BCC Minutes 07/11/2017 RJuly 11, 2017
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, July 11, 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
Donna Fiala
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
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, Television Operations Manager
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
01I //
44111
r,
\ �
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
July 11, 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.
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."
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
Page 1
July 11,2017
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Dr. Bob Scudieri - Member of Peace Lutheran Church
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
agenda.)
B. June 6, 2017 - BCC/Mental Health Workshop
C. June 13, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
D. June 15, 2017 - BCC/Budget Workshop
Page 2
July 11, 2017
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
1) Recommendation to recognize Lemeck Cherenfant, Traffic Signal
Technician, Growth Management Department as the June 2017
Employee of the Month.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for July 2017 to
Off the Hook Comedy Club. To be accepted by Brien Spina, Owner, Off the
Hook Comedy Club and Susan Kuhar, Account Executive, Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Judith S. Palay and 92 other property owners within
the Cocohatchee Bay Neighborhood Communities, filed an appeal to the
Board of Zoning Appeals of the administrative approval of building
separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and building heights in
the Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL20160002242 for Kalea
Bay a/k/a Kinsale Condominium Phases II-VI. The subject property is
located at the northwest and northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and
Page 3
July 11,2017
Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8, 16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South and
Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170002165]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the June 27, 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 an Ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek RPUD, to
approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a preserve exhibit that
revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing
for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier
Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 189± acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] (Mike
Bosi, Director, Zoning Division)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his agent to perform an
evaluation for a proposed advisory committee for Senior Citizen Affairs and
bring back a report following the direction provided in County Ordinance
01-55 Section 3(b) as amended, that provides information regarding the
need, benefit, cost, and purpose of creating a new advisory committee; or if
an already existing public or private board serves the same intended purpose.
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing Proposed Millage Rates
as the Maximum Property Tax Rates to be levied in FY 2017/18 and
Reaffirm the Advertised Public Hearing dates in September 2017, for the
Budget approval process. (Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and
Management Services Division Director)
B. Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the issuance of not
exceeding $70,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Collier County,
Florida Tourist Development Tax Revenue Bonds in one or more series to
Page 4
July 11,2017
finance and/or refinance costs of the acquisition, construction and equipping
of an amateur sports complex and pledging monies received by the County
from the tourist development tax to secure payment of the principal and
interest on bonds issued. (Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and
Management Services Division Director)
C. Recommendation to direct staff to either 1) prepare an Ordinance to ban
medical marijuana dispensing facilities from locating within the boundaries
of Collier County, or 2) to continue to publicly vet a Land Development
Code (LDC) Amendment to permit medical marijuana dispensaries in the
same zoning districts as pharmacies. (Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning
Division Director
D. Recommendation to award ITB No. 17-7164 Collier County Landscape
Beautification Master Plan- Collier Boulevard (U.S. 41 to Marino Circle)
Landscape and Irrigation Installation construction project to Hannula
Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of$1,087,590.21. (Project
No. 60206) (Joe Delate, Sr. Project Manager)
E. Recommendation to award Contract No. 16-6699 to HNTB Corporation for
professional design and related services for the Eleven Bridge Replacements
Project No. 66066, in the amount of$2,459,845.80, pursuant to RFP
Number 16-6699, and authorize the Chair to execute the attached contract.
(Anthony O. Stolts, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Transportation
Engineering Division)
F. Recommendation to declare that emergency conditions exist at Clam Pass,
waive the Procurement Ordinance, ratify Quote Request 17-7181 with the
compressed solicitation schedule, and authorize the County Manager or his
designee to enter into a contract with Donald Dachuk Tractor Service for
$84,500, and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of$54,500 (Neil
Dorrill, Pelican Bay Administrator)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 5
July 11,2017
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
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 an Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Naples for the purpose of installation of License Plate Reading (LPR)
cameras within County road rights-of-way.
2) Recommendation to award Contract No. 16-7034 in the amount of
$654,005 to Control Technologies, Inc., for the purchase,
configuration and installation of an Intelight Advanced Traffic
Management System (ATMS), Traffic Signal Controllers and
associated components, throughout Collier County and to accept a
time extension to Local Agency Program Agreement 433174-1 with
the Florida Department of Transportation, until June 30, 2019
(Project No. 33473).
3) Recommendation to approve three agreements for the purchase of
easements required for the construction of a weir on the Curry Canal
just south of Immokalee Road. (Curry Canal Weir Project No. 60205.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $46,350.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Arthrex Boulevard,
Application Number PL20170001077.
Page 6
July 11,2017
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda
Lakes Phase 1A, Application Number PL20170001378.
6) Recommendation to grant final acceptance of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Hatchers Preserve,
Application Number PL20120000510 with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained; acceptance of the plat
dedications, and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Barrington Cove, Phases 1 and 2, PL20150000180 and
PL20150001281, and to authorize the County Manager, or his
designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of
$8,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
8) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with a value of$671,836.71 for payment of$750 in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Heriberto Perez, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CELU20090007827 relating to property located at 2081 50th St SW,
Collier County, Florida.
9) Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which
Collier County would be reimbursed up to $1,024,273 for the
construction and construction engineering inspection (CEI) of turn
lane extensions and restriping at the intersections of Pine Ridge Road
and Logan Boulevard, and Pine Ridge Road and CR 31(Airport -
Pulling Road) and to authorize the necessary budget amendment
(Project # 33524), FPN 435176-1-/58/68.
10) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of$222,180.80 which was posted as
a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.080-3/PL20140001035
for work associated with Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 3.
Page 7
July 11,2017
11) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to recognize
revenue and transfer funding for projects within the Transportation
Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) and Transportation & CDES Capital
Fund (310) in the amount of$322,090.78 (Projects 60066, 60088,
60085, 69333, 69336, 69339, 69338 and 60132).
12) Recommendation to amend Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 2013-239,
the list of Speed Limits on County Maintained Roads, to re-establish
the speed limits on: Collier Boulevard (CR 951) from Green
Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard; on Green Boulevard from 0.5
miles west of Collier Boulevard; on Pine Ridge Road from 0.5 miles
west of Collier Boulevard; and, on White Boulevard from 0.5 miles
east of Collier Boulevard; from Thirty-five (35) miles per hour to
Forty-five (45) miles per hour due to the completion of construction
of"Collier Boulevard Roadway Capacity Improvements"; Project
68056.
13) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of$10,000 to Chatham Woods Development,
LLC which was posted as a development guaranty for an Early Work
Authorization (EWA) (PL20160003012) for work associated with
Chatham Woods.
14) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the July 30, 2002
Interlocal Agreement by and between Collier County and the City of
Marco Island resuming ownership, operation and maintenance
responsibility for the entirety of County Road 92A (Goodland Road).
15) Recommendation to accept the Triangle Boulevard Traffic Study
Technical Memorandum, and instruct staff to identify funding
strategies for Board of County Commissioners (Board) consideration.
16) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Preferred Material, Inc.
for construction of the "Golden Gate Parkway at 55th Street SW
Intersection Improvements" in the amount of$308,063.30 (Project
60016).
17) Recommendation to award a contract under Request for Proposal
(RFP) solicitation number 17-7103 — West Goodlette Frank Road
Page 8
July 11,2017
Joint Stormwater-Sewer Project, to Q. Grady Minor and Associates,
P.A. (GradyMinor), in the amount of$695,591. (Project No. 60142)
18) Recommendation to approve Contract 17-7097 to provide engineering
services for Collier Creek Modeling Study for time and material not to
exceed $298,959.30 to CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
19) Recommendation to award Solicitation "17-7113-Laboratory
Analyzers" to Seal Analytical Inc.,.to purchase a discrete analyzer for
$50,412 and Skalar Inc., to purchase a biochemical oxygen demand
analyzer for $59,175 for use in the County's Pollution Control
Laboratory.
20) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Contract 17-7128 to provide professional engineering services as
required for "Doctors and Wiggins Pass Dredging" for time and
material not to exceed $149,988.94 to CB&I Environmental &
Infrastructure, Inc., authorize the necessary budget amendments and
make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
21) Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a membership
agreement between Collier County and the Green Corridor Property
Assessment Clean Energy District to administer a Property Assessed
Clean Energy (PACE) program within the unincorporated area of
Collier County, an indemnification agreement between Collier County
and Ygrene Energy Fund Florida LLC third party administrator, and
the original interlocal agreement and authorize the chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to sign these agreements
22) Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a membership
agreement between Collier County and the Florida Green Finance
Authority to administer a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
program within the unincorporated area of Collier County, an
indemnification agreement between Collier County and Renew
Financial Group LLC, third party administrator, and authorize the
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these
agreements.
Page 9
July 11,2017
23) Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a membership
agreement between Collier County and the Florida Resiliency and
Energy District, a Property Assessment Clean Energy District, to
administer a Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program within
the unincorporated area of Collier County, an indemnification
agreement between Collier County and Renovate America Inc., third
party administrator, an indemnification agreement between Collier
County and Florida Development Finance Corporation, an
administrator, and authorize the chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to sign these agreements.
24) Recommendation to approve a resolution establishing the Property
Assessment Clean Energy (PACE) program within the unincorporated
areas of Collier County for residential, commercial, and industrial
properties and approve a standard form membership agreement with
PACE providers.
25) Recommendation to approve and enter into a License Agreement with
Creekside West, Inc. for the purpose of the installation of two ground
signs within County road right-of-way.
26) Recommendation to approve the ranked list of design professionals
pursuant to RFP No. 17-7132 "2017 Beach Renourishment
Engineering" and authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top
ranked firm CB&I Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. for
subsequent Board approval, and, if contract negotiations are not
successful with CB&I, then to authorize staff to commence contract
negotiations with the remaining ranked firm, and make a find that this
item promotes tourism.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) approve an After-The-Fact U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) application submittal to fund the Immokalee Sidewalk
Improvements Program within the Immokalee Community
Redevelopment Area, totaling $250,000.
Page 10
July 11,2017
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), award Contract No. 17-7148, Immokalee Sidewalk
Improvements, to Marquee Development, Inc. in the amount of
$685,494.75, and authorize the necessary budget amendment.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award bid number 17-7135, "NRO Well 6
Turbidity Remediation," Project Number 70186, to All Webbs
Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of$319,400, and, authorize the
necessary budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid # 17-7134, Roofing
Maintenance and Remedial Repairs, for countywide use to FA
Remodeling and Repairs, Inc., as the Primary Contractor, and
Crowther Roofing and Sheet Metal of Florida, Inc., as the Secondary
Contractor; and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Agreements
3) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #16-7021, Hammerhead
and Designated Driveway Construction, to multiple vendors in two
categories.
4) Recommendation to approve and execute the document necessary to
convey an easement to Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) over
property owned by the Collier County Water Sewer District at 343 St.
Andrews Boulevard
5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$300,000 to cover costs for expedited life cycle water meter
replacements for Project 70010.
6) Recommendation to approve a Right-of-Way Consent Agreement and
associated Memorandum with Florida Power & Light Company,
providing for construction of a 24" irrigation quality water main,
within the existing Florida Power & Light Company's easement
within the Remington Reserve and Creekside Commerce Center
Subdivisions.
Page 11
July 11,2017
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with William Lindsay, as Trustee, for 15 acres of vacant land
immediately adjacent to the Collier County Landfill for the Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Division, at a total cost not to exceed
$181,500; Project 59012, and authorize the necessary budget
amendment.
8) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment in the amount of
$900,000 to continue funding emergency repairs and operational
programs that maintain compliance for the Public Utilities Department
Wastewater Division.
9) Recommendation to approve a Bill of Sale conveying a portion of the
existing Irrigation Quality Water facilities to Las Brisas
Neighborhood Association, Inc. for ownership and maintenance
consistent with existing utility practice.
10) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal 17-7108, "Food and
Beverage Concessions," for the Main Government Complex to Zack's
Food Cart Ministry Catering, Inc.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 17-7142 to Compass
Construction, Inc., for the Clam Pass Parking Improvements, in the
amount of$588,010, plus $5,000 for County permitting fees for a total
of$593,010, authorize the necessary budget amendment, and make a
finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 17-7139 to Infinite
Construction, LLC, for the Ann Olesky Park Pier Replacement, in the
amount of$437,736.94, plus $5,000 for County permitting fees for a
total of$442,736.94, and authorize the necessary budget amendment.
3) Recommendation to recognize and accept revenue for Collier Area
Transit (CAT) bus shelters in the amount of$10,000 from the Buckley
MPUD and to authorize all necessary budget amendments.
4) Recommendation to approve four (4) mortgage satisfactions for the
Page 12
July 11, 2017
State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan program in the
combined amount of$17,050.40.
5) Recommendation to approve six (6) releases of lien for full payment
of the deferral of 100% of countywide impact fees for owner occupied
affordable housing dwelling units.
6) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Collier County Owner-Occupied
Rehabilitation Program, primarily to clarify roles and responsibilities
of the County, the Subrecipient, and third party inspectors, and to
incorporate minor administrative changes identified as a result of
program operation.
7) Recommendation to authorize payment of outstanding invoice #
40856 to EarthBalance for nuisance and exotic plant species
maintenance events at the Pepper Ranch Preserve Phase II in the total
amount of$80,982 under the equitable principle of quantum meruit.
8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign three
(3) sub-recipient agreements with the David Lawrence Center (DLC)
for $377,421, the Collier County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) in the
amount of$524,089, and the National Alliance of Mental Illness
(NAMI) of Collier County for $93,000 as a part of the three-year
Criminal Justice Mental Health and Substance Abuse (CJMHSA)
Reinvestment Grant Program.
9) Recommendation to approve the FY17 Program of Projects and
submittal of a grant application for the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), 49 USC § 5339 FY17 grant funds of$287,635 through the
Transit Award Management System (TrAMS).
10) Recommendation to approve the FY17 Program of Projects and
submittal of a grant application for the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), 49 USC § 5307 FY17 grant funds in the amount of$2,391,838
through the Transit Award Management System (TrAMS), accept
award and authorize any necessary budget amendments.
11) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Ground Lease
Page 13
July 11,2017
Agreement and Memorandum of Lease with the Verizon Wireless
Personal Communications LP at Vineyards Community Park.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to accept the report for the sale of items and
disbursement of funds associated with the County surplus auction held
on April 29, 2017.
2) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
notification of items available for surplus.
3) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other items
as identified.
4) Recommendation to authorize payment of an outstanding invoice
under quantum meruit for Agreement No. 15-6374R-Maintenance,
Repair, and Testing for Fuel Storage Tank Systems for projects to
Adams Tank & Lift, Inc.
5) Recommendation to approve an In-Building Radio Distribution
License Agreement, a Memorandum of In Building Radio
Distribution Agreement and a Right of Entry Agreement with Verizon
Wireless Personal Communications LP to install communications
equipment for enhanced service at the Emergency Services Center.
6) Recommendation to award RFP #17-7133 for EMS Billing and Debt
Collection Services to Digitech EMS Billing, Inc. d/b/a Digitech
Computer, Inc.
7) Recommendation to award Bid #16-6593 for the purchase of EMS
expendable supplies and equipment to multiple vendors for the
Emergency Medical Services Division.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve the Sheriff's Office vacation of tenancy
Page 14
July 11,2017
at the Carnestown Substation and to approve a Lease Agreement with
Patriot Place Trust for space to be utilized by the Sheriff's Office for
its District 5 Substation.
2) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year
2017 Agreement between Economic Incubators, Inc. and the Board of
County Commissioners to provide start up and operational funding for
the Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee and authorize a budget
amendment of$137,965.
3) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact-approval for the submittal
of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Community
Planning Technical Assistance grant application in the amount of
$40,000 to fund a Market Analysis and Feasibility Report that
provides in-depth data related to land-use planning, economic
development impact and financial viability for Immokalee Culinary
Arts & Production Campus at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign an Assumption Agreement with
Staffordshire Properties, Inc., replacing Training and Manufacturing
Institute (TMI), Inc., consistent with the provisions of the (former)
Fee Payment Assistance Program, which is Article II of Chapter 49 of
the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and authorizing the
County Manager to rescind the Agreement if the contemplated
purchase of the property by Staffordshire Properties, Inc. does not
occur in a timely fashion.
5) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to Collier
County's Agreement with Pro Watercross to host the 2017 Pro
Watercross World Championships October 17 —November 5, 2017,
approve Tourist Development Tax Category "B" funding in the
amount of$67,500 for local event expenses, and make a finding that
this expenditure promotes tourism.
6) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Category "B"
funding to support four upcoming September-October Sports Events
up to $34,050 and make a finding these expenditures promote tourism.
Page 15
July 11,2017
7) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
8) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget amendments
impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and
including $25,000 and $50,000, respectively.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a
Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for
approving the Special Assessment (Non-Ad Valorem Assessment) to
be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the water
management system, beautification of recreational facilities and
median areas and maintenance of conservation or preserve areas,
management of the dredging and maintenance activities for Clam Pass
for the purpose of enhancing the health of the affected mangrove
forest and establishment of Capital Reserve Funds for ambient noise
management, maintenance of conservation or preserve areas,
including the restoration of the mangrove forest, U.S. 41 berm, street
signage replacements within the median areas, landscaping
improvements to U.S. 41 entrances and beach renourishment, all
within the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve a Collier County Airport Authority
Standard Form Lease and Addendum with Economic Incubators, Inc.
at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to File for Record with Action as Directed
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the Sheriff's
Page 16
July 11,2017
Office FY 2018 COPS Hiring Program grant.
2) Recommendation to purchase EViD Edge electronic pollbooks from
VR Systems, Inc.
3) Recommendation to purchase Election Systems & Software (ES&S)
voting systems, software, hardware and related materials from
Election Systems & Software, Inc.
4) 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 June 15 and June 28, 2017 pursuant to Florida Statute
136.06.
5) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of July 5,
2017.
6) To provide to the Board of County Commissioners the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Internal Audit Report 2017-10 Fixed Asset
Verification: Library Furniture, issued on July 05, 2017.
7) To provide to the Board of County Commissioners the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Internal Audit Report 2017-9 Fixed Asset
Verification: Security Equipment, issued on July 05, 2017.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Health Facilities
Authority.
2) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
3) Recommendation to reappoint three members to the Board of
Building Adjustments & Appeals.
4) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Water and Wastewater
Page 17
July 11,2017
Authority.
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the global
amount of$490,000, inclusive of all attorneys' fees, expert fees and
costs, to Lowe's Home Center, Inc. for the taking of Parcels
105FEE1, 105FEE2, 105FEE3, 105TCE1, 105TCE2, 105TCE3,
105TCE4, and 105SWE for the US 41/C.R. 951 Intersection
Improvement Project, Project No. 60116 (Fiscal Impact: $373,220).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 97-8,
as amended, the Collier County False Alarm Ordinance.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 02-61, as
amended, as it relates to the Fiddler's Creek Community Development
District #2 and to adopt a Resolution as to the Fiddler's Creek Community
Development District #1, both consenting to and authorizing the exercise of
special powers regarding mosquito control pursuant to Section
190.012(2)(e), Florida Statutes.
C. Recommendation to establish a pilot program in Immokalee allowing the
payment of impact fees by an installment program, as a voluntary alternative
to paying the fees in a single, up-front payment with a delayed effective date
of October 1, 2017.
D. Recommendation to approve the second reading of an ordinance amending
County Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended, to increase the Tourist
Page 18
July 11,2017
Development Tax (TDT) by 1%, and reallocate the funds generated by the
TDT to increase funding for beach renourishment, provide pay as-you-go
project funding as well as debt service funding for the proposed amateur
sports complex, continue to fund County Museum operations up to a fixed
amount, and provide a mechanism to maintain the current funding level for
promoting the destination.
E. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20170000756, to quitclaim
and release the County's interest in the Park tract of Edgewild, as recorded
in Plat Book 13, Pages 44-45 of the public records of Collier County,
Florida. The subject property is located just west of Livingston Road,
approximately one half mile south of Immokalee Road, in Section 25,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
July 11,2017
July 11, 2017
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think I must have hit the gavel a little
hard, because everybody got quiet right away. So thank you very
much. It's so wonderful to see so many people here this morning.
And on that note, I'd like to have Dr. Bob Scudieri give us the
invocation, and I'd ask our Commissioner Fiala to lead us in the Pledge
of Allegiance afterwards, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #1A
INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVEREND DR. BOB SCUDIERI OF
PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH
REVEREND SCUDIERI: Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.
As I prepared my prayer, I was reminded of the vision of our
county: The best community in America to live, work, and play. And
also the words of Deuteronomy 15: If among you one of your brothers
or sisters should become poor in any of your towns within your land
that the Lord is giving you, you should not harden your heart or shut
your hand. Let us pray.
Bless this meeting and these commissioners that, with every
decision they make, they will take to heart your words and not harden
their hearts but open their hands to help us to open our hands to give
sufficient for the needs of the hurting in Collier County, whatever that
may be.
Lord God, you called us to live in the best community in America
to live, work, and play. Thank you for those who keep it that way.
Your servants, Penny, Andy, Donna, Bart (sic), and William; and
especially today, Lemeck Cherenfant, thank you for the blessing he is
to us in the Traffic Signal Division.
July 11, 2017
Page 3
Thank you for the joy we receive from the Off The Hook Comedy
Club.
We pray that as we attend to the work of this wonderful
community, we will not forget those who are in need, those among us
who are hungry for food, for direction, for laughter and joy, for good
education, for healing of body and soul, open your hand, Lord, and
give us sufficient for these needs, whatever they may be, because we
ask it in your most holy name. Amen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with that, I would ask you to
put your hand over your hearts, please, and say with me...
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
County Manager?
Item #2A
TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBER FOR CONSENT AND SUMMARY
AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. These are the
proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of July 11, 2017.
The first proposed change is to move Item 17C from your
summary agenda to become Item 9B under advertised public hearings
and also to slightly revise the title of this item to read, a
recommendation to adopt an ordinance to establish a pilot program in
Immokalee allowing the payment of impact fees by an installment
program. The move from summary is made at Commissioner Taylor's
request. The modification to the title is a staff request.
July 11, 2017
Page 4
The next proposed change is to move Item 16A24 from your
growth management consent agenda to become Item 11G on your
regular agenda. This is a recommendation to approve a resolution
establishing the Property Assessment Clean Energy program,
commonly referred to as PACE, within the unincorporated areas of
Collier County. This move is made at Commissioner Taylor's request.
The next proposed -- the next three proposed changes, as a matter
of fact, are resolutions approving individual membership agreements
between the county and individual PACE providers. Those are Items
16A21, 16A22, and 16A23. All of those are being requested to move
to the regular agenda by Commissioner Taylor.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16F2. This was a
proposed amendment to the 2017 agreement between the Board and
Economic Incubators, Incorporated. That withdrawal is at staff's
request.
The next proposed change is to withdraw Item 16G1. This is a
recommended standard form lease agreement at the Immokalee
Regional Airport with Economic Incubators, Incorporated. That is also
at staff's request.
We have a few agenda notes this morning, Commissioners. The
first relates to Item 16A9. We have a correction in one of the project
numbers. The correct project number is FPN433176-1568. That
correction is made at the County Attorney's request.
With regard to Item 16D2, the title of that item should include the
phrase "and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism."
That add is made at the staff's request.
We have two time-certain items on today's agenda,
Commissioners. Item 8A will be heard at 1:30 p.m. That is the appeal
to the Board of Zoning Appeals of an administrative approval of
building separations, building widths, building dwelling units, and
building heights in the Site Development Plan amendment for Kalea
July 11, 2017
Page 5
Bay.
And Item 10A will be heard after Item 7 this morning, public
comments on general topics not on the agenda.
Those are all the changes I have, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We all have
committed those to memory, sir.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no changes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have registered speakers for
two consent-agenda items; Item 16A1 and 16F9. We also have a
registered speaker for Summary Agenda Item 17D.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we'll move those to the regular
agenda, I'm assuming.
MR. OCHS: Well -- or you can take those comments right now
and decide as a board whether you need to move them or not.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So let's do that so that we can
approve the agenda now and then take the comments, or take the
comments before we approve the agenda?
MR. OCHS: Well, ma'am, I would recommend maybe you go to
commissioner changes first and then --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: -- hear your speakers under consent and summary
after that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Hear the speakers before we do
that.
Okay. Ms. Kinzel?
MS. KINZEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll be -- yeah. I really don't
think it's necessary for us to revisit the items on PACE and the
July 11, 2017
Page 6
Immokalee impact fee pilot program. We've already vetted those
things, and I don't -- I would rather that we not bring those back up
again. It's already been voted on favorably and can certainly be passed
in the consent or summary agenda, wherever they happen to fall.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I would like them for a separate
vote. That's why I want -- just to hear them for a separate vote.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If I could tag on to what
Commissioner McDaniel just said, because you can have a separate
vote on all of those items. You just indicate which items you're
opposed to. The record would reflect that you voted against those even
though they're still on the consent agenda; is that correct, Mr.
Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chairman, we
have an incredibly lengthy agenda, and I agree with Commissioner
McDaniel that those five items, the four PACE items and the item
dealing with the Immokalee impact fees, unless someone's going to
change their vote, we're just kind of spinning our wheels again. So I
would agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I had no intention of discussing
them, but in my time here we've never done it like that. We've always
just brought them forward and just had a separate vote and identify
them as such. So that's fine. We're talking about the same thing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. You could reflect for
the record that you're opposed to those five items and that -- you would
be recorded as a no vote even though we keep this on the consent
agenda and vote for the consent agenda as a whole.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it has been a matter of
public record how we've all voted on these items already, so -- and as
Commissioner Saunders said, unless somebody's changing their vote, I
July 11, 2017
Page 7
--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If they're on the consent agenda and we
agree to the consent agenda, then I'm agreeing to those items. So I
have to highlight them however I highlight them to allow myself the
opportunity to vote against it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. I understand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. And I'm okay with
the withdrawn items with regard to the incubator and accelerator as
well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to address one thing.
I was still reading my agenda. I'm sorry; it takes me forever to read all
of this stuff. But last night I came across the one that concerned me a
lot, and I don't have the answers. It's 16D6, which is changes to the
SHIP program and primarily clarifying rules or responsibilities or
changing them around. And I have a bunch of questions, except I
haven't been able to ask anybody about them. And I didn't know
whether I should pull it off the agenda -- because it is an awfully long
agenda -- or just bring it back in the fall.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or continue it.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if you don't mind, we'd like to just
bring that onto the regular agenda for discussion today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: I think we can answer your questions,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm not sure if we got that time frame.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That one had so many little curves in
it that it was not clear at all. Thank you. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'll move that then, Madam Chair,
July 11, 2017
Page 8
with your permission, to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Right now that would be Item 11K, pending any
other final decisions on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are we also doing --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- ex parte?
MR. OCHS: On consent and summary; on consent and summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't do that; I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor did I. I was all wound up
on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So why don't we just do the consent
changes here and then we'll come back and do ex parte.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No other changes other than what's
been discussed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I do have one
change. I'd like to continue Agenda Item 16A1. That deals with the
license plate readers in the county right-of-way that's been requested
by the City of Naples.
There was an interesting article in the paper this morning dealing
with that, so the public is now aware of this particular item. I'd like to
see what kind of reaction we get from the public before we move
forward with that. That's 16A1. I'd like to continue that until
September 12th.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. I actually questioned
the constitutionality of it when I was reading it, but I assumed that it
was okay because it got through on to us, so I'm in for continuing it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Point of order. County Attorney, we've
July 11, 2017
Page 9
asked that one item be continued. Where do we take that motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: For clarity, let's just do it right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. So I have a motion on the
floor to continue and a second by Commissioner McDaniel to continue
16A1.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, excuse me. You did have a
registered speaker for this item under your consent agenda.
MR. MILLER: Should I call that speaker?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
and a second. We won't vote on it. And I will declare that I have no
other changes to this agenda. Well, maybe I do. No, I don't. Okay.
And so I think right now, what we need to do is hear from our speaker
on 16A1.
MR. OCHS: Well, if you're going to continue the item, County
Attorney, is there any need to hear testimony on it now or hear it when
it comes back?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no need. Sometimes the Board will
listen to somebody since they took the time to get down here.
Sometimes they'll just say come back.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think the Board should.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we should if someone took the
time to come here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
MR. MILLER: All right. 16A1, your registered speaker is Dr.
Joseph Doyle. He's been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy
Doyle, who is present.
DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. I won't take the
six minutes. I'm actually glad you're looking at continuing this.
If you do look at -- I just want to point out a couple things,
because the public should be aware of where these six license plate
readers are going to -- can I put this on the visualizer.
July 11, 2017
Page 10
A lot of -- we live in the county. We don't live in the city. So I
don't really want to be traveling down Goodlette or U.S. 41 and having
my license plate read on something that is really still county road. If
you look at that, one is at U.S. 41 and Morningside, and one is at
Goodlette and Solana.
No. Let the city -- if they want to play big brother 1984, let them
move in a -- onto city property, move in a street or so. I'm sure there
will be other people who will come forth in September who have my
position. So if you continue this to September, I'm happy with it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. We heard from
our speaker. No other speakers on this item?
MR. MILLER: Not on that item, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we have a motion on the
floor to continue till September 12th meeting, and we have a second.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
All right. Now let's hear for the speakers for the other two items,
please.
MR. MILLER: Item 16F9, your speaker is Dr. Joseph Doyle.
He's been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is
present.
DR. DOYLE: Okay. Commissioners, this involves Pelican Bay.
On this item you're looking at adopting a resolution setting the date,
July 11, 2017
Page 11
time, and place for a public hearing on the budget.
Our issue here -- my mother is -- I'm Joseph -- Dr. Joseph Doyle.
My mother is Sandy Doyle. She's the property owner in Pelican Bay.
Our issue is that all of the taxing entities, the MSTUs with ad
valorem millage will be getting two hearings September 7th and
September 21st on Agenda Item 11A, but Pelican Bay MSTU with its
non-ad valorem special assessment, which we discussed at the budget
workshop, will only get one hearing on September 7th in this consent
agenda item. This is unequal treatment of taxpayers in our opinion.
We are asking the commissioners to grant Pelican Bay a second
hearing on September 21st and ask that this resolution be considered so
that the residents and taxpayer's on parity with other Collier County
residents and taxpayers regarding general principles of fairness and
equal treatment.
So, in other words, if we're going to give the people who are
paying ad valorem millage two hearings, while this is a special
assessment, a non-ad valorem -- and I understand there's a difference
because of the TRIM, truth in millage, we still should allow two
hearings. Okay.
And we've talked about this in the past. We talked about it last
year. We talked about it the year before. Actually, one year we did get
two hearings because, Commissioners, you felt that we should.
I realize that the budget director doesn't always agree with this
and neither does the Pelican Bay Administrator, but we need to do
something about this. If we can do this locally, great. If we have to
have a fix at the state level in the legislature because of the difference
in statutes between the millage, ad valorem, and the special
assessments, which are not ad valorem, so be it. But I think with what
you saw at the budget workshop and the increase in this special
assessment for Pelican Bay this year, people might not be here
September 7th, but there may be more people who will be here for the
July 11, 2017
Page 12
second hearing on September 21st. So I'm asking that we allow a
second hearing because people do start coming back sometimes in the
middle of September.
The second part of our request is this; it's kind of related. The
Pelican Bay staff indicates every year in September that they never
receive complaints about the assessment. Well, that's because the
email address, their email address, and their telephone number are not
on the notice. So I'm going to ask you that they put it on the notice in
bold so that they might get some feedback from the public.
So that's the agenda item. I don't know if you want to discuss it
further or what, but that's our concern.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commission, your pleasure here.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I had actually hit that when we
were talking about the agenda. I don't have any particular issues with
two hearings and what the request is, but I don't know what the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I can ask the County
Attorney. Is there a matter -- is it a matter of legality with regard to the
amount of hearings that they have?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You get one hearing. Of course, we've
had this in the budget hearings; we've had Pelican Bay do this
internally themselves. This thing's been heard multiple times, but there
is no requirement for two hearings.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Because this is reviewed first
by the advisory board, right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And how many -- do we know how
many hearings they have prior to finalizing this? So, I mean, at least
one because they forward it.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. I don't know how many hearings. I know
July 11, 2017
Page 13
they meet several times to fashion the budget and then make that
recommendation on to the Board.
I think that Mr. Dorrill had indicated during the workshops that
his budget review committee in Pelican Bay endorsed the budget by a
vote of 8-1, I believe it was.
DR. DOYLE: The budget committee did not meet regularly this
winter. They finally met at the end of March and April, and the full
Pelican Bay board looked at it in May. People were gone. But when
they get their notices, they may want to speak about this. People -- I
don't think people really know how much the assessment is going up at
this point in time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I would just suggest that, you
know, we're very far down the process, and what I would suggest is
that we move forward with this provision but bring it up at the next
meeting for purposes of discussing with Mr. Dorrill and the advisory
board as to what the meeting process is, and are there multiple
opportunities at hearings for input and what the notice process is,
because I don't know that off the top of my ahead. I don't know that
anybody else here does.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a statutory-driven process. There's never
been any allegation that they haven't complied with the statute.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: They're given the same due process as
everybody else in the state on this issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Dr. Doyle, you're saying that there's no
return email or return address?
DR. DOYLE: There's no -- in the notice, there's no email or
telephone number to contact the staff office. Staff always comes here
in September -- and, actually, Commissioner Fiala asked this -- well,
who else is against this tax increase? But the staff always says we
haven't heard from anybody. But if they don't have an email address
July 11, 2017
Page 14
and a telephone number to call, you're not going to hear from anybody
because people -- it's difficult to contact them.
So, you know, and as the attorney is saying, it may not be
statutory for special assessments; we only get one bite at the apple.
But I'm saying, you know, with the other assessment or the other --
you know, the millage, ad valorem, you get two bites at the apple.
Why don't we allow two bites at the apple?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, not to be snarky, but we've
already spent more time on this than if you would have had two
hearings on this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is the question whether we
have this on our agenda for the 14th and the 21st?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll -- why don't we just
do that, and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And have a hearing at the same time?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. We'll just have the two
hearings.
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be shorter than this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So have it the same time we --
DR. DOYLE: The 7th and the 21st of September, right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the other issue was the
address issue. I don't know what the answer to that is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think what I'd like to do is
continue -- I'd like to put this to the regular agenda and then have you
produce something from last year. If it can't be produced, we just vote
to move ahead as we -- as the agenda item outlines. But if you can
between now and late this afternoon produce something that verifies
what you're saying, I think we need to see it.
DR. DOYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a motion?
July 11, 2017
Page 15
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question, though. So if we
put this off till September, will that, then, tie up their budget and they
won't be able to operate from here on in --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. That's my concern.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because they have to wait until
October in order to move forward, and October starts the new year.
DR. DOYLE: I'm not requesting that.
MR. OCHS: I think what he's requesting is to have this budget
heard twice in September instead of once as it's traditionally been
heard once, and it's only legally required to be heard at your first public
hearing on your budget.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which is?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The 14th.
DR. DOYLE: September 7th.
MR. OCHS: September 7th.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We ought to, then, get a
clarification.
MR. OCHS: So what's being suggested, I think, by Mr. Doyle is
that you hear this issue both on the 7th and then again on the 21st.
DR. DOYLE: And also that the resolution that is mailed to -- the
notice that is mailed to the constituents over the summer have in bold
the email address and the telephone contact information to the services
division office.
MR. OCHS: If he's talking about the TRIM notice, you don't
control that, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: That comes from the Property Appraiser.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I think that whatever goes
on the envelopes and that sort of thing, that's set by statute.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
July 11, 2017
Page 16
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we're not going to mess
with that.
DR. DOYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I think the appropriate
thing would be to have the two hearings, because I don't think that
delays anybody.
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And in terms of the envelope
and return address, that's whatever the Tax Collector puts together.
We're not going to interfere with that. And so I don't think you need to
put it on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't need to. We just leave it in
the consent agenda, understanding --
MR. OCHS: We'll modify our advertisement to make sure that
it's included in both of your September public hearings.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two hearings.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Are you going to talk us out of
it, Mr. Isackson?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mr. Isackson's got his hands on
his hips.
MR. ISACKSON: If I could say a few things.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, my concern is like
Commissioner Fiala's, that I don't want to -- I want to make sure that
we're not going to somehow impact their budget cycle or whatever it is
that they're working on.
MR. ISACKSON: Here's my suggestion, Commissioners. Mark
Isackson, Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
You have your first hearing on September 7th. And this particular
matter will be on that public hearing docket. Now, if the board at that
time decides that they want to have a second bite at the apple, you can
do it on the 21st, which is what you did two or three years ago.
July 11, 2017
Page 17
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: That's my suggestion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd be in favor of doing it that way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So then we're just going to leave 16F9
on the consent agenda as it's written, and then we are going to decide
on the 7th of September --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- whether we'll have a second hearing,
make a motion for that second hearing.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And I would just urge, Mr.
Doyle, you know, if there's -- if there are others that are concerned
about this that you know of, bring them -- please ask them to come to
the hearing so that we can hear from them as well.
DR. DOYLE: My whole point was that some of them may not be
here on September 7th to come to the 7th. That's why they'd have an
opportunity to come on the 21st.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: All right. Madam Chair, registered speaker for
Item 17D. Dr. Joseph Doyle who's been ceded time from Sandra
Doyle, who is present.
DR. DOYLE: This is Item 17 --
MR. MILLER: D.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On the summary agenda. TDT.
DR. DOYLE: Oh, yes. This is -- well, this has to do with the
tourist development tax. Okay.
Okay. Philosophically, I'm opposed -- I'm Dr. Joseph Doyle,
Naples. I'm opposed to the one-cent tax increase in the tourist
development tax.
You know, we have had mission creep in this. It was originally
supposed to be mostly for the beaches and for advertising Naples as a
July 11, 2017
Page 18
tourist destination. Now we're looking at an amateur sports complex,
and it's just mission creep. It's not -- we all know what's going on with
the sports complex, but I don't think we really thought it through as to
what's going to happen possibly if we have a downturn in the
economy.
America is experiencing a tepid recovery in a fragile debt-ridden
economy. The GDP for the first quarter of '17 was 0.7 percent, and the
second quarter, we're still waiting for the results to come in.
But if there's decrease in tourism and decrease in tourist tax
receipts, what will that do as far as funding the sports complex? We
may -- that fifth penny may have to be used all -- and actually the first
three pennies may have to be used for the bonds and for paying for this
complex; then we won't have money left over for beach renourishment.
So, philosophically, I'm opposed to increasing that tax.
Secondarily, the museums. I know that they want to put a $2
million cap on the museums. While I do believe that the museums
need to get off of life support from this tourist development tax, I don't
believe that we want to phase them out entirely.
I believe that the new director is looking at taking a survey and
tracking -- and at best would be over a whole year so that you
understand that during the summer months as opposed to the winter
months who is actually visiting the museums. Are they -- where are
they coming from? Are they tourists? Are they seniors? Are they
students? Are they local residents?
I think a fair funding of the museums would be, for instance, if 40
percent of the visitors to the museums are from out of town and they're
actually tourists, then the tourist tax up to $2 million should pay or
contribute to the museum budget. I don't think we should take the
museums totally out of the TDT, okay, as has been proposed. And so
that's why I'm a little opposed to this ordinance if, in fact, it's talking
about totally phasing out the museums.
July 11, 2017
Page 19
I just think that there should be a contribution. And if you want
to take that to another part of -- we want to look at mission creep, you
know, we have the Zika. Zika can affect tourism. I spoke on that a
year ago, the Zika virus. We've had all this rain; we've had the
mosquitoes. If for some reason the Zika raises its ugly head again,
we're going to have to address that in the promotional literature. But I
would also say that we, the property owners, should not have to bear
the cost of Zika mosquito control. You could make the effort that some
of the TDT should be used to help the Mosquito Control District, since
we are trying to promote tourism, combat the Zika virus through
Mosquito Control.
So, you know, there are other things that we have to look at. How
about help using some of that TDT money for EMS because they have
the helicopter going out on I-75 all the time? That's tourism. Maybe
instead of having the property owners always funding all of these
things, some of that should come out of the TDT. So you see where
this is headed. You know, there are so many things that are really
tourism related that the TDT could be used for.
So -- but -- so that's if you want to use the money. I'm just talking
-- so there are two things here: How we're going to use the money, but
also, on the front end, do we really need that extra penny. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I say one thing?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to make one
comment, just really for the public. We are aware that there could be a
downturn in the economy, and so the fifth penny will generate about
$5.5 million in revenue at today's tourist rates.
We required staff to bond no more than 3.75 million. So if there's
a downturn in the economy, there should be plenty of money in that
fifth penny to take care of any reduction in tourism because we're not
bonding the whole 5.5 million. We're only bonding 3.75 million. That
July 11, 2017
Page 20
gives us, what, a 1.75 million cushion there. So I just want you to
understand that; that we did take that into account.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, number two -- if I may. I
did hit my light.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's just to -- it was my
understanding that we capped the museum revenue at $2 million out of
the TDT tax and not phase them out of the TDT tax. Just for point of
clarification, you mentioned that that -- I know that that was a
recommendation from the TDC, but our board voted to cap the
museums at two million and not phase out and roll them back into the
General Fund, just as a point.
DR. DOYLE: Okay, thank you. That's what I was concerned
about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'm wholeheartedly in
favor of that, capping it at two million. I would love to have it more,
but that's perfect for us, because we've got a lot of great tourism-related
items coming up within the museums system this coming here and
next year, what with the museums -- rather the Smithsonian and the
Pennsylvania museums coming forward with their Marco Cat displays
and loaning it to us for a few years. That's going to be a big hit for
tourism and definitely an attractant to the tourists who are here. So I'm
glad that we're doing that, and thank you for wanting to protect the
museums.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I believe that the commissioners still
need to make --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte.
MR. OCHS: -- ex parte on the consent and summary agenda.
July 11, 2017
Page 21
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So just to recap, we are
going to note that we are continuing 16A1 and that 16F9 and 17D are
moved back to the consent agenda.
MR. OCHS: Remaining on the summary and consent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Remaining on the consent agenda, yes
-- the consent and summary agenda. All right. That's crystal clear like
mud, right? Okay.
Commissioner Saunders, ex parte?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I don't have any ex parte
on the summary agenda and consent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On anything, sir?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On the -- nothing on the
consent or summary.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nothing --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have ex parte on the
others.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No ex parte, nothing to disclose on
the consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, nothing to declare on the either
the consent or the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nothing to declare on the
consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have one to declare on the consent
agenda, which is 16A4. I had meetings and calls about the final plat of
the Arthrex Boulevard over time.
Okay. So I guess we should -- yes, Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I can go ahead and make a
July 11, 2017
Page 22
motion if you're --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would love you to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I wanted to ask a question
first. Commissioner Fiala had been opposed to the PACE items.
Would you want your vote to be registered as a negative on those?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had asked Leo about that
yesterday, so thank you for noting that because now I don't have to say
it; all four items. I just do not have the heart to vote for them.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And then the other one
was the Immokalee impact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's okay with me.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're okay with that.
And then, Commissioner Taylor, you're going to be opposed to all
five of those items?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then, Madam Chair, I would
make a motion to approve the agenda and the consent agenda with the
changes that we've made to the consent agenda recognizing that 17C,
16A24, 16A21, 16A22, and 16A23 will remain on the consent agenda.
They'll be a no vote reflected for the chairman on those five items and
a no vote reflected for Commissioner Fiala on the four items dealing
with PACE.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that. Very well said.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, then Item 16D6 will become Item
11G on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11K. Is it 11K or 11G?
MR. OCHS: Well, it will be G now because these items aren't
moving to the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, perfect. Okay. All right. Will you
agree to the amendment?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
July 11, 2017
Page 23
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I will agree to the amendment by
our County Manager.
Are we all ready to begin this day at 9:37?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries unanimously.
Thank you for your patience, everyone. This was a little
complicated up here today.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
July 11,2017
Move Item 17C to Item 9B and revise title to read: Recommendation to adopt an ordinance to establish a
pilot program in Immokalee allowing the payment of impact fees by an installment program, as a
voluntary alternative to paying the fees in a single, up-front payment with a delayed effective date of
October 1,2017. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16A24 to Item 11G: Recommendation to approve a resolution establishing the Property
Assessment Clean Energy(PACE)program within the unincorporated areas of Collier County for
residential,commercial,and industrial properties and approve a standard form membership agreement
with PACE providers. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16A21 to Item 11H: Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a membership
agreement between Collier County and the Green Corridor Property Assessment Clean Energy District
to administer a Property Assessed Clean Energy(PACE)program within the unincorporated area of
Collier County,an indemnification agreement between Collier County and Ygrene Energy Fund Florida
LLC third party administrator,and the original interlocal agreement and authorize the chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to sign these agreements. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16A22 to Item 11I: Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a
membership agreement between Collier County and the Florida Green Finance Authority to administer a
Property Assessed Clean Energy(PACE)program within the unincorporated area of Collier County,an
indemnification agreement between Collier County and Renew Financial Group LLC,third party
administrator,and authorize the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign these agreements.
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16A23 to Item 11J: Recommendation to approve a resolution that approves a membership
agreement between Collier County and the Florida Resiliency and Energy District,a Property Assessment
Clean Energy District,to administer a Property Assessed Clean Energy(PACE)program within the
unincorporated area of Collier County,an indemnification agreement between Collier County and
Renovate America Inc.,third party administrator,an indemnification agreement between Collier County
and Florida Development Finance Corporation,an administrator,and authorize the chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners to sign these agreements. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Withdraw Item 16F2: Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2017
Agreement between Economic Incubators,Inc.and the Board of County Commissioners to provide start
up and operational funding for the Florida Culinary Accelerator @ Immokalee and authorize a budget
amendment of$137,965. (Staff's request)
Withdraw Item 16G1: Recommendation to approve a Collier County Airport Authority Standard Form
Lease and Addendum with Economic Incubators,Inc.at the Immokalee Regional Airport. (Staff's
request)
Note:
Item 16A9 title should read: Recommendation to approve and execute a Local Agency Program
Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation in which Collier County would be reimbursed
up to$1,024,273 for the construction and construction engineering inspection(CEI)of turn lane extensions
and restriping at the intersections of Pine Ridge Road and Logan Boulevard,and Pine Ridge Road and CR
31(Airport-Pulling Road)and to authorize the necessary budget amendment(Project#33524),FPN
435176 1 FPN 433176-1/58/68. (County Attorney's request)
Item 16D2 title should read: Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 17-7139 to Infinite
Construction, LLC, for the Ann Olesky Park Pier Replacement, in the amount of$437,736.94, plus
$5,000 for County permitting fees for a total of $442,736.94, and authorize the necessary budget
amendment,and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism. (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 1:30 p.m.
Item 10A will be heard after Item 7-Public Comment
7/11/2017 8:24 AM
July 11, 2017
Page 24
Item #2B, #2C & #2D
JUNE 6, 2017 – BCC/MENTAL HEALTH WORKSHOP MINUTES;
JUNE 13, 2017 – BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES; JUNE 15,
2017 – BCC/BUDGET WORKSHOP – APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'd like to make a motion
to approve the minutes from the mental-health workshop from June
6th, the regular BCC meeting from June 13th, and the regular budget
workshop June 15th.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second. All
those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #3D1
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE LEMECK
CHERENFANT, TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIAN, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AS THE JUNE 2017
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – PRESENTED
July 11, 2017
Page 25
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 3D1 this morning, and this
is a recommendation to recognize Lemeck Cherenfant, our Traffic
Signal Technician in our Growth Management Department, as the June
2017 Employee of the Month.
Mac, if you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mac, if you'd stand right there and get a photo, and
I'll tell the audience a little bit more about you.
Mac is a Traffic Signal Technician in our Traffic Operations
Division. He's been working with the county for more than five years
in our Growth Management Department.
The county recently deployed a real-time adaptive traffic control
system along the Airport-Pulling Road corridor. The benefits to the
public will be reduction in crashes, reduction in travel time, and fuel
consumption and emissions.
As a new system and a new technology, it was unfamiliar
territory for our signal technicians, and Mac volunteered to become the
lead technician and invested many hours of work and personal time to
learn the installation and the inner workings of this new proprietary
system. Mac's diligence and time spent working with the engineers on
the project ensured a smooth and professional installation.
Aside from the public safety benefits, Mac's drive and initiative
made this installation a success by saving a great deal of taxpayer
dollars by not having to use an outside contractor for installation, and
it's one of the many reasons, Commissioners, why he's very deserving
of recognition.
Commissioners, it's my honor to recommend Mac Cherenfant as
our Employee of the Month for June 2017. Congratulations, Mac.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5 this
morning, public presentations.
July 11, 2017
Page 26
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JULY 2017 TO OFF THE HOOK COMEDY
CLUB. ACCEPTED BY BRIEN SPINA, OWNER, OFF THE HOOK
COMEDY CLUB AND SUSAN KUHAR, ACCOUNT
EXECUTIVE, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE –
PRESENTED
Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the
Month for July 2017 to Off the Hook Comedy Club. To be accepted
by Brian Spina, owner of Off the Hook Comedy Club, and Susan
Kuhar, Account Executive with the Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce. If you'd step forward and receive your recognition. Is
Brian here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think he's trying to make his way
through the crowd.
MR. OCHS: Here he comes. Congratulations, Brian.
(Applause.)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Brian, stay there. I'll get one for
you. Now you got it on Facebook. I'll send it to you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Item 7 is public comments on general topics not on
the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we begin with three speakers from
Immokalee to talk about the Taste of Immokalee. It's two students,
July 11, 2017
Page 27
Defarris Moore and Myra Jaimes, and they'll begin with a few words
from their teacher, John Slusar, Slusar.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And while Mr. Slusar's coming up,
would the Taste of Immokalee students plead stand up.
(Applause.)
MR. SLUSAR: Well, thank you, Commissioners, very much for
the invitation to speak to you.
My name is John Slusar. I'm the President of Taste of
Immokalee. We're a benefit corporation which is located here in
Collier County.
And, essentially, what we are is we are a learning lab. We are
teaching critical life skills. We are teaching all aspects of business
through the lens of actually running a business. And we've found this
to be a -- this was founded roughly two-and-a-half years ago with help
by the One by One Foundation. I'd like to recognize Mr. Steve Stolts,
who's a board member here. The One by One Foundation has started
and funded -- started and funded our organization.
We have three different lines of food products right now. We
have a salsa, we have a barbecue sauce, and a hot sauce. And we're in
18 Publix, and we're working with different distribution channels.
But this summer we tried something different. And with the help
of the Schulze Family Foundation, I'd like to recognize, please, Mary
Beth Geier, the Program Director for their Florida Region, and also
Paul Thein of the Naples YMCA. He's there. What we've done is
we've created a corporate development plan which is a paid internship.
So we've collected -- we've -- we screened and we found nine great
students from Naples to work with 15 students from Immokalee, all
high school students, to come in and learn and run all aspects of our
business.
And it's been a tremendous ride. We're halfway through it right
now. We end August 3rd. We've made some great friends. We've
July 11, 2017
Page 28
done a lot of great work.
Two of the people I'd like to introduce you to now; Myra Jaimes
and Defarris Moore will come up and kind of talk about their
experience and where we're going forward. So thank you.
MR. MOORE: Good morning. My name is Defarris Moore. I'm
a junior at Naples High School, and I'm here representing Taste of
Immokalee.
From Los Angeles to Naples, I've moved from home to home but,
finally, Taste of Immokalee has been able to introduce me to my new
home. I have been blessed with the opportunity to work for this
company and program this summer, a company and program that
manages to put home in every product we package and sell, although
none of it would be possible without the One by One Leadership
Foundation, the YMCA, or Mary Beth and the Schulze Family
Foundation.
This summer has been the first summer that we've incorporated
Naples students, like myself, with Immokalee students. We have been
working towards a juice that will hopefully turn more heads towards
the Taste of Immokalee program by the end of this summer.
I have been surprised by the professionalism in Taste of
Immokalee employees to take young students and turn them into
productive working people. As my first job, I've been welcomed with
open arms and warm hearts that make work seem less like work.
I'm proud to be part of Taste of Immokalee. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. JAIMES: Hello. My name is Myra Jaimes. I'm from
Immokalee High School, and I've been in this program for three years.
One of the things that connects all of us from Immokalee is the
fact that we've seen several people coming from a life that they hope to
change in Immokalee by being a farmworker. For most of us, it was
our family members and our parents.
July 11, 2017
Page 29
So as for their children, instead of following the crops and
seasons, we wanted to follow our dreams, and we wanted to make life
better for our families.
So as an immigrant, stereotypes were everywhere. You see, we
all have this image engrained in our minds about how we picture our
futures to go and I why this life wasn't exactly what we had pictured
for ourselves.
So Immokalee is one of the poorest towns in Florida, but we have
exceeded beyond what the status quo is for immigrant families. The
children of these labor workers have created a real business, a
company that not only sells, but also represents the hard work
immigrants have put in.
We have taken on a cause much bigger than ourselves, that we
never imagined we could have shined a light on. Our little home has
so much to offer, but our obstacles -- we have many obstacles to
overcome.
We have a chance to manufacture here in Immokalee. This is an
opportunity to help students become leaders; correction, we are
leaders. We have learned critical thinking skills and interpersonal
skills that the fields could not teach us. We are living and learning
how to analyze competitors and study the marketplace. Taste of
Immokalee is the ultimate Collier County learning lab.
We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, the
commissioners, today. There's a saying my grandma used to say: No
le has para ma±ana. Lo que puedes de hoy, meaning don't wait for
tomorrow if you can do something today. And today we can make a
change for our community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I'd like all Taste of Immokalee to
come on up here, and certainly everyone who's involved with the
summer program come on up and we'll do a photograph.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Kodak moment.
July 11, 2017
Page 30
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a great opportunity.
MR. MILLER: We're going to do two rows. Taller in the back,
please.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The vertically challenged in the front.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm vertically challenged up here.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, your next registered speaker
for public comment is Dr. JB Holmes. I would like to take this
opportunity; we have a registered speaker, Bette McGilvray, who
registered for Item 7 but it actually should be Item 11A, so I want to let
her know that. Dr. Holmes?
DR. HOLMES: Commissioners, Madam Chairman, members of
the community, my name is Dr. JB Holmes. I know you have a very
hectic schedule today, so I'll keep my comments brief.
In August, August 15th, 1945, the Japanese unconditionally
surrendered to the allied forces in the Pacific. On September 2nd,
1945, the Japanese signed the surrender documents aboard the Mighty
Behemoth BB63, the USS Battleship Missouri.
In 2010, the 111th Congress of the United States nominated the
second weekend of August to honor our greatest generation, the heros
of World War II. In 2015, Governor Scott signed a similar legislation.
Here in Collier County we're going to honor our greatest
generation on the second weekend of August. Saturday, August 12th,
at the Naples Hilton, 10 a.m., there will be an event for all veterans,
and all veterans' spouses will be welcomed at that event. That's a
limited event. So please make your reservations early for that. I have
the information here with me.
On Sunday, August 13th, 7 p.m., at Lowdermilk Park, we will
deliver a wreath to the sea. We'll have a flyover of World War II
aircraft, a J3, piloted by Vietnam Veteran Jesse Stearns. We will have
JROTC present, we'll have young marines present, and we'll also have
July 11, 2017
Page 31
USS Florida nuclear submarine present. Not the -- not the full one.
You know, the model of it.
The wreath will be delivered to the sea by the VFW venture crew.
We'll take it out to the merchant marines. The merchant marines will
deliver that wreath then to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard will take
that wreath out to -- beyond the horizon, leave it at sea, to remember
those 400,000 American men and women who could not return to our
shores.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite the Collier County
Commissioners -- keeping in mind, of course, the Sunshine laws -- to
both events. As I said, to come to the Hilton, you're going to have to
register by August 8th. Of course, at Lowdermilk Park, that's open.
I'd also like to invite the entire public, veterans and their spouses,
to both the Hilton at 10 a.m. and to Taps Across America at
Lowdermilk Park on August 13th.
Thank you for your time.
I have flyers here for all the information, the dates, the times, the
locations, and who to contact and that. If I may leave them.
MR. OCHS: Please. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, Don.
DR. HOLMES: Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you,
members of the community.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker for
public comment is Dr. Joseph Doyle. He's been ceded three additional
minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is present.
DR. DOYLE: Busy morning, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle,
Naples.
Leo, I'd like to put this on the visualizer, please.
I'm going to remind everybody of what happened five years ago
at Riverchase when all of the trees were cut down and it looked like a
July 11, 2017
Page 32
war zone. This is about to happen again at the Marketplace at Pelican
Bay.
Commissioner Fiala, you remember this, because it was quite
traumatic. And we were -- and we wanted to look at the rules to see
what was possible with vegetation replacement and this and that and
the other thing. And I'm sorry to report that really not much has
changed in the last five years after this fiasco. And I was made aware
of this superficially about maybe five weeks ago, but really the last
three weeks have been addressing it.
And we have a situation with all of the these different handoffs
that I'd like to bring to the Commissioners' attention to see what we can
do to fix it.
This is what happened, like I said, five years ago. And five --
right now that canopy has not grown back with what was -- with what
was replaced. All those oak trees were cut down, and we have some
royal palms and some slash pines and some other vegetation, but it's
not the same.
Now, with -- I don't want to see this happen again to another
community. Unfortunately, I do believe it's going to happen at the
Marketplace at Pelican Bay. It's just -- it's coming down the road.
The management company for the shopping center has filed an
application on July 3rd, and they're going to get their final review
today. So a permit may be issued to make all of these changes.
And, Leo, here's the other one.
The shopping plaza is in the Pelican Bay PUD. The tracts that
we're looking at are Tracts 1, 2 and 3. Tract 2 is Publix. Tract 1 and 3
are owned by the Musca family, and that would be CVS on the north
end and Stein Mart and some other shops down on the south end.
And each of those tracts the owners own the parking lot directly
in front of their building, if you look at the property lines there.
It's proposed to take out 140 mature live oak trees and replace
July 11, 2017
Page 33
them with 33 royal palms, some magnolias, some red leaf maples, and
then another 50 immature live oak seedlings.
So you hear why would you want to take down at least those 50
mature oak trees and replace them with seedlings that are going to take
another 20 years to grow? Now, I know we all know how oaks are and
the roots and all the problems, and it's been a problem for that
shopping center with the irrigation system, et cetera, et cetera.
But here's the problem. This plan was brought forth to the
Pelican Bay Foundation which controls the PUD at the April 28th
meeting. Again, everybody's already gone back north. There were
only 20 residents at the meeting.
Now, the Pelican Bay Foundation, I will say, has a broken
covenants committee. So I don't even know if it went through the
covenants committee because I can't get an answer from them.
But it came to the full board on April 28th, 15-minute
presentation, 15-minute Q&A, approved unanimously. There was one
board member who was absent. No public input; no public discussion
at Pelican Bay.
Here's the rub, and this is why the commissioners should be
concerned. This is a commercial property. I can understand where the
Pelican Bay Foundation has to control the residential covenants, this,
that, and the other thing, but this is commercial property which has
stakeholders that -- not only Pelican Bay residents, but you have
Pelican Marsh to the north, Naples Park to the north, Pine Ridge to the
east, even Vanderbilt Beach people may shop there. There's no
opportunity for those people to have input.
All right. So the management company got its blessing, be it as it
will, from the Pelican Bay Foundation. Now, the application was filed
July 3rd with the county. The county is reviewing it, and as long as
administratively everything works out, that will be approved and those
trees will come down. And there's no opportunity within the current
July 11, 2017
Page 34
structure for public input at the county level.
So this is going to -- we're just going to see another 140 mature
oak trees cut down. So there's some things in this process, I believe,
that need to be looked at and fixed for what the PUD can do as well as
what the county staff can do once they get the application. And I'd just
like to bring this to your attention, because I think it's an unfortunate
situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to totally agree with you. I
know -- I don't know about anybody else in this room, but I guess
you're all like me. When I go to a shopping center, the first thing I look
for is shade. In our heat in the summertime, I look for shade.
I know why I'm going to the shopping center. I'm going to Publix
or I'm going to whatever store it is. And most of the time now, I would
have to say 98 percent of the time people aren't driving along the street
looking for a shop. They already know where they're going. They
already know it's there, or they have got something on the phone that's
leading them there; GPS is leading them to wherever they're going.
They're not looking at it from the road. And so times have changed.
And I know I talked to shopping center owners when that went
down, because they did the same thing in Kings Lake Shopping
Center. And I said, don't do that. You know, everybody looks for
shade. Somehow the merchants think that people are going to see
them from the road and stop there, and they're dead wrong.
Have you thought of writing -- getting a letter-writing campaign?
You've got a good point here, and get the newspaper on it as well and
get a letter-writing campaign going to the owners of those shops and
say, wait, wait, wait. Maybe we don't want to do that after all. I don't
know if it would do any good. But if a public uprising occurred,
maybe people would look at it a second time.
DR. DOYLE: Well, we're going to do that. In fact, the
merchants don't even know about it. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.
July 11, 2017
Page 35
But I just wanted to bring this -- you know, the county aspect to
this is what can we do with the application process so that maybe two
or three public information sessions, town halls should be required as
part of the application so that -- people just don't know about this.
And, you know, it's summer again, and they come back in October,
and there's going to be a big uproar like we had with Riverchase.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, you had -- I never
looked at it that way, but you're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's not driving by trying to find Publix.
It's you know where you're going or you look on your phone and it
directs you to that. You're not driving by looking.
So I'm wondering -- County Attorney, is there anything that we
can do to not thwart it but certainly allow more public input in this
process at this point?
MR. KLATZKOW: What you're really talking about is some sort
of ordinance dealing with tree protection.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Tree protection.
MR. KLATZKOW: Some sort of tree protection ordinance. We
can look into that and get back to you in the fall. I will tell you one of
the reasons that they're cutting down these trees is that nobody can see
their retail establishments from the street because a mature tree with
the foliage blocks it. And that's been a complaint that we've heard in
this boardroom over the years on this issue.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is this -- can I ask a question. This is
coming through as a site plan amendment or some kind of --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is, right. So really what we're
talking about is amendment to how the Site Development Plan process
works.
MR. KLATZKOW: But you've got certain requirements in your
July 11, 2017
Page 36
code as to what trees they have to have.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And they're --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're meeting those requirements.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. They have to go through that
process. There's green space. There's --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. By taking out the mature trees and
putting in certain trees that aren't quite as nice, they are meeting your
code. What I'm saying is if you want to protect a 20-year-old oak tree,
you're going to need an ordinance to do that. But it's a lot more
complicated, foliage and everything else. It's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have something to say, if I
might.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that all, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Whatever you guys want to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and wholeheartedly
support the public input process, but there is a financial expense that's
associated with this. I have several subdivisions in my -- in District 5
where the county requisite of the oak trees that have to be planted
while you're doing a development, then when they grow to maturity,
the root systems go out and then start to cause exhorbitant expenses for
the subdivisions from an upkeep and a maintenance and replacement.
And so we've -- we really should review this in a publicly vetted
format to allow for some discussion, because there are economic issues
that transpired with these mature trees, other than just they're pretty. I
mean, they really are pretty, but, I mean, there are several subdivisions
where the main streets going in are deteriorating because of the root
systems.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Roots.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Roots; roots.
July 11, 2017
Page 37
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So where does that leave us -- where
does that leave us with this particular issue of an application being
in-house getting ready to be approved? Where does that leave us?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can it be appealed by --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can it be appealed by the public?
DR. DOYLE: I understand the appeal costs $1,000, and so --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can appeal it, but I'm telling you,
without looking at this, they're doing exactly what your code allows
them to do.
DR. DOYLE: Yeah. And I spoke with staff yesterday. And as
long as everything is in order, the appeal is only to see whether or not
staff did everything correctly. And I don't doubt that staff is doing
things correctly. It's a problem with the process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right, lack of public input.
DR. DOYLE: Yep. So I'm going to appeal to the -- you know, to
the powers that be before they cut down one tree, but I understand that
even though they get the permit now, which may be today, actually,
but they may not actually start the work until September 1st. But if I
can appeal to their reason to try to have a couple public information
sessions for PR purposes, that'd be great, but they are under no
obligation to do it based on your current county rules.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, Leo, should we try and address
that?
MR. OCHS: Well --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, after summer, you know. I
mean, I know we can't do -- and not about this particular one, but from
this going forward.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, if a majority of the board wants the staff to
go back and develop some kind an ordinance to protect mature trees on
July 11, 2017
Page 38
private property, we'll be happy to take a look at that for you. There's a
lot of private property out there. Let's keep that in mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do think the City of Naples has
something that -- I mean, we're -- the City of Naples is not tree city
USA for year after year after year.
MR. OCHS: Well, the state just passed an ordinance that says
you can't even, you know, tell a franchisee to change the color of the
building, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's another reason why we have to
pass this ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not saying you can do it. We're just
saying we'll come back during the autumn.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a motion, ma'am, to ask staff to
come back with a more in-depth discussion about what we're able to do
and what we're not able to do --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. I'll make that a motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- regarding trees? I'll second that
motion.
There's a motion on the floor and a second for asking staff to
come back to -- with a deeper discussion about trees and protecting
mature trees on private and public property in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a question on the motion.
That's not directing staff to come back with an ordinance. They're just
going to come back and kind of give us some options?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to have a public
discussion about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
DR. DOYLE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second. All
July 11, 2017
Page 39
those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
DR. DOYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS AGENT TO PERFORM AN EVALUATION FOR A
PROPOSED ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR SENIOR CITIZEN
AFFAIRS AND BRING BACK A REPORT FOLLOWING THE
DIRECTION PROVIDED IN COUNTY ORDINANCE 01-55
SECTION 3(B) AS AMENDED, THAT PROVIDES
INFORMATION REGARDING THE NEED, BENEFIT, COST,
AND PURPOSE OF CREATING A NEW ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; OR IF AN ALREADY EXISTING PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE BOARD SERVES THE SAME INTENDED PURPOSE –
MOTION TO BEGIN THE PROCESS AND BRING BACK TO THE
BOARD IN SEPTEMBER – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10A which
was a time-certain item noted on your change sheet this morning.
This is a recommendation to direct the County Manager to
perform an evaluation for a proposed advisory committee for senior
July 11, 2017
Page 40
citizen affairs and bring back a report following the direction provided
in your county ordinance having to do with the development of citizen
advisory committees.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Fiala, and I
understand we do have some speakers as well, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
This idea seems so simple, and we have 33 percent of our citizens
that are senior citizens, and nobody's ever thought of it before until this
gentleman, Doug Hartman, came up with the idea. And he said, you
know, we don't have any committees serving the seniors. And, by
gum, he was right. We looked around and we thought, gee, you know,
we should be able to do that. They've got certain problems.
I know I talk about senior housing all the time. We don't ever do
anything about it, but I talk about it anyway. Maybe a committee can
get that off of first base so that we can reach out and help them. Same
with senior issues that they're facing and so forth.
So, as Doug suggested, to form a committee and of prominent
citizens who would want to participate in this.
And from there, let me turn it over to you, Doug. Please let
people know what you're planning on doing. And then I'll ask the
commissioners if they would support that effort.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, again, just to remind you, how many
speakers do we have, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: We have seven, and Mr. Hartman is one of our
registered public speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. HARTMAN: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
My name's Doug Hartman. I live in Lely. I'm a local resident
year round.
Yes, we did come up with this idea. It came up as an item for
discussion in the Greater Naples leadership context. I also arranged it
July 11, 2017
Page 41
with the leadership coalition on aging to which -- in which I am a
member, and we have several representatives here.
I don't think this is a controversial issue. And if the Commission
desires to move on it with the big agenda you're facing, we -- a number
of us will pass on the opportunity to speak unless there are questions
that we can answer.
Our rationale here is fairly straightforward. We want a voice that's
coordinated and broad in its base that reflects the interest and needs of
the senior community to address to the commission as they are
wrestling with the very difficult problems we are facing as we grow
from today into a county of 600,000 people in 20 years.
In other words, we have growth problems; we have housing
problems; we have senior center problems: Where are they; how
many; do we need more?
All of these issues, we think, are relevant to the Commission and
would be commented on professionally and knowledgeably by a
committee composed of leaders from each of the subsectors servicing
the seniors in our community.
And when I say that, I mean representatives of the hospitals, the
nursing core, the home care, the adult center, the senior centers, all the
way down that list. There's some 40 members in the Coalition on
Aging that are in that business either as for profit, non-profit, or
volunteer organizations.
So we think this is a slam dunk. There may be questions about it,
and I'm certainly prepared to answer any that I can.
But if the Commission wants to move forward, I don't see
delaying here. We do have several members that have signed up to
speak, and we have several others that are here to support us. We
could get those to stand. If they could stand, the representatives that
are in support of this activity.
That's really -- unless you have questions, I think I'd be spending
July 11, 2017
Page 42
time unnecessarily for the Commission.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Hartman. I think --
thank you very much. And I think unless the speakers that are part of
your supporters want to talk us out of it, I think you've eloquently
stated what your intentions are.
And I'd like to see if there's a motion up here to -- yes. I made a
mistake?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but
you do have an ordinance regarding creation of advisory committees,
and there are six requirements that require an evaluation by me and a
report back. If you want to follow your ordinance, that is the proper
process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think --
MR. OCHS: We can do that very quickly and have that ready for
you when you come back from your recess if you want to stay
consistent with your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to do just that;
start that process so that when we come back in September we have --
we have prepared for this, and hopefully it will move forward quickly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then I will defer to you, sir, as the
leader. If you would like your other speakers to speak, we're more
than happy to hear them.
MR. FEDER: We'll waive.
MR. HARTMAN: I think with the agenda that's facing the
Commission today, that we --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Greatly appreciated.
MR. HARTMAN: -- we feel overwhelmed by, obviously, some
of the very issues that we want to comment on as members of that
committee, which you're going to be addressing later today.
So my reaction is, no, and unless I hear objections from my
July 11, 2017
Page 43
supporters, I think we should proceed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Thank you very
much.
So there's a motion on the floor and a second to bring this issue
back in September after the County Manager has followed our
ordinance on establishing another committee.
And all those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Congratulations.
MR. HARTMAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for bringing this to our
attention.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we're moving to Item 9A. I don't
know if you would like to take a quick court reporter break before we
begin that item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that makes great, good sense. Is
it good, Terri?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can just vote on it now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we're going to take a
five-minute break, which brings us back at 10:16.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
July 11, 2017
Page 44
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2007-46, AS AMENDED, THE
WOLF CREEK RPUD, TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE TO THE PUD, TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT
REVISES THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B
AND 9 ONLY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE-
HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 189± ACRES. [PDI-PL20160000404]
– MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER 12TH BCC
MEETING SO THAT THE ATTORNEYS AND PROPERTY
OWNERS CAN RESOLVE ISSUES. ITEM WILL NOT BE OPEN
FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: We're moving to Item 9A, Commissioners. This is
a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Ordinance No.
2007-46 as amended. This is the Wolf Creek RPUD. This is to
approve an insubstantial change to the PUD to add a preserve exhibit
that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and Parcel 9
only, and providing for an effective date.
Madam Chair and Commissioners, while this is an ordinance
amendment which is normally an advertised public hearing, the Board
did indicate the last time they heard this they were not going to go
through the public hearing process again. But I will remind the Board
that if you do decide to do that, you should, once again, take ex parte
and also swear in anyone who's going to give testimony.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is the Chair's opinion that this is a
July 11, 2017
Page 45
continuation of an item that -- where the public hearing was closed and
so, therefore, I do not support opening to public -- the public hearing
again for the public, but I do support asking questions of the petitioner
and of the -- I guess it's the plaintiff. Forgive me if I've got that
incorrect. But to certainly open the dialogue and to get some questions
that were left unanswered answered.
Is that an agreement? Do we have an agreement up here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Who -- I'm just curious what -- who's
the plaintiff?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, see --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The petitioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- I used the wrong word. The
petitioner, but then the -- I believe the residents are represented by an
attorney or someone and they -- and I think that if we have questions
for that -- both parties, that we should be -- feel free to be able to ask
those questions of both parties.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Isn't that opening it back up to
the public?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, if we're going to take more
testimony, we're opening up the hearing again, I think.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't think it's taking testimony.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're not taking testimony, but if you have
any questions --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- to anybody, it's your prerogative to ask.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- get those questions answered. There
were questions posed, and we said, let's continue this until those
questions are answered. And I believe both parties need to address the
questions that were posed. And I think it was Commissioner Saunders
that addressed those questions.
July 11, 2017
Page 46
Also, point of order, do we need to swear -- it's a continuation of
the hearing. Do we need to swear in anyone who's speaking at this
point?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not doing public speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Just the -- so we don't need to
swear, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: We haven't sworn in anyone.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we in agreement up here with this?
This is my thoughts. Yes?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't personally have any
questions. But if you want to ask them, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We're in agreement.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Over here. I'm sorry. I just -- I have registered
speakers for this item. Are we not taking speakers?
MR. KLATZKOW: The public portion was closed. You
continued -- you continued this just for deliberations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your prerogative. Since you need to
make a decision, if you have any questions of anybody, you can
certainly ask. But the public hearing portion of this you closed. You
can re-open that if that's your prerogative or your desire, but it's -- you
did close it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you agree that we do not re-open
the public hearing but if we have specific questions that we may ask --
we may ask those questions of whomever is here?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Does everyone agree? We are in
accord.
July 11, 2017
Page 47
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We agree, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
All right. Commissioner Saunders, you were the one that said --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I had some difficulty in
voting for this, and I still don't fully understand all the implications of
this.
I know that there's been some dialogue amongst the lawyers. I
don't know if there's been any dialogue amongst the lawyers and the
impacted neighborhood. But I did have a couple questions for Mr.
Anderson. And I'm going to ask Mr. Ochs if he'd put a diagram up on
the visualizer that I have.
Mr. Anderson, one of the things that we have, I think, been very
diligent about is, I think, protecting the existing neighborhoods. And
this diagram shows the shaded area is the existing preserve, and the
other area is the Site Development Plan for -- or site plan for your
project. And you can see where the elimination of the preserve is
necessary to develop a large portion of that project.
And I'm curious as to what would be the rationale for us to
approve something that clearly will have a significant impact on the
number of units being built or the location of those units and whether
or not that's going to impact the existing neighborhoods.
MR. ANDERSON: Number one, the wetlands are already
impacted. This is the last parcel in that PUD. So all of the negative
aspects of runoff, exotic infestation are all occurring on this last piece.
The Water Management District, which claimed jurisdiction over
these wetlands, approved mitigating -- approved the removal of that
portion, and we are mitigating for that at Panther Island mitigation
bank operations which are either inside or adjacent to the Big
Corkscrew Swamp area.
And the thought is that it's more important, better for the
environment to preserve and restore wetlands that are contiguous to
July 11, 2017
Page 48
other functioning wetlands than an isolated impacted urban wetland.
And the prior owner of the property had a site plan, not approved
by the county, but his own site plan that had 215 units on this piece,
leaving the conservation area as-is.
What my client wants to do is to create larger lots with larger
homes. What they're proposing would increase the depth of the lots
from what had been proposed as 85 feet to 110 feet. The PUD
preserve requirement will remain in compliance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, an additional
question, and this is where I had some problems, and I still have the
same problems.
There's a dispute as to the number of units that can be built on
different parcels there. I would like to -- quite frankly, I would like to
continue this item until there is some resolution of that issue, because I
don't want to do anything that's going to impact the neighborhood in
the sense of doing something that's going to create some ability for
them to build more lots than they're entitled to.
And I don't know if there's any effort to resolve that issue. I was
hoping that there would be, but I understand that the three lawyers
have been back and forth on it, and I think maybe they need some
more time to go back and forth on it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That was your request at our last
meeting, to get it settled, some conclusion.
MR. ANDERSON: We have no objection. We're willing to sit
down again with the folks from Black Bear Ridge.
I came into possession of new evidence last night at 7:00 from the
prior owner of the property that may have an impact on things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, well. In that case -- in that case
then --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a motion?
July 11, 2017
Page 49
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make the motion to
continue this. And I know this is a burden on property owners there,
but we're trying to make sure we do the right thing here, we protect the
neighborhood. So I'm going to make the motion that we continue this.
Is our next meeting on September 14th; is that correct? Continue this
till September 14th not for the purpose of opening up the public
hearing, but simply for the purpose of encouraging the property owners
and the lawyers to continue to work together, but on September 14th,
my position will be we're going to make a decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion.
MR. OCHS: It's actually September 12th.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. September 12th.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion on the floor
and a second to continue until the September 12th meeting.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Item #11A
RESOLUTION 2017-140: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES
AS THE MAXIMUM PROPERTY TAX RATES TO BE LEVIED IN
FY 2017/18 AND REAFFIRM THE ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARING DATES IN SEPTEMBER 2017, FOR THE BUDGET
July 11, 2017
Page 50
APPROVAL PROCESS – RECOMMENDING TO KEEP THE
MILLAGE NEUTRAL OPERATING RATE OF 3.5645 AND
REMOVE CONSERVATION COLLIER – ADOPTED W/CHANGE;
DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT THE SALES TAX INITIATIVE
FOR FUNDING PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE AND TAKE
CONSERVATION COLLIER ISSUE TO REFERENDUM IN 2018 –
ADOPTED; MOTION TO ACCEPT FUNDING FOR FUND 111 AS
PROPOSED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11A is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
establishing the proposed millage rates as the maximum property tax
rates to be levied in Fiscal Year 2017/'18 and reaffirm the advertised
public hearing dates in September 2017 for the budget approval
process.
Mr. Isackson, your Corporate Financial and Management
Services Division Director, will make the presentation.
MR. ISACKSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Mark Isackson, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
Beginning on Packet Page 142 is the executive summary covering
this item. I just want to say a couple things in context. I think the
executive summary speaks for itself in terms of what is required today.
The July 1 date is critical for TRIM purposes because it sets in
motion about a four-month process under which not only are millage
rates adopted but also your final budget. The Property Appraiser
submitted taxable value on June 30th which kicked that process off.
And what you're going to be doing today is essentially not
approving final millage rates. You're not doing anything budgetarily.
All you're establishing are the maximum property tax rates that can be
levied. And as you go into your September hearings, you can lower
those. You can't raise them without some very extraordinary notice
July 11, 2017
Page 51
requirements.
So with that in mind, I think I'll open it up for questions and
discussion. I will say this, that if you look at Exhibit 11A2 on Page
146 of your packet, you'll see the roster of millage rates that are
proposed currently as the maximum property tax rates to be levied.
And I will say that the General Fund at 3.8145 and the
Unincorporated Area General Fund at .8069, when you extend those
levies based upon an 8.4 percent increase in taxable value within the
General Fund and a 9 percent increase in the Unincorporated Area
General Fund, that represents 97 percent. Those two levies represent
97 percent of what you will collect ultimately as this process
culminates.
So with that, I'll suggest to the Board some discussion if they
want. Since the General Fund and the Unincorporated Area General
Fund are the bulk of your -- will be the bulk of your levy decisions,
you might want to consider those in context, because the General Fund
also has a .25 millage increase component connected with
Conservation Collier at 3.8145. Your base operating levy this year is
3.5645. So if you add those two together, you're going to come up
with your 3.8145.
And of course, your General Fund -- your Unincorporated Area
General Fund at .8069 is your current levy, and that allows room --
marginal room for your continuation of your median capital landscape
program, which is -- which was restarted last year, so...
Questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that was from before, but I do
have a question anyway and that is, how does our millage rate compare
to other counties within the state of Florida?
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioner, that's a -- it's kind of
two-prong question. We have a very low millage rate, but we also
July 11, 2017
Page 52
have one of the highest property tax -- excuse me -- taxable values in
the state also, so it kind of offsets itself.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have the lowest millage rate?
MR. ISACKSON: We have one of the lowest millage rates of
the, what are there, 56 or 57 (sic) counties in the state. But we're also
-- we also have some of the highest taxable values in the state.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it just depends on what house
you live in as to what your taxes fall on?
MR. ISACKSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm pretty lucky. I'll just say that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am, too.
Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
I just would like to make a suggestion that we -- if it's possible
when we're voting on these that we not blanket vote on all of the
millage rates. There's a couple of discussion points I'd like to make, as
Mr. Isackson brought up, the General Fund and the 111 fund. So just
--
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why don't you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I want to hear public
comment, and then we'll go to our deliberations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You want to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to
make that known that I didn't want to be put in a box to have to vote
for everything all in one shot.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We would never put you in a box.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really? Good. Big box.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to hear the public
comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have 29 registered speakers for
July 11, 2017
Page 53
this item. Your first -- ladies and gentlemen, we're going to call two
speakers at a time. If you could use both podiums so we could
expedite the process.
Your first speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be followed by Alan
Keller.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell. I'm here on behalf of Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. I'm the first. I'm
sorry I'm not the last. But I think everything you need to know you'll
hear in the next three minutes. No, just teasing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And there you have it.
MR. CORNELL: Sorry. No. I'm just joking.
So I want to get right to the chase from Audubon and Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary's perspective, and that is that the Conservation
Collier millage rate increase, the quarter mill increase for the restarting
the Conservation Collier program you had directed earlier this year.
I understand that was a controversial vote, and I know it wasn't a
unanimous decision. I think there is unanimous support on the dais for
the program. I think we're only questioning how do we fund this and
how do we get this rolling, and part of that process, of course, was
your direction to have a referendum in November of 2018. That's
really important. We agree with you. We're going -- we're planning
on that referendum for that question for the voters to decide.
In the meantime, you had also directed we want to start this
program immediately, and that has started. The advisory committee
has been meeting. I went to their meeting yesterday. It's very exciting.
There are lots of great properties that are now in the wings; lands -- a
couple of ranches that have wonderful habitat; the CREW lands which
we have not completed is on that docket. We need to be looking at
finishing that CREW project, the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed project.
July 11, 2017
Page 54
These are vital things for the stainability of our county, for our
tourism, and for our quality of life. I believe that that's something that
we all can have a consensus view on. Obviously, it costs money to do
these things.
I would point out that if you look across Alligator Alley over at
Miami-Dade County, the question of do we have enough keeps coming
up. And I would throw out to you Miami-Dade has over 50 percent of
their county protected, but I don't think anybody in this room is
advocating for that Growth Management Plan as being appropriate for
the west coast, for our county.
I think there's a question of how do we do it. What lands are we
going to protect? And I don't think we concede that decision-making
to the state, to Florida Forever, or any of these other programs from
outside. That's a decision for us. And to have this program, which has
been tremendously successful, is very important.
So we urge you to keep that quarter mill in this budget and,
obviously, go to the referendum question for November of 2018. We
think there's plenty of reason to support that for the entire community.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alan Keller. He'll be
followed by Michael Seef.
MR. KELLER: Alan Keller. I'm a full-time resident of the
county. I'm here representing Audubon of the Western Everglades.
Not surprisingly my song will not differ dramatically from the one you
just heard.
Our organization, with 3,000 members, I feel quite confident that
almost all of us believe that adding the conserved lands improves the
quality of life in the county. People value green vistas, they value
wildlife habitat.
We also believe that the voters want those benefits from such
conservation efforts, and we therefore strongly support the quarter mill
July 11, 2017
Page 55
rate in support of Conservation Collier. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Seef. He'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. SEEF: For the record, Michael Seef. Madam Chair and
Commissioners, I'm pleased to be here.
I think Brad said it probably correctly that probably things were
covered in a broad scale; however, I want to just give some more
details.
I received a phone call, not a robo call, but a person calling, who
claimed he was a surveyor representing Collier realtors. He made the
following -- the following question, and I quote this: Are you aware
that and do you support that the county wants to increase your tax rate
by $20 million to support Conservation Collier?
I was just taken aback and asked them to repeat it; he did, exactly
the same way. And I asked him, you know, what the source was, who
sponsored this. He didn't know or wouldn't tell. So, you know, it's
kind of a dark -- kind of a dark area.
So how can a survey like this, which is obviously stilted, not
mention anything in particular about Conservation Collier and what
we're buying with those monies?
The rate increase, yes, is there. It's about 6 percent. That's about
a half of the total budget increase, which, I guess, was 12 percent. But
the $20 million is a maximum figure and, as Brad also mentioned,
there are a lot of properties around. But that's a lot of properties, and
I'm not sure that we can even find those kinds of properties in a year.
Again, why the realtors would be in favor or not in favor of
renewing Conservation Collier is a mystery because I think it has to
increase land values overall, and people are very anxious to live near
preserves, and people are looking for more green space as well as the
broader concepts of water quality and quantity preservation, and
continuing to add lands to preserve plants and wildlife.
July 11, 2017
Page 56
So I urge you to approve this resolution and including
Conservation Collier as was originally designed by your board. Thank
you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nicole Johnson. She'll be
followed by Meredith Barnard.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson,
here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
As the previous speakers have indicated, the Conservancy also
supports inclusion of the quarter mill in the '17/'18 budget to repay the
Conservation Collier Management Fund.
Interestingly enough, as Michael just mentioned, this agenda
items seems to have become the lightning rod and really the litmus test
for the future of Conservation Collier, which is a little perplexing and a
little disappointing. When you look at the cost, the quarter mill, it's
maybe a medium Domino's pizza a month, at the most, for taxpayers.
And then when you look at what Conservation Collier provides to
the community -- there was a letter to the editor in the past few days
saying that the value, the return on investment hasn't been calculated
for Conservation Collier. Not true. That was done by Jim Beaver back
in 2015. It's on your public record. And what he found, interestingly
enough, is -- he did calculate that return on investment, and the
recreation and tourism benefits calculated out to over $6,000 per acre
per year for your Conservation Collier land. So it's a very good report.
I would recommend that everyone take a look at that.
Putting things in perspective. As Brad mentioned, this idea of
getting stuck on the fact that we are 68 percent in public conservation
ownership. Yes, we are, but let's not get hung up on the percentages.
Miami-Dade is also at 68 percent. And most of those conservation
lands for both counties, it's federal land, some state, but it's out in the
Everglades. It's in the Big Cypress.
Collier County is able, through Conservation Collier, to not only
July 11, 2017
Page 57
purchase lands way out there, but also to purchase parcels that are
within the urbanized area.
There's been this recently coordinated effort to kill Conservation
Collier. One of the catch phrases is we're 70-something percent in
conservation, so enough is enough. I'm amazed at the shortsightedness
of such a perspective.
Think of it this way: Back in 2003, if we would have said, you
know what, we're 68 percent conservation, we don't need any more.
What would we have missed out on? We would have missed out on
the Fleischmann property; the Gordon River Greenway. Just think
about that. Wow.
The Conservancy recommends that -- and we invite those
individuals who don't appear to understand the long-term value of
Conservation Collier and conservation land to reach out to those of us
in the conservation business and real estate community that have
decades worth of perspective and background in the long-term vision
of this.
And back to the item in question for today, we do ask that you put
the quarter mill in to repay the Management Fund and that you put
Conservation Collier as a stand-alone item on the 2018 ballot
referendum. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Barnard. She'll be
followed by Bette McGilvray.
MS. BARNARD: Good morning. Meredith Barnard on behalf of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
Today I would like to speak to you about the idea that the
Chamber had approached each of you with regarding the county --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. You need to slow down
a little. Thank you.
MS. BARNARD: Oh, I'm so sorry.
-- the idea that the Chamber had approached each of you with
July 11, 2017
Page 58
regarding to the county's various infrastructure needs.
After they had met with you, the Chamber discussed this idea of
including land conservation funding as part of the sales tax proposal
with the conservation community. While we understand the merit and
the value of these proposed infrastructure needs, we absolutely oppose
Conservation Collier being included with these still-to-be-determined
infrastructure projects.
Both local and state land acquisition programs continue to enjoy
overwhelming support from voters with success due, at least in part, to
the direct and straightforward ballot initiative that voters can
understand, believe in, and that they can trust.
Conservation Collier has a proven track record for doing what it
said it was going to do on the ballot and during the campaign: Acquire
and protect environmentally sensitive lands.
Commingling this message with non-related infrastructure issues
is not in the best interest of Conservation Collier, and the success of
Conservation Collier is in the best interest of the county.
There are several studies that speak to the economic benefits of
conservation lands, but I would like to cite just one of those for you
today, which was done in Portland, Oregon, and this city is -- has a
reputation of being one of the most livable cities in the country. The
green space that is both within and outside surrounding the urban area
of Portland has attracted very large-scale companies, to name Hewlett
Packard, Intel, and Hyundai.
Conservation Collier is good for the environment, it's good for the
business community, it's good for the real estate community, and
overall it's good for the residents.
So back to the point at hand. Please keep Conservation Collier
separate, place it on the November 2018 ballot, and fund the
repayment of the Management Fund at the .25 mill in the '17/'18
budget. Thank you.
July 11, 2017
Page 59
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bette McGilvray. She'll be
followed by William Poteet.
MS. McGILVRAY: Madam Chair, Commissioners, county staff,
and fellow citizens, my speech today was going to piggyback on a few
others that were supposed to be before me. So I'm giving a recap, if
anything, here.
My name is Bette McGilvray, and I am a realtor. I'm here to
represent one voice from Marco Island as a concerned citizen. And to
begin with, I want to thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for all the hard
work and dedication you've given us on Marco Island over the years.
We really appreciate it.
When I got up to speed on the tax increase, I felt compelled to
attend today. Our impact fees are among the highest in the nation
because our property values are so high. Yes, our tax base is lower,
but our property values are higher, so we still pay a lot of money. We
still have a lot of money in the tax. And the state average is about 50
percent; Collier County now is dependent on 70 percent of our
property taxes.
I was made aware that the funds attained from this increase would
be used by Conservation Collier to purchase land. I have no issue with
that. I'm all for conservation. What I'm -- what I'm concerned about is
how it's going to be paid, and I want that for the record.
This tax increase is not a necessity, and it's not the last option.
I'm hopeful we can leave here today with the alternative funding
mechanism on the table and a millage rate that does not go up.
Realtors have no issue, as I said, with Conservation Collier. We
have an issue with unnecessary tax increase. We have an opportunity
for a no tax increase solution while simultaneously saving
Conservation Collier.
Again, thank you for your service to our community.
Thank you, Donna Fiala.
July 11, 2017
Page 60
Commissioner McDaniel, thank you for creating a solid
compromise.
And, finally, thank you all for hearing me today.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Poteet. He will be
followed by Gaylene Vasaturo.
MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is William H. Poteet, Jr., and I live at 6180 Star Grass Lane.
And the comments I am making today only reflect my personal
opinion and not as chairman of Conservation Collier. The CCLAC has
not discussed this issue.
Collier County is an exceptional place to live. This did not
happen all by itself. There are plenty of other Florida communities
that have beaches and our climate. No, our governing bodies have
created rules, provided services, and, yes, we, the taxpayers, agree to
pay for them.
I am here today to tell you that I am one realtor, a former
president of NABOR, that does not agree with the NABOR's current
position concerning Conservation Collier.
NABOR's position is void of significant study and analysis. They
have tossed around comparative percentages, of other counties without
questioning where do those other counties get the revenues from. Is it
from tolls, high business occupational fees, parking meters? There is
no money -- no magic money tree, so someone is paying for it, and
they are -- they're not offering the same services that we do in Collier
County.
More importantly, do we want to be the same as other counties? I
have lived here just shy of 45 years, and I say no. Collier County is the
premiere location in the state. We demand higher quality and, up till
today, we've been willing to pay for it. Preserves like the Gordon
River Greenway, Freedom Park, Otter Mound, and Pepper Ranch offer
a legacy to our children and their children. It also keeps Collier
July 11, 2017
Page 61
County from becoming the concrete jungles of Dade and Broward
Counties.
Now, the realtors are proclaiming, I just don't want new taxes.
No new taxes is a great political soundbite, but it's certainly not a
sound fiscal policy management tool.
The discussion this commission and our community should take
is, what kind of community do we want to live in? What services do
we want to offer our citizens? A safe place to live, roads that are not
congested, a clean and safe water supply, an economy that offers jobs
and good wages and is not understaffed, and what about the
availability of quality housing for all our citizens? All of this is not
free. It comes with a price.
And one of personal favorites includes being able to enjoy the
great outdoors. Conservation Collier provides our citizens with
camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and other passive recreational
activities.
The vast majority of the state and federal conservation lands that
lie mostly in Eastern Collier County provide very limited opportunities
to our citizens. Now, what frightens me most about NABOR's position
is the referendum. They oppose it. The Commission's decision on
February 14, 2017, to hold a referendum on future funding of
Conservation Collier was a good one. Let the people speak.
The president of NABOR told me he does not want this to
happen. He does not want his tax bill to increase, so he wants to kill
any future funding now. I cannot be in further disagreement with him
on this point.
The referendum is important to the future of Collier County. I
sincerely hope you do not consider retracting your February 14th
decision.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and to also
be part of something that is generational and significant to my
July 11, 2017
Page 62
community.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo. She'll be
followed by Susan Calkins.
MS. VASATURO: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Gaylene
Vasaturo. I'm speaking -- it's been eloquently addressed this morning
the importance of going forward with Collier County with
Conservation Collier but -- so I'll keep my comments brief.
But I'm a full-time resident and a homeowner that pays property
tax, and I wholeheartedly support the resolution before the Board to
fund Conservation Collier or to pay back the money that's been
borrowed through a .25 mill property tax increase and also
wholeheartedly support the referendum on the 2018 ballot.
So I ask that you adopt this resolution and that you also continue
by putting the matter before the voters in 2018 because I'm -- because
Collier County residents have a clear record of supporting acquiring
environmentally sensitive areas.
In 2014, we overwhelmingly passed the Amendment I to take part
of the documentary stamp tax to acquire environmentally sensitive
properties, and several times in the past Collier County voters have
approved funding through the property tax for Conservation Collier.
And this is because they recognize the importance that -- setting
aside preserved areas for our quality of life, for our wildlife, for
protecting our water supply. We recognize that.
And we think that the county has an important role to do this, and
that's why we voted for the property tax increases in the past. And I
think with the development ramping up in Collier County now, that it's
even more critical for the county to move forward now as you all have
said -- voted in the past to move forward now on Conservation Collier
and then to catch up with it on the 2018 ballot before the voters, so I
applaud that, and I encourage you to continue.
It's -- Conservation Collier's a known quantity. There's plenty of
July 11, 2017
Page 63
results from the past efforts; 19 preserves, several have been
mentioned today that we all love. I think -- and it's also very logical
for Conservation Collier to be tied to a property tax because protecting
these natural areas enhances not just the quality of our life but also the
value of our property.
Finally, I understand that NABOR is against the funding of the
Conservation Collier from the property tax. I think they're missing the
boat. People want to buy houses here because of the beauty of our area
and the quality of life, and that's setting aside these areas, both urban
and rural areas, is an important facet of our doing that, of protecting
and enhancing our property.
Thank you. I just hope you will continue on your path of
supporting Conservation Collier through the property tax increase on
the 2017/'18 budget and then on the referendum.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Calkins. She'll be
followed by Ken Price.
MS. CALKINS: Susan Calkins, a long-time resident and
involved in this community.
And some years ago when the county began the master mobility
plan, as I recall, we brought in the three-time mayor of Pittsburgh,
Tom Murphy, to address the stakeholders. These are my old notes.
And Murphy said, somebody made the right decisions here. The
task is to keep what makes this such a special place. And I think we do
all recognize that, but I think we need to hear it again and again.
And as you consider today's item, I certainly hope that you do
keep in mind that not only -- the commitment you made to put
Conservation Collier on the 2'18 ballot and to begin the acquisition
now of properties through borrowing from the Conservation Collier's
Management Fund. You know that this community has
overwhelmingly supported this program and, furthermore, various
July 11, 2017
Page 64
organizations, including League of Women Voters, to which I belong,
have advocated for its return and re-institution.
So please, again, remember those words of Mr. Murphy. Thank
you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ken Price. He'll be followed
by Mike Lyster.
MR. PRICE: Good morning. My name is Ken Price. I'm
representing Carlos Trujillo, who's the State Representative for most of
Golden Gate and Eastern Collier County.
And on behalf of the people and the taxpayers out there, we're
asking you to consider not raising the taxes, not making it more of a
hardship and burden on those people out there and maybe finding
another way to fund this.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mike Lyster. He'll be
followed by Sally Woliver.
MR. LYSTER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm a member
of the Collier Citizens Coalition, former chairman of the Collier
County Republican Party, past president of the local council of the Boy
Scouts of America. The last time I appeared before you it was to speak
for Pepper Ranch. Commissioner Fiala, thank you for voting for that.
I'm speaking only for myself today. You were all elected as
Republicans. Considering increases in the millage rate, the bed tax, a
sales tax all in the same budget, all in the same year is a significant
deviation from Republican principles of smaller efficient government.
When one spending other's dollars, it's easy and simple to make
one's list of priorities and needs to spend that money. A few of these
that have been discussed are beach renourishment; workforce housing;
infrastructure backlog; growth management; TDR banker exchange;
land purchase through Conservation Collier. Significant support for
that today; mental health and drug abuse. All of these are worthwhile
July 11, 2017
Page 65
and laudable goals.
Now, add to this a sports complex with a bond issue that will
encumber taxpayers for several years in a period when interest rates
will only increase.
I'm sure you have other needs on each of your individual and
collective property lists worth consideration; however, you must live
within your means, as many of us have done in our homes and our
careers. Your means have increased every year since 2011 and should
continue for the foreseeable future. Please plan and spend within
them.
In comparison to similar counties, the Collier budget appears
large. And a more reasonable approach would be to reinstate the
Productivity Committee to ensure our tax dollars are being utilized
effectively and efficiently. Then collectively and collaboratively work
your priorities, completing them one by one. That's how many of us
spent our lives and our careers.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sally Woliver. She'll be
followed by Cliff Donanfeld.
MS. WOLIVER: Good morning. For the record, I am a 26-year
resident of Collier County, proud homeowner in Golden Gate Estates
and, for the record, we would give up our Friday night pizza nights in
support of Conservation Collier; even the beer.
So I'm also up here to give you a little bit of history. I
volunteered my time on both Conservation Collier former work on the
amendments, and it was a pleasure to work on that committee. We
attracted large-scale support, as you'll recall from the voters that
supported the program, but the money to actually run our public end of
the program and let people know what we were doing, that came from
developers, came from individuals, and it actually came from
NABOR; they were a big supporter of the program.
July 11, 2017
Page 66
We need this program to continue for a lot of reasons, and
especially ones I think Commissioner McDaniel will agree with.
There's the opportunity to potentially put a nature center right smack in
the middle of the Golden Gate Estates. It would be more accessible for
a lot of us that live there than driving all the way into the more
populated areas, because our area is growing rapidly now.
I can't believe what our property values are doing. We're having
people, unsolicited, come to us and say, do you want to sell? No, we
love where we live.
And, in part, because Conservation Collier has done so much to
retain and maintain our green infrastructure. Please keep us from
looking like Miami. In so many ways, too, thank you for your service.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Cliff Donanfeld. He'll be
followed by Murl Landman.
MR. DONANFELD: I just want to -- I, too, am a realtor,
member of NABOR, but I'm also a member of the CCREC and the
Government Oversight Committee here.
Thank you, William McDaniel, far last night, and others who
woke us up at the CCREC meeting and made sure that I and others
were here today.
I know we usually see a few others there. And Donna Fiala's
done so much for this county, so I'm a big fan of hers, too.
As a realtor, on an almost weekly basis, one of the big points -- I
meet people all the time deciding, believe it or not, between Lee and
Collier. One of the biggest points is, hey, our taxes are lower here
considerably than other places, and it's sold.
Now, one of the -- I want to put this on the screen, excuse me. I
believe there's -- when Commissioner Saunders was first elected, it
was pointed out that he may have some conflicts of interest.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Out of order, sir. You're out of
July 11, 2017
Page 67
order. We're talking specifically about the tax. I will not permit this,
sir. You may not go forward with this.
MR. DONANFELD: I think he should recuse himself from this
vote.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me; excuse me, sir.
MR. DONANFELD: Well, I will say that I believe that, you
know --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you please remove the -- thank
you.
MR. DONANFELD: Well, you folks, I believe, as it was pointed
out in the invocation, are servants of the people, not the princes, and
can I make a Biblical quote or is that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir, you may.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nothing personal.
MR. DONANFELD: Okay. And from the sins -- and this is from
Ezekiel 22. And it said, your princes plot conspiracies just as lions
stock their prey. They devour innocent people, seizing treasures and
extorting wealth. I don't think any more wealth should be extorted
from the people of Collier County.
And many of the owners here aren't -- you're right, a lot of the
residents aren't voters, but they are -- would be getting screwed royally
if you raise taxes here. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Murl Landman. He'll be
followed by Rick Baranski.
MR. LANDMAN: Thank you. My name is Murl Landman. I'm
a year-round resident of Collier County, and I'm also a registered
Republican.
So I'm here to communicate as clearly and respectfully as I can
how disappointed I am in this board and its desire to increase taxes on
property and tourism at all.
July 11, 2017
Page 68
And that disappointment's further compounded by three fact:
Number one, there are millions of dollars in surplus funds that already
exist. Number two, many of our seasonal community members, and
they're significant tax contributors, they're not able to be here today to
voice their opinion.
And as I mentioned earlier, I am a registered Republican, and I
actually voted for you, Commissioner Saunders. So I am especially
disappointed that commissioners who are eager to campaign on
Republican values and credentials of fiscal responsibility now appear
equally eager to dispose of those principles.
A point was brought up earlier about the cost of a pizza. Well, to
counter that point, if it's really that low of a bar, then I encourage the
conservatory (sic) and their allies to clear such a self-described low bar
by appealing to individuals directly to support their mission through
volunteer funds and not use this governing body to forcibly compel
taxpayers under punishment of law.
So, in closing, I vigorously implore you and I encourage each of
you to be wise and judicious with the financial resources entrusted to
you. Be the hero that the taxpayers voted for. Restrain your
temptation to overspend and burden tourists and property owners alike.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rick Baranski. He'll be
followed by Dominic Pallini.
MR. BARANSKI: Yes. Good morning, gentlemen -- ladies and
gentlemen.
I totally agree with the last gentleman. I was -- he had excellent,
excellent points. And I, too, am a Republican who voted for Mr.
Saunders and am also disappointed in his position in this.
I'm going to speak on affordable housing here. The first thing I
want to say is that NABOR is not against the Conservancy and
Conservation Collier. We are against the tax increase.
July 11, 2017
Page 69
The first genuine concern I have is about affordable housing. A
month ago the City of Naples severely limited the moves that could
have helped with affordable housing. Zero density increases, height --
no height increases, no 500-square-foot units.
If 75 percent -- 78 percent of our county already is in
conservation status, and the City of Naples will do nothing to help with
affordable housing, how much land is even left to address this issue?
It would seem that taking more land will decrease the supply of
available land and thereby increasing property costs.
We're talking about the property tax to fund a program that
increases the costs of available property by limiting its supply. Where
in the equation does anyone see affordable/workforce housing in this
equation?
The second issue is that Collier County receives 70 percent of its
total tax revenue off of property taxes as they currently exist. The state
medium (sic) is around 50 percent, so that's a significant difference.
This shows an overwhelming dependency on property tax
revenue, among the highest in the state, and our impact fees among the
highest in the state and nationally. This is an unsustainable economic
handicap on our industry. We, as an industry, are paying the most and
are continually the first to be raised.
The ideas of incentivizing home ownership have true merit.
Increasing home ownership is the overall economic interest of
everyone in this room.
We cannot keep raising property taxes every time we have a
project that needs to be funded. I urge you to re-priorities (sic) how
projects are funded. Our industry is not an open checkbook.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dominic Pallini. He'll be
followed by Martin Manion.
MR. PALLINI: Good morning. Madam Chair, Commissioners,
July 11, 2017
Page 70
and county staff, thank you for allowing me to speak today.
My name is Dominic Pallini. I am a Collier County resident and
also President of the Naples Area Board of Realtors.
We have a very serious issue with the pending tax increase to
fund Conservation Collier. Let me begin by saying it's not
conservation or Conservation Collier we oppose at all. I know there's
been some misconception here, but we're in favor of conservation.
We're in favor of Conservation Collier.
We have an issue with the funding mechanism and the view on
appropriate fiscal policy. We stand in firm opposition to the $20
million annual tax increase that will come as the result of a .25 million
property tax increase. The $20 million increase is set to be in
perpetuity. That is why this discussion today is so important.
Last year, taxes were raised approximately $7 million, and we did
not say a word. We stayed silent. Though we already pay close to the
highest property taxes in the state of Florida, we ignore the outrageous
impact fees that rank us among the highest in the nation, and this time
there's an ask for an additional $20 million.
When calculating federal, state, and county-owned land, our
county currently has approximately 78 percent of its land in
conservation. Asking for $20 million additional for conservation land
for development and decrease the number of affordable homes -- what
happens when you purchase the land? The value of the land that's
available for development increases, and it decreases the number of
affordable homes that are available in the county.
This seems -- this seems very fast paced without the details we
would expect if the taxpayers are asked to pay an additional $20
million.
To approve the tax first and the project later seems to be a little
irresponsible. We urge you to look at Commissioner McDaniel's plan
that uses the $32 million Conservation Collier currently has banked to
July 11, 2017
Page 71
manage and maintain the current land in perpetuity. It additionally
allows 17 million of the 32 million to be used for purchasing additional
land. All of this can be accomplished without an additional dime from
the taxpayers.
We have an opportunity to save Conservation Collier and
simultaneously not raise taxes. That would be a win-win for the
taxpayers of Collier County.
Thank you so much for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Martin Manion. He'll be
followed by Dr. Joseph Doyle.
MR. MANION: Madam Chair, Commissioners, and fellow
citizens, my name is Marty Manion, and I am the CEO of the Naples
Area Board of Realtors. I am also a resident of District 2.
I come before you today to discuss Collier County's continual tax
increases. Over 6,200 Collier County realtors feel our industry is
severely overtaxed. Again, this is not a position against conservation
or Conservation Collier. It's an issue with the funding mechanism.
The county is set to collect $22 million more this year than it did
last year in property taxes. Collier County has collected over $200
million in property taxes since 2014 due to improved property values.
There is already $32 million in the bank for Conservation Collier.
With the statistics above, we have a problem with the new $20
million-a-year property tax increase.
We urge you to stand with us on the side of sensible government.
We urge you to either revamp the funding mechanism or use the
money currently in the program.
It should also be noted that our board is uncomfortable with the
clarity in regards to what is going to be purchased; which properties:
How much will they cost? Why do we need them? In our world, it is
prudent to have a transparent path for the allocation of funds prior to
the request for those funds.
July 11, 2017
Page 72
This is not a sustainable path for our industry. We feel this needs
to slow down and be done in a comprehensive management plan. A
knee-jerk reaction or approval of a piecemeal plan in regards to
conservation is not a long-term strategic approach. If this is not done
in a comprehensive way, Naples Bay and other such communities may
be at risk.
A major issue that no one is discussing is Amendment I dollars.
County lands are not eligible for Amendment I dollars. These are state
dollars that can be used towards the most expensive part of the
conservation process, which is the land management component.
County lands are not eligible for that money, and throwing away
that money is not -- is something we are not sure that has been fully
considered.
We have read and support the exploration of the McDaniels
alternative funding plan. We encourage discussion on this today and
thank Commissioner McDaniel for his work on this.
Thank you all for your time and consideration.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Joseph Doyle who has
been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is present,
and he will be followed by Jason Hartgrave.
DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle.
I, too, am opposed to the .25 mill increase in General Fund 001. I
am in favor of conservation. I have supported Save the Manatees, Save
the Panther, all these things over the years, save the mangroves in
Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Save the oak trees.
DR. DOYLE: Save the oak trees in Marketplace, but it's the
method of what we're doing here.
We want to have a referendum next year, so what is the rush this
year to do this renewal without the input of the voter?
I think it's outrageous and elitist to assume that the voters want to
July 11, 2017
Page 73
renew these .25 mills. We need a vote of -- direct vote of the voters.
We need to hear from them before we do this. Things have changed
over the last 10 years. People might have been for this 10 years ago
before we had the big crash. Guess what? Another crash is coming. I
know a lot of people think that, you know -- but we know we're
overdue for a correction.
These .25 mills will be a burden on all property owners, rich and
poor, in an economic downturn. I think to do this right now is a
mistake. We really need to hear from the voters. Let them -- let's wait
another year. Besides, I think some of these conservation lands should
be donated. We should only be paying for the maintenance of them.
Why should we be buying some properties that people really couldn't
even sell? And now we're in an overinflated property market.
When we have this correction, the land values will come down,
and you can get the -- possibly get these properties cheaper. So to rush
this through this year, let's wait till 2018 on that.
Now, I also would like to switch gears a little bit in the same
thing because we're not only talking about General Fund, which is the
first line item here on the maximum property tax rates that are being
proposed, but I want to actually go down to the very bottom, which is
Pelican Bay.
Pelican Bay -- aside from what I just talked about earlier this
morning, Pelican Bay has a component of ad valorem taxation. It's
Fund 778. It's for the lighting, and that was for safety at one point as
well.
Despite what Mr. Isackson said about the fact that we -- you can
charge them -- advertise the maximum now and then we can talk about
this again in September, I have done both. I've been here in June and
July, and then I come back in September. If we don't do this now, it's
cooked for September, quite frankly.
So once again, I'm here to object on behalf of my mother, who's
July 11, 2017
Page 74
the owner in Pelican Bay, regarding the collection for the Pelican Bay
street-lighting Fund 778.
Now, in 2012, to give you a little history, there was a 59 percent
increase in the ad valorem millage for the purpose of establishment of
reserves for future construction of boulevard light fixtures for 2018 and
residential light fixtures in 2021. Consultants have subsequently also
told us -- told the Pelican Bay board -- Pelican Bay Service Division
Board, that the expensive boulevard poles will not be needed to be
replaced in the Year 2026 because they have actually hardened and
have nearly 40 years of useful life to about 2055.
The Pelican Bay Service Division budget subcommittee, as far
back as February and March of 2014, admitted that this Lighting Fund
778 at the bottom of this page here had been accumulating monies
faster than anticipated and that the millage should be reduced;
however, no reductions occurred for Fiscal Year 2015 nor 2016 nor
this year, 2017, despite the new information on the poles. Rather,
Pelican Bay taxpayers have seen a 3.5 increase from the rollback rate
in Fiscal Year 2015, then a 6.6 increase from the rollback rate in Fiscal
Year 2016 and, similarly, the same thing in 2017. And this is all in the
setting of a CPI increase of 1.7 percent over the last couple of years.
So growing at a higher rate than the inflation rate. And it's not -- we
won't even need these monies for the poles.
So, you know, I take the philosophical position that these
improvements also should be paid for by the owners who are living
here in those future years, either 2026 or even 2055. We shouldn't be
collecting the money from us right now.
And I'd like to emphasize that as citizens and taxpayers, not
enough is being done by this Republican majority Board of County
Commissioners to adhere to conservative principles by finding the best
value for taxpayers are to reduce these ad valorem millage rates.
Pelican Bay, for instance, this is a 5 percent increase this year.
July 11, 2017
Page 75
We should just stay at the rollback rate. They don't -- they're just
accumulating money that they don't need right now. And, especially,
as I said, about the poles.
So please -- please, at the conclusion of this agenda item today, in
the General Fund 001, please take out the .25 mills and roll that back to
3.5645; and for Pelican Bay MSTBU, please go back to the rollback
rate, which should be 0.0816. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jason Hartgrave. He'll be
followed by Carol Manning.
MR. HARTGRAVE: Greetings, Commissioners. Jason
Hartgrave, Libertarian party, resident of Collier County, District 2.
We're really here against taxation anytime it goes up for any
reason. There always has to be a reason: Why? Why do we -- are we
in such dire needs of more funds?
We're not really against conservation. As many have pointed out,
there's very valid points to be made for beautifying Collier County.
However, even the amount -- like, $6 was mentioned for medium
pizza. Well, that sounds really great. It sounds like we could all just
throw in a little. But the reality is, that $6 is huge, you know. We have
people -- we have, in fact, families -- over almost 50 percent of the
kids in this Collier County are on free and reduced school lunch. They
don't get a $6 medium pizza. They're living paycheck to paycheck;
hard-working families.
We have a housing development problem where there's no
affordable housing. If there's already that problem now, imagine we're
raising taxes again. We're forcing more and more families out of their
homes. How many people in this county are on a fixed income?
We're raising their taxes. We're raising the burden on the members of
society right here in Collier County, and for what? So we can beautify
the area and we can buy land that they can no longer enjoy because
they're forced out of their homes?
July 11, 2017
Page 76
It would be really irresponsible to use this as a funding
mechanism. And I know that it was mentioned that there is no magic
money tree that's going to help out Conservation Collier, but I firmly
disagree. I believe that magic money tree is right here in the hearts, in
the souls of every citizen in Collier County. We have the most
charitable and giving district in Florida. So for those people, they can
easily give out of their surplus for Collier County and conservation, but
that poor family, that poor widow, they can't; they can't. And taxation
will crush them.
And so we implore you to find another funding mechanism and
please help those in our county that need it the most. Thank you very
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Carol Manning. She'll be
followed by Michael Dalby.
MS. MANNING: My name is Carol Manning, and I'm a resident
of Collier County for the past 15 years. I'm a member of the Collier
County Republican executive committee and the past Assistant
Treasurer of that organization.
I'm here to share with you the results of a survey that was done
through the Internet, and it's actually posted on Facebook today. It's
not a formal survey, but I think the results would be interesting.
Of the over 3,000 people that responded to three questions, two of
them were related to the increase in the millage rate along with the
tourist development tax. 84 percent of the respondents voted no to
both of these questions. So I think that the Commission perhaps
should take into consideration the results of that survey. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Dalby. He's been
ceded three additional minutes from Alan Horton -- Mr. Horton
present? Yes -- and three additional minutes from Kathy Curatolo --
she is present -- for a total of nine minutes, and Mr. Dalby will be
followed by Sheila Jackson.
July 11, 2017
Page 77
MR. DALBY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Michael Dalby, resident of Collier County and CEO of Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce.
As you discuss the millage rate for 2017/'18, we would ask that
you please consider what taxpayer funded capital projects are truly
needed to maintain and nurture a world-class community for the
current citizens of Collier County.
Over the past year-and-a-half, the Chamber's been examining
how to address key public policy issues, initially beginning with
workforce housing and workforce training and development. As our
research progressed, we became aware of other priorities the county
has been addressing, like infrastructure needs, traffic congestion,
public safety and land-use issues.
We concluded our work with an examination of multiple revenue
options available to Florida counties. Our research has been assisted
by the Community Foundation of Collier County. Both organizations
are trying to assess community needs and how those needs could be
addressed, and that research has laid the foundation for my comments
today.
As various presentations and discussions have noted, particularly
in your budget hearings, there's some backlog to county infrastructure
projects which were delayed due to the recession that need to be
addressed to maintain the quality of life and level of quality
community service for our current residents.
Those needs and others that have recently been discussed include:
Addressing workforce housing near where jobs are located in order to
attract and keep middle-class workers such as teachers, nurses,
firefighters, sheriff's deputies, and EMTs, so they can afford to live and
serve in Collier County.
The need to serve and help citizens suffering from addiction and
mental illness and, in particular, move them out of the county jail and
July 11, 2017
Page 78
into another facility where treatment and rehab would be possible;
addressing an emerging need to expand the capacity of our workforce
development and vocational technical training facilities, providing
more career opportunities for residents who want good jobs; and
catching up on deferred vital infrastructure projects such as improving
road surfaces and drainage systems, improving traffic signalization
systems, and completing sidewalks, all to serve our existing
population. And we worry about what happens if we continue to defer
those expenses.
Finally, we understand that there are some neighborhood parks
that were planned to serve our citizens that haven't been developed. As
you consider how to fund these emerging needs and address this
backlog of projects, we would ask that you authorize staff over the
next 60 days to work on developing two critical pieces of information.
First, review what the county needs are, what can be funded with
today's dollars, and what shortfalls can be made up with the additional
revenues our higher property values are generating. This will help to
demonstrate your stewardship of the current funding you receive. It
will show how our ad valorem taxes are used, how the increase in
valuations will provide more funding, and how that increased funding
will be used.
All residents need to see, frankly, what we have learned from
working with you over the past few years; that we have one of the
most efficient and effective county governments in the Florida, if not
the U.S.
And then, secondly, if -- and it's a very big if, but if there is a gap
in funding that does not allow us to address backlogged infrastructure
needs and critical emerging needs, then outline for us what those
projects are and how much they will cost. And as you examine how to
pay for prioritized projects, we would encourage you to look beyond
the property tax increase.
July 11, 2017
Page 79
Our research shows that residents appear to be tiring of property
tax increases as the main solution for our funding needs. We would
ask that you authorize staff, as part of this review process, to look at
whether an optional county infrastructure sales tax could go before the
voters next year. A half-cent or one-penny infrastructure sales tax
would be collected for a limited period of time, maybe for as little as
five years, until the specifically identified projects are funded.
While I don't know of anyone who wants a tax increase, if we
must find additional revenues to address the infrastructure backlog in a
timely manner and address other pressing needs, the infrastructure
sales tax is one of the most tightly delineated and controlled
approaches.
Among Florida's 67 counties, voters in 61 have passed some form
of sales tax to address specific county needs, and today three of the
remaining six are considering a sales tax referendum either this year or
the next.
An infrastructure sales tax ballot initiative would have to
specifically enumerate the individual projects to be funded, and the
ordinance language would have to spell out the dollars to be spent on
each specific project.
The infrastructure sales tax is required to have a beginning date
and a hard-and-fast sunset date. The funds could only be used on
specified projects. They could not be used on administration or
salaries, and many counties have added the creation of a separate
citizens oversight committee as a requirement to ensure the funds are
used as per the voters' intent. We would encourage that requirement.
We would always encourage third-party validation of the projects
and estimated costs, a review by engineers and accountants to ensure
the projects are properly estimated, which can be done once the lists
have been created, has been done in other counties, and gives residents
further assurance that the list is about needs and not wants.
July 11, 2017
Page 80
The infrastructure sales tax is spread equally among all residents
of Collier County who make certain -- the same amount of purchases.
And, of course, the State of Florida exempts certain items from sales
taxes, like groceries, medicine, and fuel.
A sales tax is paid by visitors. In a tourist area like Collier
County, it's estimated that tourists and visitors pay 20 to 30 percent of
sales taxes collected. Our tourists and visitors benefit from and use
Collier County's infrastructure. This would be a way for them to
contribute towards the expense and relieve some of the burden on local
property taxes.
The infrastructure sales tax is capped on any single purchase at
$5,000 so that there's not a significant burden for an expensive
purchase, such as automobiles. For example, the additional tax which
a one-cent increase would add, would be capped at $50 on any single
purchase.
Such a tax proposal would bundle several projects into one ballot
initiative, hopefully supported by a broad coalition of groups within
our community. We learned from our work in education of the power
of collective impact where multiple groups, sometimes even with
competing interests, joined together for the collective betterment of our
community and to address critical needs. This approach would
mitigate infighting and encourage collaboration.
And, finally, note that a per-capita portion of the sales tax
collected would go to the City of Naples, Marco Island, and
Everglades City helping those communities also catch up on their
backlog of infrastructure needs.
To conclude, let me be clear. We are not encouraging a sales tax
or any tax increase. We are encouraging the Board of County
Commissioners to pause, take a close look at your current tax revenues
and expenses, determine where the real unmet critical capital needs
are, and prioritize those needs and consider how best to fund them.
July 11, 2017
Page 81
We're encouraging you to direct staff to research needs and
priorities and examine funding options over the summer. Then, when
you come back in the fall, you could hold a work session, say, in
October, to determine the best approach and decide if a ballot initiative
is needed.
There are many issues to address: Traffic management,
stormwater drainage, sidewalk extensions, moving individuals with
addiction and mental-health problems out of our jail, and addressing
workforce housing infrastructure and workforce training needs.
If our critical needs can be met without undue delay within the
current property tax revenues, then we support a no-new-taxes
approach; however, if the determination is made that current tax
revenues can't fund services and address today's needs without costing
us more later, then please give consideration to a temporary half-cent
or one-cent sales tax that would bundle these projects, present them
before the voters, advocated by a coalition of community partners, and
let the voters decide.
Thank you for your time. Thank you for your care. Thank you
for your service to the citizens of Collier County. Hopefully we can
look forward to the staff's recommendations in the fall, and be happy to
answer any questions.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sheila Jackson. She'll be
followed by Victoria Gagni.
MS. JACKSON: Hi. Sheila Jackson, legislative aide to
Representative Byron Donalds. Unfortunately, Representative Donalds
couldn't be here, and he asked me to please read this letter on his
behalf.
Honorable Commissioners, Madam Chair, I am writing in
opposition to the proposed property tax increase to fund the land
acquisition program for Conservation Collier. More than 70 percent of
the land in Collier County is already in conservation status through its
July 11, 2017
Page 82
ownership by federal, state, or local government.
Additionally, Conservation Collier has approximately $32 million
at its disposal for the maintenance of its existing properties. If this
Commission believes a land acquisition program within Conservation
Collier is essential at this time, existing funds should be utilized first
before considering a tax increase on the citizens of Collier County.
The Naples Daily News is estimating that Collier County will
receive an additional 22 million in tax revenue under the current
millage due to an 8 percent increase in property values. An increase in
property taxes due to market appreciation is already a cash burden to
property owners. The Commission should not add to that burden with
an additional tax increase.
Many of the residents in my district are on fixed incomes, and
raising taxes for a program that is not essential to maintaining the
quality of life of our citizens is not appropriate.
Furthermore, land acquisition is not the highest and best use of
tax revenue for our county when we have many infrastructure needs as
well as other social services like drug rehabilitation centers which have
a significantly higher impact on the quality of life in our community.
In closing, I respectfully ask the County Commission to vote no
on any proposed tax increase to fund land acquisition for Conservation
Collier. There are needs in our county that have a much higher priority
that will improve the quality of life for our citizens.
The property owners of Collier County are already seeing an
increase in their taxes simply because of increases in property values.
Conservation Collier has 32 million at its disposal that the county
could utilize for land acquisition. A $20-million-per-year tax increase
is not in the best interest of the people I represent in the Florida House;
therefore, I respectfully implore you to vote no on this measure.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Victoria Gagni. She'll be
July 11, 2017
Page 83
followed by Chris Hudson.
MS. GAGNI: Good morning. My name is Victoria Gagni,
District Secretary to Representative Bob Rommel. Unfortunately, the
representative couldn't be here today, so he asked me on his behalf to
read the following.
Honorable Commissioners, if you have not noticed, there is a
migration of new people moving to Florida. It is actually over 1,000
people per day. When people are asked why are you moving, the two
major answers are weather and lower taxes.
I feel very blessed to have picked Collier County to call home. In
my opinion, it is the best of all 67 counties in the state.
Collier County is truly a special place. We have great beaches,
golf courses, schools, roads, parks, and restaurants. When I decided to
move here, all those things were important to me, including taxes
lower than many other counties in Florida, and Naples delivering a
great quality of life.
As an elected official who just went through the budget process
for the entire state, I understand there are needs, and the only way to
pay for them is some form of tax. We just passed a budget of about
$83.4 billion, which was about 1.2 percent more than the previous
year. And even though spending went up, millions of tax cuts were
applied where we could become more efficient.
In Collier, spending from 2016 to 2017 went up to 9.14 percent.
If the State of Florida spending went up that much, our budget would
be close to $90 billion.
A recent survey shows that 70 percent of Americans have less
than 1,000 in their savings account. As a former banker, I believe it.
Between all the taxes, insurances people are forced to buy, and the cost
of housing, people are broke, and, yes, even here in Collier County.
Some of you and some of our citizens may not think raising taxes
9 percent a year is much or adding 18 percent to sales tax, but it is.
July 11, 2017
Page 84
The county just raised a tourism tax by 20 percent. I know our county
has needs, but before we decide to put a major tax increase on the
ballot, can we see a detailed plan where the money is going?
In Collier County, over 70 percent of the land is in some form of
conservation between the county, state, and federal government. Do
we really need more? I actually love all the parks but still have not
been able to visit every acre of every park or preserve.
As our county continues to grow, there will be issues that need to
be addressed, like drug abuse, mental illness, affordable housing, or
workforce housing infrastructure in the Estates. Will that be another
tax, too?
I respectfully ask for your consideration of no new taxes in
Collier County.
Sincerely, Representative Bob Rummel. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, your final registered speaker
on this item is Chris Hudson. He's been ceded three additional minutes
from Louis Piche. Mr. Piche is present? Yes. Okay.
MR. HUDSON: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'm going to use
the first three minutes for personal testimony, and I'll follow with the
last three minutes on behalf of my organization, Americans for
Prosperity.
It's ironic that I find myself testifying in front of the County
Commission with now Commissioner Saunders sitting on the dais. My
first time ever testifying in the Florida Senate on behalf of Lee
Constantine, a former state senator on conservation issues, was in front
of Chairman Saunders' committee. So it is ironic that I stand here
today to talk about conservation issues in front of you, sir.
I'm 32. I have lived in Naples almost the entirety of my life. I am
a graduate of Big Cypress, Oak Ridge, and Gulf Coast High School.
I'm speaking today in my personal capacity on behalf of all of my
friends and neighbors who can't be here today for a lovely midday
July 11, 2017
Page 85
session at the chamber.
But I've had a chance to speak to a number of those folks that live
in District 5, live in District 3, live in all the districts, who are either
trying to find a home or currently rent who just sat down with me as
early as this week and talked about a Naples Daily News article that
said millennials are having a hard time in a community with a lack of
inventory and a community with higher impact fees determining how
they're going to stay in this amazing community, an amazing
community because your board and the boards before you, dating way
back the entirety of my life, have done a great job of making this the
best place to live, work, and raise your family, all of which I am
currently doing.
I just moved into my new home a couple weeks ago that I built. I
built because there was no inventory. I saved all my pennies, and I
made a conscious decision.
Now, not all of my friends and family members have the same
fiscal restraint as I, so it was probably easier for myself. But when I sit
and listen to a good friend of mine who just secured his first full-time
employment coming out of college and he says, I'm going to save. It's
going to take me 20 years, but I'm going to get a home in Collier
County. That's frustrating. It's frustrating because we don't live in the
economy that voted for Conservation Collier the first time. We don't
live in the economy that voted for Conservation Collier the second
time. The economy today may not be the economy tomorrow.
I don't personally care what programs you fund or do not fund. I
do believe personally that as a free-market conservative I would
suggest to you that there is plenty of room in your budget, things to
cut, fat to trim, ways to be more efficient.
I can tell you I don't often agree with Mr. Doyle, but I agreed with
a number of things he said related to rolling back the millage and
taking a hard look. I almost never agree with the Chamber of
July 11, 2017
Page 86
Commerce, and I about had a stroke back there in my chair as I agreed
with about 85 percent of everything they said.
And I don't agree with any tax increase. So as a resident of
District 5, as someone who's been here a long time and who has his
faith and confidence in all of you to run an efficient government here
in Southwest Florida, I personally, on behalf of my wife and my
19-month-old daughter, implore you to make sure there's no new taxes.
Now that we've deviated from that on to my professional
capacity, I will say to you, on behalf of the thousands of activists in
Collier County, on behalf of the 212,000 activists in the state of
Florida, on behalf of Americans for Prosperity and its affiliates, we
look forward to seeing how you consider the item at hand today.
Professionally, we would encourage you no new taxes is the best
route, similar to my personal position. We would encourage you that
if you are going to look at new tax, that you do so via referendum and
that you don't impose any tax today.
As I mentioned, millennials, myself, those who are working today
are not able to be here. So it would seem prudent that, rather than
doing things in sort of the cloak of darkness -- not everyone can access
Collier TV on their route to clean pools or mow lawns or be at a cash
register at Publix, that you guys would stay any impending tax increase
today for a referendum later. Hopefully that is the course you choose
to take. If it is not, I would encourage you to take the Chamber's
position by prioritizing what we spend our tax dollars on.
It's funny, our organization is usually opposed to all new taxes
and all government spending, and we generally believe that
government doesn't do anything well and that -- if you really look at
what's happening today, this is a form of taxation. If you move
forward with any increase today is theft.
So I would submit to you that unless it's related to law
enforcement, like the gentleman in the corner, our schools, our
July 11, 2017
Page 87
students, those critical core government functions, that you don't fund
them, and then if you want to fund them, that you cut somewhere else.
What made this the greatest community, what continues to make this
not Miami-Dade, regardless of that analogy, what will never make it
Miami-Dade -- and there's lots of reasons it's not Miami-Dade. If you
would like to compare, as I've heard so often, you can compare it to
Palm Beach County, you compare it to a number of places.
Palm Beach County has somewhere in the nexus of 540 penalties,
ordinances, taxes, and fees. You guys are at, like, 331. Why you
would want to try to climb the ladder to put yourself in a position with
a community on the Atlantic that is not Collier County and by no way
stretch of the imagination anything related to Miami-Dade, blows my
mind.
You guys are of sound judgment. I've heard a lot of common
sense spoken here today. I know that the folks who are going to advise
you and make recommendations will do so with the best intentions.
But I'll still say that if you move forward by presenting a tax
today, my organization will -- will go to every single individual in the
community and let them know that theft has taken place today.
I appreciate your time, and I hope you consider our position of no
new taxes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. That's the end of the
speakers; is that right?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to give our wonderful
Terri a five-minute break, but before we break, I would like to restate
that today we are recommending. The decision will be made in
September to set the millage rate.
So at that point, let's resume this conversation in five minutes --
true five minutes. To give her a break. We will go to lunch at 12:30,
and we will be back at 1:30 for our time-concern. But right now let's
July 11, 2017
Page 88
take a five-minute break for Terri. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats; come to order. Please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
All right. At this point the public hearing has been -- public
speaking has been closed, and now we are at deliberations.
So I think we might start with Commissioner Saunders, and if he
has any questions, let's proceed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any questions. I
would like to listen to the discussion from the other commissioners as
we go through this. So I would defer if that's okay, just for a minute.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Very good.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you
said.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He wants to listen to all of us at this
point.
Commissioner Solis, any questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Should I pass? We'll just keep going
around.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I will make a few
comments.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. Do you want to?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'll go ahead.
First of all, you know, I campaigned on Conservation Collier, so
the folks that voted for me and are surprised by my position really
shouldn't be, because I didn't make any bones about it; however,
having said that, I'm becoming convinced that we should just put this
on the ballot as opposed to doing a levy at this point.
July 11, 2017
Page 89
I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say. And I realize
that's a 180-degree turn from where I was, but part of the reason for
that is we have $17 million that we put into Conservation Collier.
None of that's been spent over the last five or six months. And from
what I understand, it may be six, seven months before any site is
selected.
Well, we're talking about a referendum that's approximately a
year from now. And so I think I'm going to do a 180 on this. And I
know that's going to disappoint a lot of my good friends in the
environmental community, but I believe that's the right way to go.
I also believe that we should direct staff to take a look at this sales
tax issue, do the research, and come back and let us know whether or
not that's a viable option. If it is, again, we're talking about November
of 2018, and that would be a potential source of funding for
Conservation Collier as well.
But I've become pretty persuaded that this issue should go to the
voters as opposed to the Commission just simply imposing a tax at this
point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I will -- well, I'll thank
Commissioner Saunders for looking at this, you know, with an open
mind and not being locked into the prior position.
Again -- and I applaud that, because I think this is something that
we need to send to the voters; I've said that from the beginning.
I also think that staff -- we would like -- I would like staff to look
at the sales tax issue. I like the fact that it would be tied to specific
projects. It's not an open-ended way of funding anything that we
would like, and that it's limited in scope and time. So I think we have
to consider all of these things as we move forward.
So in terms of what our direction is, I believe it will be -- it would
be, I think -- and I'm going to jump the gun here, but I think the motion
July 11, 2017
Page 90
would be something to the effect of recommending the millage neutral
position without the automatic increase for Conservation Collier.
MR. ISACKSON: That would be with respect to the General
Fund.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The General Fund.
MR. ISACKSON: Your maximum millage rate would then
become 3.5645.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that would include -- that's
not the rolled-back millage.
MR. ISACKSON: That's not the rolled-back millage.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And if that's a motion, I would
second that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The millage. Second -- third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
floor and a second.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure is cold in here, by the way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, we like it that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just mention -- because I can't even
-- I have to stay huddled here.
(Simultaneous speakers.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, thank you. Thank you
anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She's a very wise woman.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, she is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There were so many things --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll give you my coat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you.
I think the gentleman -- our two commissioners who have already
spoken really have already spoken as the rest of us feel right now.
We've listened, we've analyzed, we've heard all sides.
July 11, 2017
Page 91
I know I have never been a fan of the .25 anyway. I had
mentioned each time we met that it should be a .10, and we should
vote on it. So my feelings are going right along with them.
But let me say: The good thing about Conservation Collier --
because it got a bad rap here today. There's a lot of good things about
it. For instance, it gives families a place to camp together, to hunt, to
fish, to just spend time together, and that's directly related to
Conservation Collier. And it encourages -- and I say this emphatically.
It encourages tourism, environmental tourism, which is a wonderful
part of tourism bringing people from Europe over here. They're more
and more interested in our environment. And we've got so much of it
in preservation. They tend to spend their dollars here just to participate
in that. So let's remember some of the good things.
It also, by the way, protects our future water sources, which is
something we've been doing with CREW, Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed. I've been on that board for 16 years, and
they're all about protecting our future water sources. So we have to
think of that, too.
And the -- let's see. And one other thing: By preserving more
environmentally sensitive land, folks -- people right now cry out all the
time, we don't want to be like the East Coast. Don't make us be like
the East Coast. Well, by putting land aside, we hope to have land for
us to enjoy forever in the future. So there are good things about
Conservation Collier, and I think we have to keep that in mind.
So, okay, I agree with the gentlemen who have proposed their
solution and a motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I would like to echo
my colleagues as far as setting the maximum rate at the 3.54 -- or
3.5645.
And I want to repeat, if it's necessary to be repeated, we started
July 11, 2017
Page 92
these discussions back in January and February. I proposed the
compromise as I shared with you in an earlier meeting. I didn't
propose the portion of the referendum vote of that compromise. I
thought that the support of Conservation Collier out of the existing
reserves would be sufficient to move us on and go forward.
And I really want it to be specified that none of us, no one in this
room, is against -- do what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I said it's warmed up already.
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. That's because I started
talking.
So none of us -- no one in this room is against conservation. I
mean, let's be real about that. There's no -- there's no -- well, it's the
truth. Madam Chair, you shouldn't laugh so hard.
So to not belabor the point, I would -- I would also like to explore
a referendum vote in some form or fashion, whether it be sales tax,
whether it be an ad valorem increase as one of the things that I
discussed, that's something that can be vetted. It's going to allow us an
opportunity and the public to participate in the prioritizations of our
community in how our board sets its tax rate.
It was also mentioned, and I know Commissioner Saunders and I
spoke about this last year, we're both advocates of some formation of
the Productivity Committee. I think that can be an organization that
can help us at some stage, review our processes and so on. Not as part
of this motion, but it's just a comment, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I cut my teeth, literally, or
figuratively, in the political world in 2000 when I ran for City Council.
And I ran with a concept of we don't need any more Bayfronts in the
city, and I ran to ask the voters whether they were going to support an
issue where they will tax themselves to buy this property called the
Fleischmann property because people said that. And it was pretty
July 11, 2017
Page 93
documented that Walgreens wanted to put a store there.
The voters, for the first time in the history of Collier County,
overwhelmingly supported that, and I've never forgotten it. I believe
whether you're millennial or an X gen or baby boomer, or retired lady
--
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are you retired?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- or whether or not you value the
green, you value the open space. Why do people come to Collier
County? Because we've done it differently, and we've done it well.
I really like the Chamber's concept of going and asking the staff
to present projects. Those projects, if we agree, and with proper
deliberation, we would put a list of them, and then we would -- if it
was agreed by this commission to go to a sales tax, the voters would
know what they're -- you know, what they're paying for, what the tax
would be for. It's a community effort.
And in that light, I can tell you how -- I can't emphasize how
important open space is for just the pure recharging the water that we
drink, because we drink the water that comes from the sky that goes
into the earth. We dig it out of the earth and we drink that water. And
if we don't have open space to recharge that aquifer, we're in trouble.
So I welcome the fact that it will go to the voters. I want this on
the referendum. How it's shaped, I'm not sure what's going to happen.
I know there's some differences of opinions between the Chamber and
the Conservancy. But I think the deliberation will be a community
deliberation, and I think that's extremely important.
And so at this point I will support this motion. Just for this --
folks here, you have to understand that my colleague to my left,
Commissioner Saunders, when he was a commissioner, raised that
issue in the '90s. He was the first -- it was the first time that, my gosh,
people in Collier County want to tax themselves to put aside land? Are
July 11, 2017
Page 94
you crazy? He championed it.
Now, it lost, but he's true to his -- he's true to his soul, and that's
what's important after all of these years, sir. And I hate to say that, but
you've been -- you've gone through the legislature, and you're back
here, and you still understand the value of it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, thank you. I appreciate
you saying that. I agree with everybody's comments in terms of how
important conservation is.
Commissioner McDaniel came up with the McDaniel plan back
in June -- in January, and we sort of took that and kind of ran with it
and turned it into something else, but now we're sort of back to that.
And so that was very wise on your part to come up with that, and I
appreciate the Board agreeing.
I know, as I said, there are going to be some folks out there that
are going to be unhappy with my switch of position, but I think that to
legitimize the program, to really have it legitimized, is to have the
voters vote on it, and so that's why I did the 180.
And I appreciate your consideration of that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, unless -- Mr. Isackson, you want
to sum up what we're doing here? I think it might be an idea so that
everyone is really clear what this means.
MR. ISACKSON: Well, the only change I'm seeing right now is
the change in the General Fund millage rate to 3.5645.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How long have we had that in place?
Long time.
MR. ISACKSON: FY2010.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's another thing the voters,
especially the folks that are worried about increased taxes, have to
realize. In the recession, County Manager, how many people did we
July 11, 2017
Page 95
let go when this recession started?
MR. OCHS: We eliminated 400 jobs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Four hundred jobs. We never raised
taxes during this whole recession.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor cut services.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nor cut services. And I can tell you,
when I was elected -- and I remember the first employee awards
program, which we had earlier, but there were tons of it. I could not
believe how loyal and how much spirit our employees have. They
took the cutbacks; the Sheriff's Department did it; everyone did it.
So when you talk about being lean and mean and running an
organization, this organization is that. And I welcome and I look
forward to educating the public on these conversations that we have
almost every month about backlog, how are we going to pay for it,
what are our priorities, how are we going to move this. It's a pretty
amazing organization; and to your credit, County Manager, and to your
staff, I want to thank you for it.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
table and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11B is a recommendation --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Whoa, whoa, whoa, one
second. We weren't voting on the -- all of the -- I specified at the
July 11, 2017
Page 96
beginning of this that I didn't want to be put in a box and vote all of the
millage rates all at once. I'd like to have a discussion about the Fund
111 --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- if I may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I -- I'm sorry, County
Manager --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- if you misunderstood. And
by setting the maximum millage rate, maybe I -- I don't want to
belabor the point. But the point I would like to make is I would like for
our board to -- and you and I spoke about this yesterday.
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like for our board to
give consideration to the Fund 111 tax increase that was voted upon by
ordinance by the prior board, three of which are no longer here, and I
would like to propose a millage rate reduction in the Fund 111 to the
rolled-back rate so that the fund remains revenue neutral, and give
direction to staff to defer -- re-manage the landscape maintenance
program that has been set up to be funded out of the 111.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I can tell you -- I can tell you that I
was not a fan of this landscape median --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- issue until every seat in this room
was filled, and it was standing-room only.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The public wants this but,
Commissioner Fiala, you championed it, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did. And I tell you, it is one
of our greatest assets. First of all, tourism solidly backs it because it
July 11, 2017
Page 97
brings people in here. We're the most beautiful community, not only
in the state of Florida, but throughout the country, and we're known for
our landscaping.
Yes, we had to put that on the back burner as long as we had a
recession. It went way on the back burner. People were writing us,
please start the thing again.
I sent out -- and I kept all of this information. I got a lot from
your area, especially along the Immokalee Road section.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My goodness. They --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's our area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's our area. But go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it is your district.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. But they vote for you. They
don't vote for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I want to tell you, they said,
you know, don't leave us out; we need landscaping too. Everybody
wants it because it makes a difference.
It does improve your property values. It does increase your
ability to sell. Look at all the people nodding. It's just -- it's one of the
best things we've ever done, and it sets us apart from every other
community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I want to tell you, I could never
vote for that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, may I clarify a point?
Maybe you misunderstood what I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard eliminate landscaping.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, well, you misunderstood
what I said, Madam. Please.
July 11, 2017
Page 98
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did not by any stretch say
eliminate landscaping. I said, would like to propose a rollback rate to
the revenue neutral, which then will extend the existent landscape
planning that is -- that is currently programmed under the increased ad
valorem rate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask you your purpose behind
that. I'm sorry. Are we allowed to talk like this?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Certainly, we are allowed to
talk.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. All right. Better here than
in the backroom.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I don't think we're
allowed to -- we're barely allowed to say hi in the backroom.
And as a point of clarification, the elimination of it would be a
reduction in taxes to the tune of $4.8 million. I'm not proposing that.
I'm proposing that we roll back to revenue neutral rate, which is
minuscule but, yet, sets a precedent of a consideration of a tax
reduction for our electorate, and it will amount to 2 million, $1.96
million, and direct staff to re-prioritize the current program under the
existing revenue stream. It's just a thought. And it's by no means
killing landscaping. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whose landscaping would you like
to eliminate?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you said eliminate two
times --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that, because when you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- Ms. Fiala, and I am not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- reduce it by $2 million, you're
going to eliminate some of the plan.
July 11, 2017
Page 99
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As a matter of fact, I've already
had conversation with our County Manager, because we are about to
spend $2 million on Immokalee Road proper, and that's from the
intersection of 951 clear out past the fairgrounds.
My suggestion to our County Manager was to shorten that project
to Wilson Boulevard and not go around the bend to the fairgrounds.
We already know that the intersection of Randall and Immokalee is
failing around us, and that intersection improvement's going to be
required.
We already know that the intersection improvement at Oil Well
and Immokalee is eminently failing any second. And so I've suggested
that we defer that portion of the project until the completion of the road
improvements are, in fact, in place and not spend $700,000 on
landscaping that we're going to have to tear out in order to improve the
road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We would never do that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We were about to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Just like when we do
landscaping, we know where we've got road structure going in; we put
that aside until after it's all done. The example is U.S. 41 and 951.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I don't mean to be
argumentative. The suggestion that I made was to do the landscaping
as proposed by the landscape architect. And if you all don't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is really an important subject;
not only to me --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I see that; I see that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but to the whole community.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the rationale that I have is
allow for our staff to re-prioritize the programming that's currently on
pace with the higher raised tax by the prior board, three of which are
not here.
July 11, 2017
Page 100
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, first of all, I don't think your --
I don't think you're thinking of the community. I don't think you're
thinking of the people in the community, because they solidly -- and
they've got all of the records here. They solidly have supported that all
along. Now, you might not be in touch with some of that part of the
community, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I certainly am not as in touch
as you are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's just because I've made it
my business to find out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand that, but I am in
touch with a large portion of the community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not going to argue about it
anymore.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve Fund
111 as it stands.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then, Commissioner
McDaniel, you have a second bite at the apple on that issue.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. In September we're going
to get to talk about it again.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perhaps we'll hear from our
constituents as to what they would like to do. So I'll support that
motion this time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Good. There's a motion on
--
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I was just going to agree
with that, that this is, I think, an important issue that we really have to
take a close look at and how we can best spend the funds on the
July 11, 2017
Page 101
landscaping. So I'll look forward to having that discussion in
September as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, there's a motion on the
floor and then a second to accept 111 as outlined in the executive
summary. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. 4-1.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, just for some
clarification, I assume that staff is -- has the proper direction in terms
of the other tax issue that -- the sales tax issue and where we directed
them to come back.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. That was part of your motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was my first motion.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe the Chamber was asking
for a work session on that. We'd be happy to schedule that in the fall
with the Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That would be fine.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Very good.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. That would be great.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think they mentioned
something like October.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So then we're going to go to
11B.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it is our intention -- this will take a
July 11, 2017
Page 102
minute. If I stop talking, it will take less than a minute. We have some
folks that are very concerned and been very passionate about the
marijuana -- medical marijuana issue, and we are going to hear that
before we break for lunch.
Item #11B
RESOLUTION 2017-141: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT
EXCEEDING $70,000,000 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE
SERIES TO FINANCE AND/OR REFINANCE COSTS OF THE
ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF AN
AMATEUR SPORTS COMPLEX AND PLEDGING MONEYS
RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY FROM THE TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX TO SECURE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON BONDS ISSUED – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11B is a recommendation to
approve a resolution authorizing the issuance of Florida tourist
development tax revenue bonds for the purpose of financing or
refinancing the cost of acquisition, construction, and equipping of an
amateur sports complex.
And Mr. Isackson is available to present or respond to questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to approve
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's very important. It's the next
step to diversifying our economy. It's the next step to diversifying our
tourist economy. The TDC supports it. Your chairman of the --
July 11, 2017
Page 103
chairwoman of the TDC. And do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, you seconded. Okay. And how
many speakers do we have?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have three registered speakers
for this item. Your first registered speaker is Dr. Joseph Doyle. He's
been ceded three minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is present. He will
be followed by Garrett Beyrent.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to make a
quick comment to staff. I know that the amount is 70 million, but you
still have that direction that we're not going to spend more than 3.75
million --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- of that fifth penny. This is
just to give you some leeway in the ordinance.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir; exactly.
DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle.
Actually, good afternoon. I think we just passed noon.
I actually am opposed to this $70 million bond issue. You know,
philosophically, I do agree with Commissioner Taylor that we have to
diversify our economy; however, this is still just tourism.
We need to start building maybe a technology park similar that
was done in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina where they went from an
agricultural tobacco economy to pharmaceuticals. We need -- we have
Arthrex out in Ave Maria. We have a couple of spaces where we
could put a technology park. We need where we could have
high-paying jobs related to computer chips rather than an amusement
park and a sports complex selling potato chips. Let's look at our return
there.
And those professionals that would live -- that would come into a
technology type of park could afford to live in Collier County. As we
July 11, 2017
Page 104
know, we're having affordability issues. I don't think people who are
selling refreshments at the -- and mowing the lawn or whatever we're
going to be doing down at the sports complex are going to be able to
afford the high property values and homes in Collier County. That's
just something to consider.
The other thing is is that, you know, I keep talking about a
downturn. We all know a downturn is most likely on the way within
the year or two. And we can build this complex but, you know, people
will have to cut back on what families can do, and one of the things
that go is travel and tourism.
So we may not get the tournaments that we're thinking we're
going to get. I'm not trying to be, you know, a big pessimist here, but
I'm trying to be a realist. And that we, the taxpayer, will be on the
hook for this $70 million bond issue.
The other thing you have going on is that the Federal Reserve has
already raised interest rates twice this year. They'll probably raise
them twice before December, or by December, September and
December. So we're going to be competing with the federal
government and other municipalities for bond -- people to purchase
our bonds. And so these interest rates are going to be going up.
So I'm not quite sure, you know, that -- I think we really need to
take a hard look at this from an economic standpoint.
But I'm really concerned that we, the people, will be on the hook
for this, and that kind of goes back to the tourist tax. And I know, you
know, we will be paying these bonds out of the TDT and possibly we,
the people, here on the -- from the property taxes would be on the hook
for this bond issue. I think we really have to look at assuming new
debt.
And I also am a little concerned about how this plays into what
we discussed at the June 27th meeting regarding the $60 million line of
credit that were taken out through the Florida Commercial Paper
July 11, 2017
Page 105
program, or whatever it is, you know, to buy -- the $12 million for the
land up front.
So we're talking 60 million approved there, 70 million approved
on the hook here. We're talking $130 million here. I don't see the real
big-picture connection here, but I do see a lot of taxpayers being on the
hook for up to $130 million at this point.
And I'd like to say that I really would not like to see -- you know,
we're talking $12 million to purchase those 60 acres. That's $20,000
an acre out in City Gate. You know, who's profiting from that sale of
that land out there? Is that land really worth $20,000 an acre?
And then if we put in this sports complex, can the traffic -- can
the communities -- the roads handle it out there? You know, the
people that live in that neighborhood. And then the people coming up
from Fiddler's Creek and Marco Island into that intersection of Exit
101 off of 75. I still think we have a lot of the same problems that we
talked about with the Atlanta Braves wanting to build their facility in
that same area.
But I'm -- today we're talking about the money, and I really have
reservations and really wish that we would reconsider this because it
may -- it may turn out to be a flop. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker on this item is Garrett Beyrent,
and he is your final registered speaker on this item.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett Beyrent. I just -- I
wanted to be sworn in on this because it's somewhat complicated.
I want to withdraw my fast-track application for the rezoning of
my Magnolia Pond PUD to a pickleball sports complex. It's somewhat
redundant, but I just didn't want it in the way because I want to see a
sports complex in City Gate now, which I think all of you do too. And
I hope that you get the funding and we rock and roll, okay.
And so that's a formal request to be removed from my fast-track
application, which is in, actually, to rezone my Magnolia Pond PUD to
July 11, 2017
Page 106
a pickleball sports complex. I'm withdrawing the application.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I just got the nod. It's been
withdrawn, sir.
MR. BEYRENT: Okay. Nick says it's okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. BEYRENT: How about Leo? Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. All right. We have a
motion on the floor and a second. Any other questions of Mr.
Isackson?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. It carries unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: All right. Madam Chair and Commissioners, you
have 13 registered speakers for Item 11C, and you have a 1:30
time-certain Board of Zoning Appeals hearing. So I'm afraid if you
take this item before your lunch break, you're either going to eat into
your lunch break or you're going to have to push your 1:30 out, one or
the other.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. And, Leo, that's just gone up to 14.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'm going to entertain this. I
mean, I have actually been in hearings and eaten, but I'm not
July 11, 2017
Page 107
suggesting that. What would you like to do?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think pushing the 1:30 to
2:00 is not a problem. You know, it's set for 1:30, and at 1:30 when
they're here, we'll say that, you know, it's going to be a little bit later.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To 2:15, depending on how
long this goes. I mean, we've got 13 public speakers. That's 35
minutes in public speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Then I think it's the
consensus that we will push the 1:30 to 2:00 or 2:15, and we will hear
this item, which is not in front of me, 11C right now, but we will break
for lunch.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where are we, Ms. Terri, with you?
When do you need another break?
THE COURT REPORTER: When we're done with this item is
fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right after this item, okay.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO EITHER 1)
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSING FACILITIES FROM LOCATING WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF COLLIER COUNTY, OR 2) TO CONTINUE TO
PUBLICLY VET A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
DISPENSARIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICTS AS
PHARMACIES – MOTION TO CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM
AND EXTEND UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2017 – APPROVED;
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO PUBLICLY VET A LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MEDICAL
July 11, 2017
Page 108
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN THE SAME ZONING
DISTRICTS AS PHARMACIES – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. This item, 11C, is a
recommendation to direct staff to either, number one, prepare an
ordinance to ban medical marijuana dispensing facilities from locating
within the boundaries of Collier County or, number two, to continue to
publicly vet a Land Development Code amendment to permit medical
marijuana dispensaries in the same zoning districts as farmer -- excuse
me -- as pharmacies.
And Mr. Bosi, your Planning and Zoning Division Director, will
present.
MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning
and Zoning Director.
In February of this year, the Board of County Commissioners
directed our LDC amendment staff to go out and develop regulations
that would put locational restrictions upon dispensaries as well as some
limitations upon the number, location, various other aspects related to
public safety in the sitting (sic) of these facilities.
The LDC amendment team was waiting for the legislative session
to conclude to find direction in terms of -- from the statutes and the
legislature in terms of how to move forward with this aspect.
It was not addressed during the regular section. It was addressed
during a special session in June, and on June 11th the statutes came out
provided clear direction to localities. And the localities are provided
with two options. Your first option, you're allowed to ban these
facilities outright. That was one option.
Your second option, if you choose not to ban them, you cannot
put a limitation upon the number of them, and you cannot put
locational restrictions upon them other than how you treat a pharmacy,
with the exception that you're allowed to put a 500-foot distance
July 11, 2017
Page 109
requirement from schools. That's the only locational restriction that
you're allowed to put on.
So there's two options for the Board of County Commissioners.
You can either ban them, or you can treat them like pharmacies with
the additional locational restriction of 500 feet away from schools.
Those are the two options that are provided to you.
Before we went out and started the process with the DSAC,
which we've already had our first meetings with, and then the Planning
Commission, and then, ultimately, the Board of County
Commissioners and the community at whole, we wanted to come and
ask the Board the question before we -- before we went through that
exercise, what's the Board's direction on this issue.
On the sitting (sic) of the medical marijuana dispensaries, it's
either do we want to ban them outright or proceed with the Land
Development Code amendments that would treat them as pharmacies
with the additional restriction of the 500 feet.
And just as part of disclosure, our LDC amendment team,
overnight, received two letters or emails of objection requesting the
Board of County Commissioners to make a decision to ban these
facilities outright, and I will provide that to the court reporter for part
of the record.
With that, I'm available. Jeremy Frantz, our LDC Amendment
Manager, is here as well with some of the specifics related to any
questions the Board may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, just a lot of comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I have a question. If we were to
agree to not ban it and to allow these dispensaries, what is the time
frame between an LDC amendment process and the actual having that
regulation in place so that they can be --
MR. BOSI: The Board of County Commission in February had
July 11, 2017
Page 110
directed these to coincide in October. We made the commitment and,
actually, they updated that to say bring this before in September. So
we would still be prepared to bring the amendments, the LDC
amendments that would be required to treat them as a pharmacy with
the 500-foot restriction in place in September to the Board of County
Commissioners for you to act upon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But when -- and so as soon as we act
upon it, then, these dispensaries can be built?
MR. BOSI: They could be requested from the marketplace. It
will be land use now that it's been -- it's recognized by your Land
Development Code, and it could follow through the traditional process
for how development moves forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I think I read in the process
of doing the research that there is a date of October that these
dispensaries have to make the application for. I mean, we're working
with the state in this, correct? I mean, we're not doing anything
untoward here?
MR. BOSI: No, no. We're in concert with -- the timing for where
the state would provide for the allowance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm a little bit concerned in
terms of not -- if we permit these and not having any ability to limit the
number of them.
I was talking to the County Attorney, and we were discussing the
-- I guess there were regions that were set up in this legislation. And
so there is some regional limitation based on population; is that
correct?
MR. BOSI: I'm going to defer to Jeremy Frantz, who's a little
more familiar with the specifics of the nuances and terms. But I do
believe that they have divided the state into individual regions in terms
July 11, 2017
Page 111
of how they wanted to allocate those dispensaries.
MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record, LDC Manager.
That's correct. There are several regions in the state, and there are
limitations on the number of dispensaries that can be within each
region. So there -- at the state level there is some level of limitations.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What region are we in?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Southwest.
MR. FRANTZ: I don't think I have the name of our region.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's the Southwest? We're in the
Southwest region.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And does that go all the way
up through Hillsborough? How big is Southwest region?
MR. OCHS: Is this accurate?
MR. FRANTZ: That is, yes.
Yeah. We can put the map on the visualizer now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: While we're looking at that --
all right. So we're in the yellow region, which is fairly large. There is
some restriction on the number of facilities that can be in the region,
but there's no limitation as to which county that number can go. So,
theoretically, they could all be in one county, or they could be all
spread out.
MR. FRANTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It seems to me that the
legislature will have to readdress that issue, because that makes no
sense at all. To have a population limitation in a region but not have
any limitation or a requirement that there be a certain number in a
county has a -- you know, a population of say -- say Hillsborough
County with a population of three million, they could have 30
dispensaries, but if they ban them, then those 30 dispensaries that they
could have had could be in Sarasota County. That's just illogical to
me. So I would suspect that the legislature's going to have to readdress
July 11, 2017
Page 112
this.
And I met with Mr. Barton -- Pat Barton yesterday to talk about
these dispensaries, and Bill said something to me that really kind of
persuaded me to move ahead with real caution. Obviously, I want to
hear what the speakers have to say.
But Mr. Barton said, you know, if you have a continuing
moratorium or a ban, you can always change that, but if you have -- if
you permit them immediately, then that's -- that turns out to be a
mistake, you can't undo that.
So I'm kind of leaning towards the continued moratorium until we
know what the legislature's ultimately going to do with this. This
cannot possibly be the end result from the legislature. That's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I think there's a lot of things
that don't make a lot of sense to me on this legislation, not the least of
which is -- and this isn't a statement based upon whether or not I even
think we should or shouldn't, personally, have dispensaries.
There is a constitutional right that was -- the Constitution of the
State of Florida was amended to provide that the right to access to
medical marijuana for certain conditions is a constitutional right. For a
county to be able to say we're not going to have that right in this
county, I just don't see how that's constitutional.
It is like saying, okay, we all understand that we have the right to
free speech or to have arms, but the County Commission can opt out of
having that right in this county. It just doesn't make any sense.
So moving forward -- and, again, going back to what our oath is.
Our oath is to -- you know, to support and protect the Constitution of
the State of Florida and the United States, and to ban a right that's
granted by the Constitution of the State of Florida just -- I don't even
know how that's possible. It doesn't make any sense to me.
I agree with Commissioner Saunders that the math of where these
dispensaries would be in our region needs a lot of work if -- because,
July 11, 2017
Page 113
as he was saying, they could all be in Hillsborough, but if Hillsborough
bans it, assuming that that's found to be constitutional, which I don't
know how it would be, could lead to all sorts of issues.
I just don't know how we ban something that's been granted as a
right, and I don't feel comfortable. And I've tried to take my lawyer
hat off here, but I just don't feel comfortable putting the county in a
position of having an action challenged because we would be banning
something that, by referendum, has been approved.
So, I mean, my position is I think we need to continue with
coming up with our Land Development Code provisions given what
we have to deal with. I think our moratorium was originally -- the way
I think I originally moved for it to be was till the end of the year, and
then we backed it down to October.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, I think extending the
moratorium to the end of the year to hopefully have some more clarity
or something, a challenge -- I think there's going to be lots of legal
challenges to the statute -- would make sense, and that's -- the whole
thing just doesn't make any sense to me. But that's where I would feel
comfortable going.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just for information purposes,
the legislature's going to be meeting early in 2018 because it's an
election year. So the legislative session will go from mid January to
mid March. So if there's going to be any changes, we'll know it --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Pretty quick.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- by the middle of March. So
the idea of extending the moratorium would -- I guess, there are a
couple things. One, that would give staff additional time to put
together whatever criteria we are permitted to have, which right now it
doesn't seem like there are any. Treat them as a pharmacy, and a
July 11, 2017
Page 114
pharmacy can go on every corner in the county, but it would give us
time to lobby the legislature. I'm sure every county in the state's going
to be doing the same thing to try to get some clarification.
It puts everybody on notice that we're not banning the
pharmacies. We're simply still struggling with how to incorporate
them, if we do incorporate them.
And folks that are looking to get medical marijuana can still get
it. It's just that you can't go down to the corner pharmacy to get it.
You'll still have to go through the mail or through home delivery,
which is available right now.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, and that just brought
something else to mind. The legislature has given us two options.
We're kind of picking a third option, and is that even an option for us
at this point?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got lots of bad options, actually,
because I sort of agree with you. I think it's unconstitutional, the
legislation, and I think there's going to be litigation on that, certainly.
I understand the reasoning for increasing the moratorium till we
know what the legislature is going to do on this. That has some sense
to it.
We could get you back -- the Land Development Code changes in
October if you want to look at it, but I don't know that that -- how
helpful that's going to be. So I think the legislature did a terrible job on
this, an absolutely terrible job on this.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And that's very
unusual.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Go figure. Ever since you left, it's
been a disaster.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Especially since you're not
there anymore.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's gone downhill since then.
July 11, 2017
Page 115
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Should we hear from our --
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I concur with Commissioner
Solis with regard to the constitutionality. I am disappointed in the
ambiguities that are put forth in the legislature.
I would like to offer up a thought, and that is a lot of the actual
rule-making's been relegated off to the Health Department, if I'm not
mistaken. Is that where the number of these facilities are, in fact, going
to be determined and so on and so forth? I mean, that's something we
haven't mentioned here today at all with the rule-making aspect of
these facilities.
MR. FRANTZ: The Department of Health has some rules
forthcoming, but it's unlikely that it will really have a major impact on
the number of dispensaries allowed. But there might be some
additional clarification added at that point.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, you know, as far as
controlling the numbers go, I mean, necessarily, the market's going to
determine that. It's not, you know -- 65 percent or so of the people
have voted for this to become a constitutional amendment, and I
believe it's our obligation to fulfill that. So, there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we go to speakers --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I just had an interesting
experience this weekend. I was in a restaurant and somebody
approached me and he said, you -- you make sure you vote for
marijuana. Now, he was -- he had a lot of trouble talking, by the way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He was actually afflicted? He
had an illness, or he was afflicted from --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was high on --
July 11, 2017
Page 116
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, he was afflicted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I mean, to be perfectly honest with
you. And I said, well, how did you get it? And they deliver it right to
my home. And I was thinking, thank heavens that he's not behind the
wheel of a car, because he sure shouldn't be driving like that.
And that made a big impression on me. If we can already get and
hopefully not have to get it by using a car, then at least we know that
the people who definitely need it can get it. So that -- that said
something to me. But I'm ready to hear the speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Let's hear from the speakers.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, 14 registered speakers for this
item. I'd like to ask the speakers to use both podiums. Yvette S. Jones
is your first speaker. She will be followed by Nick Garulay. I'm sorry
if I'm saying that wrong.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who was the first one?
MR. MILLER: Yvette S. Jones, this lady coming up from the
back here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She's been here since early morning.
MS. JONES: Good morning -- good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon.
MS. JONES: Good afternoon. My name's Yvette S. Jones. I am
with the Crohn's Charity Service Foundation here in Collier County.
We need this. I just sent a gentleman, 24 years old, to Venice,
Florida. He had to drive. He has severe Crohn's disease that affects his
intestines and his rectum. He had to drive by his self all the way to
Venice to a doctor.
We're just now getting doctors here in Collier County. I'm not
going by script. I had a script, but I heard enough.
I have to worry about these patients going and getting their
medicine or getting to the doctor and getting care. Yes, they can get
something sent to them, but would you just shop and not know what
July 11, 2017
Page 117
the store has? You just tell them to bring you so and so from True
Leaf or Knox Medical or Modern Health Concept, and you not know
what you're getting?
Only because somebody -- only because somebody -- the system
is wrong. Your way is wrong. The patient's way is wrong. But this is
what we have. We've got to work with it.
And the 64 percent that voted is -- you brought people out -- my
mom's 82 years old. She was no on it. She ended up voting yes.
Why? Because now she's feeling the pain, too.
This medicine is very -- this plant is very good for people. It's
very, very good for people. And I'll go back on script.
My Crohn's people suffers with so much pain until -- it's a
combination of PTSD also. Okay. There's a lot of education we need
to have on this. I started educating Collier County a year ago, July
23rd. I've been having seminars in Bonita, Lee County, Collier
County, and Dade County. I've had open mics here in Collier County
down at the community center. I've had community leaders work with
me, open their churches up so that I can at least explain.
I mean, these patients are being thrown into this medical
marijuana. They just need to have something other than these opioids.
These opioids is killing us.
As far as the meeting that the gentleman was saying, I went to
that meeting. I also went to that meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me, ma'am. I'm sorry. Just
wrap it up, only because your time is up.
MS. JONES: All right. But, yes, what we have handed to us is
not great, but I'm so happy we have a program. We can help a lot of
people. And maybe that gentleman that you saw come to you --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. JONES: -- that's a former PTSD.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
July 11, 2017
Page 118
MS. JONES: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nick Garulay. He'll be
followed by Michael Perl.
MR. GARULAY: Thank you so much. And very -- close
enough for my last name.
Thank you for extending -- so I'm going to be really quick. I've
lived in Collier County since 1996, and I've seen this place grow. And
it's been amazing to live here; a great place to raise your family, and
we've had a lot of talks up here prior to this about how Collier County
is, you know, one of the number one ranked cities to come and visit or
be a part of.
You know, we see that in the media. And what we don't see and
what no one really wants to talk about is we're in the worst heroin
epidemic in history. The kids, you know, that have the rich parents in
the rich neighborhoods that took too many pills that died, that didn't
make the media because no one wants to talk about it because we want
to cover it up, right?
We're in the worst heroin epidemic in history. I mean, you think,
well, heroin. Well, heroin, that's a needle you're putting in your arm.
Well, yeah. It's -- I say it because opiates lead to heroin. You know,
when you run out of a bag of pills or you run out of your prescription,
all of sudden that $10 bag of heroin doesn't seem like a bad idea,
because you're physically addicted. You're scratching, and you just
cannot get out of the funk.
And the doctors are responsible for that. They overprescribed
opiates. And we have Walgreens on every street corner. How is it
humanly possible for any of you to think of not allowing dispensaries
to dispense an all-natural alternative to that synthetic medicine?
Where is the compassion? And that's really what I want to implant in
everyone's mind here. Where is the compassion? We stripped
compassion out of the law. Now it's the opposite of medical marijuana
July 11, 2017
Page 119
use.
And it's time for us to, you know, implement that compassion
back in. I mean, we're in Collier County. We're the 29th -- first of all,
Florida's the 29th state that legalized marijuana. There's 28 other states
that paved the road for us. We're not first, right?
And, I mean, when you think about, okay, yeah, they can go up
the road, right? They can go up to, you know, Lee County for -- you
know, that maybe has approved a dispensary. Well, let's think about
the patient that has epilepsy or cerebral palsy, all right, or, better yet,
the patient that has legs blown off for jumping on a mortar to defend
our freedom. Why do they have to load up into a car and go three
counties over or two counties over to get medicine, you know, an
all-natural alternative medicine when they could do it in their county
that they work hard to live in? It's not cheap to live here. You guys
just talked about that for hours, right?
So, like, what is the -- what's the hard decision to make here? In
my opinion, it should be nice and easy, clean and cut. It doesn't matter
what -- you know, all these different scenarios you want to throw in
here. I mean, these are -- we've been talking about money and taxes
for the past two hours. Now shift your mind a little bit and talk about
health and compassion for these people; they're patients. People are
sick.
Do you know how many people have died on medical marijuana
or people who have died on marijuana overdose? Zero. None. And
you guys are hesitating or trying to figure out how to, you know,
propose a ban or approve a ban.
And I know I've got to go. I'll leave you with that. Compassion.
That's what I want you guys to resonate in your minds. And, please,
don't ban the dispensaries. We need them, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Perl. He'll be
followed by Bill Barton.
July 11, 2017
Page 120
MR. PERL: Sorry about that. My notes are on this phone.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Michael Perl. I'm a
veteran of the army's 82nd airborne division, and I'm also a retired
special agent with the U.S. Secret Service.
I have dedicated my entire professional life to safety and security.
After retiring from the Secret Service in 2013, I moved back to Naples
where I had previously lived in the early 2000s while assigned to the
Secret Services Southwest Florida division headquartered in Fort
Myers.
In September of 2013, I cofounded a premium executive
protection and security company called Naples Security Solutions, and
we have enjoyed tremendous success serving our clients here in
Naples.
When Amendment 2 passed in November, we created a
subdivision of our organization called Indiva Security Solutions. We
specialize in providing tactical and strategic security solutions to those
businesses operating in the medical marijuana space.
I'm sure public safety is a major concern to you and your
constituents with regard to medical marijuana dispensaries in our
county. I have queried and reviewed numerous reports citing statics
and reference to crime rates in states with medical marijuana
dispensaries, and crime rates did not increase in states with medical
marijuana dispensaries. In fact, in many of those areas, crime rates
decreased. This can also be attributed to a reduction in opiate use and
other associated crimes associated with that epidemic.
I'm personally confident that my company can mitigate the risk
involved in operating medical marijuana dispensary. We have
numerous clients in this space already, both here in Florida and other
markets, where medical marijuana is legal.
By employing adequate security countermeasures, such as video
surveillance, monitored alarms, perimeter controls, access control
July 11, 2017
Page 121
systems, and highly trained and skilled armed security professionals,
we can deter and deal with any threat or risk associated with these
businesses.
As a subject-matter expert in security and from a public safety
and security perspective, I do not feel that medical marijuana
dispensaries in Collier County will have a negative impact on public
safety. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is Bill Barton.
I've got a little bit of a situation here. Veora Little was ceding time to
Mr. Barton. Yes, but then I have Lisa Gruenloh ceding time to Veora
Little, so...
MS. GRUENLOH: We were trying to --
MR. MILLER: I know what you were trying to accomplish. So,
Ms. Gruenloh, we'll have you cede your time to Mr. Barton, and then
we'll have --
MS. GRUENLOH: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Mr. Barton, you have six minutes.
MR. BARTON: Thank you.
Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bill Barton. I reside at 106 Mooring Park Drive in Naples.
In October of this year, I will have been a resident of Collier County
for 52 years.
I beg your indulgence this morning to listen to a brief account of
some of the events of my family, and then I'll relate that to the subject
of marijuana dispensaries.
Pat, my wife, and my daughter, Tracy, was born with bipolar
disorder. We noted the manic depressive episodes when she was little,
but 50 years ago there wasn't much known or treatment available for
bipolar.
As she reached adolescence, the episodes became more
July 11, 2017
Page 122
pronounced. At age 13, she was introduced to marijuana and quickly
began to self-medicate, using the drug to level out her episodes of
depression.
Of course, that didn't work, and she soon needed the drug just to
feel normal. Within a few years, she graduated to cocaine and then to
crack cocaine.
In spite of her issues, she managed to earn her BS in psychology
-- isn't that a dichotomy -- from Auburn University, married to also a
cocaine user. Two sons, Matthew and Brock. Addicted moms don't
make very good parents. Matthew and Brock followed in their
mother's footsteps, started with marijuana at ages 12, 13, and they are
now 26 and 28 and both are heroin addicts.
Countless stints and treatment for all three at the cost of tens of
thousands of dollars, all with jail terms along the way for items such as
shoplifting and dealing drugs. Good people gone awry.
Why am I sharing this personal story, and what does it have to do
with the issue of marijuana distribution centers? First, my story isn't
unique. My story is one that's shared by millions of families in this
country right now; some probably in this room.
Second, please don't suggest to me that drug use is a victimless
crime. I'm a victim. My wife is a victim. And we didn't have the --
we had no part in the decision of anybody using drugs, but I want to
tell you we're victims.
Third, don't tell me that marijuana is not a gateway drug. I know
better. I have personal experience that has seen how it progresses from
marijuana to cocaine, from marijuana, through opiates, to heroin.
We sprinkle our community with marijuana dispensary facilities,
we don't know how many, we don't know where they're going to go
because the legislature has disallowed you to have a voice in that, and
we're sending a very bad message to our 12-, our 13-, our 14-year-old
kids. The message? Marijuana must not be that harmful; they are
July 11, 2017
Page 123
selling it as medicine in the shop right down the street from my home,
and only 500 feet from my school. Bad message, Commissioners.
Cancer (sic) cures nothing. There's not one single thing that
cancer -- that marijuana cures. However, I recognize that the voters
have spoken, and I also recognize that there's a small segment of our
community that do suffer from epilepsy, from Crohn's disease, from
chemo -- nausea induced by chemotherapy, and that they get -- may
get relief from some of these byproducts of marijuana. Let them have
them. I don't want them to suffer any more than anybody else does.
But here I begin to disagree, I think, a little bit. And forgive this
engineer for putting on his lawyer's hat. I always get in trouble when I
do it, but I continue to do it anyway. We're not denying -- by banning
dispensaries, we are not denying product to those in Collier County
that need it. There's already delivery systems set up in our state. True
Leaf is delivering from Pinellas County across the county lines as we
speak.
It's my expectation that a distribution center will be authorized in
Collier County not a -- not speaking dispensary now. I'm talking about
treatment -- they call it a treatment -- it's actually a distribution center.
And I expect from that to see a dedicated delivery system throughout
the county that actually is going to be better for many of those people
we heard about earlier. Those that are too sick to get a dispensary, if
it's delivered to their home, they don't have that problem anymore.
Cost-wise; is it going to cost more to deliver it to the homes? No,
I don't think so. If you take the dispensaries out of service, you
eliminate that overhead. You eliminate that profit, and it comes
straight from the distribution center. That will more than offset the
cost of the delivery. So I think it will be actually possibly even less
expensive.
I had a discussion with the commissioner yesterday, McDaniel,
and he allowed that -- he said something that really struck me, and that
July 11, 2017
Page 124
is, he said, Bill, America has lost the war on drugs, and certainly
there's ample evidence that he is correct on that. But do we simply
give up? I hope not.
Let's send a message from our little corner of the world that says
we are going to do everything we can to dissuade our kids from the use
of marijuana.
You guys have got two options. I hope a ban is the better option
so that it can be delivered to the recipients throughout the county.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Veora Little. She'll be
followed by Jason Hartgrave.
MS. LITTLE: Good afternoon, County Commissioners, Madam
Chairman. Thank you so much for all the work you do. It's been a
very interesting morning, so thank you for that.
I am reading an article that Dr. Allen Weiss prepared and has
published. I think we brought it to both Commissioner Solis and
Commissioner Saunders earlier in this week, and I'm just going to read
it because he, unfortunately, has been here all morning, and he had to
go somewhere else this morning.
So the easy access to marijuana has led to exacerbations of
chronic health conditions, particularly mental-health disease. It is
difficult to fully qualify the worsening psychosis, anxiety, depression,
and other mental-health issues, but easy access to marijuana and other
narcotics make a bad condition worse.
Without question, the combination of marijuana plus alcohol
increases the risk of motor vehicle accidents more than either
substance used alone.
Emergency room treatment for marijuana intoxication was rare in
Colorado until the law changed. Now patients appear in emergency
departments with anxiety, panic attacks, public intoxication, vomiting,
July 11, 2017
Page 125
and other symptoms of marijuana use.
Safe medications are already on the market for all medical uses of
marijuana. Ameliorating the side effects of the cancer and
chemotherapy can be accomplished without medical marijuana. The
same is true for glaucoma and seizure conditions, but the financial
rewards for marijuana purveyors are astounding, which is why I'm sure
that they're tenacious about getting this product out.
The unforeseen harm with the increased production and
distribution of marijuana includes burns, cyclical vomiting syndrome,
and potential overdoses by ingesting marijuana in edible forms.
The extraction of the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana uses
butane as a solvent, and in many cases people have experienced
significant burns, cyclical vomiting which, represented by severe
abdominal pain and vomiting, is now also much more prevalent.
Smoking marijuana reaches its peak between 30 and 90 minutes,
whereas the edible forms peaks at three hours. This delayed effect
from the oral form can seduce a user into ingesting additional amounts
due to delayed reactions.
I ask you to consider a ban. It can always be lifted in the future.
But if you start now to just understand that we need to look at the
process a little bit, I think that all of us are going to agree on that.
The only reason that I see -- and this is Dr. Weiss' words -- that
medical and recreational marijuana is being pushed by a small group is
for financial gain which could be a huge issue for product sellers and
distributors.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jason Hartgrave. He's been
ceded additional time from Amanda Dillon.
MS. DILLON: Hi. Jason Hartgrave had to leave. I'm Amanda
Dillon. May I speak?
July 11, 2017
Page 126
MR. MILLER: You will have three minutes, Ms. Dillon.
MS. DILLON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
MR. MILLER: She will be followed by Pat Barton.
MS. BARTON: Pat Barton will not be speaking in the interest of
time. Dr. Weiss said much of what I would have said.
MS. DILLON: Hi. My name is Amanda Dillon. I'm a lifelong
resident of Collier. And I'm here today to appeal to your common
sense.
I was a caregiver for my mother. She suffered for eight years
from breast cancer and passed away at the age of 61.
I was with her through treatment after treatment, and as the cancer
spread. She had pain and nausea, and I do believe that medical
marijuana may have helped her if it were an available legal treatment
at that time while she was still alive, but it wasn't. Now we have that
option, and I believe that we should allow the dispensaries.
I believe that almost everyone has someone in their family who
has a disease like this, and I believe that's borne out by the fact that 64
percent of Collier voters voted for Amendment 2. And I think -- sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Take your time.
MS. DILLON: It's certainly reasonable to weigh the risks versus
the benefits, just like anything else, but this is comparable to a
pharmacy. They dispense opioids, amphetamines, and other
potentially addictive drugs which are, in fact, more addictive than
marijuana, yet we believe that they should be allowed because of the
benefit to the patients.
The same should go for medical marijuana dispensaries, and that's
why I believe that having them zoned and treated the same as a
pharmacy is reasonable.
I believe it's unreasonable to expect a patient to have to go up to
Lee County or, you know, another county to have to get one of their
July 11, 2017
Page 127
medications when they can get the rest here in Collier.
So I just -- I just want to appeal to your compassion and your
common sense. The benefits of this to the patients are far greater than
the risks. And please vote to allow the dispensaries.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker -- I'll do my best here --
Solemi Hernandez, and she will be followed by Jim Williams.
MS. HERNANDEZ: My name is Solemi Hernandez, and I'm a
community activist. I am here to advocate to open the dispensaries for
the people who need it. I have my speech on my phone, so it's turning
back on.
But I understand that we're breaking through from the mentality
of seeing marijuana, which is a natural plant that just grows -- it just
grows anywhere, is seen as a classified scheduled substance, number
one, under the controlled substances.
Right now he said -- what he commented before, we have a vision
of 50 years. We have now new resources, and we know how this plant
works. And that is not really a gateway more than pharmaceuticals
could be a more risky -- that pharmaceuticals are.
Got to get to my phone.
So last November, the voters -- the voters passed medical
marijuana by 71 percent; Collier County voted 64 percent to legalize
marijuana. That means again -- and it comes to (sic) Mr. Solis says
before, it will be unconstitutional to deprive the constituents of this
right that have already been decided in a reform.
Various counties continue to de-criminalize marijuana in the state
of Florida. And as the gentleman mentioned before, we have -- we are
not the first one in this end (sic). We already have seen how other
places have put this dispensary -- marijuana -- medical dispensary
marijuana in places.
July 11, 2017
Page 128
The Young Democrats of Collier County support medical
marijuana for those who have needs due to a medical condition -- due
to a medical -- and we believe that marijuana dispensaries should be
not regulated beyond the regulations of pharmacies in Collier County
and that dispensaries should be available and accessible for those who
need it.
Like we said, pharmacies are pushing opioids, which kill 14
people a day according to the Miami Herald. I believe that marijuana
is an alternative natural to all this disease, instead of these opioids that
are extremely dangerous.
Also, the taxes, the taxes that we would get -- the sales taxes that
would be implemented on the medical marijuana can be used to many
-- like in other places in Colorado, for free lunches for public school,
and we can even use it for Conservation Collier, like we were talking
about today.
So I think it's a lot to consider. We have seen this passing in other
states. I mean, we are in a new era. We have new resource. We've got
to change our thinking and open our minds to the new scientific studies
that they're having coming up.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Williams. He will be
followed by Fleener Cophy.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Jim William. I'm the Chief of Investigations for
the Collier County Sheriff's Office, and I'm here representing Sheriff
Rambosk who, regrettably, could not be here.
Sheriff Rambosk has written a letter which I would like to read
into the record, and I have provided a hard copy to the County
Manager.
This is the letter from Sheriff Rambosk to the members of the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners.
July 11, 2017
Page 129
Law enforcement's primary obligation to the community is to
service -- is to preserve and protect the lives, property, and
constitutional guarantees of all persons.
It would never be our intention to withhold medicine, including
medical marijuana, from patients who are suffering. That said,
however, there are currently only two options: Either completely
banning dispensaries altogether or allowing them into the community.
We learned hard lessons with the pill mills that plagued Florida in the
past.
Furthermore, statistically, every state that has legalized the use of
medical marijuana has experienced increases in traffic crashes, DUIs,
crime, and marijuana usage by youths. Needless to say, we do not
want to experience a repetition of our pill mill problem or ignore the
hard lessons learned by others.
In my opinion, that -- it is my opinion that an opportunity to
observe the impact of dispensaries on the community is desirable.
Additionally, time is required for more controls and guidelines to be
put into place.
For these reasons, I believe it is in the best interest of the citizens
of Collier County to withhold, at least temporarily, the establishment
of dispensaries in our community.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Fleener --
MS. COPHY: Cophy.
MR. MILLER: -- Cophy. I did get that right, and followed by
Pallas Diaz.
MS. COPHY: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Fleener
Cophy, and I am vice president of the young -- Collier County Young
Democrats, and I'm here to represent them because some of them
couldn't make it.
July 11, 2017
Page 130
Last November the voters of Florida passed a constitutional
amendment legalizing the use of medical marijuana by 71 percent.
Collier County voted at 64 percent to legalize it.
Various counties have de-criminalized marijuana in the state of
Florida. Pharmacies are pushing opioids which kill 14 people a day,
according to Miami Herald.
While 93 percent of patients prefer medical marijuana over
opioids, this is about revolutionary medical consumer choice.
One of our members, Matthew Knowing, who couldn't make it
today due to his mother's condition -- she has spinal stenosis and is
usually in constant pain. By having local dispensaries, she would be
able to give -- to have medical marijuana without having to drive the
extra mile.
At the same time, there are about 80,000 alcohol-related deaths in
America per year. Lee County is treating medical marijuana
dispensaries the same as pharmacies.
The Young Democrats of Collier County support medical
marijuana for those who need it due to medical conditions. We believe
medical marijuana dispensaries should be regulated the same as
pharmacies in Collier County, and we would not like for you guys to
ban it here. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker on this item is
Pallas Diaz.
MS. DIAZ: My name is Pallas Diaz, and I'm a long-time resident
of Naples, a local business owner, nonprofit director, and a volunteer
with the local political action group called Indivisible Collier.
So we, me and some of my young Dem friends, just caught wind
of this the other day, and we were very confused, and I think for the
reasons that Commissioner Solis spoke, that we feel like we voted.
We, the people, we voted for this. And so I don't understand -- we're
all confused about how this constitutional right could now be taken
July 11, 2017
Page 131
away.
I do think that there will be lawsuits if there's a ban, and there will
probably be some rallies and protests as well, and we'd rather not have
that. We just want our constitutional rights granted.
I think a lot of this discussion about recreational marijuana usage
and becoming a gateway drug is really not relevant to the point at
hand. From what I'm understanding, you have two choices. You can do
a ban, or you can regulate them like pharmacies. And so we also ask,
as Indivisible Collier and residents of Collier County, that you please
keep them and allow them here and to be regulated as pharmacies.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And that was your final speaker on this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So any comments? Any
questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'll make one comment
about some -- I just received this yesterday, I believe. I don't know
this, person. But, anyway, he said, my name is Terrence McGrath. I'm
a retired police captain from New Jersey and have lived in Naples for
the past 14 years.
During my career, I have given talks regarding the hazards of
drug abuse and the DARE program for grammar schoolchildren, which
was modeled after my program in which I presented to every sixth
grader in my community for a number of years.
I suggest you and your fellow commissioners go online and
review how fatal automobile accidents increased by drivers who had
used marijuana and operated their vehicle. Marijuana kills brain cells,
has more cancer-causing agents than tobacco, affects a person's sense
of speed, and inhibits depth perception. So how does one prevent
someone who uses medical marijuana from operating an automobile?
The drunk driving laws don't work; 40,000 people killed each year by
drunker drivers. So using marijuana will only add to that.
July 11, 2017
Page 132
Now we have some states having recreational marijuana. The
message we are giving our youth is it's okay to use drugs for
recreation. Well, what's next; cocaine? We are going downhill fast.
Someone will say let's pass a law prohibiting operating a motor vehicle
after using marijuana. Yeah, sure. Just like the DUI laws work.
Thank you, and God bless.
I just got that and I thought, you know, we think -- we forget
about that -- what else can happen? And if marijuana does that to your
brain and you're sitting behind a wheel driving to the store to get it, I
sometimes wonder how many people, when they say weren't on
alcohol, but they never go farther to say that they were using
marijuana. And I think we have to be very careful.
I'm glad that we have a moratorium in place. I'm glad the people
who definitely need medical marijuana can get it, and they can have it
delivered right to their own home, and they don't have to drive. It will
be right there. They can just be home. Especially, if they're ill, they
don't want to be driving anyway.
So I have some strong feelings toward that. And I believe that we
should keep our moratorium in place for the rest of the year.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? I'll second it for
point of discussion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You want us to hit our light or
raise our hands?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Did you want to speak?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I did.
Well, really, it's just as a matter of point of order. And,
necessarily, we weren't here today to continue the moratorium or not.
We're here to vote to enact a ban and/or pick Option 2, as offered by
our staff. The moratorium, I think, exists irrespective of how we vote.
July 11, 2017
Page 133
Am I mistaken?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Point of order?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not necessarily a point of
order. It's just a discussion point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. We need to hear from our
County Attorney about that. Can we say no ban, no authorization, let's
just continue the moratorium until the state legislature is clearer on
what the parameters are?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, one way to look at it is you've
got right to ban it. Moratorium is sort of a soft way of banning it.
When --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Soft? It's pretty specific.
MR. KLATZKOW: When you come right down to it, I'm not
entirely sure what the difference is.
So, yeah, you can continue the moratorium and wait till you hear
more information when the legislature acts. There's -- from a practical
standpoint, you can ban it or continue the moratorium. The same
effect.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm going to play attorney,
which is really dangerous because I've got two to my left. But it seems
to me we're not depriving anyone of their constitutional right to use
medical marijuana. What we're saying is we don't necessarily want the
dispensaries in Collier County, and that's really what we're saying.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to kind of elaborate on
that, because I -- by having a moratorium till the end of the year or till
May 1st, whenever we can get some better guidance from the
legislature, I don't think, is sending a message -- at least for me,
sending a message that we don't want to have any medical marijuana
dispensaries in Collier County. It basically is sending a message that
we need to have the ability to have some control. And right now we
don't have any ability.
July 11, 2017
Page 134
I've gotten calls from people from out of state. I've gotten emails
from folks saying, you know, we'd like to open up a medical marijuana
dispensary. Now, I don't respond to any of that because, you know, it's
just not appropriate for me to. But that's the concern that I have is
somebody buys a parcel of land that has appropriate zoning for a
pharmacy, and we approve medical marijuana dispensaries, but we
have no way of really controlling how many there are going to be, and
I think that that's a -- I think that's a mistake.
There were some data that has been produced that shows that in
order to have an economically viable medical marijuana dispensary,
you need to have a population of about 70,000 people so that there's
enough of a base of people that need medical marijuana that can get
the medical marijuana from that dispensary; otherwise, you're creating
dispensaries that may not be viable, and I think that that's -- that's what
I'm trying to avoid.
I'm not -- I don't want to send a message that we're not going to
have any medical marijuana dispensaries. I want to send a message
that we need to ban this or have a moratorium until we can get some
better control measures from the legislature. That's my message; not to
ban them in perpetuity, but to ban them until we can regulate them to
some extent in terms of the numbers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What do you think about Mr. Barton's
concept about having it where there is an entity within Collier County
-- and, again, we can't make this law, but this may be something that
we want to lobby our legislature on; that there would be a facility, but
the dispensing of that would be by mail or -- you know, there would be
no drugstore on the corner that you can go in and buy it. That type of
thing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I want to make sure
that patients that have a prescription for medical marijuana are able to
get it without having to drive to another county. But until we can have,
July 11, 2017
Page 135
again, you know, some control over these dispensaries -- not
necessarily in terms of how they're structured or what they sell, but at
least the number of them. I think that that's my message. And I agree
with you, if there was a way to ensure that a patient could call up a
number here in Collier County --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Have it delivered?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and have medical marijuana
delivered, that's the best of all worlds.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. I think it's something that
we could explore and certainly --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least you're not depriving
anybody of using it when they need it, and it's prescribed by their
doctor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But, again, we need to -- because right
now it's based on, you know, the region has X amount, and then every
100,000 patients another dispensary -- you know, if the population
goes to another 100,000, according to what I've been reading, another
dispensary can be created.
But, you know, we talk about it not 500 feet from schools, but
what about 500 feet from daycares? Where's that? You know, I mean,
people -- there's a lot --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A lot there that the legislature, for
whatever reason, just didn't want to address.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because it seems to me that there's
really two things we're talking about. One is, what are we going to do
with the current moratorium, and the other one is the request from staff
for a recommendation to either, one, ban it or, two, continue to vet our
Land Development Code revisions.
July 11, 2017
Page 136
So it seems to me that we should have two motions. One is, are
we going to continue the moratorium, and then the second one, we
need to pick one or two of what the staff is requesting. So does that
make sense? Because a motion was made and seconded, so I wanted
to just throw that out there, before we voted on that, that it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So say it one more time. Because the
motion was to just continue the moratorium until the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But that doesn't really -- I
don't think that gets to what necessarily what the staff is asking. The
staff is asking -- and I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth,
but the request is to direct staff to either, one, prepare an ordinance
banning medical marijuana dispensing facilities from the county,
period, or two, to continue to publicly vet the Land Development Code
amendment to permit the dispensaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I can change my motion, and
my motion would be to ban them entirely.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, I mean, I can't support
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Until such time as the legislature --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Once the legislature tells us
what we have to do, what we can do, what we should do. We don't
really know anything -- we don't have any idea what the legislature's
going to do, so it's kind of silly for us to pass something, and then they
would go in and change it anyway. So we might as well just ban it
until such time as we get --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I like the concept that
Commissioner Solis has and that is we extend the moratorium until the
end of the year, and we direct staff to come back to us with some
recommendations on how -- what type of an ordinance we would want,
have them develop that over the next three or four months. You know,
that may require us to have an extension of the moratorium for another
July 11, 2017
Page 137
three or four months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, you know what, I'll
pull my motion altogether.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Not to ban it, though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll pull my motion, my
original, anything that I've said, and I'll follow your lead, and go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think I'd like to have the
moratorium extend until the first of May of next year --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- because the legislature's
going to meet in January and February and the first part of March.
And if we get some direction in advance of that, we can always lift the
moratorium. But I'd like to send the message that we need some
guidance here, but not an absolute ban. So that would be my
suggestion.
And, you know, Commissioner Solis, if you feel more
comfortable with a moratorium until the end of the year, I'm
comfortable with that, because we can always extend that as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I will feel more
comfortable with that just because the discussion we originally had on
this was a year is a safe time frame in which to come up with Land
Development Code revisions and -- as I recall, that was a safe time
period. If we need to extend it because either the legislature hasn't
clarified it or has made it worse, right, we can do that at that time when
we revisit it at the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So would you entertain a
motion, then, to extend the moratorium until December, midnight on
December 31st, 2017, and direct staff to continue to work in terms of
the criteria, in siting criteria, in the hope that we'll get some more
guidance or more flexibility from the legislature?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
July 11, 2017
Page 138
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, that's what I said before, but
then Commissioner Solis (sic) said, well, that isn't what we're supposed
to vote on. He said we're supposed to vote on either ban or no ban.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What do we --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're all saying different things. It's
fascinating.
The legislature gave you an awful choice: Either ban it or just let
it go fairly much unregulated on a county level, the same as
pharmacies, no 500 feet within a school. Mr. Bosi could pop that out
in about five minutes, I think.
So, you know, Commissioner Saunders is saying I want to send a
message to Tallahassee. We need a better law. So let's keep the
moratorium going, you know, to the end of the session, and I
understand that.
I've heard Commissioner Fiala say let's ban it outright until they
fix the law. I understand that. You're all saying different things. You
need three of you to say the same.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're really all saying the
same thing. You know, we could say we're going to ban marijuana
dispensaries, vote the 5-0 today, and on September 12th or 14th --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can unban it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- we can unban.
But I'm trying to use the word "moratorium" because it at least
sends a message that we're not banning these dispensaries, but we need
more time and more guidance, but a moratorium can morph into a ban
--
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- very easily.
MR. KLATZKOW: First person that files a lawsuit, we ban it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That very well could be.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So --
July 11, 2017
Page 139
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that's the motion. So the motion
is with -- first, the motion is with regard to staff's request, that we
direct them to continue to publicly vet the Land Development Code
amendment to permit medical marijuana dispensaries in the same
zoning districts as pharmacies. And the next motion is that we
continue the moratorium to get that done until the end of the year, and
hopefully we'll hear from the legislature or something will change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that motion one more time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. There's two motions. Let's
take them one at a time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. The first motion I would
make is to continue the moratorium till December 31st of this year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which I had said originally, okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So is there --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is this a second on that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a
second. Okay, but let's -- shall we continue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, one at a time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, let's do one at a time. Okay. So
there's a motion on the floor and second to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Extend the moratorium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continue --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Extend a moratorium --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Extend the moratorium until -- I almost
said that word -- until December, the last meeting the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: December 31st.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: December 31st, the last meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, 31st. Okay. 31st. All those in
favor, say aye.
July 11, 2017
Page 140
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're going to want to extend it till a
meeting date. You don't want it to lapse and then you're not --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a meeting earlier
December, and we'll know that there's a moratorium that's coming to
an end in two weeks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's what I was thinking. Retroactive.
Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. Note they're all sitting
down there talking without me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the next motion is that we direct
staff to continue to publicly vet the Land Development Code
amendment to permit medical marijuana dispensaries in the same
zoning districts as the pharmacies, to continue that process although
there's a moratorium in place. Because I think we --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to address it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they can already get it delivered.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, I'll second it
for discussion. But I think staff already is. I think the County
Attorney's already said I think Mr. Bosi was ready, when we voted on
this back in the early part of the year, to develop an ordinance. He
could quite easily, I think -- the County Attorney referred to it as spit
one out; that --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is it ready? I mean --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Basically.
July 11, 2017
Page 141
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I thought we were asking for
direction.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director.
The limited nature of treating them as a pharmacy is -- that
process -- I mean, that process is -- we're already engaged with DSAC.
It would be simply the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
We can most certainly put that in abeyance, and we can continue
the process until we get further direction from the legislature or the
Board of County Commissioners to either move forward with that, to
bring it to you for adoption, or to make a modification if there is an
allowance from the legislature as to more restrictional criteria that
could be placed from the county perspective, but that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: In lieu of a ban, we are complying with
the state statute; in lieu of a ban. It's an either/or situation. So we have
a moratorium, which is a halt, and then we ask -- we follow the statute
and ask for further vetting of the LDC amendment. And if it's in
agreement, I would like to explore Mr. Barton's concept and have this
part of what we do, which is one, but also to make that part of our
lobbying effort going forward for the -- if that's an agreement -- where
we talk about we're going to comply with the statute. It's a
constitutional right. There will be a dispensary, but it's how it's located
and what it's function is, one, in Collier County, to address the medical
marijuana patients and to have that as part of our lobbying effort. We
will vet it further, but I would like to see that as part of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My question is, we were talking
about the legislature not even meeting until January or February, so
they're the ones that are going to tell us what we can and cannot do, so
how can we do that in December?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to start the lobbying.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and as I brought up
July 11, 2017
Page 142
earlier -- are you mad at me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Why?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, you were --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm listening.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay, okay. A lot of the rule
making's been relegated off to the Health Department. We could
necessarily get some restrictive covenants that come out of the Health
Department with a population of these facilities based upon a
population of recipients and patients that would be in need. Those
rules necessarily could come from the Health Department as been
relegated over by the legislature.
Though we all see deficiencies in the current legislation, those
could come from the Health Department, interimly.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're supposed to.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But, theoretically, they're
supposed to. But that's -- so I don't -- candidly, I seconded your
motion for a --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: To direct the staff to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They already are.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- do No. 2. And if they're --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not sure you want to
phrase it quite that way.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. The second request, to
continue vetting the Land Development Code; that's the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So let's do that one.
All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. I'm not sure
who seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know, but I want to know
what that motion means. Continue vetting the Land Development
Code. What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what they're -- it's what they're
July 11, 2017
Page 143
working on now. It's coming up with the amendment to the Land
Development Code that would be consistent with the statute for the
siting of medical marijuana dispensaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I wonder if we decide we don't
want to have marijuana dispensaries.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, then we'll tell them we're not
going to have any later.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It only says we're complying with the
statute. It's an either/or situation. We're not going to ban it. What
we're going to say is we will continue working on this. But,
meanwhile, we've got a moratorium that says we're not going to make
any decisions right now.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing's going to happen until
December, if at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you've got our afternoon
audience arriving.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, they're not -- we're going to --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, perhaps we can
go ahead and call the question on the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. Let's call the question. All those
in favor of the last motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just went (indicating.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So it's 4-1.
And then, just briefly, can I ask that we have a consensus to
incorporate Mr. Barton's concept, not as law, not incorporating the
July 11, 2017
Page 144
LDC, but to have the staff start exploring that as a possible lobbying
effort as this legislature is going? Okay. Do I have consensus here?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was a wonderful idea.
That's the first time I've heard something like that, even when we were
talking, and I thought that was an amazing idea.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we have consensus to do
that.
Okay. So the folks that -- I think we're done with this agenda
item. For the folks who are coming in waiting for the 1:30, we haven't
gone to lunch yet, I'm sorry, but that's just what has happened. So we
will see you at -- Commissioner Fiala, you name the time, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two o'clock.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 2:00 or 2:15?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2:15 would be fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 2:15. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2017-142: JUDITH S. PALAY AND 92
OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE COCOHATCHEE
BAY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES FILED AN APPEAL TO
THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF BUILDING SEPARATIONS,
BUILDING WIDTHS, BUILDING DWELLING UNITS, AND
BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT SDPA-PL20160002242 FOR KALEA BAY A/K/A
KINSALE CONDOMINIUM PHASES II-VI. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST AND
NORTHEAST CORNERS OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND
VANDERBILT DRIVE IN SECTIONS 8, 16, 17 AND 20,
July 11, 2017
Page 145
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH AND RANGE 25 EAST, IN COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20170002165] – ADOPTED; SDP
PROCESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS TO
BE SET AS AN AGENDA ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
MEETING – CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. We are going
to -- or I'm going to explain some of the rules of the road, so to speak,
that our County Attorney has written us and, if you read the agenda,
you know about it.
We have three parties, I'm understanding, presenting here: The
appealing party, the staff, and the impacted property owner. Each of
those parties has one hour to present. That will include speakers. If
you are an appellant, you will be part of that one hour. If you talk for
one hour or if you talk for one minute, your side will have one hour.
Then we have a -- Zoning Director may ask questions. The time
is 10 minutes to ask questions that will not be counted towards that one
hour. And the impacted property owner may ask questions, and the
time limit is 10 minutes, again, but it will not be counted towards that
one hour.
The same will happen with the staff; they have one hour. The
appealing party may ask 10 minutes of questions. The impacted party
may ask 10 minutes of questions after the presentation, and then the
impacted property owner is the same way. The Zoning Director may
ask questions for 10 minutes, and the appealing party may ask
questions for 10 minutes. So it's very even, and it's very fair.
We are the Board of Zoning Appeals. We will be able to ask
questions as we want to ask questions. We are not confined by
July 11, 2017
Page 146
anything except to ask questions and be very fair with what we do and
make sure we have all the information we need to place that decision.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it would be appropriate at this time
for ex parte disclosure and then have all that are planning to participate
be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One more. The time limit is three
minutes per speaker, including any cross-examinations. So if you're
going to speak and there's a question, it's three minutes.
Anyone who is not an appellant, who's not a member of the staff,
who is not a member of the impacted property owner may register to
speak after the presentations under speakers. And you have the list, so
Mr. Miller knows and will help us all with this. And I have -- our
County Attorney will help us navigate this.
And at this point we need to do our ex parte.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have a myriad of ex
parte: Meetings, correspondence, and emails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with Diane Rupnow and
Judi Palay. I'm sorry if I didn't say your names correctly. I had a
phone call with Frank Halas. I had correspondence from law firms,
discussions with Planning Commissioners, and from the -- I spoke to
the County Attorney, and I read his memorandum.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I have had meetings with Ms.
Rupnow, Ms. Palay, several meetings with them; I've met with Mark
Strain on several occasions; I've spoken with Mr. Schiffer on a couple
of occasions; I met with Mr. Corace and Mr. Halas; and I've also
visited the site; and I have correspondence from Mr. Brookes, Mr.
Woodward, some correspondence from Ms. Rupnow and Ms. Caron;
and then multiple emails from other members of the public.
July 11, 2017
Page 147
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, pretty much the
same: Numerous meetings, a lot of correspondence and emails,
telephone calls for representatives of both sides of the issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I am the same: Meetings going
back to February 22nd with Judi Palay and Diane Rupnow, phone calls
from both; meeting again on April 18th with Diane Rupnow, Pat
Bonser, Carl and Marilyn Stendhal, Barb and Mike Taylor, Peggy
Ross, and -- from Glen Eden on the Lakes; Jim and Kitty Shaw from
Tarpon Cove; and Lou De Prisco and Dick Wilson from Arbor Trace;
also Brad Schiffer and Donna Reed Caron were in that meeting.
I've had emails from many people. The phone calls continued as
recently as yesterday. Spoke with Mr. Halas yesterday, and I received
a letter from Donna Reed Caron dated July 3rd, 2017.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I'm sure that we've all had this.
Okay. So anyone wanting to testify and participate in this hearing
need to be -- stand and be sworn in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot to say that I also had a letter
from Donna Caron. Thank you for mentioning that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And if the
appellants are ready. Mr. Miller, you're ready?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. You can begin,
sir.
MR. BROOKES: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon.
MR. BROOKES: My name is Attorney Ralf Brookes, and I'm
here representing the appellants today. I'm board certified in city,
county, and local government law; and I've served as land use
July 11, 2017
Page 148
litigation counsel for Monroe County, which is the Florida Keys, for
about eight years; I was Assistant County Attorney for Sarasota
County; and I've served as City Attorney for the barrier island cities of
St. Pete Beach and Bradenton Beach and also serve as the town
attorney currently for the small town in Levy County known as
Yankeetown.
The first thing I'd like to ask you and hand out, I received the
board agenda and the board agenda packet and Item 8A, and it appears
only the county staff response is in there. I don't see anywhere where
you, as county commissioners, were given printouts or the public was
given printouts in the book on the table for our actual administrative
appeal, the list of administrative appellants, the site plan that we're
challenging and the various exhibits that we had.
There were numerous exhibits. I don't have copies of all of those
for you today, and I don't know whether you received them. I do have
a packet for each of you that contains a paper copy of our
administrative appeal, the list of appellants, the actual site plan page
that shows the administrative reduction in building separations. It
shows where the -- how the buildings will be separated now, a copy of
the original settlement, and the PowerPoint that our expert will be
presenting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: May I ask staff: I'm assuming we
received all of that. I remember reading this list of appellants and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Whatever you received is in the backup.
MR. BROOKES: It was not on the online. When I went to the
agenda backup and the book outside, it's not there. What I'll do now is
hand it out now.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if Mr. Bosi could just explain how
those backup materials appear on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, please. I think it's important.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. Within
July 11, 2017
Page 149
your executive summary there was Attachment A through G.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. BOSI: All of those materials have been provided.
Attachment B is your appeal application as submitted, this entire book
that is described. C is the settlement agreement and, all through those,
individual attachments. So that's all been provided and attached within
your executive summary.
MR. OCHS: Are those attachments or links? Hot links or
attachments?
MR. BOSI: Some were attachments.
MR. OCHS: Some were physical attachments; others were links,
hot links, to those documents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, County Attorney, that suffices that
either it was a physical or an actual attachment or a link to an
attachment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: I'm not sure if you were all able to go and go to
the links and download them all individually or had your staff do that.
There's 38 of them that we included with our packet. Our book is
about -- I don't know how many inches thick. It was quite a number of
them. So I don't think that the link may have been sufficient.
We did submit all this on June 7th, well in advance of the 10
days. And I don't think just a link is sufficient to make sure that you
see it. And, you know, we would ask, if they need additional time, that
we continue the hearing to a date when you can actually see all the
things we submitted.
MR. KLATZKOW: This was in your agendas. I mean, we don't
necessarily, the way the system works, scan everything into the
system. We'll put it on the server and give you a link. We've been
doing this for quite some time, ever since we got away from paper.
July 11, 2017
Page 150
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you feel satisfied, Commissioner
Saunders, that you have been able to review all the material?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I had a lot of these pictures --
I'm looking through it now -- that were in my agenda packet, but
they're just reduced in size.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I've become adept at
clicking the button and going to the information.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we're satisfied that we've had
ample time to review it, sir.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. Very good. Thank you so much.
And, again, I've handed out paper copies just so you'll have a
paper copy of the most important things in front of you.
There are some rules about staff reports being provided seven
days in advance. I know that we didn't get it. There's also a letter from
the intervener, the property owner's attorney, that came in on Friday,
which wasn't seven days in advance either.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, we can go through the
procedural, or you can present your case. You've got the hour. It's
however you want to do it.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. I can move on then.
Just note for the record that some of those things weren't in within
the time frames.
What had happened in this case, as you probably are familiar,
with the Cocohatchee development, there was a settlement agreement,
and that settlement agreement was recorded in the official records of
the county. In OR Book Page 4368, Page 2346, it states that the
settlement shall be contingent upon three Site Development Plans,
SDP, that Lodge has submitted being approved by the county. It lists
July 11, 2017
Page 151
these three SDPs specifically, and they identify them as AR5282,
AR5283, and AR5284. That's on Page 2 of the settlement agreement.
On Page 6 of the lengthy settlement agreement that's recorded, in
Paragraph 15, the final sentence says, this release shall be immediately
effective upon the county's approval of the SDPs in accordance with
the terms and conditions set forth in Paragraph 3 of the agreement and
release, which, again, is the paragraph that I just read to you. This
settlement is contingent upon these three Site Development Plans.
And on Page 7 of the settlement agreement, in Paragraph 21, it
states that this agreement and release may be amended only by a
written instrument specifically referring to this agreement and release
and executed with the same formalities as this agreement and release.
This agreement and release supersedes all prior discussions and
representations and contains all agreements of the parties.
As our expert will point out, AR5284, AR5283, AR5282 were
made part of the settlement agreement and included a site plan. The
SDP amendment that we're challenging reduces, administratively, the
setbacks between buildings. And there will be a better slide that shows
this more in detail, but there is a set in your packet.
Why is this important? Why does the public care? Why do we
have 93 individuals who have sought to appeal the administrative
determination by staff that the building setbacks can be reduced from
what was required, which is, you take Building 1 and Building 2 or
Building 2 and Building 3, you add those two buildings together, and
you take half that amount, and that is the separation.
So if you have a 200-foot building and a 200-foot building, you
add that together to get 400 feet, and you have a building separation
requirement of 200 feet.
There's a footnote that says if you skew the buildings and twist
them, you can reduce that, administratively. And as the expert will
point out, the reasons, the rationale, the intent of that is not to allow
July 11, 2017
Page 152
you to go down to zero. Staff's interpretation that there is no limit,
then, on building separation is not a rational, reasonable interpretation
of that requirement. In fact, as the expert will point out, when you're
skewing buildings, part of it will come closer and part of it will go
further away. Hence, you might have an average building separation
that's 200 feet, but some of it might be closer and some of it might be
further away.
In this case we have drastic, substantial reductions in building
separation. That affects everyone that views these buildings in
Wiggins Pass. It's not just people that are adjacent. These buildings
are 200-feet-plus tall. There's five buildings all stacked next to each
other, all parallel to the roadway, and it affects everyone that you'll see
on the map below you from the administrative appeals that have been
filed today.
We're going to get into a little more detail, but at this time I'd like
to introduce our expert, Brad Schiffer, and have him talk about his
qualifications and experience to serve as an expert in this case. And
although it is rather humble -- and many of you know who he is -- I'm
going to ask him to go through that in a bit of detail. Thank you.
MR. SCHIFFER: I guess -- is this working? Good.
He's asked me to read this, so -- I don't want to look like I'm
bragging. Obviously, my name's Bradley W. Schiffer. I'm a registered
architect in Florida, have been so since 1976. I practice in the firm
that's called Brad Schiffer Taxes. Taxes is a Greek term for balance
and proportion.
I've been an adjunct professor at Miami-Dade College. I'm a
member of the American Institute of Architects, a member of the
Florida Codes and Standards Advisory Council for them. I was their
president. I won honor awards.
Member of the National Fire Protection Association; a member of
two technical committees, chairman of one; member of the Building
July 11, 2017
Page 153
Officials Association of Florida. I'm currently appointed by the
Governor as a member of the Florida Building Commission and in
multiple work groups there.
For Collier County I've been a commissioner for -- planning
commissioner for 10 years, on the Building Board of Adjustment and
Appeals; worked on the architectural review standards, and
development services.
So do I --
MR. BROOKES: Go ahead.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. The first thing I'll learn how to do is
turn this on. Maybe this will work.
MR. OCHS: Hold it close, Brad.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Maybe this will work.
First thing, let's get into the building separations. In Collier, in
the LDC, this is how we determine buildings as they get taller. When
we get to our RMF6, 12, the BT districts, our base zoning allows taller
buildings. In those requirements, the separation is required to be
calculated by two times the building height divided in half so,
essentially, it becomes the building height. So what the requirement
really is is building a square of sky between the buildings.
So you can see, as the buildings grow, that square gets bigger and
then, ultimately, a large building like the one we have here gets rather
large.
In the development standards for this project, they did use that. It
starts out with the one-half times the sum of the building heights --
which is the same thing we saw -- divided by two, but it does add a
Footnote 3 where it says that the buildings with a common
architectural theme, are angled, skewed or offset, walls are not parallel,
can be administratively reduced.
Now, this is what the straight separation between the building
would be, the 200 feet, but this is what I think -- well, let's go through
July 11, 2017
Page 154
the requirements. Are the buildings common architectural theme?
They're identical so, of course, they are. Are they skewed or angled?
They are skewing them and angling them. Are the walls not parallel
with each other? Yes, they won't be. And is the administrative setback
available? Yes, it is.
But this is what I think it means. In other words, as you have --
our code wants these buildings separated so there's plenty of sky
between them, but if you rotate your buildings, you can see, as in the
sketch, that some of the dimensions are going to tighten up. So rather
than penalize people for making buildings much more interested (sic),
they allowed a reduction of the building. In this case this is what kind
of happened out there at the Kalea is they really reduced it quite a bit.
The staff is to allow for that administrative thing; it's stated that
it's a staff interpretation for decades that people have been allowed to
do this and reduce the separation. But, you know, we have a Land
Development Code. If we have regulations like this, we, you know,
should have them in the Land Development Code, not in some stealth
code that is available.
And then also, at the CCPC hearing, there was a great amount of
debate over this. The petitioner wanted to put in a requirement for 100
feet as small as they go. We voted unanimously to take that out
because we didn't want it to go that small. We left it to be what it's
shown on that plan. But they made an argument there is no
requirement; they could theoretically reduce it to zero.
There's been some justification that maybe this is cluster
development. You were looking at cluster development in the village
plans where you had out in the rural fringe where you're discussing
how to tighten buildings up and making clusters; that is cluster. I don't
believe high-rises meet that. When you get above the treetops, it
doesn't make sense.
And also, if you look at that ordinance that they're claiming this
July 11, 2017
Page 155
could be built under, the PUD would have to permit cluster
development, and this one does not.
They did give us some examples of where they thought this had
been used in the past. These appear to be Pelican Bay. The first one,
Water Park, is a tall building similar to ours, but it's not a separation
between buildings. It's a setback separation, and it's being reduced to
25 feet alongside parking lot for the tram. So this is a reduction for a
high-rise to move closer to a parking lot.
The other ones are -- the other ones are small cluster
developments, low-rise buildings. You can see the numbers are small.
They're not the situation like this. And Kalea Bay is the last one,
which they're reducing up to 50 percent.
In the review of this, you could see this was a comment that was
made that Building 2 looks like it's not skewed enough, so what they're
advising the people to do to skew it and -- otherwise, you're going to
have to make the 200 feet.
And the reason I think that's important -- because the requirement
for the distance separation is for the community to have sky between
these buildings. It's not a little game on twisting the angle and reading
the definition.
It says -- the comment is, please provide the location and
arrangement of all proposed buildings, including the existing buildings
that are to remain. Building 2 should be skewed more so as to not
appear to be parallel to Building 1. If this is to remain aligned with
Building 1, then it must meet the setbacks established in the PUD.
And, again, the reason we have building separations is to put sky
between buildings so we're not closing down.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question of you. Who -- what
statement -- who wrote that?
MR. SCHIFFER: This is in the review of the PUD --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So it's staff.
July 11, 2017
Page 156
MR. SCHIFFER: -- the one that we're appealing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Collier County staff.
MR. SCHIFFER: The staff wrote it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. SCHIFFER: It's a comment, in zoning.
Okay. This is what we have out there now. This is -- on the right
is the Tower 1 which, by the way, you know, we, in the settlement
agreement, had 160 feet away. It's now 106 feet away.
Next to that is Aqua. So what I would like you to imagine here is
if you put a building size of Tower 1 where Aqua is, that's the 200-foot
that's required.
But imagine, if you can, you know, if you cut half of that sky
view down, that's what we're talking about getting in this design.
MR. BROOKES: What is the difference, Brad -- the distance
between those two buildings total, not just to their lot lines?
MR. SCHIFFER: I'd say 206 feet. There's some twisting, so --
but I do know they moved it to 200 -- 106 and the other one's 100, so...
Okay. The next issue is building width. Now, one problem we
had -- this is a study of the settlement agreement, and then the second
phrase is that -- the buildings we looked it at at the settlement -- and
when I say "we looked at," when I was on the Planning Commission --
were 260 feet wide. These buildings today are 310. So, essentially, by
increasing the buildings 20 percent, they added to this site the width of
an additional building.
Obviously, you can see in the study with the numbers that it's
pinched the amount of open space available. And, again, we're
fighting to get the clearance between the buildings and then making the
buildings 20 percent fatter, and the width didn't help that. And the
reason they're fatter is that there's -- you know, they're now
four-bedroom. They were three-bedroom. They're enhancements to
the building.
July 11, 2017
Page 157
This is the buildings that we looked at at the Planning
Commission. I darkened in the tower part. This is where we had then,
and --
MR. BROOKES: That's the settlement agreement?
MR. SCHIFFER: With the settlement agreement -- and this is
what we have now.
MR. BROOKES: Show it again.
MR. SCHIFFER: Make a movie of this.
Okay. Building height is another issue. And we'll elaborate on
these as we go.
This is the height that was allowed for the building. It's 20
stories, 200 feet. That's what's allowed for the tower part of the
building. It is up in the air. In Collier we do allow a couple levels of
parking and stuff like that. That's not a problem there.
But what they kind of did is -- it's not exactly perfect. They
blurred it a little bit. They did put a residential unit on the parking
garage. I'm not going to dance with that much. But up at the top they
did add an additional story to the roof of the building. You can see a
kind of cartoon that they have an infinity pool. They raised the roof
deck up another five feet, or built on top of the roof deck five feet, and
then there's some habitable space up there, so they've essentially --
MR. BROOKES: What is that?
MR. SCHIFFER: The habitable space is bathrooms and some
large elevator lobbies and things, stuff that would classify it as a story
in the Building Code and our Land Development Code.
There is a thing in the Building Code where there's some
argument about the measuring of the building height is the first --
measured from the first habitable floor level to the uppermost ceiling.
In this case the uppermost ceiling is going to be in the structure, is
going to be those rooftop structures.
This is a staff clarification done in 2004. It's, essentially,
July 11, 2017
Page 158
discussing that we do allow accessory uses on the roof so long as they
don't generate a visual effect increasing the building height. Well, this,
you go up to five feet, 10 feet that's added, the visual height of another
story. And it does refer to unenclosed, unroofed, un-air-conditioned
space for recreation use which is -- the pool is okay. There are running
tracks, machines out there. But it also says the swimming pool are
(sic) not to be raised above the rooftop level. So a little problem there
maybe.
But the important thing is that none of that stuff can be air
conditioned or consist of air-conditioning, both codes. The Building
Code and our own code based on this would generate this to be a new
story.
One thing, just be a little careful. They use in the executive report
"habitable space" out of the building code. And in our Land
Development Code we call everything habitable space. We don't have
a definition for it. We don't break it down. In the Building Code it's
different. Occupiable space is everything, and habitable space is a
subset of that, which is the dwelling unit.
So when they try to equate it with the habitable space, it should
really be the occupiable space from the Building Code. And that is
me.
MR. BROOKES: You just stay at this microphone, and I'll move
to the other microphone because I have some questions. Or we'll
share. Why don't you give me this one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Before he goes away, can I ask
Brad a quick question?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Please do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Brad?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you mind going back on
your slides? Because I've heard some comments about the site plan
July 11, 2017
Page 159
per the settlement agreement and what's actually being proposed. Can
you go back to those two and just clarify that for me again, per the
settlement agreement.
MR. SCHIFFER: The settlement with this 206-feet-wide
buildings, and wider separations, which are in that chart, and then this
is the other one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the building -- and the
separation between this site plan.
MR. SCHIFFER: Let me see if it's -- it's this chart here. You can
see in the settlement there was -- and in the separation, I'm not
counting to the property line. So excluding the setbacks to the
property line, these are within the buildings. In other words, there's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Side to side.
MR. SCHIFFER: -- four numbers, right. There's five buildings.
These are the four numbers between them.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MR. SCHIFFER: You done?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: Can you go back to the site plans. Are there
parking garages, and could you show us --
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. The parking garages --
MR. BROOKES: You could probably point on this one here
because the other one you can't point to.
MR. SCHIFFER: The tower would be this part of this here, and
the parking garages do stick out beneath them.
MR. BROOKES: Do those parking garages add also to the mass
or scale of the entire structures?
MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, yes, they could, but, you know, in a
design of a building like this, they're two story. They're down low.
They're affecting the ground plane. They're not up in the sky.
I mean, the concerns we're having with distance between
July 11, 2017
Page 160
buildings is the limitation to get sky view. Parking garages, they can
be landscaped, buried in trees and, like a true cluster development, you
won't be affected by them.
MR. BROOKES: Has the applicant submitted a mass rendering
what the buildings would look like?
MR. SCHIFFER: I've never seen one.
MR. BROOKES: Is this what you would call a mass rendering?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think, you know, with architecture
today, we do everything in 3D modeling. It's very easy for us to
provide massing models of our projects, which the Commission, I
think -- if I was on the Planning Commission again, I would start
wondering whether that wouldn't be a good requirement to --
MR. BROOKES: And would this, typically -- in this particular
one it shows shading of the buildings?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, it does.
MR. BROOKES: And then this one doesn't show shading but
shows some separations between the buildings?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes.
MR. BROOKES: And these separation distances, 109, 165, 100
feet, and 100 feet, those were the distances that this SDP amendment
would have been, correct?
MR. SCHIFFER: That is right.
MR. BROOKES: If a public hearing were held on the changes,
would those renderings and mass drawings all be reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners?
MR. SCHIFFER: If they existed. I don't know if there's a
requirement to create a mass model in Collier County.
MR. BROOKES: With regard to the guest units, do you have an
opinion about whether or not these guest units would qualify as a
dwelling unit?
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, in the building code, a kitchen would
July 11, 2017
Page 161
qualify it as a dwelling unit.
MR. BROOKES: Do these cottages have kitchens?
MR. SCHIFFER: I see wording that says mini kitchen. I don't
know what a mini kitchen is.
MR. BROOKES: And those are on the plans that were submitted
that you reviewed?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, they're on the plan.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. Have you had time to review the staff
recommendations in the executive summary, the staff responses?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, I did.
MR. BROOKES: I'm going to hand you a copy of the executive
summary. What is your reply to the staff response with regard to the
building separation that begins on Page 2? Actually, Page 3. You may
have covered some of this in your PowerPoint, but if you could talk
about it again.
MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean what you're -- it sounds like
you're showing that these were the existing separations. Oh, the staff
response. I'm sorry.
Yeah. I mean, the comment on the fact that there's no limit to the
reduction of the separation, I mean, we have a requirement to have
distance between buildings. You can't just twist the building and then,
poof, the requirement goes away.
So I certainly think what would happen is that this would be left
to staff to analyze why there was a reduction, what the reduction is
doing, looking at how much reduction, and then making a decision not
using a decades-old method which, again, is a stealth-code issue.
There shouldn't be stealth codes. And then --
MR. BROOKES: Would that interpretation, in fact, swallow the
entirety of the rule?
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, that's what they're trying to say. Even in
the CCP (sic) hearing -- and I remember this conversation, and it
July 11, 2017
Page 162
wasn't impressive -- but that there were -- making the case that once
you twist it, there's no limits; that there is absolutely no limitation for
the reduction. I mean, there is one when it bumps into the other
building. That would be the limit.
But, no, I wouldn't agree with that. And I think it kind of
ridicules the availability that the administration has to allow people to
do things like twist the building.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for you. I
have some legal issues to bring up.
The PUD for this project lists the guest suites as a principal use.
It doesn't say they're accessory uses. It says they are a principal use
under the uses permitted. The plans show that there is a dedicated
mini kitchen area which would then make it qualify as a dwelling unit.
We believe that these changes should be reviewed at a public hearing
along with the building width and the building-separation
requirements.
We don't believe that the plans meet the height definition or the
height limitation because of the enclosed air-conditioned space that
was discussed by the expert, and it fails on that account.
We would like to point out a few quotes from some of the
discussions that have occurred earlier in this project. March 24th,
2005, Commissioner Hiller asked Mr. Richard Grant, who was the
attorney for the applicant at that time, about whether or not they could
move the buildings. And Mr. Grant replied, there might be some
tweaking of the configuration.
Commissioner Hiller said, well, I don't have a problem with
something like that. What I have a problem with is that there will be a
material shift in the location of any of these buildings other than as
been approved now.
And Mr. Grant again said, well, you know, if you're talking about
something, a broad stroke like that, perhaps. And he said, yes, there
July 11, 2017
Page 163
are approved SDPs, but that doesn't mean they couldn't tweak the
locations of those buildings a little bit or the shape of them a little bit.
The problem we have here today is we're not tweaking them a
little bit. We're going from 200 feet to substantially, you know, much
less; 50 percent. And you'll see in the staff report the distances that
they're going to. They're going from distances that go all the way
down to 100 feet in separation.
At Planning Commission meetings in December 18th, 2014, they
talked about the SDPs as part of the settlement agreement. And
Chairman Strain said, I have copies of the SDPs. They are approved
for all phases of the high-rise buildings, and they are actually part of
the settlement agreement document that is locking in or lock -- that is
the other locking document in this.
Commissioner Roman said, so everything on the west side of
Vanderbilt Road is locked in? Is this what I'm hearing from what
you've said?
And Chairman Strain said, yes. They've got valid SPDs issued. I
mean, their position undoubtedly would be, they've got an approved
permit to go forward, and that's what they would be able to do.
Commissioner Roman said, it seems that everything on the west
side of Vanderbilt Road is what I'm hearing so far is already moving
along so far ahead that it basically has been locked in with Site
Development Plans and permitting and everything. And so what they
were talking about there was then the east side of the parcel.
Now, what we're saying is, if you're going to reach a settlement
agreement and you have SDPs that are a part of, incorporated, and
referenced and the whole settlement agreement is contingent upon
approval of those three SDPs and the settlement agreement says that
any changes to the settlement agreement have to have the same
formalities -- which may sound like the word formalities (sic) -- but
that's something that's very important to the public. That's the public's
July 11, 2017
Page 164
notice, opportunity to be heard; that's the due-process rights of the
public, but it's also something that's very important to you, because this
gives you, as county commissioners, elected officials, the ability to
review changes that are substantial, that are major, that are not minor
changes.
Right now these didn't come to you. They were done by staff.
We're asking that you have a public hearing on these changes, that you
do not allow the deviations to be this significant; that you hold them to
two times the building divided by two and these settlement agreement
SDP building separations; and that you not allow staff to make these
changes in this project and that you be aware of these in future
projects.
We also recommend that you should stop this from happening in
the future. This stealth code where building separation is no longer a
requirement if you simply tweak the building and twist it makes no
sense. It's not rational. There's no meaningful and predictable standard
guiding development if you simply are saying you can rotate a building
and go from 200 feet down to 100 feet.
So these are things that should be addressed in the future, but we
are asking you to address them in this project now and stop this
happening, from going forward.
Just because other projects have done this in the past
administratively doesn't mean it's correct and doesn't mean it's correct
for this project, and it doesn't mean that you will not raise problems in
the future.
In 2008, County Attorney Klatzkow raised this as an issue. There
-- there was a big discussion about, well, if you skew the buildings,
does that mean there is, effectively, no limit, and certainly that's not a
reasonable or a rational interpretation and one that lacks meaningful
and predictable standards and criteria, and it vests unbridled discretion
in your planning staff to make those decisions when you've already
July 11, 2017
Page 165
made those decisions and locked them in in a settlement agreement.
To allow them to depart from the settlement agreement/Site
Development Plan without coming back for a public hearing is the
issue that we're talking about. And we think it deserves a public
hearing and that these things shouldn't be done outside the Sunshine
after the public hearing is closed.
We did raise some additional issues and, admittedly, they haven't
yet. We're raising them now to bring them to your attention. When
the CO is issued for Building 1, restrictive covenants must be placed
on one-fifth of the golf course. That hasn't happened yet. We admit
that's premature. We're letting you know that now so staff doesn't
administratively change or administratively forget to record those
restrictive covenants.
We're also asking that you ensure that the 10-foot sidewalk is in
place in uniform before the Building 1 CO is issued, which probably
will happen within a matter of months. That building is almost
completed.
We're worried that staff will forget about that or deviate from that
10-foot requirement for a uniform sidewalk in that location.
We thank you for your time. These are very important issues, not
just with regard to this project, but with the administration of county
government in land use and zoning practices in Collier County.
We have some administrative appellants who are here. They
would like to come up and speak now. We have Judi Palay and Diane
Rupnow who are going to take one microphone on each side and do a
little back and forth. They have been a team on this project and they
have, together, a presentation.
And than former Commissioner Halas will be also speaking, as
well as any other people that are listed under the administrative appeal.
This will give you a little bit more than three minutes. So if you
come up now, we appreciate it. Thank you.
July 11, 2017
Page 166
MS. RUPNOW: I just wanted to point out that the chart that you
see in front of this podium --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Could you identify yourself, please,
just for the record.
MS. RUPNOW: I'm Diane Rupnow, R-u-p-n-o-w.
And I was pointing out that chart you see shows where all the
appellants live. It shows the 12 different neighborhoods where the 93
appellants live. That's why we brought that.
Judi?
MS. PALAY: My name is Judi Palay, one of the appellants in
this administrative appeal.
MS. RUPNOW: And I'm Diane Rupnow, another appellant on a
committee organized to communicate with our Cocohatchee Bay
neighbors.
Our goal was and is to maintain the integrity of our residential
neighborhood. We represent 93 appellants from those 12
communities.
MS. PALAY: We bought here to enjoy the green space, beautiful
sunsets, and peacefulness. We were told or read about the settlement
agreement when it was approved.
MS. RUPNOW: In 2015, after the developer tried to break his
agreement by putting houses on the east parcel, we came to you, our
commissioners, and we asked you to please uphold the agreement and
not amend the PUD, and you agreed.
MS. PALAY: There is precedence for you in this instance as
well. The settlement agreement must be enforced. It is a bond
between you and your constituents, not just our Cocohatchee Bay
neighborhood, but all of Collier County.
MS. RUPNOW: Judi and I met with each of you individually to
inform you that the settlement agreement had been breached. Building
1 was up 20 percent wider than the approved SDP in the settlement
July 11, 2017
Page 167
agreement.
MS. PALAY: And if that could happen with Building 1, well,
there were four more buildings after that. Your hands were tied, you
told us, until the amended site plans were approved. After that we
could file an appeal.
MS. RUPNOW: We did not want to have this contentious
confrontation. We wanted to get this resolved quietly without you
feeling threatened by lawsuits. Your staff made significant changes to
SDPs that they had no authority to make, and these were not minor
tweaks but major adjustments.
MS. PALAY: The first building that is up looks like an office
building. It is not compatible with the surrounding architecture.
MS. RUPNOW: If you reject our appeal, the message to
developers in Collier County is that they can build as high and as wide
and as close together as they want to. All of this because of a
misinterpretation of a footnote.
Quoting Planning Commissioner Donna Caron at the 25th of
February 2008 CCPC meeting, she said, it absolutely defies credulity
on the part of both staff and the petitioner that that asterisk in the
Development Standards Table means that 251-foot buildings can
essentially be built with zero lot lines.
MS. PALAY: The settlement agreement states that this
agreement may be amended only by a written instrument specifically
referring to this agreement and executed with the same formalities. If
you reject our appeal, you allow changes to the SDPs that are part of
the settlement agreement.
This developer will get his millions out and leave our county not
better than it was before. If you do not support this appeal, it will
forever be a monument to his threats and those of staff. It will be a
betrayal to us, to the public trust.
MS. RUPNOW: We, the appellants, are asking you again to
July 11, 2017
Page 168
uphold the settlement agreement and to protect the integrity of our
community. Thank you.
MS. PALAY: Thank you.
MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Frank Halas,
commissioner of District 2 emeritus.
I spent eight or 10 years on the Board -- or eight years on the
board here, and I never thought that I would be back here nine years
later trying to assist the residents in District 2, especially along
Vanderbilt Beach Road in regards to what's taking place.
We spent many hours on the Board of Commissioners hassling
with this and, of course, the Planning Commission spent many, many
hours also, coming up with an agreement that the citizens and staff and
everyone else, the developer, was in agreement with.
Here we are today. I'm dumbfounded to find out or to understand
how a building or buildings that were 260 feet have now morphed to
310 feet. Somebody's used a lot of fertilizer on these buildings.
And the other thing is, we -- I was under the impression on April
-- first of all, we had this come before the Board of County
Commissioners for a settlement on this agreement, I believe, in March.
In fact, it was about March 25th. At that time, the SDPs were finally
presented and none of us had enough time to study them. It was on the
summary agenda. I had pulled them off the summary agenda so that
we all had enough time to get an understanding of exactly what all
these three SDPs were about.
On March 21st, the day before the final meeting on this, it was
put back on the summary agenda, but I asked staff, the legal
department and Community Development, if this was all locked and
loaded and ready to go. They assured me it was and that this was
going to be cast in stone. And here we are today discussing this
problem where the constituency of District 2 is looking at this and I,
myself, am looking at this saying that I feel that staff is -- it's almost --
July 11, 2017
Page 169
I look at this almost as a dereliction of duty to the citizens of Collier
County and that we must make sure that we uphold the agreements that
people agree to on all sides.
Thank you very much for your time.
MS. BARTON: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Barton, and
I am on your list of appellants. I'm actually reading a letter from
Donna Reed Caron, former commissioner, and I totally agree with this
letter. This is a letter dated July 7th, 2017.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. I was hoping to be able to
speak at the upcoming July 11th, 2017, hearing but am out of town and
unable to attend. I've already sent each of you a written statement. So
in an effort not to be repetitive, let's look at the issue from the
perspective. Collier County codes are a set of permissions. If it is not
stated and approved as permitted, you are not allowed to do it.
For issues are of concern to citizens as of this date. The CCPC
and the BCC were told that the original SDPs had to be approved as
reviewed by staff and submitted by the petitioner for the settlement to
be finalized. And staff changes should be insubstantial, internal, and
not noticeable to the public. Hence, it stands to reason that the
building should not be allowed to morph in width from 260 feet to 310
feet without specific permission. This increase could potentially be
granted but only by seeking a PUD Growth Management Plan and not
by mere staff action.
The same concept of permissions is what allows special
exceptions such as Footnote No. 3; however, at the recommendation of
the CCPC and the approval of the Board's final action, that permission
was limited to separations, quote, not less than those shown on the
SDPs reviewed by the CCPC, end quote.
Additionally, the maximum land use intensity is for 590 units.
Permanent principal uses for those units are specifically stated in the
PUD and listed as multiple family dwellings, guest suites, and cabanas.
July 11, 2017
Page 170
Guest suites and cabanas are not listed in the accessory section of the
PUD. And even though the issue may have been discussed in January
2008, that is not the way the final PUD was written.
So it is -- so if there are four buildings of 120 units each and one
building with 102 units and 12 guest suites, then the developer is
already at 594 units. Staff has no authority to allow this increase.
Finally to the height issue. Staff is well aware that the increases
in height was attempted in Building 1 by enclosing accessory
structures on the roof level. To say otherwise is simply disingenuous,
and citizens have every right to request Board action to prevent any
future attempts.
The changes requested by citizens are reasonable and proper.
They should be upheld by the Board. Thank you for your time and
consideration. And I thank you as well.
MR. BROOKES: Any other administrative appellants who are on
the list?
MR. MILLER: Fourteen minutes remaining on this hour.
MR. FEE: How do I find the desktop? Is there a mouse? I had a
folder that I had Troy put on the --
MR. OCHS: He's finding it, Doug. Doug?
MR. MILLER: Stop moving the mouse. I'll get it for you. There
you go, sir.
MR. FEE: You got it. Thank you, Troy.
MR. MILLER: You're welcome.
MR. FEE: For the record, my name is Doug Fee, and I am an
appellant to this appeal.
And, specifically, you have issued a permit for the final Site
Development Plan for Kalea Bay, Phase 2 through 6. And on Page 2 it
says, all PUD-related stipulations shall apply to this project.
In the PUD document, 2.9, general permitted uses, in No. 8 it
says, landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape
July 11, 2017
Page 171
buffers, berms, fences, and walls, which shall be in accordance with
the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time
permits are requested unless otherwise specified herein.
In another paragraph it says, standards: For parking, landscaping,
signs, and other land uses where such standards are not specified
herein are to be in accordance with the Collier County Land
Development Code in effect at the time of the Site Development Plan.
In fact, those are duplicate statements. That's in the ordinance.
Underneath landscaping requirements in 2.12 of the ordinance
which, of course, is incorporated in the settlement agreement,
specifically it says, a perimeter berm shall be constructed in
conformance with Section 2.4.4 of the Land Development Code.
One, trees and shrubs shall be planted along the base of the berm
so as to visually soften the appearance of the side of the berm.
Two, ground cover on the side of the berm shall form a dense,
attractive mat and shall not require mowing.
Three and four are about the vegetation species, and in B of this
section, a minimum landscape area of 35 feet shall be developed along
Vanderbilt Drive frontage. Said landscape buffer on the west side of
Vanderbilt Drive shall include development features that impede the
view of high-rise residential structures from Vanderbilt Drive.
I raise this issue in this appeal for the very fact that back in March
and April when the public came to you to speak on this matter, you
said you would have your day in front of the Board of County
Commission. So I want to raise this in front of you -- and I don't know
how to stop these. But anyways, these pictures that are -- these are of
the berm in front of the high-rise. In fact, the sea grape that is on top
of the berm is about five feet. And as you can see, this is the first
house -- how do I stop this?
MR. MILLER: Hold on a second.
MR. FEE: I don't want it to shuffle. Okay. This right here is
July 11, 2017
Page 172
Audubon up the street. And Vanderbilt Drive is a very nice
neighborhood. And, fortunately, we have a lot of berms and a lot of
landscape that fronts Vanderbilt Drive. In fact, in most of the
communities, you cannot even see the units that are on the other side.
Audubon here has a berm. If I can get to the next picture.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. FEE: This is Kalea Bay. I'm in support of this appeal
because I was in my 30s back in 2000. I'm now 54, okay. I suspect
I'm going to be 65 and retired before this development is all decided.
We, the community, have been involved with this for a long time. I
know it's going to be a good project, but there were a lot of words that
were stated in these meetings, and there have been 50 meetings
including all of what Mr. Halas said.
Words do matter. And you represent us. You protect the public.
And I appreciate so many times when I'm sitting in the audience, and
you'll have a woman who comes to the podium and tells you that
there's a road that's going to curve next to my house 10 feet away, and
you find a way to protect her.
So in this case we have a skyline that -- we were willing to give
up our sky for these buildings and for the green space that was part of
the plan. But there's a way to hide these buildings, and I don't believe
the developer is doing that. They have put in minimum landscaping.
I have an email from Mr. McKinney (sic), an engineer, who I
questioned, and he said, well, they've met the requirement. It's the
minimum. I don't believe it's the minimum. They're mowing. It
should be dense. If you go up and down Vanderbilt Drive, in fact,
there are many communities that has (sic) great landscape buffers.
And I'm not against development. I live in the neighborhood, but
this is 20 stories tall, and it's all in a row.
So anyways, I'll cut my comments just to say that please stand by
the original 200 feet between the buildings. This is important for all of
July 11, 2017
Page 173
Collier County.
Informally, I went to the Collier County appraiser and I looked at
the setbacks between high-rises all the way down the coast. Generally
speaking, about 250 all the way through Pelican Bay, Park Shore.
These are going to be 100. That is not protecting the neighborhood.
And if you do something and you approve it, which I hope you don't,
please have them do something with the berm. They need to -- they
need to put more landscaping.
Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: Joe Wood or David Cressy.
MR. CRESSY: My name is David Cressy. I am one of the
appellants. As you know, Lodge Abbott Associates, the
mega-developer of Kalea Bay towers, has, once again, twisted Collier
County's development codes beyond the breaking point.
Not satisfied with the 2008 settlement agreement and the
attendant Site Development Plans that the developer and the Board of
County Commissioners agreed upon, the developer went back to the
Planning Department and requested and received approval to
dramatically change the footprint and the appearance of Kalea Bay.
My wife and I live in the neighborhood. We walk past Kalea Bay
virtually every day during our mourning exercise. Every time we head
south from our home, we drive past this development. It matters to us.
In my opinion, Building 1 itself is a monstrosity, architecturally ugly,
and out of character with everything in our neighborhood. It towers far
above everything in the vicinity. Its face to Vanderbilt Drive is blunt
and unadorned. When Buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5 are completed, we face
more of the same.
The original plan, approved in 2008, called for buildings that
were to be 260 feet wide and about 200 feet tall but that the gaps
between them would be approximately that same 200 feet. The
developer, with the assistance of the county staff, has now been
July 11, 2017
Page 174
permitted, subject to this appeal, the right to build a nearly solid wall of
concrete some 226 feet high and over 2,000 feet in length with just
four narrow openings; condo canyons of between 100 and 150 feet.
This is the result of the expansion of the width of those buildings from
260 feet to 310 feet and, as been said, approximately 20 percent
increase, the equivalent of a sixth building.
They have narrowed the distance between the building through a
completely ludicrous interpretation of the so-called Footnote 3 to as
little as 100 feet instead of the code-required 200 feet. At ground
level, because of the wider garage levels, the distance becomes as little
as 72 feet.
Our neighborhood is being destroyed for the sake of profit. Our
sunsets are to be lost to the shadow of this 2,000-foot-long wall. We
ask you, members of the County Commission, to require strict
adherence to the 2008 agreement, an agreement that clearly delineates
the rights and responsibilities of both parties. It was intended to be an
ending point, not a starting point for this developer to make any
modification he chooses.
Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: I'm not sure Joe Wood is here. Is Joe Wood
here? Joe, please.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Miller, how much time is left?
MR. MILLER: We have three minutes and 12 seconds.
MR. BROOKES: While Joe's walking up, I wanted to point out I
also practice in Sarasota, and Sarasota is having a problem with
zero-lot-line developments in its downtown. One of them's called The
View. It's very controversial. There's a citizens' movement now, an
organization, but they're too late. All the buildings are already
approved. All the buildings are already built.
You're not too late in this instance. You still have time to draw
these buildings back and send them back to the drawing board.
July 11, 2017
Page 175
Go ahead, Joe.
MR. WOOD: Hello. My name is Joe Wood, and I live on
Mainsail Place in Tarpon Cove, and I'm president of the Cayman
Homeowners Association. My property abuts the Lodge Abbott
proposed golf course.
In 2008, I supported Frank Halas with his negotiation of the 2008
Cocohatchee Bay settlement plan. In 2015, many of us were here in
this room opposing the re-opening and modification of that same
settlement. It was not reopened.
Today I stand before you and again ask you to stick by the 2008
settlement and not re-open it or allow any changes. Negotiations that
-- resulted in Lodge Abbott receiving many benefits for their
properties. Now it is shameful that they should push for more.
Thank you. I made it within my three minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: Just one final comment. As he points out, the
prior request to amend the settlement agreement was denied. That
might be one reason why the applicant didn't want to come back again.
They could face a denial. But to go to staff and get it approved by staff
as an administrative deviation is not an alternative, because it doesn't
allow a public hearing and notice for public comment.
These citizens tried to come to you and speak on this issue. They
were told they couldn't do that; that they had to file this appeal. There
was a substantial filing fee for that. The codes are written basically for
developers who get denied to be able to appeal that denial and do the
approval. They stand to profit from their projects. They're used to
paying these fees.
We would ask in this instance, when it's filed by citizens and their
neighborhood protection interest, this you could reimburse the fee or
return the fee. That has happened on occasions in other jurisdictions.
Thank you very much.
July 11, 2017
Page 176
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have some questions, Mr. Brookes.
MR. BROOKES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: In your opinion, what is the
overarching document that rules this whole transaction? The
settlement agreement? The site plans? The PUD? Which is it?
MR. BROOKES: The settlement agreement, which incorporates,
by reference, these three SDPs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And can -- and in your opinion, can
SDPs be changed?
MR. BROOKES: Well, I believe, in my opinion and my
interpretation, although I'm not a planner, but in our expert architect
and planner's interpretation, you could reduce the building separation
slightly. If you were to, as he showed in his slide, twist the buildings
slightly, one corner would come closer, one corner would go further
away. It might still be an average of 200 feet. It may be only a few
feet here and there difference. But simply to go from 200 to 100 feet is
too major and too substantial to be done by staff without coming back
to this board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where does the PUD fit in in all of this
in terms of the hierarchy of the documents?
MR. BROOKES: Well, the PUD is the zoning category that you
have, and the SDPs are Site Development Plans. The settlement
agreement adopted both -- by reference both the PUD and the Site
Development Plans, as you see in Paragraph 3, 15, and 21 that I read
earlier.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The Zoning Director, may ask -- may
ask questions of Mr. Brookes, if you have any questions, for 10
minutes.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair.
Within the display, Mr. Brookes, that you put up of the original
settlement agreement, was the 200-foot separation provided for within
July 11, 2017
Page 177
the building separations?
MR. BROOKES: I'm going to have to defer to my expert
planner, because I'm not an expert. I can't answer those kinds of
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You need a mic, sir. Maybe go --
MR. BROOKES: You can refer to any documents you want to
look at.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Brookes, you can -- you certainly
can go to this mic over here, sir.
MR. SCHIFFER: Mike, if you asked in this settlement agreement
--
MR. BOSI: In the settlement agreement, was the 200-foot
provided for within those SDPs?
MR. SCHIFFER: No, it was not.
MR. BOSI: What was the building separation that was provided
for?
MR. SCHIFFER: You would have to go back to that chart I
provided, and you would see the ones that were provided. Hold on.
The chart there. No, it's this one. Do you want me to find it in the
PowerPoint or --
MR. BOSI: So within the settlement agreement, there was one --
you're contesting that 200 feet should have been provided. Within the
settlement agreement SDP, one of the building separations was 126
feet. Is that the minimum that the common architectural theme would
allow you to go to, the 126 feet?
MR. SCHIFFER: When the Planning Commission was
reviewing this -- and we really honestly thought that the reason we
were reviewing these SDPs is they were going to be locked down for
this project. We never before, never since, the 10 years I was on,
reviewed SDPs. But I was fighting to get it to be wider. We finally
had to give up on the fact that they would not be less than the numbers
July 11, 2017
Page 178
shown.
MR. BOSI: Than the 126 feet? Because I've heard the testimony
that 100 feet was an egregious standard to be held against 200 feet, but
the 126 was not?
MR. SCHIFFER: And that was because it really inherited from
the prior PUD. In other words, we really battled that out, but the -- I
mean, and I was the one that had to accept that, that we had to live with
the old numbers.
MR. BOSI: And, thank you, Mr. Schiffer.
In review of the minutes from July and January 11th of 2008, you
can see that this was excessively discussed, and staff did -- I think they
even put up the quote from Mr. Ross Gochenaur of the Land
Development Code Services who said, based upon the plain reading of
the language -- of the provision, that it's unlimited. There is no
limitation to this separation.
That was an item that was recognized by the Planning
Commission, and it was actually put forward in the report to the Board
of County Commissioners, and that issue was never acted upon upon
the final adoption.
The other question I would have for the appellant is, do you know
when the settlement agreement was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners?
MS. RUPNOW: June 9th, 2008.
MR. HALAS: June 9th --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have to be on the -- you have to be
on the --
MR. HALAS: -- 2008.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One person has to speak and has to be
on the mic.
MR. HALL: I think it was June 9th, 2008.
MR. SCHIFFER: From Frank Halas in the audience, June 9th
July 11, 2017
Page 179
from 2008.
MR. BOSI: That's all the questions I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And the affected property
owners' representative, do you have any questions of the appellant?
MS. ENGLISH: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The answer is no.
All right. Now we have the staff presenting its case. Limit time
is one hour.
MR. BOSI: Can I -- there was two photos I had open, I think,
Troy.
Again, my name is Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. I'm
here to present the staff's perspective in terms of how we went about to
review the SDP that's currently under appeal.
I think it's important to understand what was presented to the
county in the appeal application. There's four points, and I think
they've highlighted it. It's building separation, the administrative
reduction of building separation, the administrative increase in
building width, the administrative approval of additional dwelling
units, the administrative increase in overall building height, and
contesting that all these actions were made without a public hearing
and without providing a procedural due process notice opportunity for
adversely-affected third parties, including appellants and the public to
be heard.
Staff's contention is the settlement agreement and the PUD are the
guiding documents as well as the Bald Eagle Management Plan, are
the guiding documents in terms of what we've reviewed these Site
Development Plans against. And staff believes that the actions or the
review was in accordance with that Site Development Plan -- or the
settlement agreement as well as the PUD.
Just to give you an overview of the perspective of the area, the
high-rise buildings that sit to the west are on the left-hand side, and the
July 11, 2017
Page 180
golf course or the passive park is over onto the right-hand side.
This will give you a better visualization of the next -- this is the
original SDPs that were referenced in the agreement. And you can see
on the separations are provided 341, 129, 126, and 153 with the
setback of 166 from the south property line. And this was the general
location of where the buildings were -- the towers were going to be
located. And you contrast that against the amended SDP.
And the reductions within the setbacks and within the separations
are noted, and the increase within the building width are provided for.
And this is the contestant (sic) of the applicant's case. They believe
that the SDPs could not be amended per the settlement agreement or
per the PUD.
Staff simply cannot find a provision in the settlement agreement
or the PUD or the general practice of Collier County Government
towards where these SDPs could not be amended.
As I said, we're going to take these issues on an individual basis.
But the first two are intertwined together. It's the administrative
reduction in building separation and administrative increase in building
width. As neither the settlement agreement nor the amended PUD
prevent the SDPs from being amended nor that the amendment process
requires a public hearing or public notice.
So in those statements of a procedural violation, staff feels that
we followed the process that was dictated to us through the settlement
agreement and the PUD.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, before you leave that, I think
what I heard is they said that the -- it is the degree of amendment that
is in question.
MR. BOSI: The degree of amendment. And as I -- and my
contestment (sic) there is no -- whether it be all or nothing, there's
nothing that would prevent an amendment to the Site Development
Plans. And it doesn't -- you could amend the Site Development Plan
July 11, 2017
Page 181
within the boundaries of the settlement agreement and the PUD, and
there's nothing that -- in both of those documents that would prevent or
lock in those SDPs, those original SDPs.
And I think what we need to do is put our focus upon the
settlement agreement, and I think that provides clear direction. And if
you read the second paragraph to the settlement agreement -- and this
is very important. The settlement documents will consist of the
original PUD Ordinance No. 2000-88, Exhibit 1, the amended PUD,
the revised Bald Eagle Management Plan for the amended PUD, a
phasing diagram entitled Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course Exhibits and a
pathway depiction.
From review of that, I see nothing in reference to a settlement
agreement, or I see nothing in reference to an SDP.
The settlement agreement consists of the original PUD, the
amended PUD, the settlement agreement, the Bald Eagle Management
Plan, and the Cocohatchee Bay Golf Course exhibit, pathway
depiction.
This agreement or release expressly states the applicable
deviations and development standards from the original PUD. Absent
express terms in this agreement and release, the original PUD will
control.
Further, on the third -- or on the next paragraph within the
settlement agreement, the settlement agreement shall be contingent
upon three site development plans that Lodge has submitted being
approved with the county in accordance with the rules and regulations
of the county as well as the development standards set forth in the
original PUD.
Within general purpose county government, if you have an SDP
and you seek to -- and you want to amend that SDP, you have the right.
You have the procedural due-process right to amend that SDP, but you
can only do it within the confines of the regulatory guidance that's
July 11, 2017
Page 182
provided within the LDC or a PUD if it's subject to such.
Further, Paragraph 4 of the settlement agreement says, the county
will expedite the reviews of all three of the SDPs and all future
building permits, applications submitted by Lodge.
The existing environmental impact statements, EIS, does not need
to be amended unless the SDPs are revised to increase wetland impacts
beyond the impact currently permitted by the South Florida Water
Management District. Within the settlement agreement, it
contemplates modifications potentially to these SDPs specifically
within the agreement; that these have an opportunity for modification.
Further, it says, any change by the county to any of the previously
approved SDPs under review. So what that's saying is there is
contemplation and awareness that the SDPs could be amended in the
future. And any change in construction sequencing shall be considered
an insubstantial change to the SDP.
That settlement agreement squarely -- clearly points out what
documents are contained within it. It does reference the SDPs, but at
no point in time and in no verbiage and in no language within the
amended PUD or the settlement agreement does it say that those SDPs
could not be amended at a future time.
All it says is it has to be bound by the settlement agreement and
the direction of the amended PUD. The development standards, the
envelopes, the allowances of that individual PUD.
And this is from the amended PUD, and this was put up before. I
highlighted the building height where it talks about the vertical
distances measured from the first habitable floor. I'll address that issue
at a later time.
But the third is that third standard, or the footnote for building
separation. Building separation is one-half of the sum of both
buildings for 200-foot-high buildings; two times 200 is 400. Half of
that is 200. So 200 should be the standard unless or as approved as
July 11, 2017
Page 183
allowed for by the Footnote 3 where common architectural theme has
been approved.
And, in fact, this is the original -- this is the Site Development
Plan that's associated with the original settlement agreement. And as
you see -- approved June 11th, 2008.
What that's calling out is the separation between structures from
the tower (sic). It's one half of the sum of the building heights or as
approved, and what's that related to is Footnote No. 3. And Footnote
No. 3 is the common architectural theme, and within that common
architectural theme, those building footprints can be reduced. It
doesn't say it can be reduced to only 126 feet. It just says the building
-- the building foot -- or separations can be reduced when utilized in a
common architectural theme.
Again, from the meeting of the January 11th Planning
Commission review of the settlement agreement, Mr. Gochenaur, for
the record, Ross Gochenaur, Zoning and Land Development review.
Susan asked me to address this issue for you. The way we understand
the PUD is -- well, the basic question is, is the reduction in setbacks or
separation or structure limited by the PUD document? And the answer
is no, the separation is unlimited.
I can't see any grounds in there for the intent to be reduced -- it to
a certain amount or would have been specified. So the question I ask
myself, it does -- does the applicant have the right to do what he did,
and the answer was yes. There is simply nothing that limits the amount
of reduction.
So what that says is, in January 11th of 2008 the Planning
Commission, or certain members of the Planning Commission, took
exception towards how the common architectural theme was being
applied, but it was clearly stated by staff that those reductions could be
taken down to almost nothing; that there was no limitation towards
how -- that common architectural theme. And that is the rule -- that is
July 11, 2017
Page 184
the regulation that's contained in the amended PUD that we're bound to
have to review against. And the case that the appellant is bringing is
their opinion of how that -- our common architectural theme should be
applied.
We have -- and within the next slide -- and they've already
indicated that a lot of these weren't quite toward the building
separation. I do have another exhibit that I can enter into the record,
and this was from a 2004 Board of County Commissioners appeal of
Cap D'Antibes in Pelican Bay where there's 16 other applications of
common architectural theme where the building separation reduction
or the setbacks have been reduced.
So what we've provided was over 20 individual instances of how
the common architectural theme was applied and has historically been
applied as was described to the Planning Commission almost 10 years
ago and as -- today is being argued with -- as the basis for why an SDP
should not be approved.
Staff feels that those opinions are most certainly entitled, but we
can only follow the regulation and the provisions that are provided for
within the regulatory documents that we review against. And those
regulatory documents say, when utilized in a common architectural
theme, that that reduction could be administratively reduced.
And, in fact, it was administratively reduced. The SDP that was
associated with the settlement agreement provided that one building
separation was 126 feet, much less than the 200 foot that they're
contending needs to be provided for.
So I'm not quite sure the foundation of the appellant's argument;
and it sounds like it's not about the specific SDP, but it's about the
practice of how we've utilized common architectural theme for the past
20 to 25 years. And that, to me, is beyond an administrative appeal
application.
Issue 3 is the administrative approval of dwelling units. And
July 11, 2017
Page 185
staff's contention is simply that issue's not ripe. Within Phase 2, the
SDP that's currently under appeal, Building No. 4 is shown for a future
phase. The PUD provides for 590 dwelling units.
Building 1 is constructed. The SDP that's being appealed is
providing for three additional buildings. All -- the total to date is 462
units. To say that the 12 additional guest cottages put them over the
limit, that issue's not ripe yet. That Building 4 hasn't been constructed.
It hasn't even been reviewed; hasn't been submitted.
Now, to say that we're going to base an appeal upon an action
that's going to happen is somewhat premature and, therefore, we feel
it's not ripe.
The additional dwelling units; the additional dwelling units -- the
basis of their argument as they've indicated was ultimately when the
fourth tower is built that those 12 units would put them over the limit.
The statement is, yes, it does -- within the permitted uses, it says
guesthouses and cabanas, but it also says accessory uses, those
commonly associated with residential dwelling units and guesthouses
are those that are associated with residential guesthouses. And we
think that the limitation within the kitchens clearly show that these are
transitionary units not for permanent occupancy.
And, finally, the administrative increase in overall building
height; the applicant within their appeal application -- this is
specifically what they say -- plans are in progress to add additional
stories to each of the buildings by enclosing certain accessory rooftop
structures such as the community meeting room and the fitness center.
Once again, we cannot base our review upon future activities that
have not been submitted to this government. We reviewed the SDPs
against the guidance that's provided within the settlement agreement,
within the PUD, and the LDC where both of those are silent to those,
and staff feels that our actions have been consistent with those
documents, and we don't feel that the appellants have provided the
July 11, 2017
Page 186
specific sections of where we have run counter to those -- to the
settlement agreement or to the PUD.
And finally talking about the building height. Further in the
appeal application they mentioned the presence of the manager's
quarters on the second floor of the garage should start where the height
calculation starts. What I've done is shown you where the edge of the
tower is as you can see, within the red lines, and then where the
manager's quarters are.
The manager's quarters are on the second floor of the garage
outside of the footprint of the tower, well outside of the footprint of the
tower. And the start of your height calculation is the first habitable
floor of the tower and not a manager's quarter on the second floor of
the individual garage.
With that, that concludes our presentation. We'd be open -- I also
have -- Matt McLean and Chris Scott from our development review
team who have reviewed the SDPs are available to answer any
questions that the Board may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Does the appellant representative have
any questions of staff? And -- yes, please.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, 10 minutes on this?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. BROOKES: Is the parking garage and the residential tower
one structure, one building?
MR. BOSI: The parking structure is much larger than and much
wider -- a much larger footprint than the tower.
MR. BROOKES: Is it one structure?
MR. BOSI: I will defer to my partner, Mr. McLean, who's a
licensed engineer.
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, Director from Development
July 11, 2017
Page 187
Review.
To answer your question, the parking garage and that accessory
structure, it would be counted as an attached accessory structure. It is
attached, but it's not necessarily the same building from a height
perspective when measuring the height.
MR. BROOKES: Is it one building? Not about height. Is it just
one building?
MR. McLEAN: It's one structure. It's attached accessory
structure.
MR. BROOKES: They share walls? It's --
MR. McLEAN: They share several members that attach them to
together. It's, again, attached accessory structure.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. And I'm going to call my registered
architect to ask a few more questions because he's more qualified to
ask these particular questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Kindly use this podium over here,
please.
MR. SCHIFFER: Mike, when we were reviewing this -- because
we were going around meeting with different people, different county
people, and they kept saying they had a list of projects where the
building separations were exactly like this. They were reduced and, in
cases, to 200 feet.
This list you gave us today is new. Never saw that before, but
there's -- none of these are building separations. They're all set back to
adjoining property lines. Do you have one that's building setbacks,
separation?
MR. BOSI: I would have to say the SDPs that were originally
attached to the settlement agreement.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well, those were all little. You know, I mean,
the first one was the setback to, in this case, a parking lot, so of course
it was acceptable, and then the rest of them were all cluster
July 11, 2017
Page 188
development, low, you know, one-, two-story buildings, which was
done with the clustering concept, which is right. It's below the trees.
MR. BOSI: No. Those were done with the common architectural
theme that's provided within the PUD, the Pelican Bay PUD, not -- not
clustering development. They were -- those setbacks were reduced
using the common architectural theme, the provision of the Pelican
Bay PUD.
MR. SCHIFFER: But they're two-story -- they're small buildings.
That's the point. I mean, we're talking about -- the problem we're
having with this building is not what's skiddling around on the ground.
It's what's sticking up in the sky. We're having trouble getting the sky.
MR. BOSI: The common architectural theme has no height
limitations where a tower could be applied.
MR. SCHIFFER: Agreed. And -- but the examples we were
given which, as you and I were talking about will stop, is low
buildings, which nothing peeked above the treetops, so...
A question that's being asked, is Cap d'Antibes one of these
projects in here? And was there a settlement agreement similar to this
for that project?
MR. BOSI: No. That was -- Cap d'Antibes -- this was utilized to
-- as an exhibit to show why that common architectural theme was
applied to Cap d'Antibes.
MR. SCHIFFER: But, again, these common architectural themes
caused reductions in setbacks from building to property lines. None of
these cause a reduction in building-to-building separation.
MR. BOSI: I don't agree with that statement. I believe that there's
a number that have shown that there is separation require -- and the
way that it's expressed, it may say setback, but there is actual
separation -- building separation.
It's -- once again, it was described during the January 11th, 2008,
Planning Commission of the common architectural theme that building
July 11, 2017
Page 189
separation can be reduced administratively as it states within the PUD.
The amended PUD talks about building separation being reduced
administratively when common architectural theme is being utilized.
MR. SCHIFFER: I agree. I, you know, showed that off. But
these aren't -- because, for example, all of these buildings have
calculated setbacks that are one-half their height. A building
separation would have a separation that would be equal to the height.
So none of these are building separations.
MR. BOSI: I disagree with that.
MR. SCHIFFER: Well -- none of them are, so...
MR. BROOKES: Are you aware that Cap d'Antibes was -- there
was an appeal filed and there was a settlement?
MR. BOSI: Generally, yes.
MR. BROOKES: And are you generally aware that in that
settlement they limited further administrative deviations to 1 percent or
3 percent?
MR. BOSI: I'm not sure of specifics, but whatever was applicable
to that project it was applicable to that project. I don't disagree with
whatever the conclusion was.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. Would you consider, then, a possible
standard of 3 percent as an amount that you could administratively
deviate from the .5 sum of building height requirement? Would that
give you a more meaningful criteria or standard to apply rather than no
limit?
MR. BOSI: No. I would think that the plain reading of the
regulation is what needs to be construed, and that's the plain reading of
the language, and it says there is no limit to this separation.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. So what standard and criteria do you
apply, then, if there is no limit or no standard? It's whatever the
applicant asks for? You have no basis to deny, correct?
MR. BOSI: There would be no basis to deny. What would be
July 11, 2017
Page 190
preventing it would be fire code separation, those type of things that
would prevent a building from being placed within two feet from each
other.
MR. BROOKES: So our only appeal as residents is to go to the
Board of County Commissioners and ask them to apply a reasonable or
rational standard because staff will not apply any limitation to that
architectural common theme deviation, correct?
MR. BOSI: And the Planning Commission did that. The
Planning Commission, in their report -- and I believe that's Attachment
No. -- or Attachment J to the executive summary. The Planning
Commission called out to the Board of County Commissioners that the
separation was an issue and that the settlement agreement should be
modified to limit the separation to what's shown on the SDPs.
That recommendation -- because the Planning Commission
doesn't make approval on these. They make recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County
Commissioners take those recommendations under consideration, and
then will pass -- and then they'll either approve as recommended or
make a different decision.
At this time that Board of County Commissioners, when they
approved the settlement agreement, decided not to take the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and imposed limitations
towards how that separation could be applied.
MR. BROOKES: So what they had asked for in there was the
exact standard of 100 feet, and they said, no, we won't do the 100 feet.
We'll let this apply, this PUD criteria, of .5 SBH with the Footnote 3
and your interpretation, which they -- at least Georgia Hiller asked a
question and was assured that, apart from a minor adjustment, they
would meet the criteria of the SDPs although they could be amended?
MR. BOSI: It was explicitly stated in 2008 that it could be
reduced down to nothing; that there was nothing to limit that
July 11, 2017
Page 191
separation.
MR. BROOKES: So we object to the ability to reduce it down to
nothing or down to fire codes. That's why we're here. We don't believe
staff is reasonable in their interpretation of giving the applicant
anything they ask for other than a fire code separation.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I think,
Commissioner Solis, you had questions. Now's the time to ask.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was going to wait till staff was
done with their presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, they're done.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You finished?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And I have -- I have a
question for Mr. Schiffer. At the January 11th, 2008, Planning
Commission meeting, the draft of the settlement agreement that was
being discussed had specific language in it relating to the separation of
the buildings --
MR. SCHIFFER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- correct? And there was a long
discussion between yourself, Mr. Strain, Attorney Klatzkow, and Mr.
Yovanovich regarding the language that was going to -- was going to
limit the minimum separation to 100 feet. Do you recall that?
Because I can read it.
MR. SCHIFFER: No, I recall it, you know, vividly because, you
know, we were in the center -- at the time my concern was the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let me -- can I ask you the question?
MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, I recall.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because if that was there, then I'm
confused because on Page 62 of the transcript, you said, Mark, I would
prefer -- I would prefer to remove this language because -- and let it be
July 11, 2017
Page 192
something that administrative staff take care of.
If Richard is concerned about a future planning -- planner viewing
it in the way I would view it -- and, remember, I have a degree in
architecture and planning, then that's a good concern.
MR. SCHIFFER: Right. My response is this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. SCHIFFER: The reason we didn't like the 100 -- and it
wasn't just me. If you recall, there's a vote in there. Unanimously
everybody on the Planning Commission voted to pull that number out
because we didn't want it to be able to go to 100. We didn't want it to
go to anything that wasn't on that SDP at the time.
So if we left the words in, they could have had 100; we wouldn't
be here today. We took the words out because we didn't want it to go
down that low.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But you're saying that -- and
I'm trying to understand the history because, unfortunately, I wasn't
here. I wasn't on the Planning Commission at the time. But it says,
that you're specifically saying let it be something that administrative
staff take care of. I mean, isn't that what we're talking about, right? I
mean, that is what we're talking about.
MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. That's a simple thing to answer. We
didn't want the 100 feet. That would be too small. We were throwing
our chances to the staff that in the administrative review -- and, first of
all, we also thought that the -- you know, as Donna's thought in the
thing that was read, that, you know, the number's going to be what the
number is on the plan, but we didn't -- we wanted the staff, who would
make an administrative review -- hopefully it would certainly be above
100, but the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Hopefully. This is why we're here --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or more.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- right? Or more.
July 11, 2017
Page 193
MR. SCHIFFER: I think when the phrase "administrative
review" -- I think what that means is somebody in the professional
staff is going to study the condition, study why it's happening, and
make a conclusion based on the planning principle of building
separation; not just pick a number because it's out of the hat or
something that they always do.
So the administrative wording is really hoping that somebody
administratively will study this issue and come up with what would be
beneficial for the people they work for, the county.
We got the 100 out of there because we didn't want the 100. We
certainly didn't want to go lower than it, and it was ludicrous the fact
that there was no limit. You have to have building separations, and it
determines a lot about the aesthetic of the community, or why have it
in the LDC?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. And -- yes, Commissioner Fiala.
Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This would actually be for staff.
Excuse me. This would actually be for staff.
I just wanted to know from a -- now, I'm not on the commission
right this moment from this question. I'm out in the public. Does the
public ever get notice of a change that's about to be made
administratively after -- you know, on an already-approved Site
Development Plan --
MR. BOSI: No:
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or PUD? Never get a
notification?
MR. BOSI: There's no public notification requirements related to
an SIP or an SDP or an SDP amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does the BCC ever get a notice of
July 11, 2017
Page 194
the changes you (sic) are about to be made or have already made?
MR. BOSI: For an SDP or an SIP, no, there's no public notice
requirements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or a PUD, right?
MR. BOSI: A PUD?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
MR. BOSI: The only body that could modify a PUD is the Board
of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, that's why I asked that
question. Okay. But not on the SDP or anything. Okay.
Can the public ever have -- here's what I'm concerned with. Can
the public ever have confidence in us anymore if there are things that
we've approved and then that go back and are administratively
changed, such as this one, for instance? When you think you have a
set plan, you think you've worked everything out as a commissioner
with the -- with the person requesting all of this, working with staff,
you work really hard at it, it leaves this office thinking, all right, we did
a good job, and then it changes.
And over the years -- and I've been here probably way too many.
Over the years I've seen that happen, and we're just appalled that those
things have changed behind the scenes. And I'm just -- I wanted to ask
those questions because -- will anybody ever have confidence in us
again if things can be changed administratively? And maybe it's about
time we took another look at that and changed it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Past time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions for staff?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Past time for it to be looked at.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions for staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. At this point we're going to
July 11, 2017
Page 195
have a -- we're going to have a 15-minute break because our court
reporter is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Court reporters.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- ready for a break, and we'll come
back at 4:15 and then hear from the property owner.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
We have all commissioners in the room, so now we will hear
from the property -- there's a terminology -- property owner, please.
And you will have one hour to present and with any witnesses or
speakers you so elect to use.
MS. ENGLISH: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, my
name is Kate English. I'm here on behalf of the Lodge -- the Lodge
Abbott entities, and we are the affected property owner. We are the
property owner that benefits from this SDP.
First of all, I am very cognizant of the fact that it is after four
o'clock on what's been a very long day for the commission and for
your audience, so I'm going to be very cognizant of the three Bs. I'm
going to be brief, I'm going to be specific, and I'm requesting to be
seated.
First of all, Mr. Bosi was far more eloquent in his explanation of
operative documents and regulations than I could be, and rather than
reiterate my arguments, which very closely mirror his, I would prefer
to state that we adopt, for the record, staff's arguments in total and
support the staff's interpretation.
There are a few things I think we do need to clarify for the record.
First of all, much is made of the fact that the SDPs are in the settlement
agreement, but I think it's important for the commission to know and
understand that at the time the settlement was entered into by the
parties, Lodge Abbott had been waiting more than five years for SDP
July 11, 2017
Page 196
applications that were pending. The SDP approvals were conditions
precedent to the effectiveness of the settlement agreement.
In the event that the county staff could not or did not approve the
SDPs, the parties were going back to litigation over this project. The
SDPs were essentially -- provided they were consistent with the
amended PUD and the PUD as it was unchanged -- were the necessary
consideration for Lodge Abbott to proceed with the settlement
agreement in belief and understanding that it now had an arrangement
by which it could go forward with the zoning on the property that had
been in effect since 2000.
Mr. Brookes alleges that there are stealth regulations to the
benefit of the developer. And I would contend to you that the stealth
interpretations today are not advanced by your staff, and they're not
advanced by the landowner. They're actually advanced by the
appellants, the rules as they wish they would be. And I completely
understand what it is that they want, and they are only protecting their
neighborhood; however, this is an issue that has been settled for a long
time. You cannot bootstrap an appeal of a single SDP, because that's
all that's at issue today is one SDP: The SDP authorizing Building 2,
3, and 5.
The units on the golf course and the mini kitchens, those were
actually in a preceding SDP amendment; the time for which
challenging it has long passed.
This appeal can't be used to bootstrap a challenge to the amended
PUD or to re-open the settlement agreement between the county and
the landowner.
When Mr. Yovanovich brought the issue to the CPCC (sic) about
the 100-foot limit and that was rejected -- it was brought forward to the
Board of County Commissioners and not adopted -- I would point out
to you that none of the building setbacks between the existing
authorized buildings under the SDPs are less than the 100 feet that
July 11, 2017
Page 197
were set forward in the proposal Mr. Yovanovich had, which was not
accepted at the time.
Mr. Brookes alleges that there are stealth regulations that benefit
the developer. I would posit to you instead that you have very plain
language in the PUD including the footnote that talks about the
conditions under which setbacks can be reduced; you have very plain
language in your LDC that talks about the terms and conditions under
which your staff reviews Site Development Plans.
The issue here are five towers. The five towers were approved,
and that issue is not going to change. There are going to be five towers
on that landscape. The issues that you hear before you today are
relatively small changes. I know that the appellants don't feel that way,
but the fact of the matter is these are relatively small changes. If these
are changes that in your judgment as a commission are too great, that
the appropriate path here is not to affect a landowner who's proceeding
in reliance on zoning that was approved in 2000 and a settlement
agreement that was approved in 2008, but simply to bring the issue
back, study it, and determine what you think the appropriate range of
discretion for staff is.
Staff's discretion is not unbridled. There are other rules and
regulations that affect how closely buildings may be constructed. And
in this instance, has there been a change? Yes. But one of the changes
which I didn't hear Mr. Brookes address was the fact that the original
Site Development Plan allowed for Building 5 to be built 100 feet off
the northern property line. That's no longer the case.
Building 5 has been moved closer to Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4
giving a further setback from the property boundary and giving
additional protection for those northern property owners.
In order to do that, if you're going to use such a constrained
footprint, you've got to make some changes, and staff reviewed those
vigorously and had active discussion with the landowner and its
July 11, 2017
Page 198
consultants in regard to this.
We would reject -- we would request that you reject this appeal
and approve staff's decisions in regard to the SDP.
I'd be happy to accept any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a question about -- the
settlement agreement was agreed upon in 2008.
MS. ENGLISH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why did it take them nine years to
decide to change things? People don't even think about changing it
nine years later.
MS. ENGLISH: Are you familiar with the Great Recession?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry? I didn't even understand
what you're saying.
MS. ENGLISH: The housing market collapsed in 2008 and 2009.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you said, am I familiar with the
Great Recession? No, I'm not. Everyone is.
MS. ENGLISH: But there was a substantial change in markets at
that time, and it's taken a long time for our area to recover. And this --
Site Development Plans are, as a general rule, amended and can be
amended by staff within the confines of the document that you all, as a
board, have approved, the PUD.
Site Development Plans are very, very detailed. They are the
construction-level drawings.
Now, if the Board in its wisdom decided that it wished to review
every item in a Site Development Plan and have that come back to the
Board, that's fine, but that's not what your rules presently require.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked you about the settlement
agreement --
MS. ENGLISH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and why it took nine years. I
July 11, 2017
Page 199
wasn't talking about the Site Development Plan or anything, and I
didn't even understand why -- you know the recession ended quite a
few years ago, but I'm happy that you remembered it, and -- but I still
don't understand why it took until this year in order to decide you
wanted to change it so drastically.
MS. ENGLISH: First of all, I would disagree that it's a drastic
change. Secondly, this is the time in the market when it was possible
to build this and have a market for it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is somewhat of an
irrelevant question. There was some testimony concerning the berm
and the landscaping and the fact that there may be some deficiency
there. I don't know if there is or there isn't. I know it's not relevant to
this discussion. But is there some potential for the developer to take a
look at that and perhaps fix that if it's not been done properly?
MS. ENGLISH: If it has not been done properly, I am sure the
developer will do what is necessary to make it proper, and I will carry
your request to him.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. I don't have any
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I have no questions. All right.
So --
MR. BROOKES: I just have a couple questions.
What is the angle that was changed in skewing Building 2 to
Building 1?
MS. ENGLISH: I would need to -- I would need to call Karen
Bishop who's the project manager for this. Do I need to --
MS. BISHOP: I gave you those two exhibits.
July 11, 2017
Page 200
MR. BROOKES: To me, it doesn't look like more than a degree.
MS. BISHOP: It's six degrees.
MR. BROOKES: Six degrees of separation is --
MS. BISHOP: Karen Bishop, for the owner. It's six degrees.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Bishop, you were sworn in; is that
correct?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Sorry to
interrupt.
MS. BISHOP: That's okay.
MR. BROOKES: And then you said that Building 5 was moved
away from the northern boundary, but Building 1, in fact, was moved
closer to the southern boundary, isn't that correct, from 166 feet; now
it's only 106 feet away, correct?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, that is correct.
MR. BROOKES: And that would make the building actually
closer to the Aqua building to the south.
MS. BISHOP: That is true.
MR. BROOKES: But was that done as an administrative
deviation without a public hearing?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
MR. BROOKES: So Aqua never got a notice that there was
going to be a building that much closer to units facing --
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
MR. BROOKES: Okay. Thank you.
MS. ENGLISH: I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think that's this part, so now I'm
sure we have some public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I think I followed your instruction.
July 11, 2017
Page 201
I've removed all of the public speaker slips from the appellant -- from
the appellant list, and I now -- and I've also removed the Lodge Abbott
folks from the property owners, and I now have eight speakers
remaining.
David Galloway will be followed by Ed Navara. He's going to
waive.
Ed Navara?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I do not see Mr. Navara.
Kathleen Robbins, and she will be followed by Diane Ebert.
Diane, do you wish to speak?
MS. EBERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if you'd use two podiums, please.
Thank you very much.
MS. ROBBINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Kathleen
Robbins, secretary of Vanderbilt --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Into the microphone, please.
MS. ROBBINS: -- Residence Association, Kathleen Robbins.
And I'm just going to say that what I've heard today is truly an
indictment of the administrative variance procedures. I mean, if
nothing else, there ought to be some percentage limit on administrative
variances; 2 percent, 5 percent. 50 percent is over the top.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Diane Ebert followed by
David Gruenfeld, Gruenfield (sic).
MS. EBERT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Diane Ebert, who
is a Planning Commissioner. I was not going to speak, but this has
upset me, and the reason for it is, you, in 2015, did not allow them to
change the PUD. And their, as they call them now, cottages, they're
calling accessory uses.
In their PUD it is permitted uses. There is a big difference. They
July 11, 2017
Page 202
were going to have 120 units in each building. The fifth building was
going to have 102, which brought it to 592, and they were going to
have eight cabanas, if you look at the original SDP. They have
changed the whole Site Development Plan; they have taken away the
golf course portion that was going to be up there; they have put an
amenity center up there; they've changed everything.
To me, when it came to us -- because we did hear this when they
wanted to do the change. And when Chairman Strain was talking to
Wayne Arnold, he said -- on Page 20 under this, he said, you have
guest suites and cabanas listed as permanent uses. That really would
mean that they count as density, and I know that they are being
proposed as accessory uses. You know what, you turned that down.
This agreement was if there were any major changes, it wasn't to
go to staff. It was to come to you. That was what the settlement
agreement said. It was to come to you as county commissioners to
make that decision.
And I know some of you believe that it did not happen, and that is
my concern, I'll be honest with you. It was not supposed to be staff.
Minor things is fine; major things, no. It was to come to the Board of
Commissioners.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Next up, David Gruenfeld.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Okay. Linda Denning?
MS. PALAY: She's not here.
MR. MILLER: Gordon Knapp. Mr. Knapp will be followed by
Brett Groos.
MR. KNAPP: Good afternoon, folks. My name is Gordon
Knapp. I'm here as a private citizen of Collier County to express my
strong objection to the petition before you that would interrupt the
construction process for the Kalea Bay development.
July 11, 2017
Page 203
I work full-time in the construction industry as many thousands of
us do here in Collier County. As you know, our county and our citizens
have experienced -- they experienced the most debilitating recession in
2007 and 2008, and no industry felt that recession more than the
construction industry did.
Today we are experiencing a moderate recovery that has been
steady and vital to all of us who work in the construction industry, both
men and women. I wish to request that on behalf of the workforce
here in Collier County that relies on projects like Kalea Bay and relies
on developers to build businesses for us, that you please not put this
project on hold or at risk. These requests by opposition of this
development relate to marginal dimensioning of building locations and
have total disregard for how this type of action can affect our
workforce here in Collier County.
Folks, I know you care deeply about Collier County and all of the
people of Collier County, but this is not just about minor dimensions
for buildings at Kalea Bay. What you decide today affects working
people and our ability to provide for our families and also our ability to
be strong tax-paying citizens of Collier County.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker on
this item is Brett Groos.
MR. GROOS: Good afternoon. Now that Mr. Knapp's kind of
upstaged me; that's about the same thing I was going to say. My name
is Brett Groos. I'm a 27-year resident of Collier County and a local
business owner.
I'm here today to voice support for the Kalea Bay community on
behalf of the local businesses, residents, and the project team. Many of
my peers could not attend today, as they are at work, which most of us
would agree is very important to our community.
July 11, 2017
Page 204
The stalling of this Kalea Bay community has become a strain on
the businesses and the employees that are involved, which is dozens of
local businesses and close to a thousand employees, far more than the
93 applicants aforementioned.
As a sidenote, there are far more new unit owners in the first two
buildings than the 93 appellants and that would like to thank you for
calling their new home horrible looking.
As for the monster developer, he built the buildings most of you
are living in.
The economy is starting to come back for us, but it's not there yet,
definitely. We need to help it grow.
The comment was made that it's not too late to pull it back. The
comment takes no consideration into the mind for the employees who
would be laid off during the time that would take.
In closing, please help resolve these issues for the sake of the
Collier County citizens. If some of these citizens believe there should
be a change in interpretation and/or the way things are done, then
please proceed to change that for the future; however, this project has
already been approved. How is it right to go back in time?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. So just like he said, it was
already approved, but now it's being changed. We're not trying to
change it. If they still went right now -- say, for instance, this didn't
pass or say, for instance, they were never here, they could still be
building right now, right, with the already approved -- yeah. So we're
not trying to hold it up. We've just seen that now it's being changed,
and the change is holding it up. Not us. But if they didn't do this
change, they could continue to build right now.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly.
Okay. Thank you.
July 11, 2017
Page 205
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. And now at this point the
zoning director will be first, the appealing party will be second, and the
impacting property owner will be third. Each of you will have three --
10 minutes, excuse me -- 10 minutes to sum up, and it can include any
rebuttal to what you've heard.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. I'll be
very succinct.
I think the settlement agreement it clear as to what's contained in
the settlement agreement. The -- modified PUD is clear as to the
regulatory fabric that we would review plans to.
Staff has followed the letter and the simple reading of those
languages and based their decisions and based the approval off the
guidance as provided for within the settlement agreement as well as the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Mr. Brookes?
MR. BROOKES: Thank you. I'll be very brief.
I think you've heard our arguments. Why is this important?
Because as you've heard -- and maybe to draw an analogy. Aqua's not
here appealing the change from 166 feet to 106 feet because they didn't
have notice. They didn't know about it. The building started being
built. That affects everyone on that side of the Aqua building.
These SDPs are different than other SDPs because they're part of
a settlement agreement. There were a settlement agreement on a
project that was reviewed very heavily at the Planning Commission
and very heavily by the Board of County Commissioners, and there
was lawsuits filed and there were settlement agreements done, and any
changes were supposed to go through the same formalities. Yet as a
member of the public and even as members of the Board of County
Commissioners sitting up there, the project has changed. You weren't
informed of it. We weren't given notice. We found out about it.
July 11, 2017
Page 206
So it's very important that this come back to the Board of County
Commissioners. I think you're sitting here today as the Board of
Zoning Appeals because it's an administrative appeal that was filed,
but the settlement agreement says that this -- these types of major
changes, significant changes to this development site plan should come
back to the Board of County Commissioners, and that's what we're
asking for you to do, a public hearing on that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. BROOKES: And also these are not just minor changes that
are insignificant. These are significant changes that affect the building
massing, the view shed, the shading. The separation between buildings
affects this whole Wiggins Pass area. I think you heard that, by going
down the coast, their building separations are 200 feet, 250 feet. There
aren't separations like this.
You're really creating something that is more a sense of place or
community character with Golden Isles or Miami Beach. And
remember in Miami Beach most of the buildings are oriented
perpendicular to the beach, not parallel along the beach. This is really
building a wall, a wall that walls off the sunset in this case from the
people that live on the other side of the road, Vanderbilt Road.
So it's a very important issue. It's worth addressing now. I'm
certain that when the buildings get built and you realize what has been
built and the changes that were made without your approval, without
public input, it will be too late because the buildings will be up. Don't
let what happened in Sarasota happen to you.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nobody took their 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. English.
MS. ENGLISH: For the record, my name is Kate English.
July 11, 2017
Page 207
In brief rebuttal to the question that Mr. Brookes earlier asked
about the notice to the landowner to the south, I would point out that
the PUD that is part of the settlement agreement authorizes a side-yard
setback of one-half of the building height; that building height of 200
feet at 100 feet. So the PUD that was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners included that setback.
Site Development Plans are the physical manifestations of the
intent of a PUD, but it doesn't go into every single detail of a PUD.
The rules and regulations that affect this project, the settlement
plan, the PUD, the amended PUD have been interpreted by their plain,
simple language by the staff.
The appellants argue for a different interpretation, and I think the
appellants argue for what they would like to see in the rules, but those
are not the rules that we live with today. And the rules that we live
with today have been accurately interpreted by your staff and have
been relied on to our detriment by Lodge Abbott.
I would like -- we will renew our request for you to deny the
appeal. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
All right. We are going to close the public hearing and
commence discussion. I have a question, County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's clear from -- at least to me, that the
county commission board at the time, given the testimony of a former
commissioner and my colleague to the right and certainly the one
member of the planning advisory board, misunderstood or wasn't clear
on the details within the settlement agreement and how it relates to the
PUD and the interrelationship of the SDPs to the PUD to the
settlement agreement.
The staff correctly literally interpreted, in your opinion, I'm
assuming, what -- I'm not -- I don't mean to put you on the spot.
July 11, 2017
Page 208
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the staff interpreted it, and that's
why we're here today, because there's a disagreement. But from this
testimony that I'm hearing, the feeling that what was intended was not
-- was not what is -- has happened.
So can we uphold our staff's decision and yet, at the same time,
indicate that because that's -- that wasn't the intention at the time,
therefore, deny?
MR. KLATZKOW: During the Planning Commission, I was in
this seat.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You were; that's right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And at one point in time I went, let me see if
I understand. If I go like this (indicating), this is the separation? Staff
said yes. If I go like this, I could do this? And staff said yes. That
was a very lengthy discussion of the Planning Commission, all right.
Now, do I -- do I think that at the end of the day this is a good
idea, maybe not. But having said that, that has been the way staff has
consistently applied that provision for 30 years in this county, and
we've got a score plus of buildings built in this county with that
interpretation.
If the Board does not like that interpretation, it's an easy fix for
the LDC, and you will never have this situation again, all right. But
every developer in this county has relied on that interpretation here for
30 years. It's been consistent. And the only thing I can ever ask staff
for is to be consistent. It's when they're inconsistent that we run into
problems.
So, yes, I think staff did their job on this one, absolutely, and they
applied your code as they've been applying your code for 30 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that last sentence?
MR. KLATZKOW: They've applied your code consistently for
30 years.
July 11, 2017
Page 209
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That didn't help at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I wonder -- because we
don't usually have these things brought up again. When something's
been changed administratively, you know, maybe there will be
something -- you know, well, we don't even really see it. It doesn't
come back to us at all. And nobody has ever brought it to our attention
that I can remember, not that I remember every single thing that's
happened here.
So I never realized there was -- there was all of these changes
going on after we'd approved something. I just thought we approved
it, and that was it.
So maybe that's why, Jeff, County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: When they put that provision in the LDC --
and this is 25, 30-plus years ago. I'm sure the Board of County
Commissioners then understood what it was, all right. But it's been
utilized over the years. And, again, these Site Development Plans are
done administratively, and no board has seen it since.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never realized just by changing the
curvature of the building a little bit it can change how it sits on a
property or what it does to the other people around them. And I guess
it's never been pointed out until we're here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, that Planning Commission, when we
had this, it was the first time I was aware of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's good that you were. I
did not know.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it was the first time. This is the first time
I became aware of that provision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you, too.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See? So we don't -- I guess we
didn't know what we were voting -- well, of course, we didn't vote on
July 11, 2017
Page 210
it. It was changed behind the scenes. We didn't know it was changed.
So -- okay. Thank you. Just to clear that up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is obviously a very difficult
decision to make, but I think we need to start with what it is we're
doing today and how we're sitting today. Because we're sitting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals. So this is an appeal of an administrative
decision that's been made, and in appeals there's a standard of review,
and that's what we're -- I mean, again, I can't help but keep my lawyer
hat on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The handicap?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I'm going to apologize in
advance for putting my lawyer hat back on. But we have a standard of
review, and that's what we're supposed to be measuring when we're
looking at this appeal. And, correct me if I'm wrong, County Attorney,
but it's whether or not there's competent evidence to support the
decision that was made by staff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But afterwards you've got to come up
with something that shows staff is wrong.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So -- okay. So there's maybe
even another --
MR. KLATZKOW: They've met their competent -- they've met
their test. I mean, they've --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, this is my -- this is my point. I
mean, I think we need to -- we're not sitting here today as just the
County Commission reviewing a PUD is my point. I mean, there's a
standard of review for how we're supposed to review one of these
administrative approvals, and it's whether or not there's competent
substantial evidence that's been presented to support this amendment to
the SDP.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is, do you believe that it's
July 11, 2017
Page 211
consistent with the Comp Plan? You've heard no evidence that it's not.
Is it consistent with the PUD? You've heard no evidence it's not. And
is it consistent with the settlement agreement? And therein lies the
dispute.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All three? It's a litmus test for all
three? If one does not --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. If one fails --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the appeal is successful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But isn't this just the settlement
agreement we're working on?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're looking at the Comprehensive Plan
as always; there's no dispute on that one. You look at the PUD; there's
no dispute there, okay; and then you look at the settlement agreement,
all right. The appellant is saying that the settlement agreement locked
in certain site distances, okay. Mr. Bosi is saying, no, the settlement
agreement did not do that. It did not even include the Site
Development Plans. It alluded to it, but it did not include it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and so -- let me just finish,
and I think, you know, just to get to the issue.
In my view -- and I've looked at all of the transcripts of all the
hearings and the correspondence, the different versions of the
settlement agreement that went back and forth who knows how many
times to the point where there were so many that there had to be --
there was even a dispute at one point about what was the version that
everybody was working on.
The language that related to what the minimum separation was
going to be between the buildings was intentionally removed, and it
was discussed at length, for better or for worse. And, you know, this is
not my actually even deciding one way or the other which is better.
I'm just stating the facts, because we have to present the facts into the
July 11, 2017
Page 212
record.
The language from the settlement agreement was removed. It's in
the transcript that what -- I mean Mr. Schiffer said -- wanted to do was
to leave it up to the staff to administratively make these decisions.
Our Land Development Code doesn't have anything in it at this
time, and maybe it should, that says staff can do this much of a change
or this much of a change. So I don't think we can -- I can't argue with
Mr. Bosi's position that they have no direction, so they have no
direction. And maybe that's our issue that we need to address in the
future.
My reading of the settlement agreement, it clearly states that there
are SDPs that are being reviewed and will be reviewed in the future;
that those original SDPs had less than 200 square feet separations
between the buildings. I mean, that was already in there. So being less
than 200 feet was already contemplated before the settlement
agreement even started. I don't think there's any dispute with that.
The issue as to whether or not the number of units is going to be
exceeded, you know, the SDP containing the cabanas has already been
approved. That's already -- they've already been built. I think the
building's already been built.
So if the developer decides to turn those into units and put
kitchens in them, then he's got a problem. But as we're sitting here
today, we're not aware and the plans don't show that he's putting full
kitchens in there. It's not a kitchen. There's no stove. There's no range
in the plans. It's specifically not in there.
The SDP process, as we have it today, is what we have today, and
it's not the public hearing process. Maybe it should be, and that's
probably a discussion, as I gather here today, that we'll most likely be
having in the future.
As far as what's been presented, the transcripts, you know, there's
evidence in the transcripts that it was intended to be left up to staff.
July 11, 2017
Page 213
There's no limitations on it.
The issue of whether staff could reduce it down to zero is -- I
mean, it's a hypothetical. That's not really what we're deciding here
today. As a policy matter, that's something we probably need to
discuss. But we're not sitting here today saying the staff is making it
zero and that's improper. The changes are really going from 153 to
109, 126 to 165, one's going up, 127 to 100, and then on the separation
between Building 4 and 5, because Building 5 got farther away from
the property line, from 340 to 106. Those are the dimensions that
we're dealing with, and I think that's what we can deal with, not a
hypothetical.
If our standard of review is whether or not there's evidence in the
record to support the staff's approval, there -- other than policy
considerations that may be well founded, I just don't know that there's
anything that I've seen that will cause me to say the staff did something
that it shouldn't have done or did something that wasn't supported by
the record and the discussions that led up to the settlement agreement.
And I'll throw one last lawyer thing in there and that is that, you
know, the settlement agreement's a contract. So if the contract's not
ambiguous, then you're limited to looking at what it says on its face.
And it's clear to me that it was understood by the language in the
settlement agreement that the specific SDPs -- from the original SDPs
were going to be under review. That means that they could be
changed.
If it's ambiguous and we look at what's called parole evidence,
and that is all the discussions and the intent of the parties leading up to
it, I end up at the same place. And it's unfortunate, but I think that's
where we end up from a legal standpoint. At least that's where I end
up.
And, you know, I think it's unfortunate that we're here today nine
years later, but that's just where we are.
July 11, 2017
Page 214
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you don't think the word
"contingent" is ambiguous?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Contingent?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. And even if it is, what I'm
saying is, when you go back and you look at the intent of the parties
and the discussions, it leads you back to, well, this is the way staff has
done this, and this was what was understood in the discussions leading
up to the settlement agreement.
There's no other -- there's no other discussions that I have found
in any of the transcripts that leads me to believe anything other than it
was going to be left up to staff, because that's what's in the transcript.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't read the transcript. Could
you tell me, did it say in there in the transcript for the settlement
agreement, we'll just leave the decision up to staff?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Mr. Schiffer says -- and this is
on the January 11th, 2008, meeting where they're talking about
removing the provision in the draft settlement agreement relating to
what the minimum setback would be, right? There was a provision in
there that it wouldn't be -- exceed 100 feet, all right. So they're already
talking about the separation being 100 feet.
That was something that the developer wanted in there, as I
understand it, and then Mr. Schiffer says that -- he says, Mark,
speaking to Mark Strain, what I would prefer we do is remove this
language because -- and let it be something that the -- because -- dot,
dot, dot, and let it be something the administrative staff take care of.
If Richard Yovanovich is concerned about a future planner
reviewing it the way I would view it -- and remember I have a degree
in architecture and planning -- then that's a good concern.
But the point is, I would never want it to look like this board
endorsed this kind of interpretation of the setback. I don't think it's
July 11, 2017
Page 215
right, and I think it should just be struck.
It should not be a problem. Quick, get your administrative staff in
here and -- you know, so, again, I'm looking at what's in the record.
That's what's in the record, and that's what happened.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I would argue that the architect --
it's as if everybody was talking about two different things on the same
plane. You know, I think from what I heard before with Mr. Schiffer,
it was completely misunderstood and -- completely --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what he said.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and it was misunderstood on the
commission, or they would never have left it on the summary agenda.
That's what's troubled me and that's, I guess, why I'm asking, do
we have -- this is going -- for instance, where was it ever discussed that
if you reduce the setbacks between buildings that they can increase the
width of the buildings?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's what happens when -- I mean,
not to be facetious, but that's what happens when you decrease the
length needed. You get the -- it's the same thing. When you decrease
the distance between the buildings, it's because the buildings are
getting wider.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, see, for me -- no, I understand,
and that's probably from a developer's --
MR. HALAS: The buildings were set at 260 feet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Whoa, whoa, excuse me. From this --
I'm not a land use attorney. I'm not a developer, but I think, okay, you
-- I would never dream of enlarging the building. I mean, that's just
my interpretation as an ingenue or, you know, amateur person here.
You know, not that I haven't dealt with PUDs, but where does he get
permission to raise it 50 feet to get to the width?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, there's nothing in the PUD
that requires in stone that the building be a certain width. You're
July 11, 2017
Page 216
building within a building envelope, and the building envelopes are
determined by setbacks, and when you reduce a setback, it reduces the
building envelope.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That sounds so self-serving to the
development community.
MR. KLATZKOW: But that's the way every community does it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, and I'm sure, but maybe we don't
have to do it going forward, you know, whatever happens. Maybe we
don't have to do it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, all you need to do is amend
the LDC and get rid of the skew rule.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we have to deal with this
now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I'm going to -- my
light's on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel would
like to speak.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I would. And I think the
folks that have -- that filed for the appeal have done an extraordinary
job in pointing out something that Mr. Bosi and Mr. French and I
spoke about, what, last week when we were talking about some other
things. There are inherently issues within our Land Development
Code that allow for a lot of discretion without public input which has
put us into the state that we're currently here today.
So -- and there is no argument. And I think, Mr. Bosi, the
comment that I made was one of the -- my oversimplified answer is
I'm not afflicted with the mental illness that my colleague is. But one
of my overstated answers was that when there is a -- we have to first
define insignificant or significant change, and then put specificity to
that, and then provide for a conditional use process. That allows for
certainty for developers and investors and owners to know what
July 11, 2017
Page 217
thresholds they have to, in fact, meet, what thresholds and boundaries
they can, in fact, manage to utilize their properties but not jeopardize
the capacity of the general public to have an input.
And so with that -- you want me to take the bullet? I'm going to
make a motion that we -- that we deny the appeals request with the
stipulation that we return their fee -- because it's not their fault that
they're here -- and that we go forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't look at me for a second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. Do I
hear a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was going to make a
comment, but if you want to second the motion first, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think there's a little bit of
good news and a little bit of bad news here. The good news is the
reason we're struggling with this is we're trying to protect the
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And this board has bent over
backwards to make sure that whatever zoning changes, whatever
development plans are approved, that we are protecting
neighborhoods. There's been some disagreement, perhaps, on
individual items, but that's been the goal of everyone. So I think that's
the good news story.
The bad news story is, I think in this particular case I agree with
the motion maker and the second that the petitioner has not met their
burden in establishing that staff was incorrect in their decision making.
I believe staff was correct.
I've read the settlement agreement. I think there's sufficient
language in the settlement agreement that talks about the SDPs being
July 11, 2017
Page 218
revised and using the PUD process for that purpose, which means staff
makes those decisions as long as they meet the requirements and the
conditions contained in our LDC. Going forward, that may be
something we want to talk about, but that's certainly not the issue for
today. So I'm going to support --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Motion maker would like to
see it on the September agenda.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to support the
motion and call for the question, unless there's some other comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know who the second was,
but it wasn't me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You seconded it. Whether you knew
you did, you did.
MS. EBERT: Did you second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we know what the count is. We
know it's a simple majority that will pass this, but I'm so troubled by
this because on one side --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- I heard what the public expected or
what they thought, even -- and what they think the interpretation -- and
on the other hand is the abundant evidence in writing is there that
upholds what the staff has opined.
I don't agree with this administrative approval. I don't. And that's
going to be a discussion that we must -- because as the value of land
becomes more and more -- you know, a foot will become more and
more expensive. This will happen again and again unless we, as a
commission, change it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Make adjustments to it;
July 11, 2017
Page 219
absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. But I'm troubled. And so I'm
going to, unfortunately -- and it breaks my heart -- going to vote with
the majority on this given the evidence here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we're not doing this for
fun.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It breaks my heart.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It would -- this is -- we're not
doing this for fun.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The call -- the question was called. All
those in favor of the motion to deny the appeal say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it is with the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- stipulation that we return
their fee.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think that's a good --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the other stipulation, sir, that the
motion maker did not include but you did, which has to do with the
grass and the --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that was a request of the
property owner to take a look at that. That's certainly not a condition
of this approval, and it shouldn't be.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We can certainly ask staff to review
that and make sure that everything's being done the way it's supposed
July 11, 2017
Page 220
to be in the PUD.
MR. OCHS: Will do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think staff didn't (sic) do
anything they weren't supposed to do. They do what they were told
they could do, you know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just we have to -- it's our
obligation now to change that so that it's -- so that it's based on
community and it's -- and information and being transparent rather
than done behind the scenes. That came out of this loud and clear.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It had nothing to do with
staff. The staff was just doing what they -- what it says they can do. I
just think the whole decision was wrong altogether because these
people had no idea what was going to happen to them.
And I would think -- and I'm putting myself in the homeowners'
position. When you have a settlement agreement and everybody
agrees it's a settlement agreement, it's an agreement, and you don't go
changing it.
And I didn't realize staff -- personally, I didn't realize staff could
go and change a settlement agreement. They've shown us that they
can, but I just could not vote for this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and this is the toughest
decision I've had to make, you know, since I've been on the
Commission and -- because I've certainly -- I certainly understand the
adjoining owners' issues, but there's a process, and we're bound by that
process unless we decide to change it. And, you know, I'm open to
having that discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think it would be wonderful
exercise to review how this happened -- to use this as what we do not
want to have happen in the future and use it as an example of what we
July 11, 2017
Page 221
don't want in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the ladies that came to see
me way back in the beginning, the first -- when this first -- issue first
came up, I said that singular thing to them, that I felt the way then that
I still do now, I haven't seen any evidence to sway me.
Have I changed from what I told you when you were sitting in my
office?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. And the issue, in fact, lies
that -- the lack of public participation with these discretionary
decisions is putting us in a very, very difficult decision today, and we
can't let it go forward. So, with specificity, I'd like to reiterate that we
have this an as agenda item in our first meeting back in September.
MR. OCHS: Is that a motion or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- vote or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I mean --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Or a head nod or --
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sooner than later, but --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I mean, September 12th
or 14th is going to be just --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There again, I just don't want to
get caught with another project that's coming along. There are others, I
would assume.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, none.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There aren't?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, the urgency is
there, but -- okay, if we don't have to do it on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whenever you could do it, as
July 11, 2017
Page 222
quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sooner than later, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What if we framed it in terms of
maybe staff could give us an idea of, within the SDP process, where
are these areas where there's discretion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well -- and can I make a
suggestion? And this would be -- again, this specifically, but there are
other deficiencies in the LDC. There are other staff decisions that are
being made that are having issues in the public arena that I think we
can -- having an agenda item and addressing some of those and
addressing them individually is a process that we need to take up. So
sooner than later.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that clear as mud, sir?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Got it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You do?
MR. OCHS: Will do. Yes.
Would you like to move forward, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would like to move forward.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD ITB NO. 17-7164 COLLIER
COUNTY LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN-
COLLIER BOULEVARD (U.S. 41 TO MARINO CIRCLE)
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING
AND IRRIGATION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,087,590.21 –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to award a
July 11, 2017
Page 223
construction contract for landscape and irrigation installation from U.S.
41 to Marino Circle to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation,
Incorporated, in the amount of $1,087,590.21. They were the
responsive low bidder.
Mr. Delate is available to present or respond to questions from the
Board.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not going to water the roadway,
sir, right?
MR. DELATE: No. We're going to use state-of-the-art irrigation
design.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Unless there's some
discussion, I'll move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries unanimously.
MR. DELATE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Item 11 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great presentation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, amazing.
MR. OCHS: Joe's doing a great job of helping us with that
project.
July 11, 2017
Page 224
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT NO. 16-6699 TO
HNTB CORPORATION FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND
RELATED SERVICES FOR THE ELEVEN BRIDGE
REPLACEMENTS PROJECT NO. 66066, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,459,845.80, PURSUANT TO RFP NUMBER 16-6699, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
CONTRACT – APPROVED
Item 11E is a recommendation to award a contract to HNTB
Corporation for professional design and related services for the 11
bridge replacements project in the amount of $2,459,845.80.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to move approval. This is so, so
overdue. And it's not our fault. It's just it's timely, and we need to
move this ahead so -- it's very important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to -- well, if I can make
-- it's been seconded. May --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- I have a quick comment?
I just would like to say, one of the things that I really would like
for us, as we're moving through the process, is we're hampered
regularly by the CCNA, which is the statute that requires us to hire
professionals and engineers and the like along the way. I see what I
perceive to be as extremely high expenses associated with these
projects coming forward. And that's another -- I'm going to -- I am in
support of the motion, of course, but I just want to voice that as a
discussion point.
MR. OCHS: The state statute, sir?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
July 11, 2017
Page 225
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's another thing we can lobby the
state on.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You don't have to worry about
it. I'll work on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. OCHS: We did that for years and got nowhere.
MR. KLATZKOW: You haven't lost.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll work on that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Do we have speakers?
MR. MILLER: My confusion, sir. It's the next item. I thought
we were to 11F. We're on 11E.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, this is 11E. I think you have --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He looked so happy when he walked
in.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What was his name?
July 11, 2017
Page 226
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Anthony Stolts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What was the presenter's name
that just left?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Andy Stolts; Anthony Stolts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Anthony Stolts. It's right there.
Okay.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO DECLARE THAT EMERGENCY
CONDITIONS EXIST AT CLAM PASS, WAIVE THE
PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE, RATIFY QUOTE REQUEST
#17-7181 WITH THE COMPRESSED SOLICITATION
SCHEDULE, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH
DONALD DACHUK TRACTOR SERVICE FOR $84,500, AND
AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$54,500 – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11F is a recommendation to declare that
emergency conditions exist at Clam Pass, waive appropriate provisions
of your Procurement Ordinance, ratify the Quote Request with the
compressed solicitation schedule, and authorize the County Manager
to enter into a contract with Donald Dachuk Tractor Service for
$84,500, and authorize a budget amendment in the amount of $54,500
for work at Clam Pass, and Mr. Dorrill is here to present or respond to
questions from the Board.
Neil?
MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. One of Mr.
Ochs' tenets of government is that he likes bad news early and good
news often, and so we were here two weeks ago to share the bad news
July 11, 2017
Page 227
that the pass had reached a point at which it was in stable as --
unstable, rather, as a result of the most recent tropical storm. And I
have some additional slides.
When I was here two weeks ago I shared with you that we had
received from our engineer and the most recent contractors, who have
worked on Collier beaches, estimates that it was subject to a survey
that was underway actually the day that I appeared here two weeks
ago.
And as a result of the survey -- can we go to the one slide that
actually looks south on the beach.
There is an almost unprecedented amount of sand that is currently
in front of your park adjacent to the amenity area there and the dune
crossover. We feel that this is, in part, consistent with what occurred at
the inlet between the previous dredging event and last fall's beach haul
renourishment project. There were 50,000 cubic yards of material that
were placed in the Seagate and North Park Shore area. And as a result
of the sustained and significant wind and events from the southwest, it
has pushed that sand to the north to the point that it is now adjacent to
your park and has created this spit that goes out over the mouth of the
preferred alignment of the actual inlet.
And as a result of that, when bids were opened following my last
appearance here, we had to take in account that the fill template closest
to the inlet is full, and the sand needs to be moved further south on
land that it still part of the park and part of -- and owned by the Board
of County Commissioners, but that had cost implications.
And so we are beyond the original cost estimates in recognition of
the fact that we cannot put sand adjacent to the inlet.
If we can, I've been asked to clarify two things, one of which the
County Manager's already addressed. We are not asking you to waive
your purchasing ordinance, only that provision that would normally
deal with competitive sealed bids and the time frames.
July 11, 2017
Page 228
We did accept competitive quotes that were issued through your
Purchasing Department for the work that is at hand, and it is beyond
the original estimates that we received.
We are going to ask you -- can we go to the slide that shows,
again, the track hoe.
Also for clarification purposes, when we discussed this at the
advisory board meeting, we wanted to distinguish against what is a
hydraulic dredge event and what was most recently done in 2013,
which I referred to as a mechanical excavation of this spit and then the
grading to recreate the preferred alignment. And whether we call it
mechanical excavation or mechanical dredging, we need to realign the
inlet itself consistent with the management plan and the permits that
are in hand.
So what we're asking for today is you to authorize the competitive
quote to the lowest and most responsive bidder which is, as the County
Manager indicated, Donald Dachuk Tractor Services in an amount of
$84,500.
And I would ask that that also be further modified in recognition
of the fact that I'm the only thing standing between you and your
summer recess, that in the event that we are not successful in
negotiating the contract for the County Manager's signature, that we
also then go to the next and closest competitor who's only $3,000
more.
And so because there is some urgency with respect not only to
mangrove die-off and the ensuing water quality and drainage issues in
the back bay, we do feel that an emergency situation presents itself.
The budget amendment is warranted. And with those two
clarifications, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
July 11, 2017
Page 229
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a couple questions,
quickly.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know he's standing between
us and your 60-day break. I don't get a break, just so you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why? Have you been a bad boy?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have been a bad boy, yes.
I didn't see any ecological reports with regard to the current flow
and the redirection of the pass. Have you got -- have they got by me?
MR. DORRILL: We do issue, monthly, a series of reports. I
think the one you're referring to is the tide gauge ratios.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
MR. DORRILL: One for June has been completed, and we'd be
happy to make a copy. Is it on the website, the June one?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Was there a reduction in the
flow because --
MR. DORRILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- of the redirection of the
pass?
MR. DORRILL: There was a reduction in the ratio between the
tide that occurs in the outside Gulf of Mexico and the tide -- the
corresponding tide within the location of the tide-gauge monitors.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there was some
representations. I don't know if you all got the correspondence or not,
but there were some representations about the timeliness with this and
storm season and hurricanes and how the pass regularly clogs back up
again and whether or not the survival was -- of what was going on
ecologically could be -- or could be maintained and -- or protecting
your building. I know there's an eminent issue with the bank caving
away from one of the -- I think it's the beach house or something that
we have out there.
July 11, 2017
Page 230
MR. DORRILL: Actually, that one that you see in the picture we
shared the other day is owned by the Pelican Bay Foundation, not the
homeowners association.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. So other than that, I just
was wondering if the eminence of this is necessary for right now; if we
could wait till the storm -- till the hurricane season was over.
MR. DORRILL: Well, that's always an alternative, but when I
was here two weeks ago, at that point we had not reached one of the
three critical, what we call, triggers that would then warrant a
dredging-type event.
And not to get overcomplicated, the preferred ratio between the
Gulf of Mexico, we'll call it the true tide, and then the tide within the
back bay system is one-half foot difference. It has reduced now to the
point where it's only two-tenths of a foot, so that would trigger one of
those events in addition to other ones that include the number of cubic
yards of material that are clogging the system and other associated
things like that. So we are now at the point to where one of the
required three triggers has been met.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's my only questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's already been moved and
seconded. I was just asking questions and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- getting in the way of your
summer break.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion? All those --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have three registered
speakers. I do not believe they're in the room, but I should call them.
Garrett Beyrent.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not here.
July 11, 2017
Page 231
MR. MILLER: And Dr. Joseph Doyle?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not here.
MR. MILLER: And Sandra Doyle. No, not here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good, because I was ready to call
the question, which I'm doing right now. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Thanks for your patience. It's been a long day.
Item #11G
RESOLUTION 2017-143: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) COLLIER COUNTY
OWNER-OCCUPIED REHABILITATION PROGRAM,
PRIMARILY TO CLARIFY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE COUNTY, THE SUBRECIPIENT, AND THIRD PARTY
INSPECTORS, AND TO INCORPORATE MINOR
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT
OF PROGRAM OPERATION – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11G, which
was previously 16D6; that was moved at Commissioner Fiala's request
July 11, 2017
Page 232
this morning. This is a recommendation to adopt a resolution
amending the State Housing Initiatives Partnership for Collier County
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program to primarily clarify roles and
responsibilities of the county, of the sub-recipient, and the third-party
inspectors.
Ms. Grant will present.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kim Grant,
Director of Community and Human Services.
I'd be happy to just take questions, or would you like me to do a
brief presentation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you don't need to give me a
brief presentation. Thank you.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to apologize for bringing it up
so late because I was reading it so late. I was still reading my agenda
last night at 10 after 10; actually, I read on till 11:30, but anyway, this
is what I found at 10 after 10.
I didn't quite understand all of these things. I wrote out some
questions, and later on I made a call, actually. But I wanted to know --
these were just -- they were just six points. You already have them. I
gave them to Steve Carnell. He's given them to you. Who is the
sub-recipient? When it talks about having a sub-recipient receive, who
is that? It says not for profit or whatever; who is that?
MS. GRANT: Okay. The sub-recipient is a term that's defined in
the Florida Administrative Code as a person or organization contracted
by a SHIP-eligible local government that is compensated with SHIP
funds to provide administration of a program.
In our LHAP, which is another governing document of this
program, we allow sub-recipients to be for-profit or not-for-profit
entities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What for-profit do we give to?
July 11, 2017
Page 233
MS. GRANT: Do we have any for-profit right now? Right now
we do not have any for-profit, but they would be eligible to apply
when we put out our RFPs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they ever provide services -- and
it says broad base of residents. Do they ever provided services to
seniors? I'm really on this senior kick, as you well know, and so far
the door has been closed, but I keep hoping I'm going to find
someplace to get my toe in that door and start doing something to help
some of our senior housing.
MS. GRANT: Well, Commissioner, maybe we've got a little
opening here, a little door opening, a little crack.
Interestingly enough, actually a large number of the applicants,
the owner-occupied rehabilitation program, are seniors. Right now, in
fact, all of our new applicants -- we have eight or 10 right now that are
seniors. But also in the LHAP, which governs this program, the
highest priority needs category for who is to get the money first is
referred to as special needs, but when you look at the definition of
special needs, it says anyone receiving Social Security income. So,
essentially, by default, at least the vast majority of people over 65 are
our highest priority within the program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's interesting, because I
was wondering, if there is a priority for elderly -- that was my next
question. Do they have to be citizens of the United States?
MS. GRANT: So the state -- neither the state nor the SHIP
regulations require anything associated with citizenship, but here at the
county we have adopted a policy where we require all applicants for
SHIP programs to either be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and
so we apply that to this program as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To this program as well?
MS. GRANT: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then secondly -- or, thirdly,
July 11, 2017
Page 234
it says that you may advertise. I would love it to say "you shall
advertise," because, I mean, I don't know how many people look at the
newspaper or look for anything like this, but we have to give it every
opportunity to get out there and let people find out that you have
something available to them.
So many people -- of course, how many people read the paper?
You know, if you're poor, you can't afford to read the paper anyway,
but you never can tell; maybe they read it online. And so I would just
hope that -- anyway, that "you shall advertise." Can you change that?
MS. GRANT: So let me respond to it in this way: This
resolution/ordinance is part of a package of documents that we're
required to follow for this program. One of the other documents is the
LHAP, the Local Housing Assistance Program, which is based on the
statutory requirements of the SHIP program. In the LHAP it states that
"you shall advertise."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
MS. GRANT: Okay. So, now, you might ask, well, why do we
have "may" in here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. GRANT: It goes on to say that if you have a wait list
exceeding the money that you next have available, you don't have to
advertise because you already have people in the hopper. So that's
why this says "may," in the event that there's a wait list already in
progress for the funds that we next have available.
We typically advertise every year the new pot, always. We have
it on our website. We're out through all the nonprofit organizations,
and we're letting people know about this all the time. So we're
following the statute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe some elderly don't even deal
with not-for-profits or don't even realize that they can. I mean, I don't
know --
July 11, 2017
Page 235
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do they get on the wait list?
MS. GRANT: Well, they come to us through a number of
different venues. They may or may not see us on the website. They
may be referred by, you know, a friend or a not-for-profit that they're
working with for some reason.
How do we -- that's typically it. Once in a while, although it's
probably been at least a year, we've done some very specific targeted
outreach. We talk about our SHIP program every month at the
continuum-of-care group, which has all the homeless and home
providers. So a number of ways.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the Code Enforcement?
I'm trying to move it along --
MS. GRANT: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so don't mind me.
MS. GRANT: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about Code Enforcement, but
-- and it says, you know, that possibly they would find people there
but, of course, within the code enforcement violations, there might be
people that we -- we would -- might have a problem including in the
program, and we don't want to do that either. I mean, we want to make
sure this program is safe and reaches out to people who can benefit by
it and not use it. So I'm just going to throw that in as well.
And it says you may provide bid specks to homeowners. Should
-- the homeowners should approve the cost of the repairs, right, since
it's a lien on their house. Do they get those?
MS. GRANT: We agree. Yes, they actually approve at two or
three different places in the process. Initially, before anything is
contracted, they receive a letter outlining who the subs are that are
going to be working on their property and what the costs are, and they
sign that.
July 11, 2017
Page 236
Later on, they enter into an actual contract with the contractor so,
obviously, the price is specified there. And then at the end of the
process, they sign that the work has been completed, and that's part of
what needs to be submitted to us in order to reimburse the contractor
for the expenses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just two more and we're
done. The next one is, it say in this -- on Page 1879 it says -- it
indicates that room additions might be considered for overcrowding.
Well, overcrowding, does that mean all in the same family? And I
have to go back; you weren't here yet when this happened. But the
Sheriff's Office -- I was working closely with them because of all of
the problems that we were having coming out of all of the low-income
housing that we have located here, and they happened to, at five
o'clock in the morning, go to arrest somebody. When -- they
surrounded the house, and when they opened the door, 27 people came
out of there, and out of a three-bedroom home with 27 people pouring
out of there. They came over and let me know -- you weren't here.
But, anyway, they let me know what a problem that was. And they
said, this is what's happening with overcrowding.
And so I was just concerned about seeing something like that
happen. And so what would the room additions be, or do you have to
come to us for approval? Or why would you allow that? Because we
all know that there are some groups that house altogether, and
sometimes only one of them work.
I'm looking at a house close by here, right around the corner
actually, where there are people there all day long, every day, cars all
over. Only one person works; he works two jobs. Everybody else just
sits around outside and has a great old time. So, you know, how much
do you want to provide to a group like that, you know.
MS. GRANT: Well, fair enough. And the intent for that being in
this ordinance has to do with our Code of Laws and Ordinances here at
July 11, 2017
Page 237
the county that defines overcrowding, and it essentially indicates -- so
if we -- if a client contacts us and we're going to go out and potentially
work on their home, one of the things we're going to evaluate is
whether they've exceeded the limits, and the limits indicate that there's
to be 250 square feet of habitable floor space for the first person, 200
for each additional person but not to exceed four unrelated persons in
the household.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Four unrelated persons in the
household.
MS. GRANT: Unrelated persons in the household.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not their kids or anything?
MS. GRANT: Yeah, just -- right.
So what we're trying to do here is if we have a family that is, you
know, living in -- large actual legitimate related family and they are
overcrowding and they are, therefore, essentially creating a code
violation, we may consider doing this. To date we have not done this.
I don't -- I don't know if we ever will, but we're attempting to follow
the codes in our application of the program.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that already part of the
existing processes that you have in place with regard to the per square
foot per person, or did you just --
MS. GRANT: We're required to follow all of the codes. So, yes,
we're spelling it out here more clearly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm just asking the question.
MS. GRANT: Yeah, no, no. Fair enough, fair enough. But we
are actually spelling it out here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the last one was about you
-- I called Crystal Kinzel on this one because it was saying something
July 11, 2017
Page 238
about directing the Clerk of Courts to pay -- to make payments and so
forth, and I didn't even understand what this was talking about, but I
didn't -- are we allowed to direct the Clerk of Courts when there might
be a problem or --
MS. GRANT: Oh, you guys didn't know that I could direct the
Clerk of Courts? Just a little joke for the afternoon.
Fair question. So our -- this is not intended to tell the Clerk of
Courts what they can or cannot do or what authority they have or do
not have. It's really just to specify, essentially, who the disbursement
office is or who's actually making the payments.
Based on your question, we could consider a minor modification
on the language. The language currently says Collier County Clerk's
Finance Department shall process payment. Perhaps we could insert a
word, shall process "legal" or "validated" or something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask Crystal on that one,
because she's the one I called on that.
MS. KINZEL: Well, usually we just say the Clerk will do the
Clerk's job separately. But if she's already got a document, we just
want it clarified that it would have to be legal. So thank you for
pointing that out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. Good.
Now, I thank you very much, so I make a motion to approve.
Oh, did you want to ask a question?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. For point of -- I do have a
question, quick question. Are you working with the City of Naples
and identifying the seniors? We have -- in my neighborhood, I've seen
them, and there's a great deal of help. I know Susan Golden now is in
your department.
MS. GRANT: Yes.
July 11, 2017
Page 239
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there -- is it open with the city, or do
I need to help with this?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely. Any resident in the county is eligible
for this. We have a -- last meeting you approved two new agreements.
Both of those sub-recipients are going to be reaching out. We will
continue to reach out, so absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Dr. Faffer at the Jewish home for
-- it's -- I've got it wrong, but it's a --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Senior center?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The senior center, yes. Are you -- do
you -- there needs to be major outreach to that.
MS. GRANT: I can make a specific call to her. I certainly deal
with her on other things. We'll make sure they're looped in.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She'll have standing room only for --
there's so much of a need. I mean, she, of all the people in Collier
County, has her finger on the senior --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She does, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's wonderful. Please, please do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe you can even go out and give
a presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She would have it over one of her
lunches or something.
MS. GRANT: Absolutely. We can do that. No problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion. Oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion on the floor. No, do
it. Do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor
and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
July 11, 2017
Page 240
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
All right.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 15, staff and commission
general communications.
Commissioners, I don't have anything except to tell you that I had
hoped at this meeting to have a renewed interlocal agreement with the
City regarding beach parking and park and recreation usage, but we're
still working through that with my counterpart and his staff, so that
probably won't be ready for you till you return, if then. It's a little bit
of a struggle right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Understanding that the renewal is
October 2018; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: September 30, 2018, is the expiration date of the
contract, so we have some time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But not a lot, given the situation.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Depends on your perspective.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was just going to say that.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, Madam Chair.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am.
July 11, 2017
Page 241
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nothing, County Attorney.
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Nothing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for -- both of you very
much for your support and for keeping this -- keeping everything in
order. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: My pleasure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Kinzel?
MS. KINZEL: No. Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I have two. Number one,
for all of you who are here and those that are still watching, we have
the Immokalee Foundation over in Immokalee, and they are in dire
need of mentors, specifically female mentors. And maybe, if you're
not aware, that -- the criterion, the Immokalee Foundation provides for
scholarships for high school students and the like.
One of the requisites to qualify for the scholarship is having
participated in a mentor program. So if you know of anybody or can
help us advertise that, please let that be known that they are in dire
need of mentors, specifically female, lady mentors for the Immokalee
Foundation.
Number two, I'd like to ask our County Manager, I was -- we
talked about a corridor study on the East Trail on 41 for that six-mile
swath or so, and I don't recall where we were from a timing standpoint
for that. Do you have one?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've hired a consultant, and I think
Jamie's going to come up and give you a little more de -- they've had a
kickoff meeting, I think, just a week or so ago. I think, Commissioner
Fiala, you might have been even involved with that.
Laura DeJohn at the Fire Department --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala wasn't
July 11, 2017
Page 242
involved in the kickoff?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, no. There was a meeting they
held just about a week ago with their consultant. I think Jamie will
give you a little more detail.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would hope that you guys would
invite me into some of this stuff, or at least East Naples Civic
Association.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, when there's a kickoff
meeting, it's just to set the parameters with the consultant. It's not to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already understand that most of
these storage units are all three-story. We don't have three-story down
there, but it's going to look like a canyon in there already. It's too bad
that so many -- they're all going through real quickly, because we
didn't give them a moratorium, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I understand. And one of
the things that we're having the discussion about and I pledge --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's too late.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not too late.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I pledged to work with you
with regard to the corridor study, which was -- I was not aware that it
wasn't already transpiring.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're working on it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I want to be -- I want like
to be aware of it.
I know you hate it when we both talk at the same time. I'm sorry,
Terri. But I would like to be made aware as well as this process goes
forward.
MR. FRENCH: We'll make sure we invite you, Commissioner.
Good evening. Jamie French, for the record.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How you doing, Jamie?
July 11, 2017
Page 243
MR. FRENCH: I'm well, thank you. Your Deputy Department
Head for Growth Management.
Commissioner, we did meet with the East Naples Civic
Association.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know you went to their meeting.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am. And it was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good.
MR. FRENCH: -- very well received. It was a preliminary
overview of what had been found so far and really to lay out the
schedule on how we would be developing and how we'd be reporting
out.
We still anticipate this study to be done somewhere around
November or December of this year. But it is well underway. The
contract's been let, and we are working with Laura DeJohn, as Nick
mentioned, and so -- with Johnson Engineering. And so we're pretty
pleased so far.
Mike Bosi has been intimately involved, and we'll make sure to
invite -- in fact, we'll send out a notice to all of the commissioners in
the event that you have interest. Just let us know if you would be
showing up, and we'll make sure we publicly advertise it that you may
be present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is staff trying to discourage anybody
from building these three-story derelict buildings that nobody can use
other than one person making lots of money? You could put it up
there --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- says she. I mean, they're brand
new buildings except they don't encourage any job growth. They do
nothing at all except make it a canyon.
MR. FRENCH: You're absolutely correct, ma'am. And then we
are -- we recognize your input and -- as does Laura. So we'll make
July 11, 2017
Page 244
sure we address that in this study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Jamie.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, you. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I wanted to thank
everybody on our staff for working so well with the Marco Island
people. For anybody who happened to miss it when they were reading
the agenda, the agreement has been drawn, we approved it today. We
now finally have control of 92A into Goodland, and we can start
moving forward after all of this time and all of this effort.
I was happy that Marco Island worked with us. They could have
gone the other way; they didn't. And so I'm just here to tell you that
we're going to diligently work -- it will take a long time yet. Lots of
permitting. It's a couple years away. Lots of permitting to go through
in order to get all of this done, but thank you. Thank you for
continuing to push forward with that, gentlemen. I really appreciate
that. That's my first thing.
The second thing is, you know what, they're already starting to
get applications for pickleball next year; yes, they are. I just wanted to
tell you. And in case you haven't seen it, there's a Pickleball Magazine
here, and it talks all about Naples, Florida, and the good that we're
doing in the pickleball world, and we are now considered the
pickleball capital of the world.
And the people that we have flooded in here and the money we've
made is astounding when you think of sports. We've never done
anything like this before. And so we've had some help on this. We've
all been working together on it. And I heard, just through the
grapevine -- I probably shouldn't say this. But I heard through the
July 11, 2017
Page 245
grapevine one of the -- Paradise Marketing has put together a little bit
of a plan to call something -- and it isn't finalized yet -- but pickleball
and beaches. And I thought, oh, that's kind of cute. I've never heard
anything like that. So I'm just telling you about that.
And the last thing is all of us, I believe, have received an
invitation to the White House, and that was intergovernmental affairs.
What a surprise that is; who would have ever thought that we would
get an invitation, but all Florida commissioners, not just us, have
received that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really? I thought we were
special.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not special at all. I was hoping --
I hope that somebody wants to go or somebody wants to send me,
whichever you want to do. I will go or -- somebody else can go, or a
few of us can go.
At this intergovernmental affair invitation, the Florida
Association of Counties will also be there, and they're going to have a
special day getting together all of Florida county people. So I think
that's a wonderful opportunity for us to meet and greet, and that's a
good thing.
And then actually the National Association of Counties -- I'm on
one of their committees as well -- is also holding a -- I'm sorry. I don't
know how I got on all those things. Anyway, the National Association
of Counties is hosting a briefing at their headquarters in the evening
prior to the conference.
So these are things that are going on. We need to decide if we
want to send some of our people up, one of our people up, five of us
up, whatever, and -- because that's coming up pretty close now, so --
MR. OCHS: July 27th is the day of the event. The FAC item will
be probably the evening before on the 26th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But it means that there's
July 11, 2017
Page 246
airplane fares. And I'm going to be in Ohio, so it will be a little bit
cheaper for me, but not that much, and there's also hotels and taxis and
all of that. Do we want to put out the money to do that?
I got a wonderful message -- you might have all gotten it, too --
from FAC saying this is an opportunity that we've never had before in
the state of Florida. And there are so many issues, according to this
message from Florida Association of Counties, to say that we have so
many messages for Florida to bring to the White House, and she was
hoping as many of us could go as could.
So now I'm asking you if you all would like to go, if you'd like to
send a couple of us, if you'd like to send one of us; whatever you want
to do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think you already have a
budget for travel. I personally can't go. I looked at the invitation, but
I've already got commitments that week to go see my mom, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. That's good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- I'm not going to be able to go
myself. But, I mean, we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might have to have a budget
amendment because, you know --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll cover you if you've spent
your money.
(Simultaneous speakers.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you're running over, we'll
cover you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Gentlemen?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I think it's interesting,
and maybe there's other things that we can do or bring up; I mean,
unfunded mandates and things. I just have to look at my calendar and
see if I can do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
July 11, 2017
Page 247
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got a flight back from
Virginia on the 25th already, so I'm going to be in the neighborhood. I
don't know if I can stay or, you know, drive up and fly back a day or so
later, but I can take a look at my calendar. There's a possibility of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that would be good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We can all stay at the Trump
hotel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somehow it doesn't say that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We can curry favor with the
president while we're there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, anyway, would you all -- well,
how do we do this? Do we ask --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, any commissioners that want to go,
if we can help with arrangements, we'd be happy to do that. John
Mullen, our new Government Affairs Manager, will go up and assist
whoever goes up, and we'll make it a productive day and a half up
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is just great.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's up to us individually if we want
to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah.
MR. OCHS: But I think it's a good opportunity. And the White
House is reaching out, so we ought to take advantage of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we -- you kind of have an
idea of what we're going to do, then, by the nods, or we can just move
forward --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because, gosh, that's, like, in two
weeks or something, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I think we --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. It's the week after next.
July 11, 2017
Page 248
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we could -- it's kind of late to do
this, but maybe we could get to the County Manager what we think the
issues should be. It's probably -- you know, it's probably not
immigration, but it just might be Lake Okeechobee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It just might be the water issue. It just
might be the beaches.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It might be fracking. Who knows,
you know, until we come up with something or another. But I think
we ought to coordinate together so that whoever is bringing the
message is bringing it from all of us. I don't think one person ought to
just make those decisions. We can all make them and work with the
County Manager and Deputy Manager so we have a set goal.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is our chairman --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I'm going to be out of pocket.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'll prepare, you know, a draft
issues book for you that kind of captures the federal agenda that this
board has already approved and any of the another items that might be
of interest, and we can -- you can all work off of those notebooks, if
you'd like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Interesting Commissioner Solis
mentioned unfunded mandates, because that's exactly what Florida
Association of Counties was talking about, too.
MR. OCHS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure was.
MR. OCHS: And we'll coordinate with their agenda as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Great. Thank you. That's all
from me now, finally.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
July 11, 2017
Page 249
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had one quick one that I
forgot, you know. And we were talking about your favorite subject,
the landscape program and tax hike, and I had made a suggestion about
forestalling the second portion of -- or the eastern portion of the
Immokalee Road project, and I'd like to give direction to staff to do
that until we come back in the fall, to put off that phase of the project
until we come back in the fall so we can get a better timing on where
we are with those intersection improvements and any improvements to
Immokalee Road so that we're not landscaping and then tearing it up.
And it's just a couple-of-month deferral from the current program
as it -- because they're ready to go out for bid right now which is why I
was --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's design. We have a design work
order from Wilson to 43rd. So I think he wants to delay that two
months. Just in case there is Board support to adjust the program, you
wouldn't have a designer on contract already for that phase.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all I'm asking, yes,
ma'am.
(Simultaneous speakers.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're right at the beginning.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that okay? Are we good
with --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't want to delay. I think we don't
need to delay; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Oh, no. I think that's what's being asked for is that
we not move forward with the design for the second phase of the
Immokalee Road landscaping until you come back in the fall. I believe
that captures --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're about to enter into a
July 11, 2017
Page 250
contract for hiring somebody to continue on with that portion of the
project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe we could take another
portion instead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- there's so many that you want to
do. I'm thinking of Santa Barbara, I'm thinking of 951.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, there's so many things
that we want to do. Whatever you decide.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, there's already a -- you
know, the Board approved -- and it's just an "ask for" that last three
miles of Immokalee Road improvement, and it was prioritized per the
program that staff determined from the prior board's election to raise
the unincorporated tax and do the landscape improvements, and they
programmed it based on a rationale of first in, first out, whatever those
actually mean, but the long -- and right now programmed up to do is
Immokalee Road proper all the way out past the fairgrounds, and I'm
just asking that we defer for a couple of months us moving forward on
the last portion of that from -- go ahead and do it to Wilson. They're
wide open on that, which takes care of the folks --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twin Eagles.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- Twin Eagles and Heritage
Bay and The Quarry and the subdivisions along Immokalee Road, and
defer the second portion of that for me, because I know that there are
intersection improvements coming for Randall and Immokalee Road
and Oil Well and Immokalee Road, and I just want to ensure that we're
on pace, so that's the request.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Does that sit well with staff?
July 11, 2017
Page 251
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As long as you're okay with it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I want to ask staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I have to get a head nod.
They won't do anything.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just have one quick thing. I would
like to invite everyone to -- the Hispanic Foundation of Collier County
gives away a -- scholarship awards, two scholarships every year to
Hispanic young women who study -- want to go study STEM-related
fields: Science, technology, engineering, and math.
And we're going to be giving the scholarship away on August 9th
at the Community Foundation. And there are some amazing, amazing
young women.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: When is that going to be?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: August 8th, I believe at six clock.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But I'll confirm that. At the
Community Foundation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At the Community Foundation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: At the Community Foundation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can you make sure your aide --
or your assistant gives us an invitation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will. Absolutely. There it is. It
appears.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Speak of the worthy aide, or
the worthy executive coordinator.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it?
July 11, 2017
Page 252
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have a couple things, and
I had an interesting meeting with the Clerk's Office yesterday. We
were talking about the incubators and some of the issues there.
So I know we're getting ready to do our budget, and I'd like to
have staff kind of give us a little bit of a report. It can be informally
one-on-one or at our next meeting, but I want to make sure we're not
making any mistakes in terms of that, and I know that's something
that's very dear to Commissioner McDaniel because of the Immokalee
incubator, and I know Commissioner Solis, he's our economic
development man. But we need to take a look, because there may be
some issues that we just need to help them with.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. We're meeting with the Clerk on Friday to
talk about that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to beat a drum here
again. There was a recent article in the Naples Daily News July 9th,
this past Sunday. It was written by the Policy Director for Airbnb.
And they're just talking about the tourist tax collections. And Lee
County collected $150,000 in the first five months of 2017. We know
that there's some substantial amount of money, probably a couple
hundred thousand dollars that Collier County could be collecting. We
just adopted an ordinance dealing with the fifth penny, so that
number's going to go up probably another 50,000.
And so I'd like for staff to continue working with the Tax
Collector. Let's see if we can arrive at some solutions to collecting
this. I think we have an obligation, quite frankly. We can't leave
$300,000 on the table. We need to -- and I know that the Tax
Collector has been very diligent about this issue, concerned about
issues dealing with audits and that sort of thing.
But as pointed out in the article in the Naples Daily News, 39
counties are collecting this. Some are very sophisticated counties:
Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough. Not Palm Beach, but
July 11, 2017
Page 253
Dade, Broward, and Hillsborough, Lee County, Leon County. And so
I'd like to see us get into that.
I had asked the Board, and the Board had agreed, to set up a joint
meeting with the fire commissioners to start talking about fire-district
issues so we could be brought up to speed. I'd like to delay that. I
don't want to give up the concept, but instead of trying to do something
in October/November time frame, just put that off until the May/June
time frame, 2018, when we can -- perhaps things will have progressed
a little further there on some of the issues. And so I'd like to take that
issue off the table for October. I know staff has been trying to figure
out what is it that I'm looking for --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So are they.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And I've been trying to
figure out the same thing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And on a footnote, just a quick
note that, I know -- maybe you don't know, but there was a joint
meeting between North Collier and Immokalee. Both boards got
together. They've agreed to enter into a management agreement of
sorts to start that process, or make sure that everything works well, in
case you weren't aware of that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was not, but thank you. So
with your permission, we'll put that off for about six months until the
May/June time frame. And even at that point in time it may not be
necessary, but I'd like to keep that issue alive till then.
Then a couple things on just a personal note. I want to thank
Madam Chairman for your efforts this morning when there was an
attempt to have a personal attack on one of our commissioners. And to
me that's very telling in terms of the collegiality we have with this
board. You weren't going to permit the personal attack. I was ready to
defend myself, but you weren't going to permit it, and I appreciate that.
That says a lot, and so I just wanted to thank you.
July 11, 2017
Page 254
I also want to congratulate the Board. We had some really
difficult decisions today. We've had some difficult decisions over the
last, you know, five or six months. And even though sometimes we
disagree, we always get to what I think is a really positive decision. I
think today we had some very difficult decisions, and we got to, I
think, the right decision on everything we talked about today.
And that's because of the chairman's leadership and that's because
of the leadership of every member of this council working together to
try to do what's best for our constituents. So I just want to thank the
Board for that.
And then, finally, I want to thank our staff. You know, this is the
first break for three of us. And there's been -- you know, there's been
some criticism about commissions taking what's called vacations, not
having meetings for a few weeks. But I'll tell you, our staff needs a
break from these meetings --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: From us.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- more than we need a break
from these meetings. This will give them an opportunity to really get
caught up on a lot of issues. So I just want to thank staff for what
really what I think has been some incredible staff work from the
County Attorney down to the County Manager and the Assistant
County Manager and our Utilities Manager, all of our staff. Jamie and
Len and everybody in the back of the room there, just thank you for
what I consider to be some really professional work that's been done
for this board.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question of
Commissioner Saunders, if I may. And that is, did you -- I never had
hear on the fundraiser that we did at Sugden. Did you get an
approximation?
July 11, 2017
Page 255
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we did --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Does he still owe us money?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We did really well. We've got
about $15,000 that's been distributed --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nice.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- to the families and, of
course, that was an effort to thank the firefighters and the other people
that were involved in those fire events, so I think it went really well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I know, Commissioner
McDaniel, you were there. I think everybody had a good time. So
thank you for asking.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no, thank you. I just -- I
hadn't heard any kind of a tally on -- I know it was a successful event,
and I want to commend you and -- well, actually it was Daphne that I
want to commend. She did all the work, her daughters.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's a fact.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I'll just finish up here.
I had a conversation with Larry Ray and also about the issue of
the TDT collections. And in conversation with some citizens, they
suggested -- why -- because apparently the -- I hate to say it. But the
group that seems to be the most offending of this are, unfortunately,
certain realtors.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Bad realtors.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that maybe laws can be created by
this board to require a certain formality when they rent to be listed or,
you know -- and I'm just going to pose this out to see if it's possible --
an ordinance for saying that when you -- when you are the realtor and
you are the agent that is renting out these houses, you have to list this.
You have to list the house. You have to list the time frame.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. There's an agreement
July 11, 2017
Page 256
between the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's almost like we're open for business.
This is what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that might be something that we
might consider. And I can see the County Attorney frowning over
there, so I'm almost afraid to ask him because I think he's going to say
no.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm not going to say no. I'm going to say
to be careful what you ask for, because you've got a lot of areas in this
county that this activity's not allowed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you're going to be asking people to tell
you that they're doing an activity that's not allowed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm thinking very, very closely
about my colleagues in the City of Naples. So maybe we can explore
this.
And then --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to say, on this
particular point, that is a separate issue, though, in terms of the tax
collection and the potential reporting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- but when I talked to Mr. Ray,
his issue was, I think we're doing a good job. I know we could do
better, but if we -- he's -- it's almost -- he doesn't want to succumb to,
here you are, this is what you get because of who we are in Collier
County, because there's so much rental here.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's really one of the reasons
why I'd like to get this moving because, again, we're talking 250- to
July 11, 2017
Page 257
$300,000. We can't just walk away from that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's true. Well, we'll continue
this in September. Okay.
And then on a final note, I have two letters here; one from
Charlotte County Government and one from Lee County Government
opting out of the RPC, giving a 12-month notice that they are not
going to pay their dues. We do have a membership -- a payment on
our annual dues sitting on Mr. Isackson's desk as we speak.
I'd like to see if I have a consensus here that we do not pay this
and that we proceed because, frankly, if Lee County is not involved
anymore, it is no more RPC.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I -- you know, you've
listened to do me for five, six months now that I've served on that
committee, and what meeting have I been at that I haven't talked about
relevancy for that organization? None. Every single one I go.
And I talk -- and I've talked to our Executive Director, and I've
talked to our staff. The concerns -- the major concern that I have is the
lack of existence of that organization is going to negatively impact -- it
is the organization that received the Promise Zone designation for
Immokalee, Hendry, and Glades County.
And so, if we do decide to opt out, I would like to make a
commitment or some sort of a statement to our staff -- because we
have unbelievable staff; Mr. Durham. So what I would like to do is
make a commitment to support the Promise Zone initiative minimally
through the South Florida Planning Council so that we don't jeopardize
that designation -- it's obvious that the council's -- the expenses of the
council are going to be adjusted because their revenue is being
adjusted.
None of us are opting out. We can't statutorily opt out. We have
to be a member. We can just opt to not pay --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
July 11, 2017
Page 258
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- which is then, in turn, going
to have a negative impact. And Ms. Margaret, the director, at the last
meeting talked about, you know, the fact that Lee County was opting
out and that they weren't going to adjust the fees to the balance of the
counties that are left. And I think our hand may be being forced now.
And so as a proviso, if we do decide -- and it's up to you all. I
can't say that I'm not in favor of not sending a check, but I minimally
want to manage the program for the Promise Zone. There's an
inordinate amount of benefit to three economically deprived rural
communities there that have a huge opportunity to receive federal
funding.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- but there is a loose coalition of
five counties that meet with county managers and the chairman of
county commission, and those two counties, plus our county, are
involved in that. So I think that is -- that is an easy transition.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If it, in fact, can be done. But
for now, the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we're not doing it tomorrow. It's
just to get a consensus that you would agree that we --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When is the fee due?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right now.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, it's due right now?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was two days ago. And it's 25,000.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Lee County is opting out
beginning of next year.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, not this year.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But they've -- but they're -- opt out of
dues-paying membership in the RPC, and they're going to pursue it.
What the time frame -- but it's -- I think you have to give them a year's
July 11, 2017
Page 259
notice, but I think we need to start this now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would concur. I just want to
make the note that we're going to jump in there. And we've talked
about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So withdraw. Now, Charlotte is
withdrawing 12 months from this notification.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it's for next year.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I do believe that -- and I -- we can
-- I have a letter here, so Chairman Manning, we could call him. I do
believe they've stopped payment now, and they will withdraw in a
year. So you stop payment, and then you withdraw.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me see if I understood clearly
what you were saying. So there's federal funds involved -- you get
federal grants if you're part of the RPC?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, ma'am. Well -- no, ma'am.
The Promise Zone initiative --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The Promise Zone initiative
was awarded to the Southwest Florida Planning Council to be
administered for Immokalee, all of Hendry, and all of Glades County.
They are the recipient. They are the facilitating agency per se.
One of the issues that counties such as Charlotte and Lee and
Sarasota, who has already opted out of payment -- and, again, I don't --
and this is a correction, Madam Chair. I don't think you can opt out of
Council. It's statutory that we have to be a member of something. It's
just that you don't have to pay, and then you don't become -- you're no
longer a voting participant. You're just -- you have to be there, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do you get -- do you lose your
funding then?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fearful that if that --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
July 11, 2017
Page 260
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- organization is in jeopardy,
they would jeopardize their capacity to support the Promise Zone
initiative. And, yes, it's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That would fall under cutting off the
nose to spite the face. For 25,000, the upside of being the Promise
Zone --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We've heard again and again -- and I've
been on the RPC for three years now -- that without the support of the
different counties financially, there is no RPC.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Lee County is the key. When I
saw the Lee County letter --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's find out if Lee County is
making the payment for 2017/2018 and then indicating that that's their
last payment and they're out. If that's the case, then let's make the
payment ourselves and stay in. If they are not paying 2017/2018, then
there's no point in us making the payment because there won't be any
RPC.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And their payment is, I think,
150,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just think we could come back in
September and give you a whole explanation and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- history.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And also, let's assume that we're going
to go through with this sooner than later. Let's talk about a
contingency plan to make sure that Immokalee stays within the
Promise Zone designation and what the handoff would be -- excuse
me. I'm sorry. If there's no money to pay the rent where the building
is, there's no money to support the staff, you know, we're in that
July 11, 2017
Page 261
position. So I think we do have to plan for this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm all over it. I mean, if
you would like to, you know, give the head nod to send a notice that
we're giving 12-month notice that we're not going to pay --
MR. OCHS: Why don't we come back; your first meeting in
September I'll have the whole executive summary with all the backup
and all the options for you. I would like to pay this last quarter's
installment, though --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- in good faith to the RPC, and it keeps us active,
then, in the Promise Zone.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, it is an
annual expense to us of 100-.
MR. OCHS: About 105,000.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: On an annual basis. This one
that's due right now is a quarterly installment, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. It's 25,000.
All right.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, that's all I have. And I wanted to
thank staff and thank my board and thank -- you know, it was a tough
meeting today, but I agree with so much of what Commissioner
Saunders said. And thank you, and have a very good break, all of you.
You've worked very hard. And thank you again.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Meeting is adjourned.
*****
July 11, 2017
Page 262
***** Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner
Taylor and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted *****
Item #16A1 – Continued to the September 12, 2017 BCC Meeting
(Per Commissioner McDaniel during Agenda Changes)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INSTALLATION OF LICENSE PLATE READING
(LPR) CAMERAS WITHIN COUNTY ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Item #16A2
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 16-7034 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$654,005 TO CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR THE
PURCHASE, CONFIGURATION AND INSTALLATION OF AN
INTELIGHT ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(ATMS), TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS AND
ASSOCIATED COMPONENTS, THROUGHOUT COLLIER
COUNTY AND A TIME EXTENSION TO LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT #433174-1 WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNTIL JUNE 30, 2019
(PROJECT NO. 33473)
Item #16A3
THREE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WEIR ON THE
CURRY CANAL JUST SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD.
(CURRY CANAL WEIR PROJECT NO. 60205.) ESTIMATED
July 11, 2017
Page 263
FISCAL IMPACT: $46,350 – FOR THREE PARCELS: 103AME,
103DAME AND 104DAME
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF ARTHREX
BOULEVARD, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170001077 –
LOCATED BETWEEN US 41 AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
ON THE NORTH OF CREEKSIDE BLVD
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF ESPLANADE AT
HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 1A, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20170001378 – LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
AT RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2017-124: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF HATCHERS PRESERVE, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20120000510 WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED;
ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT DEDICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
July 11, 2017
Page 264
FOR BARRINGTON COVE, PHASES 1 AND 2, PL20150000180
AND PL20150001281, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON MAY 16, 2017 AND FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY
Item #16A8
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A VALUE
OF $671,836.71 FOR PAYMENT OF $750 IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. HERIBERTO PEREZ, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CELU20090007827
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 50TH ST SW,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – VIOLATION FOR SINGLE-
FAMILY HOME CONVERTED TO A MULTI-FAMILY HOME
AND BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY THE NEW OWNERS
ON MARCH 31, 2017
Item #16A9 – Language Correction (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2017-125: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD
BE REIMBURSED UP TO $1,024,273 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
INSPECTION (CEI) OF TURN LANE EXTENSIONS AND
RESTRIPING AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
July 11, 2017
Page 265
AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, AND PINE RIDGE ROAD AND CR
31(AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT (PROJECT #33524), FPN
435176-1 433176-1/58/68
Item #16A10
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $222,180.80 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
60.080-3/PL20140001035 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 3 - THE WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
Item #16A11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE AND
TRANSFER FUNDING FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) AND
TRANSPORTATION & CDES CAPITAL FUND (310) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $322,090.78 (PROJECTS #60066, #60088, #60085,
#69333, #69336, #69339, #69338 AND #60132) – ASSOCIATED
WITH THE IMMOKALEE ROAD AT CR 951 PROJECT
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2017-126: AMENDING EXHIBIT "A" TO
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON
COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO RE-ESTABLISH THE
SPEED LIMITS ON: COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM
July 11, 2017
Page 266
GREEN BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD; ON
GREEN BOULEVARD FROM 0.5 MILES WEST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD; ON PINE RIDGE ROAD FROM 0.5 MILES WEST
OF COLLIER BOULEVARD; AND, ON WHITE BOULEVARD
FROM 0.5 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD; FROM
THIRTY-FIVE (35) MILES PER HOUR TO FORTY-FIVE (45)
MILES PER HOUR DUE TO THE COMPLETION OF
CONSTRUCTION OF "COLLIER BOULEVARD ROADWAY
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS"; PROJECT #68056
Item #16A13
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000 TO CHATHAM WOODS
DEVELOPMENT, LLC WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20160003012) FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH CHATHAM WOODS – LOCATED OFF OF
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AT JOHNNYCAKE DR
Item #16A14
AN AMENDMENT TO THE JULY 30, 2002 INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND RESUMING OWNERSHIP,
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE ENTIRETY OF COUNTY ROAD 92A (GOODLAND ROAD)
Item #16A15
ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRIANGLE BOULEVARD TRAFFIC
July 11, 2017
Page 267
STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, AND INSTRUCT
STAFF TO IDENTIFY FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) CONSIDERATION – TO
COMPLETE OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY
AT TRIANGLE BOULEVARD AND PRICE STREET
Item #16A16
WORK ORDER TO PREFERRED MATERIAL, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE “GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT
55TH STREET SW INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS” IN THE
AMOUNT OF $308,063.30 (PROJECT #60016) – ADDING A
DIRECTIONAL MEDIAN, MISCELLANEOUS DRAINAGE AND
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A17
AWARD A CONTRACT UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) SOLICITATION NUMBER #17-7103, WEST GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD JOINT STORMWATER-SEWER PROJECT, TO
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. (GRADYMINOR),
IN THE AMOUNT OF $695,591. (PROJECT NO. 60142) – FOR
SEVERAL STREETS LOCATED BETWEEN GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD AND US 41
Item #16A18
CONTRACT #17-7097 TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR COLLIER CREEK MODELING STUDY FOR TIME AND
MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $298,959.30 TO CB&I
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. AND MAKE A
July 11, 2017
Page 268
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM –
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MARCO ISLAND WHERE
IT MEETS THE MARCO RIVER
Item #16A19
AWARD SOLICITATION #17-7113 “LABORATORY
ANALYZERS” TO SEAL ANALYTICAL INC., TO PURCHASE A
DISCRETE ANALYZER FOR $50,412 AND SKALAR INC., TO
PURCHASE A BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
ANALYZER FOR $59,175 FOR USE IN THE COUNTY'S
POLLUTION CONTROL LABORATORY – TO MAINTAIN
ACCURATE AND COST EFFECTIVE TESTING PROTOCALS
Item #16A20
CONTRACT #17-7128 TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AS REQUIRED FOR “DOCTORS
AND WIGGINS PASS DREDGING” FOR TIME AND
MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $149,988.94 TO CB&I
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., AUTHORIZE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM –
DREDGING TO BEGIN NOVEMBER 1, 2017 AFTER TURTLE
NESTING SEASON
Item #16A21
RESOLUTION 2017-127: APPROVING A MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
GREEN CORRIDOR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CLEAN
July 11, 2017
Page 269
ENERGY DISTRICT TO ADMINISTER A PROPERTY
ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAM WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, AN
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND YGRENE ENERGY FUND FLORIDA LLC
THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE ORIGINAL
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN THESE AGREEMENTS
Item #16A22
RESOLUTION 2017-128: APPROVING A MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA GREEN FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER A
PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAM
WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND RENEW FINANCIAL GROUP LLC,
THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO SIGN THESE AGREEMENTS
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2017-129: APPROVING A MEMBERSHIP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA RESILIENCY AND ENERGY DISTRICT, A
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CLEAN ENERGY DISTRICT, TO
ADMINISTER A PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY
(PACE) PROGRAM WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
July 11, 2017
Page 270
OF COLLIER COUNTY, AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND RENOVATE AMERICA
INC., THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, AN
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
CORPORATION, AN ADMINISTRATOR, AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO SIGN THESE AGREEMENTS
Item #16A24
RESOLUTION 2017-130: ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) PROGRAM WITHIN
THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL
PROPERTIES AND APPROVE A STANDARD FORM
MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH PACE PROVIDERS
Item #16A25
A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH CREEKSIDE WEST, INC. FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF TWO GROUND
SIGNS WITHIN COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY – LOCATED
WITHIN ADDIE’S CORNER MPUD OFF OF TREE FARM ROAD
Item #16A26
THE RANKED LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS PURSUANT
TO RFP NO. 17-7132 “2017 BEACH RENOURISHMENT
ENGINEERING” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A
CONTRACT WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM CB&I
July 11, 2017
Page 271
ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. FOR
SUBSEQUENT BOARD APPROVAL, AND, IF CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL WITH CB&I, THEN
TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMMENCE CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE REMAINING RANKED FIRM,
AND MAKE A FIND THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
– AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
AN AFTER-THE-FACT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION
SUBMITTAL TO FUND THE IMMOKALEE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM WITHIN THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, TOTALING $250,000
Item #16B2
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 17-7148, IMMOKALEE SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS, TO MARQUEE DEVELOPMENT, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $685,494.75, AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT – FOR CONSTRUCTION
ON WEST EUSTIS AVE, S., 5TH STREET, AND S. 9TH STREET
Item #16C1
AWARD BID NUMBER 17-7135, “NRO WELL 6 TURBIDITY
REMEDIATION,” PROJECT NUMBER 70186, TO ALL WEBBS
ENTERPRISES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $319,400, AND,
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
July 11, 2017
Page 272
Item #16C2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID #17-7134, ROOFING
MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIAL REPAIRS, FOR
COUNTYWIDE USE TO FA REMODELING AND REPAIRS,
INC., AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AND CROWTHER
ROOFING AND SHEET METAL OF FLORIDA, INC., AS THE
SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR
TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENTS
Item #16C3
AWARD INVITATION TO BID #16-7021, HAMMERHEAD AND
DESIGNATED DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION, TO MULTIPLE
VENDORS IN TWO CATEGORIES
Item #16C4
CONVEYING AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY (FP&L) OVER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT AT 343 ST.
ANDREWS BOULEVARD – FOLIO #55051360003
Item #16C5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 TO
COVER COSTS FOR EXPEDITED LIFE CYCLE WATER
METER REPLACEMENTS FOR PROJECT #70010 – FUNDS
NEEDED TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL 1,400 METERS
July 11, 2017
Page 273
Item #16C6
A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND
ASSOCIATED MEMORANDUM WITH FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY, PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
24” IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER MAIN, WITHIN THE
EXISTING FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY’S
EASEMENT WITHIN THE REMINGTON RESERVE AND
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER SUBDIVISIONS –
PROJECT #70116.2
Item #16C7
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
WILLIAM LINDSAY, AS TRUSTEE, FOR 15 ACRES OF
VACANT LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL FOR THE SOLID AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, AT A
TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $181,500; PROJECT #59012,
AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT – PROPERTY
LOCATED OFF OF CRAWFORD AVENUE
Item #16C8
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $900,000 TO
CONTINUE FUNDING EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE
FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WASTEWATER
DIVISION - REALLOCATE $463,500 FROM WITHIN EXISTING
WATER-SEWER OPERATING BUDGETS WITH THE
BALANCE, $436,500, PROVIDED FROM CCWSD RESERVES
July 11, 2017
Page 274
Item #16C9
A BILL OF SALE CONVEYING A PORTION OF THE EXISTING
IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER FACILITIES TO LAS BRISAS
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR OWNERSHIP
AND MAINTENANCE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING
UTILITY PRACTICE – FOR A PROPOSED NEW METER
LOCATED NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY
ADJACENT TO GULF PARK DRIVE
Item #16C10
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #17-7108, “FOOD AND
BEVERAGE CONCESSIONS,” FOR THE MAIN GOVERNMENT
COMPLEX TO ZACK’S FOOD CART MINISTRY CATERING,
INC – REPLACING RUSSELL’S CAFÉ
Item #16D1
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 17-7142 TO COMPASS
CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE CLAM PASS PARKING
IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $588,010, PLUS $5,000
FOR COUNTY PERMITTING FEES FOR A TOTAL OF $593,010,
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM – TO RECONSTRUCT THE PARKING LOT,
REPLACING THE EXISTING PRIVACY WALL AND
INSTALLING THE SEA TURTLE STRANDING FACILITY
July 11, 2017
Page 275
Item #16D2 – Language Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 17-7139 TO INFINITE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC, FOR THE ANN OLESKY PARK PIER
REPLACEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,736.94, PLUS
$5,000 FOR COUNTY PERMITTING FEES FOR A TOTAL OF
$442,736.94, AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT,
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE
PROMOTES TOURISM – LOCATED AT LAKE TRAFFORD IN
IMMOKALEE
Item #16D3
RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
(CAT) BUS SHELTERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FROM
THE BUCKLEY MPUD AND AUTHORIZING ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – PAYMENT FOR A BUS SHELTER
AT AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND ORANGE BLOSSOM
DRIVE IN FRONT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY
Item #16D4
FOUR (4) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN
PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $17,050.40 –
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10283 KINGDOM COURT, 400
VALLEY STREAM DR. #204, 4580 10TH ST NE AND 5221 30TH
AVE SW
Item #16D5
July 11, 2017
Page 276
SIX (6) RELEASES OF LIEN FOR FULL PAYMENT OF THE
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEES FOR
OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING
UNITS – LOCATED AT 1405 AMERICA WAY, IMMOKALEE,
3611 JUSTICE CIRCLE, IMMOKLAEE, 4430 BOTANICAL
PLACE CIRCLE, NAPLES, 10283 KINGDOM COURT, NAPLES,
4440 BOTANICAL PLACE CIRCLE, NAPLES AND 1815 FREY
COURT, LEGACY LAKES IN NAPLES
Item #16D6 – Moved to Item #11G (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16D7
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING INVOICE
#40856 TO EARTHBALANCE FOR NUISANCE AND EXOTIC
PLANT SPECIES MAINTENANCE EVENTS AT THE PEPPER
RANCH PRESERVE PHASE II IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$80,982 UNDER THE EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE OF QUANTUM
MERUIT
Item #16D8
THREE (3) SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE DAVID
LAWRENCE CENTER (DLC) FOR $377,421, THE COLLIER
COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE (CCSO) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$524,089, AND THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF MENTAL
ILLNESS (NAMI) OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR $93,000 AS A
PART OF THE THREE-YEAR CRIMINAL JUSTICE MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE (CJMHSA)
REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM – COMMENCING JULY
July 11, 2017
Page 277
1, 2017 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2020
Item #16D9
APPROVAL OF THE FY17 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND
SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE FEDERAL
TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA), 49 USC § 5339 FY17
GRANT FUNDS OF $287,635 THROUGH THE TRANSIT
AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) – FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUS SHELTER AND UPGRADING
EXISTING FAREBOXES WITHIN THE CAT SYSTEM
Item #16D10
FY17 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND SUBMITTAL OF A
GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA), 49 USC § 5307 FY17 GRANT FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,391,838 THROUGH THE TRANSIT
AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS), ACCEPT
AWARD AND ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS –
PROPOSED PROJECTS INCLUDE BUS STOP ACCESSIBILITY
ENHANCEMENTS, SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS, ADA
PARATRANSIT SERVICES, BUS ROUTE OPERATIONS,
ROLLING STOCK REPLACEMENTS, PREVENTIVE
MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSIT
FACILITY FOR THE IMMOKALEE AREA
Item #16D11
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT
AND MEMORANDUM OF LEASE WITH THE VERIZON
July 11, 2017
Page 278
WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS LP AT
VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK – EXTENDING THE LEASE
TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 25 YEARS, INCREASING THE
FIRST YEAR’S RENT TO $30,000 AND A ONE-TIME CASH
CONTRIBUTION OF $10,000
Item #16E1
ACCEPTING THE REPORT FOR THE SALE OF ITEMS AND
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION HELD ON APRIL 29, 2017 –
GENERATING $1,029,015 IN GROSS REVENUE MINUS
$174,932.55 FOR THE AUCTIONEER’S COMMISSION
Item #16E2
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT
SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND
NOTIFICATION OF ITEMS AVAILABLE FOR SURPLUS - NO
REVENUE WAS RECEIVED FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ITEMS,
ALTHOUGH $6,138.44 WAS RECEIVED AS A TRADE-IN
VALUE FOR NEW EQUIPMENT, DISPOSED VALUE OF ITEMS
TOTALED $6,889.91
Item #16E3
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT
SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER
ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED – A TOTAL OF 4 CHANGES TO
CONTRACTS AT $43,035
July 11, 2017
Page 279
Item #16E4
AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF AN OUTSTANDING INVOICE
UNDER QUANTUM MERUIT FOR AGREEMENT NO. 15-
6374R-MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND TESTING FOR FUEL
STORAGE TANK SYSTEMS FOR PROJECTS TO ADAMS
TANK & LIFT, INC – INVOICE FOR $14,165.78 FOR REPAIRS
AT TWO FUELING STATIONS
Item #16E5
AN IN-BUILDING RADIO DISTRIBUTION LICENSE
AGREEMENT, A MEMORANDUM OF IN BUILDING RADIO
DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT AND A RIGHT OF ENTRY
AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS LP TO INSTALL COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT FOR ENHANCED SERVICE AT THE
EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER – LOCATED AT 8075 LELY
CULTURAL PARKWAY
Item #16E6
AWARD RFP #17-7133 FOR EMS BILLING AND DEBT
COLLECTION SERVICES TO DIGITECH EMS BILLING, INC.
D/B/A DIGITECH COMPUTER, INC – COMMENCING ON
OCTOBER 1, 2017
Item #16E7
AWARD BID #16-6593 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMS
EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT TO MULTIPLE
July 11, 2017
Page 280
VENDORS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DIVISION
Item #16F1
APPROVAL OF THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE VACATION OF
TENANCY AT THE CARNESTOWN SUBSTATION AND
APPROVE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PATRIOT PLACE
TRUST FOR SPACE TO BE UTILIZED BY THE SHERIFF’S
OFFICE FOR ITS DISTRICT 5 SUBSTATION – NEW SPACE
LOCATED AT 13245 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, SUITE 100
Item #16F2 – Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ECONOMIC INCUBATORS, INC. AND THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE START UP AND
OPERATIONAL FUNDING FOR THE FLORIDA CULINARY
ACCELERATOR @ IMMOKALEE AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT OF $137,965
Item #16F3
AFTER-THE-FACT-APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
COMMUNITY PLANNING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 TO FUND A
MARKET ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY REPORT THAT
PROVIDES IN-DEPTH DATA RELATED TO LAND-USE
PLANNING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AND
July 11, 2017
Page 281
FINANCIAL VIABILITY FOR THE IMMOKALEE CULINARY
ARTS & PRODUCTION CAMPUS AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F4
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH STAFFORDSHIRE
PROPERTIES, INC., REPLACING TRAINING AND
MANUFACTURING INSTITUTE (TMI), INC., CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE (FORMER) FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH IS ARTICLE II OF
CHAPTER 49 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER TO RESCIND THE AGREEMENT IF THE
CONTEMPLATED PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY
STAFFORDSHIRE PROPERTIES, INC. DOES NOT OCCUR IN A
TIMELY FASHION – LOCATED AT 2050 COMMERCE
AVENUE AT THE TRADEPORT TECHNOLOGY PARK IN
IMMOKALEE
Item #16F5
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY’S
AGREEMENT WITH PRO WATERCROSS TO HOST THE 2017
PRO WATERCROSS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS OCTOBER 17
– NOVEMBER 5, 2017, APPROVE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
TAX CATEGORY “B” FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,500
FOR LOCAL EVENT EXPENSES, AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – HELD AT
SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK
July 11, 2017
Page 282
Item #16F6
APPROVAL OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY
“B” FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING FOUR
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER SPORTS EVENTS UP TO $34,050 AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE
TOURISM – PUBLIX LABOR DAY TOURNAMENT (SOCCER)
HELD SEPTEMBER 2-3, 2017, NAPLES CUP (GOLF) HELD
SEPTEMBER 15-17, 2017, FLORIDA FIRE JUNIORS FALL
JUNIOR CLASSIC (GOLF) HELD SEPTEMBER 30-OCTOBER 1,
2017 AND FLORIDA FIRE COLUMBUS DAY TOURNAMENT
(GOLF) HELD OCTOBER 7-8, 2017
Item #16F7
RESOLUTION 2017-131: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F8
REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY –
BUDGET AMENDMENT #17-591 FOR VETERINARIAN FEES
Item #16F9
RESOLUTION 2017-132: FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND
July 11, 2017
Page 283
PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT)
TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT
UNIT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AND MEDIAN AREAS AND MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, MANAGEMENT OF
THE DREDGING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR
CLAM PASS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING THE
HEALTH OF THE AFFECTED MANGROVE FOREST AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR
AMBIENT NOISE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, INCLUDING THE
RESTORATION OF THE MANGROVE FOREST, U.S. 41 BERM,
STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN
AREAS, LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41
ENTRANCES AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT, ALL WITHIN
THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND
BENEFIT UNIT – HELD SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 AT 5:05 PM
Item #16G1 – Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE OF A COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE AND
ADDENDUM WITH ECONOMIC INCUBATORS, INC. AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
Item #16J1
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE
July 11, 2017
Page 284
FY 2018 COPS HIRING PROGRAM GRANT – ADDING 5
ENTRY-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Item #16J2
PURCHASE OF EVID EDGE ELECTRONIC POLLBOOKS
FROM VR SYSTEMS, INC – FOR USE IN THE SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS OFFICE
Item #16J3
PURCHASE OF ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE (ES&S)
VOTING SYSTEMS, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE AND RELATED
MATERIALS FROM ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE, INC
– FOR USE IN THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE
Item #16J4
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 JUNE 15 AND JUNE 28, 2017
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J5
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND
PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JULY 5, 2017
July 11, 2017
Page 285
Item #16J6
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT 2017-10 FIXED ASSET VERIFICATION: LIBRARY
FURNITURE, ISSUED ON JULY 05, 2017 – THE REPORT CAN
BE VIEWED ON THE CLERKS WEBSITE
Item #16J7
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT 2017-9 FIXED ASSET VERIFICATION: SECURITY
EQUIPMENT, ISSUED ON JULY 05, 2017 – THE REPORT CAN
BE VIEWED ON THE CLERK’S WEBSITE
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2017-133: RE-APPOINTING TIMOTHY J. REIDY
TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2017-134: APPOINTING DR. ARTHUR BOYER
AND GARY PETITDOR TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2017-135: RE-APPOINTING ELOY RICARDO
AND JOHN MELTON TO THE BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS &
APPEALS
July 11, 2017
Page 286
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2017-136: APPOINTING RICHARD STANLEY
KRAWCZUM TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
Item #16K5
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE GLOBAL
AMOUNT OF $490,000, INCLUSIVE OF ALL ATTORNEYS’
FEES, EXPERT FEES AND COSTS, TO LOWE’S HOME
CENTER, INC. FOR THE TAKING OF PARCELS 105FEE1,
105FEE2, 105FEE3, 105TCE1, 105TCE2, 105TCE3, 105TCE4,
AND 105SWE FOR THE US 41/C.R. 951 INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 60116 (FISCAL
IMPACT: $373,220) – LOCATED AT THE LOWE’S CENTER ON
S.R. 951 (ISLES OF CAPRI ROAD)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2017-32: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 97-8, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY FALSE ALARM
ORDINANCE
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2017-33 AND RESOLUTION 2017-137:
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 02-61, AS AMENDED, AS IT
RELATES TO THE FIDDLER’S CREEK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #2 AND TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AS TO THE FIDDLER’S CREEK COMMUNITY
July 11, 2017
Page 287
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #1, BOTH CONSENTING TO AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXERCISE OF SPECIAL POWERS
REGARDING MOSQUITO CONTROL PURSUANT TO SECTION
190.012(2)(E), FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2017-34: ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM IN
IMMOKALEE ALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES
BY AN INSTALLMENT PROGRAM, AS A VOLUNTARY
ALTERNATIVE TO PAYING THE FEES IN A SINGLE, UP-
FRONT PAYMENT WITH A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF
OCTOBER 1, 2017
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2017-35: THE SECOND READING OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92-60,
AS AMENDED, TO INCREASE THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
TAX (TDT) BY 1%, AND REALLOCATE THE FUNDS
GENERATED BY THE TDT TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR
BEACH RENOURISHMENT, PROVIDE PAY AS-YOU-GO
PROJECT FUNDING AS WELL AS DEBT SERVICE FUNDING
FOR THE PROPOSED AMATEUR SPORTS COMPLEX,
CONTINUE TO FUND COUNTY MUSEUM OPERATIONS UP
TO A FIXED AMOUNT, AND PROVIDE A MECHANISM TO
MAINTAIN THE CURRENT FUNDING LEVEL FOR
PROMOTING THE DESTINATION
Item #17E
July 11, 2017
Page 288
RESOLUTION 2017-138: PETITION VAC-PL20170000756, TO
QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE THE COUNTY’S INTEREST IN
THE PARK TRACT OF EDGEWILD, AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 13, PAGES 44-45 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED JUST WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD, IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2017-139: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
July 11, 2017
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
,117
PENNY T LOR, (''AIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
'0,AkkAtte a 4 ai
signature only.
These minutes appro d by the Board on ` 1. ..(eir 2� 2A
as presented �/ or as correctec.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 289