Loading...
Agenda 03/28/2017 Item # 2C03/28/2017 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.C Item Summary: February 28, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/28/2017 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 03/16/2017 8:03 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 03/16/2017 8:03 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 03/16/2017 8:03 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 03/28/2017 9:00 AM February 28, 2017 Page 1 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 February 28, 2017 Page 2 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 February 28, 2017 Page 3 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 February 28, 2017 Page 4 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 FY18 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 February 28, 2017 Page 5 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? February 28, 2017 Page 6 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 February 28, 2017 Page 7 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. February 28, 2017 Page 8 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 February 28, 2017 Page 9 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 February 28, 2017 Page 10 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 of AmeriCorps 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 February 28, 2017 Page 11 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 February 28, 2017 Page 12 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. February 28, 2017 Page 13 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 February 28, 2017 Page 14 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. February 28, 2017 Page 15 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 February 28, 2017 Page 16 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 February 28, 2017 Page 17 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 February 28, 2017 Page 18 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, February 28, 2017 Page 19 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 February 28, 2017 Page 20 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 February 28, 2017 Page 21 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 February 28, 2017 Page 22 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 February 28, 2017 Page 23 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 February 28, 2017 Page 24 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 February 28, 2017 Page 25 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 February 28, 2017 Page 26 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 February 28, 2017 Page 27 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, February 28, 2017 Page 28 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. February 28, 2017 Page 29 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 February 28, 2017 Page 30 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 February 28, 2017 Page 31 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. February 28, 2017 Page 32 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 it'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 saying 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. February 28, 2017 Page 33 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 February 28, 2017 Page 34 percentage of residents of the Isles, it is the access choice over Route 41 egress. Traveling on Thomasson makes a trip to 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 Bayshore 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 February 28, 2017 Page 35 advisory committee. I'm also a resident of Danforth Street near the intersection. I would like to convey to you my support 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 February 28, 2017 Page 36 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 project, 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 February 28, 2017 Page 37 cost. They heehaw around about it, and they're not telling you the truth. Let me show you something. I'm having 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 something. 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 Sheriff's 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 February 28, 2017 Page 38 places they're showing you must be Hollywood, Florida, because it sure as hell is not Bayshore and Thomasson. You know, I had the pleasure of meeting you at Burt's party the other day. The only 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 to start building something? The art center, when's that going to start? Does anybody -- can anybody tell me when that's going to start? They've been working on it for 12 years. Is there anything on Bayshore 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 Sheriff's Department. Call your Sheriff's 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 Sheriff's Department when they didn't have anybody to show up that day. February 28, 2017 Page 39 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 corner. 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, thank 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 February 28, 2017 Page 40 store. The one over here by the ice cream store is way in the back. I don't know what it's doing back there. The semis go over the top of it. They turn around. One other thing I'd like to know. How do you -- you asked a very good question. How do you control the kids? 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 Bayshore/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 been a resident and an investor in that area since the 1990's, and I'm excited with all the progress that we are seeing. Some of the things that have -- obviously, 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 February 28, 2017 Page 41 I would much rather negotiate a roundabout than a signalized intersection or even the current four-way stop. 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 factual, very interesting, and emotional. But, you know, MSTUs were created so that the cost of improvements would not be borne to all of the taxpayers but to specific districts, which means those districts have a vision, and the vision doesn't mean wait until the county decides to do something. Gives us the opportunity to expedite, to think outside the box, outside of government regulation, and to see how we can 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 of 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 February 28, 2017 Page 42 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. February 28, 2017 Page 43 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? And 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 February 28, 2017 Page 44 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 February 28, 2017 Page 45 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 February 28, 2017 Page 46 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 47 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 February 28, 2017 Page 48 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. February 28, 2017 Page 49 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 Sheriff's 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 February 28, 2017 Page 50 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 February 28, 2017 Page 51 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 February 28, 2017 Page 52 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? February 28, 2017 Page 53 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? February 28, 2017 Page 54 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, February 28, 2017 Page 55 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 February 28, 2017 Page 56 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. February 28, 2017 Page 57 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 February 28, 2017 Page 58 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 February 28, 2017 Page 59 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 February 28, 2017 Page 60 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 February 28, 2017 Page 61 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 February 28, 2017 Page 62 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 February 28, 2017 Page 63 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 February 28, 2017 Page 64 $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 February 28, 2017 Page 65 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 February 28, 2017 Page 66 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 February 28, 2017 Page 67 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 February 28, 2017 Page 68 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 February 28, 2017 Page 69 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 February 28, 2017 Page 70 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 February 28, 2017 Page 71 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 February 28, 2017 Page 72 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 February 28, 2017 Page 73 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 February 28, 2017 Page 74 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. February 28, 2017 Page 75 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 February 28, 2017 Page 76 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? February 28, 2017 Page 77 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. February 28, 2017 Page 78 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 February 28, 2017 Page 79 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 February 28, 2017 Page 80 305 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. February 28, 2017 Page 81 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. February 28, 2017 Page 82 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 February 28, 2017 Page 83 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 Beyrent. 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. February 28, 2017 Page 84 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? February 28, 2017 Page 85 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 February 28, 2017 Page 86 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 February 28, 2017 Page 87 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. February 28, 2017 Page 88 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 February 28, 2017 Page 89 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.) February 28, 2017 Page 90 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, February 28, 2017 Page 91 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. February 28, 2017 Page 92 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 February 28, 2017 Page 93 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 February 28, 2017 Page 94 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 February 28, 2017 Page 95 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 February 28, 2017 Page 96 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. February 28, 2017 Page 97 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 98 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. February 28, 2017 Page 99 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 100 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 February 28, 2017 Page 101 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 SOLIS: 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 February 28, 2017 Page 102 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. February 28, 2017 Page 103 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 February 28, 2017 Page 104 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.) February 28, 2017 Page 105 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 February 28, 2017 Page 106 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. February 28, 2017 Page 107 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. February 28, 2017 Page 108 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. February 28, 2017 Page 109 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. February 28, 2017 Page 110 (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 February 28, 2017 Page 111 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. February 28, 2017 Page 112 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 February 28, 2017 Page 113 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 February 28, 2017 Page 114 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 February 28, 2017 Page 115 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. February 28, 2017 Page 116 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 February 28, 2017 Page 117 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 February 28, 2017 Page 118 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 February 28, 2017 Page 119 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 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 February 28, 2017 Page 120 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 February 28, 2017 Page 121 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. February 28, 2017 Page 122 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 February 28, 2017 Page 123 -- 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 February 28, 2017 Page 124 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 February 28, 2017 Page 125 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 February 28, 2017 Page 126 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 February 28, 2017 Page 127 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. February 28, 2017 Page 128 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 February 28, 2017 Page 129 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. February 28, 2017 Page 130 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: I do. 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? February 28, 2017 Page 131 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 February 28, 2017 Page 132 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 February 28, 2017 Page 133 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 February 28, 2017 Page 134 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 February 28, 2017 Page 135 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 February 28, 2017 Page 136 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 February 28, 2017 Page 137 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 February 28, 2017 Page 138 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 February 28, 2017 Page 139 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? February 28, 2017 Page 140 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. February 28, 2017 Page 141 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 February 28, 2017 Page 142 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. February 28, 2017 Page 143 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. KLATZKOW: 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 February 28, 2017 Page 144 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? February 28, 2017 Page 145 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. February 28, 2017 Page 146 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 February 28, 2017 Page 147 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 February 28, 2017 Page 148 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 February 28, 2017 Page 149 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 February 28, 2017 Page 150 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. February 28, 2017 Page 151 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 February 28, 2017 Page 152 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. February 28, 2017 Page 153 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 picture you 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 February 28, 2017 Page 154 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 February 28, 2017 Page 155 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 February 28, 2017 Page 156 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 February 28, 2017 Page 157 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 February 28, 2017 Page 158 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 February 28, 2017 Page 159 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. February 28, 2017 Page 160 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 161 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. February 28, 2017 Page 162 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 February 28, 2017 Page 163 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? February 28, 2017 Page 164 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 February 28, 2017 Page 165 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 February 28, 2017 Page 166 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. February 28, 2017 Page 167 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 Sheriff's 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. February 28, 2017 Page 168 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. February 28, 2017 Page 169 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 February 28, 2017 Page 170 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. February 28, 2017 Page 171 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. February 28, 2017 Page 172 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 February 28, 2017 Page 173 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 February 28, 2017 Page 174 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 FY18 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 February 28, 2017 Page 175 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 February 28, 2017 Page 176 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. February 28, 2017 Page 177 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 February 28, 2017 Page 178 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 February 28, 2017 Page 179 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 February 28, 2017 Page 180 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 February 28, 2017 Page 181 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. February 28, 2017 Page 182 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 February 28, 2017 Page 183 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 February 28, 2017 Page 184 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 February 28, 2017 Page 185 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 Sheriff's, 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 February 28, 2017 Page 186 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 February 28, 2017 Page 187 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) – February 28, 2017 Page 188 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 February 28, 2017 Page 189 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. February 28, 2017 Page 190 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 February 28, 2017 Page 191 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. February 28, 2017 Page 192 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 February 28, 2017 Page 193 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 February 28, 2017 Page 194 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 195 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 February 28, 2017 Page 196 -- 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 February 28, 2017 Page 197 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? February 28, 2017 Page 198 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 February 28, 2017 Page 199 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 February 28, 2017 Page 200 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 -- February 28, 2017 Page 201 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. February 28, 2017 Page 202 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 February 28, 2017 Page 203 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 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. February 28, 2017 Page 204 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 February 28, 2017 Page 205 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. JOHNSSEN: 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 February 28, 2017 Page 206 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. February 28, 2017 Page 207 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: Sorry. 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 February 28, 2017 Page 208 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 February 28, 2017 Page 209 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 February 28, 2017 Page 210 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, February 28, 2017 Page 211 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 February 28, 2017 Page 212 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 February 28, 2017 Page 213 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 February 28, 2017 Page 214 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 February 28, 2017 Page 215 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 February 28, 2017 Page 216 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 February 28, 2017 Page 217 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 #16A12 February 28, 2017 Page 218 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 February 28, 2017 Page 219 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 February 28, 2017 Page 220 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 February 28, 2017 Page 221 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 February 28, 2017 Page 222 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 February 28, 2017 Page 223 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 February 28, 2017 Page 224 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 February 28, 2017 Page 225 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 February 28, 2017 Page 226 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 February 28, 2017 Page 227 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 February 28, 2017 Page 228 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 February 28, 2017 Page 229 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 February 28, 2017 Page 230 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 February 28, 2017 Page 231 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 February 28, 2017 Page 232 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: February 28, 2017 Page 233 $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 February 28, 2017 Page 234 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 February 28, 2017 Page 235 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 February 28, 2017 Page 236 ***** 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 TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK _______________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.