which would block the view corridor
anyway.
So this really doesn't block the view corridor. And, by the way,
Mr. Emens, who is one of the objectors, that is his house right here,
and you'll see that his property is six feet high also. Now, he was
allowed to do that because the code changed at some point. So I'm not
exactly sure when, but at one point -- you know, this might be 20 years
ago, but you were allowed to have a 6-foot pool. So that was changed.
And so, you know, no one's questioning that my client doesn't have the
right to -- didn't have the right to do that, but the fact of the matter is, it
was a mistake that was made by the planner, it was a mistake made by
a lot of people, and it was approved by the county.
So since we have that mistake and we're left with what we have,
we have to try and find the best solution possible. And, you know, I
would submit that having to tear down a pool at a great cost to the
owner would create an economic hardship, and that's really the crux of
what variances are for, to reduce that economic hardship.
I would also like to introduce some other pictures. These are
some aerial shots. And you'll see the objectors, Mr. Emens and Mr.
Marks. This is their residences, and then this is the Kepler residence
that is the subject here. So you'll see this is an aerial view. But as they
look down, I mean, there's really nothing that significantly affects their
view. I mean, there's boats that are higher than the wall. So if their
Page 123
February 28, 2017
view blocked, it's not by that wall. It's by many other things.
And you'll see here as you look down -- I mean, it's -- to me --
and you have to be the judge of it -- it doesn't look like this is that big
of a deal. Now, we're talking, again, about two-and-a-half feet
roughly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Shapiro, did you take those
photographs?
MR. SHAPIRO: I did not take the photographs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, she said tag.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, take.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think my commission -- fellow
commissioners should know, because as a photographer I know this,
these are all elevated looking down. These are not on ground level.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I saw that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Just in case.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I noticed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: No, I didn't take them.
And there's just a few more pictures, and my point is that if you're
looking down the view corridor, you can't even see the seawall from
this angle because it's blocked out by the lanai of the house before it.
So the last thing is, I have as an exhibit an estimate to basically
put the pool in compliance which would involve tearing the pool
completely out. And, like I said, it's on pilings. And this is an estimate
of 66,500 to do that.
And then I have another exhibit, and this is actually from the
transcript, and this is coming from Mark Strand (sic), which kind of
sets forth the issue. And it says -- this is Chairman Strand, probably in
terms of closer to a decade or two the height issue has been in the code
Page 124
February 28, 2017
very, very early on. The problem is, it's very obscure in our code to
find it and only seem to be applicable to Vanderbilt Beach.
Specifically our code says Isle of Capri and Marco Island don't have to
have this kind of an application. They go to seven feet, which yours,
then, would have been fine if you were Isle of Capri or Marco Island.
And then I also have as an exhibit, this is the actual code in
question. And you'll see on Table 4, it says, dimensional standards for
accessory buildings and structures on waterfront lots and golf course
lot in zoning districts other than rural agriculture.
And then you actually have to go to Footnote 3 where it says 20
feet where swimming pool decks exceed four feet in height above top
seawall or top of bank except Marco Island and Isle of Capri, which
may construct to a maximum of seven feet above seawall with a
maximum of four feet of stem wall exposure within the rear setback of
10 feet.
So no one is arguing that there was mistakes made. There was
mistakes made in the permit application because they should have seen
this, but it is very difficult to read. And I don't think that my clients'
architect or engineer that applied for the permit was the first to make
this mistake.
And, as I said, my understanding is typically the county catches
this mistake, but because they had someone that was kind of new and
wasn't familiar with this and actually came from Marco Island, he
missed it also.
And so, really, we can only deal with what has already been done.
Since the pool was already constructed and it would be a great expense
for my client to have to tear that out and start over, I would ask that the
variance be approved.
There's really no impairment to the view corridor of any
surrounding property. The cost to rectify this would create a
substantial hardship. And recommending the variance be approved, the
Page 125
February 28, 2017
Planning Commission and county staff have mandated that the pool
wall be landscaped. And Mr. and Mr. Koepler (sic) have agreed to do
so. In fact, when they met in the hall with Mr. Marks, they were
meeting with him to try and, you know, work with him on, hey, what
kind of landscaping could we put up that would -- you would feel
comfortable with.
And this is a plan. I'm not sure that they're going to go with this
yet, but this is basically to plant bougainvilleas on the wall to kind of
soften the look of the wall.
So the other thing I'd like to point out is that when the Planning
Commission -- when they recommended that the variance be approved,
they also did so under the guise that if there is ever any changes to the
pool of 50 percent or more, that they had have to comply with the
latest, I guess, building restrictions.
So that being the case, there's really no danger for this to set any
kind of precedent not only because legally it doesn't set a precedent but
also because this is a unique situation. We probably, at least I hope not
-- have a same situation again where the county approves this and then
it's not caught until the entire pool and half the house is built already.
So given the unique circumstance and the unique hardship this
would create, I would ask that the variance be approved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just one quick question. You had
mentioned that you could have done this either way, asked for a
variance for the pool or for the seawall, and I thought you had also said
that -- I mean, if that's the case, could you have done something to the
seawall to lower the seawall somehow? And I'm not an engineer, so
I'm just trying to picture this in my mind -- that would then put the
seawall at a lower level, and then there wouldn't be an issue?
MR. SHAPIRO: So my understanding is no because it is a
poured basic slab so the -- it's a poured slab on pilings so that the pool
Page 126
February 28, 2017
height is -- yeah. And, again, we have the builder here. Maybe he
could better answer that, but my understanding is that that would not
be possible. The only way to comply would be to tear this structure
down and build a new one.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a question about a time frame
again. The pool was constructed before the house?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. When did the pool -- when was
it started to -- the pool was started to be constructed?
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So I don't know exact dates. The only
thing I can tell you is by the time it was brought to my clients' attention
that there was a problem, that the pool had already been completed
and, in fact, the residence itself, the concrete -- the slab and concrete
block was already up on the front of the house when they were first
notified.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So in May of 2016, those conditions
were present?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
All right. Do you have another speaker from the petitioner?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Does the builder want to speak?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, we have a question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it might be more of staff.
Just a point of clarification is right along with Commissioner Solis, I
understood someone to say that there was a potential of raising the
seawall. Because the issue is the pool's too high in relationship to the
existing seawall, and raising the seawall would bring it into the 10-foot
setback; is that my understanding, Mike?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was lowering the seawall.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director.
Page 127
February 28, 2017
I think the question was, if you elevated the seawall up an
additional two-and-a-half feet, therefore the pool wall would only be
four feet above the revised seawall. That would remedy the setback
issue for the pool wall, but remember that the stairs as well enter
beyond the -- or encroach --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I understand.
MR. BOSI: -- beyond the three feet that's allowed, so there's still
that half a foot that would need a variance, and therefore --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's a 6-inch issue -- there's
a 6-inch issue there with the stairs, but that's the point I wanted to
clarify. So it was raising the seawall two feet would --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's okay. Just he -- I believe
Mr. Shapiro misspoke, and I wanted to -- I'm glad you brought it up
and we clarified that. So the seawall could be raised two feet, and then
we only have to deal with the six inches of stairs.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that would actually be a great solution, but
my understanding is that the seawall can only be four feet high, and
that's, I think, by FEMA regulations that you can only have your
seawall so high. And I think my clients' seawall is potentially at the
maximum height.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you have -- is there anyone else
from the petitioner that would like to speak to this?
MR. SHAPIRO: We have we have -- we have, like, neighbors.
You want them to speak?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is the time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they the speakers?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would suggest you've heard from
Page 128
February 28, 2017
essentially the applicant, then you'll hear from the opposition at the
end. If you've got public speakers from the neighborhood, they would
be public speakers, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I thought there was a contractor that
wanted to speak.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, the attorney didn't --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, you know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So...
MR. NEALE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Patrick
Neale. I'm representing Mr. Marks. And what I'd like is for Mr. Marks
to speak. He's going to speak first. He has a presentation that I believe
we've emailed to all of you, and we'll provide a copy to the court
reporter for the record and copies for everyone on the Commission if
you'd like a bound copy of it as well.
What I'd like to do as well is qualify Mr. Marks as an expert
because he does have a great deal of expertise in architecture,
construction, and development, so I'd like to request that he be
qualified as an expert, and he can put his CV on the record, if you'd
like.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to see the CV. I mean
MR. NEALE: He can give it as testimony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: CV meaning what?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: His background.
MR. MARKS: Resume.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: His qualifications to be
admitted as an expert.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
Page 129
February 28, 2017
MR. NEALE: Yeah. Mr. Marks, what is your profession?
MR. MARKS: I am a registered architect.
MR. NEALE: And how long have you been practicing
architecture?
MR. MARKS: Since 1980.
MR. NEALE: Where did you receive your education as an
architect?
MR. MARKS: Drexel University and Spring Garden College.
MR. NEALE: And what licenses do you hold as an architect?
MR. MARKS: I'm a licensed architect in the state of
Pennsylvania.
MR. NEALE: Okay. Do you have licenses anywhere else as an
architect?
MR. MARKS: Our firm does. We just spread them out amongst
the partners.
MR. NEALE: All right. And your firm --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, that's sufficient
for me. I didn't want to -- when you introduced him, I didn't realize he
was an architect. You just said he had some experience in architecture.
MR. NEALE: Well -- and I also want to qualify him because he
does have expertise in construction and land use and land
development, so...
Do you also have a construction company?
MR. MARKS: Ido.
MR. NEALE: And how long have you been -- had that
construction company?
MR. MARKS: 1999.
MR. NEALE: Okay. And how many projects have you
developed as a contractor developer?
MR. MARKS: About seven.
MR. NEALE: Okay. And those projects were of what type?
Page 130
February 28, 2017
MR. MARKS: Generally commercial office space, auto
dealerships, things like that.
MR. NEALE: All right. And you have also done land
development, obviously, as part of that?
MR. MARKS: Yes, I have.
MR. NEALE: I'd like to request he be qualified as an architect
and as an expert in land development.
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't matter. You're here to review the
criteria whether he's an architect or not.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And we don't qualify him as
anything. The courts do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is not a courtroom, no.
MR. NEALE: Well, but if we're going to have to take this up, I
want to make sure that he's qualified as a substantial, competent --
MR. KLATZKOW: And when you take it up, you can go before
the judge and qualify him as an expert then.
MR. NEALE: Not uncert'ed (phonetic), I can't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree. All right. So do we
need to make a motion that we agree to this?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, it's -- did you submit the CV as
part of the package?
MR. NEALE: We did not, but he testified to his qualifications.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Then you're done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. That's fine.
MR. MARKS: Proceed?
Thank you, everyone. Appreciate being here today. I will try to
be as brief as possible.
I'd like to first thank Mr. Shapiro for his presentation. I think if
two-and-a-half feet doesn't make a difference, if it were two-and-a-half
feet for me, I'd be playing for the Lakers. So I think two-and-a-half
feet does make a significant difference. I always wanted to play center
Page 131
February 28, 2017
for the Lakers. Thank you.
I have presented to you a copy. I took the time to prepare my
remarks for today rather than just come up here and not follow a
guideline. I'm going to follow that for you.
A couple of the things, I'm going to focus mainly on the Planning
Commission staff report and the PC's -- the Planning Commission
testimony so that I'm -- it's not nilly willy (sic).
We've already discussed the issue of precedent. Precedent has
been set; however, it was said that this -- if you grant this variance,
precedent is not set. But I think there's a practical matter. I think Mr.
Shapiro spent most of his time today talking about this existing pool
and the corridor and all of the things that already exist.
So while maybe it doesn't officially set a precedent, the reason it
doesn't set a precedent is because, from the legal standpoint, every --
no two properties are ever exactly the same. But I think we all know
the fact that Mr. Shapiro presented these existing properties as his
example of why he should be granted a variance, it comes into play. So
I don't want to spend a lot of time on that.
The second thing is that Mr. Shapiro's photographs were all from
100 feet in the air and 200 feet in the air, and the problem is people
experience these structures from ground level.
The pool that Mr. Shapiro provided, I have brought pictures of it
for you, as you can see on the screen here. This picture right here is
looking west on -- behind that pool. This pool is six feet high. You
can see how it significantly blocks the view. This pool currently 12
feet from the seawall. Mr. Shapiro's proposing six-and-a-half feet
from the seawall. Clearly, his condition is worse than this condition.
Also, this pool was six feet high. Mr. Shapiro's pool is
six-and-a-half feet high. I'm approximating for experience.
This is looking -- this picture down below is looking east.
Standing at the adjacent property, which does comply with the Land
Page 132
February 28, 2017
Development Code, you can see how this pool blocks the view. This
existing pool over here is about six feet plus 42 inches for a railing. It's
a lot of blockage for somebody that's there.
If you look at it -- I'm going to give you a diagram here that
shows exactly what exists in the place. This line right here that I'm
showing is the 20-foot setback. This line right here is the pool height
as it currently exists. I'm saying 6.36 feet. I'm assuming they must
have resurveyed, and it's now 6.51 feet above the seawall.
This is what the Land Development Code allows. It allows you to
be four feet high and 10 feet from the seawall. If the pool is above
four feet, as you've heard, it has to be back 20 feet, and I've
diagrammed that. But I've put -- I've drawn in here -- I'm really bad at
drawing people, but I show a 5-foot person here. You can see that a
5-foot person can see over top of a 4-foot pool in any direction.
If you look down below, the one that exists, this is the 20-foot --
sorry. This is the 20-foot setback that exists. This blue line is still
what is allowed by the Land Development Code, and this red line is
where the current pool wall exists, and that pool wall is 59 percent
higher, and it is 48 percent -- I have it in here, the dimensions of how
far it exceeds. Let me be accurate. It is a 59 percent variance in height
and a 49 percent variance in its depth from the seawall. It is a
significant variance.
I've walked through -- I've had a great experience in working with
Collier County. I had a great meeting with Jamie French. Jamie
French invited me in to meet with him. I met with Jamie and a couple
of his staff planners, and we had a great conversation. We were able to
go back and forth. I was able to make suggestions on how Mr. French
and the other planners could adjust that. And Mr. French already
testified to the fact that we met and had a great meeting, and always
been a great conversation with the staff.
Mr. Reischl's been very helpful in getting information. So I have
Page 133
February 28, 2017
no issues with the staff from that standpoint. We all make mistakes.
I've made mistakes. I'm sure everybody in this room has made
mistakes.
I think what's important, though, is how you fix the mistakes.
And I think that the owners of the house, the contractor, they made a
mistake, but the problem is that mistake needs to be fixed. And
granting a variance that will carry forth is not the right way to fix this
situation.
If I walk through the staff report pretty quickly, the first item on
the staff report, it says, are there special conditions and circumstances
existing which are particular to the location size and characteristics of
the land structure or building involved?
Staff answer was yes per the applicant. Pool shell, retaining wall
and stairs are constructed.
The real answer is no, no special circumstances existed prior to
the construction of this pool. So you can't go and build a pool and then
ask for a variance because you built it improperly. It's not -- you can't
create your own hardship. That's a clear definition of law.
Second, are there special conditions and circumstances which do
not result from the action of the applicant such as preexisting
conditions relative to the property which are subject to the variance
request? It says, yes, the applicant received a pool permit. We all
know that that was approved erroneously.
However, the county has recourse in the fact that the Florida
Building Code clearly says -- and I have it in here. I'll read the last
part of it for brief-- brevity. It says, a permit prevent (sic) the building
official from thereafter requiring a correction of errors in plans. It is --
the county has the right that if there's an error in plans to require that
the applicant make those corrections.
Your own Land Development Code, the Collier County Land
Development Code -- I'll read this section. It says, a building or land
Page 134
February 28, 2017
alteration permit issued in error shall not confer any rights or privileges
to the applicant to proceed or to continue with construction, and the
county shall have the power to revoke such permit until said error is
corrected.
The next one, it says, will literal interpretation of the provisions of
the zoning code work (sic) create unnecessary and undue hardship for
the applicant? They say yes because the pool's already constructed, the
staff does, at an estimated expense of$50,000.
The answer is, this error could have been caught and should have
been caught and corrected before the house was built -- they were
notified back in April or beginning of May of 2016 of that issue -- and
then to replace that pool would have been significantly lower than the
$65,000 they're talking about doing (sic) that today.
However, one of the things that you require as procedure with the
county -- and this is another mistake that was made in this whole
process -- is that I believe that once a pool shell is constructed, they're
required to submit what's called a certified site plan, and a certified site
plan would show the dimensions of where the pool exists and it would
also show the required setbacks, and that should have been completed
in April when the pool was constructed. The contractor elected not to
do that.
Instead, the contractor submitted an affidavit in lieu of certified
site plan, which I'm showing here. And let me read the language of
this. It says, I hereby agree that should any work performed under this
permit result in a nonconformity with any setbacks or easement
requirements established by Collier County or any other applicable
agency, I will have no sustainable rebuttal against Collier County
Government and will -- and I'm emphasizing here -- immediately
remediate the nonconformity at no expense to Collier County
Government.
This is signed by the contractor. It's notarized, and it's set in
Page 135
February 28, 2017
place.
So the contractor had the opportunity to get a certified site plan
but elected not to. They elected to do this affidavit which they accept
full responsible (sic) for. I don't understand how you would grant a
variance then after the contractor has already accepted full
responsibility.
The next one, very briefly, will the variance, if granted, be the
minimum variance? I agree. It will be the minimum variance. I'm not
going to -- no reason to address that.
Finally, will the granting of the variance confer on the applicant
any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other
lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning?
Staff says, yes, the applicant will be able to retain a decreased
accessory use. I agree. The applicant will certainly be granted a
privilege not available to other property owners. The fact that the
county approved the erroneous site plan should be a nonfactor in this
decision. It's a non-factor.
And, again, we all make mistakes, but I make a mistake, I have to
fix it. And the reason for that -- it's a nonfactor is because the
contractor elected to not perform a certified site plan in April of 2016,
time of the shell completion, which would have identified the proper
setbacks and alerted the contractor of the error at the time when the
correction was easily repaired.
The county Land Development Code clearly gives (sic) that the
county is not responsible for errors made on plans and in their review.
The building permit issued on January 17th, 2016, for the pool
states that per county ordinance, as may be amended, they -- and any
additions -- the contractor must meet any ordinance and any additions,
stipulations, or conditions of this permit.
So when you sign for a permit, you acknowledge exactly the
same thing. So there's been numerous places where the contractor's
Page 136
February 28, 2017
acknowledged that if something's wrong, they have to fix it.
I have -- and, finally, the contractor provided an affidavit in lieu
of a certified site plan which states they will immediately remediate all
these issues. This is a copy of the building permit I've highlighted for
your use where you can see that language, that it exists.
I've gone through also to attach some photographs of adjacent --
of properties in the Vanderbilt Beach area that were either recently
completed or are currently under construction. If you look at the one
up here on the top, you can see the top line is the top of the pool deck,
the bottom line is the top of the seawall.
One thing I'd like to correct from Mr. Shapiro's testimony is that
he said they could raise the seawall to make it work. You're not
allowed to raise the seawall. The seawall is set by FEMA. It's set by a
land benchmark. That's a set piece of datum elevation that exists.
The next pool, you can see also there's the top of the pool, and
this pool, the pool's only about a foot or two above the seawall because
of the way they designed it and made it work. This pool, which is
currently under construction, you can see the same thing. It's a very
narrow piece.
This diagram shows the pool that we're here to talk about. This is
the seawall. This is the top of the pool. That's the six-and-a-half feet
and how much it exists. On top of that will also be a railing of some
type, probably a 42-inch railing.
So as you get up there, you have six-and-a-half and
three-and-a-half, so the top of that railing will be 10 feet. That's a lot
of elevation.
This picture shows what is the required setback line here in the
bold red line, and this is where the actual setback is. That's that
additional 13-and-a-half feet that they're -- or whatever the exact
dimension is that violates the zoning.
This is a 5-foot person standing there. As you can see, that
Page 137
February 28, 2017
person will not see over that wall.
The next one, will granting the variance be in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of the land use code and not be injurious to
the neighborhood, otherwise detrimental? The staff answer is that it
will legitimize the existing (sic) of the pool. I'm not sure how
legitimizing the pool makes it in harmony.
Are there natural conditions? They talked about the variation in
the seawall. I think that was just to confuse everybody, because if you
look at this photograph, the seawall for this particular home is higher
than the neighbors' seawalls, which is the now required height for a
new seawall. This is on the one side. The second picture below is on
the other side.
So with that said, I'm just going to skip through for sake of time
and mention that we also have additional support. We've gotten
support from the Vanderbilt Beach Residence Association. David
Galloway is here as president. There's a copy of their resolution
attached to this as Exhibit E.
We've also submitted letters to the county of opposition and from
other Vanderbilt residents that are part of the official record.
Numerous residents have presented to the Planning Commission in
opposition to the granting of this variance. David Galloway will speak
for himself this afternoon.
Finally, this variance is excessive, and it will have significant
impact on the community and canal view corridor. I showed you the
pictures of how when you're standing on the ground a
six-and-a-half-foot seawall you can't see over. And it extends
13-and-a-half-- again, I'm approximating -- feet into the -- what
should be the view corridor. That creates a really dark view. The
concern, then, is that the next person away from the water in either
direction comes out and says, well, I have a hardship. If I build mine
according to what exists there now, I'll have a hardship because I can't
Page 138
February 28, 2017
see over it. And you, Commissioners, will have -- if you grant this
variance, may enable that to happen.
Finally, a couple -- few things. The contractor may rely on three
documents which protect the county financially: The affidavit signed
by the contractor, the error language in the Land Development Code,
and the error language in the Florida Building Code. I've already
addressed all of those issues.
Finally, there's no legal basis for this variance. A legal basis is a
hardship. There is no hardship here.
I would urge the commissioners to deny this variance for the
protection of all the Vanderbilt Beach residents and everyone else.
Thank you.
MR. NEALE: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. Patrick
Neale, again, for the record.
Mr. Marks has done an extremely good job of presenting the
primary issues that lie here. What I would like to do is just cover
briefly some of the legal issues that exist here.
As part of that, I have a document -- a set of documents that I
would like to have entered into the record essentially called, for lack of
a better term, we'll call it Composite Exhibit A, and it's -- it references
within it what we call Exhibits A through E, which is a letter from me
to Fred Reischl dated January 10th; a copy of the Vanderbilt Beach
Residents Associations resolution, which will be spoken to later; a
copy of the qualifier's page, which Mr. Marks spoke about; a copy of
the pool permit as issued; and a copy of the affidavit in lieu of site
plan. So I'd like to provide this to the clerk for entry into the record.
The legal basis for any variance really lies with the issue of is
there a reason for it? Is there a substantial hardship? Does it meet the
eight criteria that are set out that would avoid setting out something
special, giving some kind of special permission, some kind of special
benefit to the owner?
Page 139
February 28, 2017
In obtaining a variance, the case law -- and it's part of what I gave
to the clerk -- really revolves around a case called Nance versus
Indialantic, a Florida Supreme Court case in which it's stated very
clearly that in obtaining a variance, the burden is on the applicant to
show by substantial competent evidence that it meets the standards set
out in the ordinance. It is not the burden of the objectors to show that
they shouldn't get the variance. It is the burden on the applicant to
show by substantial competent evidence that they have proven up their
case that a variance is appropriate in this case.
The language from Nance even says -- it says that a variance
seeker must demonstrate a unique hardship in order to qualify for a
variance, and that's what they must show, a unique hardship that they
didn't cause.
Well, the "they" in the case of the applicant includes not just they,
but their agents and contractors. And in this case, their contractors,
very clearly on the qualifier's page, on the permit that they accepted,
and on the affidavit that they provided in lieu of a site plan, all three of
those stated if they don't construct it to the code, they're going to fix it
at no cost to the county.
Particularly, I focus on that affidavit because the affidavit very
clearly says that they will not refute anything the county says. If they
didn't do it right, in lieu of them having to provide this certified site
plan, in lieu of them having to put this forth, they're throwing
themselves on the mercy of the county, essentially, and saying, if we
didn't do it, we didn't -- you know, if we didn't do it right, you can
come after us as the county and make us fix it.
So the point being that the applicant does have remedies other
than the pursuit of an administrative remedy through the county. They
have remedies through the pursuit of their contractors to do what they
contracted them to do, which is build a property to code, and their
contractors didn't do that.
Page 140
February 28, 2017
The pool contractor didn't and, by extension, the construction
contractor didn't. And, you know, all the documents that those people
sign as their professionals with their licenses said, we're going to do it
according to code.
So I would argue that this case -- and I think Mr. Marks has
presented adequate evidence to show, they have not shown by
substantial competent evidence that they have proven up the
requirement for a variance, they have proven up that they deserve a
variance, and that they have proven that they meet the tests set out in
Nance versus Indialantic that they have a unique hardship that they did
not cause.
So I would urge the Board to deny this variance and move forth
from there. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have how many speakers? One;
one speaker?
MR. MILLER: No, I believe we have five. I had Mr. Neale and
Mr. Marks, obviously, then I have five.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Shapiro, do you want, like, a
three-minute rebuttal to that or a five-minute rebuttal to that?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then I've got a few questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Questions for?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For Mr. Neale and his client.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. SHAPIRO: So in -- I have read the Town of Indialantic,
because he brought this up at the last hearing, which the Planning
Commission considered, and nowhere in this case does it say -- it does
say that -- a unique hardship. It doesn't say anywhere that the -- that
Page 141
February 28, 2017
the petitioner hasn't caused.
The unique hardship in this case is that this is a property that's
unique to the others and that no other property, at least that I know of,
has been erroneously approved with those setbacks and has already
been built before it was brought to their attention.
And monetary hardship, I mean, that's pretty much what the
hardships are in most of these cases is a monetary hardship. Sixty-five
thousand dollars estimate, I mean, that's -- in my estimation, that's a
hardship. Now, you-all have to decide that, but to me that's a hardship,
and it's a unique hardship because not every person in the community
has this.
For example, there's another case where someone wanted to build
a six-story building as opposed to two three-story buildings, and they
weren't allowed to do that because they said -- the court said that that's
not a unique hardship because everyone has that problem.
Here we have a situation where -- given the circumstances, where
the building is already up, and I think Mark Strain said that, you know,
I don't think it's fair to take the homeowner or the contractor to task to
the tune of$65,000 for something that's very confusing and is often
overlooked.
And, lastly, again, I'd like to point out that these criteria, it's not a
litmus test that if one of the criteria isn't met you can't grant the
variance. It says that those criteria should be considered and be a
guideline to making a determination. But if you consider those criteria
and let that be your guide, there's nothing that says that if all the
criteria aren't met that you can't grant a variance. Those are basically
considerations in you making the determination.
And, again, if you read the plain language of this, it says, before
any variance shall be recommended for approval to the Board of
Zoning Appeals, the Planning Commission shall consider and be
guided by the following standards in making a determination.
Page 142
February 28, 2017
The language would read much differently. It would say that
these standards must be complied with or must be all met. So if you
read the plain meaning of that, all that's required is you consider these
standards in making your determination.
And, you know, I guess the fundamental disagreement that the
petitioner and the objector have is they don't believe that $65,000 is a
hardship at all where we believe that's a substantial hardship. And in
my reading of the case there's nothing in the language -- and it's a very
short case. I think it's two pages -- that would -- that says that if the
problem was caused by the petitioner, that they can't still prove undue
hardship.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I guess now we'll hear
from the public.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis had a
couple of questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Did you have -- would you like to ask
Mr. Shapiro?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just -- well, procedurally, I'm not
sure how we usually do this, because I've got some questions for Mr.
Neale and --
MR. KLATZKO W: That's up to the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. It's important. I think we need
to --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to ask Mr. Neale and Mr.
Marks a couple questions. One is, as I understand it, Mr. Marks'
property is across the canal.
MR. MARKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, I mean, the sightline issue that
you're saying, if you're looking from the property, say, adjacent to this
particular property, that it's going to block your view, that's not your
Page 143
February 28, 2017
issue, correct?
MR. MARKS: Not today.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not today?
MR. MARKS: Not today.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You could move across the canal?
MR. MARKS: I guess I could.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. So my question for
you is, if you're across the canal, what is, then your -- your view is the
front of the pool.
MR. MARKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And --
MR. JORGANSEN: Can I help out by doing something?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, you can't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me, sir.
MR. JORGANSEN: I have some pictures that would help.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The issue for you, as I understand it,
is if you're looking at an angle across the canal, you're not adjacent to
it. It's the height from your property.
MR. MARKS: The issue for me, Commissioner, is that -- is that
we are looking to have the Land Development Codes upheld as they
are written and not as a suggestion; that they be upheld because they
are there for a reason throughout the entire community. And the
purpose here today is to -- not just for my property, but for all the
properties in Vanderbilt Beach, because we're looking to not let this
thing get out of control, and that is the reason. It's not -- it's not just
me. It's the entire community. It's Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association whose support we have.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Who measured these
distances when this was brought to light? I mean, did somebody go on
the property and measure it?
Page 144
February 28, 2017
MR. MARKS: Steve Emens did.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Trespassed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I think that's a felony or
something, isn't it, trespassing on a construction site? It's not
something that we should do.
MR. MARKS: I also think flying a drone in Vanderbilt Beach
neighborhood's something. But I think -- that was mentioned at the
Planning Commission. I do not know personally.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. One other question, and this
would be -- and I think you had said -- well, I want to direct this
actually to Mr. French or staff. At what point in the construction of the
pool was the complaint raised that this didn't meet the code?
MR. MARKS: Can I answer?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to hear from Mr. French first.
MR. MARKS: I'd like to clarify one thing.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, if you're going to
clarify it, go ahead.
MR. MARKS: Mr. Shapiro testified that the pool was completed.
It is not. The shell is there, the shell only. The pool is not -- but it's
not finished. The deck is not put on. All those things are not there.
They've made some progress in the last three or four days. They were
working on inside the pool as late as yesterday. They were not
working on it today.
Sorry, Jamie.
MR. FRENCH: That's okay.
Thank you, Commissioners. Again, for the record, Jamie French.
The complaint was forwarded to Code Enforcement from our
Contractors Licensing Team on April 26th, 20 --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of two thousand?
MR. FRENCH: Sixteen.
Page 145
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sixteen.
MR. FRENCH: Right. What I've also provided you,
Commissioners, is that -- I know there was some testimony provided
about a failure to turn in a site plan. If you remember, I originally
spoke about how this house was built. There's an envelope, and if you
look at it, this is the house site plan done by a surveyor where it
indicates the height of the seawall at 3.3 feet, NAVD. And I'll point to
it right here.
MR. OCHS: Turn this?
MR. FRENCH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Turn it.
MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry, Leo. It would be right at the bottom
right in this area here.
And so you actually see a retaining wall. That's the house permit.
The pool would actually be dropped right in this envelope. So the pool
permit -- the pool is built, actually, inside of the home construction.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. FRENCH: So they would not have turned in a site plan --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's separate.
MR. FRENCH: -- on the pool. We wouldn't have required it
because the site plan is on the house.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. FRENCH: The only thing that they did not indicate was the
height of the deck.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. FRENCH: And that's what staff missed on their review.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. That was the
issue I was getting at.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Have you finished? You haven't
finished. I'm going to wait till you finish.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a couple more questions, but
Page 146
February 28, 2017
I think I'll wait till we hear from the rest of the speakers. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Mr. French, it was noticed on
April 26th, 2016. When -- does anybody recall what -- how much
construction was on -- was done on the house at the point of noticing?
Because you gave the pool permit, so that would have been on January
2016. So January -- February, March, April, three months. So what
kind of construction -- where was the house in the level of its
construction when the notice was given that there was a
nonconformity?
MR. FRENCH: Ma'am, I don't know that I can give you specific
details without the permit in front of me; however, I would imagine the
walls were up, tie teams were probably poured, the roof may have
already been set. It was definitely in a rough phase of construction.
Not liveable, of course, but they're much closer today, as you can
imagine, then they would have been at that time. It would have been an
active construction site.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But -- and I may have misunderstood
this. I understood that they had to keep it very clear when they were
constructing the pool. So if the pool was still under construction, as of
today it hasn't been finished, yet the house is -- we can see by the
pictures that the house is really quite along.
One wonders at the issue of having to keep it very clear in order
to construct the pool. I mean, maybe you can construct a pool in three
months if it's not high season and not the height of what we're doing
which, of course, last year was.
So I'm just questioning how far along they were. And the
question I have and what's troubling is why they're still building on the
pool at this point. It doesn't make sense to me when there's a
nonconformity.
MR. FRENCH: Well, the way the building permit is issued,
ma'am, it allows the contractor to work at their own risk. And at this
Page 147
February 28, 2017
point, as the building official informed us, the contractor did come in
after the Planning Commission thinking that there was a good
opportunity for them to be granted a variance.
I don't know -- and, again, it would be a question you'd have to
ask the contractor. I don't know at what phase they are with the pool.
But, again, the pool permit, as I explained earlier, and the house permit
are two separate permits and would also be very separate elements of
the building code as how we would approach those.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Except the petitioner entwined it by
saying it's going to be a hardship because we're going to have to bring
a barge, because with a house in front of it, we can't construct it. We
had to keep it open in order to construct the pool. So even though they
are very separate permits, they've been intertwined by the petitioner
here.
The other question I have is, what date was the Planning
Commission, about, month?
MR. FRENCH: January 19th. I'm sorry. It's right in front of me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: January the 19th?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So if the petitioner was noticed
in May of 2016 and the house continued to be constructed all through
that fall, I mean, they must have been pretty sure that they were going
to get a variance, or why would they do it?
MR. FRENCH: They would have been -- and I would -- again, I
would have to defer back to Mr. Reischl. He was the principal planner
that was working with the applicant, but at that point in May -- on May
10th of 2016, they were notified by county staff that they would need
to go through the variance process.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They got financing.
MR. REISCHL: And Fred Reischl again. If I may just add, the
original hearing was scheduled for the Hearing Examiner. When there
Page 148
February 28, 2017
was opposition from the neighbors, he deferred it to the Planning
Commission and to the Board. That's where there was an extra delay, I
guess, for additional advertising.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Well -- but, you know
-- and that's, I think, a very good explanation. My concern is why the
house kept being constructed when almost a year ago it was noticed
that there was a nonconformity.
MR. FRENCH: The nonconformity was with the pool. The
nonconformity was not with the home.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But as I said, the petitioner has
intertwined the pool to the construction because they couldn't begin --
you know, this is a hardship because they have to bring a barge.
MR. FRENCH: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, you know, I mean, it's just -- I
don't know yet. I don't know what the answer is.
MR. FRENCH: I would only answer that by saying, ma'am, is
we'd have no authority under the Florida Building Code to go shut
down the home. And I understand what you're saying --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. FRENCH: -- but they would have made a conscious choice
to continue to work on the home.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. And there's no fingers pointing
at staff in this whatsoever. You did what you did, and you noticed it
appropriately. I'm just questioning the fact that life went on as if it
never had been noticed,.
MR. FRENCH: Sure. Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Any other questions for the complainant here? Any other
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No? Okay. Thank you very much. I
Page 149
February 28, 2017
think we'll hear from speakers.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Now, did you want these timed
three minutes or not?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think so, yes.
MR. MILLER: Yes, okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If our County Attorney agrees.
MR. MILLER: Yes, okay. I'm going to call two names. We'll
ask the speakers to use both podiums. Your first speaker is David
Galloway. He'll be followed by Ronald C. Rossbach.
MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, Commissioners. David
Galloway. I'll keep it very brief.
We just -- the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association just did a
friendly resolution and, also, this is not pointing fingers at any staff.
We think it's done an excellent job on this.
I'll just briefly read the resolution. You probably already have it,
but back in the first week of February we did a resolution from the
board of directors of Vanderbilt Beach Residence Association. It just
states that the Board of directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residence
Association hereby fully endorses and supports the Collier County
Building and Land Development Code and expects that the county
commissioners and staff will enforce the various provisions of the
building and Land Development Code.
The board of directors of the Vanderbilt Beach Residence
Association further cautions the county -- the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and staff to be judicious in their use of
administrative variances and their administration of the building and
Land Development Codes instead of giving preference to the formal
public notice procedures to keep their proceedings in the public eye,
and that was just voted unanimously. And that's as simple as we can
get there.
Thank you.
Page 150
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Rossbach. He'll be
followed by Margaret Rossbach.
MR. ROSSBACH: My name is Ronald Rossbach. I live at 355
Lagoon Avenue, which is directly across the canal from the petitioners.
I want to tell you I have no objections at all to what -- to granting
them a variance. And, as a matter of fact, if you look at -- what I see is
in addition to the pool on the left side of their -- on the western side of
their house, their neighbor has a hedge which goes all the way down
the seawall, and the hedge at this point is about, oh, 18 inches to two
feet above the top of the pool. So I don't understand what the problem
is line-of-sight-wise.
And, of course, if you look at anything else there, you have boats,
you have shrubbery, you also have awnings above the boats nowadays.
And so there's all sorts of reasons for concern about line of sight if
you're worried about the height of the pool at this point.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Margaret Rossbach. She'll
be followed by Jerry Jorgansen.
MS. ROSSBACH: My name is Margaret Rossbach, and I live
directly across the canal from the Koepler's property, and it's a thing of
beauty. Before there was a duplex there, and now it's something
beautiful to look at. And I don't understand -- of course, I don't
understand the lawyers and what you're doing here. I don't have the
background for that.
But as far as I'm concerned, it enhances the neighborhood. It's
just beautiful, and I have absolutely no objections to them getting the
variance. And it's one of the prettiest house in the area, and I don't
understand what motivates people to go over, when it says no
trespassing, with their own measuring. It has to be something
Page 151
February 28, 2017
personal.
Mr. Steven Emens, who's the neighbor -- now, the complainant
here, who's three houses down, he can barely see this. He looks at this
at an angle. I don't see where it -- he's doing this -- he's a new resident
here from Pennsylvania, and maybe he's bored and wants to exercise
and sharpen his talents from Pennsylvania. But as far as I can see, he's
only here two or three months out of the year, and he's going to turn
everything upside down and make all these people unhappy?
There is nothing wrong with this home. It's absolutely beautiful,
and I hope you give them the variance.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jerry Jorgansen. He'll be
followed by Alfred Rossi.
MR. JORGANSEN: Okay. Hi, guys, and sorry for interrupting.
I apologize. You asked a question, and I'm going to answer it for you
now about the views.
I also built a lot of things in my life. I'm a car dealer. I remodel
dealerships, and we ask for variances a lot; you have to. Mistakes are
made by the City of Detroit, a lot, and we do things wrong, and then
we have to go fight about it. But, generally, variances happen, and
mistakes are made by everybody, as he admitted, Mr. Marks.
Margaret's right, he's been in our neighborhood maybe three
months or four. I've been in there for 11 years. I live across the street,
directly across from this house, and there's a view from my patio to
that house. Now, you tell me at all if that's objective in any way.
And as far as what Margaret said is absolutely correct, and I'm
going to show you that in a minute. He talked about these pictures he
showed you. He did a good job of putting just the right view on those
pictures with this 5-foot person. I detest (sic) any of you to come to
our properties, stand on my property, which is right there. I can't see a
single house down my property on either side.
Page 152
February 28, 2017
My hedges go all the way to the water, okay, on both sides, and
there's cages all the way down. There's not a single, solitary view that
he can see.
Now, the next picture, if you put it up, I got on my boat because I
don't want to trespass on people's property. So I got on my boat last
night and I rode down the canal. That picturey ou see now is in front
of Mr. Marks' house.
Now, that's a good view from his deck. Now, I'm not saying from
his upper stairs that he couldn't see the house. He probably can, but
he'd see the upside of the house. You tell me what view Mr. Marks
has of that house. Almost none. And you can't have one.
Now the next picture, please.
This picture is a view from the other house, the other person that
petitioned, and he has a little view of the house, which is true. He also
has a deck that -- it did comply at the time, and that's fine. You know,
I've been there 11 years, and I was a little disappointed in Dave coming
up here, because I went to them about a problem in safety, and I got
this runaround about you've got to go to Collier County. We can't do
anything about it. I finally got somebody to cut the shrubs down so
somebody doesn't get hit at the end of our blocks, and they need to step
in and do those things, but I guess they don't. So that upset me a little
bit that Dave went up and did that resolution, or whatever he did.
The other thing is, too, that property is beautiful, and Marge is
right -- Margaret is correct, I've lived there for 11 years. I watched
them tear down a piece-of-crap home. I had to call Collier County on
it a couple times because they were -- the yard was full of junk,
motorcycles and dogs, and it's gone.
We have a beautiful neighborhood, and our neighbors are
wonderful. It saddens me that somebody comes in -- and I agree that
there are codes. I know because, believe me, I've been in the car
business for 30 years. I just remodeled my dealership last year, $2.3
Page 153
February 28, 2017
million. I understand there's codes, and you've got to follow them, but
mistakes are made --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. JORGANSEN: -- and my point is -- and I'll finish right
now. My point is that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. JORGANSEN: A mistake was made. I'm sorry. It just
upsets me. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. JORGANSEN: Because we have a wonderful community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, sir. Sir. Thank you.
MR. JORGANSEN: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alfred Rossi. He'll be
followed by Debbie Cuny.
MR. ROSSI: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow
commissioners. My name is Alfred Rossi. I have a property across the
street at 361 Tradewinds. I am a retired general officer for the Army
Corps of Engineers with over 34 years of service. I'm also a licensed
professional engineer and planner in multiple states, and I've been
practicing land development for over 40 years.
I wear two hats. I'll be brief, since you have the three-minutes
rule. One hat is a neighbor. We welcome Debbie and Roxanne to our
community. They're building a beautiful house. And they've been an
asset, and the house that they tore down was a disgrace. So everything
they've done has been beautiful, and they'll make good neighbors.
With regard to my over 40 years of professional experience in
engineering and land development, I heard this afternoon the
testimony, and what I got out of this is that there are two issues, and
one is the view corridor impingement by this wall, that is minor, and I
think from a practical point of view -- you look at it. I have my house
on the canal, and I look, what do I see? I see the house across the
Page 154
February 28, 2017
canal. That's all you really see unless you have a lagoon view, which
we happen to have.
But over there you're seeing a house across the canal. And I
noticed from the staff report that the people directly opposite them
have no objection.
So what do we have? You see the boats. You see the docks.
You see the canopies over the boats. You see the shrubbery. You see
a whole bunch of stuff. This wall no way impinges upon the view
corridor. The view corridor is looking at the water in the canal. So
that excuse of a detriment to the view corridor is bogus.
The other issue that was brought up was a precedent setting. We
all know why we're here today. If this wasn't brought up today and
five years from now something happened and they wanted to sell a
house, I think you have in your code an after-the-fact variance. I
believe there's something like that in the code that would permit a
mistake that was made that was there for many, many years.
Well, that's not the situation today. The reason we're here is
because a mistake was made. And it's not a sum-zero game where it's
either the variance or rip it out. The petitioner has offered to mitigate,
and I think the mitigation here would go a long way in allieving (sic)
any concerns about what you see. Landscaping, decorative wall, that
type of stuff.
So my hope is that you will support the variance, you will support
your -- the approval of the prior board from the land planning, and you
would support the staff that recommended to the land Planning
Commission that this variance be granted, and I hope you join their
course.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Debbie Cuny. She'll be
followed by Jason Jenks.
MS. CUNY: Hi. I'm Debbie Cuny. I live directly across the
Page 155
February 28, 2017
street from the house being built by Nancy and Roxanne at 349
Tradewinds. And I have no real content that would be any different
except to say I'm fully supportive of them getting a variance.
The home is beautiful. It's nothing but enhancing the property
values of everyone around them. So, again, I don't want to repeat
what's been said except that they have my support.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your last speaker on this item is Jason Jenks.
MR. JENKS: Jason Jenks. I'm the contractor building the house.
I just want you-all to know that when we were notified of the issue of
the pool, we did not do anything that would have increased the value
of removing that pool. It didn't change the way we have to access and
the way we have to get it out of there. We haven't done any work to
increase the value of removing the pool.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I need to ask you a question.
MR. JENKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That wasn't the question I had. The
question was, when you were noticed about the pool having
nonconformity, which was May of 2016, the construction of the house
continued --
MR. JENKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- yet Mr. Shapiro testified that it
would be an undue hardship to remove the pool because you would
have to bring in barges because the only way the pool could be
constructed is to use the envelope of the house in order to get the
machinery back and forth there.
MR. JENKS: We had to construct the pool first. That was the
thing we did. We put the retaining wall up around the pool, and then
we built the pool, and then we started to work on the house.
We had the slab poured, the block walls were up, and I think we
were about to pull the tie beam when we were notified of an issue with
Page 156
February 28, 2017
the pool.
We hadn't worked on the pool since that day that would increase
the value of moving that pool. We still have got to tear it out no matter
what.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
MR. JENKS: If the pool has to be removed, it's not going to cost
us any more to remove it now than what it would cost us back then.
We stopped construction of the pool, and it's still sitting in that same
state.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And to -- okay. So it would not cost
you anymore?
MR. JENKS: Right. We didn't increase the value of removing
that pool at this point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I misspoke. I did have one more
slip hiding underneath the paper here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Buzz. I'm sorry. How do you say your last
name?
MR. VICTOR: Victor.
MR. MILLER: Buzz Victor.
MR. VICTOR: Thank you very much. I'm Buzz Victor. I'm a
neighbor of Mr. Marks. And with all due respect to Mr. Shapiro, I
don't feel that I've been totally riled up to come here today.
I'm not generally concerned about the creation of precedence. I
am concerned about the requirements to let codes be in place and that
they be followed. Those codes were put in place to protect neighbors,
and I fail to understand why any neighbor should suffer because one
neighbor does something that is not in compliance.
The cost of the removal of this is seen to be a hardship or it's
being said that it's a hardship for the people who are building it. And
Page 157
February 28, 2017
I'm wondering where the consideration is for the hardship of the rest of
the neighbors in the neighborhood who don't have the opportunity to
build higher so they can see farther and have an advantage.
I know that $65,000 is not a small amount of money, but we're
very lucky in the Vanderbilt Beach area now to be living in a
neighborhood that's rapidly improving. We see homes that are being
in the 2 million, two-and-a-half million dollar range. I think that's just
wonderful. This $65,000 represents something in the two-and-a-half to
3 percent of the cost of that home.
I am a sometimes commercial developer in Collier County.
When I've built, I've been required to follow codes scrupulously. If I'd
been able to ignore them, there is no question in my mind that I could
have saved dollars, but I don't think that I would have had the
opportunity to come before you or the Planning Commission and say,
hey, guys, I'd like to save some money by not following the codes. I
don't think that I'd get the variance, and I don't think there should be
one here either.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I'm not sure who was first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think my light's been on for quite a
while.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it has. But you wanted to speak
again, but, no, that's not you, okay.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He was ahead of me, I think.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Public hearing -- do I make the
announcement that public hearing is now closed? Does that preclude
us from asking more questions of folks who have testified before us?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So please note that the public
Page 158
February 28, 2017
hearing is now closed.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis' light was
on before mine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, he's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, it was on from before.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was on before. Okay. Go ahead,
and then I'll say something else at the end.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you wish, you'd like to go
first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, come on, just --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll go. I'll go just to keep --
okay.
Based upon the testimony that we've heard and staff-- and over
the years I've handled a number of these kinds of situations, and they're
unfortunate. They happen. I would also commend staff coming
forward and, you know, accepting that a mistake was made.
I'm familiar with the way this part of code reads. And I very
distinctly remember reading it at least 10 times and going, what -- let
me read that one more time because it is -- it was a difficult part of the
code. I think the fact that staff is coming back with an amendment to
clarify that and their testimony that this was an error on their part, I
think, is very important.
The -- as far as the standard that we need to meet, whether or not
the applicant has proven by substantial competent evidence that they
meet the -- that they're entitled to the variance, I think they did -- they
didn't create it. Staff has admitted that this was an issue that should
have been caught by staff. You know, the situations where they're
created is where they're put on notice -- the ones I'm familiar with is
where a builder or the owner is put on notice "you can't do this," and
they do it anyway. That's a different situation than we have here.
Page 159
February 28, 2017
I think there are special circumstances. The fact that the code was
confusing, and the fact that there was a site plan that was approved, it
had the measurements on it, the pool is built within the envelope. I
don't know that if there would have been some other -- if there was a
requirement that a site plan would have been submitted, it probably
would have been reviewed by the same person. And, you know, I can't
imagine that there would have been any other conclusion other than the
erroneous one that we had. The pool was -- I assume it was inspected,
and it wasn't caught. So as far as I'm concerned, I think the applicant
has met their burden.
I would also point out -- and I was somewhat surprised, because I
think it was Mr. Galloway, when he -- when he read the resolution, the
resolution didn't say that the Vanderbilt association opposed the
variance. And I think, for me, that's important. That's not what it said.
It said that it -- follow the code.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Be judicious.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And I agree with that; that's
what we need to do.
In the years that I've handled these kinds of matters, again, I don't
know that I've ever come across a situation where the staff has just said
there's -- you know, it was our issue and we -- and fundamental
fairness, I think, requires that we grant it.
I understand it's not going to create a precedent, and it shouldn't.
And I'll make a motion to approve the variance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Prior to making the motion, I'd
like to make a comment.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because it may affect your
motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't believe mine will either,
but I would like to make --
Page 160
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I think mine might; that's
why I was saying to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- say something before the
motion's made.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to go first or you
want me to?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think it's Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to ask Mr. Marks a
question, if I may, please.
Because -- and as he's moving there, I'd like to, just as a point of
clarification,just talk about the fact that if we don't grant this variance,
we're necessarily going to create a civil matter between the applicant
for the variance and his architect, engineer, contractor along the lines
with regard to restitution for not necessarily following our code,
because the pool's going to have to be removed and be made -- be
brought into conformity with our code; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure I follow you, sir. This is simply
an application for a variance.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Everything else is outside of our control.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If we do not grant the variance,
then the pool will have to be removed --
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- at which point -- so having
said that, is there -- and you're correct with regard to creating a civil
matter between his contractor and engineer and such.
With that question, Mr. Marks, is there a compromise that would
satisfy you with regard to your complaint with regard to this variance
request that would not necessitate the pool being removed?
MR. MARKS: I appreciate you asking that question, Mr.
Page 161
February 28, 2017
McDaniel. At the Planning Commission I had offered a compromise,
and my comp -- there were two points. I offered a compromise that if
you lower the pool, I wouldn't object to its distance to being too close
to the seawall, because the issue is seeing over the pool. We can talk
about landscaping, we can talk about all the other things, but a concrete
pool is -- any time I've been told concrete erasers are pretty tough. As
an architect, they always said, pencil erasers are a lot cheaper than
concrete erasers. The issue -- that becomes the issue.
I offered after the -- at the Planning Commission I offered that
compromise in my testimony at the Planning Commission. I also
offered to speak with the neighbors, and they took me up on my offer
after the Planning Commission to speak with me. And as soon as we
started to speak, the first thing I was told was that unless I was going to
agree to leave the pool deck exactly where it was, there was no
conversation to be had. My response was, so you really don't care
about the zoning law, you don't care about the fact that you're violating
the zoning, you just want it the way you want it, and the answer was
yes.
I gave them my business card. I offered them the opportunity to
speak with me and to come and talk about other compromises. I told
them when I was in town. They did not reach out to me.
So my compromise is still on the table: Lower the pool down to
the four feet. I will leave it against the seawall -- leave the distance
from the seawall exactly where it's at. I have no objection to that. The
problem is the height. The height is the issue. When you looked at all
those other pictures across all the other areas, you can see how there's
graduating step-ups from the seawall. It's a great appearance. I showed
you in my testimony how the height of this wall is so big and how it
does block.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask how you lower a
Page 162
February 28, 2017
swimming pool.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, ask him.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask you how you lower a
swimming pool? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. Your light was on. I'll take you
before Commissioner Saunders.
MR. MARKS: Happy to answer it for you, Commissioner.
In this case what would happen is the pool would have to be
removed. You know, they would have to go in there and remove the
pool; they'd jackhammer it out. I showed in my presentation that they
can get heavy equipment around -- back behind the pool. I showed a
picture with heavy equipment behind the pool. Their argument that --
bring a barge in and all that kind of stuff may or may not be totally
accurate, because I showed equipment there on Saturday.
So they would have to jackhammer it out and lower it down and
then re-pour it. No different than they would have had to have done if
they did this in April of 2016.
I would argue that the pool being built first -- the pool had to be
finished before they could start the house for the same reason.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You'd have to remove the pilings and
lower the pilings that the pool sits on as well, right?
MR. MARKS: Can I answer the question?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MR. MARKS: Pilings don't have to be removed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, they'd have to be lowered.
MR. MARKS: They could be saw cut and cut off.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, anything
else?
Page 163
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not at this time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a comment in terms of a
motion, because I sense that you're going to make a motion to approve
the variance, and I think that's probably going to get general support
from the commission.
But staff has made a mistake, and I commend staff for admitting
that they made a mistake. There's a reason why there are affidavits and
guarantees that if there is a mistake on the part of staff, that the
applicant bears that risk. The applicant still has to make sure that
there's compliance with the code.
There are going to be other mistakes made that may be much
more serious than this. That's just the nature of what they do.
So in your motion, which I will support, I'd like for it to make --
make it very clear that this is not a variance being granted because staff
made a mistake, because I think that does send a message that, you
know, if staff makes a mistake, no matter what it is, there's an
opportunity to get a variance for that. I don't want to send that
message. I want builders to understand that when they submit plans, if
staff makes a mistake, they're responsible for those plans even if
they're not -- even if staff misses that.
And this is one of those situations where, quite frankly, I don't
think there's any harm to anybody on this. I think that this is kind of a
balancing test in terms of, you know, what's really reasonable and fair
under this, but not so much just because staff made a mistake, if that
makes sense.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. So let me speak
now.
Having spent 10 years on the City Council and having the canals
and the homes built on canals that are prevalent throughout the city, I
can tell you this is huge. This is an issue of sight; this is an issue of
Page 164
February 28, 2017
encroachment. When you have people building higher than they
should be on canals, it's a very, very serious business.
And we have heard variances for six inches and denied it because
it is so important that people's quality of life, the values of their homes,
the ability -- they're not on a canal just to run a boat. They're on a
canal to view it -- that it's maintained and that there's a standard. And
when we go down that slippery slope, we go down that slippery slope.
This may not legally set a precedent, but I guarantee that if you're
here, you're going to hear more of these. There's going to be oopses
and mistakes and, oh, this happened here and this happened there, and
it's not what we need to be doing.
I do not feel that -- I feel that the owners of this property are a
little ingenuous -- disingenuous, because we heard that they had to
bring in a barge, yet they kept on, you know -- oh, we've got a
variance. Well, it has to be the problem. We're going to get a
variance. And they decided they were going to get a variance,
according to what I wrote down, when they were noticed before they
even went to the planning board, because they kept on building a house
that they knew they shouldn't be building if, indeed, the only way they
could correct the problem they had is to bring the construction in from
the street side. But they kept on building. It's as if they thumbed their
nose at this whole process.
So I cannot support the motion. I do not believe that these folks
should be granted a variance. I believe there might be a compromise
out there. That's between the owner and the person that is complaining
about it. But this is -- this is a real problem.
You know, again, you don't build on a canal and not expect to
have everyone conform to a height of a view. You don't. It lowers the
standard in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
So we have a motion on the floor. Could you repeat your
Page 165
February 28, 2017
motion?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I'll amend my motion
and move that we approve the variance with the requirements that have
been recommended by staff, number one, because there are some
requirements for the applicants to abide by. And I'll also state that the
motion to approve is based upon the applicant's meeting their burden
of showing by competent substantial evidence that they're entitled to
the variance and that it's not necessarily just because staff made an
error, because I don't -- I'm not implying that that's the only reason.
I think this is just an unusual situation that presented itself, and
we have to address these issues as they come up, and there's no
precedent set, so that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
Aye. It carries 4-1. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, it would be appropriate for a
court reporter break at this point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Time for a break. Ten minutes, 15 --
10 minutes okay? 3:20; back at 3:20.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, County Manager. Where
are we?
MR. OCHS: We are on Item 11B.
Page 166
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11E and 11F.
MR. OCHS: No, 11B, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11B.
Item #11B
RESOLUTION 2017-36: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE
FY 2018 BUDGET POLICY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: This is the recommendation to adopt the Fiscal Year
2018 budget policy. Mr. Isackson, your Director for Corporate
Financial and Management Services, will make a brief presentation.
MR. ISACKSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Mark Isackson with the Office of Management and Budget.
This is the official start of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget season.
Unofficially we started a few months ago.
You've got three objectives to accomplish today. The first is to
adopt the recommended budget policies which will set in motion staff
going back and putting together its comprehensive budget book, which
you will review in your workshop setting in June, you will establish
the June workshop hearing dates and also the September budget
hearing dates, and you will also adopt the resolution which will
provide for budget submittals by the Clerk, the Supervisor of
Elections, and the Sheriffs Office on May 1st. Those are the three
actions that will be necessary on this particular item.
Now, we can either have questions and answers -- I'm sure each
one of you has looked at the material that was provided -- or I could go
through a PowerPoint which I've prepared. It's up to your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, what's the pleasure of the Board?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any questions. I
don't know if anybody else does.
Page 167
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, no questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd like to see the PowerPoint.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No questions right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, no
questions?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to comment. I'm just so
pleased that we're going to continue to stay with our same tax millage
rate, that's wonderful, 3.5 -- 5456 -- no, 3.45 -- no, 5446 or something
like that, isn't it? We've just kept it the same way for many, many,
many years, and I just love that, because we've been able to handle all
of our maintenance things, yet we keep it the same, and -- because
property taxes or property values rise a little bit, but our taxes don't.
We're still the -- still the lowest tax rate in the state of Florida; is that
correct?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, I think we're one of the lowest, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, one of the lowest, okay, good.
And I'm proud of that, too. I feel real good with the budget.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Let's get your
PowerPoint, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I -- sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Oh, he does have a question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Well, he just has a
comment because there is a provision in here for an increase in that ad
valorem tax to support Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. That's over and above.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that staying rate neutral is
not part of this budget directives. And I know we're going to have
future discussions about it, but as a point of clarification --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
Page 168
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- it's important to remember
that it is -- there is an ad valorem tax increase in these propositions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, the budget highlights:
Essentially, your policy document begins on Packet Page 259. And
what I have provided for you following that is once you get on Packet
Page 259 and page through a couple pages, that's where your policy
document actually begins in the footer page, so you'll be able to follow
along, if you want to, at the dais.
So we have key annual policies for consideration and board
direction. Those are on document Pages 1 through 31. You have
continuing policies which have been endorsed by the Board in
previous years, and you have a three-year General Fund and
Unincorporated General Fund analysis, just by way of high level.
You've got some options in terms of guidance. You can approve
the recommendations by one motion after due consideration, you can
approve all recommended budget policies and then deal with any
exceptions or changes from there, or you can go through each one of
these 24 recommended policies separately.
First and foremost, one of the most important things that you do
from a budget standpoint is we sit here and we talk about millage rate
policy. And the policy document pages are 5 through 14.
Taxable value; the state has suggested that taxable value's going
to go up 8.9 percent. We're not planning around 8.9 percent. We plan
for something a lot less than that. It will be 7 percent. We've been
fairly adept over the years at gauging what we think taxable value's
going to be versus what we plan around, and we're generally a little bit
lower than what it actually comes in when the Property Appraiser
certifies on July 1st.
We've got two things going in the General Fund. As
Page 169
February 28, 2017
Commissioner Fiala indicated, your operating millage rate of 3.5645,
which is your current millage rate, is intended to remain. The Board
recently, on a marginal basis, approved the restart of the Conservation
Collier program at a millage rate of.2500 per thousand dollars of
taxable value.
In the unincorporated area, millage rate last year or, excuse me,
this year is .8069. It's intended to remain at .8069 in FY18. The
marginal increase of.09098 will be used to continue the median capital
maintenance program.
So why do we do all this? We do it because of public, health,
safety, and welfare program investment, continuing our infrastructure
investment, we have a human capital investment, and we need to grow
our reserves. Those are the reasons why we keep our millage rate --
our operating millage rates the same.
You have MSTUs, 20 -- what is that? -- 21 or 22 of them. Those
will be discussed as part of your June workshop and also a big part of
your September budget hearings. We're suggesting, just as we did last
year with advisory board oversight, the tax neutral or rolled-back rate,
which is the same revenue as last year when -- no advisory board,
simply going with the rolled-back rate, which will likely raise the same
amount of money as the previous year under your MSTUs.
Agency allocations. The premise, of course, there is that all
agencies work together, and should we need to reduce budgets
because, for some unforeseen reason we're not correct in our budget
planning scenarios, then we'll go through a reduction process in some
reasonable fashion and, likewise, conversely, if revenues come in
above our planning scenario, those dollars can be allocated at the
Board's discretion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we'll save them, right? We'll put
them aside.
MR. ISACKSON: Well, that would be up to the Board, ma'am.
Page 170
February 28, 2017
We'll certainly make some recommendations to you.
Revenue centric concept, the document, Page 15, our Internal
Service Funds, our Collier County Public Utilities, our Growth
Management Planning Fund, and our Building Permit Funds, all of our
enterprise operations, essentially, are supported by fee-based revenue,
and those revenues and those budgets are tied around those fee-based
parameters.
In the General Fund and the Unincorporated General Fund, there's
net cost to those general funds based on revenues that we anticipate to
be receiving. The concept there is that the ad valorem taxes will not be
used in the event that your revenues fall well below your planning
parameters. So we will make adjustments accordingly in the budget as
part as our management process to right-size that.
Agency positions; similar to '17, our expanded request will be
limited to mission critical functions fully vetted by the board and
enumerated within the budget document, including details of the
expanded operational costs and any offsetting the program revenue.
You'll have a detailed breakout of that at your June workshops.
The process usually is generated by the departments through my
office and, in consultation with the County Manager's Office, we make
a rank order of those and submit those as part of the June workshop.
This year's compensation package, we lay it out a little bit.
COLA this year is suggested at 2.9 percent. The cost-of-living
adjustment, which is the Miami/Fort Lauderdale SMSA, is 2.9 percent,
December '15 over December '16. And we're having a small
component of.6 percent for pay plan maintenance, which is to
maintain our pay ranges at a market competitive level.
The '17 general wage adjustment of 3 percent had a value of
about 3.4 million. The '18 general wage adjustment and pay plan
maintenance valued at 4.3 million, and you see the component
breakdown of that $4.3 million below.
Page 171
February 28, 2017
Healthcare; we're suggesting that there be no increase to
employees for healthcare costs this FY18, just like there was no
increase in '17. We're also recommending the 80/20 distribution, and
we're encouraging our constitutional officers to follow the same
protocols.
Retirement rates; our office will work in consultation with a
review of the state legislation, and then we'll establish rates based upon
the state's guidance.
Stormwater funding; once again, we've had a paradigm shift in
stormwater funding from our General Fund to our Unincorporated
General Fund, and that's simply based on the perceived benefit of any
particular project, whether there's a countywide watershed benefit
versus an individualized benefit to a specific area or region. The trend
is moving toward our Unincorporated Area General Fund.
And the last bullet point there is continue discussions on our
stormwater utility fee, which this board has heard of and I'm sure will
be exposed to further down the road.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: When will that come back to us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, from talking to David, we're
going to do our presentation to the manager's office in about a month
or two and then before -- about the budget time. Budget workshop
we'll give you an update.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it probably wouldn't even be
considered till the FY19 because it takes a year to roll it in if it was
approved by the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, use of gas taxes; we have gas
tax debt of roughly $13.1 million a year. That's a pledge source of
revenue to pay those bonds. Our gas tax revenue is coming in at
around the $20 million range. It doesn't leave much to maintain your
Page 172
February 28, 2017
transportation network once you subtract the difference between what
we owe in debt and what we take in in gas tax.
The General Fund and the Unincorporated General Fund make
substantial contributions to the effort, and that's how we get along with
maintaining and improving the transportation network, at least at this
point.
Then we have a substantial General Fund and debt service
contribution, what we usually call the equivalency of a third of a
million. It hasn't been a third of a million for -- at least since I've been
doing it. What, 10 years now, I would think; something along those
lines, Boss?
MR. OCHS: Yep.
MR. ISACKSON: And that number is roughly $46 million
planned in '18. It was 43'ish in '17. The loans to the Impact Fee Trust
Funds, which is part of this equation, over the course of time is about
$100 million. I think it started in 2004 or '5. So every year the
General Fund seems to be making a contribution to the Impact Fee
Trust Funds, and specifically general governmental and corrections
and law enforcement, those -- libraries. Those are the impact fees that
don't generate a lot of cash flow during the course of the year.
We have a substantial discussion on reserve policies. I have been
advocating for a number of years now for an increase in our General
Fund Reserves and those (sic), and the Board has been -- has been kind
enough to agree with OMB's position in increasing those reserves.
We're calling for another increase in '18; roughly $5 million. It will be
just shy of$40 million. And why do we do that?
Well, during the first couple months of the FY, we have a
substantial outflow of cash and transfers, not only to the constitutional
officers, but obviously paying our operating expenses before the
receipt of property tax dollars. And that's important. So we need to
have probably a good 50 or $55 million sitting in the bank at the time
Page 173
February 28, 2017
we do that.
One of the ways that I preserve that cash balance is by my
budgeted reserves because, theoretically, if nothing happens to your
reserves, and you spend everything that you take in, that money moves
forward into the next FY, so...
And then you see the other -- the other reserve policies that you
have there. Most of those have been carrying on now for the last two
or three years, and we've had very good luck in our cash flows with
those particular reserve policies in place.
We have talked quite a bit over the last couple of board meetings
with various projects. You may note that on policy documents Pages
19 through 22 we have a section titled "Financing New and
Replacement Capital Infrastructure." We haven't issued new debt
since 2008. All of our activity from 2008 to now has been in the
restructuring arena. We've lowered our debt, paid down debt, things of
that nature.
We're going to be getting into a -- the issuance of new debt
probably over the next 18 to 24 months, if not sooner.
Our Finance Committee, which I chair, which there's
representation by the Clerk finance section, as well as the County
Manager's agency, is engaged continually in reviewing all of our
appropriate capital financing options. It has not suggested that the
adopted FY 18 budget program debt, and that's only because the
adopted budget is fluid. It's a living document. It moves during the
course of the year. And if there's any discussion and then an ultimate
decision to issue debt, this board, upon direction to my office through
the County Manager, outside of 60, 90 days, I could have a debt
issuance for you.
So I'm not concerned about the issuance of debt. We need to
make sure that we're programming it properly based on execution
patterns, especially when you're looking at long-term debt. And I think
Page 174
February 28, 2017
those are the key considerations. And part of that will be -- we'll talk
about that when we start gathering together the financing plan that you
want for your amateur sports complex.
But you've also, as Commissioner Taylor pointed out, you have
$129 million in what we might term unfunded requirements that were
in your AUIR; roadways, bridges, et cetera, that we may be looking at
having to finance at some point and in some capacity.
Finally, Commissioners, the schedule. We're suggesting that your
workshops in June be scheduled on June 15th, which is Thursday and,
if necessary, Friday the 16th. As a matter of calendar, you adopt your
maximum millage rates on July 11th. It's Tuesday, July 11th. That's
the suggestion. That means at your final hearings, your budget
hearings in September, the only thing you can do is reduce your
millage rate.
And then the Board will receive what I might term a tentative
FY18 budget document on Friday, July 14th, and that, essentially,
represents changes that the Board may like to see from the June
workshop, and it also will reflect adjustments to the funds that receive
ad valorem taxes, because the July certified taxable values will come
in. At this point in time we'll have those numbers. We will not have
them in time for the June workshops. We'd only have June preliminary
numbers from the Property Appraiser's Office.
And with that, Commissioners, I'll stop and answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just -- I just want to comment
that we were deep in the depth of debt a while back, you know, when
we went into the recession and so forth, and we did everything we
could to keep our heads above water, keep our staff on, keep
everything functioning, and we did as little maintenance as possible,
but the things we needed to have done we got done.
And we've pulled ourselves up so far, and I want to thank all three
Page 175
February 28, 2017
of you sitting there for knowing how to get us out of that debt and
pulling up this far and having plans to keep on moving forward with
the things that are essential to the running of a government.
And we sitting here, there's five us here, I don't think any one of
us could have done a job like you've done. And I just want to say my
hats off to you. That's all.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here, here; here, here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree. Well, how many -- and I
always bring this up. How many people did you let go out of the
government at the beginning of the recession or in the recession?
MR. OCHS: About 200 positions eliminated.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not easy. And I'll never forget coming
here as a new commissioner, and I think the former head of public -- of
facilities -- is his name Skip?
MR. OCHS: Skip Camp, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'll never forget this. I mean, the
cheering when he was -- it was his -- he got some award, and I'm sure
he was retiring, but people just stood up. This place was full.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, he's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I said, I can't believe -- how is this
going on here? Why? And they said, well, you know, when it got
tough, we hung together and we worked together and we grew to, you
know, depend on each other and have confidence in each other. And
it's so evident to go through what this county has gone through and to
have this kind of spirit in the employees is extraordinary. It doesn't
always happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Pointing to Mr. Ochs.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. That's right.
So, anyway, it gets me emotional. It really does. I think it's
wonderful.
Page 176
February 28, 2017
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted -- if you could
please reiterate the time frames when we actually set the tax rates and
when do these policies, these budget initiatives, as they're called, when
do they -- when do we really -- or have we already really gotten into
the meat of these budget initiatives?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, let's first -- Commissioner, let me just
talk about the tax policy. You'll have a couple bites at the apple when
it comes to that. What we're doing is you're setting -- you're getting
guidance to proceed --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. ISACKSON: -- and I will -- I, our staff, along with the
County Manager and our fiscal people, will prepare the budgets around
3.5645 on the operating, as well as .2500 for Conservation Collier.
You're going to get a workshop document in June that will reflect
those numbers. In the Unincorporated Area General Fund, .8069, and
.0908, that marginal increase, will be applied toward the Landscaping
Capital Program.
Once you get that in June, you're going to have a series of-- we'll
show you the tax rates and the rolled-back rates and all of that stuff
preliminarily. You're going to get those numbers, you're going to have
a chance to take a look at them. You're going to make some decisions
regarding the budget document during your discussions. And whether
that's I want -- I want more money for health, safety, and welfare from
a public services standpoint, or whatever the case might be, you'll
make some decisions regarding that.
We'll take those back and, to the extent we can, we'll put them
into this July document that you'll receive, because then I'll know what
certified taxable values are. Hope you're following. It's a --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I am.
MR. ISACKSON: Then you're going to come to that July
Page 177
February 28, 2017
meeting, and you're going to set your maximum millage rates. Those
that -- obviously, that's what the maximum levy will be when you roll
into your September hearings. You're going to have two hearings in
September. One's on the 7th and one's on the 21st. And you'll start
then to make decisions about what your actual tax rates are going to
be, because once those are made, then I, obviously, make notice to the
Property Appraiser and Tax Collector and to the state, and then we go
off on our merry way with the actual tax levies, which will form part of
the TRIM notice, and then, obviously, taxes, which are the tax bills
which go out sometime the end of October.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have one more. I'm not done
yet. There was -- thank you for answering that.
The second comment that I'd like to make is just, as
Commissioner Taylor brought up already, the prioritization of our
board with regard to the management of our funds and our expenses.
And I actually commended staff there last -- two weeks ago with
regard to how they've been managing through this thing and due
consideration in deference to those efforts.
But prioritization on how we're managing the -- I mean, if you
hop over to Page 10 of the actual budget initiatives that were given to
us, there's a description there of some of those latent backlog capital
expenditures to the tune of, coming up in '18, of 46 odd -- some-odd
million dollars that are there, not to mention those that are in the AUIR
report. So I'm --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's a five-year report, not just
next year, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Quick question. You spoke of July.
The past few years, the July meetings were held at different times. I
was wondering, are we going -- have we talked about when we're
Page 178
February 28, 2017
going to have the July meeting this year? We've done many different
ways over the past few years.
MR. OCHS: Yes. We're planning on -- at this point we would
recommend you stay with your normal schedule. Meet on the second
Tuesday of July, and that would be your only meeting in July, and then
you would adjourn for your recess.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to know when I'm going to
visit my Amish family.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I knew that was there.
MR. OCHS: I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a couple of comments. When we
come back -- and I think we'll discuss this ahead of time -- I really
think it's very important that we talk about the reallocation of the four
pennies. Now, I don't think -- this is in budget, but this isn't in budget.
So I just want to put that out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The reallocation of what?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of the TDT money. That's -- okay.
And then, you know, the one thing that we don't discuss here that
I think we really need to discuss -- and it's not today, but we need to
bring back our budget for our offices, because that's not the County
Manager's. It used to be under the County Manager's budget, and it's
not under there now. And I think we need to kind of address it and see
-- you know, we're the heads of this whole billion-dollar corporation.
But if we don't discuss our budget and try to conform to cost cuttings
and things -- I think it's very important that we do that.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I'm looking at you. I mean, at one
point our offices were under the County Manager's Department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, you know, we may just want to
Page 179
February 28, 2017
discuss that to talk about the pros and cons to see if that's something
that we would like to go back to or not go back to or whether they even
want us. They don't want --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Burt's down there going, whoa,
hit your button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They used to do all the hiring of our
people, and they paid everything, and they budgeted everything, and
they just ran it, and that's the way it went, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It may be a conversation we need to
have. Well, we can always have. It doesn't mean we have to do
anything. I don't see you jumping up with joy over there.
MR. OCHS: Waiting for you to have the discussion. I just
follow the policy.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think that's basically it at this
point.
So are there any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we need a motion here?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we do, right?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have two registered public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. We do.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Phil Brougham --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
MR. MILLER: -- and he will be followed by Murdo Smith.
MR. BROUGHAM: It's been a long day, and I know you're
anxious to get out of here, and so am I, before I freeze to death --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for staying with us.
MR. BROUGHAM: -- quite frankly.
I wrote this out, but I think I know enough about what I'm going
to say that I'm just going to wing it.
My name is Phil Brougham, and I've lived full time in Collier
Page 180
February 28, 2017
County for 17 years. And I'm vice chairman of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and enjoy the heck out of what I do there,
and I think we make a big difference.
I heard a lot today and in past meetings about build, build, build,
particularly when it comes to parks and recreation facilities. And there
is absolutely no doubt that our parks are the star attraction for Collier
County along with our beaches, et cetera, many of which are parks.
However, many of these parks are 20 and 30 years old.
The facilities are deteriorating, and the deferred capital repair and
maintenance for parks facilities has climbed every year up until this
current fiscal year where it was somewhere around $5 million in
deferred capital repair and maintenance.
This year we're reducing it down $4 million, and that's a good
step. My issue is that is funded totally from the General Fund. The
General Fund, as you all know, relies on property values and property
taxes. And we've been on a real roll here since 2008 or '9, I don't know
what, but that's going to stop.
What I'm here to request again this year is you seriously consider
implementing a dedicated new revenue source that will be solely
dedicated to repair and maintaining our parks facilities so it doesn't
have to compete with all the other agency needs coming out of General
Fund.
As -- you've heard about franchise taxes, you've heard about
increasing general -- or our property taxes, et cetera. There's
something that I know you're all aware of but I like to bring up for the
record, and that's the discretionary optional surtax on our sales tax
from a half a percent to one-and-a-half percent.
Out of the 67 counties in Florida, up until last year, we were one
of 12 counties that had not utilized that option. This year seven
additional counties initiated this optional or discretionary sales tax
option. So now we're one of five with that distinction.
Page 181
February 28, 2017
Please consider, whether it's this incremental and dedicated
source or another one or bonding, I don't care. All I'm telling you is if
we continue to build parks facilities, that's great, but our parks are
deteriorating faster than we can keep up with deterioration, and it's
serious.
And pretty soon all this sports tourism that we've heard about is
really going to start going the other way, not necessarily because we
don't have field capacity, but the fields and the buildings that we have
aren't usable or attractive.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Murdo Smith.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon, again, Commissioners. My name
is Murdo Smith, and I'm also on the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board.
Phil usually does all the talking at the beginning for me, and I
kind of follow up. He's got all the statistics and all that, so...
I'm here to echo what he said about our, what should I say, old
parks. We have money in that to build new facilities and, you know,
make new facilities in our existing parks. But the parks that I'm
thinking about are the ones that were built back in the 1960s. We've
got Poinciana Park, Airport Park, Golden Gate Park, Aaron Lutz Park
instead of Golden Gate. When I was here it was Golden Gate. That
was back a while. Maybe Commissioner Saunders remembers that.
But they changed the name to Aaron Lutz.
Those parks have -- you know, they're getting old, and they need
a little refreshing. It's the same as with the community parks. They
were built back in 1986. I mean, those buildings have been there -- the
restrooms and the field control buildings have been there that long, and
they're showing their age; so are the fields, the parking. You know,
everything's showing its age. It's getting old. And I think that we need
to start looking, like Phil said, to put some money aside to maybe go
Page 182
February 28, 2017
back and improve or put them on a five-year plan to improve different
parks, you know.
Like, some of the landscaping is getting old. The fences at some
ballfields -- I don't know if you play ball or not, but when balls hit the
back of the backstop, the fences turn up. Well, there's not that many
ways you can fix it other than repair the fences.
The maintenance guys and gals are doing a great job trying to
keep up with what they have, but it's tough when this stuff gets old.
It's hard to maintain it and make it look nice.
My big thing is, even the community centers, they were built in
the 1990s, so they're, what, almost 30 years -- 26 years old now, or 16
years old or -- I'm not a great math man. But anyway --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They were built in '87.
MR. SMITH: Yeah. I mean, they were built at 7,000 square feet.
You know, they've got a big meeting room. They've got two little
meeting rooms, bathrooms, and an office area. I think we need -- the
programs are outgrowing those facilities. There's so many programs
that we could run that we can't do it anymore.
So I think we need to relook at that, add on, you know, knock
them down and build new ones, because they're getting old. So that's
my -- that's my spiel.
I feel a little bit, what should I say, sentimental about it because I
was here when most of those were built, because I worked for the
Parks and Recreation Department for 35 years. And I just hate to see
that -- those parks go down the tubes. And I think we should get some
money to, you know, just refresh them and make them look nice again.
All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just another comment. When we talk,
when you come back to us, can we get a breakdown of-- with the
Conservation Collier millage, how much it's going to net on a yearly
Page 183
February 28, 2017
basis? I think it's in here. But also -- what were the -- and this is -- it's
going to sound like heresy, and I don't mean it to sound like heresy.
I just want to see if we need all that money on a yearly basis, on
an annual basis. If we do -- if we don't, you know, what are we
looking at to buy? Those kind of questions. And then, of course, the
maintenance.
So I think we kind of-- we need to analyze this so that we
understand the whole thing. Because I think it's supposed to give us 20
million -- is it 20?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 19.6.
MR. OCHS: 19.6.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 19.6 million a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was thinking -- that's only for the
first year, though. After that we get a second bite at the apple, right?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There is no end to it. Under the
current program, that increase goes on.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's not --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right now it's -- we still have
to vote on whether we're going to do it, and we'd have to vote every
year. So it ends year if we don't --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, it does.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I can't say.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we don't renew it every year.
I mean --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's always -- oh, my goodness, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I understood -- I didn't
understand that. Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's a gift that keeps on giving?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On the note that you brought
Page 184
February 28, 2017
up, Commissioner Taylor, when we had this discussion two weeks
ago, I put together that five point -- PowerPoint -- five-page
PowerPoint presentation. On the last page there was a delineation
there of the A properties, the B properties, and the cumulative value of
those combined altogether, and that was approximately -- if those
properties were still available -- about 6 million in total.
So, if you have an opportunity, review that -- review that
five-page PowerPoint presentation. It does -- it did --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I think we need to -- now
that we know that there is some support here -- you know, it's not
unanimous -- I think we need to dust it off and bring it forward as part
of our discussion. I think it's important. If everyone else agrees.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do you need a motion to
approve the policies?
MR. ISACKSON: Motion to approve the policies, sir, a motion
to approve the June workshop dates and the September public hearing
dates, and a motion to approve the resolution which provides for the
budget submittals for the Sheriffs, Supervisor of Elections, and the
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'll make a
motion to accomplish those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question, though.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this one's simple.
But I absolutely second that, and we can even vote on it. My
question was to Phil about the tax that you were talking about. Maybe,
could you even take me aside, explain to me what it is, and we can
bring it back to this board to discuss? Because if that would -- good,
yeah, but we have to sit down, and you have to tell me just how it
Page 185
February 28, 2017
would affect us.
Because as we were discussing with sports tourism today, we said
we need things for families. There's a lot of kids we need to get off the
streets and into the parks where it's a healthy and wholesome
environment, where it's a safe environment, and we need to do more of
that. Because as our parks age, just as you were saying, Murdo, we
need to do more to keep the kids.
I have a park out here, no kids go to it, and that's because there's
nothing to do at it. And we need to start putting some things into the
park. So maybe this will be the funding source to do it.
Okay. Thank you. But my second stands. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion -- any other
discussion? We have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #16-7020, "107TH
AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT,"
PROJECT NOS. 60139 AND 70120, TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,837,675, AND AUTHORIZE THE
Page 186
February 28, 2017
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (THIS IS A
COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16C2) — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11E. This is a
recommendation to award a construction contract for replacement of
aging water distribution, wastewater distribution, and stormwater
distribution systems on 107th Avenue North.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'll make a
motion to approve if there are no questions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #16-7035, "110TH
AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT,"
PROJECT NUMBERS 60139 AND 70120, TO DOUGLAS N.
HIGGINS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,182,405, AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
(THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16C3) —
Page 187
February 28, 2017
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11F is an identical project to award a
construction contract for those same types of improvements on 110th
Avenue in Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Steve, you're doing a
wonderful job.
MR. CHMELIK: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Hearing no discussion, all those
in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11G
RESOLUTION 2017-37: SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION BY
THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO
THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION'S (NOAA) OFFICE FOR COASTAL
MANAGEMENT FOR A COASTAL RESILIENCE GRANT TO
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE
Page 188
February 28, 2017
APPROACH FOR RESILIENCE WITH RESPECT TO FLOODING
AND OTHER IMPACTS OF COASTAL STORMS IN THE
PRESENCE OF SEA LEVEL RISE WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY
— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: The next item is Item 11G. It was previously Item
16A13 on your Growth Management consent agenda. This was a
recommendation to approve a resolution of support for a grant
application by the South Florida Water Management District for a
coastal resiliency grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
And this was brought forward for discussion by Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, the reason I
asked for this to be pulled off, not -- I don't have any opposition to this
at all. I think we should go forward with it, but we have other items
that are going to be coming to us. We have the Harvard study request
that's coming to us at the end of March. And I thought if staff could
give us just a few minutes of conversation about how all this plays
together; is this duplicative of that other thing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, did you get my email from
yesterday? If you didn't, there's a letter that we sent, and I hope
Sherry's listening, because she can bring it to the podium. But we have
already cosigned -- oh, good, good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I saw the letter.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You saw the letter? So we've already
endorsed the University of Florida and FGCU for the same --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. I just wanted to make
sure that when that Harvard study comes before us that we understand
what this does, because that may have some impact on whether we
proceed with that.
Page 189
February 28, 2017
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'll be happy to -- Ms. Patterson is
here. She can give the Board just a brief summary of what our prior
board direction was on this matter, this issue, and what we've done to
date.
Amy?
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the
record, Director of Capital Project Planning.
Staff is working under a specific set of directions that was
provided by the Board of County Commissioners back in October.
There's three specific directions. I can put them on the visualizer
if that would helpful.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, it would.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not that it binds this commission, by
the way. I learned that from our County Attorney.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. So the first -- the first direction was
to contact our local partners, Florida universities, educational
institutions, other governmental agencies, and scientific organizations
to collect additional data on scenarios for the current rate of rise related
to peer-reviewed and best available science, and this is related to the
fact that the only adopted number that we have as a starting place for
our planning efforts is from the 2015 Floodplain Management Plan.
And with everything going on, there's all sorts of new information
pretty much every day. If you Goggle sea-level rise, you'll find some
things that are really scary and things that pique your interest and then,
of course, the other side.
So, as a starting place, we realize that we probably need to find
out, is this a good number to start our planning efforts, or does it need
an update.
Concurrently, with that first action, we were also directed to work
with the Regional Planning Council as part of this process, looking at
Page 190
February 28, 2017
the rate of rise and also, after we moved along, to see if we needed
some other specialized expertise.
We have had multiple conversations with the Regional Planning
Council, so that's underway.
And then lastly would be to continue conversations with our local
municipalities and our other regional partners. That would be, you
know, FGCU, the South Florida Water Management District, the Big
Cypress Basin, FDEP, and Rookery Bay to continue to see where we
could create strategic partnerships where people are doing -- or where
groups are doing different things that would be beneficial.
So what are we doing now so -- to address these things? On the
science and technical front, I've kind of broken these down. Moving
forward with an analysis of this rate of rise issue, which I had
explained about the difference between the Floodplain Management
Plan and where are we. What's -- is that the best number, or is there a
better number?
We have developed -- we've had conversations with a group
called Climate Central. That name has come up a few times in front of
the Board, including their conversations with Harvard. They have
worked directly with the Regional Planning Council, and they are a
non-profit that is a clearinghouse for sea-level rise and climate change
data.
So there is a possibility that they may be able to provide us some
impartial and pretty specific scientific guidance based on the existing
models out there.
Secondly, for strategic partnerships for data collection, modeling,
research, et cetera, we have a number of different fronts that are
working. One, Dr. Sevarise (phonetic) and Dr. Shang from the
University of Florida and FGCU are proposing a NOAA grant, a
different one than the district, that will be a three-year study and pretty
specific modeling exercises.
Page 191
February 28, 2017
Now, the district did provide a letter of support for that NOAA
grant, and we have had conversations with the district about whether or
not these efforts would be duplicative, and the answer is no, and that
the intent of the district is to work directly with these educational
institutions should they be awarded the grant in question.
We also have been talking with a group from Texas A&M who's
looking to do a broader resiliency study, another grant that they're
applying for, so we're going to see how that shakes out.
The South Florida and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Councils have a joint effort moving forward to look at the coastal high
hazard area, and that's something that this commission supported, and
then, lastly, there's this proposed grant.
Two more things.
We're also continuing conversations and data gathering with our
other partners as directed. That's places like the Water Management
District, our local municipalities, neighboring counties and
municipalities. We're reaching out to the resiliency officer in Lee
County; state agencies, educational institutions.
We've, you know, continued to have a dialogue with the Harvard
group, and then conservation groups and the other NGOs.
And then, lastly, is the planning efforts is building off of the rate
of rise analysis. Our view would be the planning efforts would begin,
then, of what everything might look like based on those scientific and
the technology issues; however, if it's the Board's direction, we could
run some planning efforts parallel with those -- with the science.
So right now we're proceeding under the Board direction that we
have, and I feel like we're making some pretty good progress and are
creating some good contacts and partnerships.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My question was for
Commissioner Saunders. You brought this up just on a -- for a
Page 192
February 28, 2017
statement that we wanted to be assured that we weren't, with this
resolution, being duplicative?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. We're going to have, at
the end of March, the issue of whether we're going to participate in the
Harvard study.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I wasn't sure how all of
this played with that. You know, this may cover what that covers, and
I just wanted to kind of get a sense of what other stuff staff was doing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know if it's covering what
Harvard did, but I can tell you I think it's covering the grant that the
FGCU and University of Florida are hopefully going to hear from by
Friday on what they've requested from NOAA.
To me when I read it -- and thank you very much for pulling it -- I
said, oh, my gosh, we did this before. If you want to put this here --
and you can read it. I mean, the intentions of this proposals tools, if
you look at that, those two paragraphs -- and you tell me if this isn't
duplicative of-- do you want to read it? Yeah, someone should read it.
I can't even see it hardly. Yeah, I can.
MR. OCHS: The whole thing or just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just, no, the vulnerability.
MR. OCHS: Read it off of here, Amy, so everybody can read it
while you're going through it, okay? Grab that portable mike, if you
don't mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would -- our intention to use this
proposal's tools.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Our intention is to use the proposal's
tools to best inform our future planning. Specifically we are concerned
with the vulnerability of our beaches, barrier islands, both to future
storms and sea level rise, precisely where are the geographic regions of
Page 193
February 28, 2017
greatest risk, where should future development be avoided, and where
does the maintenance of the dune system make the most sense.
Maintaining the resilient effect of our mangrove and marshland
buffers. Large portions of our publicly owned coast and our urban
landscape will contain mangrove forest or tidal marshes.
How will these resources respond to sea level rise, where will
they reside in the future, and how can we best protect the existing
locations and ensure that the future space exists for their migration?
Surface flooding; portions of the city and county are already
experiencing stormwater flooding. We have no sense as to where the
future area of risks are. The management of existing and future
infrastructure will benefit from the proposed work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so when I read the proposal -- and,
again, I want to thank you, Commissioner Saunders, for pulling this --
they are -- they are asking for a grant to develop and implement a
comprehensive approach for regional plan for resiliency in respect to
flooding and the impacts of coastal storms.
And I thought -- I thought that this may be duplicative, and I
thought maybe what we could do is maybe continue this because I'm
understanding from folks involved in this that we should know this
week whether or not the University of Florida and FGCU has received
the grant from the same agency, NOAA. And the issue is, it's not that
they can't be doing it, but we're going to the same agency, which I
think is probably something we should wait until -- maybe continue
this until the next meeting.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I didn't pull this because
I thought there would be any benefit in continuing it. I think we ought
to approve it. I just wanted to see what it was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Doesn't it bother you that it's --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not in the least. This is a --
Page 194
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. It's a grant application by
the South Florida Water Management District to NOAA, and so, no, I
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let them decide it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think we should
approve it. But I, again, just wanted to see how this played with other
things that are going on.
So I would make a motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So let NOAA decide whether
it's duplicative or not?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. What's duplicative? I
guess I'm --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My concern was simply that
we different things going on dealing with sea level rise. This is one of
them. And we have another one coming up at the end of March, which
is the Harvard study, and I just wanted to know what this was because
I don't want to do -- you know, if the Water Management District is
doing what the Harvard study would do, then I don't want to participate
in a Harvard study because then we would be duplicating what
somebody else is already doing. So I just wanted to get kind of a sense
of what this was. That's what I meant by being something --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, no. I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- duplicating another agency.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And I -- when I saw this, I said,
oh, my gosh. We already have signed and endorsed two universities to
talk about the same thing that South Florida Water Management wants
to do to the same agency. Maybe we better hold back to see if they
even get the grant.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not sure that we've -- what
Page 195
February 28, 2017
-- those other things that we've signed.
MS. PATTERSON: If I may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
We provided a resolution of support to FGCU and U of F and
some other scientists to do very specific modeling exercises over a
three-year period. They're going to provide about 10 different
scenarios; however, the Water Management District also provided a
letter of support to that application and are very aware of what was
entailed in that application and proposal, and their proposal provides
different things. And, in fact, they intend to bring FGCU into their -- if
they're awarded the grant, FGCU will be a partner similar to how the
county will be providing information and input and, in fact, receiving
benefit from that grant. And they're also not grants that are in
competition with each other, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Perfect. That was my concern.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay, sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just as an aside, just to put this in
perspective, the City of Miami Beach is spending half a billion dollars
in the City of Miami Beach for sea-level rise. Half a billion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Taxpayers' money. So this is
something -- am I saying that -- am I saying that we're the City of
Miami Beach? No. But I did have a conversation with Mr. Ananocci
(phonetic)?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Antonacci.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Antonacci who indicated that they're
doing a lot more pumping in Dade County than they ever did before.
So the reality of sea level rise is here. So I think all this work is very,
very important.
The -- what Harvard is proposing is so different than gathering
Page 196
February 28, 2017
this information, and I think you're going to see it as we go forward.
But thank you. Thank you very much. So I'm very --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And my light's been on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, dear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's been seconded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was seconded.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I seconded it before.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a point of clarification --
and I had discussion with Leo and Nick yesterday about this. When
you read the executive summary, it talks about things that we're doing,
and it also includes reference to the Harvard study, and then you read
the actual resolution and it says, the Board supports funding. Now, it
does -- it was a bit ambiguous when I was reading, translating from the
executive summary that mentions all these entities and then over to the
actual resolution itself now. Staff clarified it for me yesterday, but that
was where I was having an issue.
Commissioner Saunders, I was glad that you pulled it. I'm glad
that we're having this discussion. I want us to be able to talk about
things and clear the air with regard to what we're thinking. But I
literally had an issue with it as well, and just from a clarity standpoint.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second.
County Manager?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
Page 197
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I will just add parenthetically, the
staff has no plan to bring anything forward in March from anybody,
but if there's something coming --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's been circulating around that
that's when it was going to be coming.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Harvard folks?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: It might come from the board then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gee, I never heard that.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
Item #12A
REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A PRIMER ON THE
COLLIER COUNTY ETHICS ORDINANCE - MOTION TO HAVE
THE ORDINANCE REVIEWED AND BROUGHT BACK
BEFORE THE BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: All right. That takes us to Item 12A, which was
previously Item 16K7. This is a report back to the Board from the
County Attorney on the county ethics ordinance, and Commissioner
Page 198
February 28, 2017
McDaniel brought this forward from the consent agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, in the light of open and
transparent discussions, I find this ethics ordinance very cumbersome.
It's very restrictive compared to what is relegated to us by the state, and
I would like to see if there would be an issue in -- or an idea of
bringing it back for a review and further discussion by our board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You want to make that a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would make that a motion, if
that's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it is. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My hesitation is that didn't we
just adopt this ordinance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Like, a meeting ago?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we amended --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was in -- or was it in
January?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: January.
MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance goes back 20 years.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The amendment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, but I mean, we just
amended this just in January.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was -- but it didn't make the
agenda and was -- and then was talked about being brought to us in
this one. I believe there was a -- there was a -- I got a note -- I thought
Page 199
February 28, 2017
I saw a note that said --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As an explanation, but I believe we
have enacted this ordinance; isn't that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think -- I think the commissioner was
getting to maybe relooking at whether or not we want to continue with
this ordinance as a local ordinance or maybe change it again.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Basically, when I read this --
when I read through this, you know -- and when you get to the latter
portion of it, it talked about our concerns, and there were things that
were in there that were in there that I thought we really needed to
address. I didn't realize that we had just -- I thought it was supposed to
be up for our review and didn't get to us because of an oversight.
Somebody --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I think Chairman Taylor
brought this forward --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it is going.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- it is a cumbersome
ordinance in a lot of ways. That's why I asked the County Attorney to
give us a little primer on what it says, and I think he did an excellent
job with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a very cumbersome ordinance. And in
the 15 years I've been here, about the only issues that ever come up is
can I have a hamburger at this meeting or can I have a slice of pizza at
that meeting, or what about a glass of water. Can I take that? That's
what this ordinance is.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It depends on whether the
water is still in the bottle.
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. I was talking to the Deputy County
Manager earlier today --
Page 200
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no issue myself with
bringing it back, but I just want you -- you know, I was just a little
confused because we had just done this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And this ordinance was written by two
today seated judges who were extremely involved, intimately involved
at the time with Stadium Naples, and the county operated under this
ordinance for 12, 14 years until it was changed not too long ago. And
that's why -- and I knew I didn't have support under the former
commission to do it, that commission voted to change it, and I don't
think there was any need to change it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we tell them what it was and
what it came to be and what it went back to? It's pretty simple. What
it was, was zero policy,just like it says now. Can't do anything, can't
accept anything from -- actually from people who you're going to do
business with, who you've done business with or from any lobbyists
and, you know, they can't take you out to lunch or anything like that.
That's what it said.
And then it changed a few years back when a new commission
took over, and they said that they just felt that it was so difficult to
operate under those things. You go to a cocktail party, and you're not
allowed -- everybody's eating, or you go to a dinner, and they offer you
the dinner because it's a dinner for everybody, but you can't take it
because -- so then you go hungry, and you wait until you get home to
get something. They felt that that should be changed, so they changed
it to anything under $25, as long as it didn't come from a lobbyist or a
business, was acceptable. So that's when it changed, and it voted back
to that.
So when -- then when the new commission took office,
Commissioner Taylor brought that back up and said she wanted to go
back to the old one. So that kind of gives you an overview of what
went on.
Page 201
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just so you know that I have lived
under this ordinance in the city's fashion for quite -- you know, for
pretty much for 10 years. And for me, you don't go hungry. You just
make sure that the host knows that you leave a check and you're
covered. That's it. You don't go hungry. It doesn't prohibit you from
doing business, but what I find is folks who come in from the business
community into government feel that they would prefer the same
privileges that government -- that business affords them, which are the
dinners and the -- not the trips, but I guess if you look at City of
Miami, you can see the cruises and all the tickets and all the things that
happen. But that hasn't happened here, but we did have Stadium
Naples.
So I feel very strongly that business is business, and government
is government, and when you're a government official, it's different,
and you need to address it accordingly; live under the rules. That's
why I brought it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So did you want to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you want to. If you don't
want to, we don't have to. I'll do whatever the rules are, but I would
like to bring it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, you have a motion on the floor,
and there's a second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, the only thing that's on
the agenda, in the packet, was just a primer from the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But my understanding is --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- County Attorney, so
bringing that back is not bringing anything back. Are you -- do you
Page 202
February 28, 2017
want to direct staff to revisit the ordinance? Is that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that a better -- that was my
intent. And I have to apologize that the prior resolution adoption
wasn't on my radar. So I would like -- yes, I would like to have the
ordinance reviewed and brought back for discussion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. As a courtesy to
Commissioner McDaniel, I'll support that motion, but I'm not of a
mind to make changes. But I think we need to hear -- you know, as a
courtesy, I think we need to hear what you have to say, but that's a
difficult issue to deal with, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's -- it is a difficult issue to
deal with, but we -- you know, we are here -- the reason I'm talking
about it is I'm hearing from our staff, from our management team with
regard to these issues, and I would like to -- I would like e to bring it out
and have us have some open discussion about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, the other thing, this -- the newer
revision is it exempted staff. That's why you're hearing from staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know what, you can also
do what's in your -- I don't know about exempting staff. I don't
remember hearing that, but -- not that it didn't say that, I just don't
remember hearing it.
And sometimes you just take it upon your own shoulders. For
instance, every single year for the last 16 years I've gone to the
Coastguard Auxiliary dinner. It's a free dinner to everybody in the
room. They don't even have a price that you can pay, so I just give
them 50 bucks. And they said, well, we don't have any place to put it.
Then use it as a donation, I say, but I can't come without that.
So -- but that's just my own choosing, you know, and anybody
can do anything that they please. I just feel better doing that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- myself.
Page 203
February 28, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. All right. We have a motion on
the floor, and, Commissioner Saunders, I think Commissioner Fiala --
because I understood your motion to be such, so I think we're going to
use Commissioner Fiala's second --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- to reviewing the ordinance. We have
a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
Aye. 4-1. And I'm not saying that you didn't want to review it.
I'm just saying that I'm pretty clear where I want to go with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe they just want to understand
it better. You know --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm -- you know, there's a
majority, and so we --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You brought up a very good
point. I come from the private sector, not the government sector.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I find a lot of duality in the
election processes with regard to campaign contributions, and then
what -- the constraints put upon one as an elected official, and those
are all the things we're going to have as a point of discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 204
February 28, 2017
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications.
I have nothing except, ma'am, just to remind the Board of a
couple of upcoming workshops beginning with your March 7th
workshop with the Naples City Council. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: That's a 9 a.m. workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is that, sir?
MR. OCHS: That is March 7th.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Make sure you tell the mayor we're
serving lunch, because it's going to go till at least three in the
afternoon.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we'll have to pay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it really?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did you hear me? And I said,
we'll have to pay for our own.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
County Attorney Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
Mr. Johnssen?
MR. TOHNSSEN: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I -- we're at commissioner
comments?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I just would like to
know if we have an update. We talked a couple of weeks ago with
regard to the corridor -- this is directed to staff-- the corridor study for
the East Trail, where we're at with regard to that movement, if there is
a movement going forward.
Well, it's important, because I pledged my support with regard to
Page 205
February 28, 2017
that -- to that process, and I just wanted to know where we are. We're
really not interested in going out and hiring a consulting firm or
anything, but we would like to initiate some -- I think we should be
looking at initiating some neighborhood information meetings to -- I
mean, the whole premise of the corridor study is to engage the
population in what that area's going to end up looking like.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We're bringing an item to the next
meeting, based on prior board direction, to try to set out a list of tasks
that you've directed and some resource requirements, or at least some
resource recommendations based on that discussion we had during the
restudy workshop and the moratorium, the various moratoriums that
have been established.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Great.
MR. OCHS: So next meeting you'll have an opportunity to see
all of that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outstanding.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the second is with regard
to the proposed moratorium for the medical cannabis dispensaries. I
was wondering if we ought to have a discussion about -- there have
been other communities that have set aside a review committee for
those facilities, and I was wondering if we wanted to pursue some
effort along those lines while we're in the process of determining what
that moratorium and then ultimately regulation on that industry's going
to look like.
Andy has something to say.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll just comment. It seems to me
that with what's going on in the legislature, I mean, we just don't know
what we're going to be dealing with, if anything at all. I mean, one of
the bills, as I understand it, preempts everything to the state.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's A to Z.
Page 206
February 28, 2017
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been reading -- looking at
the top line on those legislative initiatives, and it is A to Z, but it was --
someone from the public brought that up, and that was just -- you
know, inevitably this was elected on by the electorate by referendum,
and it's just an effort for us to be in the planning process for regulation
of that industry. That's all.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I guess the question -- well, I mean, I
guess the location issue and the zoning issues would be reviewed by
the Planning Commission. So you're talking about maybe having an
advisory committee or something?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In actuality, it might -- the
thought process is premature. I think we need to get -- you know,
Commissioner Saunders made a very valid point. We need to have a
look at what the animal's actually going to be when it comes to us from
Tallahassee as signed in law by the governor and at which point then
we can manage our regulations accordingly. So I talked myself out of
my own suggestion. Imagine that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all for me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just -- well, I was going to
ask about the corridor study and how it's doing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sony. I didn't mean to jump
your gun.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. You can do it.
It's not a problem.
The second thing, I just -- it's just like a little newsy think that's
just, you know, a fun thing.
I met with a lady last night who's a historian, and she has
newspapers back from the '40s and '50s and '60s. She laid them all out
Page 207
February 28, 2017
for me and showed me about the history mostly of our government
building of the East Naples area, of Everglades City, and it was just
fantastic. It was so fascinating.
And so I'm going to see if I can't get some of that stuff copied
somehow just so other people could see it. I had no idea. When they
say -- and she said to me, and why did they move the government
center to East Naples? And I -- from Everglades City.
And I said, because of Hurricane Donna.
No, you're wrong, she said.
I said, well, that's what I always heard. It was the hurricane.
She says, no, you're wrong, and she brought out all these
newspapers that said they voted on it to decide where they were going
to put the county seat. I had no idea.
And then it showed them building this building. The jail was
already here. And so -- it was fantastic. And you know why they
moved the Health Department way over there? Because they -- and I
didn't realize they built the Health Department back then. I thought it
was newer.
Anyway, she said they built it there because the people who went
there were sick, and there were too many people that were going to the
government building. They shouldn't have to mingle with sick people.
I mean, it was so cute.
So, anyway, I thought maybe I would bring it down to your office
one of these days, and we'll play with that a little bit. Oh, it's fantastic.
And some, you might even want to put up on the wall. I mean,
I've got the whole newspaper. It's just fantastic.
But, anyway, that's just a little news story.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A quick question for the manager. I
was at the Mercato -- I was at the Wholefoods, and I had an experience
of somebody coming up to me and bringing up the Orangetree
Page 208
February 28, 2017
turnover, utility. And they were asking me all these questions. And I
wanted to just inquire, did my three day here, three day there, all that
has transpired, and we're moving forward?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We anticipate closing on March 1st.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Tomorrow?
MR. OCHS: Tomorrow, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Taking possession.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point it's a go?
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes, ma'am. I'll let Jeff comment. He's been
working all the legal documents, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Tomorrow's -- we're supposed to have the
closing tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we won't say congratulations.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's at my office, so we'll see.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Creeks don't rise. We'll have a --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Let's just --
MR. OCHS: Everything moved forward as the Board had
previously directed to this point, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We never knew that. I'm glad you --
MR. OCHS: We're hopeful for a closing, successful closing
tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been monitoring it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my last issue is, I have one
commitment that I had made to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- before --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm teasing.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She doesn't even know what I'm
going to say.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm so glad she's picking on
Page 209
February 28, 2017
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Show up. I know.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. Well, I am going to show
up by telephone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For what?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For the March -- the first March
meeting I have got to be out of town and, unfortunately, I cannot
change that. It was a commitment that I had from before I even
decided to run for office.
So I'm going to be calling in and hope that the Board will support
me doing that because I hear there's a vote that has to be taken. So
thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell us how your town
hall meeting -- I read you were having one.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My town hall meeting went very,
very well, and I have to commend the staff. Steve Carnell came and
staff came, and they did a wonderful presentation on the construction
projects in District 2 on Vanderbilt Beach Road. That's a big source of
frustration.
And, you know, I understand that. It's a big project. It's a mess
for people that live north of the bridge that's being -- that's north of--
on the north side and having to go all the way around to Bonita Beach
Road.
Anyway, so it went very well. Staff did a great job. They all
came and talked about the issues and what was most important -- and I
think I can't state this enough -- is explaining to the public not the
decisions that have been made but how the staff made the decisions
they've made because, you know, one of the things I've learned, and
I'm still very, very impressed by, is the amount of thought that goes
into these decisions that staff actually makes.
You know, we all get those emails, how could you -- you know,
Page 210
February 28, 2017
how could you -- how could you, you know, fix a bridge during the
season? And the reality of it is that those are very, very well thought
out, and they're just decisions that we have to make between two bad
options.
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I think it was very, very helpful in
doing that with the things that are aggravating people, and that
landscape plan and how all that works. So thanks for asking, but it
went very, very well. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only thing I have is I'd
still like to see about collecting the tourist taxes from Airbnb. I know
that the Tax Collector apparently has some issues there. Perhaps staff
could meet with the Tax Collector, and let's see if we can work that
out.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We've had several meetings since you
brought it up last, and I'll get the Board a status report on that. We're
still trying to work that with the Tax Collector's Office.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And Lyft is doing the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think, what, 40 counties has
-- it's a large number, so there should be some way to get that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, definitely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What are our challenges?
MR. OCHS: Well -- pardon me?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, they're looking at each other.
Maybe we need to talk about this later.
MR. OCHS: No. The Tax Collector has some audit trail
requirements that some of these counties don't have that have agreed to
collect the money without the specific information that the Tax
Collector would like to have for audit purposes. So that's our struggle
Page 211
February 28, 2017
right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And are we doing the same thing
with Lyft? Isn't there a competitor?
MR. OCHS: Yes. It would apply to all of them.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot two quick things. The first
thing is I was hoping that maybe other commissioners will go up to the
Florida Association of Counties convention in the beginning of April,
and I just wanted to mention again, it's a great opportunity for us to go.
Jeff always goes. I always go. It's a great opportunity for us to
network with the FAC people who help us in endeavors that we have,
whether it be to try and seek some grants or to work towards
something statewide; they really back us up.
So I would, again, like to encourage people. See Leo. He'll tell
you how to get there and what to do. We're already planning a group
going up. Poor Jeff, he has to take me up.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the other thing, I just
wanted to suggest to everybody, we're going to have a little bit of a
tie-up in traffic along U.S. 41 here. It's coming up real quickly. It
starts next week, Monday, and they're going to be fixing the streetlight
-- the traffic lights along here by Palm Avenue, right there by the
Glades, by Lakewood, by Rattlesnake Hammock, by Gilford, and the
street is going to be a mess. So if you need to come in here, either give
yourself plenty of time, come in at an ungodly hour rather than a
normal hour, or just be prepared to wait. So I just wanted to warn
everybody.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. And just finally, as sort of
Page 212
February 28, 2017
a good-news item for staff who are wringing their hands because this
seems to be the moratorium period of our Collier County history.
Wilderness folks came over to see me. And Wilderness, you
know, that was -- that's -- the Frank family established that. And,
believe it or not, every heir of the Frank family finally signed to sell
the golf course to this Canadian firm. And it was the work of the folks
who own the -- who are property owners in Wilderness plus -- and
they said it three times. They came to see me. The ordinance that --
for the moratorium, which means Collier County was serious about
this, that persuaded these -- this Canadian company to dissolve their
interest and to go away.
And now the owners of the golf course -- of the condominiums on
this golf course are moving towards purchasing this golf course. Am I
correct, sir?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, how nice.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, very much so.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. And so, again, it is what
we did here in tandem with our residents. So it speaks volumes. So
please don't feel that your work was in vain. It wasn't. And it was
very hard work because we kept throwing these moratoriums at you
like it was tomorrow.
Anyway so, I think -- if that's all we have -- and I think we're
going to adjourn the meeting. And thank you very much for a good
meeting.
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner
Saunders and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
Page 213
February 28, 2017
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC. FOR
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE RADIO ROAD
RIGHT-OF-WAY — FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SOD AND
IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A2
THE RANKING OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE TOP RANKED FIRM OF KISINGER CAMPO &
ASSOCIATES, CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO
SOLICITATION NO. 16-7016 INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW
OF BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OR REHABILITATION
PROJECTS, PROJECT NUMBER 66066 — REVIEWING 14
BRIDGES
Item #16A3
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $162,726.71 FOR PAYMENT OF $576.71
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. DUKENS PIERRE, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20130006038
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4473 18TH PLACE
SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATION FOR AN
UNPERMITTED LANAI ENCLOSURE THAT WAS BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE ON OCTOBER 13, 2016
Item #16A4
Page 214
February 28, 2017
RESOLUTION 2017-21 : FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY PHASE 7, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20130002458, WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
— LOCATED EAST OF CR 951, JUST NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2017-22: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF RIVERSTONE — PLAT SEVEN, APPLICATION
NUMBER 20140000666 WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED; ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY — LOCATED EAST OF LOGAN BLVD, JUST
NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR VINTAGE RESERVE AT THE VINEYARDS,
PL20120001915, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
Page 215
February 28, 2017
OF $3,017.87 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 1A, PL20150000273 AND
PL20150000400, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE (2) FINAL
OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016 AND FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 1B, PL20150000899, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION
WAS CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016 AND FOUND TO
BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
Page 216
February 28, 2017
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 1C, PL20150001272, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A10
THE UTILITY FACILITIES QUIT-CLAIM DEED AND BILL OF
SALE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, AS EX OFFICIO
GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER
SEWER DISTRICT, AND GORDON R. JENKINS, IN ORDER TO
RECONVEY TO GORDON R. JENKINS, ALL POTABLE WATER
UTILITY FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT CARICA WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, PL20150001113, WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY
ERRONEOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY — FOR THE
PINE RIDGE SECOND EXTENSION
Item #16A11
AWARD BID #16-6667 TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF
NAPLES, INC. FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT 50TH
STREET SW IN THE AMOUNT OF $479,490.80, PROJECT
#60172 — REPLACING THE EXISTING WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WITH A STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY
Item #16Al2
Page 217
February 28, 2017
AWARD BID #16-6572R TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA,
INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE "GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY AT LIVINGSTON ROAD INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS" PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $289,129.70,
PROJECT 33431, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR THE EXTENSION OF BOTH
THE EASTBOUND AND WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANES
Item #16A13 — Moved to Item #11G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A14 — Language Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2017-23: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP)
AGREEMENT TERMINATION BETWEEN FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND
APPROVE THE ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION, IN
CONNECTION WITH DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) OF
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE CANAL CROSSINGS AT 8TH
STREET NE, 16TH STREET NE, AND 47TH AVENUE NE,
PROJECT NO. 33340, THUS ALLOWING FDOT TO EXPEDITE
THE 8TH STREET NE BRIDGE PROJECT THROUGH A
DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2017-24: MEMORIALIZING A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) UTILITY WORK AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
Page 218
February 28, 2017
THE CHAIRMAN OR HER DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE
RESOLUTION — TO RELOCATE WATER MAINS ALONG
PORTIONS OF TRAIL BLVD FROM NORTH OF PINE RIDGE
ROAD TO SOUTH OF PELICAN BAY BLVD N.
Item #16C2
A $502,324 PURCHASE ORDER TO STANTEC CONSULTING
SERVICES, INC., UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 14-6345 FOR
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR THE 107TH AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC
UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT, PROJECT NOS. 60139 AND
70120. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #11E) —
FOR A TIME AND MATERIALS PROPOSAL
Item #16C3
A $618,550 PURCHASE ORDER TO STANTEC CONSULTING
SERVICES, INC., UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 14-6345 FOR
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR THE 110TH AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC
UTILITY RENEWAL PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBERS 60139
AND 70120. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #11F)
- SERVICES INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND
DOCUMENTATION SERVICES, GENERAL MANAGEMENT
AND OVERSIGHT, AND PUBLIC OUTREACH SERVICES
Item #16C4
THE RANKING OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
Page 219
February 28, 2017
TOP RANKED FIRM OF AMEC FOSTER WHEELER UNDER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #16-7039, "CEI SERVICES FOR
THE NORTHEAST RECYCLING DROP-OFF CENTER" —
LOCATED BEHIND THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
ON 39TH AVENUE OFF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16C5
THE SELECTION COMMITTEE'S RANKINGS OF REQUEST
FOR PROPOSAL #15-6485, "BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT
FACILITY," WITH THE THREE TOP SCORED FIRMS
SYNAGRO, VEOLIA, AND QUASAR AND BEGIN THE
SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS CONSISTING OF AN
EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS TO DESIGN,
BUILD, OWN, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A BIOSOLIDS
FACILITY — MANAGING THE BIOSOLIDS PRODUCED AT
THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITIES
Item #16D1
RECOGNIZING INTEREST EARNED ON ADVANCED
LIBRARY FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO SUPPORT LIBRARY SERVICES
AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE USE OF COLLIER COUNTY
RESIDENTS — A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $529.04
Item #16D2
SECOND AMENDMENT TO STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY
Page 220
February 28, 2017
ASSISTED AND SUPPORTIVE LIVING, INC. D/B/A
RENAISSANCE MANOR ("SPONSOR") — CORRECTLY
IDENTIFYING THE ORGANIZATION AS A SPONSOR WHICH
BRINGS THE ENTITY NAME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE
APPROVED AGREEMENT
Item #16D3
TWO MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN
PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $7,500 —
LOCATED AT 602 PALM RIDGE DRIVE AND 3044 COCO AVE
Item #16D4
AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF AN ORDINANCE
FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION THAT WOULD AMEND
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-56, THE ROCK ROAD IMPROVEMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU), TO DISBAND
THE THREE-PERSON ROCK ROAD IMPROVEMENT MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16D5
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT TO THE HOME CARE
FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAMS (NO FISCAL IMPACT) — UNDER CONTRACT HCE
203.16
Page 221
February 28, 2017
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,000 FOR
A VARIETY OF PATHWAY AND ROADWAY REPAIRS IN
VARIOUS COMMUNITY PARKS
Item #16D7
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO AU MILLER POOLS, LLC FOR AN
ADDITIONAL COST OF $109,642 AND ADDITIONAL TIME OF
93 DAYS FOR REPAIRING UNFORESEEN DEFECTS
REVEALED DURING THE RESURFACING OF THE LAZY
RIVER AT THE SUN-N-FUN LAGOON AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK - THE CONTRACTOR DISCOVERED MANY
HOLLOW, DELAMINATED AREAS IN THE EXISTING,
MARCITE SURFACE OF THE LAZY RIVER
Item #16D8
THE EXPENDITURE OF CATEGORY "A" BEACH PARK
FACILITY TOURIST TAX FUNDS AND A WORK ORDER TO
MCGEE & ASSOCIATES, FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
DESIGN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,777.50 AT NORTH
GULF SHORE BOULEVARD/SEAGATE BEACH ACCESS AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM — WORK TO BEGIN MAY 1, 2017 AND BE
COMPLETED BY JULY 30, 2017
Item #16E1
RENEWING THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND
Page 222
February 28, 2017
RESCUE DISTRICT'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE
SUPPORT NON-TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR ONE YEAR AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT
AND CERTIFICATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA
ITEM #16E2) — COMMENCING ON APRIL 1, 2017 AND
EXPIRING MARCH 31, 2018
Item #16E2
APPROVAL OF 1) A FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND
RESCUE DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR AUTOMATIC
RENEWALS SUBJECT TO TERMINATION; AND 2) A FIRST
AMENDMENT TO COMBINED HIPAA PRIVACY BUSINESS
ASSOCIATE, HIPAA SECURITY RULE, HITECH ACT
COMPLIANCE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT TO
COMPLY WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES PUBLISHED GUIDANCE ON CLOUD STORAGE OF
DATA (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16E1) —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
RECOGNIZING A PRIVATE DONATION FOR EMS
EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 — FOR BALLISTIC
VESTS AND HELMETS NEEDED IN THE EVENT OF AN
ACTIVE SHOOTER SITUATION
Item #16E4
Page 223
February 28, 2017
RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES
SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT
DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15
FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 17
Item #16E5
EXTENDING CONTRACT #12-5812 FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER,
SUPPRESSION, AND EXTINGUISHER TESTING; INSPECTION;
REPAIR; CERTIFICATION; MAINTENANCE; AND
INSTALLATION WITH CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2 D/B/A
CINTAS FIRE PROTECTION FOR SIX MONTHS OR UNTIL A
NEW CONTRACT IS AWARDED, WHICHEVER IS SOONER,
WHILE PUBLIC REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ARE SOLICITED
Item #16E6
RECOGNIZING REVENUE TO THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION COST CENTER IN THE AMOUNT
OF $136,744.04 FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 2016
THROUGH JANUARY 2017 OF FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR
REIMBURSEMENTS MADE BY OTHER COUNTY DIVISIONS
FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Item #16E7
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,818.64 TO
RE-APPROPRIATE FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN
FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO
Page 224
February 28, 2017
REIMBURSE THE GREATER NAPLES FIRE & RESCUE
DISTRICT FOR EQUIPMENT TO RETROFIT PREVIOUSLY
ACQUIRED VEHICLES WITH FIREFIGHTING APPARATUS
Item #16E8
APPROVAL OF LEASE NO. 57-4209-15-003 WITH THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE CONTINUED
USE OF OFFICE SPACE WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OFFICE WHICH IS BEING
RESUBMITTED TO MODIFY THE TERMINATION DATE —
NEW TERMINATION DATE WILL BE JULY 31, 2025
Item #16E9
APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY
THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE
ORDERS, PROPERTY DISPOSAL AND OTHER ITEMS AS
IDENTIFIED — THE PROPERTY DISPOSAL AND REVENUE
REPORT COVERS THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 26 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
Item #16E10
WAIVING COMPETITION FOR LEGAL NOTICES AND
GENERAL ADVERTISEMENTS AND BROADCASTING
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY BASED
PROGRAMS — THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH NAPLES
NEWS MEDIA GROUP ENDS FEBRUARY 28, 2017
Page 225
February 28, 2017
Item #16E11
RESOLUTION 2017-25: A JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE
COUNTY AND THE GREATER NAPLES FIRE RESCUE
DISTRICT (GNFD) SUPPORTING THE ASSIGNMENT OF AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ADDRESSING THE FUNDING, EQUIPPING AND PROVISION
OF FIRE, RESCUE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AT MILE
MARKER 63 ON ALLIGATOR ALLEY TO THE GNFD
Item #16E12
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT
TO ORDINANCE NO. 2013, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY PROCUREMENT
ORDINANCE — TO BE HEARD AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING
Item #16F1
RENEWING CONTRACT #16-6566 TO CISION US INC. FOR
YEARS 2 THROUGH 4 FOR MEDIA MONITORING SERVICES
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES
TOURISM — RENEWAL FROM FEBRUARY 25, 2017 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2017-26: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
Page 226
February 28, 2017
BUDGET
Item #16F3
PAYMENT OF AN OUTSTANDING INVOICE UNDER THE
EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE OF QUANTUM MERUIT FOR
PLANTS SUPPLIED BY ISAEL CARRASCO D/B/A IC
BROKERS NURSERY IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,132.50 —
EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE RE-
LANDSCAPING OF 33 ADDITIONAL CUL-DE-SACS AND
MEDIAN AREAS WITHIN PELICAN BAY
Item #16F4
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND RETIS,
THE FRENCH BUSINESS ACCELERATOR ORGANIZATION
SPONSOR, DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY EXCLUSIVE
RIGHTS TO HOST THE MARCH 9-10, 2017 RETIS FACE 11
EXECUTIVE TRAINING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE
FUNDING TO HELP OFFSET PARTICIPANT TRAVEL AND
LODGING COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVENT IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000 AND PROVIDE FOR THE
COUNTY'S ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP IN THE RETIS
ORGANIZATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$5,300 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
TERMINATING FOR CAUSE THE LEASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
WILLIAM K. GLASS AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
Page 227
February 28, 2017
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TAKE ALL ACTION NECESSARY,
INCLUDING LITIGATION, TO HAVE MR. GLASS REMOVED
AS A TENANT FROM THE PROPERTY AND RECOVER ALL
OUTSTANDING MONIES OWED — LEASE IS FOR A T-
HANGAR AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
Item #16G2
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO A COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE WITH RAVEN AIR
MARCO ISLAND, LLC, D/B/A ISLAND HOPPERS AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT — REMOVING
COUNTER SPACE FROM THE LEASE AGREEMENT WHILE
MAINTAINING SEPARATE OFFICE SPACE
Item #16H1
SELECTING CARLOS RUIZ AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE 2017
"AGAINST ALL ODDS" AWARD, AND TO PRESENT THE
AWARD AT THE MARCH 14, 2017 MEETING OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #16J1
THE USE OF $5,000 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS
TO SUPPORT THE ACT-SO (ACADEMIC, CULTURAL
TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC OLYMPIC) PROGRAM FOR THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) — REWARDING YOUTH WHO
EXEMPLIFY SCHOLASTIC AND ARTISTIC CHALLENGE
Page 228
February 28, 2017
Item #16J2
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 2 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 15, 2017 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE
136.06
Item #16J3
PURSUANT TO THE BOARD'S PURCHASING ORDINANCE
2013-69, AS AMENDED, REQUEST THAT THE BOARD
APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR
INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD
TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 22, 2017
Item #16J4
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT 2017-3, 2015 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION:
2015 FISCAL YEAR-END INVENTORY — REPORT IS
AVAILABLE ON THE CLERK'S WEBSITE
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2017-27: APPOINTING EILEEN W. PRAY TO
THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD TO A TERM
EXPIRING JUNE 25, 2019
Page 229
February 28, 2017
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2017-28: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM E.
ARTHUR TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER
ADVISORY BOARD TO A TERM EXPIRING ON DECEMBER
31, 2019
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2017-29: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM H.
POTEET, JR. AND MICHAEL SEEF TO CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
A THREE YEAR TERM FOR EACH
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2017-30: BOARD TO SET THE PLACE AND
TIME FOR THE CLERK, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO OPEN AND COUNT THE
MAIL BALLOTS OF THE NOMINEES TO FILL THE
VACANCIES ON THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
BOARD — DATE SET FOR MARCH 9, 2017 AT 2PM IN THE
CLERK OF COURTS CONFERENCE ROOM, COURTHOUSE
ANNEX 2ND FLOOR
Item #16K5
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 244RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CHRISTOPHER DIFABIO, ET
Page 230
February 28, 2017
AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-0363, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN
GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (WEST OF 16TH ST. E. TO
18TH ST. E.). (FISCAL IMPACT: $30,683.00)
Item #16K6
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 268RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN
GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (WEST OF 18TH ST. E. TO
EAST OF EVERGLADES BLVD.), IN THE PENDING CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TAIMY MORALES, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 15-CA-0393. (FISCAL IMPACT: $36,113)
Item #16K7 — Moved to Item #12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K8
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND A PROPOSED STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT AS FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 342RDUE, IN THE PENDING CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JAMES DEAN WHITE, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 16-CA-1280, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60145 (FROM 20TH STREET E. TO EAST
OF EVERGLADES BLVD.). (FISCAL IMPACT: $4,992)
Item #16K9
A PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 239DAME REQUIRED FOR LASIP
PROJECT NO. 51101, (CREWS ROAD, COPE LANE AND
Page 231
February 28, 2017
SANDY LANE/WING SOUTH INTERCONNECT), IN THE
PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN
LESPADE, ET AL., CASE NO. 14-CA-2316. (FISCAL IMPACT:
$18,557) — LOCATED OFF OF SUNSET BLVD
Item #16K10
RESOLUTION 2017-31 : REAPPOINTING MARIA C.
SCHOENFELDER TO THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A TERM EXPIRIING ON MARCH
3, 2021
Item #16K11
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVE A
PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 222RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ESTILITA RODRIGUEZ, ET
AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-333, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN
GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (8TH STREET EAST TO
WEST OF 16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $42,072.50)
Item #16K12
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND A PROPOSED STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 400RDUE
IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JARRETT COX, ET AL, CASE NO. 16-CA-1313, REQUIRED FOR
THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM
20TH STREET EAST TO EAST OF EVERGLADES
BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60145. (FISCAL IMPACT:
Page 232
February 28, 2017
$5,624.00)
Item #16K13
A THIRD OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,040
EXCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES, EXPERT FEES, AND
COSTS, AND APPROVE A PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 196RDUE IN THE
PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JUAN E.
NAVARRO, ET AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-154, REQUIRED FOR THE
GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (12TH STREET
EAST TO WEST OF 16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT:
$28,444.20) — LOCATED AT 10TH ST SE
Item #16K14
PURSUANT TO COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 95-632, THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SELECTING AND
RETAINING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO REPRESENT CURRENT
AND FORMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SEVERAL
COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES, AND OTHER EMPLOYEES NAMED AS
DEFENDANTS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES IN A
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT FILED IN THE U.S.
MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF FLORIDA, STYLED DION
JACKSON ("UBER-G") V. CITY OF NAPLES AND COUNTY OF
COLLIER, ET AL., CASE NO. 2:15-CV-666-FTM-99CM —
RELATING TO AN INCIDENT WITH AN UBER DRIVER ON
JUNE 27, 2015
Item #16K15
Page 233
February 28, 2017
FOURTH AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS FOR LEGAL
SERVICES RELATING TO CONTRACT NO. 06-4047 EMINENT
DOMAIN LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRMS OF
FIXEL & WILLIS AND SMOLKER BARTLETT LOEB HINDS &
SHEPPARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMOLKER BARTLETT
SCHLOSSER LOEB & HINDS) EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION
DATES TO APRIL 22, 2019 AND TO INCREASE THE HOURLY
RATES OF SMOLKER BARTLETT LOEB HINDS & SHEPPARD.
THERE IS NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2017-32: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2017-04: REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1978-49,
IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHICH CREATED THE ISLES OF CAPRI
MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICES TAXING DISTRICT, ACCEPT
SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 INVENTORY LIST, AS THE FINAL
INVENTORY LIST TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GREATER
NAPLES FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT (GNFD), REMIT ANY
REMAINING MSTU FUNDS TO GNFD UPON COMPLETING
OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND TERMINATE
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Page 234
February 28, 2017
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2017-05: REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2015-18
IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHICH CREATED THE FIDDLERS CREEK
MUNICIPAL RESCUE AND FIRE SERVICES DISTRICT, REMIT
ANY REMAINING MSTU FUNDS TO GNFD UPON
COMPLETING OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND
TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2017-06: REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1984-84
IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY
FIRE CONTROL MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT AND
REMIT ANY REMAINING MSTU FUNDS TO GNFD UPON
COMPLETING OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Item #17E
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 14, 2017
BCC MEETING: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
PETITION VAC-PL20160003293, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
VACATE A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ALONG THE REAR BORDER OF LOT 50, THE
LODGINGS OF WYNDEMERE, SECTION ONE, AS RECORDED
IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 8 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Page 235
February 28, 2017
I
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:38 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PENNY PIVORQ1/11-...IRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
k,?
)diis
r •
4lte$14 tC/Chan
4Ttlirb Of;te, `;'
,?4,4
These minutes approved by the Board on *2.spq_ , as presented
1/ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 236