Loading...
Agenda 01/09/2018 Item # 2B01/09/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: December 12, 2017 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 01/09/2018 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 12/29/2017 7:37 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 12/29/2017 7:37 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida County Manager Review Completed 01/01/2018 9:35 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/09/2018 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 13 December 12, 2017 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 12, 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 Andrew 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 & Accounting Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations December 12, 2017 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chairman, you have a live mike. You have a live mike, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. This is our last meeting of 2017. Glad to see everyone here. We have Reverend Beverly Duncan of the United Church of Christ who is going to give our invocation. And I would like Commissioner Fiala, please, to give our Pledge of Allegiance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then just as a note, the beloved wife of our Abe Skinner passed away in November, and I would like, after we have the Pledge of Allegiance, to have a moment of silence, and especially to hold Mr. Skinner in our prayers. It's not easy, especially at this time, to lose a partner that you've been with for so many years. Thank you very much. Item #1A INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVEREND DUNCAN OF THE NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning. Let us pray. Holy one, may the good feelings and tidings this season brings inspire us to be charitable, generous, and kind no matter where we are and no matter what's on our agendas. Send our own better angels into this room and our hearts this morning so we might live up to who we're sure we are already. So bless the work that is done here for these commissioners, our December 12, 2017 Page 3 servants of our community, and we all want the best for Collier County. And bless all those people who struggle in this county, that they may have a share in the bounty we enjoy. With gratitude and in expectation we pray. Amen, Salaam, Shalom. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Amen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you please put your hands over your hearts, thank you, and say with me... (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to remain standing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I say a little something about Martha. She worked for the county for many, many years. And Martha ran the Housing and Human Services Department, and I want to tell you, it was like a well-oiled ship just moving along. She had her -- you know, everything was so, and yet everybody was happy in that department. It was -- she just did a great job. You worked with her for many years, didn't you, Leo? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a wonderful lady. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, and thank you for your words, Commissioner Fiala. County Manager? Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES: COMMISSIONER SOLIS ABSTAINED FROM VOTING ON ITEM December 12, 2017 Page 4 #16A6 AND #16A9; COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL VOTES “NO” ON ITEM #17L MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of December 12, 2017. The first proposed change is to continue Item 11C from your regular agenda to the January 9th, 2018, BCC meeting. That move was made at the staff's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 17M from the summary agenda to become Item 9B. This is a second reading of an ordinance reestablishing the county government productivity committee, and this item is being moved at the request of Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis separately. And the next proposed change is to move Item 16A29 from the consent agenda. That will become Item 11K under the regular agenda. That item is moved at Commissioner Daniel's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 16E14 to become Item 11L on your regular agenda. That item is moved at Commissioner McDaniel's request. And the next proposed change is to move Item 16C5 to become Item 11M on the regular agenda. That item is moved at Commissioner McDaniel's request. There is one time-certain scheduled for today's meeting, Commissioners. That is Item 11F scheduled to be heard at 11 a.m. It has to do with the proposed purchase and sale agreement for the Collier County amateur sports complex. And those are all the changes that I have, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So we'll ask Commissioner McDaniel if he has any changes or additions to today's agenda and also to declare any kind of ex parte December 12, 2017 Page 5 except for the advertised hearing coming before us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As far as -- no, I have no other adjustments. I think I did sufficient on the other recommended adjustments today. And as far as ex parte on the consent and summary, I believe I only have one. Maybe I don't. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Take your time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I am. On 17A I did have meetings and emails, on 17C I did have meetings, on 17E I did have meetings as well, and they're all part of my file. I would also like to say -- I'm not pulling it for today's agenda, but Item 17L I want to be recorded as a "no" vote for me. That's the continuation of the moratorium. I would like to be recorded as such. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, good. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. On the summary agenda, rather, the consent agenda and the summary agenda, I didn't have very many things to disclose other than the Vanderbilt Commons, which is 17C, I had meetings, and one of them was with Bruce Anderson. Actually, both meetings were with Bruce Anderson. And I'm sorry he isn't here today. This is his last day of work with the county, and we're going to miss him a lot. He was just a super guy, and he would have been here today except that he's taken ill. And so, what a morning to get ill when we wanted to say, you know, we love you, Bruce. Anyway, moving on, we have a lot of items that are -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I know you have. You're a very busy lady. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are you. But this is all for the summary and the consent agenda for me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? December 12, 2017 Page 6 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't have any ex parte things to disclose on the consent or the summary, but I do have a conflict on 16A and -- I'm sorry -- 16A9 and 16A6, which are WCI and Lennar conveyances of utilities. So I'll abstain from those votes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's it. Thanks. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I have one ex parte on the summary judgment -- summary agenda. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's all right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Could be a summary judgment. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Too used to saying that. 17C, I did have communication with Mr. Anderson concerning that as well, and then one item to remove from the consent agenda; 16C5. I'd like to have a conversation about that. That's the payment to AshBritt Environmental for food services. I think there needs to be some clarification. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I thought we already pulled that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that was already pulled by Commissioner McDaniel, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. Well, then in that case, I have nothing else to add. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right, good. And I would also like to pull an item for a discussion. It would be 16A1, which is the interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for their license plate reading cameras. Some general questions, but I think we need to bring it out. And, also, I have no ex parte except for 17C, and I've had emails and meetings regarding the Vanderbilt Commons PUD. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, 16A1 will become Item 11N on your regular agenda. December 12, 2017 Page 7 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That doesn't sound good, does it? N. MR. OCHS: No, we're getting through the alphabet here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question. And I asked this of Leo, and I got my answer. But just for a matter of public record, one of them was the 16C5, so you've already taken care of that. 16D4 was the Kraft space. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you were just talking to us about -- talking to me about it. I asked you about it yesterday in my office. Maybe you could just explain it just a little bit so everybody understands that. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Very briefly, during the hurricane the roof was torn off of the IFAS building that houses your county staff and the state staff that provide extension services to the community. So we're trying to find some temporary office space for them while that building is repaired, and that will take approximately a year by the time we get that ready for re-occupancy. So this is a temporary lease for those state and county employees that provide those services to the community. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I had asked Leo yesterday, I said, well, you know, the hurricane was a couple months ago. Where are they? He was explaining they're scattered all over. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We're stashing them in bits and drabs in little cubbies in community centers, and it's really important that we get them back together so that they can operate more efficiently and effectively on behalf of their customers. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, I did inquire as well, and I spoke to Mr. Carnell with regard to this, because they've been stashing a lot of these folks at our Max Hasse Park, which is December 12, 2017 Page 8 getting into the intermingling of what our Parks and Rec, in fact, does. One of my questions had to do with whether or not we publicly advertised for the necessity of a lease, and I was -- I have learned that we aren't required to advertise when we're looking for lease space. So one of the discussions I had with our staff was maybe we make some policy adjustments to add that into our sites as far as when we're looking for space, to let folks know that. And, again, we're going to come through the process. But I satisfied myself with conversations that I had with staff in regard to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, just on that score -- and I appreciate that, Commissioner. We're happy to do that. I do want the Board to know that our real estate services staff did evaluate at least six other -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: -- locations and did a full evaluation. So this wasn't just picked out of a hat. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that was all part of the backup as well. MR. OCHS: Understand. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Very good. I believe we have some speakers on the consent agenda. MR. MILLER: Actually, that item you pulled to 11N, 16A1. So I moved those speakers to that item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh. Do they understand it's, okay -- MR. MILLER: I will explain, but I'm sure they understand. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. It's going to be late in the day, if not this afternoon, probably this afternoon before we discuss that. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. Okay. That's about the license plate cameras the City of Naples is deciding to do. December 12, 2017 Page 9 Okay. Very good. So I guess we're now down to, do I hear a motion to approve the agenda and minutes as we have now modified it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the minutes and agenda, especially the agenda as we have changed it around a little bit, so our corrected agenda, our changed agenda, please, I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a second to approve. 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. Well, we got through that. That was kind of tough. Hopefully the rest of the meeting goes a little smoother. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It went just fine. You did a good job. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. December 12, 2017 Page 10 Item #2B BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 24-25, 2017 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 2B is a recommendation to approve the BCC Regular Meeting Minutes from the October 24th, 25th, BCC Meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) Item #2C BCC/INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX AND HURRICANE IRMA AFTER ACTION WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2017 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 2C is a recommendation to approve the Minutes of the November 7, 2017, Board Infrastructure Sales Tax and Hurricane Irma After-Action Workshop. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. December 12, 2017 Page 11 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third. 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: Thank you very much. Item #2D BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2017 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 2D is a recommendation to approve the Regular Board Meeting Minutes from the Meeting of November 14th, 2017. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, again, motion to approve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 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.) December 12, 2017 Page 12 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Item #4 PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS – ADOPTED Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 16, 2018 AS NATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SALT & LIGHT ADVISORY COUNCIL: GREG HARPER, FR. MICHAEL ORSI, FR. PHILEMON PATITSAS, PASTOR TOM HARRIS, PASTOR RICK BALDWIN AND PASTOR GREG BALL AND DR. ROBIN WILKENING– ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to proclamations. Item 4A this morning is a proclamation designating January 16, 2018, as National Religious Freedom Day in Collier County. To be accepted by representatives of the Salt and Light Advisory Council: Greg Harper, Father Michael Orsi, Father Philemon Patitsas, Pastor Tom Harris, Pastor Rick Baldwin, Pastor Greg Ball, and Dr. Robin Wilkening. If you'd all please come forward and accept your proclamation. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: May I just comment? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. Put on my optical enhancers here. December 12, 2017 Page 13 Thanks again for issuing this proclamation. I believe it's the fourth year that the commissioners have issued a Religious Freedom Day Proclamation. And what I'd like to do is just read a short portion of it to give people a better understanding of what the proclamation is doing and how we use it here in Collier County. So I'm going to read a brief excerpt from the -- let's see. Okay. So the proclamation has been given since 1992, and the proclamation is given in recognition of Thomas Jefferson's Virginia statute on religious freedom. That document is considered kind of the seminal document on religious freedom and protecting religious liberty, and the statute inspired religious liberty protections in our First Amendment. That Virginia statute was written and it was actually approved by the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1786. And we use that here in Collier County on January 16th of this year, or excuse me, of 2018. We'll be taking bibles into all the Collier County high schools and distributing them to students. They are put out on tables, and the students can pick up a Bible if they wish. We've been doing that for nearly 10 years and average about 800 bibles being picked up by students. And we're very happy to do this on Religious Freedom Day. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 6-14, 2018 AS KINDNESS AWARENESS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY BETH HOUSEWER, BOB VOTRUBA AND HIS DOG BOGART – ADOPTED December 12, 2017 Page 14 MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a Proclamation Designating January 6 through January 14, 2018, as Kindness Awareness Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Beth Housewert of the Galisano Children's Museums of Naples, and Bob Votruba and his dog Bogart. If you'd please step forward. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: First the picture. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because it's Christmas, will you tell us a story about Bogart? MR. VOTRUBA: Yes, I will. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He is a regular speaker. MR. VOTRUBA: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for this Fifth Annual Collier County Kindness Awareness Week. And, yeah, Bogart -- actually, today is Bogart's 53rd birthday in dog years. So we won't sing Happy Birthday. But, you know, I've had Bogart now for eight-and-a-half years, and he and I travel the country on the kindness bus. You may have seen the painted-up bus throughout Collier County and a guy on a bicycle. Well, that's us trying to raise awareness around our country about having kindness in our lives. And that's what this is all about. It's all of us being role models to our children and to each other, and it's all about doing that one act of kindness that might be witnessed by others and change their lives. It may sound, you know, maybe cliche or something about being kind, but one little act of kindness can truly change a life, and that's what we ask you to do during Collier County Kindness Awareness Week is to help a neighbor, help a friend, help somebody who needs a little helping hand up. We can all do one more act of kindness every day, that's for sure. Just think about it, one act of kindness a day. But you know what, we all have the opportunity to do many acts of kindness during the course December 12, 2017 Page 15 of our day, during the course of our lives that will inspire children across the country. I'm very pleased to be able to go to the Collier County schools while I'm here during the six months, and just received a wonderful letter from the superintendent, Kamela Patton, a couple of days ago. And our tie this year is to the C'mon Children's Museum, and I'd like Beth Housewert to say a word or two. MS. HOUSEWERT: Thank you so much for the proclamations and asking us to be here today. I, too, echo the thoughts of Bob and Bogart, but I also think that the timing of our kindness week this year is also very wonderful because it starts our year off right. It starts our year off with kindness and reminds us, really, that every day should start with kindness. So the Children's Museum is so happy to partner and have a kickoff event for this Kindness Week in conjunction with Collier County and the school district and with one million acts of kindness. So thank you so much. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could have a motion to approve today's proclamations, please. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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.) December 12, 2017 Page 16 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. Item #5A PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 2017 TO SPRINGHILL SUITES AND FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES BY MARRIOTT. TO BE ACCEPTED BY TRACY ARMAN, GENERAL MANAGER, AND LIZ SANDERS, DIRECTOR OF SALES. ALSO PRESENT IS BETHANY SAWYER, MEMBERSHIP ENGAGEMENT SPECIALIST, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December 2017 awarded to Springhill Suites and Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott. To be accepted by Tracy Arman, General Manager, and Liz Sanders, Director of Sales, along with Bethany Sawyer, Engagement Specialist from the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. If you'd please step forward and receive your award. MS. ARMAN: Good morning. My name is Tracy Arman, the General Manager at the Springhill Suites and the Fairfield Inn and Suites. First and foremost, thank you so very much on behalf of myself and my entire staff. We are incredibly humbled by this honor, so thank you again. We also wanted to say, I know that everyone in this room, either themselves or someone that they love, was affected by Hurricane Irma, and I do know that throughout the whole experience, which was my first and many of my team's first, we did meet some incredible people of which we still continue to have weekly and monthly luncheons with December 12, 2017 Page 17 them in the community. And, again, I just wanted to say thank you, and we are proud to receive this honor, and we look forward to working with the commissioners on the sports complex that's coming up. And we hope you all have a great holiday. Thank you again. (Applause.) Item #5B PRESENTATION BY MR. JOHN SCHMIEDING, SENIOR VICE- PRESIDENT AND LEGAL COUNSEL FROM ARTHREX INC., REGARDING THEIR RECENT EXPANSION AND FUTURE PLANS IN COLLIER COUNTY - PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're honored this morning on 5B to be joined by Mr. John Schmieding, the Senior Vice-President and Legal Counsel for Arthrex Incorporated who's going to share some of their company's plans for future expansion here in Collier County. Mr. Schmieding, Good morning. MR. SCHMIEDING: Good morning. Madam Chair, Honorable Commission, thank you for having me very much. We appreciate your support through the past. And, as the younger Schmieding of the brothers, I'm here -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Schmieding the younger. MR. SCHMIEDING: Here looking toward the future. Many of you know the story of Arthrex. My brother started the company in the early '80s and -- I'm just trying to find the right button here -- started the company in the early '80s, focused in bringing the company to the United States in 1991, and from that point forward, with two employees, we've grown to over 3,000 here in Southwest Florida. December 12, 2017 Page 18 But the story you probably don't know is we both are privileged because of a special gentleman, our father, who was an immigrant to this country in 1950. And without his immigration and commitment to ensure we were born in this country to have these opportunities, we would not be here today. So he's watching on television right now from Collier County. He's 92 years old, and a wonderful man, so I wanted to honor him by mentioning him. As you see and as you know, we've made a concerted effort to manufacture in the United States of America. We made that decision a long time ago, and today 95 percent of our products are made in the United States with 75 percent of those made right here in Southwest Florida. We've obviously had a commitment to quality, and in that commitment we've focused our manufacturing in an area we thought would be best for growth. We have now over 300,000 square feet in Ave Maria with the new section of our facility completely validated and up and running. It is a testament to our investment and commitment to Southwest Florida, and we continue to have that today. This is not the manufacturing that I grew up representing clients of in Detroit. It is clean manufacturing. The facilities I've worked with and clients I've represented, you would want to wash your hands and your feet after you left the facilities, but here you can almost eat off the floor. These are high-level, high technologically advanced manufacturing positions. They not only provide a sustainable living for our employees, but they provide a clean environment for them and a healthy work environment. We are very proud that we're a zero-output facility where any process that we undertake has only a steam output into the environment. So we're very conscientious about where we're located near the Everglades, and we continue to maintain that as we grow out December 12, 2017 Page 19 there. We have almost 700 employees on our Creekside campus, and over 1,500 now are out in Ave Maria. We've decided to make that move from Creekside and take all the manufacturing and push it out to Ave Maria because it is more inducive and conducive to employment for manufacturing positions out there. Our original intent several years ago was that it would be a catalyst for that region to help individuals in Immokalee and elsewhere to find good working jobs. That has been a mission of ours as we undertook to train in advanced manufacturing techniques individuals on our own. As you see, our growth is expected to continue. We're going to continue to invest in this region and in the manufacturing of products in the United States. With that intent, as you know and as this board has approved, we've committed to investing millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in our construction of several new facilities to bring in at least a thousand more jobs in the next eight years. The one facility on our Creekside campus will be the head and global head of administration for the company. It will be not only 300,000 square feet but have capabilities for conferences. We will have a hotel for our guests, employees, and vendors who come from around the world, and it will have a wonderful aesthetic and green space to accommodate and fit in with the community. So with all that said, it will provide, starting today and tomorrow, we're beginning the destruction of the old manufacturing facility, 1,200 construction jobs in the next two years. This will then translate to over 560 immediate new jobs in this administration building, providing over $15 million in taxes to respective governments, but we've committed all this money, and we have a problem, and that's why I'm here today. If you went on our website today, there's a little tab that says career options. You can open that tab and look at all the jobs December 12, 2017 Page 20 throughout the country that we hold. There's over 100 jobs in Collier County right now that remain unfilled. And these are high-paying, strong manufacturing jobs, and there is a multi-faceted reason of why we can't fulfill these jobs. Mainly, the first issue is advanced manufacturing training. As you may know, our chamber has submitted for a grant to the governor to help support and advance the Immokalee Technical College capabilities, expand and promote advanced training that will fulfill our needs and go beyond what we can do internally. The problem is other regions have done this for the past 15 years. We're literally 15 years behind the curve of preparing our workforce for these types of advanced clean manufacturing jobs, and that's a serious issue. In conjunction with that and commensurate with advanced manufacturing training is workforce housing. You need affordable housing in order to accommodate advanced manufacturing training. So as you heard, we made the decision to move immediate need to South Carolina. That was a very, very tough decision for us. Although it is a very small slice of the Arthrex pie, and we continue to invest in this region, we couldn't fill jobs that surgeons needed us to fill to make products that make us all better. So some of the points I wanted to highlight with you are on this slide. Arthrex has taken care of the bottom line. We -- our median income for our employees is above what the middle South Carolina income is. The areas that need to be addressed are the top two, which correlate with the two points I raised: Advanced manufacturing training and affordable housing. South Carolina provides housing at half the cost, and they pay more than the community does as a whole. Without being able to house our employees, we can train all we want, and we will not still get people to be recruited to come down here or to stay here. December 12, 2017 Page 21 Some of the advanced techniques that areas like South Carolina are graduating high school students at are advanced C&C machining, so they're graduating from high school with the capability to work in our facility immediately. They're progressing through very complicated process engineering capabilities and training on multiple access manufacturing process mechatronics, which is like robotics, and other techniques that we simply just don't do here. A lot of wonderful individuals have made great strides in our manufacturing training, but we just aren't at the level to compete with other areas. So support of that grant and support of our commitment to donate machinery, time, effort will solve a tremendous need in this community for the long term. But if I may go off from representing Arthrex for a moment, one of the most important things this community needs to focus on is early childhood education. We're seeing, as we hire individuals now who have no training and have to try to attempt to train them ourselves, a lack of the early childhood skills that are taught before the age of five. When -- if you take the studies that are true that low-income housing -- children who grow up in a low-income household hear 30 million less words than a child in a higher economically privileged household, by the age of five they're so far behind educationally that they can't catch up even through high school. So I can talk about advanced manufacturing training all day long, but if the students are not prepared through mathematics and the underlying curriculum, STEM-styled educational needs, then they will never even be able to make it the advanced manufacturing capabilities, and we will now not have a -- we'll have training capabilities but a workforce that can't participate in it. So that's just a little opinion of mine. So as for housing, of course, you prudently advised the Community Housing Plan to be created, and it's a document we December 12, 2017 Page 22 supported and represented and served on the committee, and I know you're considering that plan. If you look at that plan it states that 15 percent of Collier's workforce commutes from outside the county. Well, Arthrex's workforce is over 30 percent commuting from outside the county. That translates to thousands and thousands of extra commuters on our roads, lost productivity, and, of course, loss with family and social time that creates a happy and healthy workforce. So affordable housing, it's hard to get your mind around, and that plan does a very good job of describing it. It's not just your manufacturing and low-income jobs that you're trying to fulfill. We're losing positions in the high-level senior engineering areas because they can't afford to live here. So if that's an issue, all things that trickle down below that are going to be a huge issue. So we simply can't pretend that our obligation to house individuals is limited by a market analysis or a market focus. A market focus will only create and encourage this disparity of opportunity, because as the market drives people out of the workforce or out of the ability to be housed here in the county, companies like Arthrex will be forced to take a piece of the pie somewhere else, and we don't want to do that. We want to continue, and we have made a commitment to invest in here, but what will happen in the future is 10, 15 years from now, your actions will translate into a workforce that will continue to grow with Arthrex. So if I can leave you with anything, the Urban Land Institute's comment that struck me the most in that plan was the real thing Collier County needs to do is action and implementation. We've got to do something. When I traveled around the country, or around the state, in my Leadership Florida class, I realized that, you know, advanced December 12, 2017 Page 23 manufacturing training is a huge, huge issue. Immokalee is suffering because people can't break cycles, and if you don't provide the necessary tools for them to get out -- we provide the job, but you now have to train the workforce. So I ask you to be committed to action, whatever it may be. I don't have all the answers. Smarter people than I have looked at what needs to be done for affordable housing, but supporting those two things help us succeed in the future. And, you know, as you know, our projected impact on this area's economy is over a billion dollars. Currently it's at a billion dollars, and by 2020 we'll have an economic trickle-down impact of probably $2 billion. With the 25,000 visitors we bring in, the numerous vendors we utilize locally, it has a tremendous effect, and these are sustainable year-round jobs that this county has shown your support for and now needs to plan for maintaining. So I thank you for your time, and I hope you take that to heart. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you so much for your candid presentation. I think we -- it's very easy sometimes to silo, well, you know, here's affordable housing and here's economic development and here's tourism. You can't separate economic development from workforce housing/affordable housing. You can't do it, and you've just said it. I really, really appreciate that. We are -- we are struggling with it because we're changing -- we're not changing. We're hopefully responding to a new economy, and that will not negate tourism, not negate the beauty of this community, but will add to it and will keep our youth here, which is critical. So thank you so, so much for your candor. MR. SCHMIEDING: No problem. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. It's interesting that you're here, because I was just talking with December 12, 2017 Page 24 Leo and Nick yesterday. The stuff has been going through my head. We keep throwing more and more money into housing that's affordable. We keep coming up with low-income housing. I know from this end, and other people have said it, too, we need housing for that middle income. I keep saying we need middle class. We need median-income housing, but it finally dawned on me. It takes a long time to get through this rock, but eventually it gets there, and that is, the reason we're not building any of it is because the state legislature have rules that says the money only goes for low income, so that's why we keep coming up with the same thing. We need to -- we've got people going up to Tallahassee and working with the Florida Association of Counties coming up right now. And unless we can get our legislators to adjust those so that we can use that money to build middle-income housing, median-income housing, we're going to continue to be stuck with the same thing. And so just maybe with, even with your participation -- and I hate to ask you that, but maybe you can help us to unravel what's going on so we can come up with the things that will allow us to use government funding to help us build that middle-income housing that we so need, even for nurses and so forth. We always say we're going to build it for nurses and X-ray techs and so forth, but we don't. So maybe, just maybe, we can talk with the people in Tallahassee. We've got two guys down here that are really good in Tallahassee, and just maybe they can assist us as well. That's you. Yeah, you two. So that was all. MR. SCHMIEDING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's -- the rules that the state has have prevented us from building the kind of housing that you need. MR. SCHMIEDING: Thank you. You have our full support in any proposal, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. December 12, 2017 Page 25 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no. John, don't go away. First off, I have visited the facilities in Ave. And for my colleagues that have yet to visit, I highly recommend that you go if you haven't yet. It's an amazing experience. They do -- they do an amazing job there. John, you brought up a couple of points that I would like to address, and I think you hit them well. I am a member of the Immokalee Rotary. We meet at the I Tech Center. I have seen the extremely constrained facilities that are available at the I Tech Center, and I want to share with you that I've spoken to the principal over there, and I have some ideas as to suggestions that we might be able to do to assist with that expansion. My concern -- and I would like to also offer up a meeting with you, myself -- we do not want to have the discussion that we're having today 15 years from now. You aptly pointed out that we are 15 years behind, and we certainly don't want to have this discussion again 15 years from now. So moving forward, I would like for you to know that I will champion ideas and suggestions as we are looking to support all of this amazing economic base to our community. I've said for years and years and years the path to long-term economic prosperity for all of the residents of Collier County is through non-construction related industry such as yours, and you're a poster child for that. In regard to the housing affordability, I would also like to suggest -- and it's an opportunity for me to promote -- one of the largest expenses in constructing a new home in Collier County is our impact fee structure. And there is a pilot program that is available in the Immokalee CRA area that allows for an amortization of those impact December 12, 2017 Page 26 fees in lieu of paying them up front and including them in your mortgage payment. One of the things we learned in the report from the ULI is every thousand-dollar increase in purchase price of a home precludes 133 people from qualifying to purchase that home. So this is a mechanism -- we just established it here a couple months ago. Started in October. If you aren't aware of it, I'd be happy to share with you, but this is an avenue that can allow for greater housing affordability yet still being able to utilize those impact fees for that growth and development. So I also, just for your knowledge, in the spring have several other initiatives that I'm going to bring forward to suggest to assist us with this housing affordability issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me ask you this. As John Schmieding was just saying, they've got people that make too much money for affordable housing -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, they're upper level, and they want to educate them even more. Has there been anything like that built in Immokalee that would be the middle income? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not as of yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, there are a couple of nice subdivisions over in Immokalee that, in fact, could utilize and are at those price points. There are a couple of them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So maybe, you know, working up in Tallahassee again we can expand those rules to cover the housing that not only -- not only Arthrex but so many other companies around here, whether it be hospitals, whether it be Sheriff's Office, everybody needs that middle-income housing, and they have to drive to Fort Myers in order to get, so... December 12, 2017 Page 27 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And not to get into a big discussion. I know we have a very long agenda -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'm sorry. We've got a huge agenda today, so maybe we can save this for correspondence and communication. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Really? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for the information. I'm assuming it was not an accident that we're dealing with the sales tax this morning as well, and your timing is excellent. I think that's going to have a real impact on some of the decisions we're going to make in reference to that sales tax. And I don't know if you're going to be sticking around for that or, perhaps, monitoring it from your offices, but that's going to be an interesting conversation. I think what you've said will have an impact on some decisions we make in a positive way for those types of training facilities that you're talking about. I would like to get a copy of the presentation. We may already have that but, Mr. Manager, if you could email that, I'd appreciate that. There's some information in there that I think was extremely well put together, so I would just compliment you for that and look forward to dealing with this training issue as well as the affordable housing issue. MR. SCHMIEDING: Wonderful. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll be very brief. And I'd just like to echo my colleagues' words and thank you for being here and presenting this information. I think it's important that the residents in Collier County understand, one, the commitment that Arthrex has made to Collier County and, two, how vital it is for our economy. It is -- you know, and the potential. If we work together, the December 12, 2017 Page 28 potential that Arthrex presents for diversifying the economy. And, you know, I certainly understand and appreciate that we have these two difficult issues to tackle, but having you here and presenting this information, I think, is very, very helpful. So thanks for doing that. MR. SCHMIEDING: You're welcome. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, weren't you going to say something else? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was just a point on what you and I were discussing with regard to housing affordability and, just as a notion, it all doesn't come from government subsidation. The efforts of our Housing Department regularly does, which then is impacted by statute. I'm working on initiatives to adjust regulations and expenses associated with development that will then create housing affordability. Just as a point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. MR. SCHMIEDING: Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Thanks, John. Item #5C HURRICANE IRMA STATUS REPORT FROM DAN SUMMERS, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5C this morning. This is an update and status report on Hurricane Irma Response and Recovery efforts to date from your Emergency Services Division Director, Dan Summers. Mr. Summers? MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, Mr. Ochs. December 12, 2017 Page 29 Commissioners, Good morning. Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management. And I'm very happy to be in front of you today and, again, we certainly understand that response is hard and recovery is harder, and it's affecting lots of areas in our community, and I want to thank you all for your continued support for the community, the private, nonprofit sector, as well as the support to county employees. Let me give you just a quick little thumbnail sketch today. We'd like to make sure that we focus with you on three things: That's our survivor and neighbor assistance, our debris removal, and some operating posture there as to where we are with some transitional efforts and debris removal and certainly take your questions and comments. A little bit of an eye chart here in terms of numbers. But there's goods news here. The Collier County engagement, its employees with FEMA, 72,438 residents in Collier County have engaged with FEMA. So they have definitely gotten some help. I met with the disaster assistance teams yesterday in terms of the areas that they've canvassed, the disaster recovery centers that they've set up. The public engagement was most extensive. And I think they are to be applauded for that effort. As we started to wind down the closure of the disaster assistance centers, we worked hard. We had to fight a battle with the State, but we did get the disaster recovery center staff on site both in Immokalee and Everglades City one more time for either additional registration or to answer questions for those folks getting FEMA assistance. Nine million dollars has been made available under what's termed the general housing category; $9 million has been disbursed to residents in Collier County for some type of housing assistance. Twenty-three families are in hotels outside of Collier County. That's down from 42. That means they're working on other placement December 12, 2017 Page 30 strategies. Sixty-four families are in hotels in Collier County, and that's down from 95. As I've said before, temporary housing, long-term housing, is not a fast process with FEMA. We understand that, and they're certainly working in a case management environment to support those families. The percentage of housing inspections changed. It was, earlier in the month, at 99 percent. It's 98 percent of housing inspections, and that's just indicative of new registrations. But if you'll remember, FEMA was quite shorthanded early in the event to get these housing inspections done which are necessary in order to receive FEMA housing assistance. Forty-four families are eligible for FEMA supplied housing, down from 89. Now, there are three housing options, if you'll remember. The hotel was certainly one, the direct assistance which is something like renting an apartment or even a duplex for up to 36 months, and that last, but not least, was the travel trailer on site as an option or travel trailer at a commercial RV park. We now have 25 families that have moved into the travel trailers. Two additional trailers were delivered yesterday to Plantation. That was actually two trailers -- two travel trailers for a large family. So that was set up yesterday. Don't have a move-in date, but I know that the delivery was scheduled. Twelve RVs are set up at commercial sites; three more at private sites, and then the direct leasing goes back to the apartment or the condo or the duplex. Twenty-three million has been provided total in housing assistance, and that's up from $21 million. And, again, we remind folks that FEMA's standard loss review is to have an on-site inspection of the property. Real quick, in debris removal, Dan Rodriguez's team has just December 12, 2017 Page 31 done a phenomenal job there. Their management team is based in the Emergency Operations Center. I get the opportunity to visit with them every couple of days. And if you'll look at the numbers of these challenging activities within debris removal, not only the horticultural waste, the piles that are beside the street, but the hangers and the leaners, those that are very challenging for debris removal require power right-of-way review, et cetera, to be down to 47 at this engagement is a phenomenal leap in their project management and, certainly, they're to be commended for that. The citizen drop-off sites remain the same. We've had that information in front of you before. And, again, as our Public Utilities Division and Solid Waste begin transitioning for some of their other projects, I know that there are some folks still coming into town that might be doing some debris removal, and Dan Rodriguez can talk about that, if necessary. But they'll have a process in place. We sort of jokingly said no pile left behind. So we'll work hard to -- and his team will work hard to get some of the residual efforts cleaned up in that, so they have a process for that transition. Winding down, a real sophisticated emergency management team in terms of transition and horticultural waste desire. Certainly, we are sensitive to the impacts of the northeast debris removal processing site. I know they want to begin hauling the ground waste out and use the other processing sites, take some of that load off of the neighborhood. And then, finally, as we get into canals and debris and canals and weirs, streams and drainages, we've been down this road before with other hurricanes. We have a requirement to go through natural resources and conservation service. They have to default on any reimbursement for stream cleaning, then it goes to FEMA and -- because NRCS has not -- had no disaster funding. That's typically the case. They have not had disaster funding for years, but still it's a hangnail in the law that you have to go to natural resources first, they December 12, 2017 Page 32 have said no, then FEMA becomes the default for cleaning those drainages, and Dan Rodriguez's team, working with AshBritt, has a mobilization plan about ready to go. We just want to mention again that while the disaster recovery centers and the disaster registration is technically closed, FEMA will accept a telephone or -- telephone registration request up to 60 days after the closure, which was November the 29th for extenuating circumstances. But, again, they have to be very severe, very challenging circumstances for the family. So if anyone still has a significant hardship and has not registered, we, again, encourage them to call, and FEMA will evaluate that for up to 60 days on a case-by-case basis. I expect this to be our last formal briefing to you-all but, make no mistake, the Emergency Management team is engaged with FEMA three or four days a week, plus our recovery team, our debris removal team, working closely with non-profits. I appreciate very much your feedback during the after-action review, because we want to bring forward some additional discussion on leveraging the efforts of volunteering agencies, and they are to be commended. It's been 10 years since the unmet needs group has stood up in Collier County following a disaster, and we're getting the rust off of that, and I couldn't be more proud of the non-profit agencies here in Collier County that are working very hard in all their particular areas and trying to leverage and combine forces there to continue ongoing support, and that's a normal part of disaster recovery. So we'll be working closely with them in the future. Again, the disasterassistance.gov. We encourage residents, don't give up on the paperwork. There has to be a certain amount of paperwork filed with FEMA. Stay in contact with them, get them the documents and the support that we -- so that they can support you in the financial aspects of that. December 12, 2017 Page 33 And, obviously, by virtue of the volume of dollars that's been provided in relief, folks are doing pretty well in terms of that process. It is not fun. It is government, it is bureaucratic, but it is assistance. And I think our community is recovering pretty well. Again, make no mistake, we're sensitive to those that this has changed their lives, and we're not done with that process of supporting them and trying to find ways to make sure that they can get back to pre-disaster condition as quickly as possible. That's all I have. See if you have any other questions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a couple, if I may. First -- and this is just a perception, Dan. You've mentioned regularly about the ongoing battle with the bureaucracy and things. Do you have any kind of an explanation as to why other than just bureaucracy? We had a meeting with some federal folks with regard to CDBG funding and, you know, a lot of federal aid is funneled through the State of Florida. And I am made aware that we still have money owed to us by the State from Wilma, $6 million or something along those lines. Is it -- MR. SUMMERS: It's a very good question, and I think it's very important to explain. Remember that in all of the federal funding directly to Collier County, not to the individual, but to Collier County, we are a sub-grantee of the State of Florida. All FEMA negotiations are between FEMA and the State. Every dollar that comes back to us in reimbursement has a firewall, for lack of a better term, but an engagement with the Florida Division of Emergency Management which is under the Governor's Office and, as a result, while FEMA may have certain approvals or certain things disallowed, we're a sub-grantee to the State. So all of our pinch points, all of our coordination, all of our financial transactions are, in fact, dependent upon the Florida Division December 12, 2017 Page 34 of Emergency Management's recovery staff, their accounting staff, and that's a part of the executive offices in the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. That's a good explanation. I mean, we're all, relatively speaking, aware of these things, but it's important that the general public know as well. I would like to know if the Housing Authority has been reimbursed with -- they were instrumental in assisting immediate needs for our residents in Immokalee and providing temporary housing, and I just would like a follow-up at some point with regard to their assistance that was afforded by a phone call. Mario Diaz-Balart and I worked hand in hand that first three or four days after the storm, and I just wanted to ensure that they're being taken care of. MR. SUMMERS: We need to get together off-line, because I'm not sure of the vendor relationship or if that is a federal-to-federal reimbursement as opposed to a local-to-federal. So I don't have any details per se, but happy to look into it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mark your file. MR. SUMMERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I want to also ask about the transfer sites, the Carnestown in Immokalee. Are we still providing no-fee service to residents who bring debris? MR. SUMMERS: I believe that's correct. Let me phone a friend and see if Dan is here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He can just shake his head yes or no. Is that a yes? MR. SUMMERS: Yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And do not look like a commercial vendor when you bring -- when you bring materials to these transfer sites. MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. December 12, 2017 Page 35 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then last, but not least, I'm getting a lot of emails. Folks are asking how long are we going to continue with the debris removal. Have we picked a date certain that we're no longer going to be picking up debris removal from our right-of-ways? MR. SUMMERS: Let me refer that to Dan. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Even out of my district I've asked -- a lot of folks that are friends of mine that don't live in the subdistrict have asked specific questions in that regard. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you. Dan Rodriguez, your Deputy Department Head for Public Utilities. The deadline to put the materials out is the 15th of December. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ah. MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're about -- close to 92, 95 percent complete in collecting debris; however, as Dan Summers mentioned, we'll do our best not to leave any pile behind. If you have a special situation if you're in the public, you're just coming down, or you just couldn't get to it, you call our office. Our education officers will be there. We'll help you get that pile, as long as it's eligible, removed. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just as a point of clarification. If the pile's there by December 15th, it doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be picked up by then. It just has to be there. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A couple things. First of all, thank you for the presentations at each of our meetings. That's been very helpful. December 12, 2017 Page 36 MR. SUMMERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I agree that this is probably a good time to cease doing those, so thank you for that. And this may be a question for Dan Rodriguez. But we've had a couple people complain about the chipping operations and the dust and noise, and the staff has been very effective in responding to those. I know you've moved the machinery around. You've provided from watering and dust containment and all of that noise abatement. Are there any other complaints out there? I've seen a couple that I think have been resolved. But what's the status of all of that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely, Commissioner. At the northeast site, we've gotten a lot of complaints from Waterways, and they're justified. Those grinders -- three grinders were running 14-hour days for two months. And so we were fortunate to use the site as long as we did. It helped us get to the 92 percent completion, 95 percent completion. As of two weeks ago, we stopped taking material there. We processed almost 75 percent of the material there. We've got about another 25 percent. Our goal is to haul that material out just as fast as we can and shut down that site. We've brought in additional resources to keep the dust down. We've shortened the hours of operation to give the residents around there some relief. So our goal is -- within the next 15 days is to get that site shut down. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are you getting any more complaints then? Has that solved -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: They've actually died off after the last week. We had an indoor -- or excuse me, an outdoor air quality study completed which came back with nothing to warrant any concern, just the dust. So as soon as we kind of got that message out -- tonight I have the opportunity to speak with the homeowners association and the December 12, 2017 Page 37 residents at Waterways tonight. I'm going to listen to them, get their questions, their concerns and, again, assure them that our goal is to shut down that site and utilize our other final. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you for asking that. MR. OCHS: Thanks, Dan. MR. SUMMERS: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, takes us to Item 6A. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we going to show -- MR. OCHS: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Troy? MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if you would like to do the honors. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We realized when we talked about putting on an event that will celebrate where we were -- where we are today versus where we were, that we need to communicate it pictorially. And so, under the artistic guidance of Mr. Miller and with the cooperation of the community, we'd like to present you the film that was shown on Saturday evening. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Where was it shown? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At the concert. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, at the concert. This is the concert. (A video was played.) "GOVERNOR SCOTT: I just had a briefing with the county officials here in Collier County. The National Hurricane Center is reporting that Hurricane Irma remains a dangerous and life-threatening Category 5 storm with winds of 185 miles per hour. MR. OCHS: I'd just like to report on December 12, 2017 Page 38 the status of the Hurricane Irma. Let you know that Collier County Government is well prepared, it's continuing to work hard to keep our residents and our visitors safe and well informed about this very dangerous storm. WEATHERMAN VAN WINKLE: So we're going to upgrade our NBC-2 call that the Collier County coastline will get hit with a Category 4 hurricane." (The video ended.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's it. Thank you, Mr. Miller. (Applause.) Item #6A PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM STEPHEN KWEDAR REQUESTING RELIEF FROM PAYING TAX TO THE HALDEMAN CREEK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE TAXING DISTRICT - STAFF TO BRING THIS ITEM BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM – CONSENSUS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we now move on to Item 6A, public petitions. This is a petition request from Stephen Kwedar requesting relief from paying tax to the Haldeman Creek Municipal Service Taxing Unit. Under your rules, Madam Chair, we have up to 10 minutes for the presentation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Good morning. December 12, 2017 Page 39 MR. OCHS: Good morning, sir. MR. KWEDAR: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for allowing me to come before you. My name is Steven Kwedar. I've been a resident of Collier County since 1984 and a full-time resident since 1993. I recently acquired a new piece of property at 2521 Break Waterway. This is a townhouse in Regatta Landing. This is a new piece of property. It had its first TRIM notice this year. On the TRIM notice I found that I was in the Haldeman Creek MSTU. Since I'm about 200 yards from any navigable water, from any water, I thought it was kind of unusual. So I checked, and as you'll see on this -- in the page -- could you pass those out, please. MR. OCHS: Oh, you want these passed out? MR. KWEDAR: Please. I checked -- some of my immediate neighbors were not in it, and so I went and I got the document, which is the last modification of the boundaries of the Haldeman Creek MSTU. We're in 2008, and the document is 2008-031. And if you've ever looked at one of these documents, it's a dog chasing its tail. I went through and I'm convinced, myself, that I'm not in it. I then went to the Collier County maps department, and they gave me this map. And my property and my immediate neighbors is down in the lower left-hand corner, and it is not in the yellow area which is the taxing district. So I thought, I've got a home run here. I'm just going to go in and show this and I'll get out of it. Well, as we find out, we know that lawyers always represent your interests. So I went in and the lawyer for the -- for Abe Skinner -- MR. OCHS: Property Appraisers. MR. KWEDAR: -- yeah, Property Appraiser, Abe Skinner, yeah, December 12, 2017 Page 40 office, is over on the East Coast, and his name is Gaylord Woods, and Gaylord said, well, you're in a condo unit and, gee, if part of the property is in it, then all of it's in it. Well, that didn't make any sense to me. So I went around and I made the rounds, and I ended up at the MSTUs meeting where they were disbursing funds and hoping they could help me, which they couldn't, but there there was a representative from our County Attorney, and our County Attorney said, gee, if they're in it -- if part of its in it, they're all in it, but maybe we should go to the Collier County Commission and have them amend the boundaries. So now I contact my attorneys. I have Helen Athan, who's with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, and John Blakely, who's my personal attorney, who is with Roetzel & Andress, and they said, well, you know, it doesn't make any sense if some of it's in it, all of it's in it, because the opposite is also true; if none of it's in it, then none of it's in it. Excuse me, if some of it's not in it, then none of it's in it. Neither of those arguments hold water. And according to them, the property in our county, the tax is based on the address and the physical location of that. I am clearly out of that. As you can see on my map here, I'm in the -- this was given to me by the county commissioner -- the county map division. I'm in the lower left-hand corner of that, and it's clearly out. I benefit not one iota from anything from Haldeman Creek, and I'm asking relief for myself and my immediate neighbors. I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, of course. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't really know too much about how these boundaries are set, but it does seem to me that you're December 12, 2017 Page 41 either in the boundary or you're not, and it looks like he's not. And I don't know if we need to amend the boundary at some point, but I guess that's a question for the County Attorney. MR. KWEDAR: Well, according to my attorney, when it was originally done, it was voted on by the people that were being taxed. So realistically, sir, Mr. Saunders, we're not going to vote for it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I understand. I'm just asking whether or not it makes sense to say that if part of the community is in it, the whole community is in it. I don't think I understand that, but... MR. KLATZKOW: I guess it's the reason why the community's in it, and my understanding is that that condominium has direct access to Haldeman Creek for the residents of the condominium to enjoy the creek, which is why they're in the MSTU. MR. KWEDAR: Actually, sir, there are two condominiums. One is a condominium association of the docks, which was on the -- which is on the creek. I'm not a member of that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask a couple questions, sir. We've heard your presentation, and I understand it, and I'm trying to -- I don't disagree with it. And I'm trying to get my arms around that. We have lots of MSTUs around the county, and there are boundaries to it. And, again, you're either in the boundary and taxed or you're not. So I don't understand how those communities could be taxed. If it's in your view that that's permissible, then, you know, that's the question. I don't understand. MR. KLATZKOW: My thought process is that -- my understanding is that the petitioner's unit is newly constructed which is why it's not in the boundary. It was constructed after the boundaries were set. My understanding is that everyone who has access to Haldeman Creek is within the MSTU. It's partly for dredging of the December 12, 2017 Page 42 creek. If the petitioner's units have access to the creek, like everyone else who has access to the creek, they should be part of the MSTU, and the boundaries can be amended. Again, this is an after-constructed property compared to when the borders were actually set. So the quick fix on this is to adjust the boundary to reflect the actual benefit that the condominium is receiving. Now, if this portion of the condominium for some reason has no legal access to the creek, it should not be included. MR. KWEDAR: Are you going to include all Windstar in that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sir, if you could let us have a conversation, or I'm just going to stop talking and -- so if there is a fix, which is to change the boundary, then I think, by implication, then they're not in the boundary. And so it's just a legal issue. My view would be that just because they have access would not require them to pay the tax unless they're actually within the MSTU. That's just my view. And I don't know how the rest of the Commission would feel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You first. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just get into the legal issue. It's a little more than geography as I understand it. It relates to the nature of what owning a condo is, right -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- condominium? MR. KLATZKOW: -- opinion of the Property Appraiser is that when they assess, they're assessing the entire condominium. So it's irrespective of whether they're within or without the boundary. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because the assessment is to the condo -- when you own a condominium unit, you own, essentially, the space within the structure and an undivided interest in the whole condominium property. December 12, 2017 Page 43 MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is the legal issue, right? MR. KLATZKOW: Including the facilities that allow access to Haldeman Creek. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which are within the boundary? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. From a fairness standpoint, the issue is whether or not the petitioner has access to the creek. If he has access like everyone else who has access, he should be paying on part of the tax grid. If he does not have legal access to it, that's a different question. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And my point is similar -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to ask, did he say this is an addition onto the building but it's still part of the same building? MR. KLATZKOW: It's part of the same condominium development, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. So they're all in one, one -- MR. KLATZKOW: Development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- development. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, and -- because the map that's been supplied here is rather confusing because petitioner's unit does, in fact, lie outside the boundary of the MSTU, but he is also a beneficial interest of the MSTU and the access that's -- whether you choose to or not, it is a portion of the entire condominium ownership. My question for the County Attorney is, should we be adjusting the boundary of the MSTU for those beneficial interests? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have to, because the Property Appraiser's going to be charging them anyway. If you want to just December 12, 2017 Page 44 clean this up almost on an ministerial level then, yes, change the boundary. But the Property Appraiser's already made their decision. They're charging this unit for the tax because it's part of the overall condominium development. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a little more than a ministerial issue. There certainly -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. He'll be charged with a tax irrespective of what you do here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand that. But going forward, he has the right to come back and petition on his opinion of the legal boundaries of where his unit's, in fact, located. MR. KLATZKOW: Actually, his real remedy is with the Property Appraiser at this point in time. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Who sets the boundary for the MSTU? MR. KLATZKOW: We did, but we included the condominium, and what the Property Appraiser is saying is since the condominium development is within the boundary, then even the part of the condominium development that falls outside the boundary gets charged. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. And maybe -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because what's being assessed is the condominium property -- MR. KLATZKOW: As a whole. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- as a whole. Can I just suggest, I'd like to -- I don't know that I have enough information right now to make a decision either way on this. Can we get some more clarification on what rights these units have as far as access and -- because I'd like to understand that a little better. I don't know that -- it's not clear from what we have; to me, anyway. If we could just continue this for -- December 12, 2017 Page 45 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. And we don't have -- usually in presentations we don't make decisions. So the issue is we can discuss this. MR. KLATZKOW: The decision is whether or not you want to bring this back for a public hearing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should. I'm having a little trouble with it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would agree with it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Bring this back for a public hearing. MR. KWEDAR: May I bring a lawyer at that time? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can bring anybody you want. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We may not listen to your lawyer, but... MR. KWEDAR: Yeah, I know. Thanks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But my suggestion would be is the argument will not be here. My suggestion is that if you are represented by an attorney -- MR. KWEDAR: Counsel. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- that you may want to caucus with our attorney ahead of time. But this isn't a court of law. This will just be a public hearing -- MR. KWEDAR: I understand. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- whereby we can hear the facts and make some decisions. MR. KWEDAR: Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Item #7 December 12, 2017 Page 46 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 7, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have two registered speakers on this item this morning. Your first speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He'll be followed by Dr. Joseph Doyle. MR. BEYRENT: Good morning, Commissioners. I don't want you to confuse what I'm going to say with what's already occurred today, but it popped up as a perfect example of what Commissioner Taylor referred to about two months ago, and it's the full disclosure on the part of the petitioner. We're getting full disclosure on the part of the commissioners relative to rezoning applications and whatnot, but the problem -- and I'll give you a perfect example. Just this morning it occurred. I said, wow, there it is right there. Talk about karma, right? This had to do with an insubstantial change to a PUD. And I'm looking at it and saying, I've never heard of the Livingston Village Planned Unit Development. Well, that isn't what it was named originally. It was called the Angileri (phonetic) PUD, the front of which is a Racetrac gas station, the back of which is a CubeSmart, the middle of which is an easement that I have through that because Commissioner Burt Saunders, when -- I can remember back 1983, I met Burt when he was County Attorney. Then he became county commissioner, right, then he became a state representative, and now you're a county commissioner again. But at the time there was a problem with the Golden Gate Estates cross-access easements. And the long and short of it was, there are a lot of houses in Golden Gate Estates that have easements through their living rooms, and the reason they have easements through their living December 12, 2017 Page 47 rooms is all the tracts are bisected with road access. And in many cases people would build their houses in the middle of their 5-acre tract where the 60-foot road easement was. It didn't come to a problem until the title companies started looking at the documents and saying, wow, nice house, but it's inside of a road easement. There's an issue. Most cases they did issue insurance anyway. So the long and short of it was I didn't know what the Livingston Woods Planned Unit Development was because I only knew it as the Angileri PUD. And it describes it as being off of Livingston Road. And I'm -- that's not off of Livingston Road. It's not Whippoorwill Lane even though people think it is. It's off a road called Kramer Road. And the name Kramer comes from the original owner of the Angileri PUD, which is Sal Angileri, Wendell Kramer, and Sunny Gretsch. And there's a reaction to Sunny Gretsch's name up there. In any case, it wasn't described as the people that we knew it as. And then they asked for an easement vacation of the water and sewer line that went to my property. Nobody caught that because nobody knew where this property was. And, last of all, it came up, they eradicated a public easement, and they were doing it under the -- amending an insubstantial change to a PUD that nobody knew was a PUD, because I didn't know it, and I'm the next-door neighbor. Then they denied me access to my own property by saying that easement was vacated by commissioner -- well, at the time you were -- I think you were state representative. You don't remember it? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't remember what I did yesterday much less 1983. MR. BEYRENT: No. You're the same age as me. We're supposed to have Alzheimer's, right? Anyway, that's what we got is that, like Commissioner Taylor December 12, 2017 Page 48 says, people come up here and they're saying, I represent the ABC company, in this case is -- these two agenda items that were stamped were actually Racetrac property, because they called me up saying, hey, you know, we're this, that, and the other. I went in their office, and I saw the blueprint of a big gas station. So, anyhow, that's it. Thank you very much for your input, because you enlightened me tremendously. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker for public comment is Dr. Joseph Doyle. DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle, Naples. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. DR. DOYLE: First I'd like to say I think that the video that we just saw was quite dramatic, especially the black and white in the beginning. That's exactly the way things looked when we returned from North Carolina as an evacuee. Everything was brown. It was just amazing, and then, of course, now everything is living color. That being said, I'm here to give you an update on the Marketplace at Pelican Bay. As much as you just saw in that movie, the 140 live -- mature live oaks in the Pelican Bay parking lot, the canopy that provides us some cooling effect in the heat of the summer for those of us who are here year-round, that canopy, those trees, except for one, all survived Irma. And last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday they were all cut down. It's a travesty. Oh, I know they're going to replace it with some magnolias and some royal palms and all that, but, you know, Riverchase had this happen, as I said at the July 11th meeting, five years ago, and Riverchase still looks like a barren wasteland. And it's just outrageous, after these trees survived Irma, for that property manager to go ahead with this. Now, I will say when I spoke with you on July 11th, they did not December 12, 2017 Page 49 have their permit issued that day. They had to go back and forth about two or three times. They finally had their permit issued around August 10th to the 15th, and then there was a 30-day appeal period. But in the meantime, Irma came along on September 10th. So nothing got done. We had cleanup. Well, they finally got a tree -- an arborist to take down those trees last week. It's outrageous, absolutely outrageous. And even though Pelican Bay runs the PUD and they -- the Board did ask -- did go back and meet with the project manager in August and asked him to reconsider, they didn't. They had their permit, and they went ahead and did it. And, again, no public comment, because it's considered an insubstantial change to the PUD. So I'm here to ask you not to drop the ball this time as to what happened at Riverchase, and I know most of you were not elected at that time, but we need to change the Land Development Code to preserve these canopies. And they're saying it's safety issues and this and that. Well, I don't really see roots growing up in the parking lot and all, but we -- so when this comes, we need to change the Land Development Code. And I know there are other things that you're going to do, too, but this I'd like to highlight because it's really a travesty. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Is there any willingness to bring this back as a discussion? Commissioner Fiala, you went through the Riverchase. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he's absolutely right as far as Riverchase went. The people were appalled to see all of those things being cut down. The shopping center says, well, they have to do that because people can't see the names of the businesses. But I want to tell you, the reason they're going there is because they know what businesses are in there. They don't -- and you can't shop from the road anyway because you can't see -- you can't see from the road over to the December 12, 2017 Page 50 building. I believe in the preservation of trees. If you're going to have trees, plant them in the first place, the kind of trees you want, but they should be there. And so I understand his plight. And I don't know what happened at Pelican Bay, and I don't know what the problem was with the trees, so I can't comment on that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you be willing to bring this back, perhaps, as a public hearing or to look to amend the LDC so that if this kind of -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think the discussion would be great. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To bring it back. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, if we want to discuss it, and then we'll come to a conclusion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What exactly are we going to be bringing back? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Perhaps the idea that if you're going to take every tree down in a shopping center that's been there for more than 20 years and it has a substantial canopy that can be seen from a public road, such as U.S. 41, that the process could come in front of us for a discussion airing. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know what the law says. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're talking about, the Board would have to enact a tree preservation ordinance. That's what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, if a property owner has landscaping in a commercial property that it wants to change and it meets the Land Development Code, I mean, I would see that as a substantial invasion of somebody's property rights. I mean, I understand preserves and things like that, but I think we have to be careful how far we're going to go in dictating what people December 12, 2017 Page 51 can and can't do with their property. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: In the City of Naples, if you cut down -- and now it's a city tree. If you cut down a city tree, the fine is over $1,200 just for the tree, doesn't matter the size of it, because they were -- because of the acknowledgment that it is considered tree city -- one of the -- it has gotten awards as one of the Tree City USA. If we value our trees in our horticultural areas -- and, Commissioner McDaniel -- and if we don't -- I don't know how to approach it, and perhaps the best way to approach it is through a tree preservation ordinance, and maybe this needs to be vetted at another meeting. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And on that note I would like to do that, and I don't necessarily know that a tree preservation ordinance is the path. But we have personal property rights. We have expenses that are associated with dictatorial mandates of certain types of trees. Although there is a choice, developers regularly go to those that are less expensive that, over time, tear up infrastructure, tear up sidewalks and parking lots and the like. So maybe it's time for us to have a discussion because of the length of time that has, in fact, transpired to better facilitate. Maybe we can offer some incentives to existing developers and existing property owners to maintain these majestic trees and the canopies that have, in fact, come from the original ordinances that we had in place. So I think it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to have it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To vet it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So is that -- do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to make that a motion? I think we should. I'll make that motion. Don't make me repeat it. December 12, 2017 Page 52 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion that we'll bring this back for a discussion on the possibilities of looking at tree preservation throughout Collier County, and there's a second on that motion. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it's -- Madam Chair, I think your court reporter's in line for a break right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know she is. We're giving you your breaks on time. MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ten minutes. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, County Manager. I believe we are moving to our advertised public hearing; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item #9A December 12, 2017 Page 53 RESOLUTION 2017-250: THE SINGLE PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 WITHIN THE 2016 CYCLE 3 OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS RESPONSE FOR AN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC TO THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD – ADOPTED MR. OCHA: That's Item 9A, and this is a recommendation to approve the single petition in your 2016 Cycle 3 Growth Management Plan amendment cycle. It's a transmittal hearing to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and comment in response for an amendment specific to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict at the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I believe now we need to swear folks in, and -- MR. OCHS: Mr. County Attorney, I don't believe this requires ex parte or swearing in of testimony. MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is legislative. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very good. MR. OCHS: The petitioner would go first, Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today are David Gensen and Bruce Layman with Barron Collier Companies representing the property owner; as well as Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, the planner on the project; Norm Trebilcock, our transportation consultant; and Mike Timmerman, who did the market analysis for the project that we're presenting. December 12, 2017 Page 54 What you have before you today is a proposed, I'll call it, regular scale Comp Plan amendment to add the ability to do 375 rental apartments within the Goodlette/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict, which is highlighted in yellow on your visualizer. It's at the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. That project is currently approved as a retail project with both office space and regular retail. The old Sweetbay shopping center used to be in there. We are requesting the ability to add to the subdistrict apartments. And I'll show you our hope -- well, our goal is at the adoption hearing -- we've submitted the PUD amendment so everybody will know exactly what's occurring when the Comp Plan is ultimately adopted. I will show you the proposed PUD master plan so people will understand where the apartments are scheduled to go if they are built, and also in the PUD we have a conversion formula that requires, for every one unit that we build, 200 square feet of retail uses go away. So, ultimately, the project will be, at worst, transportation neutral. But if we were to actually build all of the units, it would actually be less traffic for the ultimate development of the property. Now, I recognize that if you go out there today, because there's a lot of vacancies on the property, there's not a whole lot of traffic being generated but, ultimately, though, if apartments are not built, there will be retail users within the existing space as well as the outparcel that has yet to be built. I'm sure everybody's familiar with the intersection. But the proposed locations for apartments are this one vacant outparcel and this parcel right in there where the existing Sweetbay and inline stores are located. This bank, the Starbucks, this office building, this bank, and then these two office buildings in the rear will all remain. So there will be no apartments directly on Pine Ridge Road under that scenario, and December 12, 2017 Page 55 there could be some apartments along Goodlette-Frank Road. We went to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to transmit the petition to the state and, ultimately, when we come back and they have the PUD in front of them, that's when we'll address some of the development standards related to the development of the apartments as well as the exact conversion formula that would be in place. We have also scheduled or are scheduling a meeting with the residents to the south, which is the Northgate community. They had come and had some concerns about making some changes to the existing commercial standards due to noise they're experiencing, not from this project but from a nearby project, and have asked us if we would consider addressing things like outdoor amplified music and the like. So we have a meeting scheduled for them. That is the quick explanation of what we're doing. The project's about 30 acres in size. Again, it will ultimately be traffic neutral when the PUD comes forward. There will be a requirement to have a conversion formula. As I think we're all aware, there's plenty of demand for market-rate apartments still out there, and that's an area that we anticipate addressing if we do go forward with multifamily on this site. With that, that's an overview, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, just for clarity, this is a Comp Plan amendment. There's nothing in here that refers to a reduction in the commercial, all right. At a later PUD they may or may not come forward with a reduction plan or a conversion plan. So to be talking about the PUD at this point in time is premature, all right. If the thought of the Board is it doesn't matter because it's transportation neutral, you need to address that in the Comp Plan, not in a future PUD, which may or may not come for years. December 12, 2017 Page 56 MR. YOVANOVICH: And I think we explained to the Planning Commission if they felt at the adoption hearing that we needed to also include a conversion formula in the Comp Plan, we were more than willing to do that as well. But you will have the PUD in front of you hopefully in March when we come back. That's the anticipated schedule. But, again, we're willing to put it in the Comp Plan if you wanted it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have any speakers? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I have 11 registered speakers for this item. Your first speaker -- and I'd encourage our speakers to use both podiums. Your first speaker is Lynn Miller. She'll be followed by Ned Miller. As we wait on Ms. Miller, I would like to remind everyone, please silence your cell phones. Ms. Miller? MS. MILLER: I'm Lynn Miller, and I live in Northgate, and I came to the planning meeting that was about a month ago. And I've one quick comment, and that is concerning adding to the traffic congestion at Pine Ridge and Goodlette. That's my concern. In particular, based on the discussion at that planning meeting, it seems that the statistical information for traffic analysis needs to be updated. I believe the traffic data, as a base, is old data. They were saying -- I think they said something to the effect of the traffic data for maybe when they first built the complex and then, from that, how are they going to make it traffic neutral? And even the people on the Planning Commission were saying, you can't start mixing data, data that's 10, 15, 20 years old, and then take current calculations and add on top as to what the traffic will really be like. And so the -- I think it would be great if the traffic analysis could be updated to reflect current conditions. Then you'll have accurate December 12, 2017 Page 57 information to analyze the effects of adding 375 housing units to the area. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. MILLER: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ned Miller. He'll be followed by Susan Usher. MR. NED MILLER: Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to speak on this particular issue. My name is Ned Miller. I'm a resident of Northgate Drive, which is part of a homeowners association called Northgate Village. I'm against the approval of this petition. Even reading it here sort of boggles the mind of exactly what we're talking about. But what I do know is that the petitioner is seeking approval on their Growth Management Plan to add 375 rental units and an unknown number of commercial and retail units. To then state that this is traffic neutral sort of boggles the mind. I have been a resident of Northgate for about a year and a half, and one thing I've come to realize is that all east/west, north/south traffic on main throughfares in Collier County are a nightmare. What I also came to realize is that -- while most of this nightmare is during our season, it's also a nightmare for off season as well, too. So I'm very, very concerned and would ask you to reconsider adding the traffic generated by the approval of this plan into the future. Secondly, I would also point out that this parcel of land is relatively close to Pine Ridge Middle School. Now, we have families -- I no longer have school-age children, but there are families in our homeowners association in related or close-by neighborhoods who have children who go to this middle school. In order to get there, they're not picked up by public transportation. They walk. And they walk through a gate in our privacy wall. It's a locked gate. They have keys and they then cross Pine Ridge Road to get to the middle school. December 12, 2017 Page 58 This is just a situation that I think is very, very serious. Obviously, the petitioner is motivated by profit. We as residents, year-round residents, are motivated by quality of life. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Usher. She'll be followed by Jeanne Franklin. MS. USHER: Good morning. I'm Susan Usher. I'm also a county employee. I filled out a leave slip, so I'm on my time, not on your time. I moved to Northgate Village, which is the community south of this development, 24 years ago. My parents moved there 27 years ago. So we are long-time residents within our community. My concerns with the changes being requested by Pine Ridge Commons are the height of the buildings, five-story -- the apartment buildings being five stories tall, the number of vehicles that will be on our roads, and the noise. I like the concept of mixed-use development as long as the businesses close by 10 p.m. My backyard neighbor is Pine Ridge Road, and when I first moved there, there was a church across the street off Pine Ridge Road. Fifteen years ago the church moved to a new location. The property was sold and was developed into Mission Square shopping center. There's a restaurant there. And from Thursday night to Saturday night the magic -- the restaurant magically turns into a nightclub. And during the cooler months, fall, winter, and spring, when the weather is nice, they open up all their doors and windows, and we can hear the music until 2 a.m. We sleep with our windows closed and, yet, we can still hear the music, and it wakes us up at night and keeps us up at night until they finally close their doors. I do not wish this on anyone. My neighbors have called Code Enforcement. And it may help December 12, 2017 Page 59 for a couple of weekends, but the volume of the music gets cranked up again, and we start the cycle all over. I do not want my Northgate neighbors to the west of where my house is and also where my parents live to endure this type of misery. So, please, if there's any way to enforce it, we would like those businesses closed by 10 p.m. This should not affect any businesses that are currently there. There's an Italian restaurant, Starbucks, and a Thai restaurant. They all close by 10. Nobody's going out to dinner at 10 p.m., so businesses should close by 10. The other concern I have is the height of the apartment complex. Right now they say it's parking with four stories of apartment complex. That's five stories tall. I know our windows have blinds there, but when you look out and we're on the third floor, you see tree tops. When you're on the fifth floor, you're actually looking down. You're looking down into our properties into, literally, our backyards. And, you know, we do have a privacy wall, but that's mainly for the cars driving all along Goodlette and Pine Ridge Road. It was never meant to have a bird's eye view into our community and into our backyard. And, also, the vehicles, 375 apartments, that's probably over 700 vehicles. These are apartments, not condos. They're going to be lived in full-time. They're not seasonal. Condos, you can always hope for seasonal people. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeanne Franklin. She'll be followed by Dorothea Frey. MS. FRANKLIN: Hi. Yes, thank you, Commissioners. Our property backs up to what we're calling the privacy wall. Well, we attended the meeting in April, and maybe it was more private. After the hurricane, all of our 20-year-old property trees and hedges are gone. So we're looking at Pine Ridge now, and that means that those five stories or four stories are going to be visible. December 12, 2017 Page 60 And when we talk about people that are going to a supermarket or people who live there, we're talking about completely different traffic. And traffic is terrible. It's noisy, and we have that to deal with, but we don't need to add that many people across the street where I can physically see at night. I'm looking at the sign for Magnolia property, whatever it is. And everything is just clear now. All of our property has been decimated. And I hope this doesn't go through. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dorothea Frey. She'll be followed by Erik Howe. MS. FREY: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for listening to me. I am probably repeating a lot of the comments that have already been said. I live in Northgate community. My property is right -- backs up right onto Pine Ridge Road. And I don't know if you are familiar with Pine Ridge Road or Goodlette Road. If you are, it is an extremely busy road. All the traffic usually goes that way to Highway 75, all the workers from the beach. In season it's just -- you've got to -- it's like a parking lot. You have to sit there. You have trucks. The noise is just terrible. Like Jeanne said, trees have been knocked down from our walls, so you hear the noise even more. When I try to get out on Goodlette Road during the season, you have to sit there sometimes for 10 minutes waiting for the traffic to break up because it is so bad. If you want to make a left-hand turn, good luck trying to get out and get over three lanes on Goodlette. Like I said before, on Pine Ridge Road the noise is so bad now. I can't imagine how much it would be with 375 more people, you know, probably two cars, more, than it is now. And, like I said, if you want to get an idea, just go on Pine Ridge Road probably at any time of the day at this time, and you'll see you're December 12, 2017 Page 61 in a parking lot because it's so busy. The noise is terrible. We can hear motorcycles or cars racing down it, and it's just -- it's not a good experience to hear all that noise, especially if you want to go in the yard, you know, during the day to go to your pool or barbecue; you can hear all the traffic really bad. Again, mainly because the trees and then the privacy wall does somewhat block it, but trucks you can see the top of the trucks. And, like I said, people are going to be looking in your yard, you know. And I know I don't want to go out there and have anybody see me in a bathing suit or anything like that, you know. I have qualms about that. But those are my concerns. Basically, the noise is really bad, because it's on Pine Ridge Road, and the traffic is outrageous. And, again, the little kids that have to go to school, that is a really big concern for them crossing the street or even getting them to the schools because the traffic is so heavy to get out of the Northgate Village. I appreciate your time, and for listening to me. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Erik Howe. He'll be followed by Judy Hansen. MR. HOWE: Good morning, Commissioners. Erik Howe, and I believe, as my neighbors have said, I'm probably on repeat at this point, but I hope the repetition is causing a common chord. My same neighbors have all attended the -- I'm not -- I don't know the names of these things, but there was a kind of informal public meeting, then there was another meeting with the planning committee, so we've all been here before kind of in power, although we have a smaller neighborhood by only 50 homes. But I do have school-age children, so I, you know, definitely have worries of those children crossing that road with the extra traffic. The building height's obvious of concern. It helps that eventually the December 12, 2017 Page 62 PUD's going to show, maybe there's a line of sight that we can come to some common theme people aren't looked down. And I'd be remiss -- and, again, pardon my ignorance, but this whole traffic thing to me is just mind-boggling. So we compare completely a hypothetical example that says, if it was filled with retail space, then it would be less traffic than if we build these apartments. But if it was filled with retail space, there would be no business reason that we would be here. They would be operating a profitable business, and we wouldn't be here. They wouldn't be trying to renegotiate this deal. So I don't know how we apply apples to oranges, how we say, well, we could build this thing out, but they can't build it out or it would be built out. I mean, I don't know a businessperson that holds a commercial property that would not develop it if they could. So, again, I don't know -- if you can't apply real-world examples, you have to use a 15-year-old traffic study, but I just don't know how you can truly say if we did build this out, it would be less traffic than putting in apartments, but we all -- everybody probably in this room has driven by and seen that they can't build this out, and that's why we're here today. So I guess I would just try to apply some real-world not apples versus oranges in the traffic study, although the numbers can make it appear that way. Thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judy Hansen. She'll be followed by David Hansen. MS. HANSEN: Thank you for taking the time to listen to us. Yesterday my husband and I were trying to go to the Y, and this was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. And the traffic going south on Goodlette turning east onto Pine Ridge, together with the traffic coming east on Pine Ridge crossing through the intersection clogged December 12, 2017 Page 63 the intersection simultaneously through three solid light changes. We were the first car at the light and could not budge through three solid lights. At this point people from the middle lane and the left lane, still going straight, got so upset they were now barging into the intersection which was clogged, fully clogged. So now the light's changed, and now the people going the other way are going into the intersection. I finally called the Sheriff's Department and told them they need somebody to monitor this intersection between 4:00 and 5:30 because these are not only people -- they're people trying to get out to their homes in the Estates. It's clear. We can't now go to the gym, which is the YMCA, because we can't get to it. So it was so dangerous and awful, and tempers were flying, and this is a daily occurrence. So my -- traffic is my main concern, and I appreciate you listening to us. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Hansen. He'll be followed by Cindy Pisani. MR. HANSEN: Hello. Thank you for listening to our concerns today. I'd like to just reiterate that -- the same that my neighbors are saying, that our main concerns are the traffic, the noise, the building heights of additionally 6- to 700 automobiles coming and going from this area. We've lived in the neighborhood for seven years, and we understand that it's a very busy corner to begin with, and I don't think that this is -- this is really a good idea of adding that much more in apartments to the neighborhood. So I thank you for hearing us, and we appreciate everything. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Cindy Pisani. She'll be followed by Amy Owen. MS. PISANI: Good morning. I'm a resident of Northgate and December 12, 2017 Page 64 have been there for 19 years and have also been a resident of Collier County since 1975. I agree with all of my neighbors and have the same concerns and just wanted to add, for instance, as far as the safety concern, there currently is only one entrance going into this complex that has a traffic light, which also happens to be Panther Lane, which goes into the middle school. And maybe that is one of the reasons why there is an issue with the lack of retail, because it's difficult to get into this development, into this corner. And I also wanted to add that when this development was built, our development, Northgate Village, was built in the early '80s, I believe Pine Ridge was only a two-lane road, and we do have a privacy wall. It's not a very tall wall, but since Pine Ridge has now expanded to six lanes, the noise has also expanded. And so we are concerned about noise. We're concerned about the height of the building and loss of privacy if these five-story buildings are eventually added on Pine Ridge Road. And I think that was it. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Amy Owen, and she will be followed by Blake Owen. MS. OWEN: Good morning. Thanks for allowing me to speak. My name's Amy Owen. I'm a resident of Northgate Village and a board member of the Northgate Homeowners Association. I've been asked to speak on behalf of the board along with all of the members of our community. We acknowledge and understand the subject matter being discussed today is hearing a proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan. Based on our review and understanding of the proposed changes, there are several requested changes that are very specific and December 12, 2017 Page 65 not generalized as you would see in a typical petition dealing with the Comprehensive Plan change. If these changes are approved, it will allow for more ease in obtaining approval for the proposed changes and zoning for the subject parcel. We feel that these types of requested changes should be vetted out through a more appropriate application and a public hearing process, such as in the change in zoning to the PUD. Second, I'd like to, you know, take my time and opportunity to voice the concerns of the board along with ones of my neighbors. We hope you forgive and appreciate the repetition. Again, the traffic. We share the disbelief that the traffic won't be increased by this change in use. The traffic's intense, and we're very concerned about the children crossing the street to get to the middle school. We're also concerned about the traffic noise. I mean, of all the subdivisions that need a sound barrier wall, our subdivision should be on the top of the list. We're, frankly, baffled why the county has not made the decision to install the sound barrier wall along our subdivision and to carry it east to address the Quail Run subdivision as well. The current wall that was constructed for our neighborhood is just the typical 4- to 6-foot privacy fence and was initially designed and installed when Pine Ridge Road was just a two-lane roadway. As far as the additional noise, we know this could develop into a mixed-use development similar to, like, a Mercato. With this possibility, we have concerns with amplified noise and restaurants turning into nightclubs or after-hours clubhouse. Our neighborhood has firsthand experience in this nightmare scenario, as you've heard, with the nightclub and amplified music in the evening and late hours. Our only protection has been the noise ordinance, and that has not provided satisfactory results. December 12, 2017 Page 66 We've had to enlist the help of both Collier County Code Enforcement and local police to fight the noise and disruption from the establishes. We find it hard to believe that mixed use is, you know, compatible with our subdivision just 180 feet from the parcel, including an amplified sound provision in the upcoming zoning change to the PUD must be done, and the actual location of the commercial enterprises and their accessible doors and windows within the parcels should be specifically identified and addressed. Also, with the building heights, you know, with the five-story buildings, the current PUD only allows three stories. We definitely, you know, want to make sure our line of sight is not adversely impacted and, you know, with whatever wall we would have in place at the time. We want the parcel to be successful. We just respectfully ask the Commission and petitioner to acknowledge our concerns and make every effort in addressing them in hopes that we can compromise between, you know, the commissioners, the elected officials, and our association. Thank you so much. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker for Item 9A is Blake Owen. MR. OWEN: You won't need a clock for me. I'm just here to support what everyone else has already said. There's going to be a lot of issues with traffic and adding 300, probably 500 cars if you think about 375 apartments: Noise, building heights, everything. So we hope that you will consider all that we've had to say. Thank you so much for your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: Mr. Bosi has a few comments from the staff December 12, 2017 Page 67 perspective. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Director. I just wanted to put on for the record the staff is recommending approval to the Department of Economic Opportunity. Reminder, this is a legislative issue. It's a transmittal issue for the Growth Management Plan. It's a very deliberate process in regards to there's two sets of hearings between the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for transmittal, and then there's another set of hearings at adoption with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So there's two bites at the apple. It's a very deliberate process. Because we are changing our Growth Management Plan, it requires the additional steps. We feel that the application has satisfied the requirements of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes which dictates the data and analysis to support a Growth Management Plan change. Another aspect that I could address, and it was related to the first speaker, related to updated information. And what the issue was with the Planning Commission is one of the Planning Commissioners had asked about the original impact of the traffic at approval in '99, and the transportation consultant had indicated that at that time the ITE book was utilized. But with an amendment to the proposed ordinance, they would utilize the most current ITE traffic counts and booklet. So there was a -- there's a difference between that fifth edition and the current edition, and that's where there was a perceived difference within the information. But the utilization of the most current ITE has been applied to this application. And one of the things -- and I know the speakers have spoken in disbelief -- but the overall effect is a reduction in trips. That's with -- if December 12, 2017 Page 68 the 35 -- or the 375 residential units are developed. And that doesn't have anything to do with the type of what -- the characteristics from a traffic standpoint that residential units have compared to commercial shopping. Commercial shopping's an attracter, meaning it attracts trips from a wide area, and those come -- or are dispersed over a longer period of time. When you have residential units, it's normally -- those are generators. So generate trips outward, and those trips are more limited in regards to the -- in comparison to a retail or an office environment just because of that attraction in nature and the number of customers that they receive. So overall, even though we say that it's hard to understand how 375 units added to this site could be a net reduction -- and what it does is it displaces -- the development of the residential displaces the opportunity for additional commercial to be developed and, therefore, at the end of the day, it's a net reduction. A final thing I would like to comment related to -- or Growth Management's recommendation of approval, the characteristics of this site being two major collector and arterial roads, those are normally where we have our activity centers. And this isn't an activity center. This is a commercial subdistrict that was added in 1999, but the physical characteristics, the location, intersection of two intersections is one of the areas where our growth management, our Future Land Use Map would suggest an activity center or the highest intensity of our land uses would be provided for. And following the recommendation of your Housing Affordability Plan that was accepted, this is the location. The intensity of that commercial activity has already been designed and is being absorbed by this -- by this intersection. The replacement of square footage of commercial for multifamily rental residential units from the December 12, 2017 Page 69 staff's perspective, from the recommendations that are contained within your housing plan, this is the type of -- these are the type of proposals that we want to promote, and these are the type of proposals, in terms of providing for diversity within our housing stock within our urbanized area, we're going to see more of as the disruption within square footage and the supportable square footage that could be maintained within one area given the other avenues for obtaining retail goods and services. You're going to see, and I believe we're going to see, and we want to promote, this type of an exchange of commercial square footage for residential square footage because, as we talked about or as was mentioned during the Agenda Item 5 related to affordable housing, there's two different approaches. There's a government-restricted approach, but there's also a market-rate approach. There's a 97 percent absorption rate within our multifamily structures throughout the county. There has to be a supply-side approach to address those. We did that with -- we did that at Radio Road and Livingston with the Briarwood addition of the multifamily units. We're adding to the supply, and we're trying to effectuate positively that supply-and-demand curve and that relationship between the rents that could be charged and the availability of these units. So this is a -- this is a project that hits a lot of goals for Collier County and not just -- not just from a housing diversity standpoint. I know there's some skepticism, but the anticipation -- and we heard some of the comments there's a tremendous pressure from the west moving east to get those workers back to the estate locations. Well, that separation of uses, that separation between dwelling units and economic opportunities, those negatively affect our transportation networks. Adding additional residential units in close proximity to a high number of job creation, creation opportunities, are things that we want to promote, promoting those links, those links not just for goods December 12, 2017 Page 70 and services, but for economic opportunities. And with the amount of major employers within a 3- and 4-mile radius of this location, Comprehensive Planning staff looked at it from an overall -- from a positive perspective and, therefore, that's how we recommended -- or arrived upon our recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to start first only because the Northgate folks are in my district. And, Mr. Bosi, if you'd just stay up there. Whereas, I understand -- you know, I understand the rationale why staff approved this, but your discussion, this should have happened 20 years ago. Let's deal with 2017. Let's deal with the fact that the last time I counted there are U.S. 41, Goodlette, Airport, parts of Livingston, and then I-75 going north for a community that's going to be over almost a half a million people eventually. We don't have those north/south thoroughfares. You know, you can't -- we don't have it where people can commute. This -- Goodlette is one of those streets or roads going north and south that works right now. But as we've heard testimony, and I don't doubt it, part of the time, it's failing. The system's failing. We've got a -- we've got a challenge, because it seems like our zoning is project by project. We're not standing back and saying -- taking stock of what's happening today, what we want, which you eloquently expressed. That's what we want. We want people living in here. But what's guaranteeing the people are going to live in these apartments? What's going to guarantee that they're not going to switch to purchase? How do we know what the rents are going to be? We've heard testimony the rents are too high in Collier County. This is not market rate. Are we going to insist that this is going to be for workforce housing and for specific salary levels? I mean, in theory I understand it, but we've got to have -- we've December 12, 2017 Page 71 got to plan this, and I just -- I'm getting concerned that our planning is myopic at best; that we amend a comprehensive plan that is supposed to be our planning document. But if it's our planning document, why do we keep amending it? Why do we amend it every -- have it every other -- twice a year? Why is this happening? I'm not -- this is not a criticism of you. This has been the way we've done business. But I'm looking at growth. I'm looking at infill and urban areas; that's very, very important. It is going to change. I'm not one of those folks that say it's not going to change, but it's how we're going to change, and I don't think we've addressed it. I don't think we've looked at planning which isn't driven by a project but it's driven by the experts coming to us and looking at the community as a whole saying this is the urban, this is the -- this is the -- this is where we're going to have infill. How do we want to grow? Very much what you're doing on U.S. 41 east. You're worried about the storage units. They're proliferating. What's the plan? Where's the plan? Why is this happening? You know, how are we going to address it? This is tough. I'm not suggesting -- I'm not pointing fingers, and I know Mr. Yovanovich is very nervous back there. I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just saying I'm so reluctant to approve this because it's a project that's driving another project. We're creating a district because of a project. That's the craziest thing I've ever heard of. It's not. So it's troubling. I've been struggling with this for a few days; you can hear it. And I really would like to look at Pine Ridge as a whole before we do anything on it. I really would look, because it is failing in many areas. You know that further east it's failing. But it's very tough here. Very tough. So anyway. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I guess I'll go next because -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's your district. December 12, 2017 Page 72 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- it's in my district. You know, and I understand these concerns about traffic, about, you know, how we're planning in growth. And I think -- I think in respect to what you were saying about why we keep amending Comp Plans, I mean, the Comp Plan's a living document. We can't have a Comp Plan that's stuck. That's what we have now in certain respects is a Comp Plan that doesn't really reflect what we need, and that's why we amend it. I mean, we're talking about a proposal, as staff has identified, to address exactly what we've been talking about in our Community Housing Plan, to switch from the commercial uses at these -- although this isn't in an activity center, it is essentially one, or maybe it should be one -- to address the traffic. And I certainly understand the concerns about noise and about, you know, the things that we will, as a board, specifically address, the specifics of the development of the development standards during the PUD process. I mean, those are concerns that we certainly have to address because of the proximity of not only -- Northgate? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Northgate. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Northgate, but also the Pine Ridge neighborhood is nearby. And so, you know, this is a Comp Plan amendment that addresses some of the things that we've been wrestling with. And I think if staff is of the opinion that -- and the data backs up that going from a commercial -- and I want to make sure that everyone's clear. This isn't adding 375 units to the commercial shopping center as it is now. This is a -- what would you call it -- a change from commercial to residential. You know, I think these -- if it's going to -- if it's going to reduce the impact on Pine Ridge Road from the commercial uses to the residential uses, that's something that we really need to -- we've been December 12, 2017 Page 73 talking about supporting. Secondly, the issues of the noise and all that, that will have to be dealt with at the PUD level and certainly needs to be addressed. I think certainly the owners -- and I know this is -- I'm pretty certain that an issue is in the PUD at the Mercato, I would assume, that the hours of operation and when there can be noise and there can't be any noise is something that was addressed in that process. That's what that PUD process is for. Just like the building height. There's a reference -- there's a change in the Growth Management Plan here that talks about -- it will -- a maximum of four stories, right? But that's the maximum. What it's actually going to be and what it will be limited to is part of the PUD function. We will be addressing that specifically when it comes back for the PUD amendment if it comes back for a PUD amendment. So, you know, I think we have to understand that this is a Comp Plan amendment that the staff and the Planning Commission has said is consistent with what we are trying to do as a community, and I think we need to support it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. First I have a quick question, and that is, one of the first speakers spoke of the noise at night coming from a bar or something, like that loud music and so forth. When -- if this was approved, would that loud music still be there? Is that a different part of it or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's a different piece. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me explain that if I may. First of all, you know, Commissioner Solis is correct in that we're doing a Comp Plan Amendment but the actual details will be addressed in the PUD. The current PUD as it sits today is all commercial and retail and office with no hours of operation in it at all. We heard loud and clear at the Planning Commission, the December 12, 2017 Page 74 Planning Commission said, when you bring back the PUD, a couple of things need to be addressed: Noise related to commercial buildings. So there will be provisions in the PUD addressing those issues that don't currently exist. That's one of the benefits of going through this PUD amendment process; two, they asked us to make sure we had a distance requirement from Pine Ridge Road where the closest residential building can be to address the sightline issue that the residents have made. You will get all of those details in the PUD as part of the process. We won't -- so the answer to your question is right now there's no limitations on hours of operation. We anticipate through the PUD amendment process that there will be. We are not the noise issue. The noise issue is the PUD next door. We will make sure -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was trying to ask you was -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is the noise from a certain area going to be then removed because you're building in this, or is that part of the shopping center that will remain? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the noise actually occurs -- I don't want to name the name of the business, but if someone wants to say it out loud from the audience. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Noodles. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Which is in the Mission Square or -- I can't remember the name of the PUD. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Down the street. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. We will make sure we can't have that situation within our PUD because we will address the legitimate concerns by the neighborhood that they don't want to hear music from a restaurant that becomes a bar at night. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just hoping it would be December 12, 2017 Page 75 eliminated. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wish we could, but we can't. But we can make sure it doesn't get worse. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But, certainly -- I'm sorry. But the residents -- I mean, the residents that would be living here wouldn't want that either. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They would be the closest, I think. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And we anticipate -- so there's -- as you guys know, you've been around long enough, the PUD's going to get into the nitty-gritty details to make sure that their concerns are addressed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second thing I wanted to talk about would be a number of them mentioned the height of the building. So maybe before -- you know, being -- I know that you all -- every developer asks for the moon and stars and then wrapped up in a bow, right? But maybe if you could be -- it would be a more realistic request to be three stories maximum rather than, you know, saying four stories or even five stories. Maybe that would be something that could be accessible -- or acceptable, and also that it would be less units, because now you're not talking -- you're talking 375. So what about two and a quarter or 250? Now, that's something -- I realize that is done later on, but that affects my vote, because I don't know if it would be done later on. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, remember, this is just the transmittal. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. MR. YOVANOVICH: The adoption happens. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm saying is it's going to affect my vote as far as transmittal goes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't have the answer for you December 12, 2017 Page 76 today as far as the number of units coming down. But another thing we were asked, between transmittal -- because the Planning Commission recognized that just because you get transmitted doesn't mean you get adopted. They've asked us to look at those issues: Height and the number of units part of both the adoption hearing and the PUD hearing, recognizing that if we don't satisfy those concerns of the Planning Commission, we will not get adopted or we may not get a PUD. Keep in mind, we've got to get four out of five commissioners for both the adoption and the PUD amendment. So we didn't get a -- we didn't get a free ride from the Planning Commission. We were given homework to do between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing to satisfy those Planning Commissioners in making a recommendation of ultimate adoption. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And every time I go through that intersection, I cannot believe how much traffic is in there. It's just so full of traffic. And I really feel sorry for the people that live there right now. And I worry about adding more traffic to that even -- you know, right now there's that much traffic and the area is almost empty as far as commercial goes. So what I see is more traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that. Can I make two more comments, because I think we jumped to discussion, which is fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm done, though. MR. YOVANOVICH: But just a couple of comments that were made by the public I'd like to address and then -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, we have one more commissioner. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I would like to speak to our County Attorney for a moment. He brought up something at the beginning of this, and I just wanted a December 12, 2017 Page 77 point of clarification, if I may, sir. Is it typical for us to be addressing traffic issues within the GMP transmittal process? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Is it typical for us to be utilizing dated traffic information with regard to traffic generation from a project's change of use? MR. KLATZKOW: Your data and analysis needs to be current. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, Mr. Bosi, if I'm not mistaken, you did say that this submittal does utilize the most -- the newest traffic information that is, in fact, available? MR. BOSI: Yes. Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. My next question or statement that I wanted to make, more specifically, was to the folks that have concerns with regard to this. There are mechanisms in place that are available. At every single one of the our intersections there's a phone number that's posted for our traffic operations system. Oftentimes intersections fail or get exacerbated because of people's impatience and the like. I know myself I have regularly called that Traffic Operations number to report an issue. Signalization changes, one of those kids hits the button or a pedestrian hits the button, and the whole system ends up out of whack. And if we all, as residents who travel our community, take advantage of our traffic -- notification to our Traffic Operations, we can assist with the congestion that, in fact, occurs. Similarly, with regard to the noise issue and the line of sight, those are all -- in the process, those are all items that are going to come back before maybe not this board, but a board at some particular time that will allow for the concerns that have been addressed to be addressed at that time. December 12, 2017 Page 78 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A question for the County Attorney. If we transmit this in the form that it's in, what flexibility do we have when it comes back in terms of the Comprehensive Plan amendment? Are we able to adopt something that's different than what is submitted? MR. KLATZKOW: You could adopt something that's more restrictive. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. For example, on the height issue, we could deal with that in the Comp Plan adoption process. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. But you couldn't add more. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Couldn't add more, but we could be more restrictive. And I think, Commissioner Fiala, that may answer a couple of your questions in terms of how do we deal with this. I think it's important for the residents to understand that this is the first step of a three-step process. They will get approval from the Department of Economic Opportunity. I don't see them ever rejecting a request for a Comp Plan change. So it will come back to us in the form that they're sending it up, but we will have the ability to make changes if we so desire at that point -- when it comes back for adoption. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just to my colleagues, does it not bother you or does it not cause you concern, that's the much better way of putting it, that this is zoning project by project that we're practicing in Collier County; that we don't have a Comprehensive Plan that is a living document but it isn't on life support because it has to be December 12, 2017 Page 79 amended twice a year? Doesn't that -- doesn't that cause you some angst that we're not planning; we're reacting. We're not planning. We're not looking at what's going on today. We're looking at what was approved because of the law. And Mr. Yovanovich knows it well, the Bert Harris, you know, that you've given them the zoning, but we're not looking at the bigger picture. That's what concerns me. And that's why, when I saw this, my reaction was, wait a minute. We're creating a district from one project or changing the name of the district, and knowing what is there; we're not looking east, west, north, or south. We are a community that's growing. The growth button is pushed on, as staff has so eloquently said, but we're not planning for it. We're reacting to it, and that's what worries me. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I speak on a couple of issues, please? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, sir, you may. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. First of all, one of your comments was, how do you know it's not going to convert to owner occupied? And in the Comp Plan language it is very specific that it has to be rental, so it cannot convert. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Market rate? Are we doing workforce housing and -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And those are issues -- if you could show me -- I'm only aware of one Comprehensive Plan district that ever addressed the income limitations in the Comp Plan. I don't know of any others. Now, we have addressed in other PUDs that have come through, giving proprietaries, will it be certain number was units. You know, we did it for the Vincentian PUD, if you remember; we did a Comp Plan amendment for that, and we -- and in the PUD we talked about would we set aside a certain number of units for essential service personnel and the like. December 12, 2017 Page 80 That you will find, typically, in the PUD. I don't know of any except for one where you did that in the Comp Plan. Those are all issues that we expect will be addressed as part of the PUD amendment process. And all of that will be factored into the viability of doing a market-rate apartment complex at this site. Depending on how many limitations you put on the property and the project, you know, it affects the viability. But we're rental. Comp Plan says we have to be rental, so we'll always be rental absent going through another Comp Plan amendment process. And we do look at transportation and all issues on a whole. We have to address that as a Comp Plan amendment process. And, honestly, you have the ability I believe it's to do three cycles of Comp Plan amendments every year. We're the only one in this cycle. Just because you make the cycles available doesn't mean that you see a wholesale change to your Comp Plan. You're going through a lot of detailed studies for other areas, but you will -- if you look at your existing Comp Plan in the urban area, you do not have opportunities to develop what is needed in the urban area, apartment complexes at the density you need absent the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, because you just don't have any Comp Plan districts that allow it to happen, so that's why we're doing this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you just made my point; you just made my point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, your system is broken, and we're trying to fix it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Project by project instead of looking at it holistically. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I get that but, you know, at times December 12, 2017 Page 81 we can't wait for the holistic approval. And we're not creating a new subdistrict. We're not renaming the subdistrict. We're just using the existing subdistrict and adding the multifamily use. The confusion may be in the name of the PUD versus the name of the subject. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm not faulting you for coming here. This is business as usual in Collier County. I'm just saying this business as usual needs change. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm only one voice up here; I'm only one voice. But can we talk about the kids? MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, absolutely. And that's -- you know, again, I know Mr. Solis' children went to Pine Ridge Middle School and my children went to Pine Ridge Middle School. I could tell you every morning when I dropped them off, I came out onto Pine Ridge Road where the traffic light is. And the kids who come from Northgate come out of a gate right at a traffic signal where there's a crossing guard to make sure they're safe. So when they go to school, they cross the street at a traffic signal where there's a crossing guard. Likewise, when you're coming down Goodlette-Frank Road and you're going on Panther Lane, there's a crossing guard. So I can assure you that the children will not be negatively impacted by these cars because there are crossing guards and traffic signals accessing the schools. And I know that from firsthand knowledge. I'm sure Commissioner Solis knows that as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make one last comment, if I may. One of the things -- if there's a positive about this, the positive is if this moves forward, it will remove the commercial aspect of it because no matter what, you're not going to let the property sit there empty. And so I like the idea of removing the commercial, because that would even be more traffic, okay. December 12, 2017 Page 82 I do not like the number of units that we can't change now anyway. And I do know that, depending on what that -- what those changes are, when it comes before us for a final vote, I'm going to be very careful to note how many -- how tall the buildings are and how many people are in it, because then my vote is going to mean a heck of a lot. Right now I can see where it is is -- right now it's 3-1, and I'm sitting here deciding whether it's going to be 4-1 or 3-2, but either way it's going to go through. But I just wanted to put that on the record that we have to make sure that when we're actually coming to the final blow-by-blow, that I wouldn't vote for it unless it was reduced in height and it was reduced in numbers, okay. Okay. So I've said my piece. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll move to approve Item 9A as proposed and recommended by staff. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. 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. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? Aye. Carries 4-1. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just another comment before we leave December 12, 2017 Page 83 this, only because of the Northgate area. I know we have -- do we have ordinances that cover amplified music and the sound? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's get it enforced with this business that does seem to thumb, you know, their nose at what we're doing. MR. KLATZKOW: They are being enforced, ma'am. The issue is at the decibel levels, it doesn't matter. They're not going beyond -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, we need to lower the decibel levels? MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't matter. When you're trying to sleep at night, it doesn't take a lot of noise to keep you up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then there's got to be a way. We did it in the -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's hours of operation is about the only way. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hours of operation. Let's pull this back and take a look at it, if we could. I'd like to discuss this, please, not -- certainly not -- I just would like to discuss the hours of operation and the leniency within our laws that allows a restaurant to become a nightclub and stay open till 2:00 in the morning. MR. OCHS: Is that a consensus or majority direction from the Board? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Again, this is discussion. MR. OCHS: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. MR. OCHS: That's two. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point of reference, interimly, and it doesn't have to do necessarily with just this, but there is a system that is available right now called AIMS, Agency Information Management System. And with an email to one of your commissioners, either that that you get to vote for or of me, you can let December 12, 2017 Page 84 us know of issues that are transpiring that are outside of things that you care for. And with, then, that comes to your, as I regularly referred to myself, your elected complaint and then, to the County Manager's Office, to your staff, Code Enforcement, and the like so that all hours of day and night circumstances can, in fact, be managed. I've been using this AIMS system very, very effectively for circumstances that pop up that negatively impact our residents in District 5. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What? Was I going too long? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- did you get consensus to bring it back? MR. OCHS: I'm counting two heads shaking right now. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have no problem discussing it, sure. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, four. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Before we -- before everybody walks off -- or you can. I just wanted to bring up, we've got City Council people here from Marco Island. They're here for one subject. It should be quick and easy. I was just hoping we could take them next. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. But we've got a time-certain at 11 o'clock, and it's now a quarter to 12. Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Madam Chair, Thaddeus Cohen, GMD department head. I wanted to give you all a heads-up that I attended an exciting meeting that Mike held this past Thursday looking at the growth management model that the county has currently, Version 1. We're looking to move forward on Version 3. December 12, 2017 Page 85 So a lot of the issues that just came up on how we're thinking about these things globally, looking at the entire county is what the model's going to be doing is something that we want to give you a presentation on. We'll be working with the County Manager's Office. Hopefully it will be the second meeting in January so that you get a better feel for how it is that we're looking at these projects within the context of the overall concept for the county. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Which model was that? I missed that. MR. BOSI: The CIGM. MR. COHEN: He knows what that is. He's giving it a plug there. So we're hopeful that we'll have that put together. The actual developers of that model will be the ones who are giving the presentation. So we're excited about the tools that we have to be able to address a lot of the issues that you just brought up today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much. That's good news. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to proceed with your 11 a.m. time certain? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Item #11F AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CG II, LLC FOR THE PURCHASE AND LEASE OF PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX, NOT TO EXCEED $12,142,537.50 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: This is Item 11F. It's a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase and lease agreement with CG2, December 12, 2017 Page 86 LLC, for the purchase and lease of property to accommodate the future Collier County Amateur Sports Complex. Mr. Casalanguida will present. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Boss. Commissioners, this is just a follow-on item to what we presented this summer when you approved the concept moving forward. I want to be brief. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have any registered speakers? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have four, I believe. MR. MILLER: We have four registered speakers, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could we hear the registered speakers? The presentation, I think we understand what the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just give us the Cliff Notes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you the 30-second version. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thirty seconds would be good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Your bond validation was completed this summer, and you've chosen a contractor this morning. The purchase and sale agreement covers the 60 acres. We received one additional acre as part of that. That's a good-news item. Feel free to talk to me off-line how, but I think the developer and us agree that some additional land was to the benefit to the county and them. So our appraisal's coming in at about 240,000 an acre. We've achieved about a 20 percent savings, not including the additional acre. You have two and a half acres of flexibility. There are other contract terms in this, but they're all consistent with what I presented you over the summer, which is the water management preconstruction and development permits ready for construction. The next phase will be the RFP for design, and we'd be procuring the property in February. December 12, 2017 Page 87 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Financing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Financing will be covered from short-term commercial paper, ultimately rolled into some long-term debt for the county, and that is being handled by Mr. Isackson. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And so -- that's good. Has anyone got any questions about that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think if our speakers would like to talk us out of it, please come forward. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Dr. Joseph Doyle. He's been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is present, and he will be followed by Keith Flaugh. DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners, Dr. Joseph Doyle, Naples. As I was here this summer, I'm still against this entire project. You know, starting with the penny tax that's going to fund it, or fund the debt service. We have had -- Irma changed everything. And I really think we need to reassess our priorities. Yes, you know, we're cleaning up and things are turning around, but I really think we need to really look at all the priorities in this county. And it doesn't matter the fact that it's coming from the tourist tax. It's still taxpayer money. We have a project that I think has been ill-conceived from the beginning. We're looking at a $12 million land purchase here. I don't know who the current owners are. It seems to me, just from the sniff test, that someone's trying to sell a piece of land that they might otherwise not be able to use or sell. We already went -- looked at property in this same area, and I don't know if it's the same parcel or not, but we said we didn't want the December 12, 2017 Page 88 baseball training there because of the traffic issues. So it's still down by I-75/101 interchange. We heard this summer that you still can smell downwind the county dump. So if spectators are there, they may get winds coming from the wrong direction and -- spectators and players, you know. But, more importantly, if we do have this economic downturn -- I know I've been talking about it for quite a while but let's face it, the bubbles are all inflated and they're ready to pop -- the taxpayers of Collier County will be on the hook for the debt service on this land. Now, you're going to use commercial paper right now. You're looking at a bond issue. Not quite sure when that bond issue's going to be, but we hear that, this week, the Federal Reserve is looking at raising interest rates. So we already know that the cost of borrowing money is going to be going up within the next week or so. Let's just start with that. If we do end up in an economic recession/depression worldwide, perhaps, we won't have tourists coming to fund that tax because they won't be -- the citizens of Collier County will be on the hook for that debt service because it's the full faith and credit of Collier County residents. I don't care what everybody says. You know, at the end of the day, that's where -- the buck stops there. So I really think that we should not go ahead with this land purchase. I think we really should look at this whole project and look at all of our priorities. We have beaches that need to be renourished off of that tourist development tax. There's a lot of infrastructure damage that we probably don't even know about from Irma. So I'm asking you not to go forward with this -- with this project, and that would begin right now with purchasing the land. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Keith Flaugh. He will be followed by Louis Piche. December 12, 2017 Page 89 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Keith's not in the room. MR. MILLER: Louis Piche. Is Louis Piche present? He is present. If Mr. Flaugh comes in, we will get to him after Mr. Piche. MR. PICHE: Good morning. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. My name is Louis Piche. I'm Field Director with Americans for Prosperity, and I will keep my comments brief. While some are coming forward today to debate over which piece of land fits the project, our position is the entire Amateur Sports Complex Project should be abandoned altogether because it doesn't fit within the core functions of government. Instead of seeking out new ways to expand the size and scope of government in our county, we urge the committee to keep the main thing be either reducing taxes or focusing on key infrastructure. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: I was unable to locate Mr. Flaugh, so I guess we are finished with our speakers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Do I hear any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation to continue to proceed with the acquisition and the project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that motion. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Absent.) December 12, 2017 Page 90 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-0. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Commissioner Solis unfortunately had a conflict, and he had to leave the dais. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We do have the item for the City of Marco Island. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My sense is that that's going to get a unanimous approval, and so why don't we try to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree. No, no. That's -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good idea. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You stole my thunder, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's what I was going to say. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And mine, too. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I take it all back. You go ahead and say what you were going to say. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll give the thunder to Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we're going to have -- the reason we want to do this – Item #11A DECLARE THAT EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST BASED ON DAMAGE CAUSED BY HURRICANE IRMA TO COLLIER CREEK; AUTHORIZE AN EXPEDITED PROCUREMENT PROCESS TO OBTAIN QUOTES AND December 12, 2017 Page 91 NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT; AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR “AFTER-THE-FACT” APPROVAL AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING; AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT; AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, Commissioners, that's Item 11A. That's the Hurricane Irma Project Repair and Dredge Collier Creek. And Gary McAlpin, your Coastal Zone Manager, will present the item. MR. McALPIN: Madam Chair, I could answer questions or do a short presentation. Your preference. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just, you know, 30 seconds, tell us why this is important, what's going on, and why it has to be an emergency. MR. McALPIN: Certainly. Hurricane Irma made landfall in Marco Island, and Collier Creek took the brunt of the damage. We had measurement gauges out in Collier Creek, and we recorded a velocity, current velocity of nine feet per second and a tidal swing of eight feet over a three-hour period. As a result of that, you had a tremendous amount of sand overwash from the existing jetty that filled Collier Creek both at the tip and at the midsection. The tip was destroyed. We have to repair that. And this is complicated by the fact that the Ville de Marco Condominium just to the east of us suffered extensive structural damage, and the rubble, concrete rubble and debris, could be in the pass. We're trying to sort that out right now. In any event, you have a serious issue to navigation, serious issue to public safety. Typically this pass would have 10 feet of draft at low tide. Now we're looking at something in the range of four to five feet. And we need to -- from a public safety point of view, our December 12, 2017 Page 92 recommendation is to move forward as quickly as we can. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. That really says it; unbelievable. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to make the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll second. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have four registered speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Bob Brown. He will be followed by Daniel High. MR. BROWN: Bob Brown, City Council, City of Marco Island, and I'll make it super brief, because I think Mr. McAlpin gave you all of the valid details. I just wanted to be here just in case there had been any specific questions. It is a significant issue to us, our commercial folks. It affects a third of the boaters on the island, so it's very, very important to us. So I'm not going to take any more of your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Daniel High. He'll be followed by Ben Farnsworth. MR. HIGH: Good morning, Commissioners. Daniel High, general manager of Marco River Marina, Incorporated, doing business as Rose Marina. Just completed our 50th year as an operating marina on Marco Island. Thank you for what sounds like unanimous support for this. We have numerous large commercial vessels that are impacted by this that have livelihoods and crews. If there's a possibility to do a first pass of dredging by February of 2018, I assume you're going to have to dredge to get work barges and such items in that pass anyway. If there is a way to push for a first pass of dredging as early as possible, certainly December 12, 2017 Page 93 before the peak of season, it would be much appreciated by the numerous commercial vessels that operate that area. Also, if you run aground currently -- and we're about to go into peak season. If you run aground unexpectedly in there, it's not like running aground in open water. You're running aground in a very fast current. Currently, if someone's knocked out of their boat, God forbid, they're immediately separated from their boat, washed into -- underneath the Ville de Marco condominiums or the docks that are over there. So swift action would be appreciated by the recreational commercial boaters and the people whose livelihoods depend on that. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ben Farnsworth. He'll be followed by Jared Grifoni. MR. FARNSWORTH: Hello. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Ben Farnsworth. I'm the president of Ville de Marco West, the condominium that is just to the easterly shore of Collier Creek. I also support this. We've sat and watched numerous boats -- I mean, maybe as many as a dozen -- get stuck in the creek for long periods of time. Some of them going abreast of the creek making it very difficult for boats to go around them. I think this is something very necessary, and I think they should do it as soon as possible. The only concern we have or at least an idea that I want to mention -- and I've already made this to Mr. McAlpin -- is that we work together. Ville de Marco West will be starting probably a six- to eight-month remediation of the area replacing the seawall in very fast-moving water. It will be a complex project. And I've asked Mr. McAlpin if the county will work and coordinate with us and help us any way they can. He has agreed that we'll sit down and do some planning to make sure that the dredging and whatever he is doing does December 12, 2017 Page 94 not affect our future construction. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final speaker on this item is Jared Grifoni. MR. GRIFONI: Thank you, and thank you, Commissioners. I don't want to take up too much of your time. It's all already been said by our Marco Island residents and other members here. I sent an email to all of you earlier this week, and I want to thank you for your responses, your prompt consideration of this issue. It is an ever-present danger to both life and property. And, of course, there is the substantial economic impact that the citizens of Marco Island or businesses on Marco Island will be impacted throughout season. So the sooner that this is dealt with, the better, of course, for everybody involved, and we appreciate your support on this. And if there's anything that we can do, you know, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I just want to tell you that Gary McAlpin, just to confirm, he is working so hard to get this thing moving forward quickly. That's why we put it on this agenda. Gary's moving forward. He's making arrangements with everybody because he knows this pass is vital to Marco Island. It's vital to the boaters, vital to our tourism. So I just wanted to assure you he'll do that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There is a motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There is a motion already. Okay. Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. December 12, 2017 Page 95 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously, 4-0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This was an easy one. MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, everyone, for being here. Curt, good to see you again. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we'll have an hour break and reconvene at 1:03. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: You have a live mike, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So I believe we're on 9B. MR. OCHS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: This is an item that was moved from the summary agenda at the request of both Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis. It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance reestablishing the County Government Productivity Committee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I asked -- Commissioner Solis isn't here, but I'm assuming he is here, right? He's -- MR. OCHS: We'll check. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Might I make a suggestion that we move this agenda item to a different number on the list since Commissioner Solis asked to have it brought up for discussion? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, if he's back there -- that's what we're trying to find out. If he's back here, we're going to continue it. If December 12, 2017 Page 96 not, we'll just move it to another -- a little bit later in the meeting. That's what we're trying to find out. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't you just go ahead and move on, and when he gets here, just get back to it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We could do that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say that again. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just move on to the next item, and then when he gets here -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, if he's here, we're going to hear it. If he's not here -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's not here, ma'am. He's running late. MR. OCHS: We'll just table this one and come back to it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. MR. OCHS: Do we need a vote for that, County Attorney? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Do I hear a motion to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I kind of did make that motion, but okay. I'll make the motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We don't need to vote on that. Just move on to the next item. MR. OCHS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Item #11B RESOLUTION 2017-251: TARGETED REDUCTIONS IN THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEE SCHEDULE RELATED TO APPLICATION AND PLAN REVIEW FEES IN THE EVENT OF A BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD) – DECLARED DISASTER, AND TO APPLY THE TARGETED December 12, 2017 Page 97 REDUCTIONS RETROACTIVELY TO THE FEES IDENTIFIED IN THE PETITION RELATED TO THE LEE WILLIAMS FIRE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THE OCTOBER 10, 2017 MEETING UNDER ITEM #11G AND TO HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY HURRICANE IRMA – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: That moves us on to 11B. This is a recommendation to approve some targeted reductions in your building permit application and plan review fees related to applicants during declared disasters by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. French will make the presentation. MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jamie French, for the record. I'm your Deputy Department Head for the Growth Management Department. Commissioners, this item was -- back in October you had instructed us to meet with the Development Services Advisory Committee and the Collier Building Industry Association to come up with a targeted fee reduction, for lack of a better term, that the industry could support primarily because these are Enterprise Funds that are allocated to pay for the total operations of the North Horseshoe facility or a good majority of that in the regulatory function. That item has been brought back. It was publicly advertised. It was vetted. And a 50 percent reduction has been recommended. This was based off of studies that we had looked at all 67 counties and what they had done. Also, we took into effect the latest fee reduction that was just adopted on -- just getting back from lunch -- adopted on October 1st. So what this will do is that this will work on or this will allow us to allocate those savings toward the single-family homes as well as their detached car -- or I'm sorry -- attached carports and garages as well as townhomes and other -- I won't say multifamily, but for all of December 12, 2017 Page 98 those structures that would exist within the Florida Building Code residential. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we then publicize that we're going to be doing that so people who had applied before and maybe were not accepted will know that, or do we contact them, or how are we going to spread that word? MR. FRENCH: So, Commissioner, that's a great question. What we did is within our permit application we identified those projects that came forward after the storm. We allowed the permit applicant to identify whether it was hurricane-related damage. We will go back to all of those applications, and we will look at those. We will make contact with them. It may take us a good amount of time, but we will make sure we get through every one of them to contact them. Now, there is some criteria. We want to make sure that it was, in fact, related to the storm so that in the event that, for lack of a better term, that we ever wanted to go back and audit that procedure, we'd at least be able to show that it met the eligibility requirements for that reduction. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't it fire also? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I thought it was a -- yes. I'm sorry, that was my question. I thought it was an all-disaster policy for us. MR. FRENCH: It would be, but I think what your question was, Commissioner, and correct me if I'm wrong, you asked if we were going to go back, take a look back to those people that would have suffered damages that have already come in the process through Hurricane Irma, and the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't mention Hurricane Irma. I thought in the past, because of the fires. MR. FRENCH: It does include the Lee Williams fire victims as December 12, 2017 Page 99 well, yes, ma'am, and that's identified within the executive summary. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I thought, but I just wanted to make that clear. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I have another question. Did you say it includes or it doesn't include outbuildings? MR. FRENCH: It would not include outbuildings. It's primary residential structures, so that would not include guest homes. Guest homes are not identified within our Land Development Code as an occupiable space that you could occupy long term. It's for the mother-in-law suite, relatives that come to visit, but it's not inclusive of that at all, no, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think this was a good compromise. I was very impressed how this was written and what you've come up with. I could support this. Okay. All right. Commissioner Saunders, any questions or -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So do I hear a motion and discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You will. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wait. Do we have any speakers? MR. MILLER: No, ma'am. I have no registered speakers for this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to approve this subject. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could say it formally and read that whole thing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no. Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second to accept the staff's recommendation for a targeted December 12, 2017 Page 100 reduction in Collier County Growth Management Department Development Services fee schedule for disasters, natural disasters. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Merry Christmas. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Merry Christmas. Item #11D AMENDING THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 06-4000 WITH CH2M HILL, INC. FOR THE UPDATE AND COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,901,850 (PROJECT NO. 60168) - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to amend the professional services agreement with CH2MHill, Incorporated, for the update and completion of the design of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. The project is in the -- or the contract in the amount of $3.9 million, and Marlene Messam, your principal project manager for Transportation Engineering, will make the presentation. December 12, 2017 Page 101 MS. MESSAM: Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon. For the record, as the County Manager said, Marlene Messam, Principal Project Manager, Growth Management Department. I have a very brief presentation, and I can show the presentation to you or, if you have questions, I can also answer those. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think the overriding questions I'm hearing -- wait a minute, we go back to the same developer or the same CM2H Hill (sic) because they have 60 percent design plans right there. And why is this more money than -- why is it so much money, I guess? That's the question. So I think we should answer that for the record. I know the answer because I asked Mr. Cohen this before, but I think it's important to bring it forward. MS. MESSAM: Excellent, Commissioner. I can take you to -- just to bring up the breakdown of why we are going to this amendment and the cost associated with that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. MESSAM: In the original project, there was $1.6 million funds left in the original project. This amendment will add another 2.3, for a total of 3.9, but here is why it is costing 3.9. It's been 10 years since the project was suspended. In that interim, many things have changed. What we are going to be looking at with this new -- continuing the design, we need to look at the traffic analysis again to determine, one, the near-term build; two, the ultimate buildout, and, three, we want to look at connection scenarios for the side streets. We've listened to the community, and many people are concerned with the connection to VBR extension. So we want to model those. We want to make sure that the decisions that we made 10 years ago in terms of traffic and the ultimate buildout, we want to make sure that those decisions or those -- what we want to build in the future still remains true. December 12, 2017 Page 102 The other thing that is costing that we have to revisit, we have to revisit the cost estimates. Are the numbers that we had 10 years ago still valid? We need to refresh those. We need to update the permit documents. Permitting criteria has changed since 10 years ago. Right now -- we used to have a joint-use application when we have a project for permits. Now it's different. We have to have a different set of plans for a South Florida Water Management permit, we have to have a different set of plans for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit, all right. So that's the ultimate project we would like to permit. Then we also have to have a set of constructible plans for the near-term build, what we're going to construct. And, also, some other things have changed. We need to revise our stormwater management areas. Collier County has just changed its design criteria for allowable discharge rates. That would mean that we have to look again at our stormwater management and study those. We're looking at building five bridges and maybe even half of those bridges that we have to redesign. We have major environmental rework. We have to verify surveys from 10 years ago. Existing conditions have changed. So these are some of the reasons why. You know, you ask why is it costing so much; that's basically, you know, why it's costing this much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for your answer. Any other questions? Discussion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do after we hear from our public speakers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have speakers on this? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am; 11 public speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Eleven? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. December 12, 2017 Page 103 I'll ask the speakers to use both podiums. Your first speaker is Peter Gaddy. He'll be followed by David Meffen. MR. GADDY: Afternoon, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I agree with everything that Ms. Messam has said. I think, you know, this whole project needs to take another look at it. I think after you hear the rest of the public speakers you're going to have a lot of concerns about how this is going to impact those neighborhoods. But the one point I want to make is that you have here before -- I don't know if you've read it, but you have a lump-sum contract, and one of the deliverables under that lump-sum contract is the design of connection to the roads we're concerned about. So I don't know if you can approve this contract today. I think you need to have a different contract brought back. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Meffen. He will be followed by Jeanette Meffen. MR. MEFFEN: Afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. County Manager. A couple concerns that we have. I know this isn't exactly the forum for this, but I figure that the more that you hear it, the more you'll hear our concerns instead of just bringing them up one time. Our concern mainly has to do with the connection to the side streets to Vanderbilt Road extension as it goes through. There have been many ideas that are brought forward. I think the residents can demonstrate that these side streets don't need to be connected, and I think we could have a win-win where you'll get your east/west traffic alleviated and not affecting the citizens so much. It is going to affect our quality of life making a through street where we bought on a cul-de-sac purposely, and now we're going to December 12, 2017 Page 104 have a through street. Also, 27th Street, our street, is going to be the first street or the last street, depending on which direction you're coming from. And so, if this goes through, everyone in creation will be taking a shortcut across our street. Now, you know, short of laying spike strips down or something like that, there's got to be some other way. One of the reasons that we hear that these side streets need to be connected from the Assistant County Manager has to do with EMS vehicles. Well, as the driver engineer instructor for the City of Miami Fire Department for almost 20 years, that's not a concern. If you had a median at the end of our street that stops the connection from the side street to Vanderbilt Road extension, any driver engineer worth his salt, if there's a fire, heart attack, medical emergency or whatever, would just drive right over the median, so that should not be a concern. EMS vehicles can go wherever they want whenever they want by state law. So that should not be a reason to put the side streets through. Also another concern -- I know this is an expensive project. And you'll save a lot of money not putting these side streets through and leaving our nice, rural community the way that we bought it. I mean, I don't know exactly what the projection would be, but you will save a lot of money not connecting these side streets. Last, as I said, we would like to see a median between our streets and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension if that can't be done. We would like to see no left turns from Vanderbilt Beach extension road and also Golden Gate so that way if someone wants to take a shortcut across our street, they at least have to jump through some hoops to do that. So I know there are a couple other concerns. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but your time is up. MR. MEFFEN: Okay. Well, I'm done. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is Jeanette December 12, 2017 Page 105 Meffen. She will be followed by Kirk Reed. MS. MEFFEN: Dear Commissioners, I come to you today concerned. When I moved -- I'm the mother of five children and 13 grandchildren, and I bought in the rural estates like your master plan says on Page 11, 12, and 13, and it also stated that if there was any construction to be done, that you would maintain the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. The neighbors that we have know that we bike. My grandchildren bike through this street, and we have little ones that bike through the street. I am an RN. I have been an ICU head nurse, and my husband being a fireman originally, there are many catastrophes with children. And until it hits home or in a nursing place -- when you see a child that has been hit by a vehicle and the parents are talking to someone that will never come back, that was in my unit. My husband responded to a child that was dragged down the street. There's nothing left on the bottom of that child. And I say that with a whole heart of a mom and a nurse. There's no reason to open the streets with as many children that we have that walk, that bike, and that ride, including the adults, but I'm talking about children that ride. And I believe that these eight streets are not going to alleviate your congestion. It's eight streets that are dead-ends that were bought with a premium in real estate because that's what we were searching for. And it's on plan to be taken away, and I believe that that is not correct. An express lane would be okay. I'd rather not have it, but since it is going to be built. But 400,000 homes that want to be accommodated for -- whether it's Archer or whether it's East Collier, I'm not sure the developers that are out there -- it does not need to be open to our eight streets. That would just be mayhem. Hopefully not a sad situation. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kirk Reed. He will be December 12, 2017 Page 106 followed by Marlaine Rieck. MR. REED: Thanks for hearing us today. Appreciate it. I go even a lot further than that. I know that you're voting on money for them to do their study and for who will do it. She mentioned about the waterways and all that stuff. I don't know how much you guys have looked at it. I know that William has looked at it extensive with us. But they're putting four, four 90-degree turns in a canal that was already full during the big rain. And you can't tell me that we're not going to have any big rains anymore in the future. So my question is, I don't even know if or how they could possibly get approval by the Corps of Engineers to put four 90-degree turns in there which you know are going to flood. So down the road, are we going to have them saying, oh, crap, we messed up, and now we're flooding at all those four points? And the only reason they're doing it is to go around the golf course. Put a bridge over the canal, move the canals twice to the tune of about $30 million. You guys are talking about raising taxes. Why don't we make it straight the way it's supposed to be? I thought you could suggest that Bob and his dog, Bogart, go to the golf course guys and say, hey, how about you guys do some kindness, actually think of somebody else, you know, other than yourselves for once and move your fairways so the road can go where it belongs, the canal can stay straight. You don't interfere with our children, our biking, our communities that we have established on our dead-end streets. And then I don't know if it will work, you know. I know that they are pretty stubborn. We were told that they lawyered up when this first started, and I only think of Leona Helmsley when she said that only the little people pay taxes. So I just want some consideration for the little people, not just the December 12, 2017 Page 107 rich people in the golf courses, because if you look at the map, you can see it's going around them. If it goes straight, it can go beyond the wells, stay over where it belongs, and maybe we could spend our time convincing them to move their fairways instead of, you know, impacting the rest of us. Thanks. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marlaine Rieck. She'll be followed by Cindy Mackey. MS. RIECK: Hi. Good afternoon. I live on 25th Street Northwest, one of the streets that would be affected if you put access to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, and I'm speaking -- by the way, I'm speaking for myself and for my husband, Roger Rieck. We moved there after searching long and hard for a quiet dead-end street to buy a house on. I didn't even bother looking at the through streets because we didn't want it. Okay. To begin with this issue, I truly don't think we're ready to approve or support any final plans, including funding for the road. And the whole issue of connecting our streets, they've said it already and more will be saying it, plus it's addressed in this petition that if you haven't received it, you will receive it. I agree with all the points on that. Regarding connecting the dead-end streets from 27th to 13th, they're mile-long dead-end streets. Why can't the county take a vote or a poll from residents of each of these mile-long dead-end streets to see if they want to be connected? This could easily be done with a single mailing to each address containing the basic information plus an official form to send back to the county with a yes or no answer. After all, it's the people who live on those streets that will be most affected or would be. Hopefully it won't be "will be." Something that came up in the meeting at the fire hall through Golden Gate Estates Civic Association recently. Move the canal? December 12, 2017 Page 108 Well, 10, 12 years ago a lot of these things were talked about. I was with a group that fought long and hard to stop the road altogether, which I'd still like to do. But if that's not going to happen -- now they're talking about move the canal? Now, this idea didn't come to me until, literally, I was getting dressed this morning. If moving the canal is in the plans, why not move the canal farther south, keep the road to the north closer to the golf courses and the wells, keeping the noise farther from the long-established homes south of the canal? Would this be possible? Would it affect the wells? Are they already possibly being affected by the many chemicals returned to -- routinely used on golf courses? That's a question. I don't know. I think there are many alternatives to all of this, and both the feasibility and cost of each need to be determined and made public before any final decision is made. And, you know, we do need to address costs of all of this. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Cindy Mackey. She'll be followed by Ronda O'Connell. MS. MACKEY: Good afternoon. I am the secretary for Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. And I was out with another resident of that area going and collecting petitions with signatures from them. And I want to tell you that it's a very diverse population of people with people in households, single people, and families with up to eight people in the family. They also come from different backgrounds and religious persuasions. So it's very -- it was a nice community -- go ahead and get to know everyone. And I would give you stories about each individual, but you're hearing some of them here. And you need to go ahead and listen to these guys, because they represent a lot of them. And 99 percent of the people that we had contact with were opposed to complete connection to Vanderbilt, okay. December 12, 2017 Page 109 I wanted to go ahead and also give a little bit of my input because of the way the streets might be affected. And my mother lives on 31st Avenue Southwest, and it's connected both on White and on Golden Gate Boulevard. They experience traffic running 45 miles per hour on that road all the time. She has lost her mailbox three times and has been burglarized once because of the increased traffic in the area. Again, I want to thank you, and thank you for listening to all the population because they are important to your next opportunity to go ahead and stay in office. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Whose district is this? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mine. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ronda O'Connell. She'll be followed by Donna Sadler. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did the temperature get up in here? MR. MILLER: Ronda O'Connell? MS. SADLER: No, I'm Donna Sadler. MR. MILLER: Okay. So Ronda is not here. MS. SCHWARZWAELDER: She had to leave. MR. MILLER: Okay. Ms. Sadler will be followed by Judy Schwarzwaelder. Go ahead. MS. SADLER: Good afternoon. I live on 23rd Street Southwest, and I'm still here representing them because I had fought the bridge -- over the 23rd Street Southwest bridge. I've lived out there since the early '80s, and I know the traffic. And you have an average of 40 homes per street, so we have constant cars coming out. There's two cars per family, minimum. We don't need more people coming off of an arterial road like Vanderbilt just to come down to the next arterial road of Golden Gate Boulevard. December 12, 2017 Page 110 So I'm opposed and would like to see no connection. And I think we were told that back in 2006 when the first design was discussed, that they were not going to be through streets. That's all. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judy Schwarzwaelder. She'll be followed by Laura Reed. MS. SCHWARZWAELDER: Good morning. I'm at the end of 23rd Street Northwest, and I'm totally opposed to anything that will be opening all these streets. It's almost like adding another -- salt to a festering wound that we have the road coming on our side in the first place. I'm not going to beat that to death. It's just the way it's going to obviously be. But at least give us a piece of our peace back by saying no access. One thing that has not been brought up other than kids, pets, safety, peace, semblance of giving us some peace back, even though we have a four- to six-lane highway slashing through our neighborhood is that I live at the end where Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is not far from me, and at night I can hear drag strip activity going up and down that street. You bring even a service road to our side of eight streets, I can only imagine -- now we have the four-lane highway noise. Now we have a whole new safety issue and noise issue of our new drag strip. So I want to bring that up to you, because it's happening now out there. We don't need to give them any more streets to run up and down. We really have got to have no access and reclaim our neighborhood back. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Laura Reed. She'll be followed by Michael Ramsey. MS. REED: Hi. I'm Laura Reed. I live on 27th Street Northwest. December 12, 2017 Page 111 And I am going to also stress that I do not want a through street. I think, first of all, of the children whenever we drive down the street. We just -- you see the kids. You just slow way down, and then you go around them. And I can tell the ones that do not live on the street because they just race down, like FedEx or UPS. And so we've gotten a little bit of taste of that, and they just -- you know, they don't care about our little community, about us. And I -- we could have bought a house on the corner of Goodlette and Pine Ridge with all that mess in traffic and stuff, but we wanted to have a quiet street with no traffic, you can come home, and you can just relax, and we just enjoy it. There are some elderly people on our street that walk their dogs all the time. They do this several times a day, and then you just go out and you talk to them, so you don't -- and it's just a nice community that we do not want to let go. The streets are also very narrow, and so when you do come to, you know, two trucks or whatever, one just slows down and let's the other one go by. So I don't understand how that's going to happen if it does -- it will not go through, I'm sure, but I think about that, because like -- it was said before about the mailboxes being clipped off. And I just don't understand how that would be able to make it a through street and take away the safety, especially, of everyone on the street. So thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Ramsey. He's been ceded three additional minutes from Ms. Lisa Nicholas. Ms. Nicolas, are you -- she is present. Mr. Ramsey is your final speaker on this item. MR. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Mike Ramsey, president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. December 12, 2017 Page 112 Quick history about three of the main issues we come up with: 2006, when this contract was initially voted on by the BCC for CH2MHill, the concept and the presentations to the residents and lots -- or the Estates civic people the 60 percent design that we see in front of us today, that was not communicated to us. Now, that became the biggest concern and problem with us and the group with us, when the consideration to renew this contract came out in April 2017, and it started bleeding out in the public. This was our primary issue coming back to us. Number two, the second issue that was coming back to us, as you could see, a lot of people were very upset with the 60 percent design in front of them that said all the streets were going to be connected. The issue that came up there, the second most, is the qualitative-of-life component where all those people at the end of those streets fell they have cul-de-sac community. Each of the ends of the streets is its own community with its own recreation, its own lifestyle, and its own group of families. And the most important component of that that keeps coming up regularly is the subset of that quality of life is children walking to the bus stop. So that issue is in there. The last thing that came you've already addressed; there hasn't been any public meetings about this in 10 years. And so people started coming to us, we started working the issue, and we held in public two or three workshops or community meetings about this. So from those meetings, I have here 110 petitions signed from those people on those streets generating concerns about the issues we're talking about. So Golden Gate Estates, having gone through these meetings and working with these people, we reached out to Commissioner McDaniel. He attended some of our meetings. He was starting to listen to this. Deputy County Manager Nick Casalanguida came over, started listening to some of this. He also brought his staff over. And, December 12, 2017 Page 113 to their credit, they let their -- they let their staff listen to every single comment from the group. And I think today, looking at the notice for this agenda item, I see in the bottom of it that staff has been instructed that they are now to develop three scenarios: All connections, limited connections, no connection with or without a service road. We think that that interaction back and forth has been very positive. We thank you for that. We think this is now going to a better place. My residents still have issues. They still don't want the roads connected because mostly quality-of-life issues and the safety, but I think if we've gotten to the point where the instructions to the contractor are for the design, to design the three scenarios and then evaluate it both qualitatively and quantitively, I think we're in a better place. So depending on how that goes, if my understanding of the recommendation is right, if the guidelines to the design contractor are to develop these three scenarios, come up with the economic and the qualitative changes and components, pros and cons, we would be in favor of following that as long as it's allowing a lot of community input on the decision as to which scenario. So at that point I'd leave it up to you to help us follow that path. Thank you. And where do these go? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To the -- MR. RAMSEY: She does the heavy lifting. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. That was your final public speaker on this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I have a question. Why the connection? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, your Comp Plan says to look December 12, 2017 Page 114 at interconnections and road connections. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We amend this Comp Plan all the time, so let's not even use that. We ignore that sometimes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I hope not. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We amend it is how we ignore it. What else? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fire, speed, safety. EMS, fire. But what I've said to the folks, just clarification; I think Mike phrased it very well. Staff attended the meetings. One of the gentlemen has talked about the reverse frontage road. Great idea. We should look at that. We agreed, because you, collectively, as a board, get all the data information, staff recommendations to look at all three: A no build, no connect -- not a no build of the road; frontage road with two connections with no direct connections to see any street; and no connections at all; or all connections. So all three will be brought to you with costs, implications, traffic. You'll have the ability for school, fire, and EMS and the Sheriff's Office to weigh in as well, too. So you'll collectively get feedback as well as these folks here being able to tell you how they feel after they get to review the data. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But see, what I'm struggling with is right now there is no connection, and we're not worried about them. They've been like that since the beginning. Why are we suddenly becoming Boy Scouts here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, we've done that since I've been here for 14 years is recommended every road be connected when it's constructed, and in very few occasions has the Board not followed that, but it has. It has. After listening to the feedback from the public and data from staff, it has made decisions not to connect and decisions to connect. And I think that's the path we follow. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. You were here. What are your December 12, 2017 Page 115 thoughts? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think of the safety of that area. My daughter lives -- actually, my daughter lives out there, my son lives out there, one of my grandkids lives out there, so I think about them getting to and from work. Especially during season, they can hardly get through their roads. I think we need another -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What about the connection of the cul-de-sacs? That specifically. Not that we don't need another road. I do believe we need -- what about specifically that connection issue? You were here for all of this, so that's why I'm turning to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, yeah. But we didn't get into the connections too much that I remember from before, and so that was a kind of a new twist for me, anyway. And I don't know. I'd have to -- I'd have to listen to more of what's going on. But I think you have to connect some things in order to make it function for the people and yet, at the same time, I know they're right about it. You know, it creates more traffic. It's not like it's going to be a speedway down there or anything but -- although it will be convenient to get in and out and go places. That's a wonderful thing. On the other hand, their privacy, they can never regain it, and that's a bad thing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Once you've -- especially like one of the ladies was saying, you know, they move there purposely -- oh, thank you. They moved there purposely because they wanted the peace and quiet of living out in the Estates, and they wanted to live away from everything. They didn't want to live where there was a lot of congestion. And, you know, once this happens, it will change things a little bit there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think the connection issue's a pretty simple one for us to talk about. I mean, it's obvious that the quality of life is going to be negatively impacted. We know the December 12, 2017 Page 116 expense associated with those connections. It's inevitably going to be more just because of the elevation changes that occur coming from a new road to those more aged roads. Notice I didn't say older. So, I mean -- but we're going to -- and -- but I think it's important. It's important for us. And I want my colleagues here to hear that other than a few "maybe we didn't want the road at all," most everyone is aware the road's coming. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I heard that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That. So having said that, our staff has put a proposal to us, and I have a couple of specific questions to ask that I think, pragmatically, move us to where we need to go. It's been evidenced today that there's a wish to not have connectivity at all on some of -- on those side streets. But be that as it may, we're going to have an analysis of that connection, cost associated, monetary cost. There is no value to put on people's quality of life and the negative impacts that can, in fact, come from that. We, as a community, have seen the expenses associated with connection of these streets in Golden Gate Estates. If you'll recall, we consumed the $10 million in our MPO meeting that the State gave us for three bridges in Eastern Collier County, and we consumed the entire $10 million on one bridge because of the improvements that were necessary to the two streets that were interconnected for the sidewalks and so on. So I think the cost side of it from an monetary standpoint's going to be pretty easy for us to ascertain. I would like to ask -- who should I? Her? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Either one. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Either one's fine. Does this agenda item -- I made notes here, so forgive me for reading, but does this agenda item specifically lock us into a set of deliverables per this December 12, 2017 Page 117 contract? MS. MESSAM: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MS. MESSAM: As I iterated -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I heard you, and I just wanted to -- I wanted that to be specified on the record that it did not. It was my understanding as well. I ask these questions, but I -- you know, these folks are my friends as well, and I wanted to ask these questions. Does this agenda item lock us into connectivity and the thereabouts of those connections? MS. MESSAM: No, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Does this agenda item lock us into a specific design criterion for the entire road? MS. MESSAM: No, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And with regard to the alignment, are we locked into any specific alignment as of yet? MS. MESSAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are? MS. MESSAM: To the screen that's in front of you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MS. MESSAM: One of the things -- now, when I -- if I understand you clearly, the alignment that is approved now that was approved by the Board back in 2006, that's the alignment that we're going to be working with with a few refinements because we've heard from other entities such as the district school board and our parks and rec who has adjacent property along that alignment, and they're asking us, perhaps, to tweak the alignment. So to answer your question, in terms of locked in, we had the preferred alignment that was approved by the Board back in 2006; however, we will be coming back to the Board once we have refined and get all the inputs from not only the community but all the December 12, 2017 Page 118 stakeholders. So I guess I should have clarified myself saying -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I wasn't looking to tie you up. I just wanted a specific. That was a question that I had. MS. MESSAM: No. So then I'll change my mind; I'll change my answer. I said no, because we will be making some tweaks. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Some minor adjustments? MS. MESSAM: Some minor adjustments, right, as we coordinate with the stakeholders. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And last, but not least, with regard to the design criterion at 60 percent of the prior agreement, are we locked into that? MS. MESSAM: No. There are many things that are going to change with this amendment, and I went through that earlier. Because of design criteria by permitting agencies, we will be doing some adjustments. So I hope that answers your question. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It does. MS. MESSAM: Do you have anything? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if I could add one more clarifying comment, and this will help a little bit. We made a promise to the people, and the Estates folks that are here and the ones that were at the meeting, and you, sir. We'll be back in front of the Board as we go from concepts and old 30s. Before we spend any serious money, the decision points on connectivity will be back in front of the Board. (Commissioner Solis is now present.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that was going to be my, not necessarily that specific question, but how many more planned public meetings are we going to -- informational meetings are we planning for this highway? MS. MESSAM: Do you have anything in specific in terms of the scope? December 12, 2017 Page 119 MR. ANDY MILLER: The amendment pages, 40 through 42, clearly outline -- for the record, Andy Miller, transportation engineering project manager. Amendment Pages 40 through 42 outline three pages of intensive public involvement, including the medians you were asking about. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, there again, I was aware of that. I read all these things, but it's a matter of making it available to the public and for information purposes so that -- so that everybody's, in fact, aware. MR. ANDY MILLER: And, Commissioner, if I may, to clarify the deliverable question -- MR. OCHS: Andy, talk into the mike. MR. ANDY MILLER: To clarify the deliverable question you asked first, in order to build the road, we're going to have to have a set of deliverables. So the answer to that question is more of a yes than a no. We will have 30, 60, 90, 100 percent plans but including the changes or variations that we talked about earlier. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And candidly, Andy, the reason that I asked the question with regard to that was because the information that was provided showed us with the prior design criterion, the 60 percent plans, the deliverables of such, and there's a perception that we're locked into those. And I understand that we're not necessarily locked into those. There's going to be an inordinate amount of public involvement and information sought from the public as to how and what and where we do, but that was the reason for asking the question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think there's -- I haven't heard, really, a good justification for having the interconnects at all on those eight streets, and I don't think anybody on this board really wants to have those interconnections. December 12, 2017 Page 120 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can -- and only -- and not in defense of them, but I did serve as the chair of the East of 951 Horizon study, and there was an enormous amount of discussion with regard to first responders and enhancing their capacity to get to people. And, again, whether that's warranted or not based upon a demographic that's changed 11 years later is something that we'll, in fact, find out. I think we could easily tell the folks that we're not in favor of it. But I recall that when we were doing those East of 951 Horizon studies over two years, that that was a large criterion even for these three bridges that recently got approved to be put in, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just to try to finish up here. One of the speakers talked about having kind of a median between those roads and the Vanderbilt Beach Road, which I believe would answer the issue of emergency access -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but would not permit those roads to be opened up to the motoring public. Personally, I live on a cul-de-sac. I'd hate to see the cul-de-sac disappear and have traffic come down it. They haven't had a problem with emergency response for the last 10, 15, 20 years, and so I don't really see the need to open this up, and I don't see the need to have hanging over the community the concern about it as we go through the planning process. So I'm just expressing my view that unless I can hear a compelling reason that those eight streets should be opened up, I would say right now let's don't do the design that has the streets opening up, but let's have the cul-de-sac -- or the median aspect looked at. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we probably could really cut back on the scope of work as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, that's what I'm talking about. You know, why do the design work for opening those eight December 12, 2017 Page 121 roads up to the Vanderbilt Road when I think probably five of us are going to decide not to do that? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would agree, but let's hear from staff and -- don't talk us out of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not about talking you out of it. I want to give you all the data, and that's what we're intending to do when you come back. One of the concepts of a reverse frontage road came from one of the citizens. And, you know, I'm sitting in the meeting talking to them, and I said, that might make sense. The median modification one gentleman referred to today, that's a connection, but median a blocking direct traffic. It would be circuitous traffic, so you'd have to go all the way around to make that turn, but they'd still have a connection. That's what we would bring you is all those options: A direct connect, a frontage road connect, a frontage road connect with medians, you know, restrictions to say, okay, this provides some connectivity but not full connectivity, or none at all. And then you would get to hear from fire, you would get to hear from EMS, the SO, schools, and then you'd weigh all those pros and cons and make a final decision. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: As long as there's no connection, we'll be happy with all those, exactly. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's where we're going to wind up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No connection. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I mean, how old -- and I'm going to speak to the -- just tell me, how old is your community? How long have some of you lived on these streets? December 12, 2017 Page 122 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Early '80s. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. '80s, '70s. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Twenty-five years, a quarter of a century. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thirty. I'm at the end of the road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, but all those roads in the Estates are like that. The ones you're putting bridges on have been like that as well, too. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But they're existing, and the people move out there, and they want to be there, and I know that -- I know that there's -- I'm not trying to turn my back to safety issues but, golly gee, this is a neighborhood. This is a neighborhood with folks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I may support, in the end, no connection. What I'm telling you is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What's it going to take? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What's it going to take? What's the impact going to be when you make those calls? Because you approved three bridges that were on no-connect roads. They were planned to connect, but you approved those bridges, so now you're going to have more traffic. I want you to see it all, because I just want you to make an informed decision. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, I think you can judge the feeling here, and something tells me it's not going to shift very much. But I think in deference to staff, so that we can make an educated decision, I think you're right. I think that's correct, the process, not the connections. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for approval. December 12, 2017 Page 123 COMMISSIONER FIALA: For approval? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of the agenda item as presented. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to read what the agenda item says again. Professional services to CH2MHill for the project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. It's a renewal of the contract. It's -- MR. OCHS: To complete the design of the road. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You don't have to say anything at all about the connections or anything? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not right now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So there's a motion on the floor and a second. Any discussion, further 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. I know we'll see you back here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, all. MS. MESSAM: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And bring me one of those little "no connect" signs, and I'll hang it up right there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I do, as the public leaves, just want to recognize all of them. They've been really good to work with. December 12, 2017 Page 124 And sometimes I think they throw a rope over a tree and they may want me to put my head in it, but they're so very friendly on the way out, and thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is a hard, hard issue. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You should have been -- the neighborhood information meeting that we had that Nick and staff and I went to -- MS. REED: We were tough on you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it wasn't -- not on me. It was emotionally driven, yes. MS. REED: It's our homes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, not only that, but it's the only place in Collier County where you have all that nature and all that peacefulness, and you don't have people rushing around and so forth. There's no place else like it. And everybody's fighting to have something like it. You've got it. Once it's -- MS. REED: We have a little piece of paradise. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- gone, it's gone forever. You don't get it back anymore. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, all. Thank you, all, very much. MS. REED: Thank you, guys. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They've been here all day, by the way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's because we were so entertaining. MS. REED: You guys are welcome to come out Halloween night, the big thing. 27th Street Northwest, come on out and see what it's like. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. December 12, 2017 Page 125 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, do you want to continue with the County Manager's Report or go back to 9B and re-open that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, as staff has been here, this is a lengthy meeting, and we seem to be continuing the length of it. You judge. We will try to be as expeditious as we can. So whatever your staff needs, I think, at this point, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I do appreciate the commission's indulgence and the County Manager for putting off 9B. I apologize for being late. MR. OCHS: No problem. Item #11E TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Well, let's move, then, to 11E. This is a recommendation to approve the Technical Assistance Interlocal Agreement between the County -- the County Water and Sewer District and the City of Everglades City. Dr. Yilmaz will make a brief presentation. DR. YILMAZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. George Yilmaz with Public Utilities. Commissioners, we are pleased to report to you that this is the first time all parties, regulatory, city government, and county government, along with a private entrepreneur, came together and developed a business model that will bring a sustainable solution to City of Everglades Utility. Water and wastewater services have been challenged in the past. December 12, 2017 Page 126 As you all know, City of Everglades Utility is within national Ten Thousand Islands Park, National Preserve, Everglades National Preserve, and Big Cypress National Preserve, and I think that the actions that we were able to put together jointly will bring sustainable solution and stop -- slow the bleeding wound with Band-Aid to make it much more sustainable. With that, the business model solution includes three components that I want to share with you. Those are the drivers. One is the operator agreement with resourceful national and international firm, design/build/operate, Veolia Water North America South, LLC. This firm is resourceful, and they are anxious to get into south market, and they already executed the agreement between city utility and the city government and themselves. We're not part of that contract. I just want to make that clear. So that's an operating agreement between city and the operator. Second part is interlocal agreement between the city and county before you today, and I think that it is well balanced, managed risk, but also provides some assurances to regulatory agencies. Worst-case scenario, if contractor and/or operator walks away, we may be able to step in at the request of mayor and the City Council of Everglades. Third, moving forward with all available state and federal funding, including FEMA mitigation funds becomes feasible because of the fact that City of Everglades will be applicant, we are simply here to assist them through their contractor. With that, we respectfully request the Board approve recommended action items as stated in your executive summary. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well done, Dr. George. I read it and was very impressed. I think this is a great beginning of a very strong and productive relationship with Everglades City. It's a remarkable city, and I'm delighted to see this. Commissioner Fiala? December 12, 2017 Page 127 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think Bill was first, though. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to say that this will also include Copeland, right, and Jerome? It will take in all of that plus Paradise Island and also Chokoloskee? This will affect all of them? DR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, very good point. This will include, and the model and what we're putting in place will include outside of city limits, including Copeland, Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, which are outside city limits, however, I want to put emphasis on, they are within Everglades City Utility service area as approved by the special act by the legislature. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a way for you or somebody in your department or in Everglades City to check on Copeland? They were -- I was there about a week ago, and they were telling us how they couldn't even drink the water anymore. And I thought -- and I realize this is not -- we're not talking water. We're talking water/sewer, but maybe somebody could check that in Copeland one of these days and do what they can to help clean it up, too. DR. YILMAZ: We hear you, and we hear you, Commissioners -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. DR. YILMAZ: -- loud and clear through this agreement. We're in the game. And it's a partnership through Florida Department of Protection, Health Department will be brought in as needed, as well as the contractor they have. So short answer is yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, please, just for a moment. For my colleagues I just would like to say how pleased I am, and I hope that we have your support with regard to this. We've been very intimately involved with this entire process. December 12, 2017 Page 128 The agreement with Veolia to become the operator for the City of Everglades, at last Tuesday's Council meeting the FDEP authorized an additional six hookups to the wastewater facility, and for the past two years, none, none were legally allowed to be hooked into that system. And it's only after a month or so of this arrangement with Veolia as the actual operator that the improvements have already started, and we're starting to see the benefits of proper maintenance and upkeep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Isn't it, though? It's absolutely amazing. The folks that I speak with regularly at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have -- are overjoyed with the activities that the city has taken on -- that the city has taken on these activities as private operator. This interlocal agreement between the county and the City of Everglades is an additional stopgap for the city and the residents of Everglades and the surrounding area for the service area for the water and wastewater facilities. And I'd like to make a motion for approval, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. 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, and December 12, 2017 Page 129 Commissioner Solis is back with us. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good to have you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was late. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, with your indulgence, if we could skip around a little bit, because I know we've got a couple folks in the audience here that have registered. Item #11L REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE THE FLORIDA FORESTRY SERVICE COOPERATORS AGREEMENT DATED JULY 1988 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES WITH A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT FOR THE STATUTORY DEFINED FORESTRY AND WILDFIRE SERVICES TO INCLUDE EXPANDED MITIGATION SERVICES AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS (FISCAL IMPACT $75,000) - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: So if we could take 11L. This was an item that was moved on your change sheet this morning. It was previously 16E4 moved at Commissioner McDaniel's request, and I know he just has a fairly brief comment on this. This is a recommendation to enter into an agreement with the Florida Forestry Services Cooperator's agreement with a new Memorandum of Understanding to include expanded mitigation services in the amount of $75,000. And we could either take your question, sir, or make the presentation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It will be at the pleasure of the Chair. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Mr. Summers can present if you'd December 12, 2017 Page 130 like. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Let's do this. I think it's important, please. MR. SUMMERS: Good afternoon. For the record, Dan Summers, director of Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services. If you'll remember, recall back in June and July we discussed with you, at your request, to have our partners at Florida Forest (sic) Service do some expanded efforts or have some expanded funding capability in order to work on wildlife mitigation activities from our very busy spring fire season. We had a challenge in terms of kind of working out the memorandum of agreement with Tallahassee and the Florida division headquarters there, as well as their attorneys, but we have come to an agreement with that, and you graciously have provided some additional supplemental funding to Florida Forestry. As you know, Emergency Management engages with our partners there, and we have -- they have an excellent wildlife mitigation strategy, and you-all saw those plans and activities as well as some of the public outreach efforts that we did last spring, and we plan to do those again this spring as well. But I believe Commissioner McDaniel had a couple of questions about the tactical delivery of what you would like the forest service folks to do. Mike Weston, who is our area manager, Mike is here and, at your pleasure, can give you a little bit of comment in terms of his tactical delivery from the supplemental funding. Mike? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. WESTON: Good morning, everyone. Michael Weston, center manager, Florida Forestry Service, Caloosahatchee Forestry Center. So we're really just -- you know, to start with, really appreciate December 12, 2017 Page 131 the efforts that have gone into this on all parts, you know, Dan Summers and his staff as well as some of the other staff that's in there. This is an effort that really began in 2016 in the fall seeing the dry conditions that were coming up. And, you know, it went from everything from outreach to meeting with the public to looking at what can we do to step up with other emergency response personnel as far as to do some more mitigation work. So that's basically, you know, cutting and grinding the vegetation that burns near homes to reduce the threat of wildfires, you know, getting large but also damaging structures, but also to -- and sometimes prescribed burning, but all these -- the efforts take money and consistency and, you know, I think, you know, with this being approved, you know, we can move forward in a larger fashion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are you going to be able to identify the debris -- because there were tornadoes with -- there are areas that are okay and areas that are not okay. Are you going to let Hurricane Irma's path guide how you do this, or is this going to be creating these breaks in the methodical fashion no matter where the felled trees are? MR. WESTON: We start our assessment with Hurricane Irma, and the good news was it didn't, you know, topple trees everywhere. You know, the worry on our end is that two trail that normally you can scout and see and get ahead of a fire, but that's suddenly blocked by two or three trees. And, you know, one or two trees you can overcome with a chainsaw. It starts to get beyond that -- and so on our end, you know, we're committing -- you know, it's going to be earlier on this year that we're sending two tractors to respond to these fires. You know, the one's going to work on the fire containment like always; the other's going to work on, you know, clearing out the additional areas. You know, on the other side of that with the mitigation dollars, et December 12, 2017 Page 132 cetera, it's going to be going in with some of our farm tractor equipment we already have, you know, clearing out some of these logs, just doing some simple chainsaw work. Already talked with the fire districts about that, and they're eager to get started on that just so we can get those areas, you know, reopened up, that debris cleared. And then beyond that, for this year it's going to be completing two north/south corridors of ours, get them reopened up, and then also look around the big areas of -- wooded areas where we've got the high risk. Obviously, the areas that burned last year, the 30th Avenue fire and Lee Williams fire, those have burned out and, you know, looking at those as well, but they've already -- the fuels have been consumed, and so it's looking outside of there of where do we have our highest risk. You know, one of our biggest concerns and one of the trees that really took a brunt of the damage from Irma was Melaleuca, a lot of tangled Melaleuca, especially down along the Sabal Palm Road area. But, you know, in looking all throughout there -- as well as Australian pine took the damage, but that's not as big in the fire risk. So -- but, yeah, one of our issues is trying to open up trails and areas that we normally use for fire response that might have an issue this year. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, yes. And thank you, Mike, for coming today. I know it was kind of short notice. But when I learned last year of what the county had been supplying your department with regard to proactive -- or monies towards proactive fire mitigation and then our staff came forward with this additional $75,000, I heard about equipment purchases. And I had originally been told that we really didn't need any more assets; that we just needed operational monies to be able to actually implement your December 12, 2017 Page 133 plan, and that was where the query came from yesterday when I was meeting with Leo and Nick. I -- because I also know that our fire departments recommend a 30-foot perimeter around a single-family home in Golden Gate Estates specifically. And a lot of those folks are on a 75-foot tract with a minimum 7-and-a-half foot setback from the property line, and that's well short of the 30-foot recommended buffer. But our local fire departments are not allowed to go on private property without your permission. So you could be living in a home, your home is seven-and-a-half feet away from your neighbor's land, and the local fire department cannot do any mitigation or clearing on your neighbor's land without their permission, and a lot of those folks are not residents here and don't respond even if they are contacted, where your department can. Are there any kind of those activities that are planned and in what areas? MR. WESTON: As far as the working on private properties to expand the defensible space at 30 foot? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. WESTON: So what we do strategically is we've worked to clear the corridors, north/south. It's to stop big fire spread, also provide easier fire department access. You've got the big blocks in Golden Gate Estates, you know, sometimes 100, 200 acres. Divide those into two or three pieces, you've easier, you know, area, you know, of fire operations that you can manage. Individually on the properties, we do get requests that come in throughout the year; we go out and assess them, you know, provide the homeowners a lot of times with the easiest things that they can do as far as pine needles out of the gutters, you know, clearing away some brush piles, et cetera, right near the house. And a lot of times that's all it takes. In some cases, we are able to December 12, 2017 Page 134 go in, using our Hawkins Bill, onto private parcels and mitigate and knock those fuels down. It does re-grow. The other thing that we're mindful of is with invasive species, the more ground that we open up, the more possibility you have of some of these, you know, nastier, more fire-prone species coming in. But, you know, generally, that is pine and palmetto, wax myrtle mix, that's what you're working to knock down, and after it takes -- it can take, for a lot of these areas, you know, three to 10 years for fuel load to build back up. So, you know, on the equipment part, you know, going forward, you know, there would be some possibilities there. We're able to acquire a federal access Gyro-Trac, so that's basically like a Bobcat-type machine with rubber tracks. It's got a grinding head on the front. And we need to do some repair work on that because it was federal access, you know, acquired from a military base. And -- but we'll be able to use that in Collier County and really, you know, double, almost triple the working days that we get as far as doing mitigation work. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outstanding. And you are coordinating your efforts with both our local fire departments with how you're doing, what you're doing, when you're doing it? MR. WESTON: Yeah, that's correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Perfect. All right. I'll move for approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you; thank you. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. December 12, 2017 Page 135 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. Thank you. MR. WESTON: Great. Thank you. Appreciate the support. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Item #11N 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 - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED; COUNTY MANAGER WILL REQUEST REPORTS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES (PER BCC) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'd like to go to Item 11N. This was previously 16A1 that you had asked and I think one other member of the Board wanted to move to the regular agenda. It's a recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with the City of Naples for the purpose of installation of license plate reading cameras within county road rights-of-ways. Mr. French and Mr. McLean are here to present or answer questions from the Board. Madam Chair, your pleasure. Would you like a presentation, or do you have a specific question? I know there was some registered speakers, I believe, as well. December 12, 2017 Page 136 MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're here or, no, they've left? MR. MILLER: Yeah, he's still here. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. You know, I was -- wasn't -- I understand it, but I think it -- I think it needs to be aired because I think it looks like "big brother," and my concern is the perception of it. The City of Naples has so few gated communities, you know. I always talk about it laying itself wide open to everyone, and it is. And in so many -- so much of it, the majority of it, is not gated. So I can understand their -- I can understand their concern to maintain a city status very different from the county. I can understand it. I guess one of my questions would be, from staff is, is there -- I didn't read it in the interlocal agreement. Is there some kind of sharing of information in case something terrible happens? Is it -- are they going to be able to share that information with the Sheriff's Department? Because I'm assuming the Police Department are the collection of all this video; is that correct? MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean. I'm the director of development review. To answer your question, Commissioner, the sharing of information, as we understand it, is between city staff and the local police department that works in coordination with the Sheriff's Department. To our knowledge, there isn't a sharing of information between city staff or county staff. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, but it would be Police Department to Sheriff's Department. MR. McLEAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: City to county through those channels? MR. McLEAN: That is our understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I had a question similar to December 12, 2017 Page 137 that, and maybe you said it. It's just -- because I -- is it possible for a high-level report of its effectiveness to come to us on that "big brother" that's out there? If there's validity, in fact, having these and it is assisting our law enforcement agencies to better protect the citizens, then I'd like to know about that. MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean. To our knowledge, that is certainly not part of what was disclosed or provided to staff related to these right-of-way permit reviews and, hence, the request for the interlocal agreement. We can certainly ask for some type of reporting from the city, but we have not had that type of discussion with them to date. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I certainly wouldn't want to violate any privacy or anything along those lines. I just would like to know the cameras were installed and it assisted law enforcement to apprehend two or five or however many they actually caught. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One way or the other. Has it helped? Has it not helped? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed. MR. OCHS: I'll make that request in writing to the City Manager, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we need a presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No? Okay. Do I hear a motion? I'll make a -- MR. MILLER: Ma'am -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, we have a speaker. MR. MILLER: -- Madam Chair, yeah, my speaker. Dr. Joseph Doyle, who's been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy Doyle, December 12, 2017 Page 138 who is present. DR. DOYLE: I have to use the visualizer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think this morning we had four speakers, because this was on the consent agenda and I moved it. I think you said there were four this morning. MR. MILLER: I just had these two registered for this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, right now. DR. DOYLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle, Naples. As you'll recall, I was here on July 11th when this was on the consent agenda, and Commissioner Saunders kindly removed it to -- well, it was supposed to be September, but we know what happened, so here we are now five months later in December, and the item is pretty much unchanged from what was requested in July. As you can see on the visualizer, I've circled in red where the cameras are on the county right-of-way going into the City of Naples. My issue is that I live in the county. If I'm driving down a county road, you could take a photo of me and all that type of thing, but I don't think, from a "big brother" standpoint, to use a word, that we should be tracking people who are doing -- maybe going from one part of the county to the other part of the county and not even going into the city, for instance, for shopping and what have you. If the city wants to use the cameras, let them put them on the city street. When you go into a gated community, you have to go to the gate. It's not on the county right-of-way. So let the county (sic) move them in off of 41, one off of Goodlette-Frank, off of Airport. Let them move it into the community that would have otherwise had a gate. Let them move it into the city right-of-way. As far as the information going, I think the question we need to ask is, look at the city contract. From what I read when this was before the city, the contract they have is with a firm that's based out of December 12, 2017 Page 139 Virginia. So from a "big brother" standpoint, I'm not so worried about them sharing information with our sheriff, because he's the constitutional officer here for the whole county, be it the county limits, the city limits. What's going up to Washington and NSA is what I'm concerned about. Let's look at that. Let's ask that question, okay. So I'm philosophically against putting these cameras in the county right-of-way. Let the city use their land, their right-of-way. Also, I know that, you know -- obviously, I put Port Royal down here and stuff, and those people probably need more protection because they're not gated and they're multi-million-dollar homes, et cetera, but to use a phrase, and I believe it was Benjamin Franklin, if we're willing to give up a little freedom for security, then we deserve neither. So I really, from a philosophical limited-government standpoint, believe that -- let the city, for these areas here, let them go in a block or two and find city right-of-way but not infringe on those of us who live in the county, but because we may be traveling down those roads not doing any city business. Just coming down here I'd have to go down those, and I'm not here on city business. So it's really a philosophical standpoint. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a motion to approve? Well, I'll make a motion to approve this agenda item as I am -- the city is in my district. I do understand the reason for it. I do believe that these cameras, for the most part, are placed at city entrance. You know, they annexed Horseshoe. It's there. The airport is there. It's on North Road. You know, I understand that. I kind of wish they had been here, but they aren't, so at this point I will make a motion to approve. December 12, 2017 Page 140 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a little bit of discussion, and it's just to address the concern. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm sorry. I mean, it is -- I expressed my concern already in the topic with regard to "big brother" and the like. And our pictures are being taken all of the time. At all of our traffic signals there's cameras. I think that it's important to know that I'll be the first one to withdraw this opportunity if there is an abuse with regard to privacy and the like. It's my understanding that these cameras are strictly for law enforcement to have record as to where people are leaving the City of Naples or necessarily coming into and to better track criminal activity, not monitor where I go for supper. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my understanding, too. Is that your understanding? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes, absolutely. All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'll just echo what Commissioner McDaniel said. I'm really concerned. I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. December 12, 2017 Page 141 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. The most fascinating thing about progress and photographing license tags is that you can travel all around the country right now, and you don't even have to -- if you've got the right pass -- but if you don't, your license plate is photographed, and you get the bill in the mail. Item #11K THE PUBLICATION OF COLLIER COUNTY’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO UTILIZE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH F.S. 197.3632(3)(A), IN CONSIDERATION AND AS PART OF THE STORMWATER UTILITY PHASE II PROCESS - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, let's move now to Item 11K. This was previously Item 16A29 on your consent agenda. It was reflected as a move on your change sheet at the request of Commissioner McDaniel. This is a recommendation to authorize the publication of Collier County's notice of intent to utilize the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments in unincorporated Collier County in accordance with Florida Statute as part of the Stormwater Utility Phase 2 process. December 12, 2017 Page 142 MR. SANTABARBARA: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Santabarbara will make the presentation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 11K used to be 16A29. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. MR. SANTABARBARA: Good afternoon. Geno Santabarbara, Principal Planner, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management Division. I can address any questions you might have or concerns you might have, but this is -- this item is to strictly get permission to publish four consecutive notices for notice of intent to utilize the method of collection. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I don't need a presentation. If you'll allow me a moment, Madam Chair? Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may, I don't need a presentation. I just have a statement that I would like to make. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's fine. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. One of the difficulties in our performing our job is that we only get to talk to one another when the TV's on and Terri's writing down all of my misspoken words. I want you to know that I've been watching this item come through for the full year that I've actually served as county commissioner. It's come forward on multiple consultation agreements. We had a workshop on it or a presentation back in September from the consultant. I want my colleagues to know that when this does formally come forward I'm going to propose some amendments to it. Call it what you like. Call it a non-ad valorem assessment. Call it a fee. It is a tax. It is an increase and a tax burden of the already cost-burdened residents of December 12, 2017 Page 143 Collier County. So as this comes forward, I would like just for you -- my personal opinion is it is an increase in tax, and I'm going to propose a couple of different ways for that cost-burdening circumstance to, in fact, be alleviated yet still provide for the necessities of dedicated funding sources and the like. With that -- I understand that this agenda item today is a calendar-year circumstance timing that we have to approve so that they can move it through, but I just wanted you to hear from me where I'm heading with it. And, with that, I'll make a motion for approval of the agenda item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any 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: Thank you very much. MR. SANTABARBARA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Geno. Madam Chair, this might be an appropriate time for your court reporter afternoon break, and then we'll get into the sales tax December 12, 2017 Page 144 discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I think that's a great idea. What do you think, Terri? MR. OCHS: Ten minutes? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ten minutes. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. Item #11G THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND PROJECT LIST FOR A COUNTYWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX VOTER REFERENDUM TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2018 AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE RELATED ACTIONS - MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD, CONTINUE TO FINE-TUNE THE LIST FOR A 7-YEAR PROGRAM, REMOVE CONSERVATION COLLIER FROM THE LIST AND INCREASE MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING – APPROVED (COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL OPPOSED); MOTION TO SUPPORT FUNDING VETERAN NURSING HOME – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're moving now to Item 11G. This is a recommendation to approve the proposed schedule and project list for a countywide infrastructure sales surtax voter referendum to be held on November 6th, 2018, and authorize the staff to initiate the related actions. Mr. Jeff Willig from the County Manager's Office will present. MR. WILLIG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Jeff Willig. So this item is a continuation from the November 7th workshop December 12, 2017 Page 145 where you asked us to go back and look at the list and refine that down. We've done that and removed the items that were O&M items and just cleaned that up a little bit. In the executive summary we prepared an allocation model, which is up on the screen here and was also handed out to you, that just kind of takes the funds, the revenues that would be generated, and kind of allocates them into different categories and to different projects. Based on conversations that we've had with the Chamber of Commerce and with you folks, we've also created a couple other alternative models that are -- that you have in front of you that were passed out just before this that kind of evaluate different funding levels with possibly a six-year or seven-year or also just changing up the amount allocated to Strategic Land Acquisition. So if you have any questions, I can -- MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the list that's on your screen and the television screen, again, just to clarify, this is the seven-year sales surtax with the $150 million allocation for strategic and sensitive land acquisition remaining in that seven-year model, and that was, you know, the majority direction from the Board the last time we spoke on this. As Mr. Willig just mentioned, there has been, since that time, some additional discussions with the Chamber, who have led this initiative, and they had indicated that there may be some desire to look at other options including removing some or all of that sensitive land allocation and, depending upon whether that's something the Board would want to entertain, then perhaps looking at a six-year voter initiative instead of a seven-year tax. So those are the three handouts that you have in front of you, and we'd be happy to take any questions or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What I thought was interesting when I read it is the schedule and how this is going to -- you're going to December 12, 2017 Page 146 address the municipalities, whether they want this or not. I mean, this is something I think needs to be brought to the record if we probably could. And it doesn't have to be right now, but in the course of this discussion, I think it's very important to explain to the public how this is going to work. MR. OCHS: This is the layout of the proposed schedule of some of the primary activities by month, you know, moving from the workshop last month through the proposed referendum in November of next year. And I didn't know, Madam Chair, if you wanted to talk about any particular aspect of this, but -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, just -- I think it's important that -- especially as this was initiated by the Chamber, and now we are, you know, cooperating and bringing this forward. There are also, I believe what I read, is the municipalities can bring forth their projects; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. They're going to be required to pass resolutions agreeing to participate and also providing their specific capital project lists for the allocation that would go to them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And have we had any conversations with, for instance, the City of Naples or the City of Marco Island? MR. OCHS: Not yet, ma'am. We're still going to wait for direction today from the Board. The schedule for that, as you can see, is anticipating those discussions in January, depending on the direction today. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And, again, this is more informational than challenging. Okay. So, Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just have a question. So on -- you know, having heard from Arthrex today, these numbers and what we're doing on each category, I mean, we're going to be locked into these. December 12, 2017 Page 147 These are the -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: These are the numbers that are going to be on the ballot. Will these numbers be on the ballot or -- I'm not clear on that. MR. WILLIG: No, sir. These are just numbers. And we can adjust these. These are just working models at the moment. But the ballot will not have this table in it. It will refer to how much is going to be spent in different places, but this table would not be. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just, like, transportation, stormwater capital, facilities, and community priorities. MR. WILLIG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So just those general, okay. MR. OCHS: Sir, again, this specific ballot language is part of what would be prepared and brought back to this board in the spring, and you would then -- you'd adopt an ordinance that includes the final list, but you'd also specify the specific ballot language -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Language, okay. MR. OCHS: -- that you want to appear on the ballot. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And 65 -- it used to be 65 words. MR. OCHS: Yes. There are some statutory limits on the amount of words. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Seventy-five. MR. OCHS: I think it's 75 now, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then you refer to the ordinance, but the intention is these are specific projects that are going to be voted on. They will not be in the ballot language, but this is it, and whatever we decide eventually. And once they're funded -- let's assume they're funded in five years, the whole list -- sales tax goes away. Even though it might be a six-year time period, if these are funded, then the sales tax goes away. December 12, 2017 Page 148 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Once they're all funded at these levels. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the truth? MR. OCHS: It is, ma'am. When you specify the amount of money that you intend to raise by the tax, once that amount is reached, whether it's reached in six years or five-and-a-half, it stops at the point that that specific amount of money is collected. And all of these are -- for example, the mental-health figure, I mean, this money can be used for capital improvements, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Land and capital. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Land and capital, okay. So there's no maintenance. And on the sensitive land acquisition, this is all for acquisition. It's not for maintenance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. MR. OCHS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then, talking about that, is -- the sensitive land acquisition, is that Conservation Collier? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, essentially. That was the intent. So that's why we developed the alternative allocations on the second and third page of your handout. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second and third page? MR. WILLIG: There should be three pages in the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But the second one says Strategic Land Acquisition. What's the difference between strategic and sensitive? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, on the second -- yeah, go ahead, Jeff, to the -- you can see that we went from $150 million, which was the quantity of money that we were -- or the Board was discussing earlier in the year, essentially, for the Conservation Collier millage question, and took that down and left about only 40 million, only, 40 December 12, 2017 Page 149 million for other strategic land buys that the Board may want to consider. That isn't necessarily just land that would qualify under your Conservation Collier ordinance for acquisition. Nick has an example out in Belle Meade, for example. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Hussey property, the urban area golf course, a couple staging sites for hurricane. Anything that you thought was strategic for the Board to acquire that property wouldn't have to be conservation property. It could be future property for an expanded government location, whatever you would need. So we would lay out those things for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Public golf course? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, there's an O&M component that goes with that, but it's acquiring property that's strategic to the Board; green space. MR. OCHS: And that's a proposal, Commissioners. I mean, that could be zeroed out, if you'd like, and those dollars reallocated to something else. This is just the -- you know, the staff's best stab at the allocation model at this point, particularly in those community priority areas. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think the genesis of this entire effort by the Chamber was a workforce training center. MR. OCHS: The priorities -- and Mr. Dalby's here. I'm sure he can speak to it. But I think the priorities from the Chamber's policy board was workforce housing, workforce training, and mental health. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now we're talking about workforce, but today when John -- come on, Donna, say his name -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Schmieding? MR. OCHS: Schmieding? COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Schmieding, yeah, was talking about it, and his housing was specific. What do we call that kind of housing then? December 12, 2017 Page 150 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Workforce housing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know, because it seems to get mixed up in the interpretation. We ought to give it a special name. MR. OCHS: Yeah. Commissioner, let me answer it this way. Regardless of what you label it, the difference between this sales tax revenue and grants from the federal or state government. These funds, the revenues from the local option sales tax, are discretionary funds to the Board, and they don't have the restrictions that the federal and the state dollars have on these income levels and percentage of the money that has to go to specific levels. So I think I'm safe in telling you that you'd have much more flexibility on how you want to direct these type of dollars than through some of those federal and state funds. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly. And so if we give it a name so that we don't call it workforce housing, because workforce all -- it all falls into the same pot, and I would like to make sure that we do make a specific effort to create the type of housing that Schmieding was talking about, as well as he was referring to some of the other entities in town, the hospitals and, you know, Sheriff's Office and all of that stuff so that we make sure that we build it with that land and it doesn't go to something else. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What something else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. You know, because we've got plenty that goes to workforce housing. There's workforce housing underneath it. See? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yeah, but workforce housing; what is workforce? I mean, right now -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They usually define it by income. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except that -- well, I won't get into December 12, 2017 Page 151 that too much. I just want to make sure we build what they're saying they need. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think what the County Manager was saying, though, was that -- I mean, in this context we're just using the word "workforce housing," but we're going to have complete discretion on how we use this money. We're not going to be stuck in some definition from the state or federal government as to what that means. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Yeah. I just want to make sure we do that because that is going to be important to us surviving this -- the needs that we are not meeting now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not -- I don't think anybody wants to commingle state and federal money with this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think this is our money. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And just on that note, you know, there again, we've been -- we all get tangled up in these definitions of a low-income, low, low income, affordable and the like. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I really envision at some stage, whether this sales tax goes forward or not, an entirely new definition. One of the things that we learned from our housing report was there is -- there are deficits in housing affordability for certain sectors of our population. But we have, our county, has regularly interchanged these definitions as they're talking to us. Workforce housing has a very specific statutory and federal definition, and that's a very good point that you brought up and that we don't get caught up in those specific definitions because they don't really show the true need of what Collier County has. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like a point of clarification. Excuse me just for one second. On the second page and third page of the December 12, 2017 Page 152 options you've got with CC or without CC. What does that mean? MR. WILLIG: Yeah. It was just to kind of -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What is CC? MR. WILLIG: Conservation Collier. It was just for identifying which plan was which. MR. OCHS: Specifically, that's the reference to the Strategic Land Acquisition line. You see where in the -- you've got two columns on the far right-hand side there. Both the seven-years sales tax proposal, the first column with Conservation Collier left in, the whole 150 million which was the direction from the last discussion the Board had on this; the far right column is the same seven-year sales tax revenue reallocated to remove most of the Strategic Land Acquisition and reallocate those funds into the other projects you see in yellow. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- so what would the -- what are the projects that would be $40 million that have nothing to do with Conservation Collier? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, even the restore -- Gary's restore project, that watershed project's going to require some land acquisition. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And CREW. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it could be CREW. This is where the Board has discretion outside. We call it strategic land. It could be green space. It could be if the Husseys came back and said, I'm willing to sell it at appraised value and said I don't want to put the mining rights, and the Board says, that's a section and a half. That's a section and a half. That's strategic. It could be for affordable housing, workforce, it could be for a training center. That gives you that flexibility to do that. And it wouldn't go to Conservation Collier -- Land Acquisition Committee. It would just come to you for review. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. December 12, 2017 Page 153 Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. We've got a policy issue that kind of is driving this whole thing right now, and that is whether or not Conservation Collier is going to be included in the program. Once we make that decision, then the rest of it becomes a little bit more doable because then you can decide whether to go six years and -- so at the last meeting, the environmental community got up and very strongly said that they wanted out of this. They didn't want to be included. Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Taylor, you-all -- the two of you agreed with the community, the environmental community, in terms of taking them out, and we had a 3-2 vote on keeping them in. And I think it's important that we have a unanimous board on this sales tax thing. I hate to go to the ballot with a 3-2 vote or 4-1 vote. I'd like to see us try to come to closure on that. And so, Mr. Manager, has there been any more communication from the environmental element, the environmental community, in terms of getting out of this? Do they still want out? MR. OCHS: My understanding is that they still want out, sir. I haven't had any direct communication. I know Mr. Dalby -- and he may want to step up to the podium. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we can get an answer to that question. MR. OCHS: Yes, because I know they've had some ongoing conversations with representatives. MR. DALBY: So, for the record, Michael Dalby with the Chamber of Commerce. I think they have stayed steadfast throughout this discussion as we've -- as we originally saw this as a holistic approach to address a number of different issues within our community; that they have said December 12, 2017 Page 154 no. They would rather not be a part of this and would rather have a standalone vote at a different time, so that's been their stance, and I think that stance has not changed in any way. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, just to continue that, then, I've gotten a lot of emails and phone calls with the same conclusion, that where the representatives of the environmental community absolutely want out of this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Can I make a -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure, sure. If you have -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just point of clarification. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- different information. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The representatives of the environmental community are very interested in the acquisition of strategic and sensitive lands. They are not interested in putting the program, Conservation Collier, before the voters and connecting it to this tax, because it's putting -- it doesn't work. It just doesn't -- it's a very different -- for instance, one of the major components of Conservation Collier is maintenance. There's no maintenance money here. It's only acquisition. So it becomes very, very expensive to address it. Also, the way the Conservation Collier lands are acquired are very -- it's not the same process as proposed here. It doesn't negate what's being proposed here. But the environmental folks are very willing to come and work with staff to suggest lands that are strategic in acquisition that have an environmental aspect to it. And call it green infrastructure, whatever -- however you want it. Just not the program Conservation Collier. So I don't know if that's as clear as mud, but that's kind of where we're at. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It sounds like that would be an effort to have $150 million in this program in addition to Conservation December 12, 2017 Page 155 Collier. Is that what the -- when you say "strategic land," are you talking about the $40 million that we would be looking at? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's going to be up to us to decide. And maybe staff, if they worked with the environmentalists, they could find -- you know, oh, this is an idea or this is an idea; the CREW lands, Belle Meade, to increase the watershed aspect of our county, to improve that. There's a lot of areas that money could be put into and what the cost is. Then I think we could come back and discuss it. I think the first step would be to have the environmental community work with staff on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, because I don't know that they really want to be part of that $150 million either. I think that they're hoping to, you know, just take that thing out entirely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, the Conservation Collier. And, you know, I think that they prefer to have a separate altogether. But they don't mean to leave total amount in because then that kind of removes them. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if we were going to agree with the environmental community that this program would not include Conservation Collier, then we would continue to have the line item of Strategic Land Acquisition, the 40 million. That would be a focus that we would deal with later on in terms of what that means, but it would not necessarily be environmental land. It could be, but it would not have to be. And so then the second -- I guess the issue that comes from that as well is, do we go for six years or seven years? And if we take that 150 million, reduce it to 40 million for strategic land, it sounds like the six-year program -- let's see. Yeah, you have -- I think on that one you have -- you only have $20 million then for -- December 12, 2017 Page 156 MR. OCHS: That's correct, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you still want to do a seven-year program. MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the Board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Well, it seems to me, then, we should consider going with the seven-year program, take Conservation Collier out, put in that line item of $40 million, and fund the other projects that would be listed here in yellow. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then the other thing that we talked about at the last meeting was doubling the amount for workforce housing, I mean for the training center and mental health. I'm not so sure that $10 million is going to get you much of a training facility, and so -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Especially 10 million over seven years. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. So I'd like to see us double that number. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for clarification, sir, the 10 million will probably build you an outfit youth center. It won't run it -- if we've got the land, and we may have a person who provides the land. I ran the cost-per-square-foot number, so you'll probably get there. The mental health, that's probably short based on discussions with David Lawrence and the Sheriff, so that's an area we probably want to look at. And the workforce housing we did increase, and that, again, would be whether you bought the land and put it out for RFP and price controlled it, whether it was for senior housing or worker housing. You have a lot of options with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And, Madam Chair, if I -- I want to throw out one other item, and obviously we don't want to December 12, 2017 Page 157 get into pet projects, because if we start -- each of us start doing that, that's going to be a problem, but I do want to give you one pet project, having said that. And -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That being said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And unless there's unanimous approval, then I don't want to pursue it any further. But Collier County had pursued getting a veterans nursing home, and my understanding is that the state fund available now for another veterans nursing home in Florida will not be funded sufficiently until 2026, and Collier County would be in a, you know, position to compete with that. But we were not ranked number one the last time, and there's every reason to believe we would not be ranked number one again. And so the thought is to propose to the state and federal government that with this tax we would acquire the land, which I think we could acquire through donation, build the building, own it, but enter into a long-term lease with the federal government to run it, and that way we'd, perhaps, be able to get a veterans nursing home here. So it's just a thought, something that we've all talked about. I've talked to the County Attorney, and that type of facility would qualify in terms of this tax as long as the county owned the building. So just -- I just wanted to throw that out, see if there was any support for it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's an outstanding idea. We all know it's been needed. It kind of got pulled away from us at the 11th hour the last time. We thought we were right in line for it, and through some -- I'll skip my words. Through some issues, we didn't get it. And we have so many more veterans here than in most places around the state of Florida even, and I think it's definitely needed. I love that idea. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, if all five of us are in December 12, 2017 Page 158 agreement to do that, then we would -- perhaps we could make a motion that would be made by all five, if there's agreement amongst all five, and so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just one. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- it's nobody's pet project; it's our total commission pet project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. I think that you're thinking about what we're about. Taking care of folks such as veterans, it's got to be paramount. It's a wonderful, wonderful idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we don't do much of anything for veterans right now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel is waving his arms. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My light's on, whenever you're ready, Madam Chair. Yes. And I just don't want to -- first off, I love the pet project. I think the veterans hospital is an amazing idea. I need you to know that I'm not going to support this agenda item. When this -- when we had this workshop, I heard in the presentation from our staff that these capital necessities that we're being told that we have can and will be funded through regular programming sources without a tax increase to our electorate. That was a portion of that workshop. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Janet Vasey. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it wasn't Janet Vasey. It actually came from our staff. Now, Ms. Janet reiterated that, number one. Now, in this format, in this forum, the way this is being presented to us, this is a tax increase again on our electorate that's already been designated as cost burdened, or a large portion of them are. I could support a referendum if there were a commensurate ad December 12, 2017 Page 159 valorem reduction to the residents, the taxpaying residents of Collier County. But in this -- in this format, the way this is being presented, I can't support it. And I appreciate, Commissioner Saunders, your want to have a 5-0 consensus on this, but it just -- in this writing, the way this is written, I can't support it; sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's worthy to explore. Commissioner Solis, you haven't weighed in. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got my thinking hat on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mental health. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, the mental-health issue, the only thing that I was going to comment on was looking at the community priorities, are these really our priorities the way the money's allocated? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not necessarily, but this is a starter, then we -- I see this as, literally, we've got it now. We can work on it and come back in January, work with staff and say, no, I want this, I want this, and get the -- I don't see this as written in stone by any means. This is just a beginning. Am I so far off? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. This is for guidance for us. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is guidance. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For guidance. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. This is the sort of -- this is the staff's wish, but that's why it's in front of us because we get to weigh in here, and allocation and everything. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ultimately, the allocation of these funds will work out later in an ordinance. MR. OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is there a motion pending? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not yet. I think we've got some December 12, 2017 Page 160 speakers. Do we? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I have four registered speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Dr. Joseph Doyle, who has been ceded three additional minutes from Sandy Doyle, who is present. He will be followed by Charlotte Nycklemoe. DR. DOYLE: Okay. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle. I'm wearing my Grinch cap today since we're talking about sales tax. I know I look like Santa usually, but today I'm the Grinch. As you know, I was here on November 7th for the workshop, and I'd just like to reiterate a couple of things. I realize that this is a sample project allocation but, again, the agenda item says that there was going to be citizen oversight committee. Well, I'd like to know who's going to be on that citizen oversight committee. I see this driven by the Chamber and the staff, and it's the same cast of characters that drives a lot of the things in this town and, quite frankly, I think we need to have a true citizen's oversight committee. And I do agree with Commissioner Fiala that we really need to know, you know, what does workforce housing -- who's going to be involved with that? What does it really mean? And, you know -- and with Commissioner McDaniel, to the extent that we need an offset in the ad valorem, because if we're going to have a revenue stream here as a sales tax, then there needs to be a corresponding -- the whole idea is to get away from the property tax. I mean, the realtors will tell you that the property taxes are higher than other counties, et cetera. Well, let's give the relief, then, if we're going to have the sales tax. Now, based on the conversation that I heard presented here, the devil is in the details, because these sample project allocations -- well, first of all, I'm happy to see that originally when we were here in November we were talking $896 million worth of wish list, and taking December 12, 2017 Page 161 out the O&M, we're now down to 655 million. Of course, we already said there's some funding here. The sales tax was going to have a shortfall of 732 million back in November, and now we're down to 420 million. But as I will say, we have the Chamber's wish list, we have the staff's wish list, but what are, really, the essential things that we as county government really need to provide? And I would say, okay, bridge replacements, fine. Maybe we could look at the transportation and the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, Pine Ridge, Livingston, and Whippoorwill, that mess, and Randall, okay. Stormwater capital; well, I'm not quite sure, how does that fit in with the possible stormwater utility that we're talking about, or is the utility only for maintenance? Then we get into facilities and capital replacement. Well, I agree that the Sheriff needs what he needs for HVAC, roofing, et cetera, the forensic building but does -- now, I see here -- where does the -- now, I see, the Big Corkscrew Regional Park, I'm not so sure of that. I'm not so sure that we need the shelter for the animals. I'm not so sure that -- actually, that we need the workforce training center. We spend a billion dollars a year on the school budget. Why can't that be part of what they do at Lorenzo Walker or something else? Why does the county have to do this? Let the school district do the training. They're supposed to be in education. So I have some of those questions. I'd like to be on this citizen's committee to hash this out, because I'm not quite sure I agree with these priorities here. I do agree with mental health. It's a long -- David Lawrence needs to double their capacity, triple, maybe even quadruple it and take the burden, the high cost, off the Sheriff. I mean, that I agree with. So I'm not quite -- I'm not happy with the priorities, but hopefully this is a continuing discussion. But I will go on the record as saying that I think we need December 12, 2017 Page 162 to look at what are the more essential things here. And now -- so that brings -- my list brings us down to 161 million if you take out Conservation Collier, because they want to go a different way. So do we really need a one-cent tax for seven years? Maybe a one-cent tax for three years, or a half a penny tax for six or seven years, with the corresponding reduction in the ad valorem. So I'd just like to get that out on the table, and I thank you for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Charlotte Nycklemoe. She will be followed by Nicholas Piche. MS. NYCKLEMOE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you for being with us since this morning. MS. NYCKLEMOE: As you know, I'm Charlotte Nycklemoe, president of the League of Women Voters, Collier County. At the last BCC meeting, the League of Women Voters voiced concern about moving ahead with the sales tax referendum because of the lack of poll/focus group detailed information. After the meeting, we contacted Mr. Dalby from the Chamber of Commerce to obtain detailed information. After waiting a month, we received a two-page report last Thursday, December 7th. It did not answer many of the questions we had regarding the demographics of poll participants and focus group questions. In particular, what organizations participated? How were they chosen, ages, sex, racial mix, et cetera? We feel this is standard practice, but there is no indication that in the report that this mirroring was done, only that they were randomly selected. We were informed that was proprietary. The Chamber offered to meet with us, but we just received the December 12, 2017 Page 163 information, and you are making decisions today. We have no position on the sales tax referendum, but we believe that if the Chamber's survey and focus group results are what persuaded you to move ahead with a sales tax referendum, there's just not enough transparency or information. There should be no bias when the public is involved. And this isn't a criticism of the Chamber or the research company. It is just a fact. Many of the questions are confusing and misleading. For example, if you ask survey participants if it is good or bad to catch up with vital infrastructure projects, what does this mean? It's kind of like asking, do you like sweets; yes or no? They do not appear to have separately polled on the various elements being proposed for inclusion in the referendum proposed. So I have just -- we have just a few questions for you to think about: Have your staff and commissioners seen a full report with detailed information? Do they or you believe that they have enough information that the public would support a sales tax? If you want a successful marketing plan, you need to know who is against it and why. Do you know that? Keep on? In addition, it is important to know what participants thought regarding the priorities for projects. Is one more important than the other? Were there other ideas or suggestions from the group to deal with all the county issues previously stated: Housing, mental health, infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera? What age groups are most likely to vote for or against? The report says there was no consensus on what should be funded. How will you make that decision? These are just a few of the questions that we have. And citizens count on your being thorough. It is the manner in which we gain trust. If we were decision-makers in a corporation rolling out a new product, December 12, 2017 Page 164 we would need to know more. Lastly, we really want you to be successful in whatever your new methods and programs are so that you can accomplish your goals. So we hope that you will have another dialogue to determine if you need more information. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Louis Piche. He will be followed by Michael Dalby. MR. PICHE: Thank you. Louis Piche with Americans for Prosperity. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members, for allowing me to speak. I'll be very brief. We're against the tax increase, and we believe that whenever a tax is added, all alternatives must be exhausted to increase spending. So just wanted to make that statement. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Decrease. Decrease spending. MR. PICHE: Did I say increase? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, you said in increase. MR. PICHE: Thank you very much. Yes, absolutely, decrease spending. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Michael Dalby. MR. DALBY: So maybe to try to -- Michael Dalby, for the record. I'm sorry. So maybe to try to clarify on some issues. And obviously on the information that went into this, it was looking at a number of different issues as a community that we were trying to address, some of which have been referenced today: Housing, training our population for economic opportunities, trying to address backlogged projects. As we did poll twice on these and had a focus group as well, began to see that people realize that there was a need to try to fund certain projects that kind of went above and beyond what the normal day-to-day operations of the county was, projects that had been December 12, 2017 Page 165 delayed because of the recession, projects that needed to be addressed now because we as a community felt like these are important. I think it's important to keep this in mind. There's been a lot of references about the Chamber's sales tax proposal. The Chamber's proposal was to try to address certain issues that we felt were very important within our community, and it really started off with workforce housing and workforce training. As we went down that pathway, began to realize that the mental-health and addiction, addressing that issue, was also critical, and how to find a way to fund these, just as the last gentleman said, you try to exhaust all the other opportunities and pathways; you try to figure out, how do I fund these? And this was a pathway that we saw that would bring in monies from tourists, our visitors, individuals that live here use all these services -- or work here and use all these services but don't physically live in Collier County. So that component, allowing others to fund anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of those needs, was part of the motivation to look at this closely. I think what you're seeing, and you're doing it through these discussions, is kind of looking and saying, okay, maybe not so much here, maybe more here, this is a priority for our county, this is a way to address it. But when you look at the total amount, realize that a relatively small amount is for those projects the Chamber originally began with. The majority of these projects, the majority of dollars are for the county. It's for the ability to take care of the citizens, the health, the welfare, transportation issues, other things that need to be addressed. So we see this as a total community betterment approach, a project. Certainly, these will be issues that will need to be marketed, they'll need to be explained, that will need to be communicated to the community, but you only have so many ways to address these, and December 12, 2017 Page 166 you're going to go one way or another to increase taxes, to find fees or funding to be able to address these issues. And we saw this as a pathway that -- because 61 of 67 Florida counties use this, we saw this as a pathway that would say, this fits well with Collier County and will get us a means to address a number of different issues. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Dalby, just a question I have. MR. DALBY: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is the Chamber going to market this? MR. DALBY: Absolutely. We've -- the commitment that we're making is from a campaign standpoint, that if we feel like this is the direction we're going to go, then we will commit funds and resources to market this and help educate the public to understand that this is what is being talked about and what it will get us if we complete these projects. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So are we far -- this is sort of a preliminary list that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- and then we're going to come back and discuss this in greater depth; is that correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question after you're done. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's our intent unless otherwise directed at this point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would suggest that it's probably not a good idea to do it in a vacuum. It's a very good idea to speak with staff about this. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't hear what Commissioner Fiala's question was. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She didn't ask. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't ask it yet. December 12, 2017 Page 167 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. As I'm listening to all of this -- and we're talking about doing this sales tax and then we're talking about part of it won't be going to this but maybe going to something else, and then I'm looking down the list and I'm thinking, okay, so we've got a sales tax, but as has been discussed before, we're going to get that money in anyway from regular taxes. Might take a longer period of time, but so we're going to have a sales tax to pay for the same thing that we're getting regular tax money in for, so do we deduct one from the other? Same with the impact fees: If we're collecting impact fees to do the roads, then do we deduct that from the sales tax fee? Same with -- by the way, Joe Doyle made a really good recommendation, and that is to have some new faces on these committees. I thought that was a good idea. On some of the things -- I just feel that -- like, for instance, last night I went to a stormwater fee, utility fee, right? Well, we've got stormwater on here. Why are we having somebody out there promoting stormwater fees if we're talking this way? And if the stormwater fee is passed, then do we deduct that from here? And, I mean, we've got a few things going on like that, and all of a sudden I'm seeing money, you know, like, doubling up, and we need to be reducing that. So I'm having a lot of confusion with that. I'm trying very hard not to say anything disparaging. I'm just trying to say that we don't want to tax them for one thing and then another and get the -- you know. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: On the stormwater, the only thing that can be built with the sales tax is capital. There needs to be a way to operate it and manage it, and so that may be the need for a December 12, 2017 Page 168 stormwater utility, but this would -- this type of thing would reduce the amount of money that would be needed in a stormwater management program, because you'd have the capital taken care of, or at least a portion of the capital taken care of in this sale tax. So that would offset the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Offset. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does that come out of -- does that usually come out of general funds? And then do we reduce the general funds by that amount being that we're going to get faster from sales tax? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The problem with -- just focusing on the stormwater utility, I think staff determined that it would take us about 50 years to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-seven years or something, they said. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Twenty-seven years. May as well be 50. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. If you look at the list, you know, the total estimated capital cost to get your stormwater capital program up to speed is over $100 million. You know, we're talking about an allocation of $40 million or, you know, $20 million. The shortfall is $80 million if you continued going the way you're going now. So even these allocations won't get you totally where you want to go with your program, but they'll certainly get you there faster than if you continue on a $6 million pay-as-you-go General Fund allocation to the stormwater program that funds capital and O&M. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do we reduce taxpayer money going into general fund, then, as long as we're doing the sales tax? And then, of course, there's the thing, you can't deduct sales tax from your taxes, but you can deduct property tax from your taxes. So which do we -- or do you take both of the amounts of money in? December 12, 2017 Page 169 MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, the only thing I will tell you is when you build capital projects, as you all know, whether it's facilities or infrastructure, you need to then maintain and operate them and in some cases staff and service the community that's going to use those. So I would be reluctant to guarantee you right now that you can cut taxes by a certain percentage just because you allocate some capital dollars to build some backlog infrastructure. It's obviously, you know, your decision at the end of the day, and we'll do whatever we need to do with the resources that you allocate. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I've heard Mr. Isackson say that we're going to start borrowing again. Now we're not borrowing because we don't need to. We need to bring everything -- well, you know. No one knows more than you what happened in the recession. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's kidding there. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I'm not. I mean, you sat here. You had to make those hard decisions. You knew what was going on in the back. So in order to catch up -- now, I don't know if it's ever going to be 100 percent, either we borrow when we need it, or we suggest that -- let the people decide whether they want to have a sales tax, but the needs are still there. It's not -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I agree. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- oh, we can deduct it from taxes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I like the idea of building it faster. Of course, you can't build all of this in one year anyway. It's going to take years and years and years, and that money would be coming in. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But still, it's great and everything to get the job done faster, but do we have to raise sales tax in order to do that? December 12, 2017 Page 170 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, if I could add a little to the discussion, only because I've been talking to Mark and talking to the Chamber and working on the project list and the stormwater utility. Some of these are offsetting costs you're diversifying. So in other words, as Commissioner Saunders pointed out, if you said, okay, you put the referendum on the table, the voters decide, and you allocate 40 million to stormwater capital. Well, in February you're going to talk about the stormwater utility and setting a rate. So you may say in the first year of the rate-setting for the utility, let's set it at a very low rate to cover some basic O&M and some basic capital. If this voter referendum passes, you can keep that rate low and attack the capital with some of this money that comes in. So you're diversifying your revenue. If it doesn't pass, the second year you could adjust the stormwater rate to capture some of this capital. So it gives you that word that Mark talks about all the time, "flexibility." Now, in 2019 we talked about borrowing close to $350 million aside from the community priorities. These were just on projects such as Corkscrew, the roads, and things that were there. That $350 million will come with a debt service component out of the General Fund, or Mark will say -- and I'm sure he's ready to jump up here -- other non-ad valorem revenue sources. If you wanted to offset that cost with what you get in a sales tax, you have that ability because it's a net-sum game in that sense. We wouldn't recommend a dollar-for-dollar reduction of that because you're not getting anywhere. So that's why I say this builds in flexibility in these decisions. If you bring this to the voters and they support it, you have now flexibility to decide do you want to go into debt service in 2019 or not for other things you need. Do you want to increase the stormwater utility in 2019 or 2020 or not? Because you've got the flexibility. So the opportunity here is by taking this to the voters, it gives you December 12, 2017 Page 171 flexibility to what you set the rate at for a stormwater utility or what debt service you ultimately achieve in 2019. And the last component is impact fees. If you apply these funds to impact fees, to road projects, it's a cost and credit number that generates the impact fee. So if you provide a supplemental revenue source, it lowers that, so you lower the impact fee. Not a lot, but it starts to, you know, bite down that impact fee a little bit. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And you've got to be a little careful, because we've got bond covenants on impact fees. So lowering them may be -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You don't have any debt on transportation impact fees. You have never borrowed on transportation impact fees. It's pay and go. So it would lower that transportation impact fee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let me talk about Big Corkscrew. You know, I disagree with one of the speakers about Big Corkscrew. We need that park out there. And, remember, the decision was made that it was a pay as you go, that that park would be built as we had the money. We weren't going to borrow. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The only difference, ma'am, is you've got phase one that comes in there. You'd be waiting five or 10 years on that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, exactly. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's a challenge, because if you build two fields one year, you waste that mobilization and construction. You're basically designing a piece, building a piece versus what do you get for building the whole park at one time. So in 2019, without this, staff was going to come to you and say, we've designed Phase 2. What would you like us to do? Will it be part of the debt-service issuance and we complete it at one time, or do you want to continue the pay as you go on the park? December 12, 2017 Page 172 So by asking the public to support or not support it, or vote, it just gives you flexibility to decide where you're going to spend your money in 2019. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it's the -- we're asking the public for specific projects. We're not just saying, decide whether you want a sales tax, and we might do this and we might do this. It's not that. If this is important to you, do you want to fund it through a sales tax? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I understand what that's all about. But say, for instance now, we're paying for some of this out of our General Fund, right, because we're still having that General Fund, and sales tax is now helping, and all of a sudden these things get built a lot faster, not get paid off, not get paid off, but get built a lot faster, well, then, do we reduce the amount of time that we get this money in, or do we use it for other stuff? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, that was the discussion that once we've collected the amount of money that's approved -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said the words, once we've collected the amount of money. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if we're paying it from other pots, for instance, and so we get this -- and I'll choose stormwater, for instance. So now we've got a stormwater fee coming in and we've got this coming in and, of course, we've got the General Fund, and so we've caught up a lot faster than we ever thought; do we still continue collecting this or -- because maybe that amount of money has already been obtained, or do we then use it for other things? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can't use it for anything that the voters don't vote on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, but -- December 12, 2017 Page 173 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It will just reduce the amount of time in which we're collecting it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what I thought, except that we've got, now, money coming from all different spots. And they said, and once we collect this amount of money. They didn't say once we finish the project. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That was a misstatement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you know that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because I listened to the Chamber. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just said it, I mean, when -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're setting this overall dollar amount over a seven-year period with these allocations. Typically, when you do this, you're always going to be a little under. In other words, you're going to collect probably not enough money to complete all of these projects. But once you do get to that threshold of the seventh year and you've spent the money, it would go away. If you were to collect the money earlier because more people were coming into Collier and you set this, it would stop at that period of time. Once you get to that number you've set, that number -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But the number is defined by the project is what I'm understanding. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're setting a tax rate of a penny, which generates about 70 -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which goes to Project A, B, C, D. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's guidance, Madam Chair. This is just strictly guidance. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's complete -- don't -- I mean, it's complete discretion of the Board. The dollar amount of the tax is December 12, 2017 Page 174 X, and it's about the tax, not the projects, as Commissioner Fiala has said. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, it's not. That's -- there's confusion. MR. DALBY: Well, not to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. You need to -- MR. DALBY: So Michael Dalby, from the Chamber. And what you're going to do is, it's kind of like two steps. You'll have ballot language. That ballot language, those 75 words, will, in general, state the major projects these are going to be -- these monies will be spent upon, so transportation, workforce housing -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Mental health. MR. DALBY: -- mental health, these kind of issues like that. Then you'll have that ordinance that will look a lot like this that will list projects and dollar amounts to each one of those projects. So between now and before the vote, really before the campaigning, you're going to have to set those numbers. Now, some counties, not all, but some counties have had third parties come in and -- just to try to validate and make sure that you've got enough money in each one of those buckets to really take care of the projects so that you don't end up with half a project funded through this and not be able to do the whole. But you will list the projects. You'll list the projects and the dollar amount. The total dollar amount, once you've collected whatever you scope as that total dollar amount that we as a county say, okay, that's what we're going to vote on, once you've collected that money, then that's when it ends. So if your collections go faster than what we thought, we have more sales tax revenues coming in than we thought -- or coming in faster than we thought, then once you get to the bottom-line number, then it stops. So it doesn't have to go the full seven years. It may only go six-and-a-half years, but that's all the money you'll have to work December 12, 2017 Page 175 with, and that's that guarantee back to the voters of this is what we voted on, this is what we're going to do with these funds with this much money, and then that ends, and then that's it. If you ever want to do this again, you have to go back to the voters. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Mr. Dalby, talk about the oversight committee. Where does the oversight committee come into the process? MR. DALBY: It's something that the county should have -- put into place. Now, you have kind of an oversight committee right now with -- that was just talked about today, I believe, but you would have an oversight committee to watch how these funds are spent so that if the voters are presented this and said that this is what's going to be voted upon, that that works -- that that makes sense, that that works. That is what those monies are spent on. That's what that oversight committee would be able to watch and make sure happens so that monies don't get, willy-nilly, pulled from one project and put over into another one, because this is what your -- this is kind of your contract with the voters. Now -- and the other part that they can play in -- and this is kind of the hurricane, you know, I guess, backup plan, is if a hurricane came through, or whatever natural disaster came through and took out a big chunk of infrastructure and we said, this is critical stuff that we have to have as a community, can we shift some of those monies to that critical component. That oversight board could make that recommendation to you, but that's about the only way you'd ever be able to pull away from any of these projects. Once these projects are set, those are the projects that are going to be done. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Discretionary. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what if you get a lot more money early and the project is paid off but you still haven't reached the amount of money that you say -- you told the voters you were going to December 12, 2017 Page 176 bring in? What do you do then? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You finish the project. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You just do the next project. MR. DALBY: Yeah, you go to the next project. I mean, it's the total amount of projects that you're going to be doing. So you've got all of these -- I mean, if you did one of these projects quickly, that's okay. That's off your list. But you've still got all the rest of the projects you're still going to be collecting monies to try to take care of and do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we may be kind of overthinking this a little bit. We've got some policy decisions to make and then direct staff to move forward, and this is not a final decision on any of this. And so with your permission, I'll make a motion to kind of focus the discussion and see -- because the policy issue is, do we want to move forward with this, and so let's make a motion to do that. The motion that I would make is to direct staff to continue with this list with a couple changes. I think initially we stick with the seven-year option. We can always go to the six-year option at any point; that Conservation Collier not be included in this; that we do have the Strategic Land Acquisition but not the Conservation Collier. And then I'd like to add to that an increase in the amount of money for the workforce training facility and mental health. I know the manager has said that 10 million is probably the number, but I want to make sure we have enough to build a facility and equip a facility. And so I just don't think 10 million is going to be enough for that. And -- then I would pose that motion and then, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a separate motion in reference to a veterans nursing home just to see if there's -- whether or not we should add that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'll second that motion for point of discussion. December 12, 2017 Page 177 If -- but we heard -- in terms of -- and I share your concern about the training center, but could we leave that a little more open, understanding that we could actually -- as we have this break until January, that we have the time to interface with staff? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. I'll withdraw that part and just leave it at 10-. But, again, we have another opportunity to change that number. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely, there will be more than -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- more than one -- more than one opportunity here to change that number. Okay. So, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The only thing I'd like to say is I keep going back to what Mr. Isackson keeps saying that brings it in my head, that just like a financial advisor would never recommend that you put all your money into one stock, this, to some extent, is a diversification of the revenue streams that the county lives off of and that that, from a management position, is a good thing. Is he nodding his head, or am I making him grumpy? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's smiling and nodding his head. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I mean, I do listen. And, I mean, I think that's important. We have to keep thinking about that; that we're being told that it's not good fiscal policy to have all of our eggs in one basket, i.e., property -- ad valorem taxes. And I'm -- you know, I think how we balance the sales tax and in relation to what the property taxes are right now, like Mr. McDaniel is suggesting, I think is going to be a good discussion to have. So I'm going to support the motion, but I do want to go back and revisit some of these allocations. But I really -- I like the idea of looking at this holistically because, as I understand it, the Conservation Collier proposal that we're going to hear, if it's not part of this, is going December 12, 2017 Page 178 to be to raise the millage. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So that is a double dip in my vision, my view. It is. I mean, if we have a sales tax and we're going to have a millage increase, I would rather have that component of this in there, but I understand Commissioner McDaniel -- Commissioner Saunders' suggestion that this needs to be as unanimous as it can be, and so I'll support the motion right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just as a point of discussion. And this is -- you all know how I feel. I want to say out loud I like dedicated funding sources. Managed borrowing is not a bad thing. The generation of a sales tax is a proportionate expense on tourists that come here. As Mr. Dalby said, 20 to 30 percent of that revenue is, in fact, generated by our visitors who come here, use our infrastructure facilities and the like. And, as I said in the workshop, at the end of our workshop that we had on this item, I would support a more holistic approach to these necessities of our community, and making a sales tax referenda a bondable instrument where we have controlled borrowing, where we have additional capital that will take care of the infrastructure necessities of community, I think, is a good thing. I think we can also interimly -- and the main reason I'm not in support of this agenda item is the lack of a return to our already taxpaying electorate, and this is -- this simply is an additional tax. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. Could you repeat so we're very clear about your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll try to. To approve you moving forward with the seven-year program at December 12, 2017 Page 179 this point in time; that Conservation Collier, at their request, not be included in this, so we have the new list; and that we -- and I think we decided not to bump the numbers on the list, so that would be the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just one little thing yet. I still have some misgivings on this, but I'll support it, not that my whole heart is here, but I'll support it. We're going to get a lot more money a lot faster than what they said. We always do. You know, we had a real good booming year for tourism, and we'll get a lot more money in because that's sales tax. And if that come to be, and let's hope it's -- let's hope it does, and then if it ends earlier, and that would be nice, too. I would hate to see it somehow affect our tourism. I don't think tourists go to a place and say, and so how much is your sales tax before I make my reservation. You know, I don't think they do that, but we want to make sure that we work hand in hand with them. I'm going to vote for it, but -- this time, and we'll see how it comes out next time. I've got a lot of questions I need to have answered, so we need to talk, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What about me? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have one question because, I mean, the request that Conservation Collier not be part of this did not come from Conservation Collier. It came from the Conservancy, right? I mean -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, yeah. It was really -- it was really all of the environmental groups were here: The Audubon, Wildlife Federation, and Conservancy. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the person who led the campaign December 12, 2017 Page 180 twice. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, right. I mean, I'm just saying, it wasn't Conservation Collier. It was -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was kind of using that just as a short -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know, has anyone spoken with the conservation groups? I mean, I'd like to know where they are on -- I mean, some of these road projects, I'm assuming -- my understanding is they've been reviewed by the conservation folks and they're in agreement that these are projects that need to go forward that they have no objection to. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I can help answer that question, because there were several projects, road projects, that the environmental community was steadfastly opposed to. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I told them that we would make every effort to make sure that those projects were not included in this, and my understanding is none of those projects that were of concern are included in this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So we shouldn't expect any opposition to any of these transportation projects in this process? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. And if there are objections they should let us know, because we can change the list. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. And I think this is giving us the time to assess this and that they will -- we'll invite them to speak to this or interface with staff but, yeah, I would agree with you, Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe each one of us separately during these next holiday days can reach out to some of them and ask their opinion for ourselves, you know, and even ask questions from them, and they can reply just so when we come back we have a better December 12, 2017 Page 181 knowledge and understanding. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, I'm all done. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So there's a motion on the floor and a second. 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: 4-1. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, back on the veterans nursing home. And, Commissioner McDaniel, we're moving forward with this -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second your motion. I like it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second it. As long as it's not part of this sales tax. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion that we include that on this list, and the staff will have to do a little bit of work on that, and I'll assist in that regard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's an excellent idea. Probably one of the best ideas we've had all year. That's a good one. MR. OCHS: On the sales tax list? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: As a separate. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One of the benefits I see from this entire discussion is we've had a list up there of the priorities of our December 12, 2017 Page 182 community from a necessity standpoint, and adding this to that list of priorities is a marvelous idea. Paying for it -- paying for it out of the sales tax can, in fact, occur if that referenda goes forward, and I'm wholeheartedly in support of that initiative. So I'll second your motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we were talking about $20 million as a line item for that initially. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second to include the nursing home and -- veterans nursing home and to ask staff to do the research, and I'm sure that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that a veterans nursing home or a veterans hospital? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Veterans nursing home. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nursing home, okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm sure that Commissioner Saunders will be very helpful in this. Any 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. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. December 12, 2017 Page 183 Item #11H DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) PROCESS FOR TWO COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY HOUSING PLAN - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That moves us to Item 11H. This is a recommendation to direct staff to initiate a request for information process for two county-owned properties that are suitable for the development of housing that is affordable in accordance with our Community Housing Plan. Mr. Giblin will present. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning -- good afternoon, Commissioners. Just give me a second here. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, this has kind of been your issue. Do you want to make a motion to approve, and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I would love to, because I think all we're doing is going out for information. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's going to come back to us, so if everyone's in agreement, I would love to make a motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, again, I don't want to silo myself that it's only workforce housing, because it has a lot more to do with economic development and changing -- diversifying our economy so that we are not so dependent on tourism, but -- we welcome tourism, but there's other things here, and I think we heard it clearly from Arthrex this morning what they're willing to do. December 12, 2017 Page 184 COMMISSIONER FIALA: He was very clear. I was so happy that he was here. He really put it all in line. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. So I just -- in order -- yeah, there's a motion on the floor. I would make the motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a second. Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well done. 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. Thank you. MR. GIBLIN: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Best presentation of the day. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good job, Cormac. Item #11I DIRECT STAFF TO ADVERTISE, AND BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO OFF- SITE NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION, AT THE JANUARY 23, 2018, BOARD MEETING - MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That moves us to 11I. This is a recommendation to December 12, 2017 Page 185 direct staff to advertise and bring back for a public hearing an ordinance amending the Land Development Code amendment relating to offsite native vegetation preservation, and Mr. Bosi will present this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we just -- can I ask a very salient question here? And perhaps this will help. What -- why are we doing this? What is the concern about this offsite native preservation? What's the motivating issue behind bringing this forward? MR. BOSI: In July 7, 2015, the Board was concerned about the monetary payments that were provided for endowments for long-term management of our public lands, meaning that they felt that there wasn't enough money to cover forever, so they said let's look at that cash amount, directed staff to initiate this. It's been over two-and-a-half years. There are three different recommendations that are being provided for. But it was really to right-size the endowment for long-term management of public lands. And then they said, consider removing the option for land donation as one of the options available for offsite mitigations. What we're requesting (sic) the Board of County Commissioners, do you still want to go forward and advertise for the ordinance to bring back that would amend the Land Development Code? We'd bring forward the Planning Commission's recommendations, but we've also highlighted to seek CCLAC's recommendations as well as DSAC's recommendations, which are a little bit different from each other. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just want to -- in looking at the executive summary and the different recommendations from different groups and committees and things, I just -- I personally need more time December 12, 2017 Page 186 to digest this. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I would like to make a motion to continue this to the January meeting sometime and just have more time to really understand what the differences are. And I'm just not ready to vote on it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second that for discussion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sounds fine to me if everybody wants to. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm very -- I'm all right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there any reason we need to have this voted on today? MR. OCHS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's a motion on the floor and a second to bring this back in January and give all of us some time to really weigh what the implications of this are, because I am, too, questioning, you know, okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, just as point of discussion, and this flies in our prior discussion with regard to Conservation Collier and something you and I have talked about as well and our concerns with the ongoing maintenance of county-owned lands through Conservation Collier. And I hope that we're all looking at that ordinance of Conservation Collier and making adjustments to that so that when that comes back before us, we've got a little more specificity in the priorities of the maintenance aspects that traveled along with those ownership (sic). And this is a funding source that can be utilized for those maintenance issues, but I think we have to have a lot closer look at trying to ascertain what those expenses are. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. December 12, 2017 Page 187 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. Item #11J RESOLUTION 2017-252: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL OF PINNACLE PUBLIC FINANCE, INC. TO PROVIDE THE COUNTY WITH A TERM LOAN IN ORDER TO REFUND A PORTION OF THE COUNTY’S SPECIAL OBLIGATION REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2010 FOR NET PRESENT VALUE INTEREST SAVINGS; APPROVING THE FORM OF A LOAN AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2017 IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $45,000,000; AUTHORIZING THE REPAYMENT OF SUCH NOTE FROM A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE LEGALLY AVAILABLE NON AD VALOREM REVENUES; DELEGATING CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD CHAIRMAN AND OTHER APPROPRIATE OFFICERS OF THE COUNTY FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11J. This is a December 12, 2017 Page 188 recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing an advanced refunding of Series 2010 special obligation revenue bonds, and Mr. Isackson will take you through the particulars. MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good afternoon. Mark Isackson with the Office of Management and Budget. This may be your last opportunity to restructure your debt portfolio since both the tax proposals are before the House and the Senate that will eliminate the advanced refunding on tax-exempt issues. So our finance team took a quick look at the portfolio about 60 days ago and decided that we've got one more opportunity. That opportunity is before you. It essentially re-funds about $45 million in outstanding 2010 series special obligation revenue bonds for a net present value savings of around $2.7 million. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a third. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any 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.) MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. December 12, 2017 Page 189 Item #11M PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $344,862 TO ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL FOR FOOD SERVICES PROCURED AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE IRMA - MOTION TO APPROVE PAYMENT WITH CLERK TO CONTINUE AUDITING – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11M was added -- excuse me -- was moved from the consent agenda to the regular agenda during the change-sheet discussion this morning at the request of Commissioner McDaniel. That was previously Item 16C5 on your consent agenda, and it's a recommendation to approve payment in the amount of $344,862 to AshBritt Environmental for food services procured as a result of Hurricane Irma. MR. LINGUIDI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Dennis Linguidi, your Facilities Management director. I'm here -- I have a presentation or I can answer any questions about the food services. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have questions, but do you want to see the presentation or no? My main question was just the -- my perception of the expenses associated with AshBritt and the comparison of their charges in relationship to local vendors that we utilize for similar services. MR. LINGUIDI: Sure. The services were quite different. Local vendors provided a more buffet-style service, and that was only at the ESC. AshBritt provided boxed meals including snacks and drinks for our drive-through service at Building W. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel, December 12, 2017 Page 190 you're finished? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I wanted to make sure that the Clerk was okay with this, and I understand -- I'm assuming that this is reimbursable from FEMA. We're going to pay our -- MR. LINGUIDI: It is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- it's going to be 5 percent or 10 percent, but whatever that number turns out to be. But I understand the Clerk had some issues, and I wanted to make sure that those were addressed and if there needs to be a finding of public purpose and that sort of thing, that we -- MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner Saunders. Actually, we are still working. The good news is we're working very closely with all the departments at the county to try to resolve this. We have not completed review and audit nor have we resolved all the concerns that we've had with the delivery of the services. We're trying to reconcile the locations. We just received yesterday an analysis from your internal controls group. That might help us further identify the meals and the wages. As was mentioned, AshBritt charged about three times what any of the other vendors did. That's obviously a concern. It was also outside of their contracted amount, understanding the circumstances of the emergency: Nature; however, it should be expected that it would be somewhat consistent with the other providers that you did have locally. So we still have concerns that we're trying to resolve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me just ask one question of our staff then. We know approximately how many people were in the field with AshBritt. We know how long they were there. Do these numbers seem to be reasonable in terms of the number of people and the duration of, you know -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, your Deputy D epartment of December 12, 2017 Page 191 Public Utilities, Dan Rodriguez. In the context of the emergency, as you well know, we were in a state of emergency. The three vendors provided food, but they met their limit. They couldn't provide any more food. We had great demand for food in the field. We served over 41 different agencies from EMS, Public Utilities, Parks and Recreation; we even took food down to Everglades City that was hit by the surge. The services we received from AshBritt were turnkey. Those were three meals a day. They included beverage, snacks, and they were guaranteed delivery. In the context of not having power in 92 percent of the county, most restaurants were closed, and we didn't have alternatives in those first 72 hours, so we made the decision to use that. Even AshBritt, within their contract, couldn't provide the kitchen that's in the contract, as well as the other vendors, because a lot of those were deployed to Texas. And the 67 counties in the state of Florida were pulling those resources as well. So our priorities were to get the generators going, to get the pumper trucks moving, to get gasoline, diesel. And as far as the food, we needed guaranteed service for those employees and workers from within the state, out of the state that were working 20-18 hour, 16 hour days for over a two-week period. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. We all know what the need was. My question is just looking at the raw numbers. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Knowing what you know about what they provided, does this seem like a reasonable number? I'm not suggesting that there's no audit to be done. I'm just -- you had mentioned that it's substantially higher than others. MS. KINZEL: And I can pass out -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that's the question is, does it appear to be a reasonable number? Obviously, the Clerk's going to December 12, 2017 Page 192 continue the audit on it, but I'm just curious. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to put it on the overhead, Commissioner Saunders? That was the beginning of why I asked the question. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Were there other vendors available? I thought there weren't any other vendors available locally. MR. RODRIGUEZ: We didn't. And, our staff, we called around for other vendors to provide that service, and they weren't available. And, again, the food came from the East Coast of Florida where they had power, they had water. And as part of that transportation service, there were hot meals that they could provide and guarantee within 24 hours. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, and one point of clarification, these are pass-through costs. The vendor that provided this thing was from the airport in Fort Lauderdale. We received invoices. So those invoices came in. AshBritt asked for a 22.8 percent markup. We came back and said, in an emergency it's only 15 percent, as it's in your executive summary. But ordered, received and -- the backup received were the actual invoices from the vendor. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So the numbers that they have submitted, at least on their face, appear to be reasonable? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That's all I was asking. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, Commissioner Saunders, if I might, the eyebrow raise that I got was the $37-plus a meal charged by AshBritt when other local vendors were in the 10, $12 range per meal. MS. KINZEL: And -- oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. That was the reason that I -- and, again, by no means are we -- am I taking away from the service December 12, 2017 Page 193 or the state of emergency or the necessity that we were covering for our first responders. It's just -- it was a question. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a cost per person of 37.48. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But that doesn't say cost per meal. Now, I don't know if that's what it was. And that may not be what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I believe that's a per meal. MS. KINZEL: That's per-meal average in that column at the heading. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'm looking at when it says cost per person. So that's the only place where I saw the 37. That's the only reason I was looking at that column. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But were there local vendors? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They started -- they started within 72 hours after the hurricane; is that correct? Three days. Is that correct? Three days? Is that three days? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Four. MS. KINZEL: They actually began, I believe, on the 13th, right after. MR. RODRIGUEZ: They worked about six to seven days. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So right then there was one Publix. I know; I drove it. And they ran out of food. I know what was going on that Tuesday. There was no gas station, no power. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't see on this chart -- and it doesn't mean it's not here. I don't see the cost per meal of $37. I do see a cost per person of $37. MS. KINZEL: That was per meal per person, right, Robin? That December 12, 2017 Page 194 is the per meal, per person average. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. KINZEL: Each meal might have been a different value depending on the breakfast, lunch, or dinner, but that's an average per meal per person. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Per meal. It's not the three meals? MS. KINZEL: Each meal might have been a little bit different, but if you took the total they did divided by over 19,000 meals they prepared, that's the average price. And that is three times any of the other providers. The other providers were also available during some of those days delivering as many as 600 meals during those same weeks. And that's what we're trying to reconcile, who actually got the food, where. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: They delivered 19,000 meals. And what was the total price for the total of the -- MS. KINZEL: Oh, over $700,000. You'll find that in the last column, I believe, or next to the last column on that sheet. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we divide 19,000 into 700,000, that will give you cost per meal? MS. KINZEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I can't do the math that fast. MS. KINZEL: Well, that's why we did -- that column is there for you. Actually, we did not prepare this. It was prepared by the internal controls with the county. We're just using -- we are using it as one of our reconciling tools, and that's our concern with the AshBritt charge. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The math's pretty close. I just did it. It's 36. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty-six. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That is a pretty high number. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, when you're ordering December 12, 2017 Page 195 your meals, you don't realize what it's going to be costing either. You're in an emergency mode, and you're ordering from another area because you can't get anything from here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right, right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's kind of like -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Being transported -- it was transported from the East Coast; is that correct? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Commissioners, it came from the East Coast. The local vendors were the ones that were maxing out what they had here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And there were hot meals? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thirty-seven dollars? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So it's -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No wonder those removal people were working so efficiently officially. They were well fed, that's for sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But it was our first responders; is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. It was everybody who was working the event. MS. KINZEL: And that's what we're attempting to just reconcile and identify, who did receive the meals. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it would seem reasonable that we're going to have to -- given the situation, if we couldn't find any other meals and we had to feed people, that we're going to have to pay something extra to get it here from Fort Lauderdale. I mean, it just -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's a reasonable thought. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. December 12, 2017 Page 196 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Plus, just the idea of traveling across the -- especially right after the storm, the dangers of traveling across the Alley. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Dan can't be sitting there on the telephone getting prices from all the different vendors to see who can give him the lowest price when he's also got to take care of all the storm debris and all of the people working and lining up all the trucks and everything. This is after the fact. And I -- and, you know, I understand where the Clerk's coming from. MS. KINZEL: You have a contracted price is our difficulty in trying to reconcile to the contracted versus this off-contract price that was accepted and reconciling it to where the meals went and how many meals per day fed who, and that's why we -- we are still in the process of working with that. And as I said, staff's been really great. This is from the internal controls division. We've gotten numerous things from Dennis and Dan's area, so we are still working on that, but that remains our concern with the value. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and understanding that the Clerk is going to continue to do its auditing, I'll move to approve the item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we really can do much of anything else. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, I don't think we can either. But it certainly was, in my opinion, a reason for us to have a little discussion. That was all. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not -- the motion doesn't ask the Clerk to stop auditing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no. December 12, 2017 Page 197 MS. KINZEL: We'll continue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just let's get these folks paid, and then they can decide. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. 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. Thank you. Item #9B ORDINANCE 2017-53: AN ORDINANCE RE-ESTABLISHING THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE – ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that brings us back to Item 9B, which was the recommendation to adopt an ordinance re-establishing the county government productivity committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've never had a storm that was 400 miles wide before, have we, where nothing works in this state? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was crazy. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just another note, an annual event for years and years and years was canceled because they couldn't get the restaurants up, and that's Taste of Collier. It was canceled; moved to May to allow the restaurants to get up to what they should be doing. December 12, 2017 Page 198 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No kidding? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Hispanic Foundation had to cancel their event. It was Saturday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This Saturday? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. It was the Saturday of the storm. And now trying to find another venue is virtually impossible, because everybody that had their events in, you know, the two months after that are in the same boat. So it's had a big impact on even the charitable organizations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know a lot at the corner of Goodlette and U.S. 41. Teasing. That's where we had the Naples is Rocking. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So I asked -- and I will let Commissioner Solis maybe start this. But I think we found at our last meeting we're in agreement on this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. I wanted to have a better discussion, and I took the liberty of preparing some revisions that I think, hopefully, everybody got. We were having a bit of an emailing snafu yesterday. But as I said it the first time, or at the last meeting where we discussed this, I think having a productivity committee is good. We should have the citizens of Collier County and residents of Collier County involved in reviewing how the county does business. I am very concerned, though, that just reinstating what we had with the revisions that were suggested was going to put us back in the situation we were before where the productivity committee ended up, in some respect, kind of dying of its own lack of direction and inertia. I went back and looked at -- well, let me back up. So my biggest concern was that the way the ordinance was originally written, it says that the productivity committee would be established to review the efficiency of departments and divisions of December 12, 2017 Page 199 Collier County Government, that it would review -- let me see. That it would review the efficiency of divisions and departments, it could look at budgeting and financing, and I thought that the task was so large and so, to some extent, ambiguous as to what it would be doing that it would be like, you know, forming a committee and saying go solve world hunger. That was really my concern. And because I think a lot of committees that were terminated or whatever we want to call it, done away with, that was some of their problems. I think the other part of this is is that there are already certain committees that are tasked with reviewing the efficiency of certain departments, like the DSAC. I looked at the ordinance establishing the DSAC, and it specifically directs the DSAC to review the efficiency of the Community Developmental Department. So the Public Transit Advisory Committee does the same thing with regard to public transit, and the Animal Services Advisory Board, the Emergency Medical Authority. So those functions are already out there, and I'm just suggesting that we give -- we make the Productivity Committee better than it was by saying -- what the productivity committee should do is go look at certain divisions and departments that are direct -- that they're directed to look at by the Commission. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's all I'm trying to do. I really want it to be better, because I think in the past one of the problems is is that the committee would just kind of figure out what it wanted to do, you know, and it would just kind of go in a direction, and it might not be -- we might want them to focus their attention on something other than what they're doing. And I think they're here to advise us. We need to give them direction. So my revisions that I've provided a redline to is just to clarify what it's going to be doing. I've taken the liberty of some, you know, stylistic things. December 12, 2017 Page 200 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They're very good revisions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You know -- and just if anybody's wondering, I took out -- you know, there was a provision that was originally in there that the Clerk of Court could provide the committee with technical support, and I don't know that we can tell the Clerk of Court to do anything, you know. And so -- and I think, for example, one of the things that appeared in the original language was the financial auditing, that the productivity committee could get into the auditing process. I think we have -- yeah, we've got that covered. So, you know, I don't know if you want to go through these changes, but I really just am trying to give it some focus of what it's going to do specifically to productivity, efficiency, and organizational structure and that it will be looking at the departments and divisions that the commission requests it to look at. That's all I'm trying to do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So instead of having a product (sic) committee that would meet every month, it's a product (sic) committee on call when there's a need as decided by this body? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I think that's right. And I'm pretty certain that it will be meeting every month because, I mean, there's a need. We all -- I mean, I think the city -- the city. The County Manager's Office would agree that it's always good to try to be as efficient as we can, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I was thinking about this sales tax referendum and the oversight committee. It's a perfect opportunity for the productivity committee, you know, at some point. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: See -- yeah, this is what I think -- this is -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The prices of eggs in a -- no. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's not a productivity question. That's a financing question -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And a priority issue. December 12, 2017 Page 201 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in my mind. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, you're watching to make sure the staff is spending the money where you want it to be spent. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, see, it's productivity, not financial. Remember I had said, when we first talked about it, what we should be doing -- you know, you want to see a whole organization or a group functioning like -- you know, like, a humming wheel, right, just goes along fine. And maybe they're finding either -- maybe the County Manager notices that something isn't working right, and he'd like to say, you know what, we need to have that committee functioning a little bit better so the productivity could come in. I don't think they should go in there telling them how to run their budget. I don't think that that's their purpose. I don't think it's there to check them. We're got a Clerk of Courts to check all their financial things. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But to make sure that it's working at its best efficiency. And whether it -- I don't care which department. Transportation, and maybe the lights aren't functioning or something and maybe that's because one guy's pushing the button here, and here in the other room he's got another button he's pushing, and the productivity committee could come in and say, you could work better if you're all working in harmony, or something like that, you know. I think that's the purpose of it. That's what we had started out before. It changes -- it changed its direction as it grew, and all of sudden it became a budget committee rather than a productivity committee. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I think what you're saying, December 12, 2017 Page 202 Commissioner Solis, is let's get it back to productive. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, to productivity. How is a department -- you know, is it functioning internally as efficiently as it can, I mean, as opposed to how is it budgeting its funds and, you know, is it following through on what it's supposed to spend the money on. I mean, I guess there's some overlap. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have you ever noticed that sometimes you're working at this pace and whatever and somebody drops in that you don't -- you know, doesn't even know what in the heck you're doing, and they say, well, why did you do that? If do you here -- and all of sudden it unravels all this thing that you've been taking all this extra time to do, but somebody with fresh eyes can take a look at it and unravel it quickly. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And as far as the direction, I mean, we're usually the ones that get complaints about if there's a department that, you know, people are having problems with, we get that information, and then we can, you know, periodically direct it -- if there's something that's a recurring theme that we want them to look into, then we can do that. I also thought that -- and I know -- and I think it was Commissioner McDaniel that was going to take out the review provision. I'd really like to see that back in there, because I think periodically we should assess how all of our committees are doing periodically just to make sure that they're functioning in a healthy way. You know, looking back at some of the things we discussed recently in the MPO just led me to believe, you know, as a board, we should probably look at these things periodically, and hopefully they're fine, and then we can say, well, they're great. Let's continue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I read your review. I appreciate you taking time to look at this. You know, I brought this December 12, 2017 Page 203 forward several months ago, and I'm really glad that we're -- seems like we're going to be moving this forward. I did have a couple of questions on your revisions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just wanted you to know my understanding and perception. I don't have the history that you do, Commissioner Fiala, with this -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's because I'm older than you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am, with all due respect. To me, from a productivity standpoint, oftentimes begins with financing, it oftentimes begins with budgeting, and that's why I left the paragraph in there with regard to the review of those operations, not necessarily a formal audit, but a review of the budgeting processes of any particular department. I left that in there, but you cover it in advance when you talk about operations and the other amendments -- bless you. Was that a sneeze or a cough? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a cough. Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh. But you cover it adequately. So just for a reference point, I'd left that original -- the line-through that you put in there with regard to the review of the finances. I left that -- that's a -- we still get to the same end. And I really like the -- and, you know, for Mr. Lawyer purposes, it says the committee may ask the Clerk for audit procedures. Doesn't have to, but it may, and that's the reason I left it in there, just to allow that opportunity to be there. But, again, it doesn't preclude them from doing it either by striking through that. And those were the two points that -- or questions that I had or wanted to make note of with regard to your adjustments. But with that, I'll make a motion for approval of this ordinance with Commissioner December 12, 2017 Page 204 Solis's adjustments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. Does that meet -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what you were -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- I'm a lot more comfortable. Okay. Any 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: We accept your revision and -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. I wrote something that somebody might actually use. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us, I believe, to Item 15, staff and commission general communications. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. We have one more. MR. OCHS: What are we missing? What did I miss? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 11N. Did we do 11N? MR. OCHS: Yeah, we did that, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We did? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Draft office center? MR. OCHS: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We called it something else. I mean, we called it 11N, but it was a different item, you're right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was 16A1 with regard to the December 12, 2017 Page 205 cameras, and we did cover that, if that is 11N, if she's believing we didn't cover that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, there was another 11N on the agenda that doesn't deal with cameras. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16D4? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, 16D4. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I remember the discussion where you said that they couldn't house themselves. Yes, we did discuss it. Yes, we did. MR. OCHS: Yes. You didn't move that off. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MR. OCHS: That got approved on consent. Commissioner McDaniel had a -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a question on it, but then -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A question, then it got -- so it wasn't moved. Okay. MR. OCHS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Perfect. MR. OCHS: Okay. So we're onto -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I believe I had ask -- I said I talked to Leo about that, and he explained that everybody was scattered all the way around the county. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then I think even Nick chimed in on that, and so we just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We approved it on the consent side. MR. OCHS: Correct. December 12, 2017 Page 206 Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: So we're onto 15. I think we're all in agreement on that. Okay. I have three quick items of situational awareness, if nothing else, for the Board. I've asked a couple of the staff members to come forward and give a quick briefing to the Board. The first item that I want you to be aware of is a draft bill regarding some changes in the MPO process, and I'm going to ask John Mullins, our legislative affairs manager, to come up and give you just a real quick synopsis of the bill and get any direction for our lobbying company, if you'd like. John? MR. MULLINS: Thank you, Leo. John Mullins, government affairs manager. I think you may have already discussed this at your recent MPO meeting, so I won't belabor the point. But, basically, in a nutshell, there are several MPO reorganization/restructuring type bills moving through the legislative process. One has already made it through the first House committee last week with unanimous support, and it may be difficult to negotiate. FAC is engaged, as is our lobbyist, Lisa Hurly, but the true author of the initiative is Senator Jeff Brandes from St. Petersburg. He's not pleased with his local MPO and blames their internal politics for transportation initiatives not advancing. Members of both parties of the St. Pete area delegation have similar bills filed, so it is bipartisan. Applying provisions of the bill to the Collier MPO, it would continue to mandate one-third of the County Commission serve on the governing board but would add language to prohibit the entirety of the December 12, 2017 Page 207 Board from serving. As you know, the entire BC (sic) sits on the MPO along with two members from Naples, one from Marco, one from Everglades City. The bill also prohibits adoption of a weighted voting structure and establishes term limits equaling two four-year terms. If the bill passes in its current form, you'll have till July 1st, 2019, to update your membership, interlocal agreements, and governing documents to comply with the new law. This information's being presented to you for your input and direction. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, two -- say that again. The term limits are what? MR. MILLER: Two four-year-term limits or two four-year terms, I should say. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, being that you have two years, you still have two four-year terms if you wanted it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But, I mean, so let's assume that all of us that are on the MPO are therefore -- we term limit out, who's going to be on the MPO? We would have to appoint other than -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The way I understand it, it's going to limit us to three that have term limit -- three of us. It won't be all of us ever, and it will be three of us, and then those three appointed or elected by us will have a term limit, and then upon those terms three more come on and/or in a rotating cycle. I mean, technically, it's not the end of the world. I don't care for it personally. You know, when I read it, Ann gave us -- I think she sent -- I don't want to say she sent us all a draft. I know she sent me one. And when I read it, I don't see it being the end of the world, but I also see where it could maybe level the playing field a little bit with different municipalities that participate in an MPO and not being December 12, 2017 Page 208 weighted by an entire board. MR. MULLINS: Some of the larger MPOs that have members on the committee spoke during their deliberations about having problems establishing a regular quorum. So some of the larger MPOs, I think, kind of liked this for that reason. The one bit of wiggle room that might be in this bill that could be negotiated potentially is since different-size MPOs are treated differently, if we could have it apply to all members of the BCC on the 500,000 or less populous areas can have the entirety of their board on the MPO, we could float that. I don't know -- since this is St. Pete we're talking about, I think their problems are a little different. So that may be some wiggle room, but that's something that we'll have to explore through our lobbyist and through FAC. MR. OCHS: This was, again, just for situational awareness and if, in fact, the Board felt strongly about taking a position and wanted us to try to advance something different than what's contained in this bill, we just wanted to give you an opportunity to discuss that among yourselves. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, they're not talking about consolidating the MPOs, right -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, that's the next one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in the different counties? MR. MULLINS: No, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we had that -- you know, that comes up about every two, three years, and -- MR. MULLINS: A portion of that appointment, everything that's in current law still stands the way that it is. It's just setting a cap on the number. And right now, for the size of MPO that we have here, the cap would be 11, and yours is currently at nine, so you don't even fall victim to that provision. And to clarify on Commissioner McDaniel's point, one-third is December 12, 2017 Page 209 mandated to be on the MPO. You can't be there in your entirety so, technically, I think you could probably still have four out of five. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we had a problem with when we were trying -- when they were trying to unite Lee and Collier Counties. Lee has so many cities in Lee County; they had about 20 members on their MPO, and so we would have a joint meeting. We have our usual members on ours, and when it came to dollars coming from the State, 10 million bucks, they voted that we don't get any of it. They would take it all. And there was nothing we could do about it. So, you know, when it comes -- if that comes before you again, we want to make sure that somehow we have a fair vote. I just wanted to give you a little brief history. MR. MULLINS: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you, John. So we won't take any proactive measures to try to influence this at this point unless we get further direction from you. Thanks, John. The next -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just one point, Leo, and this just is something that I'd like to say out loud. If we're going to take a position at all, it's -- I am not in favor of legislative initiatives that are set upon the entire state to cure a singular circumstance in a geographic area with the dysfunctionality of an organization. That's oftentimes what occurs. We saw that with the CRA adventure here last year, or this past legislative session. So from a position -- if we could assume that position as far as doing the right thing for it being the right thing, not just to cure a problem. MR. OCHS: Got it. Thank you, sir. This next item I've asked Tim Durham to come forward and briefly give you an update on the Regional Planning Council, and the December 12, 2017 Page 210 Board will recall we had some discussions a few months ago about some of the other members of the RPC opting out, and there was a discussion about whether they had the legal right to do that, and there's since been an Attorney General's opinion come out of Tallahassee that Tim will brief you on. MR. DURHAM: Hi, Commissioners. Ho ho ho. Since we last met, there was a -- the AGO came out regarding Regional Planning Council. As you know, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council filed an AGO question, and the question was, must the county participate in its statutorily designated Regional Planning Council despite an interlocal agreement provision pertaining to procedures for terminating membership? And the key part of the opinion essentially says the legislature has created regional planning councils with mandatory county membership and has designated the particular council to which each county must belong. There is nothing in the Florida Regional Planning Council Act, Sections 186.105 to 186.513, Florida Statutes, that allows a county to decline to participate in its council. Moreover, one of the statutory powers and duties of a Regional Planning Council enumerated in Section 186.505(12) Florida Statutes, is to quote, fix and collect membership dues, rents, or fees when appropriate; thus a member county would be subject to any dues imposed by the Regional Planning Council under this provision. And then it ends with, it is my opinion that the counties of Sarasota, Lee, and Charlotte are mandatory members of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and may not refuse their statutory obligation to participate. One of the things I've kind of been watching is how the three counties, those three counties, are reacting. The only one to react in any way at this point is Sarasota County. They had a December 8th board workshop where they assigned their commissioners to their December 12, 2017 Page 211 duties for the upcoming year. So on the very last page of this -- this is in their agenda packet for that meeting -- regarding the Regional Planning Council, you'll see a note in here. It's that top entry. South Florida Regional Planning Council, Council shall include two representatives appointed by respective boards of the County Commission, and then this is the new note: Board declared its withdraw from the Council by resolution effective January 18, 2018; however, an Attorney General Opinion dated November 30th, 2017, indicates we may not withdraw per Florida Section 186.504. And I know -- I've shown this to Jeff, and I know he thinks this issue probably isn't done and -- but this is what the Attorney General Opinion has rendered on this particular matter. MR. OCHS: So, again, that was some followup to some prior questions on this subject from the Board, and we just wanted you to know what is current information from the Attorney General's Office. Jeff, I don't know if you have anything to add on that. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, it would be interesting to speak with Sarasota and Lee and Charlotte County to see what they want to do. Just because people tell you that you can't withdraw doesn't mean you have to participate. MR. OCHS: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day, if the Council fixes the fees, the Council could vote no fees. MR. OCHS: So, again, informational. And I know the Board was deferring a decision on whether or not to potentially opt out pending some further information either from the state attorney's -- or excuse me, the Attorney General's Office or some legislative initiative in the upcoming legislative session. So I think it's probably prudent that the Board didn't pull the trigger on anything just yet until we see how this shakes out. December 12, 2017 Page 212 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. The legislative session will probably settle a lot of this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you still go to the Regional Planning Council? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am; haven't missed one yet. And one of the -- well, I think I did miss -- with the hurricane, I think that's the only one I missed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's good. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So I would like to say, you know, it is a good thing that we didn't necessarily opt out pending this AG's opinion, and having served on that committee for an entire year, the issue of relevancy is the impetus behind all of this. And the fees associated with the relevancy of that organization are what's driving these other communities to necessarily pull away. Now, Sarasota may have a political reason for wanting to join with Tampa and St. Pete because of a larger metropolitan area. But, overall, it's relevancy. And if I continue to serve on this committee, I promise we will strive for greater relevancy. I've seen an improvement already just from a couple of suggestions that I've made to our executive director. There is an interactive map now of the entire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's area with a FLUE map, with Long Range Transportation maps, and it is an interactive model -- or map online that you can go to, and it shows you all kinds of things that never was available before, and they're working on it. So that's very interesting information. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the last item has to do with some preliminary initiatives occurring with regard to the potential for a boundary expansion of the Big Cypress Basin northward, and I've asked Nick to just give you a quick briefing on what we've learned to date. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And while Nick is getting set December 12, 2017 Page 213 up there, this is an issue that has gained a lot of support in Lee County. Commissioner Pendergrass has written a letter to the Water Management District concerning the boundary of the Big Cypress Basin. The different cities in Lee County, Estero, and Bonita are taking a look at it. And it's an issue that would not have, as far as we can tell, any negative effect on Collier County, in the Big Cypress Basin in Collier, but it would be an extension of the boundary, the natural boundary of that basin into where the basin actually exists in Lee County and would result in funding being available for projects in Lee County using tax dollars raised in Lee County. Collier County's tax dollars would continue to stay in Collier County. So it's a very important project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, this is running low on battery, so I'll try and make this brief. On the visualizer what you see in green and the yellow is the Florida Water Management District boundaries to give you a little context to begin with. Water flows from the north to the south to Lake O, from Lake O to the Caloosahatchee, and then down the east coast. Quite a while back, Mary Ellen Hawkins recognized that this watershed, Collier County -- at the time she tried to make it a little bit bigger of a boundary -- was separate and distinct, because the water from Lake O does not flow through. Our watershed boundary is in this area. The Estero and Imperial River are these two little arrows that are here. And, really, the watershed boundaries in this area know no political boundaries. We share a little bit of the water flow between our political boundaries in this area. The yellow boundary is the Big Cypress Basin, which is part of the greater South Florida Water Management District. In the yellow December 12, 2017 Page 214 boundary, we pay two taxes: A basin tax and a district tax. The basin tax primarily stays here with some funding going back for management and oversight. The district tax funds predominantly the greater portion of the green. What Lee County's realizing as well, too, is that it's efficient to have someone like the Basin manage the system similar to what we do in Collier County, which is -- in the canals are owned by us and by contract managed by the Basin and the District. What they would like to do is say, aside from the political boundaries that we have, we want to look at these watershed boundaries where we stay out of the Lake O/Caloosahatchee flow and flow to the east. Would it make sense to incorporate Southern Lee into the Big Cypress Basin, therefore, setting up the same millage and tax structure that we enjoy here. For our perspective, it probably makes a little bit of sense because we share these common water boundaries. The concern, or something we want to be aware, is the governance, how it's set up. I think going forward, the Chairman has sent a letter to the District that said, explore this. I think, you know, you're going to be made aware of this because the District's going to ask us, how do you feel about this. And I think from a staff perspective, as long as the governance is set up properly to protect your interest and funding that comes out of here, I think it makes a lot sense for the Basin to work cohesively with our neighbors to the north. Because, once again, this green/yellow line, it's an artificial political line, not a water line between our neighbors to the north. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To give you a little bit of comfort on this issue of expanding the boundary, I'm working on this meeting with our legislative delegation as well as the Lee County delegation, and we'll have input into the governance. December 12, 2017 Page 215 And the issue -- the two issues that are -- a couple issues that are very important: One is that if the boundary's expanded to include a portion of Lee County, that the taxes raised within Lee County stay in Lee County, and the taxes raised in Collier County currently stay in Collier County, and that there is proper governance. Now, that may mean having a separate governing board for Collier County's funds and a separate board for Lee County's funds, but we'll make sure there's no detriment to Collier County in terms of governance or funds. The benefit is that this would provide for significant -- potentially significant revenue for water management projects in Lee County that would have potentially some benefit in Collier as well. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Those would impact the CREW's area that's also in Lee County as well. Is there any portion of Hendry County that's part of this, or is this strictly Lee? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's just strictly Lee. The natural boundary for this Big Cypress Basin is probably somewhere around Daniels Parkway South. Water north of that area is in the Caloosahatchee -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Basin. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- Basin and flows to the north. Water south of that is in the Big Cypress Basin and flows to the south. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, these are some older maps. And Lake Trafford is where my finger is right here. These basin boundaries are some maps that were done as far as watersheds. Caloosahatchee's up in here, so it really doesn't affect Hendry County. It's really Lake Trafford/Immokalee area going due west to the Estero Bay, and Estero River and Imperial River down in here. So these functional watersheds are kind of intertwined and they overlap our political boundaries. December 12, 2017 Page 216 So it doesn't include Hendry County, it doesn't include Northern Lee or Lee up to the Caloosahatchee. Really, just the Village of Estero and the City of Bonita are the two ones that are affected by these common watersheds. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's the CREW land on here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In here, ma'am. And the Collier County line is right there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But doesn't a portion of the CREW go over into Lee County as well? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, so that's what I was saying before. It's all good. I like it. MR. OCHS: So, again, we just wanted to make you aware that this initiative is out there and, as Commissioner Saunders said, seems to be gaining some momentum, and we will keep you advised as it moves along. And other than that, my only other communication is to wish each and every one of you a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and we look forward to great things in 2018. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner -- oh, let's do Mr. Klatzkow. Anything for us? MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER: Merry Christmas. That's all. MS. KINZEL: Ditto the County Manager, Merry Christmas. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel? MR. OCHS: You need more of the Crystal, more ditto the County Manager. We'd like more of that in 2018. That will be our resolution. December 12, 2017 Page 217 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Happy Holidays. Merry Christmas everybody. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did you want to talk about the pictures in the hallway here? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or can we just talk about that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we just talk about it. Okay. I don't know -- can we just talk about it on our own? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's up to our -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't know if that's -- we have pictures of old commissioners, and we're just, I think -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Old commissioners or prior commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Old. I guess I told him a thing or two, huh? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, you did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, can we just talk about that between us? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's a good idea if you talk about it right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I had mentioned something about -- I love the way you're doing it, by the way, but I had thought that it was going to stay right here in this whole lobby and the reception area here and not lop over into our other -- to our own office, because there's the continuity of everything all running together, and it tells a story; whereas, if you go into the other room, and it automatically locks at 5:00. Nobody can see it, number one. Number two, not that many people come into our office to see the rest; whereas, they're always sitting out here. December 12, 2017 Page 218 And I thought, you're doing such a good job; I hate to see it mixed up. Not only that, but I just love the way Amy has been setting up our office in there. It looks so cozy and warm, and it did not look that way for a very long time. So it's nice to see it looking so good and friendly and welcoming. So that's my two cents. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, part of the -- it's just not hanging the photographs. It's putting the historic information. And when you see this wall and it will be probably -- certainly the last wall in my time here and probably with yours, there will be historic -- already historic plaques. So I don't think it's going to look -- I don't think it's going to take away from the warmth and the interest of it. There's just no room out there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could you put it into the reception area here? Because those walls are empty. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Beside the vending machines? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, across from them where the people sit. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, because that's the -- you know, I think it needs to go in. And it's -- there's going to be three photographs there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I'm just -- and you started the project, and that's fine and everything. But then they're going to miss the whole point because nobody's going to see the stuff in our office. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I think it will be -- I think you'll -- when we get it done, I think you'll be pleased. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. But I will bow to you. I just -- I feel we're missing the boat by breaking up the -- breaking up the theme into two separate rooms. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: With that, Merry Christmas to December 12, 2017 Page 219 everybody. Hug your families. Let them know you love them, especially at this time of year. It's so important that all of our family members hear from us and know we love them -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's so sweet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and they love us, too. Merry Christmas, everyone. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing other than Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays. See you next year. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I do have one. I apologize for bringing it up this late. But I've talked to the County Attorney about -- and we've talked about this probably half a dozen times in the last year, and that's the tourist taxes from Airbnb. And I'd like to have that conversation again with the Tax Collector and determine whether or not we can enter into an agreement with Airbnb. That has happened in several counties, Leon County most recently, where the County Commission has entered into an agreement. My concern is that -- and I don't know the -- you know, the Tax Collector may be collecting all these taxes, and we just need to know that. In Lee County, just as an example, the nine months of last year, they collected $150,000 from Airbnb. I don't know if we're missing the boat here or not, but it could be a pretty substantial number; anywhere close to $200,000. And we just need to collect that. So I'd like to ask the County Attorney to, over the holidays and into the first of next year, to kind of dig into that a little bit and see if we can move forward or help make a determination as to whether or not these taxes are actually being collected. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know they're being collected, but is December 12, 2017 Page 220 everything being collected? Because I had a conversation with the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have any idea what the amount is that's being -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, because it will change right now. But I know the feeling is, if we accept Airbnb's offer, then it sort of opens the door, and hoteliers are going to be very upset, because now everybody can do it because we're just -- you know, we're not following it up. I mean, he almost has a SWAT team that goes out. They monitor everything, when things are advertised. They watch homesteaded homes, and if someone has more than -- they monitor that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we could get a report as to how much we're collecting on Airbnb properties, maybe that would -- I'd be satisfied with that. But I just need to have some assurance that we're making all those collections. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My recollection was there was just -- there was an offer straight from Airbnb that wasn't satisfactory to the Tax Collector, and there was -- and the Tax Collector felt that there was a different way to get there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If he's gotten there, that's great. But I just need to find out if he is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's amazing how they're going into all of our neighborhoods. And people are building doors in the back of their houses so people can go in. We're having this happen in our neighborhood, and all of a sudden they see these strange people out there for three days, and then new people come in, and they're all from Airbnb. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder how many of them -- because they sneak the doors and they sneak -- they don't get any December 12, 2017 Page 221 permits to build whatever they are in their house. I wonder how often that's happening other places, too. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's a good business. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, it is a big business, and it's hurting our hoteliers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. It's only going to get worse. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. Well, I just wanted to report that the Naples is Rocking festival -- this is very preliminary, but the event on Saturday at this point will return at least $75,000 to the hardest hit areas of Collier County. MR. OCHS: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: After they pay their expenses and everything? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, that's good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. It truly was a community-supported event; truly. I can't tell you how extraordinary people came together in such a short period of time to make this happen. And I can tell you, Mr. Miller, that your film was -- people -- at this event with 1,600 people or more it was -- people went silent. MR. MILLER: Good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And during it, just before we moved to the color, the first responders came on the stage, and the cheering and the clapping brought tears to your eyes. It was really, really well received. Thank you very much. And I also report that the deputies and the Sheriff's folks, and the law enforcement were there, apparently told the event manager, who is Tiffany McQuaid, that everybody was saying we've got to do more of December 12, 2017 Page 222 these things. This is great. We've got to have this happen again and again. So I think we are going to -- Jack is already talking about this, I want you to know. He's already talking about doing this again. I'm not sure. But I certainly -- our new sports facility will be a wonderful venue for this. And I also wanted to say thank you for working with me this year. I will not be chairman next year. And I just wanted to say thank you so much. I've enjoyed it. It's been quite a ride. I'm awfully glad that I'm going to be handing the gavel over to one of you here, and thank you again. And Merry Christmas and Happy New Years and -- Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays to everyone. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, Merry Christmas to everybody. And you did a great job as chairman, and thank you for what you did. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. On that note, we're done. See you in the new year. ***** **** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 – Moved to Item #11N (Per Commissioner Taylor during Agenda Changes) Item #16A2 December 12, 2017 Page 223 RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $46,662.91 FOR PAYMENT OF $512.91 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. PEDRO A. TUR AND BEXAIDA CARRALERO, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20160000728 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 271 LEAWOOD CIRCLE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16A3 CONTRACT #16-7010, “DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES FOR CR-846/ IMMOKALEE RD OVER GATOR CANAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OR REHABILITATION (BRIDGE NUMBER 030160)” IN THE AMOUNT OF $326,991.00, WITH T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL (PROJECT NO. 66066) Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BRISTOL PINES, PHASE II, PL20140000924 Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR VIANSA AT TALIS PARK, PL20160000737 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE December 12, 2017 Page 224 DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR MONTIANO, PL20160000741 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR NAPLES RESERVE – PARROT CAY, PL20150002419 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A8 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR LANDMARK LONG TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL, PL20150002447, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION December 12, 2017 Page 225 BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $22,526.62 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A9 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR RAFFIA PRESERVE PHASE 2, PL20140002068 Item #16A10 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES, PHASE 1-1, PL20150002401, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A11 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR AESTHETIC SURGERY CENTER, PL20160001400, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $9,167.32 TO THE December 12, 2017 Page 226 PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR VI AT BENTLEY VILLAGE EAST CLUBHOUSE, PL20160000993, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $18,973.51 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A13 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR HOGAN PLAZA, PL20150002490, ACCEPT UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $29,105.20 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A14 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE December 12, 2017 Page 227 OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE, PHASE 7B, PL20160000964 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A15 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR NAPLES GRANDE CLUBHOUSE, PL20150002666, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $9,674.98 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT Item #16A16 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF AMARANDA AT FIDDLER’S CREEK, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170003100 Item #16A17 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER, PHASE THREE A, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170000610 Item #16A18 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF BENT CREEK December 12, 2017 Page 228 PRESERVE PHASE 1B, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170003312 Item #16A19 RECORDING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF BENT CREEK PRESERVE PHASE 2A (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20170001771) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A20 RESOLUTION 2017-224: A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT NO. 433173- 2-58-01) IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY WOULD RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT UP TO THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ON STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM WHITTEN DRIVE TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD; TO EXECUTE A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD’S ACTION; TO AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS; AND TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLANS (PROJECT NO. 60193) Item #16A21 RESOLUTION 2017-225: MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD’S December 12, 2017 Page 229 ACTION FOR A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM WHITTEN DRIVE TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD (PROJECT NUMBER 60193.1, F.P.I.D. 433173-2-58-01) Item #16A22 RESOLUTION 2017-226: MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE TO EXECUTE A STATE-FUNDED GRANT AGREEMENT (FPN 441508-1-34-01) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT UP TO $500,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF GOODLAND DRIVE REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 60200 Item #16A23 AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE ONE (AR-3771) AND ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE TWO (AR-3974) Item #16A24 AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD – BLOCK ‘C’ (AR-10335) December 12, 2017 Page 230 Item #16A25 AN AMENDED AND RESTATED BENTLEY VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND CC- NAPLES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FOR THE PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BENTLEY VILLAGE, A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (CCRC) IN THE RETREAT AT NAPLES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-71 Item #16A26 AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT FOR PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT NO. 7, BLOCK B, LOT 5, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 12, PAGES 28-30 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #16A27 RESOLUTION 2017-227: AMENDING RESOLUTIONS 2009-302 AND 2014-237, RELATING TO THE STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA WITH A DESIGNATION AS “BCI/BCP/SI SSA 13”; APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN DATES TO DECEMBER 15, 2020, IN THE STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP/SI SSA 13 AND THE ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP/SI SSA 13 Item #16A28 December 12, 2017 Page 231 TERMINATING CONTRACT #16-6643, FOR CONVENIENCE, WITH NEAL’S LAWN AND LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE, INC., FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVICES – THE VENDOR HAS CLOSED HIS BUSINESS Item #16A29 – Moved to Item #11K (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16A30 RESOLUTION 2017-228: MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD’S APPROVAL OF A TRANSPORTATION POST PROJECT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING DIRECTION LEFT-TURN MEDIAN OPENINGS FOR THE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND DIRECTIONS ON AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AT THE CALUSA AVE AND GREAT BLUE DRIVE INTERSECTION, UPON COMPLETION OF THE FDOT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, FINANCIAL PROJECT NO. 433416-1-52-01 Item #16A31 CHANGE ORDER #1, ADDING NEW ITEMS TO RFP #15-6508, "ROADWAY LIGHTING UPGRADE TO LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) LUMINAIRES," TO ADD A TURNPIKE STYLE LED FIXTURE TO THE APPROVED CONTRACT WITH APOLLO METRO SOLUTIONS, INC. (PROJECT NO. 60189) Item #16A32 December 12, 2017 Page 232 RESOLUTION 2017-229: GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF HERITAGE BAY COMMONS, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-5877 WITH THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS BEING MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS Item #16A33 CONTRACT #17-7222, “POST DESIGN & VERIFICATION TESTING SERVICES FOR TREE FARM ROAD PHASE II” IN THE AMOUNT OF $298,449 WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. (PROJECT NOS. 61001 AND 70178) Item #16C1 STANDARDIZE LICENSING AND SUPPORT SERVICES WITH GE INTELLIGENT PLATFORMS, INC. [DIGITAL] AND GRAY MATTER SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT’S SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEMS – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C2 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #17-7202, “NCRWTP LEVEL INDICATOR REPLACEMENT,” PROJECT NUMBER 71066 TO GULF STATES ELECTRIC, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,600 Item #16C3 A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,300,000 December 12, 2017 Page 233 TO FUND GOLDEN GATE CITY WATER INTERCONNECTS PROJECT NUMBER 70220 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16C4 RESOLUTION 2017-230: REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,493.16 Item #16C5 – Moved to Item #11M (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16D1 RESOLUTION 2017-231: AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF AGED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,037.56, CONSIDERED UNCOLLECTIBLE OR SHOULD OTHERWISE BE REMOVED FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252 Item #16D2 A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NWNG LLC, D/B/A NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT, TO ENHANCE TRAM SERVICE AT THE CLAM PASS BEACH PARK – IN ORDER TO REVISE TWO PROVISIONS REGARDING THE OPERATION OF THE CLAM PASS BEACH PARK CONCESSION December 12, 2017 Page 234 Item #16D3 AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT REQUEST TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) COASTAL PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 TO DEVELOP MAPS AND USER INFORMATION FOR PHASE II OF THE PARADISE COAST BLUEWAY PADDLING TRAIL – SHOULD THE GRANT BE AWARDED THERE WOULD BE A REQUIRED $15,000 MATCH Item #16D4 A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH KRAFT OFFICE CENTER, LLC FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE FOR THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION OFFICE THAT WAS DEEMED UNINHABITABLE DUE TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY HURRICANE IRMA – THE UES BUILDING ON IMMOKALEE ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE FAIRGROUNDS, WAS DEEMED UNINHABITABLE, THE ROOF HAS BEEN DAMAGED AND COMPROMISED, AND THE FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM WAS DESTROYED Item #16D5 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #17-7207 “RADIO ROAD MSTU ROADWAY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE” TO FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE, INC. D/B/A COMMERCIAL LAND MAINTENANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT December 12, 2017 Page 235 Item #16D6 SOLE-SOURCE WAIVER FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS FOR THE PURCHASE, WARRANTY REPAIR, SERVICE, INSTALLATION, PARTS, AND RELATED MATERIALS OF GEOTHERMAL POOL/SPA HEATERS FROM SYMBIONT SERVICE CORP. AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CONTRACT #18-7268-WV Item #16D7 SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING AND AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR A CONTRACT RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES #17-7182, “NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK ARTIFICIAL TURF DESIGN” Item #16D8 THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION DIVISION’S REQUEST FOR FUNDING FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY 4-H ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,880, APPROVE A SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OF REQUESTED FUNDS, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE 4-H ASSOCIATION, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT Item #16D9 AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER (DLC) IN THE AMOUNT OF $360,008 TO December 12, 2017 Page 236 OPERATE A POST-ADJUDICATION, COURT-SUPERVISED, SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAM KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY DRUG COURT PROGRAM Item #16D10 SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION FOR A CONTRACT RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #17-7198, “CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMAR) FOR COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX” Item #16D11 RESOLUTION 2017-232 (5310); RESOLUTION 2017-233 (5311); RESOLUTION 2017-234 (5339): AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTIONS 5310, 5311, AND 5339 RURAL FY2018/2019 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) TO SUPPORT TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS . (TOTAL ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACT OF $2,115,848 WITH A FEDERAL SHARE OF $1,314,678.40, STATE SHARE OF $145,584.80, AND LOCAL MATCH OF $655,584.80) Item #16D12 A RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT FOR A UNIT SOLD WHICH IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT – December 12, 2017 Page 237 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4440 BOTANICAL PLACE #404 Item #16D13 GRANTING THE CITY OF NAPLES PERMISSION TO ACCESS COUNTY PROPERTY AT CLAM PASS TO FACILITATE THE POST STORM CLEAN-UP OF ADJACENT CITY OF NAPLES PROPERTY – FOR A PERIOD OF THIRTY (30) DAYS; THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO COORDINATE WITH COUNTY STAFF ALL DATES AND TIMES FOR WORK AND SHALL, AT THE CITY OF NAPLES COST, REPAIR, RESTORE OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE COUNTY’S PROPERTY Item #16D14 AMENDING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNING THE RECIPROCAL USE OF CITY AND COUNTY BEACH PARKING FACILITIES AS WELL AS PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS Item #16D15 A DONATION OF $207,175.72 AS OFFSITE PRESERVATION FOR LOGAN LANDINGS (SDP PL20170000357) TO SATISFY THE NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZE RESULTING BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO AGENDA ITEM #17A AND AGENDA ITEM #17B) Item #16D16 December 12, 2017 Page 238 THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 14, 2017 BCC MEETING, ITEM #16D6. TWO STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SW FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A HELP IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,877 AND ROCK ISLAND ECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION D/B/A ECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,500 FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF A HOMEBUYER EDUCATION AND COUNSELING PROGRAM FOR STATE OF FLORIDA FY16/17 Item #16D17 TO RATIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER AND ASSUMPTION OF COUNTYWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS FROM THE DEVELOPER, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, TO FORTY-NINE (49) OWNER OCCUPIED, SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS IN THE LEGACY LAKES COMMUNITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY SET FORTH IN SECTION 74-401 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D18 RESOLUTION 2017-235: THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), December 12, 2017 Page 239 HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME), AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT (ESG) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 AS REQUIRED; APPROVE THE CAPER RESOLUTION; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE CAPER FOR SUBMISSION TO HUD Item #16D19 WAIVING COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE CONTRACT #17-7212-WV WITH COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS, INC. (CES) AS THE SOLE-SOURCE PROVIDER FOR THE PURCHASE OF BECS CHEMICAL AND POOL FILTRATION SYSTEMS, WARRANTY REPAIR, PARTS, AND MATERIALS AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF THREE (3) OUTSTANDING INVOICES IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $16,353.10 FOR GOODS AND SERVICES SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED BY COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS (CES) AND FOR FAIR VALUE RECEIVED Item #16E1 RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FY 17 Item #16E2 RESOLUTION 2017-236: REMOVAL OF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $887.33 December 12, 2017 Page 240 FROM FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 252 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE RESOLUTION Item #16E3 RENEWING THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT TO PROVIDE CLASS 1 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) FOR ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE Item #16E4 A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FOR UTILIZATION OF A PARK SERVICE TOWER FOR THE COUNTY’S P25 RADIO SYSTEM – UTILIZING THE OASIS RANGER STATION IN THE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK TO IMPROVE RADIO SYSTEM COVERAGE ALONG THE TRAIL CORRIDOR AND FACILITATE INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATION CRITICAL TO SAFETY RESPONSE IN THE AREA Item #16E5 AWARDING RFP #17-7112, PROPERTY, CASUALTY AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION SERVICES TO JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY December 12, 2017 Page 241 Item #16E6 AWARD RFP #17-7190 “UTILITY/TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILLING AUDIT” TO THE ERIC RYAN CORPORATION (ERC) Item #16E7 PURCHASE OF GROUP HEALTH REINSURANCE COVERAGE THROUGH SUNLIFE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2018 Item #16E8 AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT Item #16E9 AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS TECHNOLOGY, INC., AS IT RELATES TO AGREEMENT NO. 13-6162R Item #16E10 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND 001 TO EMS FUND 490 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 40 FIELD COMPUTERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,781.60 Item #16E11 December 12, 2017 Page 242 A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SUPER TOWERS INCORPORATED TO REFLECT REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS TO THE COUNTY’S EMERGENCY RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM LOCATED ON A LEASED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER Item #16E12 EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS AS SET FORTH IN THE PURCHASING ORDINANCE FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING AT HODGES UNIVERSITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,000 Item #16E13 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E14 – Moved to Item #11L (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16F1 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $65,800 TO SUPPORT ELEVEN (11) UPCOMING JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2018 SPORTS EVENTS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 12, 2017 Page 243 Item #16F2 RESOLUTION 2017-237: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY2017-18 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F3 ACCEPTING A REPORT COVERING HURRICANE IRMA CLEAN UP AND RECOVERY EXPENSES Item #16F4 A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC. TO PROVIDE LOCAL MATCH FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2018 – THIS IS THE EIGHTH YEAR THE BOARD HAS BUDGETED FUNDS FOR THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC. Item #16F5 RESOLUTION 2017-238: AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR COLLIER COUNTY’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE FLORIDA UTILITY DEBT SECURITIZATION AUTHORITY (FUDSA) December 12, 2017 Page 244 Item #16F6 AN AGREEMENT WITH SAMANTHA BROWN TO FUND A 2018 SAMANTHA BROWN PBS TRAVEL SHOW SEGMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $49,750 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM – TO FILM AN EPISODE OF HER SHOW IN LATE SPRING 2018 Item #16G1 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,998 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A LEKTRO TOWBARLESS AIRCRAFT TOWING VEHICLE FOR THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT – TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS STANDARD FIXED BASED OPERATOR, REVENUE GENERATING SERVICES AT THE MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT Item #16G2 RESOLUTION 2017-239: THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ADOPTS THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FOR 2018 Item #16G3 RESOLUTION 2017-240: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY REDUCTION OR SUSPENSION OF THE HANGAR RENT FOR HANGARS AT THE MARCO ISLAND December 12, 2017 Page 245 EXECUTIVE AIRPORT PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY DAMAGED BY HURRICANE IRMA Item #16G4 THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 11, 2017 BCC MEETING. A COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE AND ADDENDUM WITH ECONOMIC INCUBATORS, INC. AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT – A LEASE AREA TOTALING 5,274 SQUARE FEET AND A 3,600 EXTERIOR STORAGE CAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,680.20 MONTHLY Item #16H1 RESOLUTION 2017-241: ADOPTING A GOVERNMENT-TO- GOVERNMENT TRIBAL COMMUNICATION POLICY PERTAINING TO TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16J1 THE USE OF $10,000 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE ACT-SO (ACADEMICS, CULTURAL TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC OLYMPIC) PROGRAM FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP) Item #16J2 EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AWARD FOR THE COLLIER December 12, 2017 Page 246 COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FY2018 VOCA GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $181,805 AND APPROPRIATE A BUDGET AMENDMENT – REQUIRES A 25% ($46,000) MATCH Item #16J3 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE CURRENT MATCH FOR THE COPS HIRING (2012ULWX008) GRANT AWARD FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 – A MULTIYEAR GRANT AND NECESSARY TO USE CRIME PREVENTION FUNDS Item #16J4 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE CURRENT MATCH FOR THE COPS HIRING (2013ULWX0047) GRANT AWARD FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 Item #16J5 TO PROVIDE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT’S INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 2017-12 ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM: ARTHREX, INC. AND ARTHREX MANUFACTURING, INC., ISSUED ON, DECEMBER 5, 2017 Item #16J6 DETERMINING VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES December 12, 2017 Page 247 PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF DECEMBER 6, 2017 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J7 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2 AND NOVEMBER 29, 2017 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16K1 A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $96,000.35 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 228RDUE IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BABY BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, ET AL, CASE NO. 15-CA-298, REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 60040 (FROM 12TH STREET EAST TO WEST OF 16TH STREET EAST). (FISCAL IMPACT: $55,170.35) Item #16K2 A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED JOSE ENCALADA V. PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY (CASE NO. 15-CA- 2124), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE December 12, 2017 Page 248 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR $30,000, WITH PAYMENT TO BE MADE BY PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC. AND NO CONTRIBUTION BY COLLIER COUNTY Item #16K3 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,198 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 360RDUE REQUIRED FOR GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60145 (FROM 20TH ST. E. TO EAST OF EVERGLADES BLVD.), IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. STEVEN A. EDWARDS, ET AL., CASE NO. 16-CA-1327. (FISCAL IMPACT: $2,698) Item #16K4 A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $75,000 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 366RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60145 (FROM 20TH ST. E. TO EAST OF EVERGLADES BLVD.), IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. STEVEN A. EDWARDS, ET AL., CASE NO. 16-CA-1327. (FISCAL IMPACT: $34,7000) Item #16K5 A PRE-HEARING STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT $56,000 FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 458RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE GOLDEN GATE BLVD. PROJECT NO. 60145 (FROM EAST OF December 12, 2017 Page 249 EVERGLADES BLVD. TO EAST OF THE FAKA UNION CANAL), IN THE PENDING CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CKC PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL., CASE NO. 17- CA-1398. (FISCAL IMPACT: $56,170) Item #16K6 AN INCREASE IN HOURLY RATE FEES FOR MEDIATION SERVICES OF PHILIP GREENWALD, ESQ., BEGINNING IN JANUARY 2018 FOR EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION – AN INCREASE FROM $250 TO $275 PER HOUR BEGINNING IN JANUARY 2018 Item #16K7 HIRING CHARLES R. FORMAN, ESQ., FOR MEDIATION SERVICES IN EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION – AT A SPECIAL RATE OF $300 PER HOUR; MR. FORMAN HAS PRACTICED EMINENT DOMAIN LAW IN FLORIDA SINCE 1980 AND IS A CURRENT MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR STANDING COMMITTEE ON EMINENT DOMAIN Item #16K8 RESOLUTION 2014-242: REAPPOINTING REGINALD BUXTON, WALTER JASKIEWICZ AND CHIEF JAMES CUNNINGHAMN TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS TO TERMS EXPIRING NOVEMBER 5, 2021 Item #16K9 December 12, 2017 Page 250 A JOINT MOTION AND STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR FULL COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,101, AS WELL AS $50,405.50 FOR ALL ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT FEES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TAKING OF PARCEL 145DAME FOR THE ROYALWOOD/WHITAKER PORTION OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51101). (FISCAL IMPACT: $174,676.50) Item #16K10 A JOINT MOTION AND PROPOSED STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,500 FOR PARCEL 178RDUE IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CHRISTOPHER WARBURTON, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-335 REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60040. (FISCAL IMPACT: $8,500) Item #17A ORDINANCE 2017-45: A REZONE FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE LOGAN/ IMMOKALEE CPUD, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE FLOOR AREA FOR SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL USES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 18.6± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE December 12, 2017 Page 251 [PL20160001089]. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO AGENDA ITEM #17.B AND AGENDA ITEM #16.D.15) Item #17B ORDINANCE 2017-46: PL20160001100/CP-2016-2, 2016 CYCLE 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC TO THE LOGAN BOULEVARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT. (ADOPTION HEARING) (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17A AND AGENDA ITEM #16D15) Item #17C ORDINANCE 2017-47: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2005-19, THE CAROLINA VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO VANDERBILT COMMONS PUD; BY ADDING 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR A TOTAL OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES; BY DECREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 64 TO 58 DWELLING UNITS; BY REVISING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND REDUCING THE ACREAGE OF THE PUD FROM 15.88 ACRES TO 14.49 ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 15.8+/- ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA [PUDA-PL20150002166]. (THIS December 12, 2017 Page 252 IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17D) Item #17D ORDINANCE 2017-48: 2015 CYCLE 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PETITION CP-2015-2/ PL20150002167 SPECIFIC TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH/COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT. (ADOPTION HEARING) (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17C) Item #17E ORDINANCE 2017-49: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 05-59, AS AMENDED, THE SABAL BAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD), TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE MPUD TO ADD ONE NEW DEVIATION RELATING TO SIGNAGE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE EAST OF THOMASSON DRIVE, IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±4.34 ACRES. [PDI-PL20170000247] Item #17F ORDINANCE 2017-50: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 03-23, AS AMENDED, THE LIVINGSTON VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE PUD TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATING December 12, 2017 Page 253 TO STREET TREE STANDARDS, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±4.34 ACRES. [PDI-PL20160002748]; AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Item #17G RESOLUTION 2017-243: ESTABLISHING THE CASSENA ROAD MUNICIPAL SERVICES BENEFIT UNIT (MSBU) TO PROVIDE COLLIER COUNTY POTABLE WATER CONNECTIONS, AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTION FOR COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS TO FUND THE MSBU, AND APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX COLLECTOR TO FACILITATE SUCH COLLECTIONS Item #17H RESOLUTION 2017-244: PETITION VAC-PL20170000727 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2699, PAGE 2204 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LIVINGSTON WOODS LANE, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND December 12, 2017 Page 254 WHIPPOORWILL LANE, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND ACCEPT A REPLACEMENT COUNTY UTILITY EASEMENT Item #17I RESOLUTION 2017-245: PETITION VAC-PL20170003165, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE UTILITY EASEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1148, PAGE 230 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF FIDDLER’S CREEK PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY TWO- THIRDS OF A MILE EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17J RESOLUTION 2017-246: PETITION VAC-PL20170002642 TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE 25-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 15, NATURE POINTE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 20, PAGES 20 THROUGH 22, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON RIVER LANE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GOLDEN GATE CANAL, IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17K December 12, 2017 Page 255 RESOLUTION 2017-247: PETITION VAC-PL20170002997 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE RAW WATER WELL EASEMENT, LOCATED IN TRACT F OF HERITAGE BAY VISTAS SUBDIVISION, PLAT BOOK 50, PAGE 33 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BELLAIRE BAY DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD MILE EAST OF THE IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO ACCEPT A REPLACEMENT UTILITY EASEMENT Item #17L ORDINANCE 2017-51: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2017-17 EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE OPENING OF CERTAIN NEW CANNABIS DISPENSING FACILITIES FROM DECEMBER 31, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2018 Item #17M – Moved to Item #9B (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #17N RESOLUTION 2017-248: DESIGNATING THE VISITOR CENTER, A FORMER HUNTING LODGE, A HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE. THE SUBJECT STRUCTURE IS KNOWN AS THE PEPPER RANCH VISITOR CENTER WITHIN THE GREATER PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE AREA OF 2,512+ ACRES AND IS LOCATED SOUTH OF TRAFFORD OAKS ROAD IN IMMOKALEE IN SECTIONS 26 AND 35, TOWNSHIP December 12, 2017 Page 256 46 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA [HD-PL20160000438] Item #17O ORDINANCE 2017-52: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2015-36, TO FORMALLY ADOPT, BY REFERENCE, THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SIXTH EDITION (2017) Item #17P RESOLUTION 2017-249: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 ADOPTED BUDGET ***** December 12, 2017 Page 257 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:49 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK __________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on ______________________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.