BCC Minutes 03/14/2017 R March 14, 2017
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
March 14, 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 (via speakerphone where indicated)
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, Communication and Customer Relations
Page 1
Page 1
March 14, 2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
March 14, 2017
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – BCC Chair
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 – BCC Vice-Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; CRAB Co-Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR
FUTURE AGENDA TO BE HEARD NO SOONER THAN 1:00 P.M., OR AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE AGENDA; WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
Page 2
March 14, 2017
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Rabbi Ammos Chorny of Beth Tikvah Synagogue
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent and summary
agendas.)
B. October 4, 2016 - BCC/Legislative Workshop
C. February 14, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
Page 3
March 14, 2017
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 12-18, 2017 as Sunshine Week in Collier
County and declaring our commitment to open and accessible government.
To be accepted by Brandon Sancho representing the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners; Marni Scuderi representing the Collier County
Clerk of Courts; Annette Wenowsky representing the Collier County
Sheriff’s Office; Vickie Downs representing the Collier County Property
Appraiser; Rob Stoneburner representing the Collier County Tax Collector;
and Trish Robertson representing the Collier County Supervisor of
Elections.
B. Proclamation designating March 18, 2017 as Save the Florida Panther Day
in Collier County. To be accepted by Tom Trotta, Amber Crooks and Mac
Hatcher, representing the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge and Jess
Sutt and Gina Lehner representing the Florida Panth er National Wildlife
Refuge.
C. Proclamation designating March 16-26, 2017 as the 41th Annual Collier
County Fair Days. To be accepted by TJ Snopkowski, Marketing &
Sponsorships Director, Collier County Fairgrounds.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for March 2017 to
Davidson & Nick CPAs. To be accepted by Jim Davidson and Paul Nick;
Susan Kuhar, Account Executive, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce;
and Bethany Sawyer, Membership Engagement Specialist, Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce.
B. Presentation of the Florida Department of Health’s 2017 “Healthy Weight
Community Champion” certification to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners for implementing a variety of policies that have been shown
to increase physical activity and promote healthy living. To be presented by
Stephanie Vick, Administrator for Florida Department of Health in Collier
County, Jen Gomez, Community Health Promotion Director and Reggie
Wilson, Healthy Communities Coordinator.
C. Recommendation to recognize Eric Wise, Instrumentation/Electrical
Page 4
March 14, 2017
Technician, as the February 2017 Employee of the Month.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the February 14, 2017 BCC Meeting.
Public Petition request from Mr. Christopher Flint regarding yard wast e
pickup for larger land owners.
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item #8 and Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 5:05 p.m. Recommendation to consider an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section
Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more
specifically amending the following: Chapter Two - Zoning Districts and
Uses, including section 2.03.06 Planned Unit Development Districts, section
2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts, more specifically, to add uses to the
list of permitted and conditional uses in the Golf Course (GC) Zoning
District; Chapter Three - Resource Protection, including section 3.05.07
Preservation Standards; Chapter Five - Supplemental Standards, adding
section 5.05.15 Conversion of Golf Courses; Chapter Six - Infrastructure
Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including
section 6.05.01 Water Management Requirements, adding section 6.05.03
Stormwater Plans for Single-Family Dwelling Units, Two-Family Dwelling
Units, and Duplexes; Chapter Ten - Application, Review, and Decision-
Making Procedures, including section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required
Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Conflict and Severability;
Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and
Section Six, Effective Date.
Page 5
March 14, 2017
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Discussion with the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to consider the
level of support for acquiring utility services provided by the Florida
Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) providing water and wastewater
services within the Golden Gate service area.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to accept the “2017 Indexing Calculations for Parks and
Recreation, Schools, Correctional Facilities and Transportation Impact
Fees”, prepared by Tindale-Oliver and Associates, in accordance with the
adopted indexing methodology, and to authorize the County Manager, or his
designee, and the County Attorney to advertise for future consideration an
ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, amending the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Rate Schedule,
the School Impact Fee Rate Schedule, the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee
Rate Schedule, and the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule; providing
for a delayed effective date of July 10, 2017 in accordance with the 90 -day
notice requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
(Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program
Management Director)
B. Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, and the
County Attorney to advertise for future consideration an ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances,
which is the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing
for the incorporation by reference of five impact fee studies; amending the
Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee rate schedule, the Library Impact
Fee rate schedule, the General Government Building Impact Fee rate
schedule, the Law Enforcement Impact Fee rate schedule, and the Water and
Wastewater impact fee rate schedule; providing for an effective date of April
17, 2017 for all rate categories that are decreasing and a delayed effective
date of July 10, 2017 for all rate categories that are increasing, in accordance
with the 90-day notice requirements set forth in Section 163.31801(3)(d),
Florida Statutes; and providing for removal of the sunset language for the
Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment. (Amy
Patterson, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management
Director)
Page 6
March 14, 2017
C. Recommendation to review and prioritize the public planning initiatives
authorized by the Board of County Commissioners, and authorize funding
necessary to adequately facilitate the Board’s priorities for these various
public planning initiatives. (Mike Bosi, Zoning Division Di rector)
D. Recommendation to consider a request from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for Collier County to serve as a temporary
receiver for the Everglades City Utilities system. (George Yilmaz, Public
Utilities Department Head)
E. Recommendation to accept the report by Hunden Strategic Partners on the
status of private/public golf courses in Collier County, and provide staff with
direction regarding further pursuit of publicly funded golf courses in Collier
County. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Division Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Siracusa, PL20150001667, and to authorize the County Manager, or
his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the total amoun t
Page 7
March 14, 2017
of $4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Aster at Lely Resort, Phase 1, PL20140000545,
accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water and
sewer facilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of $63,797.33 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Logan
Boulevard North Extension, PL20150001518, and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance
Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of
$52,276.51 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated
agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Cordoba at Lely Resort Replat, PL20140000419, and to authorize the
County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance
Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of
$4,978.42 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated
agent.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for NCH Healthcare - Northeast, PL20150002628, and
to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the
Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in
the total amount of $6,761.07 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Isles of
Collier Preserve Phases 2B and 2C, PL20150001728, 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.
Page 8
March 14, 2017
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Collier County Landfill, PL20130000646, and
accept unconditional conveyance of a portion of the potable water
facilities.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Gaspar Station Phase 3,
(Application Number PL20160001055) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Faith Landing Phase Four,
(Application Number PL20160001899) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
10) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $550,643.40 for payment of $1,000 in the
code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Jose Emilio Morales. Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20130003648 relating to property located at 3745 Randall
Blvd., Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with a value of $17,102.64 for payment of $4,052.64 in the code
enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Esteban Hernandez. Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CEPM20110003003, relating to property located at 701 E. Delaware
Avenue, Collier County, Florida.
12) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $139,760 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 59.902-26 PL20150002581
for work associated with Maple Ridge Reserve at Ave Maria Phase 4.
Page 9
March 14, 2017
13) Recommendation to grant final acceptance of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Isla Del Sol at Fiddler’s
Creek, Application Number S/D 99-23, with the roadway and
drainage improvements being privately maintained; acceptance of the
plat dedications, and authorizing the release of the maintenance
security.
14) Recommendation to approve an Easement Use Agreement
(Agreement) between Collier County, Wyndemere Homeowners
Owner’s Association, and the owner of Lot 12, Golf Cottages at
Wyndemere, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 119 through 121.
15) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond from Stock Construction, LLC in the amount of $39,240 which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.106 -1,
PL20130002172 for work associated with the Signature Club at Lely,
formerly known as Classics Cay.
16) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release an
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in the amount of $25,000 which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 59.365 -2,
PL20110002253 and PL20120001490 for work associated with Tall
Oaks of Naples, Phases 3 and 4.
17) Recommendation to award Bid No. 17-7044 to Wright Construction
Group for the “SR 82 and Corkscrew Road Intersection Safety
Improvements” for operational and safety enhancements in the
amount of $771,364.74 (Project No. 33478).
18) Recommendation to approve a Resolution accepting dedications to
Collier County and the Collier County Water-Sewer District relating
to the plat of Winding Cypress Phase 2C, as recorded in Plat Book 60,
Pages 22 through 28 of the Official Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.
19) Recommendation to authorize the Procurement Services Director to
enter into negotiations with two (2) bidders, consistent with Section
10D of the Board’s Procurement Ordinance on the Competitive Bid
Process (Rejection of Bids and Negotiation), regarding Invitation to
Bid No. 16-7032RR “Purchase and Delivery of Turf Grasses” and to
Page 10
March 14, 2017
approve payment of unpaid invoices.
20) Recommendation to approve Change Order No. 3 modifications to the
contract with Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc. for landscape
and irrigation installation associated with ITB No. 16 -6607, Collier
Blvd. Highway Beautification (Project 60149).
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a Short Term at Will Lease Agreement
between the Board, acting as the CRA Board, and T.T of Naples Inc.,
for property located at 1991 Tamiami Trail East for vehicle storage.
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 17-7067 Karen Drive Stormwater
Improvements to JRL Underground Utilities, Inc. for a bid price of
$313,329.09 and authorize the Community Redevelopment Agency
Board Chair to execute a contract to perform the work.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to accept and ratify fee waivers granted by th e
Director of Domestic Animal Services for the period of October 1,
2016 through December 31, 2016 in accordance with the process
established by Resolution No. 2016-125 in the amount of $235.
2) Recommendation to approve eleven mortgage satisfactions for the
State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the combined
amount of $28,400.
3) Recommendation to approve the expenditure of Category “A” Beach
Park Facility Tourist Tax Funds for Request for Quote (RFQ) to
Bonness, Inc. in the amount of $21,594.03 for sealing and restriping
the parking lot at Seagate Drive, and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism.
4) Recommendation to approve the expenditure of Category “A” Beach
Park Facility Tourist Tax Funds for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #16-7027
to Heritage Utilities, LLC in the amount of $156,467.89 for sidewalk
Page 11
March 14, 2017
widening and landscape enhancement at Seagate and North Gulf
Shore beach access locations, to accept the donation of a Right of
Entry to install and maintain the landscape enhancement, and make a
finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
5) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact grant Victims Advocacy
Organization grant application for a 3-year Office of Violence Against
Women Justice for Families Grant in the amount of $549,693.
6) Recommendation to approve the transfer of revenue from the Airport
Authority Fund 495 to Housing Grants Fund 705 under the Program
Income Agreement with Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity, and authorize a budget amendment recognizing $13,408
in program income under the Community Development Block Grant.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve Agreement #16-7036-PB for Visa
Commercial Card with SunTrust Bank for P-Card Services.
2) Recommendation to authorize payment of six (6) outstanding invoices
in the total amount of $12,184.57 under quantum meruit for work
performed by Simmonds Electrical of Naples, Inc., under Agreement
#13-6166 – Electrical contractors.
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Agreement No. 13-
6163, Security Services to G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.,
clarifying language related to price increases and approve Change
Order 2 allowing for an increase to the hourly rate schedule for
security personnel.
4) Recommendation to take no action to purchase the Port o f The Islands
Hotel located at 12323 Union Road in the Port of the Islands at a
minimum opening bid of $2,360,063.83, plus interest. The property is
currently on the Lands Available List and if not purchased by January
9, 2020, will escheat to the County pursuant Chapter 197, Florida
Statutes.
5) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other items
Page 12
March 14, 2017
as identified.
6) Recommendation to approve Change Order #4 to ITB No. 15-6370
“Motorola Central Control Irrigation Supplies & Services” and
authorize payment of outstanding invoices under quantum meruit for
projects to Contemporary Controls and Communications, Inc., which
previously included a 4% price increase.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Category “B”
funding to support the four upcoming April 2017 Sports Events up to
$19,300 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Contract #13-6109 for
Website Development and Maintenance with Miles Media and make a
finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
4) Recommendation to accept a multiple year donation from Minto
Communities and Spirit Promotions for future marketing and
promotion of Pickleball and other sports tourism events in Collier
County.
5) Recommendation to authorize a Work Order under RFQ #15-6397-2
for Environmental and Biological Studies for Clam Bay
Environmental Services to Earth Tech Environmental for $126,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
Page 13
March 14, 2017
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between February 16 and March 1, 2017 pursuant to Florida
Statute 136.06.
2) 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 March 8,
2017.
3) Recommendation that the Board review a request for a Housing
purchase assistance payment and make a determination regarding
proper payment serving a valid public purpose.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint two member(s) to the Haldeman Creek
Dredging Maintenance Advisory Committee
2) Recommendation to reappoint three member(s) to the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
3) Recommendation to approve for payment the attached invoice at the
negotiated amount of $715 for expert fees 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: $715)
4) Recommendation to approve a proposed Stipulated Final Judgment
for the taking of Parcel 231RDUE 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 (12th Street East to West of
16th Street East). (Fiscal Impact: $26,420.75)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
Page 14
March 14, 2017
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2016 -
41, the New Hope Ministries Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD), to correct a Scrivener’s Error relating to the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed for the MPUD property located on the north side of
Davis Boulevard and east of Santa Barbara Boulevard in Section 4,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and providing
an effective date [SE- PL20170000356].
B. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance that would institute term limits on
Commissioners whereby an individual shall not be eligible for ele ction as a
Commissioner for more than three consecutive four -year terms.
C. This item was continued from the February 28, 2017 BCC meeting and
is being further continued to the March 28, 2017 BCC meeting. This
item requires that ex parte disclosure be provid ed by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be
sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC -PL20160003293, to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion
of the 10-foot drainage easement and vacate a portion of the 10-foot utility
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.
D. Recommendation to approve an amendment adopting revisions to Ordinance
No. 2013-69, as amended, commonly known as the Collier County
Procurement Ordinance increasing efficiency in the procurement and
contracting functions.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
Page 15
March 14, 2017
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
March 14, 2017
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. Good morning to
everyone in our gallery. Thank you for being here.
We have an invocation and a Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps I'll
have Commissioner Fiala lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, but first
let's hear from Rabbi Ammos Chorny to give us our prayer for the
morning. Thank you.
RABBI CHORNY: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RABBI CHORNY: Dear God, we serve, and in the process we
come as a community together this morning. We want to use our
resources wisely and well to represent all members of our community
fairly, to make decisions that promote the common good, recognizing
our responsibility to the past and to the future and the rights and the
needs of both individuals and the community.
As trusted servants, we seek blessings in our deliberations, and in
our efforts here today may we act wisely and well. May our efforts be
blessed with insight, guided by understanding and wisdom. We seek to
serve with respect for all.
May our personal faith give us strength to us honestly and well in
all matters before us. Amen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you put your hands over
your hearts, please, and say with me:
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I am going to say it. One of the
reasons I asked our Dear Commissioner Donna Fiala to say the Pledge
Page 2
March 14, 2017
of Allegiance to lead us in it, that yesterday she was recognized on the
floor of the United States Congress as a long-serving and productive
public servant, and I think for that we should applaud her.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager?
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, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of March 14th, 2017.
The first change is to add on Item 5D under presentations to
receive a brief presentation on the wildfire from Dan Summers, your
Emergency Services Director.
The next proposed change -- excuse me -- is to remove Item 16F2
and withdraw that item from today's agenda. This is a staff request.
We have some additional work to do on that particular item.
There is one time-certain item, Commissioners, and that is Item
9A, and that is to be heard at 5:05 p.m. So if we finish before that
time, which I expect we do, we can recess the meeting and then
reconvene at 5:05.
And then in that regard also, Commissioners, I'm advised that
Commissioner Solis does plan to join the Board for the 5:05 meeting,
and as your County Attorney will advise you, you're going to need to
vote to allow him to join that meeting, but you'll do that at that time.
Page 3
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. And I understand that he would
at that point, after we hear that item, at 5:05, is when we're going to go
into commissioner communication.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. He had a couple of items, and he
asked that I ask you as the chair to defer hearing Item 15, staff and
commission communications, till after the 5:05 meeting so he could
participate in that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, given that, also Commissioner
Solis sent me an email, which arrived late yesterday afternoon, so
thank you County Manager for giving it to me, and he's requested that
we continue the Items 11A and 11B relating to impact fees until the
next BCC meeting. I don't see any reason why we can't hear it -- if
he's joining us at 5:05, we could also discuss that at that time, could we
not?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The 5:05 may be a fairly
lengthy thing, so we're starting to add stuff to the end of that agenda.
I'm not sure that that's -- I mean, I don't know how late you want to go,
but that could be a fairly late meeting. Just a thought.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I just -- I wanted to bring this up
to my colleagues here. It's not my decision alone.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, certainly. And I think in
deference to Commissioner Solis, if he has -- if he'd like to have that
item continued, I don't think that there's a reason why we shouldn't
accommodate that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So continue to the next meeting?
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, just let me remind the Board. This
is a two-step process. These two items are request for authorization to
advertise these ordinances for adoption at a subsequent board meeting.
Typically, what we would do is present them today, advertise them,
Page 4
March 14, 2017
and then put them on your summary agenda, but what we could do is
hear them today or you could authorize us, perhaps, to advertise them.
When we bring them back we'll put them on the regular advertised
public hearing agenda, and you can have your policy discussion before
you vote on the ordinances.
It doesn't matter, frankly, to the staff. If you want to push them,
you can push them. We have Mr. Tindale here. We just need to get
him back here from Tampa next week if you want to defer this for a
meeting. Again, totally the discretion of the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't feel very comfortable bringing
in someone from Tampa to hear an item and then send them home
without the work being done. I don't think that's quite fair. And this is
not a criticism of Commissioner Solis, but he knew last week he wasn't
going to be here. So if we had known last week to ask for this
continuance, I would feel a lot more comfortable, but not to bring our
consultants in and then send them home. I don't feel comfortable.
So...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that in
terms of-- because there is an expense associated with that, plus there
may be other people in the audience that are here on that item, and it is
going it be heard again. So it's not like we're making the decision.
We're just authorizing the advertising. So I would suggest that we
move forward with it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And hear it at the point -- in the process
of this morning's meeting.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And Commissioner
Solis will have plenty of opportunity when we come back for decision
making on it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that the consensus?
Page 5
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
MR. OCHS: And we'll make sure we put that on the regular
advertised -- or regular agenda for hearing instead of consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a question, if I might
ask the County Manager.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As we move through this
advertising process, does it solidify the rates and terms and the detail
amounts that we're going to be discussing today?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. You can always -- you can always go
lower, not adopt at all. You have all the flexibility --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- in your second hearing on that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I didn't want to -- I
didn't want to encumber that if Commissioner Solis had other
information that he wasn't able to share and such, so -- but I'm --
MR. OCHS: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we get -- and we get two bites at
the apple, which is kind of nice.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We like apples.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. We like to get two bites. All
right.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it?
County Attorney, any changes or amendments?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nope. Crystal; Ms. Kinzel?
MS. KINZEL: No, we're fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm assuming we're on the
consent and the ex parte?
Page 6
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, any other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes, no additions, no
corrections, and no ex parte.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have ex parte if we're
doing that as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, let's do ex parte, too.
So I'll go back to you. Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On Item -- no, that's okay. On
Item 16A9 I did receive emails.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any changes to the
consent agenda. I do have two items I want to make a quick comment
on before we approve those. On Item 17D, which is the procurement
ordinance, I want to congratulate staff. I understand that there's been a
very close working relationship with the Clerk's Office on this. I
understand that the Purchasing Department and the Manager have very
diligently put together a program that's going to avoid any conflicts
down the road. So I just want to congratulate everybody for that spirit
of cooperation, how well that's working.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Feels good, doesn't it? Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On 16J3, I don't want to pull
the item, but it has raised some issues concerning how we appropriate
funds for housing assistance, and perhaps staff could come back with
us over the next couple of meetings and give us some information
about how that's done.
I understand there are some communities that may have some
more strict regulations, and I'd like to just take a look at those. So if
Page 7
March 14, 2017
you could bring something back. Again, not at the next meeting,
necessarily, but over the next month or so.
MR. OCHS: That would be our pleasure, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, Madam Chair, I'd like to
-- I concur with Commissioner Saunders as well. I was going to talk
about that under commissioner comments at the end, but I like that
idea. The SHIP funding regulations are coming to us from the state,
and those are in dire need of review.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I totally agree. I think that we
need to have more clarity in who gets what and how they measure up
to it and, just simply put like that, I think it's definitely something we
should be discussing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No disclosures, no ex parte? Okay.
All right. I do have one minor change to the agenda. I would like
to move 17B to the regular agenda for a vote. I want a second bite at
that apple.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that one? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That has to do with term limits on
commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. You know, I'm glad
you're bringing that up. I've had so many comments about that, people
that disagreed with us doing that. So -- or not you. The rest of us.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I'll --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that becomes Item 9B on your
agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 9B. Okay. And I do not have any ex
parte disclosures to make, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve
the agenda and the consent agenda.
Page 8
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Page 9
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 14, 2017
Add On Item 5D: Wildfire Update by Dan Summers,Bureau of Emergency Services Division
Director.
Withdraw Item 16F2: Recommendation to approve Amendment# 1 to Contract#13-6109 for
Website Development and Maintenance with Miles Media and make a finding that these
expenditures promote tourism. (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A to be heard at 5:05 p.m.
3/14/2017 8:23 AM
March 14, 2017
Item #2B
BCC/LEGISLATIVE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM
OCTOBER 4, 2016 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners Item 2B is approval of your BCC
legislative workshop meeting minutes from October 4, 2016.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion? Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries. Thank you very much.
Item #2C
BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 14,
2017 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 2C is approval of the regular BCC meeting
minutes from February 14, 2017.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second -- second by
Commissioner McDaniel.
All those in favor?
Page 10
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I take just a moment out of
everybody's time, because we don't have any service awards here
today, but I think all of us in the audience, and I want to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to -- about the fire?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that what you're going to talk about?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Never mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: See, we don't -- we're not -- we're never
in the Sunshine, so we have to discuss all of this up here in front of
you. Wait. Wait.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then you do it.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 12-18, 2017 AS
SUNSHINE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY AND DECLARING
OUR COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE
GOVERNMENT. ACCEPTED BY BRANDON SANCHO
REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
Page 11
March 14, 2017
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; MARNI SCUDERI
REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF
COURTS; ANNETTE WENOWSKY REPRESENTING THE
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; VICKIE DOWNS
REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER; ROB STONEBURNER REPRESENTING THE
COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR; AND TRISH
ROBERTSON REPRESENTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves us to Item
4 this morning, proclamations.
Item 4A is a proclamation designating March 12 through March
18, 2017, as Sunshine Week in Collier County and declaring our
commitment to open and accessible government. To be accepted by
Brandon Sancho representing the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners; Marni Scuderi representing Collier County Clerk of
Courts; Annette Wenowsky representing Collier County Sheriffs
Office; Vickie Downs representing the Collier County Property
Appraiser; Rob Stoneburner representing Collier County Tax
Collector; and Trish Robertson representing the Collier County
Supervisor of Elections.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's looking at the short one. Get
over, Donna.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you like to say something? I
guess not.
I'd like to say something. There was a meeting on the day that the
women celebrated and kind of played hooky from work last week, and
one of the questions -- and there was about 100 people here, and one of
the questions was about what are you doing to our government to do
Page 12
March 14, 2017
away with the Sunshine laws? And I assured her that that's not where I
stand. It may be floated, but it's not where -- what I think should be
done.
And I can tell you, the applause was there. So we value this
proclamation very much, at least this commissioner does, and I'm sure
it's agreed up here how important it is to do our business in the
Sunshine so that you, as constituents and taxpayers and voters, have
faith in what the decisions we make up here are, so thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? I wasn't going
to say anything on that issue, but you've raised it, so I feel compelled
to.
There's a House Bill out there that to some folks would really gut
the Sunshine Law, and it's been filed by our legislative delegation,
which makes it kind of interesting.
I certainly don't support that legislation. I think the open
government law, the Sunshine Law, has resulted in much better
government activity; much more fair. It's helped eliminate corruption,
and I fully support it. And I've been on both sides of the Sunshine Law
in terms of being up here and also representing clients.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala -- or
Commissioner Saunders, how -- will you give a little bit of your
history for folks who don't know how long you've served in
government, please; would you start.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Boy, we're going to have to
spend quite a bit of time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aren't we trying to get through
this meeting?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Real quickly, I came over here
in 1982 to serve as a County Attorney, then spent eight years on the
Commission, and then four years in the Florida House, and 10 years in
Page 13
March 14, 2017
the Florida Senate, and then after being out of government for a
number of years have come back.
So I've worked on both sides of that issue. And I can tell you, it
makes decision-making slower, it makes it more cumbersome, but
people can be assured that there are no backroom deals going on. And
so the Sunshine Law to me has been very effective, and it's very
important.
So I just wanted to point out that this group, this commission, did
not ask for that bill to be filed. We don't -- I don't personally support
that legislation, and I don't believe it's going to go anywhere anyway. I
don't believe it will go anywhere in the Florida Senate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, if I might.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like to say, if you
noticed, I had brought up a subject matter at our last meeting with
regard to our ethics ordinance, and I didn't bring it back today for
future discussion or for any more discussion.
I, unlike, Commissioner Saunders am new to this process. I'm
coming up on my 120th day as an elected official. I do find the
Sunshine Law extremely cumbersome. It does make decision making
extremely difficult and take a longer period of time, but I'm learning
that this is not the dictatorships of my private enterprises where I make
my decisions and operate with an iron fist and suffer the consequences
immediately from those decisions.
And so I do find the Sunshine Law does provide for a lot of
clarity and a lot of certainty for the general public to know that our
business is being conducted in a proper manner and that there aren't
backroom deals that are, in fact, transpiring. So with that, I, like
commissioner Saunders and yourself, do -- I don't support that
legislation as it's currently written.
Page 14
March 14, 2017
I would like to see, at some stage, some opportunity afforded for
our advisory committees and such that are regulated as well. I do find
it a bit cumbersome for those groups, but that's for another discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 18, 2017 AS SAVE
THE FLORIDA PANTHER DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY TOM TROTTA, AMBER CROOKS AND MAC
HATCHER, REPRESENTING THE FRIENDS OF THE FLORIDA
PANTHER REFUGE AND GINA LEHNER REPRESENTING THE
FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating March 18,
2017, as Save the Florida Panther Day in Collier County. To be
accepted by Amber Crooks and Mac Hatcher representing the Friends
of the Florida Panther Refuge, and Gina Lehner representing the
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Hi, Matt. How are you? It's good to see you.
We're trying to recruit Mac to come back part time, but...
MS. CROOKS: We're very lucky to have him on the Friends.
I'm Amber Crooks here today on behalf of the Friends of the
Florida Panther Refuge. Thank you for recognizing Save the Florida
Panther Day.
The State of Florida, as well as the county, has annually
recognized the third Saturday in March to highlight this species as part
Page 15
March 14, 2017
of our Florida ecosystem and as our state's official mammal.
The Florida panther is an umbrella species, and so by protecting
the Florida panther, we're also protecting many other species as well as
lands that are important to all of us.
This day is celebrated at the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge here in Collier County, which is at State Road 92 and I-75,
with the open house. The open house will be held this Saturday from 8
a.m. until 2 p.m. This event will include educational lectures, food,
fun, and activities in Florida panther habitat.
Thank you for recognizing Save the Florida Panther Day, and we
hope to see you all this weekend.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 16-26, 2017 AS THE
41TH ANNUAL COLLIER COUNTY FAIR DAYS. ACCEPTED
BY TJ SNOPKOWSKI, MARKETING & SPONSORSHIPS
DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating March 16
through the 26th, 2017, as the 41st Annual Collier County Fair Days to
be accepted by TJ Snopkowski, Marketing and Sponsorship Director
of the Collier County Fairgrounds.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Pat Cookson also.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you need to make a plug here. You
need to announce what's coming up.
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: That's what I'm doing. That's the plan.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
Page 16
March 14, 2017
MR. OCHS: Hi, TJ. How are you? Thanks, buddy.
I'm busy kissing the girls here.
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Thank you all so much for recognizing us
today as you guys have done for several years here.
The Collier County Fair, for those of you who aren't familiar,
we're going into our 41st year. We feature, you know, year-round
events, between our Country Jam Music Festival, our Big Swamp
Smoke-Off and Barbecue Craft Beer Festival, as well as the fair itself;
we also do a lot of smaller events throughout the year.
But what's amazing that people don't realize is that we're not a
government entity. We're a private not-for-profit organization that
focuses in education and outreach through the community. We also do
a lot of assistance to families who are in financial need. And so my
hope is that a lot of folks, you guys come out -- come out March 16th
through the 26th, support the fair, support events there year round and,
most importantly, just support our local non-profits. We have so many
in this community and so many that need more outreach and more
exposure.
In addition to that, I want to just take the time to also mention our
Making Life Fair Fundraiser, which is going to be March 19th, and
that's a tremendous event that -- what we do is we bring in money for
families who have hardships financially from cancer, from other
debilitating diseases, from families who just recently lost their homes;
we're going to be putting some towards them.
So just something to kind of get on your radar to get you guys
out, and I also want to thank Ms. Pat Cookson, our board member,
who came out today. She's -- everyone's so busy right now. If you
guys go out to the fairgrounds, it is absolutely crazy. It's absolutely
packed. I mean, it's starting this week.
I'm lucky to sneak away and be able to do stuff like this, but the
rest of them are really working hard. The rest of our board's out there
Page 17
March 14, 2017
day in and day out, and then none of them are paid, which is really
amazing.
So thank you all so much, and thank you guys. I hope to see every
single one of you in this room this week. Sound good? All right.
Great.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question.
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So when are the cows and the pigs
moving in?
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: I think -- we already have some that are
coming in now, right.
MS. COOKSON: They're not going to be in, I don't think, until
like Friday.
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: Friday.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Friday, okay, and the ducks and the
chickens and the rabbits.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the ribbon cutting is?
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: That's going to be Thursday, this
Thursday at 5:30 p.m. So we have -- I know we've invited you guys,
and some of you guys are making it, but anyone else here, our
community leaders, we invite you to come out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thursday night.
MR. SNOPKOWSKI: We're going to cut the ribbon. We're just
going to kind of kick off the fair the best we can. So there we go.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Great.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: First fair? That was 41 years
ago. I wasn't here yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been here 35 years.
Page 18
March 14, 2017
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could get a motion to approve
today's proclamations, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll so move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Move to Item 5 on this morning's agenda.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR MARCH 2017 TO DAVIDSON & NICK
CPAS. ACCEPTED BY JIM DAVIDSON AND PAUL NICK;
SUSAN KUHAR, ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE, GREATER NAPLES
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AND BETHANY SAWYER,
MEMBERSHIP ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST, GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for March 2017 to Davidson & Nick CPAs. To
be accepted by Jim Davidson and Paul Nick; Susan Kuhar from the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and Bethany Sawyer also from
the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
(Applause.)
Page 19
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing for
our community. Oh, nice tie.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Full disclosure; these folks have been
my accountants for umpty-ump years --
MR. NICK: Umpty-ump.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- umpty-ump, and do a great job.
MR. NICK: Thank you very much. I'll make this real brief. But
thank you very much. I want to thank the commissioners, County
Manager's Office, and the Chamber for today's recognition.
Davidson & Nick CPA has been an established service in our
community since 1989 when my partner, Jim Davidson, and I started
our practice. We've grown to be one of the three largest CPA firms
based solely here in Collier County.
We view ourselves as positive cash flow for the county. Up to 25
percent of our business is servicing businesses outside of Collier
County, whether it be nationally, internationally, and all our employees
are residents of Collier County.
We're grateful for the opportunity to be in business in Collier
County, and we're thankful to the Chamber and to the Board of County
Commissioners for the positive business environment that you guys
have created for us. We really appreciate it.
I have two of our colleagues with us today. Irena Fedina. She's a
tax accountant associate with us; graduated FGCU. Our clients love
her because of her strong technical skills and her positive outlook.
Natasha Post is a student at FSW. She is our Director of First
Impressions, and she's our social media stud. And without her, we
would not be here today, so thank you.
We're also a firm that has a strong history of providing back to the
community. When I look at some of the commissioners today, the
County Manager, we served on various boards together serving this
community, whether it be arts councils in East Naples, soccer
Page 20
March 14, 2017
programs at Anthony Park, starting Naples Roller Hockey League
many years ago. We have a strong, strong history giving back to the
community.
Finally, we're grateful for this recognition. And for someone who
raised his family here, maintained his livelihood, I'm truly humbled
today. So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. NICK: Sorry to be rude. I would love to stay for the rest of
the day, but we have a lot of tax returns waiting on us. Thank you very
much. Thank you, guys.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH'S 2017 "HEALTHY WEIGHT COMMUNITY
CHAMPION" CERTIFICATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR IMPLEMENTING
A VARIETY OF POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO
INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND PROMOTE HEALTHY
LIVING. PRESENTED BY STEPHANIE VICK,
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
IN COLLIER COUNTY, JEN GOMEZ, COMMUNITY HEALTH
PROMOTION DIRECTOR AND REGGIE WILSON, HEALTHY
COMMUNITIES COORDINATOR — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation of the Florida Department
of Health's 2017 Healthy Weight Community Champion certification
to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for
implementing a variety of policies that have been shown to increase
physical activity and promote healthy living.
To be presented by Stephanie Vick, Administrator for Florida
Page 21
March 14, 2017
Department of Health in Collier County; Jen Gomez, Community
Health Promotions Director; and Reggie Wilson, Healthy
Communities Coordinator.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it's the other way around.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. You're making a presentation. Excuse
me.
MR. WILSON: Good morning. I'm Reggie Wilson, the Healthy
Communities Coordinator at the Florida Department of Health. With
me today is Stephanie Vick, the Administrator for Department of
Health in Collier County, and Jennifer Gomez, Community Health
Promotions Division Director.
Today we are honored to recognize Collier County as a Healthy
Weight Community Champion. The State Surgeon General and
Department of Health Award recognizes governments who develop
policies and environments to improve the health of their community.
Collier County uses an outstanding 22 best practices to promote
healthy living, notably the county upgraded their pickleball facilities to
host the 2016 U.S. Open Championships, the largest pickleball
tournament in the world with over 800 participants and 10,000
spectators.
Collier County won a 2016 Agency Excellence Award from the
Florida Recreation and Parks Association for the many upgrades to
park facilities. In addition to ADA accessibility improvements for the
million-passenger Collier Area Transit system, the county is
committed to the safety of non-motorized travelers, securing and
applying funds to promote physical activity in the community.
Finally, Collier County has over 15 farmers markets, providing
healthy choices and fresh produce for our residents and visitors.
For your continued support, making the healthy choice an easy
choice, we would now like to present the Board of County
Page 22
March 14, 2017
Commissioners with the Healthy Weight Community Champion
Recognition Certificate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, that's wonderful. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for this honor.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So may I say
this? Look out blue zone.
MR. OCHS: Here we come.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Here we come. Wonderful.
This is pretty extraordinary. You know, we're a county that's
growing and changing, but -- and we've always -- you know, parks are
a wonderful way to spend taxpayers' money without, you know,
tremendous revenue in return, but this is revenue. This is why we do it.
This is about children and people and activity and using the outdoors
to live better and to learn about health and also to learn about
community. So it's -- this is very touching.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING ERIC WISE, INSTRUMENTATION/
ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, AS THE FEBRUARY 2017
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH — RECOGNIZED
MR. OCHS: Item 5C is a recommendation to recognize Eric
Wise, Electrical Instrumentation Technician, as the February 2017
Employee of the Month.
Page 23
March 14, 2017
Eric, if you'd step forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, great work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need to take this. Get that off of
there.
MR. OCHS: Right in the middle, Eric. There you go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go.
MR. OCHS: Stand right there. Stand right there.
Commissioners, let me tell you and the public a little bit more
about Eric. Eric's been with us at the county government here for more
than 17 years working with our Public Utilities Department. He was
selected by the Employee of the Month Committee in part because of
his dedication to his trade and his team members in the water power
systems.
He was a key participant in the modification of our wellfield
designs, and he's made significant impact and improved efficiency and
reduced costs of operations. Eric's leadership in the division has
elevated those around him to tackle difficult and highly technical
issues and become even more productive and efficient.
Eric's dedication to his job and support of his fellow team
members makes him truly stand out as a reflection of our agency, and
he's very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Eric Wise as your
February 2017 Employee of the Month.
Congratulations, Eric.
(Applause.)
Item #5D
WILDFIRE UPDATE BY DAN SUMMERS, BUREAU OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR — UPDATE
Page 24
March 14, 2017
GIVEN
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is Item 5D. This was
an add-on item. This is an update from your Director of Emergency
Management and the Bureau of Emergency Services, Dan Summers,
on the recent wildfire.
Dan?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good morning. Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and
Emergency Management. And I'm happy to be with you this morning
just to give you a very quick update, a little thumbnail sketch on the
wildfire operations.
And, first of all, my by-line there is thanks to all of our response
partners. I have camped out with a lot of folks here the last couple of
days, a lot of agencies, and I just hope I haven't missed any of them.
Chief Schuldt is here from Greater Naples Fire; Jeff Pilato from
our Red Team; and Florida Forest Service as well is Mike Weston, our
Caloosahatchee Center Manager. And I think we have all spent more
time together in the last week and a half than we certainly have at
home, and I'm very honored to have worked with these very fine men
and women and professionals over the last few days.
I've got just a couple of slides and a couple of videos, and we're
available to answer any questions for you. Just quickly, we're at about
7,230 acres; 85, almost 90 percent containment was our report this
morning. At the fire's peak, estimated 200 responders, 120 Florida
forest personnel, 18 medium-sized dozers, five heavy dozers, 30
engines, three helicopters, two single-air tankers, one large air tanker,
Sheriffs Office, both with patrol, traffic, and aviation support, and we
extend our appreciation to CCSO because they kept us well resourced
in terms of protecting the public, traffic, and evacuation.
Eighteen press releases came in of our joint efforts with
Page 25
March 14, 2017
Emergency Management and Communications and Customer
Relations. Social media was a huge factor in this; worked very well:
71 Tweets, 38 Facebook posts got the information out there.
And if you were with us the other day, certainly we had our visit
from Governor Scott; Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam;
Jim Quarrels with -- our state Director of Forestry. We spent some
time with him; and State EM Director Bryan Koon was with us.
The magnitude of the fire is kind of hard for folks to realize.
Again, with the fire origin here, 7,000-plus acres and almost six miles.
Commissioners, we are quite concerned, and our heart and
prayers go out for the families that did lose structures. Every effort
was taken in this event to work those events, protect those individuals
and, you know, we started some precautionary evacuations of the
stables on Sunday, and then we got into a situation where Mother
Nature did not allow us to win this battle. These winds at a 26, 32
miles per hour put these -- the structures were dead center of what
Mother Nature was doing with these winds, and these men and women
worked incredibly hard to protect these structures, and we are sorry
that those structures are lost.
And we have all reached out to them, and they're doing well. The
community is supporting them. Red Cross continues to check on
them. So we hate for their loss, and our hearts and are prayers are with
them.
And we're very fortunate. We had 1,700 structures in this area, to
only have three -- four structures were lost. Three were occupied. So
again, we are certainly looking after those folks, and we're concerned
about that.
Street view of the burned area. Again, gives you some of the
magnitude and the streets involved. They're working both sides of 951
between Rattlesnake and Davis Road, and that kept us quite busy with
what we call the urban interface.
Page 26
March 14, 2017
So pictures from the EOC give you some magnitude of the smoke
column and certainly give you some idea of those winds and the
disbursement of that particular smoke.
At the risk of some poor humor, this is a shot from Fort Myers
Beach on the smoke cloud. And, again, I'll just say that our bonfires
are better than their beach party.
But we were very -- we were very much engaged at this point in
this. And, again, this gives you some magnitude, I think, of trying to
reinforce what the wind and the low humidity, in fact, did with this.
Two shots here on the left. The first one is certainly a good
indicator of the multi-agency response; Greater Naples, North Collier.
We used our public -- Road and Bridge folks helped us with watering
the medians on I-75. That helped stop any spread or jump of the fire
on the north and south side of I-75 at about the 101, 100 exit.
You see an aerial attack there as well as the Forest Service
helicopter as we were wetting some areas near the golf course
maintenance facility there off Beck Boulevard. So quite a multiagency
response.
The shot from the right is our mobile command bus where we
have about 11 radio systems in there, and all of us were working all of
those agencies -- those radios with our respective agencies in terms of
communication, coordination, command, and control. So we were
quite busy there in our mobile command center on Sunday and
Monday.
To give you some idea, the effort here -- this happens to be at
Serenity Park on 951 where we had flames jumping 951 and working
that area. And again, we remind folks that green stuff does burn in
South Florida. So we had quite a bit of underbrush there and embers.
In some cases some of the embers maybe a tennis ball size blowing a
quarter of a mile and spotting a quarter mile ahead of the fire, so it
made it quite difficult.
Page 27
March 14, 2017
The intensity of the burn is most noteworthy here. Just grabbing
you a picture of some of the heavily chard area; a very intense hot
burn.
Civil emergency messages: One of the warning systems that we
have in Emergency Management, we issued one at 12:30 on Monday.
We did that with our Forest Service in Greater Naples. That's what we
call a unified command approach. We gave residents a warning notice,
if you will, precautionary notification of the potential of rapidly
deteriorating wildfire conditions, and we had a lot of compliments
from the public. They appreciated that heads-up on Monday.
It was successfully rebroadcast. While there was no evacuation at
that time, it certainly put the citizens on notice.
We did the second civil emergency message at 12:38 on Tuesday;
again, focusing on that area around 951, Club Naples -- and Beck
Boulevard, excuse me -- Club Naples, Panther's Walk, Forest Glen,
and Avertine, and made that evacuation activity take place, along with
the Sheriffs Department going in there with what we call door-to-door
type notification, rebroadcasting from their public address siren
system.
We had three what we call reception centers ready to go. Golden
Gate Community Center was a place where those folks could go. We
had Red Cross -- pardon me -- another agency standing by to receive
them, as well as Eagle Lakes and Max Hasse was on contingency as a
third.
We had buses available. We already had buses in staging if we
needed them, but all of those folks had transportation as well as we
checked on any special needs clients that were in the area.
There was a need for overnight sheltering that did progress. Red
Cross handled that. We sheltered 21 families overnight. Three
displaced families, six clients in total were referred to Red Cross for
mid-term and long-term housing availability or assistance if they
Page 28
March 14, 2017
wanted it.
Two special needs were identified in the area. One was out. We
maintained constant communication with those frail and elderly folks.
One of our -- a ton of successes, but one that was most successful,
I think, was notifying -- pardon me -- activating our Collier
Information Hot Line. We typically do that for the hurricane event.
We did this. Ms. Price pulls that team together for us where we gave
the citizens a number to call outside of 911 so that they could speak
with someone, be reassured, get local information, take that burden of
unnecessary calls into 911, and we were amazed at the calls there;
6,000 inbound calls were taken to answer questions for the public, and
I think that serves our community quite well.
Donations were exceptional. I can't remember a wildfire event
here where we had this type of community support. I always worry
about leaving someone out who did donate, and we had a lot from
individuals. The business community was phenomenal helping our
responders: McDonald's, Chick-fil-A, Caesars, Carolina Caterers, the
Coffee Shop, Culvers, Walmart, Arby's, Pollo Tropical provided meals
and supplies, water, Gatorade, snacks for the firefighters, and we
appreciate that. And we actually had to kind of stand that effort down
and schedule some of these agencies. And again, we thank them for
their donation, and we didn't want anything to go to waste as well, so
we managed that pretty well.
County departments engaged. There's a list here. I won't read
them all but, doggone, almost everybody in Collier County we had
supporting us, whether we call it backroom support operations or on
the front line.
The non-Board of County Commissioners agencies came all the
way from Sarasota County with the response agencies and personnel,
and hopefully we didn't forget anyone from these agencies. But we
had DeSoto, Hendry, Glades, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier County,
Page 29
March 14, 2017
our federal partners, our state partners all bringing personnel and
apparatus to this particular location.
I mentioned in my briefing to the governor -- pardon me -- the
calvary that came from Florida Power & Light that allowed to get that
power de-energized and started working around 2 a.m. off Beck
Boulevard with equipment, and they started resetting poles at 2 a.m. to
start beginning power restoration.
So it was a phenomenal effort there, just to name a few, but it was
a phenomenal effort from everyone.
Let me take a second and just show you a couple of pieces of
video, and then I'll be available for any questions, and we'll let you
resume your agenda.
Real quick, this first video I want to show you, when we made
our wildfire presentation, we talked to you about the importance of
building fire lines. This is a great aerial shot typical of what the dozer
lines were doing, and this is where they're going back and reinforcing
those particular fire breaks as well as cutting new fire breaks which
you'll see in another video. But that was important to have those
dozers get in there and clear those particular lines, so that's a good
example.
In there you'll see places where the fire is spotting, and they're
addressing that as well, too; minimize the spread, contain that
particular spot fire in that particular area.
Second video, real quick, gives you a little bit of view from the
aircraft here. And again, thanks to Jeffs team for sharing this video
with us. You really have to see this from the air to appreciate the
magnitude of this fire. And again, what will continue to happen
probably.
The rain was not as much as we had hoped for last night. In some
cases only a couple of tenths of precipitation. But it certainly helps,
but this will continue.
Page 30
March 14, 2017
You see the little smoke devil here that gives some -- it looks like
the little tornado in a burned out area gives you some indication of the
residual heat going on there with a little bit of the smoke and ash being
stirred by the fire. This, I believe, is east and south of 951.
This next video gives you some approach of that fire on 951 in
the early afternoon hours with the intensity of apparatus and equipment
that are -- personnel that are out there trying to stop that fire at 951.
And, again, with these winds in the 20-mile-an-hour range, this is just
difficult to do. The spot fires that we had -- if you'll notice, we had
crews over there on the Naples Lake and Serenity side of 951 being
ready to try to put out any embers that came over, but that was very,
very difficult.
Hats off again to our Water Department. We drew an enormous
amount of water from those hydrants along 951. That was -- and that
system was flawless, and that water was invaluable for us to be able to
use, to refill the equipment quickly and get back out on the fire line.
So we thank you to the Public Utilities Division who had that
operation as flawless throughout the event.
Lastly, it was our nighttime operations here, and this is in the
vicinity of the Rattlesnake Hammock power distribution center just
slightly southwest of Serenity Park. And this is -- this is the intensity.
This was at midnight. We're not used to seeing this type of flame
intensity at midnight. So winds were over 20, 26, 30 miles per hour, I
believe, was one gust. We had dozers back in there, and if you'll
notice those things that look like sparklers coming up, that's the
intensity of the embers that were falling over in Naples Lake and
Deerwood, so about half of the other structural apparatus was over on
the Deerwood side putting out those fires, and that was quite intense.
And Jeff was here actually moving his dozers and equipment out of the
way when this fire became quite intense.
So that's what we were dealing with in the midnight hours, which
Page 31
March 14, 2017
is something we are not normally used to doing. And if you'll notice,
you can see the trees moving in there just from the wind. So, indeed,
quite a challenge for us.
Commissioners, I'll stop and see if you have any questions.
Again, our hearts go out to the families who lost these structures, and
tip of the hat to all of our response agencies and partners that came
from everywhere to help us. And we have demobilization, what we
call demobilization. The Florida red team, which is the Incident
Management Team, some of folks here are from as far as Gainesville,
helping the management structure transitioning to state resources, and
this will be transitioned back to local resources here today in the next
couple of days. But the whole team came together, and I'm very proud
of those efforts.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
Commissioner McDaniel. No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I tell a little story?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes. Now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Taylor and I were
fortunate enough to go along with the Governor on this ride through
this area, and one of the things they were talking about was horses.
They had to move 100 horses. And I said, where would you move 100
horses? First of all, how do you get them out of there? You can't just
trot them down the street. And then where do you put them? They
have to have a place to run and eat and so forth.
They said that social media -- and you mentioned that, Dan.
Social media came to their help immediately. Within 15 minutes they
had -- the owners of that area in there that had all the horses, they
started social media'ing the people and say, we need trailers, we need
trailers, we have 100 horses to get out of here, and they said within half
an hour the trailers were arriving and loading up the horses and getting
Page 32
March 14, 2017
them out. It was quite amazing.
There's some very heroic stories in all. And I wish we could
thank these people enough for all that they have done for us in saving a
lot more homes than went up, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we'll do the little we can. I think
if all the people from county government got involved in this, the
county government would be closed right now. But we do have some
folks here, including your folks. And what I'd like to do is everybody
who touched this emergency who helped, including the folks that made
6,000 calls or answered 6,000 calls in the EMS, if you could just come
up, identify yourself on the microphone and come and shake our
hands. We'd be very, very honored. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
MR. OCHS: Come on up. Let's not be shy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Come on up.
MR. OCHS: Chief, you start us off, please.
MS. BUTCHER: Good morning, Commissioners. Tabitha
Butcher, your EMS Chief. Thank you so much for recognizing us
today.
MR. COX: Michael Cox. I was a member of the phone bank.
MR. ESSIEN: Michael Essien, Florida Forest Service,
Caloosahatchee Forestry Center Manager.
MR. PILATO: Jeff Pilato, Florida Forest Service and Safety
Officer for the Florida Interagency Red Team.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. WOOD: Karen Wood with EMS.
MR. CAMPS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tony Camps,
Deputy Chief, Collier County EMS.
MR. GASTINEAU: Bruce Gastineau, Assistant Chief, Collier
County EMS.
MS. RUDNICKI: Paula Rudnicki, Naples (sic).
Page 33
March 14, 2017
MS. DUNPHY: Lisa Dunphy, Administrative Services, IT.
MS. DE JESUS: Maria De Jesus, Communication and Customer
Relations.
MR. SANCHO: Brandon Sancho, Citizen Liaison
Communication and Customer Relations.
MR. MARO: Tony Maro, Collier County EMS, Training
Captain.
MR. NIEVEZ: Oscar Nievez, Administrative Services, IT
Department.
MR. DAWSON: Rich Dawson, Administrative Services, IT
Department.
MS. WILLER-SPECTOR: Lee Willer-Spector, Administrative
Services Division.
MS. PRICE: Len Price, Administrative Services. And I just -- I
have to say about this group of folks, I called them from their desks
and asked them to come in and answer phones for us, leave their work,
answer phones until midnight, and nobody complained, nobody said
no. We had 12 to 15 people on the phones answering calls nonstop for
24 hours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, that's interesting; amazing.
MR. OCHS: Fantastic. Great leadership.
MS. HETZEL: Lavah Hetzel, Communication and Customer
Relations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you were answering?
MS. HETZEL: News releases on the website.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: News releases.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mike Sheffield. I oversee your
Communications and Customer Relations office.
MR. FASSOLD: Bill Fassold, Communication and Customer
Relations.
MS. ALBERS: Kate Albers, Public Information Coordinator,
Page 34
March 14, 2017
Communication and Customer Relations.
CHIEF SCHULDT: Good morning, Commissioners. Kingman
Schuldt, Fire Chief, Greater Naples Fire Rescue.
DR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners. George Yilmaz,
Collier County Public Utilities. I want to thank my team. Started the
process Saturday and Sunday in coordination with all the team
members you have seen.
We were able to produce over 5 million gallons of water at steady
state, 90, if not higher, pressure so that we can provide all the water
supply to where needed, all our responders, all the way 72 hours out.
We had to shut down some wellfields. We had to move our
production to the north plant. We had to put our emergency power.
Expectation was that we would lose the power. All the contingency
worst-case scenario planning did work.
I want to thank my 400-plus strong team members, 24/7 on
overtime; great team effort.
And we thank you for your support and County Manager, Deputy
County Manager, we thank you for your leadership.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, George.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There was a gentleman that sat down.
MR. OCHS: Come on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, come on. Dr. George, you need
to come and shake our hand. I would be honored if you did that.
MR. GATES: Ross Gates, IT.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: IT. Oh, my goodness. One of the
6,024 responders.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it's an honor to work with these
men and women. They do an outstanding job day in and day out in
their regular job, and they are always, always there and stepping up
whenever they're for under these types of emergency conditions.
Page 35
March 14, 2017
And, finally, I'd like to thank Dan Summers who, for my money,
is the best Emergency Management Director in the country, bar none.
Commissioners, we're moving on -- excuse me, to Item 6, public
petitions.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION FROM MR. CHRISTOPHER FLINT
REGARDING YARD WASTE PICKUP FOR LARGER LAND
OWNERS — PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Item 6A was an item that was continued from your
February 14th, 2017, meeting agenda. This is a public petition request
for Mr. Christopher Flint regarding yard waste pickup for larger
landowners.
MR. FLINT: Good morning, Commissioners. That's a hard act to
follow.
But I wanted to take your time this morning. I'm a new Florida
resident. My wife and I moved into a residence at 6090 Cedar Tree
Lane last summer. And we live there with our daughter who is 23
months old and my mother who I take care of who's a mental-health
patient, a widow, and has been battling cancer.
Anyway, we made a seven-figure investment in this home. It was
built originally about six years ago by a local Naples business owner,
custom builder, who built it for himself We had some concerns with
the area, to be honest with you, before purchasing it because of some
of the lack of maintenance of some of the neighbors and just the
general area, but we went ahead and purchased it.
Our property is 2.7 acres in size. To put things in perspective, the
entire property being professionally landscaped, the hedges just around
the perimeter of the property, according to the surveyor are 1,680 feet,
Page 36
March 14, 2017
just on the perimeter, let alone on the interior, which is at least half that
in length if not more. There's over 200 trees on the property.
Anyway, everywhere I've ever lived, which is in multiple states,
I've always taken care of my own yard. And upon reaching out to the
county when we first moved here, I was basically shocked to hear that
the only yard waste that the county is allowing is 10 small 45-gallon
barrels. They told me it was a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire
county regardless of the size of your lot.
I talked to multiple people, multiple employees of the county,
including the supervisor of, I guess, the Public Utilities Division. He
was a nice gentleman, but he basically told me he wouldn't do anything
about it. He told me that if I had more waste to take it to the dump.
Let me be honest with you, when there's any sort of windstorm or
any weather event, including like what we saw last night with heavy
rain, I could fill 20 barrels quite easily with just palm fronds. You
know, there are so many palm trees.
Residents in my particular area, they really have a couple choices
how to deal with this and, unfortunately, a lot of them make, you
know, not some good decisions. Number one, they completely ignore
the maintenance on their property or do next to nothing, which is very
common.
Another group of them, they've cut down a tremendous amount of
trees on the properties. So, you know, there's large grass fields that
they just mow and mulch it real easily. You know, some, who are
more on the wealthy side, hire a gardener which, obviously, due to the
size of the property is, you know, is 7-, 800, if not more, a month just
to maintain the property and then, obviously, the gardener hauls away
the waste.
One thing that is concerning that I've seen more often than not is
residents creating these gigantic composting piles, some of which I've
seen are over in -- over 20 feet in height. I've seen that multiple places,
Page 37
March 14, 2017
and that creates all sorts of problems. Number one, it's unsightly;
number two, it's tremendously dangerous with children. Again, I have
small children. I have another one on the way here in September, and I
wouldn't want my child playing anywhere close to one of those giant
piles. It obviously attracts rodents, snakes, and, going along with what
we just heard, it's a tremendous fire hazard. That stuff dries up, and it
could light up in a second. And as I've mentioned, I've seen multiple,
multiple, multiple residents creating these piles.
I personally don't have a vehicle that's capable of adding a tow
hitch so I can go buy a trailer and haul this stuff to the dump. In
December I was so far behind on the yardwork I created these piles in
my yard, and I had trouble finding anybody who would haul it away. I
went through 10 vendors, two of which walked away from me when
we started the job. I finally got somebody to do one of the piles for
$600, which I think is crazy, but I had no choice.
The last two places I've listed, which is suburban Atlanta and
suburban Los Angeles, Waste Management has been the trash vendor.
In both places they took yard waste in larger barrels, significantly
larger barrels, well over 100 gallons. You could order as many as you
wanted, and they would pick it up with a mechanical arm. It wasn't
done by humans.
With these smaller little barrels, you've got to, you know, be
Edward Scissorhands and cut this stuff up so small it takes, you know,
twice or three times as long as it should. And we've been, quite
frankly, frustrated. We can't maintain this property like we'd like.
And so I've talked to many people in the area. Many of them feel
the same way. They feel like, you know, some of them maybe don't
have the initiative to go in front of a Board of County Commissioners
like this. But, obviously, the more options they have to better maintain
their property, the more the people will maintain their property. These
are large properties that take a lot of work, and I think most people
Page 38
March 14, 2017
don't expect that this is all just part of the costs that they already pay.
They're willing to pay more. I certainly am.
So I just wanted to petition the county and the commissioners to
address this issue and to make some adjustments, particularly
whenever the contract is up for renewal with Waste Management. I
know that the better that we, you know, obviously maintain our
properties, the higher the property values and, of course, the higher
property tax revenue is.
So I would ask you guys to help. I'm certainly not the only
resident in the area that has a frustration with this, so I'd appreciate
your attention to that matter.
Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, where did you say you lived?
MR. FLINT: I live on a street called Cedar Tree Lane, which is
about four or five lots in from I-75. It's in kind of a quadrant of Pine
Ridge on the north, Golden Gate on the south, Santa Barbara to the
east, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: County Manager, when does
our contract come up again? I don't know that we can really have any
discussions with regard to this until our contract renewal.
MR. OCHS: You can always amend the contract, sir, before it
expires, but I'll ask Dr. Yilmaz to answer that question directly.
Doctor?
DR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, we have -- for the record, Dr.
George Yilmaz.
For the record, we have contract that has seven years. We have
five years left, renewable seven more years subject to terms and
Page 39
March 14, 2017
conditions of when we negotiate.
I hope I answered your question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You did. Thank you.
DR. YILMAZ: And with your indulgence, I have some statistics
to share with you at the discretion of our County Manager.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's fine. Yes, the more information
we have the better. Thank you.
DR. YILMAZ: Very good.
Commissioners, as we speak today we are collecting 32,000
municipal solid waste, recyclables, yard waste. That's the magnitude
of our collection system; 32,000 collections a day. We're touching
32,000 homes. That's equivalent to 28 million collections a year, and
that's 250 collections per home. We have two garbage collection, one
recyclables, yard waste and, as needed, we also collect bulk items
including white goods.
Now, as far as the yard waste collection, we truly empathize with
our customer here. I think our customer is presenting to you an
exception, not the rule.
We have a 98 percent, given all the surveys, customer satisfaction
on all commodity area collections, and I think that my management
team provided this customer three options, one of which I have been
exercising myself, and that is contract with landscape company
maintenance who will take care of the turnkey yard maintenance.
So instead of trying to lower their costs and eliminate their
disposal portion of the cost, lawn maintenance companies sometimes
do give discretion to landowners: If you don't want to pay the tipping
fee, leave it on the curb yard. Waste Management is going to pick it
up.
Waste Management picks up every week 10 bundles. That has
been working very well countywide serving all our customers and,
also, our special assessment per year for all the service, among others,
Page 40
March 14, 2017
is about $193.13. Commissioners, $193.13 for all that service our
customer is getting.
Now, the customers outside of our general rules of engagement
would have the option to either haul it themselves or have their
landscape contractors, most of which obligated to take all the waste.
They service, they manage, haul, and charge the customer full cost, not
just maintenance; someone else will take care of the disposal.
The second option is, of course, the yard waste maintenance
company doesn't have to come to our yard waste facilities at the
landfill. We have private yard waste, mulching, composting facilities.
One of them is Yaul Mulching, and they do accept landscape
companies providing that kind of waste routing.
And with those options, I just want to paint the picture for our
board in terms of service level, magnitude, and how affordable our
service is. And we do have options for boutique collections but, like
anything else, anything above board-set standards of service needs
additional fee, and that's the tipping fee.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know who was first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering if there
was some type of arrangement that this gentleman could work out with
Waste Management where they could haul in a truck with the forklifts
or whatever it is, and bring that on.
MR. FLINT: If I may. To me a real simple solution to the
problem -- there's two options. Is for them to offer a supplemental
service to pick up a second time a week or to just allow 20 barrels.
That would solve my problem like that.
And what I've been told by -- I forget his name, but he has an
English accent. He's supposedly the head of the public utility division,
Page 41
March 14, 2017
the manager. I don't know his name; I forget it. He told me that he
went to his superiors, and they said that was not an option because of
the contract, and they were unable to amend it.
So -- but I'm just -- that's a very simple solution that would make
a lot of people in the larger lot areas happy, solve the problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I would -- Mr. Flint, I full
well understand your pain. You are here a year and a half to a
subtropical environment where shrubs and bushes grow in enormous
amounts.
I live on 10 acres that I keep and take care of myself. So it is a
daunting task. It is a daunting task.
I think at this particular stage -- I have heard other folks, residents
of our community talk about sometimes the size, the timing of the
pickups and that sort of thing, and I think that -- I think as a short
answer -- I'm really not interested in -- because any time you go out
and amend an existing contract, you open up Pandora's box for
renegotiation on a lot of other things that really are not things that we
want to look at at this stage of the game.
But I would recommend that you look into the boutique process
for now to get the additional yard waste that's picked up and that we
make reference to this when our new contract -- or when the contract
comes up for renewal to see if we can equitably expand the collection
operations.
I think our new recycling -- we just approved the construction of a
new yard waste recycling facility over there on the backside of where
the landfill is, in fact, now, and that might be something that we can
look into at that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My question was, can he just
arrange with Waste Management to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
Page 42
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, on his own and pay
extra to get that done, you know, not touching our agreement or
anything with Waste Management, but is there anything he can do
other than, as he was saying, go to private enterprise?
DR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, that can be arranged, and Waste
Management has a supplementary and emergency or subregional
emergency response fleet available, and they are part of our debris
mission in smaller scale. They do have trucks that the gentleman
mentioned, but it will be extra cost, not just tipping fee, but collection.
Service is available. It's all about the cost. And bottom line is we have
a uniform customer level of service and boutique arrangements set up
to the point that accommodate nonroutine but at a cost.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. There's an answer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
Item #9B
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT
WOULD INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS ON COMMISSIONERS
WHEREBY AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR
ELECTION AS A COMMISSIONER FOR MORE THAN THREE
CONSECUTIVE FOUR-YEAR TERMS - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us -- excuse me -- to the
item that was moved under 9B; it was previously 17B on your agenda.
This is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance that would institute
term limits on commissioners, and Chairman Taylor brought this
Page 43
March 14, 2017
forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. I brought it forward because I
wanted to see if there was any change in sentiment here.
I really strongly believe that the people are in control here, not an
ordinance. And if a commissioner doesn't do a good job, that
commissioner will not get reelected. Especially in the light of my
colleague's honor on the floor of the Congress this week, it just
occurred to record me again, you wouldn't have that honor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- if you hadn't served as long as you
did. And serving as long as you did didn't mean the people ignored it.
The people were happy, and that's why they reelected you again and
again. And you've had some -- excuse me -- you've had some tough
fights, some tough reelections. So there's no doubt to me that you've
earned it. Excuse me. I'm going to stop right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I'll just jump in for a
minute and say I had so many of my constituents anyway suggest to
me that I should never have voted for that. They said, it took you a
few years, you know, to find out all of the things that we need to fix
and then to find the people to fix it.
And when you first start this job the first couple years, no matter
what anybody says, except maybe Burt Saunders because he's been
around so long, but you really don't know what you're doing. You
think you do, and you do the darndest best you can, but you're losing --
using and gaining something every meeting; you learn something new.
And I think -- my organization and I -- I hate to ever say just me.
You know, that sounds so awful, "I, I, I." But, you know, working
together with my community, we've been able to finally make some
changes, some nice changes in our community that desperately needed
that change. But I could have never done it early on. I needed the time
to figure out how to do it to get the people to work with me and make
Page 44
March 14, 2017
those changes. So I kind of agree with you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any particularly
strong feelings one way or the other. As was pointed out at the last
meeting when this first came up, it's an ordinance that can be repealed
by a simple majority vote of the commission. So it becomes a question
of, you know, is this even really enforceable.
I want to defer to Commissioner McDaniel because this was
something that Commissioner McDaniel campaigned on, and it was
important to him, and I want to support, you know, that effort. But I
don't have any strong feelings one way or the other in terms of-- you
know, 12 years is a long time to serve on the commission.
And maybe one alternative, Commissioner McDaniel, is to
submit something like this as a ballot question in 2018 as to whether or
not -- or at some countywide election, as to whether or not the citizens
would want this, but that's just a suggestion, but I don't have any strong
feelings one way or the other on this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I do. Obviously, it was
top line on my campaign as I came through on the initiatives that I was
asked to pursue as I was coming along.
I certainly concur with Commissioner Taylor with regard to your
honors and so on and so forth. And yes, no, maybe you wouldn't have
gotten this if this had been in existence or not, as the case may be.
There may have been an accelerant in place to honor you during the
term limits that we, in fact, had.
I would -- again, Commissioner Saunders said it, you know, it's a
simple majority vote to change it. I will bring forward a referendum
vote in '18 election cycle just to ensure that there is popular sentiment
out here for this and to help solidify it along the way. But I would
prefer that we -- that we pursue along what has been suggested with
this ordinance, so...
Page 45
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Doing some high-level
mathematics, it appears that there may be a two-to-two vote on your
proposal. And so I think we should have a full board.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a bit of an issue with,
you know -- and, again, it's just semantics here and it's -- again, me
being new -- is we don't have a full board membership here to be taken
-- pulling something off the consent agenda that was voted by 4-1 in
our last meeting. There's no change in the language whatsoever with
regard to -- with regard to this. And I don't know, I mean, is there
going to be a motion for this to fail, for this to be denied?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it's up here to vote on, so there's
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. A two-to-two vote
would be no action.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which means it would pass?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it would fail.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, it would be no action if--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it would fail.
MR. KLATZKOW: It would fail.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It would fail.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the curious thing about your
reconsideration ordinance is only a member in the majority can bring it
back, which means an absentee member can't bring it back.
So if-- you either vote on it today, and whatever the vote is, the
vote is, or if you want to continue it for a full board, you continue it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make the motion
to continue it. That may fail as well, but...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll support that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So will I. I mean, there again,
certainly I'm not objection -- I have no objection to the discussion and
Page 46
March 14, 2017
the entire process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who knows, you may be serving 15
to 18 years.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be to continue it to
the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. That's fine. Okay. So we have a
motion to continue. Do I have a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You second it, okay.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Item #10A
DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) TO CONSIDER THE LEVEL OF
SUPPORT FOR ACQUIRING UTILITY SERVICES PROVIDED
BY THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENTAL UTILITY AUTHORITY
(FGUA) PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
WITHIN THE GOLDEN GATE SERVICE AREA - MOTION FOR
STAFF TO COME BACK IN 120 DAYS WITH ANALYSIS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS/OPTIONS — APPROVED
Page 47
March 14, 2017
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, that takes us to Item
10A. This is a discussion with the board to consider the level of
support for acquiring utility services provided by the Florida
Government Utility Authority, and Commissioner Saunders brought
this forward.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair and
Commissioners, I think the executive summary fully lays out in some
detail the rationale for considering the acquisition of the FGUA
facilities in the Golden Gate City area.
I spent quite a bit of time with Dr. Yilmaz discussing the pros and
cons of this. Dr. Yilmaz was kind enough to send to me the interlocal
agreement between Collier County and the FGUA that sets out the
process for Collier County Water and Sewer District to take over that
system if it's the will of the governing board, which is us, to do so.
And that interlocal agreement's very simple. It simply says that
the takeover of that system is basically the county would assume the
debt and any obligations that are currently outstanding in the terms of
the day-to-day operations of the facility. So there's really no evaluation
of value or anything of that nature.
The rationale for taking this over is that you have literally
thousands of septic tanks and wells that are in very close proximity to
each other. Many of those septic tanks are aging, and over the next
five, 10 years you can certainly expect to see a significant number of
failures of those systems, and there are already failures of those
systems there.
There's some evidence that there is some pollution getting into
Naples Bay through the canal system from those failing septic systems,
and so I think that there really is a potential health issue that needs to
be addressed there.
But, also importantly, the rates charged by the FGUA are
substantially higher than the Collier County Water/Sewer District rates
Page 48
March 14, 2017
for water and sewer, and so most people don't hook up. There's no
requirement for them to hook up to water or sewer, and so you have
very little -- a very few number of people that have actually hooked up.
I've had some meetings with folks in that area that have tried to
get water service, because they know that they need good quality
drinking water, without success. I think for the long-term future of that
community but also for the long-term benefit of Collier County as a
whole, we need to take over that system, get people off septic systems
and onto county sewer as well as county water.
The request is to direct staff to meet with the FGUA folks to take
a look at the system and come back with a recommendation as to
whether or not the county should take that over.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think it's a great idea, as a
matter of fact. How do the people in the community feel?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, that's an interesting
question. I was at a Golden Gate Civic Association meeting last night
to discuss this. And there weren't a whole lot of people there, but I
think the overwhelming consensus was they really would like to see
the county take this over.
I've gotten emails from people that are hooked up to the FGUA
water system, and their rates are very high. This would help those
folks. I've gotten emails from people that have wanted to hook up that
haven't been able to, and this would help facilitate that.
So I think the general consensus is -- and, of course, I've not done
any polling, but I think the general consensus is this is something that's
necessary for the long-term future of that community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And with the remarkable
praises we've received in our water company and the best tasting water
in the state of Florida, second in the country, I can't blame them for
Page 49
March 14, 2017
wanting to be part of that. Is there a cost for hookup or anything, or
haven't you gone that far yet?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well -- and Dr. Yilmaz,
perhaps, could elaborate on that. I think that the process that we would
ultimately use would be to try to hook up people to the county water
system first, because that's relatively inexpensive, and that cost can be
spread out. And in the terms of getting them off septic systems, that's
a more extensive process, and we would have to develop a financing
program for that. You know, set up a district and, perhaps, have
assessments over a 10-year or 20-year period to cover the cost of the
hookups.
So there's a way to do it. It's nothing unique about it. And Dr.
Yilmaz and I have had quite a few conversations about how we could
make that happen. So there may be some direct questions for Dr.
Yilmaz on that. But there is a cost, and it would have to be spread out.
But I'll tell you, there's also a cost if the septic system fails and
someone's required to fix their septic system. That's a very expensive
adventure, as well as if the water system is failing or a well fails.
That's also expensive.
So I think in the long run it would be a lot cheaper for those
property owners to be hooked up to city water and sewer. I think that
would enhance property values. I think that would -- but, more
importantly, it would eliminate some potential health threats.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree with you. I don't think there's
any -- oh, excuse me. Commissioner McDaniel, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Continue on, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't think there's any question the
health and safety issue here, but it's my understanding there's
significant debt with this authority, this FGUA, that the government,
Collier County Government or the Utility Department would have to
assume.
Page 50
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the idea that the folks that are going
to get hooked up are going to get lower rates is probably not accurate
because chances are they're going to have to shoulder that debt. I'm
not sure we can ask the taxpayers in Collier County to shoulder that
debt.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that would be part of the
report that would have to come back as to what was -- what's involved.
I don't know what the debt is, the total dollar value of that debt. Dr.
Yilmaz, I don't know if you know that answer.
But regardless of that, there are about 24,000 people living in
Golden Gate City. There's some estimates that it's probably
substantially higher than 24,000, and to me it's a ticking time bomb in
terms of all of those septic tanks.
And so maybe there will be a slight burden on the general rate
payers of the Collier County Water/Sewer District, but there is a
substantial public benefit, countywide benefit to taking over these
types of systems.
As I mentioned, there is pollution that's getting into the canal
system and into Naples Bay. That's a problem. There is potential
pollution to drinking water system, wells. And so we have to take a
look at what that cost is, obviously, and it has to be factored in, but I
don't think it would be substantial when you take a look at the overall
county operations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Does the Newman -- the high school
there, are they on septic, and the two public schools, one is a high
school and one is a public school.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd be very surprised if they
were on septic, but I don't know the answer to that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Dr. George, do you know the answer to
that?
Page 51
March 14, 2017
MR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, not at this time; however, I think,
as I understand the recommendation, recommendation is staff to look
into feasibility assessment which will include financial assessment,
technical assessment, administrative assessment, and financial
portfolio so that we can bring all the information and the knowledge
base before this board with the options laid out, including
tangible/intangible benefits for informed decision making.
And I think that as long as we have a collective and mutual
understanding on our leadership side that the feasibility assessment at a
minimum will include financial technical administrative assessment,
and we'll bring those for -- in form of decision making or further
review by this board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I might ask
Dr. Yilmaz one question. About how much time do you need to do
that evaluation?
MR. YILMAZ: This is one of those tasks -- my answer is going
to depend on how the Board feels how fast we've got to move given
the resources. We're tackling Orangetree Utility. That doesn't mean no
excuses. We can do it as fast as we need to.
However, I think in this case it's important but not urgent. So I
would suggest no less than eight months all the way to 12 months we
might be able to provide initial report to our County Manager, and then
our County Manager's Office could manage the agenda before you. So
we're looking at eight months to 12 months.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The question isn't how long it
would take for the county to acquire the system.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The question is, how long
would it take you to do an evaluation and come back with some
recommendations? I would think that eight months would be a fairly
Page 52
March 14, 2017
excessive amount of time to just do that type of an evaluation.
DR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, what you are thinking, if you
don't mind?
MR. OCHS: Ninety days, George?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's why I was asking.
I don't want to push you, but certainly 90 days --
DR. YILMAZ: County Manager, we work for you, so you call
any days, we'll make it happen.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, I think 90 days would
probably give you enough time. I do have to caution, though, you've
got another on this agenda that we need to talk about and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My light is on.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. These utility systems are starting to stack up
like, you know, airplanes waiting to land at O'Hare, so we just need a
sense of some prioritization from the Board, again, depending upon
what you want to do with this item that we're going to discuss shortly
on the Everglades City Utility.
But, Commissioners, we could certainly shoot for 90 days if that's
acceptable to Commissioner Saunders and the rest of the Board. And
if we need more time, we'll certainly come back to you and explain
why.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't I suggest that we
just say 120 days, and if you need more time at the end of that 120
days -- this is not something that has to be done overnight. We've had
a system out there for many, many years, and this is going to take
some time. I just don't want to sit back for eight months or 12 months
MR. OCHS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: --just to get a report back. So
the request would be for staff to come back with some analysis and
some recommendations within 120 days, and then we could consider
Page 53
March 14, 2017
whether to move forward with it.
DR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, doable.
And thank you, County Manager.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second the motion if that's,
in fact, what it was, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that will take us to the middle of
the summer, so it's middle of the summer or later in the summer, but
that's where it is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think, you know -- and there
was discussion, as our County Manager brought up, there is another
utility that's in dire need of some attention as well and, as Dr. Yilmaz
said, you know, it's our ranking and priority-wise in regards to the
health, safety, welfare issues and extremities of repair and maintenance
and things that are required.
In one of the discussions that I had with our staff yesterday,
actually, was some protection for our utility customers, the existent
utility customers already, and the segregation. Because as it's set right
now, everything's lumped into one. When we bring one in, there's --
everybody shares an equivalent burden of those exposures.
And we had a discussion about potentially having an opportunity
to allow for assumptions of utilities, such as what Commissioner
Saunders has brought up, but not burden the balance of the taxpayer --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: System.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and the system along the
way. It's got to be discussed with our legal counsel and get through the
processes, but that's one of the propositions that I suggested yesterday.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So...
MR. OCHS: So we have the direction. Thank you very much.
We're good to go.
Page 54
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There was a motion and
second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If it hasn't been, seconded (sic).
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And a second. All those in favor of the
motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for your
consideration.
Item #1 1 D
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO SERVE AS A
TEMPORARY RECEIVER FOR THE EVERGLADES CITY
UTILITIES SYSTEM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, before we go to the court reporter
break, while we have Dr. Yilmaz here, maybe we could take 11D
quickly and then take our court reporter break.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe an extra five minutes.
MR. OCHS: Yes. This shouldn't be very lengthy, frankly. It's a
recommendation to consider a request from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for Collier County to serve as temporary
receiver for the Everglades City utility system.
Page 55
March 14, 2017
Dr. Yilmaz will make a very brief presentation on the
background.
DR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners, again.
And the recommendations are very well shaped and listed in your
executive summary. And there are four recommendations. I can read
them for record, or executive summary lays out very well what those
recommendations are. And our staff recommendation is Board to
consider approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well-deserved break.
MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: State the time; 10:42.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
Item #1 1 A
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE "2017 INDEXING
Page 56
March 14, 2017
CALCULATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION, SCHOOLS,
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEES", PREPARED BY TINDALE-OLIVER AND
ASSOCIATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
INDEXING METHODOLOGY, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AMENDING
THE PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE, THE SCHOOL IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE, AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE
DATE OF JULY 10, 2017 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DAY
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION
163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're moving to Item 11A. This is a
recommendation to accept the 2017 indexing calculations for parks and
recreation, schools, correctional facilities, and transportation impact
fees and to authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney to
advertise for a future board consideration an ordinance amending your
impact fee ordinance to establish new rates and schedules.
Ms. Amy Patterson, your Project Planning and Impact Fee
Program Management Director, will present.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the
record. We -- actually we have two items in front of you: Item 11A
and 11B, and we're essentially looking at 10 different impact fees for
different reasons. The first group is part of our annual indexing in the
Page 57
March 14, 2017
years between the formal studies. We've had a process in place since
2002 to look at the cost adjustments in the midyears, and that process
has evolved from basically a simple CPI adjustment back in the early
years to a pretty complicated analysis in the years of the boom time.
And during the downturn the Board gave some direction to readjust
these indexing methodologies to be more sensitive to cost fluctuations,
and that worked well during the downturn and now is working equally
well in the upturn, if you want to use the word "well," because this
methodology is very sensitive to changes in cost, specifically land cost.
You'll see that the regional parks impact fee is the most affected by this
indexing at about 10.6 percent adjustment.
I have Steve Tindale here from Tindale Oliver who would be
pleased to answer questions. If you'd like us to take you through a
brief presentation, or if you want to go straight to questions on the
indexing, then my suggestion would be we go to the public utilities
impact fee directly after that, and we can move on from there.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What is the pleasure of the Board?
Commissioner McDaniel, I did send you a one-way communication to
say I know you've been clearly not supportive of impact fees. I
thought I'd give you a significant amount of time to explain your
position and to talk about it, but we could hear the presentation of staff
first or --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. That'd be fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I would like to hear a
presentation as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Amy, before Steve begins, just, again, for the
benefit of the public and the new commissioners, explain the
requirements in the impact ordinance for both indexing and updates.
Page 58
March 14, 2017
MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. The impact fees are updated
every three years unless the Board takes action to not do that, and in
the midyears between those formal updates -- and the formal updates --
let me step back for a second and say that the formal updates look at
the entire gamut of the impact fee. It's cost, it's credits, changes in
demand, everything that goes into making up that impact fee. So that's
the full study.
In the midyear we do what we call an indexing calculation. All it
does is look at changes in cost in a very prescribed way. So you have
four of your impact fees right now that we're looking at that are being
indexed, and then we have an additional six impact fees that we're
looking at that are in -- that were in full study.
We're required to do these things. Whether the Board chooses to
adopt those changes is a different conversation, which we'll get into as
we go along. But we, as staff, are required by our ordinance to bring
forward these for the Board's consideration.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Good morning. I'm Steve Tindale with Tindale,
Oliver & Associates. Nilgun Kamp is my Director of Finance and
does eight different public facilities, and she's in Seattle with her kids
during spring break, so I'm here kind of sitting in. Usually it's her and
I both presenting. I'll try to be very brief and give you a little bit of
history about the indexing, and you'll see that mine is a little bit bigger
picture than maybe what she would go into some of the details, but
hopefully it's going to be useful to you.
The idea of the impact fees -- and we've been doing fees since
1980, and the idea of indexing came about is every five, six, seven
years some fees would go up 20 or 30. And to be honest with you, the
development community come and said, you've got to stop this. We
can't -- we can't go out and get financing with fees that go up 30, 40,
50 percent.
Page 59
March 14, 2017
So how about indexing these in a reasonable fashion,
conservatively, trying not to overestimate it, but at least bring the fees
up to where when you do a major update, there's not a big fluctuation.
So it's basically to reduce that fluctuation in the three- to five-year
updates.
They're very reliable during steady state times. I can tell you the
last decade -- and I've been doing this for almost 50 years. The last
decade has been a really interesting decade, and indexing has been a
little bit more, I guess, volatile in terms of seeing the upswing and the
crashes and those things.
But, to be honest with you, I think the next 30 years will be
nothing like the last decade. I think we're going to hit a steady state,
and we're headed back towards with the indexing will be much better
and more stable than historically.
We use a two-year average to where we don't jerk the numbers up
and down trying to moderate any changes and being reasonable with
the indexes.
I just want to show you -- and we have 40 years of data on 67
counties. This is your just value in Collier County. You're number
one in income in the whole state, including Palm Beach County, and
you're number one in just value per person.
You've got an unbelievable community. I work all over the state.
You have the highest --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What does "just value" mean?
MR. TINDALE: That's the value of the property that the
Property Appraiser has appraised. There's a taxable value which has
the deductions for homestead exemption. This is the just value, the
change in the value of homes and buildings and property in the county.
And you can see from 1990 to 2016 that we've had an
unbelievable time period. I've never seen this type of a curve before.
Do you see the hump? I don't know if some of you remember '08, '09,
Page 60
March 14, 2017
and '10 when we were all just depressed. Is it ever going to stop? And
it bottomed out in 2011, it did stop, and this county's starting back up,
and you're starting back up, and you're moving a little faster than most
counties in terms of your transition upward. You're outpacing most
counties.
You're ninth in permitting right now, and you're probably first in
changing your just values. So your recovery's been substantial
compared to the other 67 counties.
But indexing for the 30 years before this, those numbers changed
3 to 7 percent. Cost changed 3 to 7 percent, and indexing made a lot of
sense. During this time period we had to be very careful. Prices were
going up. One thing about indexing, indexing, the indexes don't
change like real costs. So when the prices were going up 15 or 20
percent, the index was only going up 3 or 4 percent.
So one thing we did find about indexing, even during this silly
time period where prices were going up and prices were coming down,
the indexing were pretty consistent. We use a combination, national,
local, and then some of your local data.
So -- but I just wanted to highlight what we've been through. I
can tell you in 2003, '4, and '5, I was in front of commissioners in all
the state saying I don't know what's going on. I've never seen this
before. People were paying for homes that they couldn't afford, prices
were going up, and we wouldn't figure out -- wages weren't changing,
but things were going crazy. And '8, '9, and '10, I don't think I've even
been so depressed and been in front of so many depressed people with
the crash that we were going through.
So I just wanted to highlight that the last decade has been
different for indexing. It's been very stable. It moderates at -- it didn't
go -- their indexes didn't do this (indicating). They're much more flat,
and they are useful for making sure that you don't have major jumps in
fees and numbers for the development community when you do major
Page 61
March 14, 2017
updates. So that's the background.
And I'll show some of this again when we do the other four fees,
because some of the other four fees in the other calculation have
changed somewhat.
But, again, we've got data on this county. I'd like -- again, I'll just
comment. I've been working for you since 1989. I've never seen a
county with as nice as roads, parks, schools, and you've got an
economy that whips everybody. You need to be very proud of it in
terms of what -- and what happens is that the value you have is also
sitting there in a very nice position.
You do have some issues with some things, and we can go over
that some other time in terms of your economic goals, but you're a
phenomenal county in terms of my work, and I'm working in about 30
counties right now.
The reason -- the indexing calculations, the community and
regional parks, schools, correctional facilities, and transportation, and
I'll tell you right now, parks are your biggest land-based asset, and
your land is what's changed the most. So you're going to see a number
for land that's different than everybody else, and there's an absolute
reason.
I usually try to figure out what it's going to look like before
Nilgun goes through the calculations, and I'm pretty good at knowing
where it's going to end up and, if it's not, I ask a hundred times why
isn't it where we think it should be. And I can tell you your parks
index you're going to see is pretty dramatic, but there's a reason for
that.
You've had some unbelievable changes in the values of your
property in this county, and you benefit from that dramatically in terms
of your tax revenues.
The land and right-of-way, we take both from right-of-way
purchases, going through that. Transportation, we use a construction
Page 62
March 14, 2017
cost index. We have every construction bid in the state of Florida.
We've been tracking them for 30 years in all seven districts, and we
have a graph, and it looks something like that little bubble you've seen
with transportation.
Building, we do the same thing. We have every school that's ever
been built in the last 30 years, every one of the different resources we
have. So we have an unbelievable record of tracking these (sic)
information. And, again, we use -- for the equipment, we use the CPI
and the PPI for the equipment. It's usually not a very dramatic index at
all.
Surprise, surprise. Buildings, 2.6; equipment, 2.2; the roadway
construction's .7. I can tell you I don't think that's going to last very
long. We're seeing hotspots, and for some reason we're not seeing
them quite here, the transportation cost, because of just availability of
labor and some of the prices where transportation, down the line,
you're going to see some number changing, but you can see land here
in this county is a big number in terms of the index changes. And you
have had -- I think your tax base probably changed 6, 7 percent in the
last --
MR. OCHS: Ten percent --
MR. TINDALE: Ten percent.
MR. OCHS: -- this year taxable value increase.
MR. TINDALE: And I can tell you the DEO's telling you you're
going to change 10 percent again for the next two or three years, and
their recommendations, I don't believe it, you're about to level back
out. We've got a 40-year trend line, and that index is going to go back
up.
You're still below a long-term trend line. Your property values are
still depressed compared to a trend line, and you're going to see 6, 8,
10 percent for another year or two, and it's going to level off. If it
doesn't, I'm going to say we're back into where we were during a time
Page 63
March 14, 2017
period when people were getting money they should never have ever
been loaned.
But that's an interesting thing for you to go through is I think
you're going to have another year or two of 8 or 10 percent, which is
really nice. It's much better than a 10 or 15 percent drop.
So the whole atmosphere we're working here now is a little bit
more about it's coming back up, your permitting's up, your ninth in the
whole state, and I think it's going to level off, and you're not going to
go through another sequence. But that's the driving force on the
indexing right now is what you've achieved, which is that land value
and that property value you've created, which is an economic engine
for you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask a quick question, just
while you have that graph up, because that was part of our executive
summary here, and I just wanted to question, when I was reading
through this, it talked about the calculation for roadway construction.
You utilized DOT's District 7 as the metrics for calculation, and aren't
we in District 1 with regard to DOT? And I was wondering why we
went to a different --
MR. TINDALE: You are in 1. If we used 7, I don't think that's
correct, so I'd have to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It says 7, and I actually made a
note on it when I was reading it over the weekend.
MR. TINDALE: We're working in all seven districts, and my
guess is that's a typo.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. Okay.
MR. TINDALE: We'll have somebody -- because Nilg_n's not
here, so usually we have somebody taking notes. We'll check that for
you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No worries. I just -- I found
that curious.
Page 64
March 14, 2017
MR. TINDALE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if you're all right, I think as
questions come to our mind, I think we should, if it's all right with you,
interrupt and ask you those questions at the time.
MR. TINDALE: I'm sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's a lot easier than trying to
save -- this is not an easy read.
MR. TINDALE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is stuff that we need to understand
as it goes along.
MR. TINDALE: I've been told at times I'm hard to understand
with some of the things I say, so hopefully I'll be clear with it.
So those are the indexes themself(sic) in terms of the
conclusions. You can see that the applicable index, what's happening
is the regional parks are more land based in terms of asset per land, and
the community parks are more -- you know, have more activities
involved in them, but that's the -- basically the -- because you have a
community park fee and a regional park fee, and those are the final
numbers.
So that's the conclusion for the indexing. I think -- again, my
feeling is -- I know some -- I have some differences than some of the
development community. Most of the development community really
likes the idea of not having to fight fees every four or five years with
20 or 30, 40, 50 percent changes. These indexes are moderate. We're
always very careful with them. You always have the right every year
to not do it for whatever reason, which is your choice, but it gives you
this feeling of comfort that there's no big surprise, and you're not going
to fall behind in financing such a nice asset that you've created in this
county.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
Page 65
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Great.
MR. TINDALE: That's the indexing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, ma'am.
MS. PATTERSON: At your pleasure we can -- this is 11A, Item
11A.
MR. OCHS: Let's take a motion, if we can, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I'm --
MR. OCHS: And, again, the recommendation's to authorize the
County Manager and the County Attorney to advertise this ordinance
for a future hearing in front of this board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Before we do that,
Commissioner McDaniel. Because at the last meeting you were
starting to talk about impact fees, and I said, nope, next meeting, and
this is the next meeting, so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, it is; yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- would you like to speak to this?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just briefly. First off, I'll make
the motion to authorize staff to go forward with the advertising
process, and then when we go to discussion I can say my bit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I'll second, and that's
why my light is lit. You can turn that off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To second? Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't mean to get ahead of
you there, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just wanted to express I don't
have an issue with impact fees at large. There's certainly no argument
that growth needs to pay for growth, but I do feel that the methodology
as to how we're charging impact fees can be adjusted.
Page 66
March 14, 2017
And I have been working with staff to bring forward an initiative
to adjust how we're managing our impact fee structure. And so I
believe probably within 60 days we'll be able to come forward with an
idea that I've proposed to allow us to continue to manage the growth
that is inevitable for our community -- you've heard me speak about
that on a regular basis -- and still be able to conduct our business.
One of the deficits that travels along -- and as Mr. Tindale spoke
about, we have built a magnificent community, but one of the deficits
that travels along with our impact fee structure is they are
predominantly a one-time statutorily regulated tax and imposition on
the first person in that is conducting business or building a facility in
our community, and we are relegated as to how, where, when, and
what we spend these funds on.
So I think careful consideration as we're going forward with the
increases that are associated with impact fees and, in fact, how we're
doing business is what I'm looking to -- what I would like for us to
have a discussion about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. All right. Well,
there's a motion on the floor and a second to instruct the -- to, yeah,
instruct the County Manager to advertise these indexed impact fees as
so depicted in Item No. 11A.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Page 67
March 14, 2017
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS
THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF FIVE IMPACT FEE STUDIES; AMENDING
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE RATE
SCHEDULE, THE LIBRARY IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE, AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 17, 2017 FOR ALL RATE
CATEGORIES THAT ARE DECREASING AND A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 10, 2017 FOR ALL RATE
CATEGORIES THAT ARE INCREASING, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL OF THE SUNSET LANGUAGE
FOR THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR EXISTING
COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11B. Ms. Patterson can take
you through the impact fee updates. And, again, Commissioners, this
staff recommendation is to consider these rate adjustments and
authorize the County Manager and the County Attorney to advertise
the ordinance for a future board meeting and deliberation.
Page 68
March 14, 2017
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson again, for
the record.
Now we're moving on to the full studies. And at your pleasure
we'd like to start with the water and wastewater impact fees.
This is a full study and different than the others. This one -- all of
our impact fee studies as well as the indexing are reviewed by our
Development Services Advisory Committee. And this study and the
associated rates received the endorsement of the Development Services
Advisory Committee both on the methodology as well as the
associated rate structure.
So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Brian Mance from
PRMG, and he can take you through a brief presentation.
MR. MANCE: Good morning. For the record, Brian Mance
(phonetic) from Public Resources Management Group. I'm here with
Robert Ori, the president of PRMG, and we just have a brief
presentation for you regarding the water and wastewater impact fee
study.
As Amy mentioned with respect to public involvement, on
January 20th of this year we did present the study results to the
Development Services Advisory Committee, or DSAC, subcommittee,
and the subcommittee recommended approval to be -- for the results to
move forward to the full committee.
On March 1st of this year the study results were presented to the
full committee, and DSAC voted to accept the study and the
corresponding fees.
As was mentioned, impact fees help to support the growth -- the
policy of growth paying for growth, and these additional financial
resources provide a long-term favorable user rate benefit. They reduce
the financial pressures on monthly user rates.
It's important to note that the district is rated triple A by the credit
rating agencies, which is an indication of credit risk. This is the
Page 69
March 14, 2017
highest credit rating, and the water and wastewater impact fees are
pledged toward the repayment of the utility's debt. And this strong
rating, triple A -- can't get any higher than that -- helps to reduce the
district's borrowing costs and keep the user rates lower.
With respect to the methodology, we employed the same
methodology that we've used in previous analyses, and the overall
change in impact fees that we're recommending is about $148 increase
or about 2.9 percent; very minor differences.
With respect to how they -- with how the -- as you can see from
this graph of how the impact fees compare with those of other
communities, you can see that the county's position in terms of
competitiveness would be unchanged with these results. And,
certainly, there's a lot of different reasons why impact fees differ
among utilities which can range from the source of supply, the type or
complexity of treatment, the availability of grant funding to finance the
capital improvement program, the time elapsed since the last impact
fee review; just a myriad of reasons why impact fees differ among
utilities.
But our recommendations, our summary of recommendations to
the Board are to adopt the proposed water and wastewater impact fees
which, as I mentioned, have been vetted and accepted by DSAC, and
consider them to be reasonable and to meet the criteria established by
case law and the Florida Impact Fee Act.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just have a question. You
mentioned DSAC a few times, and you said this was accepted, but in
our backup material it says DSAC voted not to increase the rates for
any of the four facilities, and I don't understand what the difference is
from what you've said and what I'm reading.
MS. PATTERSON: I can clarify that for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
Page 70
March 14, 2017
MS. PATTERSON: We had a whole package of impact fees that
the DSAC looked at. So the four that you're referencing are the ones
we're going to talk about next. The two that they endorsed were the
water and wastewater impact fee. So two different recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Anyone else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm going to move on to our remaining
impact fees, also full study, and we have a lengthier presentation on
this one. If you would like, we can go through that. Perhaps Mr.
Tindale would like to pick and choose a few slides, or if you want to
go straight to questions. At your pleasure, we can go through this one
as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we'll go through the whole --
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- presentation.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one commissioner that,
unfortunately, had a major conflict so he couldn't be with us, and I
think the more information we put that he can review the better it
would be. Thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. Again, Steve Tindale with Tindale,
Oliver.
Again, this is as brief as possible and yet it's pretty detailed. I'd
like to say a couple comments. We've been told by all of our clients --
and if you'll look at the reports, the most transparent reports that this
could produce. Every table in the report has got a footnote with a
source, a time frame. So one thing I suggest, if you have any questions
in detail, it's just amazing -- and, again, I'm the only one that does this.
Page 71
March 14, 2017
There's nothing that you've got to ask that she doesn't have footnoted
on every item in the report, of the source of it and why it's that way. So
I'm going to take that and try to condense it down into some of the
conclusions and some of the more systemic things that we want to look
at.
I'm going to go over a little bit about the background, the
overview of impact fees in general -- I don't know if we need to spend
a lot of time on that -- the findings of the technical study, and we'll
spend some more detail, and then the summary and the conclusions of
the calculations.
Before we did our emergency management, government
buildings, law enforcement, and libraries, the impact fees are to update
all the variables, and there's six or eight variables that have to be
updated in detail. And I'd like to highlight here -- and I'll mention a
couple more times there was a state law passed for the first time on
impact fees. The governments have been very lucky to keep the state
out of the impact fee business and strictly rely on court cases, and the
state have all said it used to be the person coming in and telling you his
responsibility to prove things, and now you have to be right. So the
burden of proof has swung.
And so the level of detail that we have, and the information we
have has become that much more important. And some of the things
we're doing now are a little bit more detail to make sure we're taking
care of that. It used to be there was reasonable things to do and legal
things to do, and you were -- had a lot more flexibility with legal than
you did reasonable, and now you have to be both legal and reasonable
with what you're doing, and the proof So some of the stuff you're
seeing are adjustments to be sure we've refined it in dealing with that
test.
You just saw this graphic earlier. I wish I would have brought
this '70 to 2000, that first 30 years. That first 30 years was 3 to 5, 6
Page 72
March 14, 2017
percent, very consistently, no bubbles. The last decade has had that
curve up and down, so I've been tracking this for many years. And
before we start a study, I look at it and say, this is -- this is my opinion
on how much the fees are going to change, and then they've got to
show me why they didn't.
If you look at 2005 to 2010, the fees, we changed about 5 percent.
You can see we missed charging a huge amount, dropping back down;
we stayed stable with those fees. To be honest with you, in 2005 we
were looking back and saying, God, the future is unbelievable. We're
going to undercharge, and we did. In 2009 and '10, we were saying,
we're going to continue to crash.
So between those two things and trying to be reasonable with the
fees, we ended up with fees that were about 5 percent difference in
each other in terms of where we landed. And it's interesting to see
that's about where we are.
If you look at 2011/12 and all of a sudden the pickup, my gut
tells me -- and it's happening all over the state -- the costs of capital,
the cost of assets and facilities are going up 20, 25, 30 percent. So
anybody that's done a fee that's five years old, they should be expecting
a change of about 25 percent.
And, lo and behold, when you see the final number of all the fees
up and down -- and some of them went up more than the others -- I
think is 22 percent.
So, first of all, the conclusions meet pretty well with what I think
our expectations were, and I like to usually start out telling you where
we ended up and then telling you how we got there, because if I don't
you'll be wondering the whole time what are the numbers.
So the numbers changed on these four fees a little less than 25
percent, and I think there's reason for each one of them varying
differently.
And here they are. If you'll look at the total fees for these four
Page 73
March 14, 2017
assets, they move from $1,600 in total to about 2,000. So the total
fees, with some going up, some going down, is 23 percent. And so
what I'm going to present to you, each one -- I'm going to present each
one of these in a little more detail of why some of them went up more
than 22 percent, some of them did not go up to 22 percent, but we
ended up with the total assets there.
And I'd like to highlight, on emergency services, when you have a
$100-fee and you change it by 50 bucks, it's a 50 percent increase. So
any chunk of asset or something that comes into that system can
dramatically change that percentage. But it's 50 bucks. So when you
see those numbers, most of them are between 7 and 30 percent, which I
figured, and I'll go into a little detail about why the EMS changed.
And on the single-family -- we also did something in terms of the
multifamily/single-family that changed that percentage.
The overview, of which I think you're aware of: They're to
maintain level of service is (sic) to calculate growth. They're hugely
beneficial when we used to deal with individual developments and had
a fee to charge the large developer for, if nothing else, for negotiating,
and they're most needed when you're in a high growth rate, and right
now you're ninth in the state in permitting. And in terms of absolute
growth projection, you're in the top 15 in the state in terms of growth.
Counties who aren't growing don't have large impact fees, and
they don't need them. Counties that are growing need the fee for the
rate of growth, and that's where you are. And they're very useful when
you have limited funding. And, to be honest with you, you do not have
the sales tax and some of the things that other counties have in terms of
capital.
You do have a nice tax base, but you're not using some of the
other instruments in terms of capital funding, so that you're being very
frugal with the sources of revenues you're using. So between the
growth rate you have and what you're trying to do financially, that's
Page 74
March 14, 2017
when fees really pay off.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So boiled down, things that you just
said were, that our rate of growth is high, which is outstanding, our tax
base is low, which is outstanding, and our impact fees are high, which
kept all of that stuff moving along; is what you boiled down to say?
MR. TINDALE: That's what I've seen for 30 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: It is one-time charge. It covers the cost of
growth, but I can tell you in many of our communities, if you don't
have this and you start spending some of your tax base on capital, you
borrow from your operating. So people say you can't spend it on
operating. You absolutely do benefit by not taking operating money to
pay for capital.
So it does help you protect the quality of the operation. And I see
this consistently. Communities that have larger impact fees also
operate very well. Oh, you can't use it for operating. Well, you can
relieve their operating budget by not using it for capital, and that's
something you've done very well. You've taken your good tax base,
you've maintained a high quality service in terms of your service you
provide, and you use these fees not to bleed down into chewing up
your operating revenues.
The fee basically is calculated for what the new development
generates in terms of being (sic) and value, gives them credit for all
future tax revenues, capital tax revenues, and that's the difference. So
it's really the difference between the revenues you're going to -- capital
revenues you generate and the cost for that individual development.
The findings of the process -- and, again, I mention the report,
and there's a huge number of appendix. She's great at giving you
unbelievable information and background. Your inventory and your
levels, all those calculations are in an appendix, and we keep a pretty
Page 75
March 14, 2017
nice report. The report's really thick with a big index; appendix in the
back.
The inventory, the service delivery, the cost, and we have an
unbelievable set of data where you -- local cost, statewide cost, cost
trends, credit. We look backwards in terms of your investment,
forwards in your investment in terms of capital investments, and then
we check the demand. And the demand's a little squirrely at times in
terms of the change of some of the demand because we have new data
available and, finally, we calculate the fee.
Government buildings. And I'll say right off the bat, we started
government buildings fees about 25 years ago. They were one of the --
to me one of the most controversial. People just didn't -- that was kind
of odd. Government building fees. And so I went back 20 years ago,
and I said, do large counties on a per-person basis have fewer square
foot than smaller counties? Is there an economy of scale, and I found
out there wasn't. It was interesting.
As the county grows, the number of square foot in the
administrative buildings seem to stay the same level. Because that was
one of the questions in my mind. You know, are we adopting these
fees and they really don't make a difference, because you build one
building, and it's going to satisfy the population for 50 years. I found
out that wasn't true.
Based on the size of the county, the per square foot of the
administrative building, property appraisers, you know, all -- courts,
everything else, there seems to be no correlation that the number of
square foot goes down.
The demand. And you'll see this on every one of them. And this
is a single-family home. All of them went down just a little bit in
terms of demand per unit. And I'll be very honest with you, you've got
everything going in the right direction. I don't know if you want to call
it right or wrong. You -- the state as a whole is aging. The state of
Page 76
March 14, 2017
Florida is getting a little older. Some counties are actually getting a
little younger, and some counties are getting older faster than the state.
You're getting older faster than the state.
That's one area that I'm sure you're working on in terms of
bringing in employment, maybe diversifying. So the person per
household is trending downward just a little bit. So every four or five
years, the person per residential unit drops a little bit. And hopefully
you'll get more employment, more diversity, and you get a shift, and
that's not bad to shift some of that responsibility.
The cost per resident went up a little bit, the credit in terms of
amount of investment in government buildings has gone down in terms
of the future, and the fee ended up about 22 percent larger than the one
-- the current one. And all the numbers and everything else, to me,
makes sense in terms of looking at the numbers.
We do have a -- the final fee. You can see the current adopted fee
for each one of the uses. You can see the range for the -- most of them
are about 30 percent, which is more what I was expecting, and the
residential 22, and that's that shift. That's a little bit fewer people per
household. And, again, I think if we were doing the school impact fee,
then you see the number of students per household is actually going
down in this county. You're aging a little bit, and that's just -- that's
just a fact.
You are on the high end as far as the amount of buildings we have
on inventory. What I found in looking at a lot of the other
communities, they just don't put all their assets in the inventory. I think
there's a little reluctance to have an administrative building fee or -- I'm
not sure what it is, but the range is a couple hundred dollars to almost
800, and this calculation's right at 900. So you're not twice everybody
else, but you've got a nice fee, and you've got some nice public assets
that you're maintaining.
Law enforcement. Now, this is one where we found some
Page 77
March 14, 2017
inventory, and you'll see a big change, but it's mainly an update with
finding some assets that were brought on the books.
Again, the same minor change in the residential. The cost per
residence jumped up dramatically, but I can tell you specifically we
just flat out increased your inventory and some assets that weren't on
the books that we included in this round, and the fee went up about 30
percent.
The total impact fee that we calculated is 587 for the
single-family home, and you can see that's a little higher for the rest of
them. And, again, the driving force here is just bringing in the total
assets into the inventory that had not been brought in in terms of
equipment and some other things that were not included in the
inventory and the asset value.
You can see the range, anywhere from $129 to almost $800. So
you're well within the range for law enforcement even with that
adjustment of the asset. And this is the rest of the fees throughout the
state.
Libraries facilities is one of the more stable ones. It was
interesting. It did not move that much. Again, that same demand.
Remember, now, libraries are charged only on residential. The cost
went up a little bit but also the credit went up in terms of the future
assets in building libraries. So giving that credit, bringing it back, your
fee got adjusted 7 percent, which is -- I was surprised in terms of the
numbers. It's -- that's a very nice thing to see occur, and some of that's
coming from you are spending more taxes on capital than you had
previously.
You see the range, 7 percent on the residential, they did want me
to make a note. We modified. There was conversation about the
vacancy in the retirement communities and the fees we have there. We
adjusted that dramatically in terms of the number of persons per unit,
which moved that fee from the $349 to about 150, so we did adjust.
Page 78
March 14, 2017
And that's one of those updates in having information.
This is the range. And you can see the range is anywhere from
$64 -- which is only 40 percent of what was calculated -- all the way
up to almost 700. Essentially, we have one community that just
merged their libraries and parks and called it cultural services, and
they're having some real heartburn with were they investing their
money in the fee. I personally like the libraries and the parks and
recreation separate as you have.
And, again, this is the rest of the fees throughout the state.
Emergency Medical Services. This is one I'll highlight. And this
-- I think we really need to do this both because it's fair and also
because I think as a whole new legislation about being defensible.
Under the Emergency Medical Service, for whatever reason, we
had the single-family and the multifamily all blended together, and
multifamily has a lot fewer people per unit than a single-family. So the
one number was down.
So when you went to pull a permit for a single-family home, it
was low because we had mixed the two together, and there was a
decision, let's get this separated like all the rest of them; we did.
So the single-family, then, when you take the multifamily mixed
in with it and you calculate it, it just goes back the way it should have
been, but it looks dramatically like it has a huge change in the process.
That change is 50 bucks. And I can tell you, I would recommend
you move from $94 to $142 and separate them. It's not a huge amount.
It's a big change in percentage. It's not a huge amount in terms of the
fee on a single-family home, and now you're in compliance where a
single-family gets one price and the multifamily gets the lower price
because they have fewer people per unit. And you can see the range
there is 17, 18 percent on most of the nonresidential.
We've got the ranges here. You got your $142 a unit. I think the
next slide has the high and low. The lowest fee is $33, and we have
Page 79
March 14, 2017
people with EMS fees up to $600. So you can see that number is
actually on the lower end in terms of the assets you have and at least
what you're charging in terms of assets.
That's the summary there from what I started with, kind of told
you what the conclusions were. Hopefully I explained to you why the
$94 changed to 142. It seemed like a high percentage. It's the thing to
do. It's the right thing to do on a single-family home, and you see the
adjustments for the rest of them with an average change over the last
two decades that the numbers changed about 3 percent a year if you
take the whole time period; about the 30 percent. It's actually 23
percent.
So I feel comfortable. I think the report's well documented with
all the details. It's very transparent. Usually we're told by DSAC and
everybody we may not like your conclusions, we may not like the
results but, my goodness, we have a hard time finding anything that's
hidden or missing or whatever, and we'll check the District 1 and the
District 7.
I tell some clients we're not perfect. We're just -- we think we're
the best. And there's probably 20,000 numbers in that report, and I'm
sure -- I still bet there's two or three of them that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, that was the only error I
found.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. All right. Well, I'll let Nilgun know.
That's it. That's the presentation. Hopefully it was useful.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you very much. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Discussion? Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you might, sir, just expand a
little bit on the legalities of where the impact fees are allowed to be
spent. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Because there's a
misconception by a lot of people with regard to impact fees in that they
Page 80
March 14, 2017
are -- how they can, in fact, be spent. I mean, these increases have
nothing to do with the ongoing deficits or maintenance issues that we
-- deferred maintenance issues that we have going on as well, if you
could share a little bit with that.
MR. TINDALE: Yeah. And it's interesting, the '70s, '80s, the
people would go out and say, I think I want to build this, and this is my
development here. Here's the fee, and they call it needs based. Well, if
they decide to build an awful lot, the fee was very high. If they
decided to build a little bit, the fee was low. But we moved to what we
call consumption based, and what we do is take the full asset that
you've developed today per person or person vehicle mile, and we
figure out the value of each unit of development, and we charge you to
consume that asset, and it's the value to replace it.
So ours are a consumption-based fee. We feel very good. We've
been doing them now and -- I think in statewide, probably 90 percent
of all the communities now have moved into the consumption-based
fees.
But it is for growth. It can only be spent to expand something, to
add capacity. But you've got to be careful, because when you expand
capacity, you release your funds. And I used to be a public works
director, and I can tell you having impact fees and relieving my
operating budget was very useful.
So it's a misnomer that they don't help operating and maintaining
things. But you can only build new things, a new fire station, more
land, a new park facility, a new fire truck, a new EMS truck. You can't
-- you can't replace what you've got with them.
They are supposed to be impact based, the impact, not benefit
based. And that is a really interesting thing when we do benefit
assessments and we deal with the benefit to the property versus the
impact on the asset.
But these are impact based, and they have to be for expansion,
Page 81
March 14, 2017
capital needs; and the other thing the Court ruled, you can't charge
them twice. The developer pays a fee, and then they go pump gas.
When they're pumping gas, they pay taxes to build roads. You can't
charge him when he pulls a fee (sic) and then charge him at the gas
pump or at the -- or even when he pays his ad valorem tax. So you can
charge him once, so we'd have to give him that credit in terms of doing
it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have any public
speakers on this?
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Ms. Patterson, do you want
to sum up, or are we -- we're done?
MS. PATTERSON: We're done with our presentations, and at
the County Manager's instruction, we will -- provided that you want to
move forward with advertising this, we'll go through the advertising
process and then schedule this for an advertised public hearing on the
regular agenda so that Commissioner Solis will be able to provide his
input as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. That's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I'll make a motion, then,
that we advertise for future consideration.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a point -- just as a question,
it's not going to -- if there are adjustments that are made to these
estimates or these figures, that won't require us to go back out and
readvertise? I don't know who to ask.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
Page 82
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you very
much.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Mr. Tindale will
be coming back in two weeks; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Not two weeks, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, when -- the 90 days?
MR. OCHS: It will probably be sometime in the April.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As long as he's here for when
Commissioner Solis --
MR. OCHS: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, thank you for this.
MR. OCHS: Yes. We'll schedule a time so that he's here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Wonderful. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Madam Chair, I know we have one registered speaker for Item
11E. Would you like to take that before the 11C item?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the -- 11E, which is --
MR. OCHS: That is the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- public office, yes.
MR. OCHS: Report on the municipal golf course.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Yes.
Page 83
March 14, 2017
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT BY HUNDEN
STRATEGIC PARTNERS ON THE STATUS OF
PRIVATE/PUBLIC GOLF COURSES IN COLLIER COUNTY,
AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION REGARDING
FURTHER PURSUIT OF PUBLICLY FUNDED GOLF COURSES
IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT AND
DIRECTING STAFF TO NOT PURSUE THE VACANT LAND
FOR A NEW COUNTY RUN FACILITY BUT TO REVIEW ANY
OPPORTUNITIES OF EXISTING GOLF COURSES ON A CASE-
BY-CASE BASIS — MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN A
MAJORITY VOTE
MR. OCHS: Let's go ahead, then, with Item 11E. This is a
recommendation to accept the report by Hunden Strategic Partners on
the status of private or public golf courses in Collier County, provide
staff with direction regarding further pursuit of publicly funded golf
courses, and your Parks and Recreation Division Director, Barry
Williams, with begin the presentation.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good morning. Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
And just to start, I just wanted to say that this has been an item
that has come up before the Parks and Rec Division several times over
the last 30 years or so. And it is an interesting question and, certainly,
we have colleagues in the state of Florida that manage golf courses.
This is a very unique community that we live in in terms of
number of golf courses, but what we have done is we've contracted
with Hunden Strategic Partners to come in and do just an analysis of
the question, and what we wanted to do this morning was just to
Page 84
March 14, 2017
present to you that data and then seek your direction in terms of what
you would like us to consider in terms of moving forward.
So with that said, what I'd like to do is to introduce Nick who is a
great guy with a difficult last name to pronounce, but I'm going to try
it. It's Nick D'Onofrio.
Nick, how'd I do?
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll just go with Nick.
MR. WILLIAMS: Nick is good. Nick is easy.
And Nick is an analyst with Hunden and, if I could, I'll just ask
him to come forward and provide a presentation for you.
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Thank you. Again, Nick D'Onofrio here with
Hunden Strategic Partners.
Yeah, so we were tasked with providing the analysis on a golf
course facility needs assessment for Collier County.
And so the key questions that we were really charged with in
better understanding what is the purpose of Collier County developing
a golf course, its own golf course, what are the costs and benefits, and
are there any other alternatives that can achieve similar goals. And we
also are going to look at the national trends, and as well the trends and
demographic trends in Florida and in Collier County and how do they
impact recreational golf.
And then what is the present condition of the golf facilities and
infrastructure throughout Collier County as it relates to golf courses,
and what are the cost benefits in providing a publicly managed golf
course versus a privately managed golf course in Collier County.
So the headlines of what we -- the overview of our high-level
study that we've done so far is the purpose of a publicly owned golf
course is to provide quality golf at a seasonally competitive yet
reasonable rate for residents, and this is, most importantly, during the
peak season, which is December through March.
Page 85
March 14, 2017
The cost for a development of a golf course, the capital costs are 2
to $3 million, then you'll have your land acquisition costs, and then
ongoing operating costs as well, which have exceeded $300,000 from
some of the comparable golf courses we studied.
And then the alternative scenario that was presented was a
discounted coupon or similar discount by the county to provide the
county residents an option to play at existing golf courses at a
discounted rate. This is good for the existing golf courses, as it brings
in more revenue for them, but it's a challenge during the high peak
seasons because there's already such a high demand in Collier County
for golf
The national trends, looking at it as a -- nationally, it's decreasing
about 24 percent, and this has been since 2006. Nationally, the target
demographic is going to be your baby boomer to your Generation X
generation as well as in addition to households with annual incomes of
more than $50,000.
As I said, there is a high concentration of golf courses in Collier
County, but there is a limited number of high-quality affordable public
access courses, or as what they might call semiprivate resort courses in
the county.
There is a higher likelihood of increased gross if net revenue with
a private third-party management relative to the public management.
Due to the way that the incentives will be structured with that
third-party management, they'll be more incentivized to maximize
revenue and utilization.
And then quality of the golf courses is very important. There's
currently existing privately owned low-quality courses that are
charging less than higher-quality public owned courses in other
counties from the survey that was conducted.
So, again, the national trends here, as I stated earlier, there is a 24
percent decline since 2006 currently going on.
Page 86
March 14, 2017
And the frequency of participants, so your average golfer is going
to be recreational in nature. Might play too frequently -- or
occasionally to infrequently, two to about 40 times a year, so it's more
on the recreational side than it is an avid golfer.
So looking at the baby boomer generation and Generation X, and
nationally looking at it, it's about 53 percent of the population are in
those age demographics. As that relates to Collier County, 34 percent
of Collier County's population is in baby boomer and Generation X
generation. And then when looking at the incomes of more than
$50,000, that's about 80 percent of the national participation level;
whereas, in Collier County, there's 57 percent of Collier County's
households earn more than $50,000.
So there is a strong market demand in demographics to support
recreational golf in Collier County. As it relates, there's about 197,000
people that fit that demographic in Collier County, and there is some
overlap in that number.
So when you look at the national trends nationally, they're kind of
broken up into different regions. Florida, specifically, is in the South
Atlantic Region, which kind of runs the southeast coast. As you can
see on the table here, they have the highest, largest share of
participation nationally at 18 percent.
So the demographics in trends in Collier County, again, they got
57 -- you guys have 57 percent of the households that earn more than
$50,000, and 34 percent of the population is either in the baby boomer
or Generation X generation.
When you look at the demographics now for Southwest Florida,
when you compare that -- Collier County to the southwest
demographics, it has the highest percentage of households with more
than $50,000, but it has the lowest percentage of baby boomer
generation and Generation X residents compared to Southwest Florida.
But this does not account for any seasonable visitors that may come
Page 87
March 14, 2017
into Collier County.
And, again, looking at the whole entire county as a whole, there's
75 total courses; 14 are public courses that are privately owned. And
when we took the survey that was done, we looked at the publicly
owned surveyed golf courses and compared them to the privately
owned local public access courses in Collier County. I know that's
quite a tongue twister, but -- so when you look at those, the cost per
round averages $25 lower during the low season, so the off-peak
season, and then it's about $56 lower during the high season on
publicly owned courses versus privately owned.
And then the feedback from our conversations that we had to
stakeholders in -- golf industry stakeholders is that there's a moderate
decrease in local play, but seasonal play has increased. And with that,
the summer rates are more attractive to the locals. Locals generally
play in the off season due to that high demand during the peak season.
And then residents that are not members of a private course are
seeking a high-quality public access course. Specifically South of
Naples has been identified as an opportunity for a high-quality public
course that would be in demand.
And then the annual number of golf rounds per 18 holes ranges
right around 30- to 40,000 rounds per year.
So the management style of options for Collier County, the two
different options here, you have the public management. This is going
to be a little bit more towards providing that quality of life as well as
providing a quality golf course for its residents. So it's going to
maintain operational responsibilities, the county will, and it will
assume the liability of the golf course.
And, again, it's more geared towards providing that quality of life
for your resident; whereas, the private management in the incentive
base is that may be -- establish for them will be more on maximizing
utilization, minimizing the expenses. They're going to be more focused
Page 88
March 14, 2017
on utilizing discounted websites or apps, like Golf Now, that allow you
to, throughout the day, put your -- allow you to offer golf at a
discounted rate throughout the day at certain off-peak hours. So that
really helps drive utilization. That may not be something that the
public management style would do because they're more geared
towards, again, that quality of life and providing that high-quality golf
course.
So when we looked at the survey, again, as far as revenue and
expenses, we broke it down per nine holes. The majority of the
surveyed golf courses were losing money, and they were managed by
public sectors. And, again, it was just a perceived amenity for the local
residents and viewed as a quality of life amenity for the residents.
The projection of golf demand we presented here, we gave three
different options. We gave a low, a base, and a high. The demand for
golf is really going to be based on the population growth and the rate
of decrease in participation.
As Collier County continues to grow in population and coupled
with the fact that they're in the South Atlantic Region, which has high
golf participation, it should kind of counterbalance and keep
participation in Collier County pretty high due to the fact that all those
aspects are in line for Collier County.
So, in conclusion, there's a one-time and ongoing financial
commitment. We've seen that about 140- to 180-acres site is average
for an 18-hole publicly owned golf course. And land prices generally
increase as population increases.
The average development cost, from comparable situations and
from our research, has been between 2 to $3 million, plus the land
acquisition costs. And then the Cap X on top of the operating loss,
again, is ranging between 75,000 to 150,000. But, again, this is
something that has a lot of factors that go into it, especially the number
of rounds per year. Obviously, the more rounds you have per year, the
Page 89
March 14, 2017
higher you're going to -- the more you're going to need to upgrade the
facility at the end of the year.
And then annual net operating loss is more likely than the profit,
and it can get anywhere up to a loss of$400,000. And this publicly
owned golf course would provide affordable play for a portion of the
county, and the number of beneficiaries, relatively small compared to
the overall population.
There is little additional economic fiscal employment benefit to
consider in the ROI consideration, and then the discounted rate is an
opportunity for you guys to achieve the goal of offering reasonable
prices for your residents at a much more less expensive solution, but it
would also provide the local current golf courses benefits as well as --
by taking advantage of the off season; whereas, the peak season might
be a little bit tough for the local residents to find tee times during those
-- the peak season.
And that's kind of where we had been in our high-level review of
Collier County feasibility at this point. If you have any questions, I'm
available.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a couple questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to jump ahead of
anybody.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. One of the slides and
one of the comments was that there would be a potential location south
of Naples. I'm not sure what that means. South of Naples is sort of--
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. The feedback we got is that just south,
in South Naples is an opportunity for a high-quality publicly owned
golf course that would be in demand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Provide a little bit of a
Page 90
March 14, 2017
definition of what you mean by in the South Naples. Are you talking
about --
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good question. In terms of
location and potential land, I'm thinking that's where you're probably
coming from your question.
You know, in terms of availability of land, the 6L's area is a
possibility down the road. I think what the consultants looked to do
was to see within the county where they saw there would be some
opportunities for growth in that area, and that particular sector was
identified.
So the other question is, where would you find land, though, in
South Naples, and certainly that's -- down the East Trail is what's being
referenced, though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He really means East Naples?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, South Naples or down the East Trail,
yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In terms of availability of
courses, what about some existing courses that are subject to
conversion right now. Is any analysis of what may be an existing
course that might be available?
MR. WILLIAMS: Part of the study didn't really focus on
courses. There are three that come to mind, though. And, certainly,
Evergreen, the old Evergreen facility that's in --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And where is that?
MR. WILLIAMS: That is in East Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lakewood.
MR. WILLIAMS: Lakewood is also another course that's been
talked --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Evergreen is in Lakewood, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am; yes, ma'am. But the one that has
probably the most possibility or interest is the Golden Gate Country
Page 91
March 14, 2017
Club. That particular course and the story that you know about that in
terms of them stopping golf and seeking redevelopment, and -- but that
course, in particular, would certainly be one on the radar.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And let me ask one other
question. You indicated that the operating loss of a course could be as
much as 400,000 per year, and the capital cost on top of that could be
as much as $150,000 a year. Is that a pretty -- are those pretty average
numbers of municipal courses around the state?
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is that kind of, realistically,
what we would expect here?
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. So, based on the -- yeah, the
comparable situations that we found throughout the state, that's kind of
the average of what we were finding. But, again, we're going to be
doing more detailed research as we get further into the report, on the
final report.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You asked some of the
same questions I had. Thank you for asking them.
On the -- it said -- you said something about the national --
national decline. Well, is that Collier County, or are you grouping us
into national? Because that affects the figures, doesn't it?
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah. So that was just the overview of the
national trends as a whole. So within the United States there is a 24
percent decrease.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think some of these -- and
as I was looking at your figures, it was interesting because you were
weighing it against other places, but so many of them just said NA's,
NA's, NA's. I thought, well, you really couldn't -- if there's no
information available, how can you average that out? And some didn't
Page 92
March 14, 2017
prefer to give you any of their information, so these results, then, are
just with the few people that responded and on a few of the subjects,
right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Ma'am, if I could clarify. The Hunden study
actually did look at national statistics and also local resources.
We did provide you a short study that the parks division did. We
basically asked our state organization to identify municipalities that
manage golf courses. We reached out to 17 municipalities, and they
gave us the data. Of those 17, some did, as you mentioned, didn't
provide data.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because sometimes it's kind
of hard to, you know, judge Collier County by all of the other counties
in the state of Florida because you've got such a variation in locations
and people that come into the area and what their sports are, and it
could be fishing rather than golfing, you know.
Here we find that because of the accommodations we have for
visitors as well as new residents, it's -- I hate to say it like this, but it's
kind of a high quality, and so I think you have a difference in figures as
well if you weigh just Collier County versus like, for instance, Polk
County.
You'd want to make sure that you're using those figures for us,
and I -- and when you were talking about south, I was surprised
because south of Naples is Port Royal, but you're probably meaning
east of East Naples. On the way to Miami, that would be east, yeah?
MR. D'ONOFRIO: Yeah, correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay, fine. Yeah, there's
land there, too, but I think the most important place right now that we
are even considering is the Golden Gate golf range. That's made to
order, I think, for this, and would save us tremendous amount of costs.
Now, we've heard -- and I cannot verify this, but we've heard
from people who are talking to other golf courses around -- that Fort
Page 93
March 14, 2017
Myers never loses money. Now, I don't know that that's true. I've just
heard that repeatedly. But I would think that we should investigate
that a little bit more.
I think it's about time for us to get more serious about this,
especially when there's a property that's for sale that seems so ideal
but, at the same time, we don't want to get into it and lose a lot of
money. But our parks don't make a lot of money either. Our parks are
-- the citizens, when they pay their taxes, they also pay for the
privilege for the enjoyment of the libraries, the museums, and the
parks. And so I hope that we would give it a fair look.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, if you look under
the municipal golf survey, the City of Fort Myers --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know it says that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- would not provide the information,
and they did state that the expenses were higher than the revenue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I saw that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have one question, and
then I can make a motion, unless you want to speak as well, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'll speak.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we do have a speaker, I
think.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we do have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, and we do have a speaker,
okay.
My question -- with regard to the discounted coupon process, is
there any -- where would the money come to support that from?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's not been identified, Commissioner. It
would be a similar thing to a tickets to ride kind of program, a tickets
Page 94
March 14, 2017
to golf, if you will, where you would provide a voucher. It would be
something that we would advance as part of the budget process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think before we can talk too
awfully much about that, we have to have a designated revenue source.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think we have a speaker. No, no.
It's not your fault. Not to worry.
MR. MILLER: Your speaker is Frank Collo, Collum?
MR. COCCO: Cocco.
MR. MILLER: Cocco. I'm sorry.
MR. COCCO: Commissioners, Madam Chair, Chairwoman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Please identify yourself for the record.
MR. COCCO: Yeah. My name is Frank Cocco. I'm the
Community Association Manager for Par One Homeowners'
Association, which is surrounded by Golden Gate Golf Club. We look
like a little pentagon around the golf course.
I'm here to support changing it to a golf course -- I mean -- to a
county-owned golf course. Some of the things that are inside this
report I disagree with. I can't imagine people losing a million dollars a
year and staying in business. Doesn't make sense. Something doesn't
add up.
So my opinion is that the county should make it a golf-- a
county-owned golf course for the enjoyment of the people of Collier
County. And I can tell you this, there's -- I know of six independent
courses that are making money, okay. So I don't know where these
numbers are coming from. Six independent courses that are making
money. And I can also tell you this: I came here in 2003. It cost me
double what it used to cost me, and it's harder to get a tee time than it's
ever been. So that's the simplistic version of this, this thing.
We need the golf course, and I think the people of Collier County
Page 95
March 14, 2017
will enjoy it. It will be a pleasure for us. And we would like your
consideration to keep it going in that direction.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As much as I empathize with the folks
in Golden Gate in the course -- and they've spoken to me on another
matter before -- and understand the insecurity that you feel about your
future, I'm very reluctant to say that we need a municipal golf course
because of the expense.
We're kind of on a roll with pickleball, you know. It's brand new.
It's moving. We're, you know, the U.S. Open for pickleball. We're
kind of on a roll with FBU. You know, there's a national
championship and, you know, they're bringing younger kids this year.
But to go to golf when the statistics -- and it's nothing that I'm --
that's new to us -- that there's just less and less players of golf makes
me question the capital investment in it.
I would like to explore, perhaps, the concept of discount tickets,
but to -- for us to undertake a golf course that might be another
$500,000 that taxpayers' money have to contribute to, when we're
looking at a $60 million park at Big Cypress, when we're talking about
the pool at Eagle Lakes Country Club which, you know, pools are
wonderful holes in the ground that you pour water in and spend a lot of
money on, but they don't return.
I'm worried about moving ourselves a little bit too thin in the park
business. I think there's ways of satisfying the need for folks to play
golf, but I'm not sure it's the invest -- the capital outlay and investment
in infrastructure. That's what I'm very, very concerned about.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She was -- Commissioner Fiala
was ahead of me.
Page 96
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, she was? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think sometimes statistics
can say anything you want them to say. And I wonder -- I wonder if it's
truly a losing proposition as you say, or are there ways that we can
may it balance itself out so we're not losing any money?
I know you -- we've heard over and over that golfing is declining
and, yet our community is so different than other communities. I think
that they say -- well, like the gentleman just said, there's more and
more golfers coming out, and they're paying higher price. And, you
know, as the baby boomers start coming down and there aren't any
new golf courses being built, they're going to require more and more
golfing space. And if we don't have any, we're going to shoot
ourselves in the foot when we let this property go, as I feel. So that's
just my two cents.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think we're a little bit ahead
of ourself with regard to discussion of a purchase of an
already-constructed facility. The executive summary, the
recommendation was for us to accept a Hunden report, and I'd like to --
I, at this stage of the game -- or process -- I don't mean to call it stage
of the game -- I think we just need to stick to what's, in fact, on our
agenda with regard to accepting the report and then, if I might add, the
direction to staff, I don't -- I would like to make a recommendation that
we really don't pursue the acquisition and then, in turn, construction of
a golf course facility.
I think we -- as you know, we're looking at an LDC amendment
this evening with regard to the conversion of golf courses that's going
to have a holistic viewpoint on what in fact's going to transpire in our
community, and we need to really look at these individual business
opportunities on an individual basis. There are other golf courses that
are potential -- that could, in fact, make money, not make money on a
case-by-case basis.
Page 97
March 14, 2017
And I really don't -- you know, I don't want us to get into a
decision-making process here. We need to explore these opportunities.
And I do refer to them as opportunities on an individual basis. And
until we take into consideration the acquisition costs, the operating
expenses associated, whether we go with an outside operator or do it
internally, there's a lot of dynamics that are going to ultimately
determine whether or not we make money.
And, Commissioner Taylor, as you spoke with regard to the
passes, there's a direct expense associated to those passes, and we have
to weigh that expense in relationship to the operational expenses
associated with a golf course facility, per se. So if-- is it time to make
a motion yet?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one more comment from
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'd like to hear your
motion, because I don't disagree with anything that the consultant has
presented. There's no way to disagree with it. They're presenting their
findings.
I agree with Commissioner Taylor; we have a lot of stuff on the
plate with the regional park, with this amateur sports facility, with
other things we're doing, but I don't want to close the door on the
potential for the acquisition of the Golden Gate community golf course
or some other golf course, and so I want to hear what your motion is,
because staffs going to need some direction, and then I'll comment on
the motion.
But I think keeping the issue alive makes some sense, but I do --
just so everyone understands, I do have some concerns about getting
involved in an operation where our consultants are telling us that we
could lose half a million dollars a year in operations and maintenance.
You know, we have to take that somewhat to heart. And perhaps we
need some more information on what some of these other courses are
Page 98
March 14, 2017
doing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, the motion is to accept
the Hunden report as-is. As you said, it's basically there. There's not a
lot of argument with it. And then I would offer up, as far as a portion
of the motion with regard to direction to staff, that we don't need to
pursue the acquisition of a vacant tract of land, go through the zoning
and capital expense for construction, and that we should, on a per-item
basis as these other opportunities come to us, review them
individually.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then I'll second
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I'm understanding that what
you're saying is to accept the report but not to direct staff to further
pursue publicly funded golf courses in Collier County; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not what I said.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the motion is -- if I
understood it, is that -- to continue the evaluation of some of the
existing courses that may be for sale but not to look for vacant land.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. It had nothing to do
with not pursuing any.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The only direction I gave was
to not pursue a vacant tract of land, zoning, and construction. It didn't
mean that we couldn't discuss a publicly owned facility on a
case-by-case basis. That's with specificity. Are you clear?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am.
Any other -- oh, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm sorry, I cannot go along
with that because I just feel that more information should have been
Page 99
March 14, 2017
presented. How did they come up with the losses and were they
specific, and what did they use as a charge for anybody to get into the
golf course or to play the golf course or so -- that it becomes a losing
proposition?
It's not a charity event there. You know, these people will be
willing to pay for a golf course and pay their admission because they
can't go to any other golf course. So, I'm sorry, but I can't accept the
report.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
floor.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I might, just for some clarification.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes. I'm not sure that if staff is approached by, you
know, an existing owner of a golf course, one or two or three or four,
that provides the Board with a complete list of options, what we might
want to consider is directing the staff to develop some type of request
for information or request for proposal from these existing courses that
-- and that way anybody that wants to make a proposal can make one,
and you can have the full list of courses that may have some interest in
selling to the county; otherwise, how do you pick and choose?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. I think that's -- well, we have a
motion on the floor.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two motions. Well, no, we have a
motion on the floor that says for the county staff to consider --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To not pursue vacant land
construction and capital expense but to look on a case-by-case basis
the availability of these other opportunities for the purchase of a golf
course for a public facility.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Which I think covers what Mr.
Ochs just said.
Page 100
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we don't go out for an
RFP. I mean, basically, I'm not looking to create work.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're going to add the RFP comps.
Instead of--
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
MR. OCHS: No, no. I'm hearing no. And that's fine, but I'm just
saying, okay. So if Course X comes next month, we're not evaluating
that against anything else?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. They're on an individual --
I mean, how can we necessarily --
MR. OCHS: Well, that's my point, sir. You know, if one course
comes and they have all the amenities, they have a driving range and,
you know, concessions and all that and another course just has a
course, I don't know what the Board's requirements are. And I guess I
could bring each one to you individually as they come, but --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I didn't really want to
make this more cumbersome than it already, in fact, is, and I think we
-- because of the unique locations of the facilities that I can think of
that are available right now, it would be difficult to compare those
alternatives, and it -- and from what I'm hearing from this board at this
stage of the game, there is a concern with regard to the expenses
associated with these operations.
So I think that's going to be one of the main driving forces. And
we really can't ascertain the individual value until we know what the
acquisition costs are and have viewed the different methodologies for
operations and maintenance along those lines.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I would argue that that's what the
Hunden report gave us, an overview.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it said -- but the Hunden report
did say that the seasonal visitors are not accounted for, so that's a
whole different category altogether that haven't even been weighed in.
Page 101
March 14, 2017
And, let's face it, they're here in great numbers.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'm not
prepared to vote for a motion that would direct staff to do an RFP to
solicit proposals from golf course owners and operators at this point. I
am prepared to proceed with the motion that Mr. McDaniel made
which basically says that if there's an operator out there that has an
interest in discussing that, that they should contact the county, and we
can then kind of see what the -- what's out there.
But I don't want to send the message to the community that we're
moving forward to acquire a golf course by doing an RFP, because I'm
not so sure that we're at that point.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or five.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. We have a motion on
the floor and a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was to accept the report,
right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, and to instruct staff to evaluate
these golf courses as they come to staff but not to go out and pursue it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I might offer just a minor -- I
mean, the specific request that I gave was to also not consider the
purchase of vacant land and the zoning and capital expenditure of a
new facility that we would, in fact, own ourselves but really only look
at opportunities on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Everyone clear on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it's a three-part motion,
actually. And so if I vote against the one part, I vote against all three
parts, right?
Page 102
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- because I don't accept the
report, so -- okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. All those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. Motion fails.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's it. Unless there's another
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that was a 2-2, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Motion fails.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE THE
PUBLIC PLANNING INITIATIVES AUTHORIZED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND AUTHORIZE
FUNDING NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY FACILITATE THE
BOARD'S PRIORITIES FOR THESE VARIOUS PUBLIC
PLANNING INITIATIVES - MOTION TO ACCEPT
RECOMMENDED STAFFING POSITIONS — APPROVED;
MOTION TO APPROVE CIGM AND MOVE FORWARD WITH
PUBLIC PLANNING INITIATIVES
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 11C, and this is
a recommendation to review and prioritize the public planning
initiatives authorized previously by the Board, and authorize the
Page 103
March 14, 2017
funding necessary to facilitate those priorities through us and
additional staff and consulting services. Mr. Bosi, your Zoning
Division Director, will present.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Planning and Zoning.
First off, I'd like to apologize for being a tad bit abrupt within this
first slide. The title of the agenda item was to review and prioritize the
planning projects, and I just jumped right ahead at asking for the
requested additional staffing. But this sets the tone as to what we're
going to be requesting for the partial year of this current year.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I hate to interrupt, but you're
going to go through an analysis as to why we need this person and then
why we need the second person. I'll make a motion that we approve
the staff recommendation for both positions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MR. BOSI: And that will abbreviate my presentation
tremendously.
There's a last component, and that relates to the Collier Interactive
Growth Model. The Collier Interactive Growth Model --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- was an additional supplemental planning tool that
was developed by staff as well as the collaborative effort of the East of
951 Committee. That committee was made up of past Chairman
Commissioner Nance, current Commissioner Mr. McDaniel, with
some individual members of our audience today as well.
We utilized the growth model as a supplemental planning tool,
and it was designed to forecast the timing and locations of
development in five-year increments, also forecasted sub-models for
Page 104
March 14, 2017
public facilities, parks, sheriffs, schools, libraries, infrastructure needs.
It was done as part of an effort to try to understand what was the
price tag that growth and development was going to impose upon this
county from an infrastructure standpoint looking out into the future.
What is that range of those potential costs -- those costs associated
with that infrastructure allocation, and what are the most efficient
means of strategies to satisfying the revenue that we needed for the
ultimate infrastructure and the levels of service that were associated
with it.
And then the Board accepted the CIGM as an additional planning
tool in 2008. During that period of time, we provided for -- and one of
the most important roles of the interactive growth model was the
master planning activities that it provided for. It provided for land use
increments, the allocation of the various subsets of your land uses, and
it was broken down by traffic analysis zones, and those traffic analysis
zones were useful in terms of it would allow and it does allow for us to
provide to every master planning effort, whether it be the master
mobility plan, whether it be the Long Range Transportation Plan, the
parks master plan, any one of our infrastructure or service provider's
master planning efforts. It provides that land use allocation for it. So
it was a true benefit.
We also utilized the CIGM to analyze and evaluate Growth
Management Plan request amendments to analyze the amount of
square footage that has been provided by -- in the area but also what's
the population within that area, what's that population moving out into
the future, and what would be the expected demand to evaluate
whether those amendments were appropriate or not.
We also identified future economic opportunities not provided by
the GMP within the eastern portion of land. One of the things that the
CIGM, in our work with Dr. Van Buskirk & Associates at the time,
was we realized that the need for additional business research
Page 105
March 14, 2017
economic opportunities that would be needed to be developed within
the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
to help satisfy the job creation, as well as starting to help influence the
transportation mobility patterns that the presence of those job locations
as well as goods and services could do in terms of improving our
infrastructure without a physical outlay but changing the patterns in
terms of how those attractors and the demands would be satisfied.
Here's a prime example, was commercial benchmarks. One of the
things that we gained from the CIGM was based upon the urbanized
area at the time when it was developed in 2007 and 2008, it was
determined that for a neighborhood center, a commercial center that's
going to serve you, your local neighborhoods, you need about 13,110
people. And then we had the metrics for a community center, and then
for a regional center. So when we would have proposals, whether it be
on the zoning side or whether it be on the GMP side, we can make an
evaluation as to how much -- what was the population in the area, what
was the available square footage, and what was supportable and what
was maybe in excess, and those metrics helped us understand and
better evaluate proposals for new development.
We have interacted with Dr. Van Buskirk and his new current
partner, Mr. David Farmer, who is in the audience here today. And
one of the things that they have developed, they have taken their first
original interactive growth model -- and by the way, I will say that the
CIGM was featured as part of the American Planning Association's
national magazine, a future article on this CIGM and the unique nature
of that planning tool that Collier County has utilized. But they've
developed that original CIGM to an updated model.
But one of the limitations of the current Collier Interactive
Growth Model, it was only focused on the area east of 951, and
because of that, it had some limitations on the usefulness. From
interaction with Metro Forecasting now, the former Van Buskirk &
Page 106
March 14, 2017
Associates firm, they've provided us two options in terms of how we
could upgrade this CIGM. One would be to take the existing model,
expand it to the -- expand it to the -- to the west to the full urbanized
area, and we could do -- and also calibrate it to the new TAZ patterns
that are out there. The Long Range -- or the MPO adopts new TAZs
on a regular basis, so we'd have to update the current allocation for
how the TAZs are currently configured.
That was the first option, but that's a static option in the sense of
we wouldn't gain the benefits of the new technology that they've been
able to develop, and that leads us to the second option, which is to
upgrade the CIGM to the Version 3, also expanding it for the entire
county, but also including the new sub-models for water and
wastewater forecast.
It also provides for an updated way for how the output of the
CIGM -- or the CIGM would be provided. Before it was done in a
static Excel spreadsheets where you could gain the information, but
looking at it was a real eye chart.
The interaction with the Metro Forecast, as indicated, much more
digestible, much more easily understandable in terms of how you'll
receive those reports whether they're within increments or whether
they're at the buildout stage. So there are some improvements.
Two options right roughly around the same price tag, obviously.
But staff is suggesting, if we would decide to move forward with it, to
move forward with the newer version, the 3.0, and expand it for the
entire county area.
That's the end of the presentation. Any questions, I'd be happy to
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala was first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I was just going to
ask, although it didn't mention it at all, there were a couple question
Page 107
March 14, 2017
that I had. And this is -- and being that we're talking about growth and
rate of growth and so forth, are we in a position in this report -- does it
need to be someplace else -- where we would also direct growth away
from certain areas or into certain areas? For instance, the growth of
self-storage units?
What we're having right down here, and you well know this, right
down here on U.S. 41 there are so many people already vying for new
self-storage units, and there's no control over that whatsoever. There is
-- there's nothing at all to enhance the shopping for the people in the
area or the attraction to people in the area with a self-storage area, yet,
for number one, they, for some reason, insist of being front and center
on the roads rather than behind the scenes, and they're not really
something that is an impulse buy, as I've mentioned previously.
I think that impulse buying, whether it be, you know, clothing
stores or shoe stores or kids stores or whatever, should probably be
facing the street if we want to have a planned growth management. Is
that something that you're doing?
MR. BOSI: That's -- that individual discussion would be really
related to one of the planning efforts that was identified within the
report, and that's that East Naples 41 study. The CIGM --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I really mean for other
areas, too. I mean, you know, I think Golden Gate is going to do some
changing, Golden Gate City, and I think we need to take that into
consideration for new growth or redevelopment growth, because -- I
mean, this is my opinion only. I can't see the benefit to lining a street
with self-storage units.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if I could. We spoke
yesterday. Maybe I'll help you out a little bit with some of the things
we discussed.
As part of Mike's presentation, he was going to go through the
LDC amendment timeline that was here. The commissioners had
Page 108
March 14, 2017
asked about three items that might be included in the timeline at the
next LDC cycle.
I believe one of them that we're going to be doing as part of the
East Trail corridor study is looking at the compatibility of these storage
centers along the Trail, and she said, could we expand that countywide.
And so that's fine. That's probably not a bad idea to look at the
compatibility and make it a consistent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we probably can't save U.S.
41 anymore. We don't have anything to stop it, and by the time reports
come through, it will already be too late for their area.
But -- so we're not -- you know, it's going to be difficult for us
without that limitation in place, but I don't want to see other people
have to suffer with the same things we have to.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I think you were asking when
we talked if-- you had talked to the board members about getting
consensus, just maybe to include that storage facility compatibility
review in one of the upcoming LDC cycle amendments going forward.
And Mike didn't get a chance to present the timeline, and I think that
was your opportunity to talk about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Also -- and that's also the
concentration, but that will be later, too, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you wanted to bring that up now,
you could, and that would be where Mike would put it in cycle going
forward in one of the next cycle amendments to review.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And what I'm talking about is
right now there's heavy concentration of low-income housing in just a
few areas, and those areas make it -- it's more difficult for those areas
to emerge into a better balanced community when everything is
concentrated in that one area.
And although the state statutes say avoid concentration, nobody
avoids it, and there's no crime against that. And I think we should
Page 109
March 14, 2017
have strong wording to say that, you know, you must stop
concentration of low-income housing in one area. Anyway...
MR. BOSI: And from my understanding is you're -- what you're
requesting is that whether the Board as a collective body would like
staff to add two additional LDC amendments to the -- or the already
identified LDC amendments that we need to process through over the
next 12 to 18 to 24 months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You say it so much better, Mike.
Thank you.
MR. BOSI: And one would be the analysis of self-storage
facilities that frontage on collector and arterial roads and whether that
is an appropriate locational provision for self-storage facilities and
whether there should be some restrictions in terms of that availability
of location on collector and arterial roads.
And then the second is create an LDC amendment that will
implement our GMP policy that says that we shall not concentrate
affordable housing in one geographic area but to actually have an LDC
amendment that expresses that as well within the code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you probably have to be careful
with the wording, like in my particular area we consist of five planning
communities and three commission districts. So when you break that
all up, you can still concentrate it all in one area because it's broken up
into little pieces. But maybe we could identify some lines to that area
that -- you know, nobody else is -- nobody else's community is broken
up into three commission districts, and so it makes it a little bit more
difficult for you guys.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't understand. Your areas -- your
area --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: East Naples is divided into your
commission district, his commissioner district, and my commission
district.
Page 110
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And mine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any of East Naples?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Everglades City, Southeast
Naples. Depends on whether you go south or east, depending.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just -- are we off
subject matter a little bit with regard to the -- with regard to the
executive summary that's in front of us?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not that this is not important
things to talk about...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is about this subject, but they've
said we have to put it onto a different format.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There is a motion and a second
to approve the staffing positions. I think that's all that you needed in
terms of the motion, or do you need --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. And this study, this other study
needs to be.
MR. BOSI: The CIGM was the second part, but the first part was
the staffing, and that was tied into why we put forward all the LDC
amendments, just so you would understand the demand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, then why don't we take a
vote, Madam Chair --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, because there's two choices on
the seat.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was going to say, why don't
we take a vote on the staffing positions, and then let's get a motion on
the second one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I do -- and when
Page 111
March 14, 2017
we go -- no, my comments revolve around the CIGM, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mine also. Okay.
So we have a motion on the floor and a second to approve the
additional staffing request.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then I would like to make
a motion, if I may. Is that appropriate?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'd like to make a motion
that we approve the CIGM and staffs recommendation for the latest
version of that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'll second that with -- and to see
if there's any support.
One of the areas that we probably need to address in this also, if it
can be, when we're planning for the future, is workforce housing. If
we're putting commercial out there, we need workforce housing.
That's going to be a little tough, I would think, but I'm sure that in
some other parts of this country someone's done it somehow.
But I do think it needs to be part of the equation going forward.
I'm not talking about low-income housing. I'm talking about
workforce housing. I'm talking about 80 percent of mean and going
upward. So I don't know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, workforce needs to be
defined, because it's --
Page 112
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 80 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the definition has changed so
much from when it was first introduced to what it's become now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think if you define it by percentages,
then as your mean income varies, it follows it. But it's, you know,
$40,000 a year and up; 80 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm hitting my button.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm going to make it vibrate
from now on just so you know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I haven't finished. I just saw
you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, I thought you were done.
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I was adding a -- I guess it's a
question of staff, if that's even possible.
MR. BOSI: And I was just chatting with County Manager Ochs.
That's part of what we're doing with the rural fringe mixed use district,
that's part of what we're doing with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,
the Rural Land Stewardship Area. We just met with Cormac and Kim
Grant and Mr. Lee -- or Mr. Levy from the Affordable Housing
Advisory Board and coordinated when their report's going to be done,
how we can incorporate the work in the decisions that the Board's
going to do in terms of implementing any further policies related to
affordable housing within some of the policies and the goals and
objectives of those individual subdistricts.
So that is an ongoing process, and we do recognize that that will
be a vital component to the updates of those individual plans.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Including senior housing also --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
Page 113
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- which may be defined as low
income, but I do not want to define it as such. I want to talk about
senior housing, because that is so critical.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So, Commissioner
McDaniel, you're anxious to speak.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I am. And I just would
like to say this: When we had our workshop regarding the 35
initiatives or so that the ULI folks had shared with us, I was quite
impressed with your statements with regard to -- with regard to No. 35
in that our community has a vision, and you brought forth that it was
imperative that we have a vision and that that vision be data driven.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The CIGM takes us there. It
allows for our staff to analyze all of the uses that we have, all of the
housing types that we have, encompassing our entire community with
what we have from an infrastructure standpoint, support mechanisms
for this growth that is inevitably coming, and that's what this does.
This provides us with an additional tool for our toolbox, if you will, to
supply us with greater enhanced information.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Accurate information.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Base it on metrics.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have a speaker, Troy? No?
MR. MILLER: Not on this item, no.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So is that -- so am I hearing --
do we need to modify the motion that Commissioner McDaniel made
that I seconded to include workforce/senior housing in your equation
with Version 3, or is it sufficient the way it's written as such?
MR. BOSI: The implementation of an affordable housing
Page 114
March 14, 2017
component to the CIGM, I'm not sure -- that would be an individual
question I would have to have with the developers. Maybe Mr. Farmer
could speak to it a bit.
But what I was simply reiterating is those concepts and those
housing policies that are being adopted and being contemplated will be
expressed in our part of the Growth Management Plan update in the
studies that we're providing for.
The CIGM provides for the populations and demographics. It
won't get specifically to senior housing. Those are policy decisions
that the Board will make, and the updates to those individual
subdistricts and plans will be part of or contain the policy decisions
that this board does make.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So you think going
forward, as they are in the plan, it's not going to be, you know, gee, it
would be really nice to build workforce housing here. It says, your
population is such, your commercial is such. We calculate that you
need X amount of workers; therefore, you are required to build X
amount of units of workforce housing?
MR. BOSI: That is a policy decision the Board of County
Commissioners could make. We will make suggestions and we
regularly make suggestions from a Planning Department that there's a
need for, whether it be square footage, whether it be for affordable
housing, workforce housing. The Board will make that decision as to
whether you want to impose that on individual developments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's what we do for libraries, right, and
fire stations be based on population?
MR. BOSI: We have a level of service --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. BOSI: -- for our infrastructure and service providers. That
would be a decision that the Board of County Commissioners would
make when you're deciding your housing policy. Those are hard
Page 115
March 14, 2017
decisions that you -- that this board will be faced with over the next --
the next five to six to seven months in terms of what are the policies
that you want to implement, that you want to mandate for affordable
housing.
Staff can only provide you the analysis as to what -- maybe the
recognition of need, and then it goes beyond that, and that is a policy
that sits within the hands and the power of your seats.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But it's not to be weaved into the
CIGM process?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's just a tool of
information to supply us with to be able to make those policy
decisions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, give us the data.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Provide the metrics so that we can
weave it in if there is support on this commission to do so. All right.
MR. OCHS: Okay. So is there a motion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor and a
second to accept Version 3 of the CIGM. Are we finished with our
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Page 116
March 14, 2017
Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Now, what about the recommendations from
Commissioner Fiala to add these additional elements into a future LDC
amendment review?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we -- can we incorporate it here, or
do we have to have that as an agenda item? I'm not ignoring it. I just
didn't -- I mean, I'm not sure what the policy should be.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to give staff direction, that's
fine. It's not really an action item; just giving staff direction.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want it in the form of a
motion because I'll --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- be happy to make -- unless
you want to -- you want to? Go ahead and make the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, is it in need of a motion
or just give --
MR. OCHS: No; no, sir. I just --
MR. KLATZKOW: Three votes. Just three hands is good.
MR. OCHS: -- need to know if there's, you know, three of you
that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make a motion we do what she
said.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I -- that's fine with me. I
think staff has the direction. We'd have to see what the details are
when it comes back, but...
MR. OCHS: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's just cleaner to have a motion, so
that's why I --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And, I mean, it is going
Page 117
March 14, 2017
to come back before us where we can explore it in detail and discuss
those items.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's consensus for you to go
forward and bring back an LDC amendment regarding the concerns
expressed by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. BOSI: It's understood by staff Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. Okay. I think
we're finished, right?
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to Item 7, public
comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Leo?
MR. MILLER: I have no one at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. I was just wondering.
Are we going to be here much longer? Because she probably needs a
10-minute break.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're done.
MR. OCHS: That's it, ma'am. You're ready to recess till 5:05 at
this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At which point we will do -- after we
hear the golf course, we will do our commissioner comments, and
Commissioner Solis will be part of it, so that's wonderful.
MR. OCHS: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Page 118
March 14, 2017
(A recess was had until the 5:05 p.m. time-certain.)
*****
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, if you
have any and, if not, we have room up on the fifth floor of this
building. We have some additional seating out in the hallway. So you
can see our staff out there to assist you if you'd like to find a seat.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And it's
wonderful to see so many people here and standing room only.
I just want to reassure you that Collier County isn't here to make
it easy for a golf course conversion. Collier County has been working
about a year or maybe a little bit more to make it as difficult as we
possibly could to make a possible conversion of a golf course
somewhat of a task for a developer but, most importantly, to protect
your rights and also to protect what you live next to. So I just really
wanted to make that very, very clear.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm delighted, because I was worried
there'd be a lot of boos there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We do -- now, we do have room
upstairs for you to sit and view this meeting. We don't have room
upstairs? Wow, I think this is a record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were some chairs out here.
Maybe not anymore, though.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, okay. So I'm sorry about this, but
let's see what we can do.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, we'll open another -- we'll open another
room.
Page 119
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: It may be down the stairs and through the woods,
but we'll get you another room where you can follow it on the
television and register if you want to speak.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good.
Now, we do have one commissioner that by -- it's an
extraordinary circumstance -- is not here this evening. Do we have
him on the line, Troy?
MR. MILLER: I think he should be there.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I'm here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I need a motion of this board
that finds that it's an extraordinary circumstance that Commissioner
Solis is not able to join us this evening.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion and a second on the
floor. All those --
MR. KLATZKOW: And allow him to participate by telephone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that the only way he can
participate is by telephone. I have amended the motion. Does the
motion maker agree?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Second. Okay. All those in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
Page 120
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Welcome, Commissioner Solis. Commissioner Solis, it is
standing room only in our chambers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only here but upstairs.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I thank you for letting me --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we have one room that is full, and
they're going to have to open another one. So this is extraordinary, and
we're very glad to see this interest and this participation in government.
Welcome, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. And thank you,
Chairman, for the opportunity to attend by phone. This is an important
hearing, and I wanted to participate. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we're delighted you're here, and
thank your board, because it's not just me.
Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you, Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let's move ahead. We've already
this morning -- this is a continuation of the meeting, so we're not going
to do the Pledge -- say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I think we're
going to ask staff to present --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and County Manager?
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
Page 121
March 14, 2017
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF
FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING
DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.06
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SECTION
2.03.09 OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICTS, MORE
SPECIFICALLY, TO ADD USES TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED
AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE GOLF COURSE (GC)
ZONING DISTRICT; CHAPTER THREE - RESOURCE
PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.07 PRESERVATION
STANDARDS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, ADDING SECTION 5.05.15 CONVERSION OF
GOLF COURSES; CHAPTER SIX - INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.05.01 WATER
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, ADDING SECTION 6.05.03
STORMWATER PLANS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS, TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND DUPLEXES;
CHAPTER TEN - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-
MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.03.06
PUBLIC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND USE
PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO APPROVE
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE GOLF
COURSE CONVERSION AND MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE
Page 122
March 14, 2017
SECOND HEARING — APPROVED; MOTION TO APPROVE
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO THE WATER
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MOVE IT FORWARD
TO THE SECOND HEARING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're moving to Item 9A on your
agenda, and this is a recommendation to consider an amendment to
your Collier County Land Development Code this evening.
We have two amendments to present. The first has to do with an
amendment regarding conversion of golf courses and the second
amendment, which I don't imagine all these people are here for, has to
do with some minor changes in your stormwater management system.
So we'll, obviously, want to begin this evening first with your
Land Development Code having to do with conversion of golf courses.
Mr. Bosi, your zoning director, will begin the presentation this
evening.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Bosi, Planning
and Zoning Director.
Just a few introductory comments --
MR. OCHS: Speak up.
MR. BOSI: Just a few introductory comments before I introduce
Caroline and our LDC team that's going to go over the specifics of the
Land Development Code proposal.
A year ago the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
moratorium related to conversion of golf courses based upon a number
of courses signaling an intent to convert from their current use as a golf
course.
The Board recognized at that time that golf courses have a unique
presence within the built environment. There's a vested interest, there's
a vested sense of place that is conveyed with a golf course and,
Page 123
March 14, 2017
because of that recognition, I think it's probably confirmed with the
attendance of tonight's crowd; that there was a need for additional
process, additional communication, and additional dialogue to
facilitate the proper conversion or the options for conversion of a golf
course, and that's what these amendments are truly based upon.
They're based on a proactive strategy that requires, before any
application is submitted to the Board of County Commissioners, that
there's going to be conversation between the community, the
stakeholders, the golf course owner, and the community. That's the
premise.
The research that Caroline and the team has done she'll expand
upon, but what she's found is that the more proactive we are in
addressing these issues before an application is submitted, the better
the outcomes of these proposals normally will be.
And with that, I'll introduce Caroline, and she'll be able to
highlight the -- highlight the aspects of the amendment.
MS. CILEK: Thank you.
Good evening, Commissioners. Caroline Cilek with Collier
County's Growth Management Department.
And before I begin, I just want to say thanks to all the staff and
the advisory boards that participated in this amendment process as well
as thank you to you all for being here tonight. As the chairperson said,
we appreciate you being involved in this process.
So to reiterate a little bit about what Mr. Bosi said, in the spring
of 2016, the Board discussed the potential for golf course conversion
in the county. During the discussion, the Board provided several
considerations and a couple of concerns that they had about the
potential for conversion.
A summary of these main points is: One, that golf courses are
valuable resources of open space in the county and that the process and
design standards need to address how to preserve this resource to a
Page 124
March 14, 2017
reasonable extent;
Two, that the property owners surrounding a golf course
purchased their homes with the expectation that they would have a golf
course view in perpetuity, and if this view amenity is lost to a
conversion project, that there may be a potential loss in property value;
And, three, a recognition that neighborhoods that surround golf
courses should be involved in a conversion process.
Following the discussion, the Board did implement a six-month
moratorium, and in September of last year staff came back and
requested an extension for an additional six months to complete the
public vetting process. At that time we presented a research paper that
detailed what we had found at that time.
The moratorium extends until next month, April 11th, 2017.
Research and findings: This amendment is the result of a lot of
thoughtful and thorough research conducted over several months.
Much of this research was documented in that research paper we
presented to the Board in September of last year, and our research
included reviewing lots of municipal codes, Comprehensive Plans
across the state of Florida, as well as reviewing academic resources,
and we spoke to countless planners that had encountered conversion
projects in their local communities, and we learned from them about
those experiences.
The vast majority of what we're presenting here today is based on
our research and what we found in those other communities and those
case studies and those examples.
So a couple of the things that we did identify: First is that
conversions are happening. There is a lot of conversions going on on
the east coast of Florida which provided really valuable insight for us.
We found that obtaining early insight from the residents that surround
the golf course is very important to the approval process. Basically it
opened up the ability for them to build consensus, the stakeholders that
Page 125
March 14, 2017
surround the golf course and the property owner/applicant for the
conversion project.
In key studies where the surrounding residents were not included
early in the development process, the approval process, meaning the
process going through the Board's review and approval, often became
lengthy, contentious, and sometimes litigious, which is not in the best
interest of the neighborhoods surrounding the golf course, the
developer, or the county.
So this amendment does present a very robust structure for
collaboration and documentation for a conversion project. And we
recognize that many land use professionals may actually do some of
these things that we're going to be presenting to you naturally, but it's
always good to have them as a structure in the LDC as well.
So I'd like to next go through two of the main concepts that we're
presenting today. The first are stakeholder outreach meetings. So the
applicant would be required to do or hold or conduct two stakeholder
outreach meetings. The stakeholder outreach meeting is intended to be
a collaborative environment in a transparent process where the
applicant would conduct activities to engage the stakeholders, those
that live around the golf course, and solicit input and feedback from
them to help them inform their conversion project.
There are some benefits to this meeting. It would hold all parties
accountable in being reasonable. It is a transparent process in that
following both the meetings the applicant would prepare a report that
would be then reviewed and analyzed by staff, then the Planning
Commission, and then the board. So it is providing the Board
information to make a decision.
I think it is important to note that the stakeholder outreach
meeting is more robust than a neighborhood information meeting,
which is something that we're all pretty familiar with, and that's
because the impact of a golf course conversion is so great.
Page 126
March 14, 2017
The next main concept that I want to speak to you about is the
100-foot greenway. A greenway is defined in the our amendment as a
contiguous strip of undeveloped land that would include passive
recreational areas. This could be like the pictures illustrate, a multi-use
walking path, it could be a playground, or it could be simply open
space, green space.
And the purpose of the greenway would be to retain open space
views for the residents that surround the golf course prior to a
conversion project.
This standard does address one of the Board's main concerns that
they discussed last spring in that it would help to retain the property
values or potential loss in property values due to a conversion project.
This requirement of a greenway also would retain preserves that
are located in the greenway as well as existing vegetation that many
are -- enjoy looking out from their backyards; they would see those
trees. Those would be retained as well.
One last note about the greenway is that it does come from
looking at case studies and examples of projects that have occurred in
Florida previously.
So we wanted to see what a 100-foot greenway would look like
on several golf courses in the county, and those maps are included in
your packet today. Here is an example. And as you can see here, this
would be a reasonable and appropriate application of a greenway;
however, we recognize that not all cases that this would -- that a
100-foot greenway would be appropriate, and so we have incorporated
some flexibility into the proposed LDC amendment that would allow
an applicant to propose an alternative design for the greenway, vet that
with the stakeholders at the stakeholder outreach meetings, and then
present that to the Board, and the Board would make the decision on
whether that was an appropriate greenway design.
Next I'd like to get into the conversion process and what steps
Page 127
March 14, 2017
would be required. So first the applicant would come forward, and
like any other application today, they would have a pre-application
meeting with the county, and there they're sharing what they are
hoping to do with this conversion project with county staff.
The next would be an intent-to-convert application. This would
be a new application, but it is designed to thoroughly vet and analyze
the proposed conversion project.
This application includes three or four main concepts. The first
would be alternatives. One of the alternatives that we're requiring the
applicant to pursue is to reach out to existing property owners'
associations and see if they're interested in purchasing some or all of
the golf course. The next one would be county purchase. The next
alternative would be the development -- a conceptual development
plan where they would lay out what their idea is for the conversion
project.
In addition, this application requires that encumbrances on the
land are identified so that everyone is aware of what those are.
And last is that we are including a mailed notice as a part of this
application so that the stakeholders are informed very early in the
process that there is someone intending to convert the golf course.
The next step would be the stakeholder outreach meetings, and
there the applicant would engage the stakeholders in activities to solicit
input and feedback on their proposed plans and then, following both of
those meetings, they would be required to present a report
documenting what occurred there, what questions the stakeholders had,
and input the stakeholders provided.
That report would then be analyzed by staff at the next step
through the more traditional rezone PUD amendment or perhaps even
a stewardship receiving area amendment as well.
The last possibility for the conversion project would be for a
compatibility design review. This would be a new process that we're
Page 128
March 14, 2017
proposing today, and it would address those golf courses that have a
golf course as a permitted use as well as residential as a permitted use.
And in this case we would have the Planning Commission and the
Board weigh in on the design of the conversion project rather than the
use because the use is already permitted by right, and so they would
get to make sure that it is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let me just interrupt. So in some
cases the use is not an underlining zoning on a golf courses; in some
cases it is.
MS. CILEK: Correct. There are golf courses out there. There
are golf courses that are zoned residential and actually just have a golf
course on them. They're very small, and there's very few of them, and
there's a map in the binder, and there are very few PUDs, P-U-Ds, that
have residential as a permitted use, and so this process would be
specific to those.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. CILEK: Okay. In conclusion, I just want to wrap up by
saying that, as Mr. Bosi mentioned, golf courses are a unique land use,
and so we feel that because they are unique, they rise to a certain level
of review by staff, for stakeholder input, and for an elevated review by
the Board.
Our robust process provides information to decision makers so
that you all can make an informed decision, and our process requires
early stakeholder involvement so that the meat of the conversation
with stakeholders can happen prior to the land use petition at the board
level so a lot of it is hashed out and agreed upon before it gets to you.
And we have presented several development standards to
preserve open space views for existing residential properties around a
golf course.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Page 129
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't even get to hit my light
that time.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I may, Caroline, with --
on Page 2 of-- Page 3 of the executive summary, there was some
discussion in the stormwater plan management portion about the
impervious lot coverage. And it was mentioned in -- it referenced
Golden Gate Estates. Does this LDC change -- Land Development
Code change also encompass properties in Golden Gate Estates as
well, or is this just specifically for a golf course conversion?
MS. CILEK: So I believe you may be looking at the second
amendment that we have today regarding Chapter 6, is that correct, or
is it one of the development standards --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. There's --
MS. CILEK: Because if you're looking at something talking
about lots, then that would be our second amendment.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Golf course conversion
amendment, LDC Section 5.05. Now, if this --
MS. CILEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If there's one executive
summary that goes through this, then my question's on the wrong one.
Then I'll ask that on the second one then.
And the other question: I read there was a recommendation by
DSAC about a notification of 500 feet on a regular basis, and we went
to a thousand. And I like the thousand; I just wanted to know the
rationale why.
MS. CILEK: So we took a look at the distances that are already
codified in the LDC, and right now it is 500 for urban areas and 1,000
for rural, but because golf courses are unique land uses, staff felt that
they rise to a different level and that a thousand would include those
Page 130
March 14, 2017
who directly live around a golf course and those individuals or
property owners, rather, that purchased property near a golf course to
utilize it throughout the week to be close to open space. So we wanted
to make sure that it had a -- more people were encompassed in the
process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I do have one more, if I
might suggest, and this is just a question. In the actual ordinance itself,
it talks about a maximum -- a maximum of two residential units to be
provided for employees of the golf course facility, I believe that's how
I read this, for maintenance and such. Is -- do we have the capacity of
increasing that if we designate that as maximum? Because there may
be instances, as we all know when we're talking about housing
affordability where we can allow for employees and things to be
housed here. It stipulates maximum, and I just wanted to know how
arduous it was for us to increase that if it were conducive.
MS. CILEK: Sure. And you're referring to LDC amendment
2.03.09 which outlines the permitted accessory and conditional uses
that are allowed in the golf course zoning district.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MS. CILEK: The A.1.B.5 addresses the maximum of two
residential dwelling units. That is existing language that is there today.
And it could be amended through a PUD process if a PUD wanted to
address this -- or include this as an accessory use, but for straight
zoning this would be the standard that they would go by.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You mentioned
compatibility.
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And like, for instance, most of the
golf courses that we're talking about right now are abutted or
Page 131
March 14, 2017
surrounded by or in the middle of, whatever, single-family homes.
So does that mean that the applicant who wants to buy that land
and change it to homes must build a single-family home?
MS. CILEK: Well, that's something that would be evaluated
through the conversion project and through this process that we have
outlined today. So when they're reaching out to the stakeholders,
they're going to get input as to whether single-family, multifamily, or
any type of land uses is appropriate for that neighborhood.
It also will need to be consistent with the Growth Management
Plan that we have today. So there are several factors that will weigh
in. But the great thing about this process is that it allows stakeholders
to evaluate what the applicant is considering to develop there and say,
yes, we agree or, you know, we think something else would be more
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because in a lot of these instances
that we see before us right now, they're 55-and-older communities, and
they're fearful that an applicant wants to come in and, of course, make
the biggest bang for a buck and then go back to whatever state he lives
in, but build a three-story condo, you know, with 16 units per acre in
the middle of their --
MS. CILEK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- peaceful community. So, you
know, that compatibility -- we'll be able to judge that compatibility,
and will we be able to decide, I mean, or will they take us to the courts
and say you can't -- you can't keep us to that compatibility, we change
it or something? I just want to know how much -- how much power
the residents will have.
MS. CILEK: Well, this process provides them a voice,
ultimately. The applicant is required to conduct activities to find out
what they want to see there. Now, they may not agree, and that's
where the Planning Commission and staff and the Board will weigh in.
Page 132
March 14, 2017
But this process is supporting a collaborative effort because at the end
of the day the best thing is is for them to agree so that something gets
approved, if that's what the applicant is looking for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last question -- and I don't know
that you'll have the answer to this. It just popped into my head -- and
that is, as you were checking with all the -- by the way, I appreciate all
the work that you went through --
MS. CILEK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- checking on all the other counties
around the state of Florida to see what they're doing. You know, that
gives me a lot of comfort to know that you went that far to do your
work, and I appreciate that.
Did you find out what happened to those neighborhoods when
they converted? What happened to the people who were living there?
MS. CILEK: That's a really good question. We took a look at
projects that -- we took a look at all kinds of projects. And so, the ones
that we utilized to base the best practices off were successful. The
stakeholders were involved very early on, and they were supportive of
the project at the end.
Now, we put together a very comprehensive proposal for you. So
in those situations, there was often green space attached to that
development project, i.e., the greenway. So it was very much a
collaborative effort that we saw happening by the developer when they
were able to get a project approved.
In some cases, you know, they provided some green space, and it
didn't work out because people weren't being reasonable. But the goal
here is to support a collaborative process and to hold parties
accountable so that they are reasonable and then allow the Board to
make the decision as to what can and cannot be constructed there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last fear is, I wony that some of
these public golf courses that want to go up because they want to make
Page 133
March 14, 2017
a lot of money, they're going to take away the ability for people to play
on a public golf course anymore. Because when they're gone people
say, oh, well, golf is dying. You know what, there are going to be
people here who will always want to play golf, but there will be no
place for people to go. And that's a worry for me, too.
Is there something that we can do as we form these plans to make
sure there's enough public golf for people and, you know, maybe stop
the ability to sell when -- you know, when there isn't enough for our
residents to play anymore?
MS. CILEK: I'll just put something out there which is that there
are 69 golf courses in Collier County, and looking at many of these --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but people can't get onto to
them. You know, I mean, they're private, so many.
MS. CILEK: Well, in looking from the viewpoint of that most
likely not all of them will convert simply because they are PUDs and
that the community that lives around them is a part of that golf course.
So I think from that level, some may convert and others will not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple questions. I want to
ask the County Attorney a couple questions and I think also staff
If we do nothing, what happens to a golf course -- there's two
different scenarios. One is where there's, by right, the ability to build
some housing. That's the underlying zoning. So first question deals
with where there is no underlying right to build anything, zoned as a
golf course, or it's zoned as open space, whatever the designation is. If
we did nothing, what happens from a legal standpoint? Property
owner wants to come in do something and we say, no, you can't do it.
There's no process for that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The purpose of this proposed LDC
ordinance is to put arrows in the quiver for the Board of County
Commissioners. If you do nothing, you're limited to your current
Page 134
March 14, 2017
rezoning review, which is largely compatibility oriented. This LDC
amendment is specific to golf course conversions.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me go back to what you
just said. We'd be limited to the current reviews --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but does a property owner
who is operating a golf course with underlying zoning that is open
space, or whatever the designation is, have any right to a change in that
zoning at any point in time?
MR. KLATZKOW: The owner would have to come forward
showing the need to convert. For example, I'm losing money here
would be a typical response. You know, you can't force me to continue
a business that's losing money. I need to do something else.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have an obligation to
assist them in doing something else by change their zoning? Even if--
MR. KLATZKOW: Eventually, given the circumstances, I'm not
sure obligation's the right word, but they will be entitled to rezoning of
some sorts. I mean, a landowner is entitled to a productive use of his
property. And if his property's become unproductive because of the
underlying zoning then, yes, there is going to be a rezoning.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So from a legal standpoint, we
really have no other alternative but to provide some mechanism,
because if we don't do it, the courts will do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that -- I think that sort of
addresses my question I was going to ask staff is what, in their view,
would happen to these golf courses if a conversion wasn't permitted,
but it sounds like, from what the County Attorney has indicated, that
there would be a conversion at some point, even if it was imposed on
the county by the courts.
MR. KLATZKOW: At some point in time, yes. It's -- that is the
Page 135
March 14, 2017
concern that we've had that have led to this moment in time here.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No questions for me at this point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
I do have some questions about the environmental aspect, and I
know that I probably need to discuss this. I understand that we can add
some testing requirements to this LDC; is that correct?
MS. CILEK: So I'm going to have Danette with Pollution
Control speak to your questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good.
And the reason I'm bringing this up is that we all know that golf
courses use probably a little bit more pesticides and fertilizers than
houses would because they want everything to be perfect and green,
and the lakes will have the runoff, and at the bottom of the lakes will
be the stuff that we always try to dig out because it may contaminate
water.
So I really want to address that now to see if some protection for
homeowners can -- that surround the area can be weaved into this LDC
amendment. So I'm going to turn this over to you. You know my
questions.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Danette Kinaszczuk, Pollution Control
Manager.
The current LDC provision requires testing for organochlorine
pesticides and the eight RCRA metals. And what we requested was
some additional contaminates, emerging contaminates of concern,
including petroleum products in the maintenance areas,
organophosphate pesticides, chlorinated herbicides, and some common
pesticides like triazine and carbamide. So we did ask for some
Page 136
March 14, 2017
additional.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
And then I know that -- I know that when you do the soil
sampling, if there's contamination then you look at groundwater, is that
right, or am I correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: You are correct. If the soil samples come
back above or at cleanup contaminant levels, then we would give that
information to DEP and coordinate a remediation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And we're going to determine
that; Collier County is determining. We don't have to send it off to
have it determined.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Right, correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good.
Then, finally -- well, help me with this. Can we be more
restrictive? But you suggest that we're not more restrictive because it
becomes more problematic in terms of what we're doing here; is that
correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: We would have to come up with some
exceptional science and prove a good reason to become more
restrictive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Now, the fertilizer ordinance I
was referring to was the one that was proposed by the Conservancy
several years ago which had to do with the use of, I believe it was,
nitrogen --
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- in fertilizers, and that's probably not
a conversation we should have now, but if we make our fertilizer
ordinance stronger, then it would apply to this; is that correct?
MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we -- I think I have a better vehicle
to get that point across. We are looking at a draft pollution control
ordinance, and I think there --
Page 137
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which is this one, which I don't
understand at all, so maybe you can just briefly explain it. I read it, but
I was like, okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: I don't think you have the draft pollution
control ordinance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I had the pollution control review
of environmental site assessment.
MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. That's just our process when we get
the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- environmental site assessments from a
contractor or a company that does the groundwater sampling or the soil
sampling. That's just our internal process of how we --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- process that and coordinate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're suggesting that we could
have a draft pollution control.
MS. KINASZCZUK: We have a draft pollution control
ordinance. We're still working it through --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. KINASZCZUK: -- some internal vetting, but I think we can
accomplish what you want to accomplish but through a different
vehicle.
Okay. And it would apply to this LDC amendment, so I'm very
comfortable with that.
So, Commissioner Solis, because I can't see you, do you have any
questions now?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One question with regard to the uses
with regard to different activities. I mean, one of the options would be,
as I understand it, would be for the landowner to offer the golf course
to the county. And I just want to make sure that the list of permitted
Page 138
March 14, 2017
uses would be broad enough for what the county would want to do
with the property. And I hope that makes sense.
But there's certain references to, I think, pickleball and some other
things. There's a reference to parks and recreation, and I just want to
make sure with staff that there's enough in the ordinance that gives the
county enough flexibility if it was to end up purchasing the property.
MS. CILEK: I would like to answer that.
So in 2.03.09, which is the golf course and recreational zoning
district, we have included several new conditional uses. And as
Commissioner Solis mentioned, one of those is court sports.
We did not include, like, field sports or anything like that;
however, those could be included through No. 11, which is any other
recreational use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses
as determined by the Hearing Examiner or the Board. That provides
some flexibility there.
And the county would be able to also rezone or go through a PUD
process if they were seeking very specific uses outside of the golf
course and recreational zoning district. That option is always
available.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just wanted to have a
quick discussion. Commissioner Saunders brought up a really good
point about if we do nothing, and this I found to be a very nice
compromise.
There are underlying uses that travel along with real estate
ownership both for folks that live on golf courses and for folks that
actually own golf courses, and I thought our staff did a very good job
in developing an ordinance here that provided for participation on both
sides, both the property rights of the folks that live on the golf course
and protection with those values that were there, along with the
Page 139
March 14, 2017
property rights of the landowners that have the underlying land use
that's currently used as a golf course.
I did want to ask, if I may, about concurrency. When we're
talking about the conversion, assuming that it, in fact, goes through --
and I couldn't find it in here, so forgive me if I'm asking a silly
question.
But oftentimes the golf courses are utilized as -- in an aggregation
of a density for an entire piece of property, and the units that
potentially could have been in the area where the golf course is located
are counted for the entire project but they're accumulated on the
perimeter around the golf course. And that was done at a time when
our infrastructure was different than what it is now and the
development was different than what it is now.
I couldn't find in here any discussion about concurrency with the
existing infrastructure that we have and the new densities that are
currently in place and whether or not that was even a portion of the
criterion for someone that wanted to ask for a conversion.
MS. CILEK: So that's a really great question, and what we did
was address that in the intent-to-convert application. So included in
here are several administrative codes for land development -- or for
land development sections. They're new. And what we have included
are standards that they would have to provide information about.
So if density -- density would be one of those on the conceptual
development plan, and they would have to analyze it a little bit at that
point in time but most certainly through the regular rezone or PUD
amendment component.
All of those regular LDC standards would still apply to any type
of conversion project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So yes is the answer?
MS. CILEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you.
Page 140
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many -- how many speakers do
we have, please?
MR. MILLER: At this point, Madam Chair, I have 12 registered
speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to do something
unusual. And I'm not going to try to mute at all the speakers, but I
want to take a consensus right now or maybe even have a motion
without -- I think a consensus is -- and I'd like to kind of frame it that
we would agree to what is being presented to us by staff with the
modification of maybe increasing the amount of-- the type of
pesticides by name that was put on the testimony by our pollution
control specialist, and I don't think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to ask the audience
what their --
MR. KLATZKOW: I would not include the pesticide on this one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If and when the Board enacts any
regulations on this, it will cover this anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine. So then we would
-- that we agree to this LDC amendment as presented by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I like to hear from the
audience.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we're going to. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to vote on anything till I
know --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not voting. We're just getting a
consensus.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not going to give one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner
Page 141
March 14, 2017
Fiala. Let's go ahead and hear the public, and then we can --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine.
MR. MILLER: All right. Madam Chair, we're going to call two
names. We're going to use both podiums. The first name will come to
one podium and speak. If the second name will go to the other podium
and be ready to speak. Please remember to state your name for the
record.
Our first speaker is Edward Tappen. He'll be followed by Bob
Norton.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And maybe if they're upstairs --
MR. MILLER: I only have received one slip so far from
someone that's on the fifth floor, and neither one of these names
indicated that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tappen was in my elevator, but he
was told to go upstairs.
MR. MILLER: Okay. So let's -- his slip came in early this
morning. So are you Bob Norton, sir?
MR. NORTON: I am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good.
MR. MILLER: Let's go ahead and go with Bob Norton.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Mr. Tappen's coming in?
MR. MILLER: We'll wait for him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or you can read a third name.
MR. MILLER: And the third name, in case he's not ready, would
be Dwight Kehoe.
Mr. Norton.
MR. NORTON: Thank you. I am Bob Norton of 136 Estelle
Drive, Naples. I'm also Chairman of the Riviera Golf Course Advisory
Committee.
I'm strongly opposed to the conversion of any golf courses in
Page 142
March 14, 2017
Collier County to residential use. I left that out; I'm sorry. But if we
must consider such conversions, then the LDC amendment suggested
is a better approach over the current code. Our association and
community strongly support it. If golf course conversions are to be
allowed, this amendment is critically important.
Many residents of our communities are here tonight to support
this amendment, and I would like them all others, regardless of which
community they represent, to raise their hands to show the committee
the breadth of our collective support.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We could make a motion now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let the record show that the majority of
people here standing and seated raised their hand.
MR. NORTON: I have a count of people in overflow, and it is
150. I think we can assume that they probably would have raised their
hands as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ask the other question. Ask the
opposite and let's see. How many -- how many people would oppose
this amendment?
MR. NORTON: How many people would oppose this
amendment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They're either brave or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Only one. And we won't identify the
person. So I'd say 149 won it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was a brave soul who raised
his hand there in the back.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was, very. Or she.
MR. NORTON: We also have petitions with over 640 signatures
in favor of this amendment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You'll give that --
MR. NORTON: I will give that to her, yes, later.
Page 143
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. NORTON: Many of us bought our houses specifically
because of golf course views. We paid a premium for those views and
have paid property taxes on those higher premiums since; thus, the golf
course is an important part of our environment and quality of life.
Many of our homes completely surround it.
We are very concerned about possible effects of a golf course
housing development on our community. It would negatively affect
both the values of our properties and our status as a federally approved
over-55 community.
Stormwater drainage, compatibility, and increased traffic are also
an issue, and our quality of life would be affected significantly.
We greatly appreciate the efforts the Collier County planning
board has expended in drafting the Land Development Code changes
that are before you. In particular, the requirement that a developer must
notify the residents of their plans before they are finalized and discuss
those plans in open meetings with the stakeholders is a critical feature.
This provision will preclude the residents being blindsided by a fully
formed and finished development plan.
Provision of a 100-foot buffer around the existing properties
would, if a development went forward, provide a modicum of privacy
and an opportunity to plant a visual buffer of trees or other flora. This
buffer should not be reduced in size below the proposed 100 feet.
We as residents who surround a golf course urge you to pass this
important legislation just as it is written. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- well, has Mr. Tappen
arrived?
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Edward Tappen?
(No response.)
Page 144
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: So your next speaker is Dwight Kehoe. He will
be followed by Shirley Sackett.
MR. KEHOE: Good evening. My name is Dwight Kehoe,
K-e-h-o-e, and I live at 870 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf
Estates.
Since my home borders on the Riviera golf course, my wife and I
are very interested in preserving our investment and the tranquility it
provides given its location on the golf course. We strongly oppose
conversion of the Riviera golf course to residential or commercial use.
I believe the Collier County Planning Commission has
understood the desires of homeowners like us and has, through their
proposed amendment to the Land Development Code, considered our
interests as well as the interests of potential developers.
We support all the Collier County Planning Commission's
amendments to the LDC and in particular, the following, as Bob
Norton has said: The proposal that a potential developer of a golf
course for non-golf use be required to hold at least neighborhood
meetings to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the property;
notification of all homeowners within 1,000 feet of a golf course
perimeter; and the concept of a 100-foot buffer zone between homes
and possible residences a developer might propose.
And I might add, if residential use is proposed, the developer
should submit a plan that is compatible with the surrounding
community.
In conclusion, I would request that you, the commissioners, adopt
all aspects of the Collier County Planning Commission's proposed
amendments to the Land Development Code.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Shirley Sackett.
(Applause.)
Page 145
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: She will be followed by Ed Navarre.
MS. SACKETT: My name is Shirley Sackett. I live a 141 Fleur
de lis Lane in Riviera Golf Estates. I have been a resident full time in
Riviera for 29 years now. I have owned eight homes in that same
community. My mother has owned two, and my sister has owned two.
I do live on the golf course. I probably have the best view, and I
do not want that interrupted. And I do thank you for the work that all
of them have done to present.
And we do ask you, please, to consider this and pass it for our
benefits. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ed Navarre. He'll be
followed by Ronald Sbrocco.
MR. NAVARRE: Good evening, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners. I'm pleased to be here.
I did have a -- I'm from -- originally from Maryland, Maryland
National Capital Park of the Planning Commission which operated
planning and zoning and -- around Montgomery Prince George's
County adjacent to the District of Columbia. And there we operated
nine golf courses and a recreational facility where Sugar Ray Leonard
trained.
So I do want to compliment you. I did go to your Finance
Department yesterday, and they provided me a copy of your financial
report for the year ended September 30th, 2015. Very impressive to
see that you all have a fund balance of$178 million. And I think
Conservation Collier has a fund balance of$33 million. Some of that
may be committed. I couldn't decipher that. But you certainly have
been running a very healthy county.
So I would -- and I've already learned quite a bit from the
presentation from staff. I would hope that you would consider
Page 146
March 14, 2017
acquiring the golf courses. They could be operated profitably in one of
your enterprise funds. They would -- they would attract your tourist
development, which is a major part of the county's attractiveness.
Again, the 100-foot buffer sounds fine, but if you're living on a
golf course looking out at a hole, 100 foot's not very much, especially
if it's a high-rise.
So I'm here a little bit to speak for Riviera Golf Estates, and I'm a
member of another course that's also being considered.
So, again, it seems the county is very healthy. Golf courses can
be run profitably. They are an attraction to both the residents who use
them and the tourist attraction.
So I would just hope you would consider the possibility of setting
up in one of your enterprise funds that would operate golf courses,
public courses.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He will be
followed by Kevin Walsh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have one question.
Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you could please leave us
your contact information. At our early meeting today we had a
discussion with regard to viability of purchasing and the county
owning a municipal golf course, and you, obviously, have experience
with regard to that. And I know that the consultants that we hired
really only looked here predominantly in Southwest Florida. So as we
move through that process, that knowledge and experience would be
invaluable. So if you'd please make sure somebody, even me, has your
contact information, please.
MR. NAVARRE: Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 147
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronald Sbrocco. He'll be
followed by Kevin Walsh.
MR. SBROCCO: Good afternoon. My address is 537
Charlemagne Boulevard.
It's a very difficult situation for you as well as us. And should
you be voting against our 700 families here, it's going to hurt. And I
just learned a lesson from a movie I saw: When a person gets hurt,
they have to get strength to forgive you, and I'm hoping that doesn't
happen.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kevin Walsh. He'll be
followed by Charles Holloway. And we're still looking for Edward
Tappen. Have you come into the room yet, sir?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Mr. Walsh.
MR. WALSH: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Kevin Walsh, and I live on Frosty Way, which is part of the Winter
Park development off Davis Boulevard.
And as you may know, we are abutters to the old Ironwood golf
course which is now going under the name of Evergreen and has been
closed for a while. In addition to that, I'm a frequent golfer at Golden
Gate, Riviera, and Lakewood, all of which are represented by other
owners and golfers from those communities.
But weighing in on behalf of Winter Park, we are 696 units, many
of which abut the old Ironwood golf course which is now known as
Evergreen. We know that that's been sold. We know that the
developer is planning to ask for a conversion process, and we've met
with him a number of times with little confidence, I guess, that there is
going to be the cooperation that is outlined in this amendment without
the county imposing that amendment. So we are a strong advocate that
the rules you're considering here today be adopted.
Page 148
March 14, 2017
So, first and foremost, the rezoning concerns you've heard from
others, the loss of green space is an issue, the loss of property value as
a result of the changes that we'll lose, confidence of the people that
bought golf courses as an investment.
Our main concern is the minimum 100-foot buffer; not an
average, but it should be a minimum, in our perspective, so as to
ensure the quality of life for those that are close by.
Especially with Evergreen, one of our concerns is drainage. We
are just barely above the floodplain. Much of our drainage is related to
and intertwined with the Evergreen golf course, and we would like to
make sure the drainage concerns are adequately addressed.
The other issue is that Evergreen, in particular, is a standalone
golf course in pockets throughout our neighborhood and throughout
Lakewood and Glades, which are also abutters to that course. If you
take the 100-yard buffer, literally, they could almost build no homes on
any one of those holes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, well.
MR. WALSH: Oh, well. I love your reaction.
The traffic, the access issues to those small pockets are a serious
concern that we've not seen anything close to accommodated in our
discussions.
So the communication that you built in here, your concern, and
your advocacy for offering it to the abutters and offering it to the
county are admirable, and we hope you adopt it.
We would love to see a public course. Any one of the four I
mentioned would be great. It would a great opportunity for the
technical schools or for the public schools to learn golf course
management and still make a profit, as the gentleman from New Jersey
indicated.
So we support and hope you will pass this. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 149
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Charles Holloway. He will
be followed by Marguirite Wegner.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Hello. My name is Charles Holloway. I
live at 830 Charlemagne Boulevard in Riviera Golf Estates. I do live
on the golf course, so I have a personal interest in the value and
continued value of my property.
In addition to being a resident of Riviera Golf Estates, I'm also a
realtor with Caldwell Banker on 5th Avenue. The majority of my
business is in Riviera Golf Estates. And I was asked by some of my
community members to address my opinion of the effect that the
conversion could have on our collective property values. I'm going to
speak specifically about Riviera Golf Estates.
The first thing I'd like the Commission to take note of is -- and in
the last 28 months, I've sold 30 homes in Riviera Golf Estates, so I
have a pretty good feel for the value of the properties in there.
I can tell you, as the community exists currently, with all things
being perfect, typically the professional appraisals adjust the homes on
the golf course as opposed to those that back up to other homes or on a
privacy wall, such as County Barn, I've seen the adjustment be up to as
much as $20,000. So the value of being on the golf course or one of
the lakes in the community has significant value.
There's been a lot of discussion about the greenway or buffer
zone, as some people have referred to it, of 100 feet. As the previous
gentleman made reference to, it's my interpretation of the amendment
that it's an average of 100 feet but could be as little as 75 feet.
And what I'd like some clarification on is it allows, I believe, for
some of the lakes on the golf course to be included in the greenway
zone. So if you're taking an average, and a lake is 150 feet, does that
mean that two other similarly size will be taken down to the 75 feet?
Because I believe it's reasonable to expect that the developers are
going to develop every square foot they can. So now we're talking
Page 150
March 14, 2017
about 75 feet. And what impact does that have on your view and
especially the value of your home?
I stepped it off when I came in, and I think that you folks from
your seat, if you're sitting on my lanai -- first of all, I'm currently on a
five par, 1,350-foot fairway, so just imagine looking down
four-and-a-half football fields over the golf course and the birds and
everything.
Seventy-five feet is approximately that wall right there. So put a
three-story condo up there and tell me that I'm not going to lose
property value, okay.
So -- and then I know that the Commission is concerned about
making whole the developers, and I certainly understand and
appreciate that, but it shouldn't be at the expense of 692 residents of
Riviera Golf Estates.
I think a collective estimate would be $10,000 per property could
potentially lose times 692 is -- we could collectively lose $6.92 million
in property value. I think you should consider our financial well-being
as well as the investors and owners.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marguirite Wegner, and she
will be followed by George Danz.
MS. WEGNER: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Marguirite
Wegner. My husband, Paul and I, live at Winter Park in a
condominium that abuts the Evergreen Golf Course.
Several of other folks from Winter Park have been attending the
Planning Commission meetings and -- during which the amendment
was discussed and defined. The detailed research and thought
incorporated into the amendment was inspiring.
We feel that the adoption of the amendment would enhance our
county greatly and be favorable to all homeowners.
Page 151
March 14, 2017
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Danz, and he will be
followed by William N. Cannon.
MR. DANZ: Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, my name is
George Danz. I am President of Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners
Association.
First of all, I want to commend your staff and Mark Strain and the
Planning Commission for the efforts that they have done. Some of us
have attended all those meetings, and the detail that they go through on
all of these things is tremendous, and they've done a fantastic job.
I have a list of points here that I would like to cover, there's about
a page of them, but most people have covered them already so I'm not
going to bore you and take up a lot more of your time.
I don't live on a golf course. I don't play golf. I can't see chasing
a little ball around a golf course, but I live in a community that is
vibrant, that has a lot of activities going on, a lot of activities for other
than golf in our community, and thus, needless to say, we're opposed
to any conversion of the golf course. If conversion is necessary,
however, we respectfully request that you approve the proposed
amendments as presented.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William N. Cannon. He
will be followed by Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on the fifth floor, but I
think he's headed down this way. Mr. Cannon?
MR. CANNON: Good evening. I'm William Cannon, 169 Fleur
de lis Lane. That puts me on the 11th green at Riviera golf club.
I just want to make four quick points, and my first one, I did not
Page 152
March 14, 2017
coordinate this with George.
I have just read a recent article that reported that the Urban Land
Institute in the study found that 92 percent of the people living on golf
courses do not play golf They bought there for open space. And that's
-- you know, the Urban Land Institute. They gave you a very good
report not too long ago.
The second item, Collier County has active constituencies for the
beach, parks, playing fields like baseball and soccer and pickleball. I
know of none for public golf We golfers depend on you, our
commissioners, to protect our recreational interests.
Looking at how hard it is now to find suitable land for playing
courts, think about 10, 15, 20 years from now when Collier County
approaches a million residents. You will have a lot more golfers. At
that time building a new public golf course would be extremely
difficult and expensive.
I would recommend that this commission buy one or more golf
courses now, rather than letting them go to development, to provide
recreation for the current and future Collier County residents and our
tourists.
I oppose residential conversion of golf courses and support
strongly the LDC amendments that you're addressing tonight, and I
want to thank all who worked hard to develop them. And I want to
thank you for your time and dedication to us, the residents of Collier
County.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Price. Mr. Price was on
the fifth floor. I don't know if he's made his way down. Let me call
Dwight Delahunt. I'm sorry. I'm having a difficult time with that last
name, sir.
Are you Mr. Price?
Page 153
March 14, 2017
MR. PRICE: Yes, I am.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Price, right here. Yes, right here, sir. Mr.
Price first and then...
MR. PRICE: Hello, everybody. I'm Jeff Price. I live at 4050
32nd Avenue Southwest, Green No. 5 is in -- or 4 is in my backyard on
the Golden Gate course.
We had a little discussion last night at the civic meeting with Mr.
Saunders, and it came up about this sports park. And a lot of us are
against that. I think we have enough sports parks, ball diamonds in
this county.
I'm a member of several groups, and -- the Moose, Eagles, and
when I -- and I have a second home in Highlands County. And when I
travel, I meet a lot of people up there that used to do the weekends at
the Quality Inn and how much they love coming down here from all
over and how many people from here go up there because it's cheaper
to play golf, okay.
I would really like -- I'm pushing for the county to make this a
municipal course. I think if it's run by the right people, it's a gold
mine. I think something happened where our tees and our greens were
destroyed -- I don't know if it was the wrong fertilizer or what -- and
everybody quit playing there. So that's why it was empty for so long.
And it seemed funny that the chickee bar at the Quality Inn tripled
in size. They remodeled it a few years back, remodeled the bathrooms,
and I would think a place that's going out of business wouldn't be
doing that.
But I'm strongly pushing for the county to make that a municipal
course. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dwight...
MR. DELAHUNT: Delahunt.
Page 154
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Delahunt. Thank you, sir. He will be followed
by William Smith.
MR. DELAHUNT: Hi. My name's Dwight Delahunt. I live at
124 Bacardi. I back on the 15th hole of the Riviera golf course. And
when I'm in my lanai, I can't see anything but water and the golf course
behind me, and the homes on the far side of the lake.
I share that property with a lot of birds. I share it with fish in the
water, the odd alligator once in a while, usually not too big. Just little
fellows coming in to visit.
I have a couple of questions. If I was a developer and I wanted to
get community involvement and have community speaking, if I was in
Collier County I'd probably set up my meeting for June or July. Might
be a good time.
Although I'm a part-time resident, I am a full-time taxpayer in
Collier County. I've been coming down since '76. I've owned here
since 2004. I fully support LDC amendments that have been put
forward to you.
I am a realtor as well. Not here, but in Canada. My estimation is
very close to what I heard from the gentleman earlier, about $20,000 it
would affect my property value. It's a lot of money when we've saved
for so long to have a place to retire.
I ask for your support on the LDC. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William F. Smith, and he
will be followed by Ed Tappen, hopefully.
MR. SMITH: Good evening. I live at 4372 27th Court
Southwest in Apartment 206, Unit 206.
First I'd like to remind the Council that zoning was established by
this community to protect the citizens from contrary adjacent uses, and
that's really what this is all about is the protection of existing uses from
things that are very opposed to what exists today and what was zoned.
Page 155
March 14, 2017
The golf course has a minimum of two fairways between the
housing at the pars and the private housing along the perimeter. That's
probably 4- to 500 linear feet of open space.
I would suggest that any future amendments be made, if this goes
through, that at least a 100-foot buffer be created and that that 100-foot
buffer go from property line to property line, not building to building.
Make sure that the green space is public space, in essence.
If allowed, any adjacent housing, because the housing adjacent to
the pars is two stories and most of the housing within the pars is two
stories, that we hope that that would be likewise limited to two-story
construction and probably a single unit within the two stories so that
it's a townhouse type of situation.
The utilities in our area, I can't imagine, would support the
number of units of housing that were being proposed for the Quality
Inn golf course. Who's going to pay for those upgrades in utilities? I
would hope that the developer is and not the community and not the
county are going to pay for the upgrade for those utilities. Water,
sewer, storm drainage, power, all of those things are -- they're barely
making do with what exists there. There are still private homes
adjacent to us with septic systems in the front yards.
And students going to local elementary schools, middle schools,
the traffic in our neighborhood is already difficult as we exit 27th
Court onto 44th. So we'd ask you to study that as well.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Ed Tappen is the last registered speaker I have,
Madam Chairman. Edward Tappen. I did receive this slip at 9 o'clock
this morning, so I know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was here when I walked in.
MR. MILLER: That's what you had said.
Page 156
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Other than that, that's all we have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I have a couple of questions for
our county attorney. We've heard about financial well-being and yet
we have property rights, but there are property rights of the folks who
own these houses, and I'm sure there could be proof given that in
former golf course conversions that property values have fallen. If that
could be part of an argument, would we be on firm ground to say no to
golf course conversions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Funny you asked that, because I just walked
over to Mr. Bosi and said, you need to put this on the record.
So for purposes of this question, since his testimony -- mine's
only an opinion -- I'd like Michael to answer your question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director, again.
And a point that Jeff wanted me to clarify -- and some of the
questions and comments, I think, were pertinent to this clarification, is
the notice to intent. That's supplemental activity that goes on before an
application is even submitted.
They'll provide additional benefits to the process, but the point is
that once they submit an application, they will still have to satisfy the
criteria of the rezone findings, the PUD findings. And one of those
criterias is the effect from a property valuation that that use would have
upon the surrounding area. And, also, within Collier County any
development that moves forward is subject to concurrency
management. So roads, school, water, facility, parks, libraries, all
those would have to be adequately addressed to make sure that there
was -- infrastructure capacity would be available to satisfy whatever
demands that the development proposal would be required.
So the traditional evaluations of a PUD or a rezone are still
applicable to this process. It's just there's additional steps that are put
Page 157
March 14, 2017
before an application is even submitted hopefully to arrive upon a
better proposal that meets the needs of all parties involved. That was
the design of this amendment.
MR. KLATZKOW: So these are supplemental standards,
correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you understand the answer to
your question?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I understood it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't. So in other words, if the
property values decrease by $20,000, tell me in plain English, what
does that mean?
MR. BOSI: There is an opportunity for the Board of County
Commissioners to deny a petition if sub -- if competent evidence is
submitted that shows that there will be a significant decrease within
valuation upon the surrounding properties. That would be one of the
factors or one of the criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
would utilize to evaluate the proposal.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's very good.
Now, let's say that folks live on a section of the golf course which
is an open fairway. There aren't any trees and whatnot, and there's a
buffer of a 100 feet. Within this LDC amendment, is there a
requirement that it needs -- that rather than looking at 100 feet of
fairway or former fairway and then have a house, is there a
requirement to plant that as a buffer?
MR. BOSI: There are options that are available for that, and that
gets to the heart of the nature of the compatibility review and
evaluation. Of course, the neighbors are going to have their
perspective as to whether they feel that what's being suggested in that
buffer within that greenway, whether it be vegetated or whatever that
is, whether they feel that it adequately meets the compatibility and
protects their neighborhood. Then staff would make an evaluation
Page 158
March 14, 2017
upon it, the Planning Commission would make an evaluation upon it,
and then the Board of County Commissioners would be the ultimate
arbitration of those perspectives, and you would make the final
decision as to whether you thought that the design of that buffer met
the intent of the compatibility to provide for the protections of those
surrounding neighborhoods.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that would also go and apply to the
buildings that are being built on this golf course. If it's a four-story
apartment building next to single-family homes, that's a problem.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that gets back to the compatibility.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're in a single-family development,
your argument for the Board of County Commissioners is -- it's always
the Board's decision -- would be that a four-story unit's not compatible.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it also assumes that the
conversion has gotten through the application process where they've
met concurrency and substantiated that there isn't a reduction in
property values, and those are protections that are put in place before it
ever gets to the Board of County Commissioners for the ultimate
protection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've heard testimony that there is a
process, or there is underway -- a conversion underway at a golf course
right now. Can these rules be applied to that conversion that is
underway?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. That's not retroactive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so that leaves everything back to
MR. KLATZKOW: Our current standards.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Chair, if I could interject. What that means is there's
Page 159
March 14, 2017
not an intent-to-convert process that would be imposed upon that
application, but those same criteria that we talked about within a
rezoning finding or a PUD finding would be applicable to that action.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The devaluation of homes.
MR. BOSI: All of the same criteria that we just spoke about that
are traditionally part of your rezoning application process would be
part of the evaluation factor upon -- that the Board would arrive upon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my comment was back when
they first were finishing, and so I'll just say to you, I was so proud of
all of these people here from Riviera and from Winter Park, and they
were so respectful, strong; they knew what they wanted to say, they
said it, they came to the point and, yet, they were never yelling or
unkind or anything. And I'm just so proud that you're part of my
district.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to say.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, there's no lights
on, so I'm going to turn to you. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not at this time, but I would like to
commend the staff on the presentation and the work that they've done.
I thought it was very thorough.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amazing, amazing.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I think it would
be appropriate to make a motion to move this on -- to approve with the
staff presentation, the document that's in front of us, and move this on
to the second hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree. Do I have a second?
Page 160
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And for purposes of clarity, we're limiting
this to the LDC amendment relating to the golf course conversion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then because we have one --
Commissioner Solis who is communicating to us by telephone, I
would prefer to have a roll call here just so that we make sure that
Commissioner Solis is part of the -- that he has said yes or no. So if we
could call the roll for a vote.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's looking at our signs.
MR. MILLER: We've never done this. I'm sorry.
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Chairman Taylor?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: St. Patty's Day is coming up, and
they're wearing the green.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the motion passed unanimously, and
this will go in the process, and I hope you clearly understand what the
intention is. You've brought some extraordinarily perceptive and
cogent arguments to this, and it helps us in our deliberation going
Page 161
March 14, 2017
forward. So thank you very, very much for being here this evening.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to take five minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We'll take, like, a couple-minutes
recess. We have another issue to discuss, which is stormwater. You're
welcome to stay for it, but if you leave --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really interesting. It's really
interesting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just think of how much fun it could
be.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When are we coming back,
Madam Chair?
MR. OCHS: Five minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five minutes. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats if you're staying, or leave quietly so we can continue the meeting.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike. We're still on Item 9A. The
second of your two Land Development Code proposed amendments
has to do with stormwater planning, and the staff has a very brief
presentation on the nature of that change.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. FRANTZ: Good evening. Jeremy Frantz with the Growth
Management Department. I am just going to give you a really brief
overview of the amendment, and then we can get to any questions that
you might have.
So this amendment began with stakeholders and staff identifying
that the current stormwater plan requirements were overly restrictive in
some areas, like the Estates, and just didn't actually provide any
protection against stormwater impacts to other homeowners.
Page 162
March 14, 2017
And so -- and, actually, I should back up. The stormwater plans
that we're talking about are only applicable to single-family lots,
two-family lots, and duplexes so that -- are not part of a master
stormwater plan; so, essentially, outside of PUDs.
And what we've proposed with this amendment is two different
types of stormwater plans: A basic stormwater plan that shows us the
direction of stormwater flows. All lots will be required to provide this;
however, lots that have a higher percentage of impervious area, they'll
provide an engineered stormwater plan that will give us calculations
for stormwater runoff.
So these two types of stormwater plans were developed based on
data and input from stakeholders and advisory boards. And that's the
end of my brief overview. Happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, you had a
question?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I did. And it goes -- I
apologize for earlier getting on the wrong -- a wrong amendment that
we're talking about here. It has to do with lots -- my understanding,
the way -- and I found my notes over here in the actual 6.05.1.
Basically, Golden Gate Estates lots do not require a stormwater
management plan. That really, really couldn't ever even actually occur
with the coverage or requisite for stormwater, too. Basically, they have
to do a simple one that shows which way the water goes.
MR. FRANTZ: That will be the majority of the cases. It will be
the simple -- the basic direction of stormwater flows for the Estates.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, do they require a
stormwater plan now?
MR. FRANTZ: If they exceed the impervious area thresholds,
which are very low currently, and so this process has modified those to
make them more appropriate for that area.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So this is better for the folks in
Page 163
March 14, 2017
Golden Gate Estates?
MR. FRANTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As Commissioner Fiala like to
say, in English.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But you're raising the standards for the
stormwater; is that correct?
MR. FRANTZ: We'll get more stormwater plans because all lots
are required to provide at least the direction of stormwater flow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So "better" depends, quantitative or
qualitative perspective, which side your perspective, which means
there's going to be more requirement within Golden Gate for
stormwater management, not less.
MR. FRANTZ: For those lots that have to provide the directional
flow -- essentially, the benefit for them is that they now are actually
making stormwater planning a part of the development of their lot;
whereas, currently either they're hit with an engineered stormwater
plan for something that has very low impact or they are just not
thinking about or not aware of how stormwater is intended to flow on
their property, and so this kind of benefits them in a couple of ways.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will this help to reduce their flood
insurance?
MR. FRANTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What it does, though, it protects the
neighboring properties, because if they're not aware of the flow of the
water on their property when they're building a new house or even
renovating a new house, that runoff could go --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But the flood insurance went
up a bit, from what I understand, in the Estates, right?
Page 164
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quite a bit, quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And so I was just thinking,
maybe by directing the water there would be a reduction in insurance
rates. But I was just hoping.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Now, Commissioner, did you
want to say -- Commissioner Taylor brought up an interesting point,
and that is because there has been changes in elevation requirements
because of the flooding that has transpired and FEMA's regulations
that have increased elevations, we're now going to have directional
flow that will help protect contiguous property owners to not have your
neighbor come in and build a home that's much higher and cause
stormwater runoff to be coming on to the neighbors' properties. We'll
at least have mechanism to manage that.
MR. FRANTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I know there are initiatives
as well for on-site retention that we've had discussions about as well
just for an overall surficial water holding capacity in the Estates area. I
know we have talked about that during the Golden Gate Estates
neighborhood information meetings and such.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis, any
questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll move for approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second -- third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We're going to do roll call again
just to make sure Commissioner Solis is registered here.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 165
March 14, 2017
MR. MILLER: Chairman Taylor?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I guess it carries unanimously. Thank
you very much.
MR. FRANTZ: I'll just pipe in one more time really briefly to
remind you that we'll be seeing both of these amendments again on
March 28th for the final hearing and adoption.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. FRANTZ: And thank you for your time here tonight.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
All right. I guess we're under communication.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: That takes us to staff and commission
communications, Item 15. I'll start just briefly with a reminder of your
next two workshop meetings. The first is scheduled on April 4th, and
that's with your CRAs, and your next workshop is May the 22nd (sic)
and you'll have the update to the restudies that are underway in Eastern
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can I ask a
question. I'm not going to be able make the May 2nd workshop. I'm
not sure how that got scheduled for that day.
MR. OCHS: Well, we -- we had scheduled that some time ago,
Page 166
March 14, 2017
Commissioner. At the Board's request, they had asked for an update
once we had the initial workshop session earlier in the year. So we
tried to schedule that at the available date in May, but we can move
that out if we need to.
We had the initial one in January, and the Board said they wanted
us to come back when we had an update ready. So we tried to use the
workshop dates that are held typically -- the first Tuesday of every
month is held for workshop. But if you'd like us to try to reschedule it,
we certainly could do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I don't want to
inconvenience the Commission, but that is one day that I will not be
able to attend a workshop, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe what we could do is see -- not
do it right now, but see, talk -- County Manager, you could talk to all
of us and see if there's another date in May that we could do this.
MR. OCHS: Well, that's a timely discussion, ma'am, because my
next item has to do with a request --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No more dates in May.
MR. OCHS: -- a request from the City Council in Marco Island
for a joint meeting between the City Council and the Board. The
Board was copied on this letter. They want to talk to the Board at least
about three items: Number one being Goodland Road, second being
ambulance service on Marco Island, and the third is parking situations
on Marco Island.
They had in their letter provided a series of potential dates that at
least the City Council was suggesting, and you can see those there. So
if you don't want anything else in May, we'll have to look for
something, perhaps, in June. Is that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I'm fine with something else in
May. I just think maybe what we could do is -- I don't know if we can
make a decision right now, but I think if you could just take a
Page 167
March 14, 2017
consensus, you know, when the meeting's over, during the week or
something, and we can get some dates that everybody agrees on.
MR. OCHS: Yes. I've asked my executive assistant to reach out
to the commission aides to see if there's availability of all of you on
any of these dates, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And include the one -- the workshop
also just to see what -- if a consensus can be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Saunders, could you
participate by phone?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I won't be able to
participate on May 2nd at all.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm not allowed -- my
executive coordinator will not allow me to meddle with my calendar at
all.
MR. OCHS: I understand. We'll deal with her directly, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, are you able to
see this on a -- at all what's being put in front of us?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than the discussion on the
workshop dates?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Yes, exactly.
MR. OCHS: I mean, are you viewing the meeting, sir, or just
participating by phone? You're not viewing it on the Internet, are you?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's a lag, so I'm a little bit
behind you.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think what we've decided as a
consensus is to have the County Manager contact our assistants to
determine if a consensus can be reached for two meetings; one would
be the workshop, an update on the RFMUD planning, and then the
second one would be a joint meeting with the City of Marco.
MR. OCHS: Would the commissioners be amenable to trying to
Page 168
March 14, 2017
kill two birds on one date?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's smart.
MR. OCHS: We could do a workshop with the City Council 9
a.m., like we did with the City of Naples, then do the restudies after
lunch, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about this -- that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or being that Commissioner
Saunders can't be there on the 2nd, but he wouldn't probably need to be
in the workshop with Marco, right, or would you? I was thinking
maybe we could do that --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we all want to be at the
joint meeting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think Marco would want us all there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We don't need to go down that
path again.
MR. OCHS: I mean, I looked a little bit at the calendar. It looks
like, you know, May 19th, even though it's a Friday, may be the date
that works the most, so I'm kind of leaning on that one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine with me.
MR. OCHS: If we could do the joint meeting in the morning and
then do a quick workshop on the updates in the afternoon, we could get
you out of here by 2:30.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care when we get out, just so
that we're -- you know, we're meeting all together.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Okay.
Page 169
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much. That's all I had, Madam
Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Troy?
MR. MILLER: Nothing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well done. You did a great job today.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
I am allowed to look at my calendar, and May 19th is open right
now, so...
Oh, Commissioner comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what you were calling
me for.
I just had one brief update. At the MPO meeting last Friday,
while you ladies were off visiting with our governor, the DOT came in
and gave some really good news about State Road 82 and 29, and
they've moved that up on the work plan from '22/'23 to '18/'19 which
means we're going to really -- we're going to be programming it here
this coming fall and seeing those improvements.
It's still -- it still includes just a swath in the eastern section of that
highway, including the roundabout at the intersection from Gator
Slough on over, so -- and then I know today we also, as a board, on the
consent agenda, and you're all aware, approved 700 and some-odd
thousand, because I was chirping at the DOT -- because I drive out
there a lot, and the intersection of Corkscrew and 82 is a death trap.
I mean, you almost have to pull clear out into the intersection in
Page 170
March 14, 2017
order to see the westbound traffic coming at you. And I remember I
was there, and I asked them, can you at least trim the trees just to get
the view open? And we're already -- we were in the process of
appropriating money for the intersection improvements, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really, really -- that's just
happy for our community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for being so persistent.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. That's all.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fun little thing. This morning
-- was that just this morning? Yeah, I think so -- we were talking about
the fair and it coming this way, and just -- this is a little bit of history.
I come from the Dark Ages, and back when we first started --
actually, I was here before the fair got here. And so the first fair was
on Radio Road. Actually, the few -- first few fairs were on Radio
Road, as was the swamp buggy. So you could go to the swamp buggy
races and you could go to the fair right on Radio Road. It was very
different. And my cake won the Best Cake of the Day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I entered in. That's it.
Thank you, staff, for doing such a great job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have one item, and I don't
know the history of this, but it was a news report that I did not (sic)
hear, I believe, last night. Moraya Bay apparently is blocking off a
portion of the public beach for -- blocking the public from getting onto
what they're calling a private beach.
I know that the county at one point in time had filed suit against
Moraya Bay. My understanding is that that suit was dismissed because
the -- Moraya Bay agreed to remove the barriers to prevent the public
Page 171
March 14, 2017
from accessing the beach, and apparently, that's started up again. Is
that little bit of history correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, assuming that the news
article was correct and assuming that the emails that I've received
today are correct, that's a very serious thing. We can't have
condominiums and hotels and other property owners blocking off the
beach.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. I did receive an
email on it as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I would like to see -- I'd
like to ask the Board to direct the County Attorney --
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may -- because I believe the County
Manager might be able to resolve this amicably before we have to get
involved in litigation.
MR. OCHS: Well, we did have some discussions with the
property owner about that concern, and he indicated he was going to be
taking these cones down that he had put up to demark his property line
on the sandy beach. I haven't personally, obviously, had a chance to
go out there and see if he's complied, but that might resolve --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- immediately but not long term.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And that's good, and if
that has resolved it, that's fine, but we need to send a message that
that's not the type of activity that can be permitted.
So assuming that's resolved, that's great, but -- I can't speak for
the Board, but I'm certain that we would all be very concerned about
beach access being cut off
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: And failing that, would you want to -- for
me to take action?
Page 172
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: Failing --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I would agree.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it may be just a brief
discussion if nothing other than an educational process as to where
property rights actually begin and end when you're on the beach.
There's a lot of misnomers about where you can and can't go, and just a
clarification as far as what, in fact, is allowed for public access on our
beaches.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, would you agree
that if the County Manager's intervention doesn't produce the results to
open up the beach to the public, would you agree that the County
Attorney would take action?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. I was actually going to
bring up the same issue. I've received a lot of emails and I believe
phone calls as well. And if we've already been down this road, it's
very important in my opinion that we draw a line in the proverbial sand
and just not revisit this issue again in the future.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just as a point of information and sort
of little bit of history here, in the beginning of Naples, the City of
Naples, the beach, the beach was First Street, and then Gulf Shore
Boulevard, and then Second Street. But the beach was First Street. It
was understood that it was open to the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had another little piece
of history. You know, we were talking about Beck Boulevard, and
that's where the fires were. And somebody sent me a thing. There was
a guy named Beck that lived on that street, and he was -- he worked
Page 173
March 14, 2017
the tollbooths way back in the -- way back when.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he was murdered.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And supposed to be a really
swell guy. They -- the guys that murdered him rode up on horseback
and then took off. They caught the guys, but in tribute to him, they
named Beck Boulevard after him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's nice.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Horses?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it, Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, that's it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just like to commend staff
again on the work that they did on the golf course conversion
ordinance. I thought that it was very well done, very well thought out.
The research was thorough. And I think overall it was very
impressive. So thank you for all your hard work.
MR. OCHS: Well, on behalf of the staff, thank you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And, last, I'd like to thank the Board
for their indulgence in letting me appear by telephone. This is an
important hearing, and I wanted to make sure that I could at least listen
in. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're glad you joined us, sir.
A couple of things. There is a meeting coming up on the 28th,
which has been in the works for a long time, and it's actually the
hearing for the Racetrac. And I've been asked that -- to maximize the
involvement of the citizens. And this is the Racetrac, so it's a lot of
Page 174
March 14, 2017
folks' work.
So I was thinking about a schedule and see if it's amenable to this
commission. We would work right through lunch, forgive us, but --
you're going to get your breaks, but I'm assuming, depending on the
workload that day, we would probably break one or two o'clock, and
then we'd come back at four, and then we would hear the Racetrac
issue, which would allow folks who are working to come here after
they finish work or late in the day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also worry about not breaking for
lunch, just because people need to get up, get a break, take a breath of
fresh air. And we used to have two on here that were diabetic, and if
you made them go through, you know -- well, they just couldn't. So
I'm thinking, you know, do you really want to do that or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I don't mean that we would work
without a break, but I mean that we wouldn't take our traditional lunch
hour, and we would take the break after, kind of what we did today,
because we broke at 12:30 and then we would -- you know, we came
back at 5:00. So it depends on the weight of the agenda. I mean, if it's
a busy agenda then, of course, we'd take a lunch break. But I have a
sense that we're not going to take a dinner break once the Racetrac
starts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Probably not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And there will be a lot of folks in this
room.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time does the Racetrac start?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it would start at 4 o'clock to
maximize the public involvement.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I ask staff a question?
Because I suspect that that's going to be a fairly lengthy hearing.
Would you have an estimate of how much time that entire process
would take?
Page 175
March 14, 2017
MR. OCHS: Mike, you got one?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a rough guess. I mean, I
know you can't foresee the --
MR. BOSI: At least -- Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director.
At least four hours. We had three hours -- we had two night
meetings back to back, and they were a full three hours both of them.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We also have the land use
matters coming back at 5:05 on that day.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. OCHS: No, they're part of the regular agenda, sir. You only
need one night meeting.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay, I'm sorry. Again, we're
going to be starting a potentially four-hour hearing at 4 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to have a break.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What else do you have to do?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything else to
do. That's fine. I just wanted to, you know, point out that that's going
to be a fairly lengthy hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it will be.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and sometimes people get -- if
they haven't eaten, they get a little bit testy.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, no, no. I'm not starving anybody.
I'm just saying that perhaps we won't follow the traditional way we do
things, I promise you. I get very grumpy if I don't eat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might be a headache, you know,
people that haven't eaten, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is there a -- and I fully
appreciate the thought processes of involving the public. There a -- I
haven't looked at the agenda for the 28th yet, but is there a necessity
for us to work through the lunch hour?
Page 176
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know yet, but I'm just saying
that we'll start this issue at four. If there's not, we won't, all right? We
just don't need to be working all the way -- we don't need to take an
hour lunch break and then work until, you know, 3 o'clock and then
start at four and finish at eight. That's the problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the issue that you're
raising is, are we going to have a public hearing on the Racetrac
starting at 4 o'clock?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that's the consensus, fine.
The rest of the meeting will take care of itself.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I like that idea. Very good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If we take lunch, we take
lunch, and if we don't, we don't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, fine. Are we of consensus with
that, 4 o'clock?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I guess.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. You can bring your
Cuban coffee, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I received a letter from Senator
Passidomo regarding the bill that she filed. I don't know if anyone else
received a letter from her. And she is really saying, look, this is what
the bill is intended, but a sense is that she's getting some pushback, and
she's asked for my opinion on it. Well, I am not the one to opine
without my board with me.
So what I'll do is I'll send that to everyone and then,
Commissioner Saunders, I'm sure you can be helpful, and
Page 177
March 14, 2017
Commissioner Solis, but clearly there's pushback on this. And --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm actually meeting with her
on Thursday to discuss that bill. The bill is so overly broad that I
believe that it would prohibit all of our regulations that deal with home
occupations. It prohibits any regulation that will in any way impair
employment. That's so broad, if I wanted to have a home occupation
and hire somebody, I would argue that that would be permitted under
that.
So I think that she's getting pushback -- that's an understatement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's right. It was a big
discussion at a meeting I just went to recently. They were very upset
with her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So maybe -- what would we
suggest? I mean, I think that I need to answer her, but I don't want to
answer her without a discussion here. Or what would you suggest,
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Other than that it is a
tremendous -- potentially a tremendous erosion of home rule authority,
I think you're authorized -- you, certainly, from my view would be
authorized to say that the county is concerned about this -- about the
erosion of home rule authority and the impact on our regulation of
business and suggest that the bill either has to be amended
substantially, or she should rethink pursuing it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So what if we assign -- ask Saunders to
carry that message if there's consensus.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that would be good. It's
beautifully said.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, but Florida
Association of Counties and all of the counties have worked for home
rule all of these years, and to -- and she's going against everything
Page 178
March 14, 2017
we've worked for.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll be happy to talk to her. As
I said, I've got a meeting set up with her on Thursday.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would agree to that. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And what about you, Commissioner
Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I did speak with Senator Passidomo
last week about it, and I understand what she's trying to do. I, like
Commissioner Saunders, think it's overly broad. She is open to
suggestions on how to address ordinances that would somehow
restrain trade or employment or things across county lines.
I mean, I understand what she's trying to do. I don't know that
what she's proposing is the right way to do it, but certainly we --
maybe we should have a discussion about the examples that she
forwarded and see if there isn't something that we should address in the
event that something like that happens in our vicinity.
But the way it's written, I agree, it's objectionable, and I wouldn't
be in favor of it the way it's written.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So would you agree that
Commissioner Saunders could have a conversation, represent our
concerns as a commission, not individually, but as a commission as
well as his individual, but he would be representing our commission's
concerns and communicate that to commissioner -- or to Senator
Passidomo, and that he would report back to us on the 28th --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- about what he would suggest that --
the next step forward; would you agree?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
Page 179
March 14, 2017
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. And, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it going way out of line to say we
would even suggest she withdraw it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I don't think it's way out of
line at all. I don't think it can be fixed. I know what she's trying to
accomplish, and you've got some communities that are banning
styrofoam, for example; some communities that have said if you have
a shopping, Publix shopping cart that winds up in somebody else's
property, then Publix is responsible for that shopping cart even though
it may have been stolen.
And so there are some regulations, especially in Dade County,
that are problematic. Dade County has, for Dade County contracts, the
minimum wage. Those types of things the Retail Federation has found
to be objectionable, and she's trying to accomplish stopping those
things.
But when you stop all those things, you're stopping a whole lot of
other stuff in addition to it. So I don't know that it can be fixed, but I'll
carry the message and suggest that if it can't be fixed, then the request
of the County Commission would be to ask her to -- respectfully ask
her to consider withdrawing it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure, and may I ask, Madam
Chair, was your email directed to you as the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners or to you individually, or -- because I didn't get
an email from her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. It was sent -- I received it today,
and it was sent to me as a commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But, you know, it was -- you know, it
was very open to give me some ideas of how we can make this work
for you. So I think it's very fortuitous that you're going to be meeting
Page 180
March 14, 2017
with her, and I think this is the natural way of communicating it. She
doesn't need to hear from all five of us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. That was where I was
going.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You represent the Commission in this
one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, that's where I
was going. I just didn't know if we needed to set it up as an agenda
item and bring it back. I mean, I think we're right straight on the run
with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- and Commissioner Saunders is
going to come back and report what -- and then we can make the next
step forward.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm with you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, that's all I have. That's
it. We're adjourned.
**** Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Solis absent), that the following
items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or
adopted
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
SIRACUSA, PL20150001667, AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — THE DEVELOPER OF SIRACUSA,
Page 181
March 14, 2017
HAS CONSTRUCTED POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE
THIS DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES FOR ASTER AT LELY RESORT, PHASE 1,
PL20140000545, ACCEPTING UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER
AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZNG THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $63,797.33 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — STAFF IS UNAWARE OF ANY ISSUES THAT
WOULD ELIMINATE THE RECOMMENDATION TO RELEASE
THE APPLICABLE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
THE LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH EXTENSION,
PL20150001518, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $52,276.51 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS
Page 182
March 14, 2017
WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON NOVEMBER 9, 2016 AND
THE FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT REPLAT, PL20140000419, AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,978.42 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION
TO DISCOVER DEFECTS WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON
JANUARY 6, 2017 AND THE FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR NCH HEALTHCARE- NORTHEAST,
PL20150002628, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $6,761 .07 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — THE DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTED POTABLE
WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED
EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A6
Page 183
March 14, 2017
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASES 2B AND 2C,
PL20150001728, 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 — THE DEVELOPER OF ISLES OF
COLLIER PRESERVE PHASES 2B AND 2C CONSTRUCTED
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN
DEDICATED EASEMENTS TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL,
PL20130000646, AND ACCEPTING UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER
FACILITIES — A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER
FACILITIES WILL BE CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY AND
THE REMAINING POTABLE WATER FACILITIES AND ALL
SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATE
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GASPAR STATION PHASE
3, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001055) APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W/STIPULATIONS
Page 184
March 14, 2017
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FAITH LANDING PHASE
FOUR, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001899) APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY —
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $550,643.40 FOR A PAYMENT OF $1,000
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JOSE EMILIO MORALES.
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20130003648
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3745 RANDALL
BLVD., COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CONSISTING OF
UNPERMITTED ELECTRIC, PLUMBING AND ALTERATIONS
THROUGHOUT THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND AN
UNPERMITTED SHED & ELECTRIC AND PLUMBING ON THE
PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
DECEMBER 27, 2016 BY SUNSHINE FLORIDA APARTMENTS
FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE
Item #16A11
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A VALUE
OF $17,102.64 FOR PAYMENT OF $4,052.64 IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 185
March 14, 2017
COMMISSIONERS V. ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ. CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEPM20110003003,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 701 E. DELAWARE
AVENUE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR FINES
RELATED TO A MOBILE HOME WITH NUMEROUS
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANC ON MAY 11, 2011
AND ACQUIRED BY CC TAX LLC., FOLLOWING
FORECLOSURE
Item #16Al2
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,760 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.902-26
PL20150002581 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH MAPLE
RIDGE RESERVE AT AVE MARIA PHASE 4
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2017-38: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF ISLA DEL SOL AT FIDDLER'S CREEK,
APPLICATION NUMBER S/D 99-23, WITH ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED,
ACCEPTING PLAT DEDICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A14
AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN
Page 186
March 14, 2017
COLLIER COUNTY, THE WYNDEMERE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, AND THE OWNER OF LOT 12, GOLF
COTTAGES AT WYNDEMERE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 13, PAGES 119 THROUGH 121 — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A15
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A CASH BOND FROM
STOCK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,240
THAT WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION
PERMIT NUMBER 60.106-1, PL20130002172 FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNATURE CLUB AT LELY,
FORMERLY KNOWN AS CLASSICS CAY
Item #16A16
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF AN IRREVOCABLE
STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION
PERMIT NUMBER 59.365-2, PL20110002253 AND
PL20120001490 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TALL OAKS
OF NAPLES, PHASES 3 AND 4 — WORK HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED
COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A17
BID #17-7044 AWARDED TO WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
GROUP FOR "SR 82 AND CORKSCREW ROAD
INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS" FOR
Page 187
March 14, 2017
OPERATIONAL AND SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $771,364.74 (PROJECT NO. 33478) — GRANT
FUNDED JPA PROJECT #433175-1
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2017-39: ACCEPTING DEDICATIONS TO
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT RELATING TO THE WINDING CYPRESS
PHASE 2C PLAT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 60, PAGES 22
THROUGH 28 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A19
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ENTERING INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH TWO (2) BIDDERS, CONSISTENT
WITH SECTION 10D OF THE BOARD'S PROCUREMENT
ORDINANCE ON THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS
(REJECTION OF BIDS AND NEGOTIATION), REGARDING
INVITATION TO BID #16-7032RR "PURCHASE AND
DELIVERY OF TURF GRASSES" AND APPROVE PAYMENT
OF UNPAID INVOICES — NEGOTIATIONS WITH DWJH, LLC
D/B/A LEO'S SOD AND TRIPLE C SOD, INC., APPROVING AN
OUTSTANDING INVOICE AND AUTHORIZING
EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $50,000 ON AN INTERIM
BASIS UNTIL THE BOARD APPROVES LONG-TERM
CONTRACTS
Item #16A20
Page 188
March 14, 2017
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONTRACT WITH HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION, INC. FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
INSTALLATION ASSOCIATED WITH ITB #16-6607, COLLIER
BLVD. HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION (PROJECT NO. 60149) —
TO CHANGE AN EXISTING IRRIGATION CONTROLLER AND
INCREASING THE CONTRACT 6.85%
Item #16B1
SHORT TERM AT WILL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
BOARD, ACTING AS THE CRA BOARD, AND T.T OF NAPLES
INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1991 TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST FOR VEHICLE STORAGE — FOR OVERFLOW VEHICLE
STORAGE WHILE THEIR NEW FACILITY IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION, LOCATED AT 3147 DAVIS BOULEVARD
Item #16B2
AWARDING BID #17-7067, KAREN DRIVE STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS TO JRL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT $313,329.09 AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CHAIR
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PERFORM THE WORK — FOR
THE CONTRUCTION OF A SWALE-CULVERT SYSTEM THAT
WILL CONNECT TO SURROUNDING STORMWATER
INFRASTRUCTURE, INTO A NEARBY STORMWATER
DRAINAGE POND AND AN OUTFALL EAST OF KAREN
DRIVE
Item #16D1
Page 189
March 14, 2017
ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING FEE WAIVERS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $235 GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF
OCTOBER 1, 2016 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-125
Item #16D2
ELEVEN (11) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN
THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $28,400 — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
EXPENDITURE OF CATEGORY "A" BEACH PARK FACILITY
TOURIST TAX FUNDS FOR REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) TO
BONNESS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,594.03 FOR
SEALING AND RESTRIPING THE PARKING LOT AT
SEAGATE DRIVE, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — SEAGATE PARKING
LOT PROJECT NO. 80347
Item #16D4
CATEGORY "A" BEACH PARK FACILITY TOURIST TAX
FUNDS FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #16-7027 TO
HERITAGE UTILITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $156,467.89
FOR SIDEWALK WIDENING AND LANDSCAPE
Page 190
March 14, 2017
ENHANCEMENT AT SEAGATE AND NORTH GULF SHORE
BEACH ACCESS LOCATIONS, TO ACCEPT THE DONATION
OF A RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN THE
LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENT, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16D5
AN AFTER-THE-FACT GRANT VICTIMS ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION GRANT APPLICATION FOR A 3-YEAR
OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN JUSTICE FOR
FAMILIES GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $549,693 — MORE
TIME WAS NEEDED TO ASSEMBLE THE APPLICATION FOR
THE PROGRAM THAT STRENGTHENS EXISTING
SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES, PROVIDES
ENHANCED TRAINING FOR COURT AND COURT-RELATED
PERSONNEL, AND IMPROVES COORDINATED COMMUNITY
RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Item #16D6
THE TRANSFER OF REVENUE FROM THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY FUND 495 TO HOUSING GRANTS FUND 705
UNDER THE PROGRAM INCOME AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING
$13,408 IN PROGRAM INCOME UNDER THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
Item #16E1
Page 191
March 14, 2017
AGREEMENT #16-7036-PB FOR VISA COMMERCIAL CARDS
WITH SUNTRUST BANK FOR P-CARD SERVICES — SPENDS
APPROXIMATELY $2.2 MILLION ANNUALLY, CONSISTING
OF 9,600 TRANSACTIONS BY 282 CARD USERS
Item #16E2
PAYMENT OF SIX (6) OUTSTANDING INVOICES IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $12,184.57 UNDER QUANTUM MERUIT
FOR WORK PERFORMED BY SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF
NAPLES, INC., UNDER AGREEMENT #13-6166 — ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16E3
AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT #13-6163, SECURITY
SERVICES TO G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.,
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE RELATED TO PRICE INCREASES
AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #2 ALLOWING FOR AN
INCREASE TO THE HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE FOR
SECURITY PERSONNEL
Item #16E4
NO ACTION TO PURCHASE THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS
HOTEL LOCATED AT 12323 UNION ROAD IN THE PORT OF
THE ISLANDS AT A MINIMUM OPENING BID OF
$2,360,063.83, PLUS INTEREST. THE PROPERTY IS
CURRENTLY ON THE LANDS AVAILABLE LIST AND IF NOT
Page 192
March 14, 2017
PURCHASED BY JANUARY 9, 2020, WILL ESCHEAT TO THE
COUNTY PURSUANT CHAPTER 197, FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #16E5
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED — THE NET FOR FIVE
CHANGES TO VARIOUS CONTRACTS IS $22,256.00 AND THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS ADDED IS 22
Item #16E6
CHANGE ORDER #4 TO ITB NO. 15-6370 "MOTOROLA
CENTRAL CONTROL IRRIGATION SUPPLIES & SERVICES"
AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING INVOICES
UNDER QUANTUM MERUIT FOR PROJECTS TO
CONTEMPORARY CONTROLS AND COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., WHICH PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED A 4% PRICE
INCREASE
Item #16F1
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO
SUPPORT THE FOUR UPCOMING APRIL 2017 SPORTS
EVENTS UP TO $19,300 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE
EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM: FOR THE NAPLES
SPRING SHOOTOUT, APRIL 1-2, 2017; THE ALLIGATOR
ALLEY CHALLENGE, APRIL 21-23, 2017; THE USPTA
NATIONAL CLAY COURT CHAMPIONSHIP, APRIL 28-30,
2017 AND THE ADIDAS SPRING CLASSIC, APRIL 29-30, 2017
Page 193
March 14, 2017
Item #16F2 — WITHDRAWN (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT #1 TO
CONTRACT #13-6109 FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AND
MAINTENANCE WITH MILES MEDIA AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2017-40: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F4
A MULTIPLE YEAR DONATION FROM MINTO
COMMUNITIES AND SPIRIT PROMOTIONS FOR FUTURE
MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF PICKLEBALL AND
OTHER SPORTS TOURISM EVENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY —
MINTO COMMUNITIES AND SPIRIT PROMOTIONS HAVE
VOLUNTARILY OFFERED DONATIONS OF $10,000 FOR A
TOTAL OF $20,000 PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS,
BEGINNING IN FY 17
Item #16F5
A WORK ORDER UNDER RFQ #15-6397-2 FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND BIOLOGICAL STUDIES FOR CLAM
BAY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO EARTH TECH
Page 194
March 14, 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL FOR $126,000
Item #16J1
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN FEBRUARY 16 AND MARCH 1,
2017 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J2
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 MARCH 8, 2017
Item #16J3
REVIEW A REQUEST FOR A HOUSING PURCHASE
ASSISTANCE PAYMENT AND MAKE A DETERMINATION
REGARDING PROPER PAYMENT SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2017-41 : REAPPOINTING JACK A. BONZELAAR
(RESIDENT) AND KATHLEEN J. RILEY (RESIDENT) TO THE
Page 195
March 14, 2017
HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MAINTENANCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WITH TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 13, 2021
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2017-42: REAPPOINTING SHEILA A. DUGAN,
GEORGE H. DOUGLAS, JR AND ROBERT F. MESSMER (ALL
RESIDENTS WITHIN THE MSTU) TO THE BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO
TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 3, 2021
Item #16K3
PAYMENT AT THE NEGOTIATED AMOUNT OF $715 FOR
EXPERT FEES 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:_
$715)
Item #16K4
A PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE
TAKING OF PARCEL 231RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ESTILITA R ODRIG UEZ, ET AL,
CASE NO. 15-CA-333, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60040 (12TH STREET EAST TO WEST OF
16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $26,420.75)
Item #17A
Page 196
March 14, 2017
ORDINANCE 2017-07: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2016-41,
THE NEW HOPE MINISTRIES MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD), TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR RELATING TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED FOR THE MPUD PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD
AND EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION
4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
[SE- PL20170000356]
Item #17B — Moved to Item #9B (Per Commissioner Taylor during
Agenda Changes)
Item #17C
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 28,
2017 BCC MEETING AND IS BEING FURTHER CONTINUED
TO THE MARCH 28, 2017 BCC MEETING. THIS ITEM
REQUIRES THAT EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. SHOULD A HEARING BE HELD ON
THIS ITEM, ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE
SWORN IN. RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PETITION
VAC-PL20160003293, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND
VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A
PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND
VACATE A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT UTILITY 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
Page 197
March 14, 2017
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 19,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2017-08: ADOPTING REVISIONS TO
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-69, AS AMENDED, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY PROCUREMENT
ORDINANCE INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN THE
PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING FUNCTIONS
Page 198
March 14, 2017
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:54 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECI L STRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PENNY TA OR, f4:'rAIRMAN
I
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
G
VII:
U Attest as to Chairman's
signature only.
These minutes approved by the Board on L i► i 1 , as
presented ✓ or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERM LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 199