Loading...
Agenda 01/08/2013 Item #10Q 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to direct staff to present a detailed review of the current status of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) proposed amendment package to include but not be limited to: development of data and analysis, peer review, funding of work by consultants, funding of work by County staff, fiscal impact of completion of the amendment package, economic analysis of credit and acreage relationship, specific traffic analysis, verification and study, and projected short and long range fiscal impact of amendment related GMP modifications, coordination with related long range Growth Management Plans. To further determine how to proceed with the RLSA amendment package including the option to delay the amendment package indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost effective method to manage the RLSA amendments. To review the current status of the development of the RLSA Amendment Package, the realistic cost to complete the project, and to estimate the short and long term costs of the amendments and likely GMP modifications. CONSIDERATIONS: : On April 21, 2009 the costs of proceeding with the RLSA amendments were estimated at$91,000.00, plus the undetermined costs of an outside economic analysis and a transportation study. A motion was made, seconded and approved that the RLSA Landowners pay their fair share of the costs of proceeding with the RLSA amendments. (Transcript attached as exhibit A) At the December 13, 2011 BCC meeting, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida offered to pay $90,000.00 for an independent study of the RLSA Amendments. (Transcript attached as Exhibit B) At the April 10, 2012 BCC meeting the board accepted the Conservancy donation of $90,000.00. At the October 23, 2012 BCC meeting the BCC voted to return the grant from the Conservancy in the amount of$80,000.00, as no satisfactory bids were received in response to the RFP. In addition the BCC acted to direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendment process without the independent review to finalize the RLSA amendments. (Transcript attached as exhibit C) Staff did not present the cost associated with this directive, including staff time and outside consultants. At the current time there is no growth or development in the RLSA outside of the Town of Ave Maria. The data and analysis obtained during Phase I and Phase II of the RLSA Packet Page-750- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. review is 5 years old or older, and no longer current. There is no agreement with the RLSA landowners to fund new data and analysis including an economic analysis. There was no presentation of the final cost of proceeding with these amendments at the 10/23/12 BCC meeting. The Habitat Conservation plan remains incomplete and may have significant impact on the RLSA. In addition, impacts as a result of required Level of Service Standards (LOSS) for all current elements of the GMP are a concern. We cannot afford to maintain such LOSS for premature rural development, a lesson we have already experienced and should have learned. FISCAL IMPACT: Defer or eliminate in excess of$91,000 of staff time and additional outside expenses associated with these amendments. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: To be determined RECOMMENDATION: Prior to any further expenditure of public funds or staff time in this effort, the BCC should make a determination if the RLSA amendments are desired at this time. SUBMITTED BY: Date: Tim Nance, County Commissioner REVIEWED BY: Date: APPROVED BY: Date: Packet Page -751- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 10.0. Item Summary: Recommendation to direct staff to present a detailed review of the current status of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) proposed amendment package to include but not be limited to: development of data and analysis, peer review, funding of work by consultants, funding of work by County staff, fiscal impact of completion of the amendment package, economic analysis of credit and acreage relationship, specific traffic analysis, verification and study, and projected short and long range fiscal impact of amendment related GMP modifications, coordination with related long range Growth Management Plans. To further determine how to proceed with the RLSA amendment package including the option to delay the amendment package indefinitely. (Commissioner Nance) Meeting Date: 1/8/2013 Prepared By Name: RaineyJennifer Title: Executive Aide, BCC 12/31/2012 11:44:31 AM Submitted by Title: Executive Aide to the BCC, Name: Paula Springs 12/31/2012 11:44:33 AM Approved By Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 12/31/2012 12:00:24 PM Packet Page-752- EwigpriA Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. I just wanted to make sure this -- so that everybody is clear that a special cycle does not mean it's a special one that goes before anything else. It still is in line with everything else. It's just an individual cycle. MR. SCHMITT: Unless you so direct it bumps one of the two that's scheduled. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, no. We would never do that, or let me say I would never do that, okay. Okay. So let's see. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we bumping anybody out from their submitting of their monies and documents for a GMP amendment? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this is -- this is -- this is not going to slow down that process whatsoever? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. The dates are shown right there on the executive summary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the -- we're going to put Immokalee into the RLS (sic) amendments? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. It will be a separate cycle. We'll deal with the '07/'08 cycle, Immokalee will be separate because that's -- you're going to have your hands full with that, and then we will -- we will special -- schedule another cycle to deal strictly with the RLSA amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the -- who's going to pay for the cost of these amendments? MR. SCHMITT: That's a good question. That's -- that was one of the questions raised by Mr. Cohen as well that they -- in your executive summary, I -- the five-year review was required when you adopted the plan. There was no requirement to do a follow-on Page 178 Packet Page-753- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 amendment cycle so that that's -- that's for you to direct. I'll identify it in the budget as part of our budget preparation if, in fact, you direct that it be absorbed -- we absorb the cost as part of the -- in the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when other people come forward with a GMP amendment, they have to put money up front to get that accomplished, and I don't see why we should treat this any different than where a group of landowners want to go forward with these GMP amendments. And I feel that in order to address this, I think they need to come forward with the monies that it's going to take to pay for staffs time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So did you have a motion on that or something? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion that we pay -- that the outside people, the people involved in this Rural Land Stewardship group, the landowners, step up to the plate and pay their fair share to go through with the amendments. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that as long as you say that Bill McDaniels will pay for it if they don't. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did I understand the phrase their fair share in there somewhere? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't hear that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, he said pay their fair share. What is their fair share? COMMISSIONER HALAS: They're going to pay just the -- they're going to pay whatever's required that we ask other people to come forward when they request a GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a fee, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes. There's a fee for a basic Page 179 Packet Page -754- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 amendment if you're going to come in as a private submittal. And that fee, Randy, is what, 16,000? 16,500, that -- and then your executive summary, we probably -- we estimate this will probably run somewhere between -- and I turn the page here, 90,000. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ninety-eight thousand or something like that. MR. SCHMITT: About $91,000 based on staff time and everything involved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Total? Or is that 90,000 in to the fee that you charge? MR. SCHMITT: No, that's ninety thousand total, not counting the fee. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I'm talking everything from legal advertising, court reporter, cost of minutes, cost of printing, everything involved. Go ahead, Randy. MR. COHEN: Just one other thing, and I think it's probably a necessary item as well, too. If we're going to properly analyze the credits in relationship as to how they entitle acreage, we're probably going to have to have an outside economic consultant take a look at it, just as we did with the rural fringe, and that cost will probably have to be added to it as well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And, quite frankly, I'm with Commissioner Halas on this all the way, because our budget is so bad as it is, we can't -- you know, we -- we let staff go, and we can't even build roads and things now, and we can't -- we can't afford to do something like this. And I think we would jeopardize the whole county by us forwarding this. So unless we find a funding source for this, I could not vote on moving that forward. MR. COHEN: And the one other thing is, I think we'll probably need to put a caveat on that that would be with my staff remaining the Page 180 Packet Page-755- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 same as well, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not in the motion. MR. SCHMITT: Nick wanted -- MR. COHEN: I just wanted to let you know. MR. SCHMITT: Nick wanted to add the transportation study involved as well, and Nick, this is only your staff time involved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Nick Casalanguida with transportation. We put in an estimate in there just for staff time, not to go through and run the analysis of that transportation study done by WilsonMiller. We are doing some analysis right now with our general, you know, funding that we get annually. But to do a specific study of what you're proposing, I'll have to put something together for Joe to bring back to you and tell you what we would -- you know, what it would take for us to do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think the costs have got to MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend that we, as staff, come back to you during one of the upcoming BCC meetings, identify the dates for the special cycle, which then you can vote on, and we'll also identify costs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So would you like to repeat your motion, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion is that the special cycle for this RLSA program be paid for by the landowners that are involved in this process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just to reiterating, it's not taking anybody out of the hopper right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true, and this is first in, first Page 181 Packet Page -756- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 out, right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No cutsies. MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Fiala, could I make just one comment. I just want to set the record straight. The landowners did not ask for a Growth Management Plan amendment. You appointed a committee, you asked them to make some recommendations to you, they did. They're the ones that are recommending the Growth Management Plan amendment, not the landowners. So when you say that, it's not our amendment, Commissioner Halas. And I know that you don't want this to go forward, but let's be fair about it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. MR. VARNADOE: We did not -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want it to go forward, George, but there's -- we don't have the money, okay. MR. VARNADOE: We've taken -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you want this to go forward, George, somebody's going to have to step up to the plate, and the taxpayers aren't going to step up to the plate on this. We just don't have the money. MR. VARNADOE: So why did we not think about this two years ago when we appointed this committee? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't know, because things could change. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We didn't have the problem two years ago. MR. VARNADOE: Well, the landowners are willing to talk to your staff about participating, but this is not our amendment, and I want that clearly on the record. That was your committee that made this recommendation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we don't even have to go forward Page 182 Packet Page-757- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 then as long as that's the case. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, let's vote on this with the idea that this thing has still got to come back with Joe to be able to give us a total in-depth story of what the cost is going to be. At that point in time, we can hear from everybody and his brother, and if we have to, modify our decision if there's any reason to do so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Go ahead. MR. SCHMITT: If 1 could clarify. If we don't do it now, we end up doing it as part of the -- probably as part of our EAR-based amendments, and that's going to delay it probably, Randy, 2012, 2013 when -- by the time we do an EAR and then do our EAR-based amendments, because essentially what you did here was an evaluation and appraisal report of your GMP but only for the Rural Land Stewardship Program. Certainly those kinds of things are absorbed by the taxpayer as part of your every-seven-year amendment cycle. And if we don't do it as part of the special cycle, it would most likely fall into the EAR process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other comments from commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one quick one. That's also something else that can be weighed out by the landowners at that point in time, you know, whether that cost is justified against waiting in the -- for a time off in the distant future. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Page 183 Packet Page-758- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. April 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. a qe COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-1 vote on that. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And the third one you've already discussed, so we're not bumping any other cycles. Go ahead, Randy. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, there's one other thing that I think we need clarified. This committee has done Phase I and it's done Phase II. Obviously we have other things that are still going to be in the hopper for them to review or participate in. The question really is is, is it your intent for this committee to continue to meet at various times and stay in existence, or is it -- are we at a point in time now that we're -- the report's moving forward and it's going to be moved into a GMP amendment cycle, do you want the committee to redissolve? And that's a fundamental question as to how you view this committee and how you want their involvement. Obviously with amendments moving forward and the like, you may want them to continue to be in existence and be an active group as stakeholders, and that's your call. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We asked them to provide a report on any changes, and they have done that. They've done a very good job on it. That is going to be a cost to continue that, just like the east of lands study committee. That's going to continue. There's a cost on to that. At a certain point, even our president says, you know, he's going to cut some of these out. We need to do the same thing. We need to thank the committee formally through a letter by the chair, and move on. Page 184 Packet Page -759- EXHIBIT 81/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 future funding or the future projects, we will defmitely have stakeholders involved in that, because that's where we get into the district and basin funding. But I wanted to point out that it was there. You do have a schedule there. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. So we have a motion and a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. Thank you. Item#1 OG REQUEST THAT THE O.. RD E OUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED U AL LANDS STEW . . SHIP . E. (RLSA) AME BMENTS,AS AP R P IA 'ED y IN:T E 2011 EVALUATION A APPRAISAL REPORT e((EAR), MA B OPTED BY THE BCC JANETARY 3I 2011 IOTION TO ACCEPT SPECIAL EAR CYCLE • TION WITH AN INDEPENDENT FIRM ERIN UNBIASED REPORT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE it `r APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to Item 10G on your agenda. It's a request that the board provide direction on moving Page 348 Packet Page-760- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 forward with the proposed Rural Land Stewardship Area amendments as appropriate -- excuse me -- as appropriated in the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted by the Board January 31, 2011. And Mr. Bosi will present. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anyone have any questions? Foolish question. Foolish question, Coyle. How many public speakers do we have? MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have seven speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commission. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to break at 12 o'clock. So go ahead and make your presentation, and we'll -- MR. BOSI: As part of the presentation, there's just two choices that are being asked for the Board to make, to select one of those choices. But to get to that, I'm going to give just a little bit of context, and it will be very briefly. Ninety-nine was the final order. State said we weren't doing an adequate job of protecting environmental resources and protecting farmland from premature conversion to urbanized use, that we had to address the regulatory policy within our Growth Management Plan. In 2012, through a series of three years of study, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay to address those concerns that were related within the final order. One of the things that was recognized by this commission, it was a very innovative and bold planning initiative, unlike any county or municipality had adopted throughout the state. So we said we needed to put a 5-year review time on it, just to make sure that these -- that this concept was one that was going to work and address these points that we're concerned about. Page 349 Packet Page-761- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 In 2007 we were approaching that 5-year-review-period timeline. The Board appointed the 5-Year Review Committee. The 5-Year Review Committee from the RLSA presented a Phase 1 report, and it was just -- it's a numerical allocation of what has happened to date. The Board accepted that in 2008 and directed Phase 2. Phase 2 was a structural review of the goals and objectives in the policies of that RLSA from that 5-Year Review Committee with all the stakeholders involved at the table to come up with proposals that would be, potentially amendments to the program to address those overarching goals. In 2000 -- beginning in 2009, January 28th, the workshops with the EAC and the Planning Commission took place. A number of modifications to the report were made, incorporated, presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 21st of 2009. I believe attachments -- Attachment B was a snippet from that meeting. The Board accepted the report from Phase 2 and recognized that for those amendments to become part of the Growth Management Plan they'd have to go through a cycle. At that period of time, the Board directed that the cycle be processed within the appropriate order, but they said make it a privately sponsored petition. The property owners within the eastern property -- within the Eastern Collier Property Owners' Coalition objected, said it was not only a property owner amendment, it was based upon all the stakeholders involved at the table, and they weren't willing to support the full burden of those amendments. We took no action on that because of the -- because of that inherent conflict. In 2011, January 31st, we adopted the EAR Report. Exhibit A is the adopted EAR report section that deals with the Rural Land Stewardship Area. What we said was, we recognized the comprehensive extensive review that was provided for the Rural Land Stewardship Area based upon the 5-year review. That served as our EAR evaluation of that subdistrict within the Future Land Use Page 350 Packet Page -762- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 Element. As such, those would be for -- those would be the EAR-based amendments for that overlay, for the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. But we caveated. We recognized that there was a habitat and there is a Habitat Conservation Plan that's currently spearheaded by U.S. Fish and Wildlife with the property owners and all vested stakeholders at the table to try to come up with a road map for the schedule for how development would move forward with that. Based upon that recognition in the adopted EAR that the Board of County Commissioners, as I said, adopted on the 31st of January of this year, we said we're going to wait. We're going to wait until the end of that Habitat Conservation Plan before we initiate these Rural Land Stewardship amendments. The DCA in -- March 10th, I believe, accepted the -- accepted the EAR Report from Collier County and, as such, they accepted that timeline. Between the time of when we accepted that in the DCA, now the DEO, accepted our EAR Report, we've been presented with a proposal from the eastern property owners led by an initiative from Stantec. What the proposal was, that if the -- Stantec and the eastern property owners paid for the preparation and the data associated with the amendments, handed it off to the staff, would staff take that forward as part of the EAR-based amendments and move it forward, somewhat ahead of the schedule of what we have adopted. Based upon the adopted EAR, through consultation. with Nick Casalanguida, with the County Manager's Office, we realized we couldn't do that as initiative on our own based upon the direction that the Board of County Commissioners gave within the EAR, and that's basically the framework of this executive summary. We have two options that are available related to those EAR-based amendments within their RLSA amendment. One, wait until the Habitat Conservation Plan is completed, as we said in the Page 351 Packet Page -763- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 adopted EAR, or move forward with the proposal with the eastern property owners and Stantec providing the -- or the data and the packaging of those amendments, provided it to Collier County staff, then staff would take those amendments as a separate transmittal stage from -- because the EAC has already heard the transmittal of the EAR-based amendment. So they would have to be separated from the transmittal process, but towards -- at the end of the process, at the adoption process the intent of the proposal would be to bring those RLSA amendments together with the rest of the EAR-based amendments and adopt at one hearing. So, basically, what staff is looking for, a direction from the Board of County Commissioners as to whether we would sit tight and act upon the RLSA amendments as we've indicated within our adopted EAR, as has been accepted by the state, or would we take advantage of the opportunity of the proposal with Stantec and the eastern property owners and move the amendments forward as a separate transmittal cycle that would be included as the overall adoption cycle which would be heard in the fall of 2012. And that's basically the question staff is seeking direction from the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm happy to address any questions that you may have related to any of the specifics. CHAIRMAN COYLE: If we have any questions of Mike, we can take a few of them right now, but I'd like to break at least by 12 o'clock and do all of the public speakers at the same time -- at one time rather than breaking up that process. Are there any questions for Mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll break now, and we'll be back here at -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll just wait till after. Page 352 Packet Page -764- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- we'll be back here at 12:54. Okay. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of Collier County Commission meeting is back in session. We will continue with the -- do we have the public speakers? We don't have the manager of the public speakers here. MR. OCHS: There he is. MS. KINZEL: Uh-oh, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's late again. We have public speakers, Ian. MR. MITCHELL: Yes. The first speaker will be Mitch Hutchcraft. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who? MS. PAYTON: He's not here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Try another name. MR. MITCHELL: Alan Reynolds. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You hit the jackpot, okay. MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioners, Alan Reynolds with Stantec, and I'm here today on behalf of the Eastern Collier Property Owners, a group of the property owners that I've had the privilege of representing for about ten years now in this process. And per the letter that the Eastern Collier Property Owners provided to you last week, they are fully supportive of moving forward with Option 1 that was identified in the executive summary. Option 1 being, moving forward with the process as is spelled out and recommended by the committee and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. You know, Mike gave a very good overview in recapping the Page 353 Packet Page-765- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 process that led up to this time, but the recommended changes to this award-winning program are the result of an over-two-year exhaustive and comprehensive public process that the county undertook. Probably more documentation in that process than was taken to put the original program together. And I can tell you, there were countless hours spent by members of your citizens' committee and the public through a whole course of meetings. And they came up with a series of recommendations that were designed to both enhance some of the features of this program and address certain elements that were felt to be in need of some further improvement, particularly as it relates to agricultural protection. So the -- so the Eastern Collier Property Owners believe that it is timely to move forward with the process. We are now four years from the start of the 5-year review, and the EAR plan amendment process will probably take another year. So we think it's good to start this process. Obviously the start of the process will open up the opportunity for a full review of all of the proposed amendments and looking at any new conditions that might exist and, hopefully, culminate in the adoption of some enhancements to the program. As Mike mentioned, the Eastern Collier Property Owners have offered to have our company provide technical assistance to Collier County to put this together. Our staff and myself, in particular, sat through literally every meeting of the 5-Year Review Committee, and it is a — it's a very technical program, and there are a lot of elements of this program that are tied to land use credits, and other kinds of things. And there is voluminous documentation that needs really to be, right now, condensed into an understandable and a cohesive package. So what we have offered to do, and we have met with your county staff, and we have agreed upon an appropriate task for us to put together documentation cross-referencing data and analysis to help Page 354 Packet Page -766- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 move the process forward. „ ,, I think that will be helpful because frankly, several staff members that were running the 5-year review process are, unfortunately, no longer with Collier County. So there's -- there's a benefit, I think, to having some of that institutional memory. So I would just close by saying that we would -- we would very much encourage the board to select Option 1 to move forward and to continue the collaborative and cooperative process that we've enjoyed with this program for the past decade. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Reynolds, is there something pressing of why we have to do this now instead of-- and deviate what we did and said in the last year's EAR? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, yes, I think there is. I think what is pressing is that, as with any study process, over time the information gets stale. You know, the longer things sit out there, the less current they are and the more apt there is to need to kind of revisit the entire program, number one. Number two, this idea of tying the RLS to the HCP was something that, frankly, we have communicated from day one we didn't think was the right approach to take, because the HCP is a very specific creature of the federal permitting process. It is a cooperative effort, but it is tied to the federal permit process exclusively. It really has nothing to do with Collier County's comprehensive planning process or how you choose to move forward with these amendments. Unfortunately, like with a lot of the federal permitting processes, they tend to take a lot longer than you would like them to take. And we're probably maybe two to three years out before we would have a potential HCP if we get one at all, because there's no guarantee that there would, in fact, ever be an HCP. Page 355 Packet Page-767- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 So the idea of saying we're just going to wait indefinitely for a federal process to move forward we are concerned is going to have you waiting till the point where, for all intents and purposes, two-and-a-half years worth of effort by your citizens' committee will be collecting a whole lot of dust on the shelf. And in the meantime, frankly, the recommendations that the committee made do a couple of very important things that are public benefits to Collier County. Most importantly, I believe, is a new feature for agricultural credits that will, if fully implemented, protect another 40,000 acres of land from being converted to development. So that's a good thing for Collier County. It's a good thing for the public. And there's really no reason to be waiting indefinitely for a -- for a federal process to move forward. So that's why we think it's important to go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has the land use changed out there for the information to go stale? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, information changes all the time, sure. I mean, there's always new data. There's always new studies that are being done. The land uses out in the eastern part of the county probably don't change a lot physically over time, but there are in the eastern lands. And with this program you have -- if you recall, there's kind of two things that a property owner can do. They can use their baseline rights, which is to develop their land at one unit per five acres and the other kind of uses they have, or they can choose to participate in the RLS program. So over time, if some of the features from the program that the committee has recommended are not available to them, their only choice is going to be to utilize baseline rights. So you could, in fact, start to see more utilization of baseline rights if we don't move forward and get some of these new recommended programs in place. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Page 356 Packet Page -768- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Well, on a more general note, before we get started, I appreciate your suggesting that you would assist the landowners with developing these amendments and be their consultant on this. But, quite frankly, I see that as a conflict, because you're representing the county on so many planning projects for that area. So obviously, you know, you can't serve two masters on a particular issue like that. So I just -- I guess I have a problem with that. Secondly, I think it's really great that the landowners are going to pay for these amendments, because they should, so I think that's a positive, regardless of, you know, what's being proposed here. That they have acknowledged that they're financially responsible to pay for this is a good thing, and I'm glad they're not thinking that the taxpayers should. The other thing I want to bring up is when I reviewed this, if my understanding is correct, what this is going to do is add 89,000 credits and approximately 1,688 acres to the maximum footprint of the SRA -- and that it caps SRA acres to 45,000 and the deletion of policy language to ensure the program does not result in premature conversion of agricultural lands, deletion of hamlets as a land use, expansion of a maximum size of towns and villages. And I guess I have some concerns with that. And, you know, before we propose anything, you know, by way of amendment, I think, you know, we're almost at the ten-year mark with respect to this program. And I've heard quite a bit of criticism as to what's going on in the equity of the system from the public. And I think what really needs to be done before any amendments are proposed is an evaluation of, you know, where we are today. I'd like to know who owns what in the way of credits, who has the sending lands, who has the receiving lands, who has what credits on sending lands, who has what credits on receiving lands, and make a Aoalk Page 357 Packet Page -769- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 determination, based on that, what is the need and, you know, how are agricultural interests being protected, how is panther habitat being protected, you know, what are we doing to ensure that there isn't a monopoly on the credits or creating value for those credits. My understanding is there's -- and I think it's Barron Collier is the only landowner out there that owns both sending and receiving lands, and maybe I'm mistaken, and you certainly can correct me about that. With respect to the habitat plan, I do think that it is premature to do anything before the Habitat Conservation Plan is proposed, because then we don't really know what effect -- what the effect is of, you know, what's being proposed by way of these amendments. So, you know, I would hate to see these people waste their money only to find out that it's not congruous, that it's not working with, you know, the Habitat Conservation Plan. I think we're putting the cart before the horse. And as I said, I think we need to have a ten-year evaluation where, at the second evaluation, if you will, of this program, where we need to understand, you know, who's benefitting and how and who isn't benefitting and, you know, are all the landowners being treated fairly, or is someone being treated maybe more fairly than others, as well as my concern about the protection of the environmental issues. MR. REYNOLDS: Commissioner Hiller, I was taking some notes. I think you had six questions there, so I'll try to catch each one. And then if I miss one, you can help me, remind me if missed it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Your first question had to do with the thought that we are preparing the amendments, we being Stantec, on behalf of Eastern Collier Property Owners. That is -- that is not correct. The committee has prepared specific recommended amendments through the public process, and those specific amendments are incorporated in a report that the Board of County Commissioners has Page 358 Packet Page-770- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 accepted, along with some modifications that were actually proposed in the process of accepting the report. So the proposed amendments are already in place. All we are proposing to do -- we being Stantec -- is to prepare very technical data that is already part of the process and put it together in a form that can make that amendment, frankly, more understandable and more easy to deal with through the plan-amendment process. So we are not proposing nor would we propose to make any recommendations as part of that process that differ from what your committee recommended, okay. So it's very much a technical process only. As far as the property owners' willingness or obligation to pay for the process, this is a public process. This is a county program. The 5-year review process was mandated by the adopted Growth Management Plan. The property owners participated, as you would expect, because owning more than 80 percent of the land, you would want to have property owners be part of the process. But there is no obligation whatsoever for the property owners to bear the cost of a public process. What we are doing, frankly, in the spirit of the prior decision by the Board, is continuing really what started out in 2000 as a collaborative process between the public and the private sector, because this program is very unique in that it is an incentive-based program. So incentive-based programs don't work if you don't have the participation of and cooperation of the private sector. So really this is -- what we're proposing is very similar to what was used in the initial adoption process, which is we're going to be providing technical information. It will be given to the county. The county will be putting the final package together. The county will have the right to review, change, augment any of the information we provide, and it's all going to be very transparent and open to the public. Page 359 Packet Page -771- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 You -- and I don't know that -- how you want to -- if you really want to get into the substance of all the recommendations today. I can answer the question about credits, but the bottom line of all that is yes, there are some proposed changes to the numbers of credits, but there are also some proposals that would cap both the credit generation and the acreage of development that do not exist in the currently adopted program. So from the county and the public's perspective, there should be a comfort in a proposed change that is going to put a limitation on what is currently a program that does not have a cap in place. And the net result of that is a reduction in the amount of development and an increase in the amount of protected land without requiring taxpayers to purchase and manage the property. As far as a ten-year review, you know, we were obligated to do a five-year review. We being the county. We did it. There were specific recommendations that came forward and were accepted by the Board. So, frankly, I think that the -- whether or not another review is called for, we believe that there is an obligation on the part of the county to move forward and deal with these amendments. And so it's really just a question of do we deal with them timely or do we deal with them with a potential time frame that is unknown and, frankly, may never be achieved, which is whether or not the HCP process goes forward. I think the last point you made is the perceived inequity of the Rural Land Stewardship Program. Barron Collier is not the only property owner that has both sending and receiving lands. There are a number of property owners that have both types of lands, and most of the Eastern Collier Property Owners have participated in the program. There are a couple that really have only receiving-type lands. And as part of the way this program is designed, we're supposed to be creating a market for credits to be exchanged between property owners that have sending lands and property owners that have Page 360 Packet Page-772- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 receiving lands. So it's not -- frankly, the proposed amendment, if you're concerned about that, will actually correct what is perceived to be a weakness in the current program, and that is to put agriculture and agricultural protection on an equal footing with natural resource protection. That's really what the committee has recommended and that the Board has accepted as part of those recommendations. So did I answer all of your questions? COMMISSIONER HILLER: You did, you did, and I thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I just -- I reviewed the material and, you know, I continue to have concerns. I mean, I think there will be justifications made for those amendments, and you will participate in the argument to support the justifications for what is being proposed. And so I do continue to think that there's a conflict there. But I do appreciate your perspective and you, you know, clarifying your position on that as to what exactly you're going to do. But it seems that it will go beyond that, particularly in light of what's really needed to properly approve this with, you know, the appropriate corroborating information. I think that the Carlton Fields memo was quite revealing. I've heard a lot of dissatisfaction, including from members of the landowner group, if you will. So, I mean, your analysis, while very succinct, I think, needs, you know, much more detail in order for me to be convinced that this has been a positive program and everyone is being treated equitably and no one has a corner on the market. I mention only the Colliers because I know that they're one of the largest -- don't they control about 70 percent of the RLSA, or something along that line? MR. REYNOLDS: No, it's -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much -- what's their interest? . Page 361 Packet Page -773- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 MR. REYNOLDS: If you take all of the Eastern Collier Property Owners which is made up of-- COMMISSIONER HILLER: The RLSA. MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. All of the Eastern Collier Property Owners as a group, which is eight different entities, they own or manage approximately 85 percent of the private property owner in Eastern Collier County. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's 85. So I was wrong when I said -- MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, of the private property, that collective group. That's eight different entities; Alico, Specific Land, English -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. So -- but Barron is 85 percent of that group? MR. OCHS: No. MR. REYNOLDS: No. There are -- there are roughly 180,000 privately-owned acres in the RLS. The rest of it is in public ownership. Of the privately-owned land, the Eastern Collier Property Owners represents more than 80 percent of that private ownership, okay. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But what percentage of that is controlled by the Colliers? MR. REYNOLDS: What percent of that is controlled by the Colliers? Which Collier family? There are two different Collier entities. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't even know who -- I didn't even know -- MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I don't have all the figures in front of me. My recollection is that the Barron Collier Company is about 60,000, I think Collier Enterprises is approximately 40,000, and then the rest is split between the other property owners. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the total again between the property owners as a whole for that area? Page 362 Packet Page-774- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 MR. REYNOLDS: Approximate- -- the east- -- are you talking about the Eastern Collier Property Owners or all private ownership? COMMISSIONER HILLER: The RLSA. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. The RLSA is about 190,000 total acres. COMMISSIONER HILLER: So a one hundred thousand -- a one hundred thousand of the 195- is controlled by one of the two Collier families? MR. REYNOLDS: Controlled by one of the two? No, 100,000 is controlled by two of the Collier families, right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both of them. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So basically they control half of that market. Like I said, I've heard a lot of concerns expressed. I really think that -- I mean, I don't see any justification, any need, any pressing need to do it now. And,-quite frankly, it would concern me to do it ahead of the plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ian, call the next speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brad Cornell on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to this issue. Back on October 25, 2010, we and three of our partner environmental organizations, Florida Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Audubon of Florida, sent a letter to you supporting moving these amendments forward as part of the evaluation and appraisal and -- the EAR process, the Evaluation Appraisal Report. We still support that position. We don't agree that waiting for the Habitat Conservation Plan completion is needed in this case. There are two separate things. You do land planning. That's your responsibility. That has to do with federal regulations on Endangered Species Act issues. And while Page 363 Packet Page-775- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 there is some intersection of those issues, your responsibility is land planning, and I think you do it very well, and that's what we want to see you move forward with. It's -- I was on the review committee, the 5-Year Review Committee that met for two years. It's been four years since the 5-year review started in the fall of 2007. The recommendations in the report, you accepted in spring 2009, are very important for acting on lessons learned in the first five years of implementing the Rural Land Stewardship Area Program. That was the purpose of doing the 5-year review of an innovative, unprecedented land-use plan. We wanted to know, did it work? Have we done it well? Is there anything we can do better? It's time to adopt those needed plan amendments to evolve the Rural Land Stewardship Program into a cutting-edge benefit for all the citizens and agricultural and environmental resources of Collier County. Finally, regarding the choice that you're given in the executive summary about when to process these amendments, as a member of that advisory committee and also representing Collier Audubon and Audubon of Florida, I strongly recommend the amendments be fully included in the 2007 EAR-based amendments for both transmittal and adoption, and that would be your staffs Recommendation No. 1. I think that's clearly what's needed in this instance. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Andrew McElwaine. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Andrew McElwaine, for-the record. When you addressed this two-and-a-half years ago, Commissioner Coyle, Chairman Coyle, did an amazing thing, which is he got everybody to agree on a way forward. And so clearly there's a future career for him in the Middle East. Page 364 Packet Page-776- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've already tried that. MR. McELWAINE: The agreement was -- and I looked at the transcript, and it's available to everyone. The agreement was to go to a -- and this was voted up -- a special cycle on the RLSA amendments, a cap on the credits and a cap on the acreage development in the RLSA of 45,000 acres, and the credits would not entail any property right, Bert Harris right, or any legal obligation to the taxpayers or anybody else, that the special cycle would consider, in addition to the RLSA committee's comments and recommendations, the voluminous recommendations and comments of the EAC and the CCPC, which is normal in a special cycle, but not just the RLSA committee. It was an -- and also the Conservancy, as part of that -- and, again, it's in the transcript -- reserve the right to question putting agricultural credits on the same value as natural resource credits. It's not that we shouldn't preserve ag; we should. But I'd like to see some kind of science of justification behind the two credits going from 0.2 to 2. It's an order of magnitude. There's clearly some basis for all of the habitat and flowway credits; that's based on pretty good science. So I'd like to see something similar on the ag side before I buy into that. So -- now mama always told me, don't stick anything in your ear, and mama was a growth-management expert, it turns out. The EAR is already full, in my opinion. There's plenty of work to be done. The EAR has already been transmitted to the EAC. I believe that train has left the station. Moreover, we -- you have already voted for a special cycle. Stantec has indicated it will -- and, again, this was part of your motion -- that the outside party and outside group will be paid for to do the work. So you don't even need to vote on this again. You've already voted up a special cycle. The conditions have all been met. You can -- and there's no longer any limit in the Growth Management Act for a special cycle. Page 365 Packet Page-777- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 Now, I've kept my word. I endorse that special cycle. I endorse everything Commissioner Coyle and I agreed to. I would ask the other parties who agreed to that to keep their word. Let's get the special cycle underway. F1rially, if=t .eres :n issue lof someone'paying for 1t, the +Conservancy wmll a for it I'm author ed m— hoard O put $90,000 on ie table. But we would= ant you to have independent consultants'who donut ido%usiness with my organization or any other organization in the A With that, We Will commit $90-1)00.10 help pay for the special c cle Thank you. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's really great, thank you. That's, like, awesome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker. MR. MITCHELL: Nicole, are you -- no, you're going to waive. Nancy Payton, and Nancy will be your last speaker. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. And we're here to support Option 1 to include the 5-Year Review accepted -- Committee accepted amendments within the EAR process, which we consider a special cycle. I mean, I think we're talking semantics. We want to move it forward, and this is going to go on a parallel process with the EAR-based amendments that are in another package and come together at the adoption hearing, as I understand the proposal. The RLSA was a major issue in the EAR document, so it's not adding something. It is fulfilling an obligation that the RLSA would be addressed as a major issue in the EAR-based process. Again, we're supporting the 5-Year Review Committee recommendations that you accepted with some modifications. It reduces and caps development, 45,000 acres. We think that's very Page 366 Packet Page -778- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 important. It provides incentives for farmland preservation. If we have to refine that through the adoption process, fine, we can do that. That's what the adoption process is about is looking at these in greater detail and justifying them. It provides disincentives for ranchettes, the five-acre baseline density, which we know is problematic, and it provides incentives for regional habitat links so that our large tracts of public and private conservation lands in Southwest Florida can be interconnected. The RLSA is a keystone parcel to ensuring that habitat connectivity. Earlier today there was discussion about controlling our own destiny and not relying upon outside agencies in -- elsewhere in Florida or in Washington, D.C., to determine our destiny. Well, that's exactly what you'll do if you do Option 2 is that you're allowing a federal regulatory process to trump your planning process, and it should be -- the other way around is that our planning process should dictate that Habitat Conservation Plan and not sit back and say, well, we'll let the federal government determine our particular land uses in Collier County. So I call upon you to walk the talk when it comes to controlling our own destiny and moving these amendments forward for further discussion and hopefully adoption. Thank you. MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I already spoke. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion that we go with Option 1. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that motion. I just wanted to -- could I add a couple things? Brad was saying something about -- especially getting the special cycle on the way, and I think Page 367 Packet Page-779- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 that that's an important addition in case -- you know, in case we need to put that on the record as part of the motion. Would that be okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- didn't Nancy just say that this is a special cycle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. PAYTON: I viewed it as a special cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, then I don't have a problem including that language. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Yes, she did say that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there -- MR. BOSI: There is no special cycle. The Option 1 identification would be a -- separate submittal stage hearings with the EAC, CCPC, and the BCC, and then at adoption it's part of your EAR-based amendment process. So it's not a special cycle. It's a cycle -- it's a cycle within the EAR-based amendments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what Nancy said, special cycle is the same as Option 1. MS. PAYTON: I viewed it that way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: He doesn't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about supporting a five-year review? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't that automatic, the five-year review? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already done. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, this is it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're at a 10-year review now. MR. BOSI: No. There's no -- there's no language in the existing Page 368 Packet Page-780- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 policies that require the review specifically of the RLSA for any period of time. Of course, it would be part of any EAR-based -- or EAR reviews that we would have in the future. But there's no specific allocation of another round of RLSA-specific type of reviews that are incorporated within the regulatory -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we get them through the EAR, through our regular EAR cycle. MR. BOSI: The regular EAR cycle will re-evaluate every subdistrict, every provision within the Future Land Use Element in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, could we -- you want me to include that in there, we recognize the fact that we're going to get updated through that cycle? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five-year review, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just trying to meet everybody's needs. We're putting language in there just to try to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you think it already says that, then COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already did the five-year review. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I know that, but I was thinking of the next five-year review. I thought that possibly that was what we were talking about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. BOSI: Every EAR review, the RLSA will be part of that review as well. So the need to segment out another specified RLSA review, I'm not sure that it's of high importance. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. MR. BOSI: I believe it was of high importance when we first initiated the program because of the unknown. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To see how it works. Page 369 Packet Page-781- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You finished? Tell -- Nick, we're going to do this in English, okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Explain to us about the mechanics of getting this done during the EAR cycle. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It -- you're going to do the EAR separately with the staff that's already scheduled to do this. We have some comp-planning staff that will take in the information and start processing it and reviewing it. It will not be attached to the EAR. That's what we'd always said. It would kind of parallel. Then we continue to do the EAR, submit it. And then as this progressed through committee summer and fall, when it was completed, it would submitted separately. So it was never intended, as the recommendation quite states, to go with the EAR. To go in parallel with the EAR is what the intent was for Option 1. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me the advantages and disadvantages of doing this with Option 1 or Option 2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Option 1, the disadvantage, in talking to Mike, is staff time. Right now we've got a lot going on. You just adopted your Watershed Management Plans, you're about to consider your Master Mobility Plan, you have your EAR-based amendments coming forward, and with the limited staff we have that -- you know, we probably don't give it its due diligence. That's our concern for Option 1. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Option 2 would be that if you still wanted to get this thing done, we'd kind of kick it towards the back end of the EAR. As the EAR went towards adoption and was completed, we'd start this process. Your Option 2 says HCP, but knowing that that's pretty much out in limbo, that we'd delay this a Page 370 Packet Page-782- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 little bit longer until the EAR was kind of finalizing, and then that staff coming off of the EAR could focus on doing this as kind of the next project. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The problem is that the focus seems to be on either Option 1 or Option 2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Delay indefinitely, right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Option 2 essentially means that you don't know when it will ever get done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Option 2 is a strategy which would assure that nothing would be done at all for some indefinite period of time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think that's a good option, to me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not suggesting it's a good option, but that's what the option is. All right. I'm -- if you supported Option 2, you're supporting an option which is -- which will guarantee that these changes will never occur, probably. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What you heard today, sir, and what I'm telling you now is, in my opinion, after talking to Mike, we could do Option 1; it'd be a stretch. I would probably call it a 1 A or 2 hybrid. Wait till the EAR's done or towards the tail end of the EAR, and then devote resources to it. And I heard Andrew say be wanted some:independent analysis. Idonet-Ialoww,here that falls in. Ithmk-the ECPatrotp providing Ahe data and+analysis is not a bad idea,but maybe having some independent review,of it as well to give it some legitimacy is not a bad idea either. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, here's the concern as far as I'm concerned. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. etti Page 371 Packet Page-783- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 CHAIRMAN COYLE: The EAR is primarily designed to provide a focal point for a large number of plans that we struggle with throughout the year. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it will serve to bring us together and to coordinate among all of those plans and strategies in a way that makes sense. So there is a lot of justification for doing it consistent with the EAR schedule, but it shouldn't get subordinated to the EAR schedule in a way that would ignore important elements of the Rural Land Stewardship plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. At least that's my opinion. Do you share that opinion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. My only fear, sir, is that I think once this comes to the Planning Commission, like your EAR's already been for the transmittal portion, there is going to be a lot of discussion, and I think by -- we want to be clear. You don't want to tie it to the EAR because I think it's going to start to drag as the discussion comes up. I know, based on feedback I've received from both the Conservancy and other groups involved, estates residents, rural land folks, that there's going to be some discussion back and forth. So while it's an integral part of the EAR, I think if you tie it to the EAR right now, the EAR's going to be get slowed way down. So that's why I say they're separate in tracked (sic). CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But my question really relates to, how can you assure that they will both go down a track that assures that they are properly coordinated. MR. CASALANGUIDA: By having that same staff that's looking at one, making sure that it's tied into what we're looking at with the other. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you can do that? Page 372 Packet Page-784- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's going to be a challenge, but I can do that. C " ., .. `_ ;• wkat respect technical expertise available our recon end on is not tt e upon ny s le o an nation to provide 'or nal ap ov l offs =-a � � . ., a- CTS •. - but you would ccept t for 13a ion:-- technical n rxrl t n tht of ld lien e*mined br reviewed'by n independent ounce;r that c ssl ? � SALANG DA: Well . anad that's x s a twist. I what I would .makes sense and ives eve o y dot x ore comfort,_ based on ivhat.I'-rn ear n , if CPO's wil to provide all that documentation and backup, 3ftl; e onservanc '.s ling to put-up th.e money tto have an ndepen lent voutyld say' ox ide the,cou t , � nfJuence re e �� f the'. ra ne a I, pk ou of st both. worlds. CHAIRMAN COLE Yeah,,Iink so too, and that's actly where I'm.going. And if Andrew fan dd.another=$90,000 to 4hat, we can ado some t er good„ s, too. ,A 4 I looking forward t that. MR Mc LW +f 11 cheer nth Mr. yin xArx for you CHAIRMAN 4p, kay Good,'go-O. good. MR CCASALANGUIDA: o- tags on the table, I°du we've got so nething,,becau a we'll ave t par. si ting ta. .:m � Cattr,t suggest he `that the.mot on- aker and«the s «{ind incorporate,;haat proposal into the motion? SINE . : P 41l for that.. COMMISSIONER COLETT ; �I'm a for that And once again, too, the . na I f 'n sorry to peak out o tur , ure ahead. You're the motion maker. Page 373 Packet Page -785- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 SSIONER VOLE't I My nder tancling 1s ghat you done :ay difeet role in =bnoe{hat o e o h: 's g� t Sant � ��d we e in tog ac us accept it: :MR. McELW E: As on �s t' nde en outside: COMMISSIONER OLE , YeLalt xiiht t N I great. I thank you for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will they also be addressing the credits used? You know, you were talking about capping some of the credits and so forth. Will that same study be addressing that as well as to whether it would be beneficial to the environment, to the county? MR. McELWAINE: It seems to me that's more a parliamentary issue, really, because the commission voted to cap the credits. It was a very detailed motion that Commissioner Coyle offered and was approved, and that's still, to my knowledge -- again, not being a parliamentarian -- is still the guidance from the commission, I believe. Perhaps not, but I believe it is, in which case you've addressed that already, and I'm happy with it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. But you brought it up, so I thought -- MR. McELWAINE: Oh, my concern was on a separate matter, which is not that we don't have extra credit for preserving farmland, but that the amount we choose has a justification behind it, as it did for establishing habitat stewardship areas, flowway stewardship areas where we really did our homework and said, yes, these deserve these amounts of credits based on their ecological value. I'd like some thought put into that in terms of what are the true natural resource values to that open farmland. Do they all deserve two, do some deserve a half, you know, et cetera. I think there's some homework that needs to be done there. MR C. SALANG DA SO 11m clear, that that Homey Bb d go towards consultant that does not ha ye rr et v l em n h the landowners of ECPO grop-- Page 374 Packet Page-786- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 M ELW INE: r Conservancy.. ` n r cyfr ct' n d #theye � ort � t i rs Tee cd.pro de o ..w ents t COMMISSIONER 'LA: That=studs eke ..good pl n. C COYLE: Just -- Nick,just a minor twea 'g of that-- MR. CASALANGU,IDA Sure. C ° ° ' COYLE: just to make sure that it is:a;duly unbiased eo ' u� at ug eta . -would refer ee the .n .e end : agency tha; rev e*s it to " a -e ktheir own pr�esentatio l e board concer ing a;assessment. MR. C SALAN UID.A Very good. C COYLE- Okay. Rather than filtering it through staff. - = MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. C , 'A COYLE: Because if the or erv.,.ancy's:pay for it to be a tota11yunbiased assessment,. ien it shouldn't-be used Uby us either.. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd manage the contract but transparently, like we've done with some of the other contracts that they've been very happy with, so they would attend the meetings and listen and participate, and like the ECPO could as well, too. Very good. COM:[ISSIONE O:LETTA: .E,xoellent idea. I nclude that in the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We don't have any other public speakers do we, Ian? MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, reviewing this material, what the effect of these amendments do is to increase the Page 375 Packet Page-787- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 residential units permitted in the RLSA by 6,752 units, and somehow we have to, you know, justify that there's a need for this additional development, you know, proposed within that planning time frame, which I believe is about 2025. I really -- I really don't understand how we can possibly justify this and -- with the current development climate. And what concerns me even more is by basically adding 1,688 acres to -- of SRA lands, we have to have an offset of residential development potential somewhere else, you know, to adjust our Future Land Use Map. So -- and then there's, you know, the cost of the public facilities to support this additional residential development and the question of how agricultural acreage is being protected where we're adding, you know, so much more in the way of residential development. And, quite frankly, I'm not even addressing commercial development or anything else. So, again, I just don't see what the rush is when I don't -- I mean, we can't even build out Ave Maria. How many units are there in Ave Maria now? MR. BOSI: Constructed to date? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Constructed, yeah. MR. BOSI: I believe under 400. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Under 400. And what's the potential out there in Ave Maria? MR. BOSI: Seven thousand. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So I mean, why if-- you know, why are we adding almost another 7,000 units when we only have 400 units of Ave Maria developed? I mean, I just don't see what the rush is to increase the development potential of an area that is not developing anywhere at the rate that was anticipated. I mean, the numbers are just not panning out. And, again, you know, what about fiscal neutrality, and what is the cost to the county to, you know, continue developing infrastructure Page 376 Packet Page -788- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 further out? I mean, I just -- I just have a real hard time Alw understanding, you know, what we're doing here. I mean, it seems like we're just building on urban sprawl. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense without the demand. MR. BOSI: And all those -- all those concerns are legitimate questions, and I believe that's why the aspect for an independent review to the specifications of the amendments in the data that's presented to provide that evaluation will address a number of those questions. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- I can't -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. Wait a minute. One final thing. It appears that we're -- in my opinion we're trying to rush through. If we're going to have somebody independent, are we allowed to ask the independent consultant to look at certain aspects of it, like Commissioner Hiller was asking about? MR. BOSI: And I think Commissioner Hiller's request or questions relate to the appropriateness of the changes, and that's exactly what the data and analysis is geared to do within any amendment package, and that independent analysis would evaluate the data and analysis that was presented forward based upon the proposed changes -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- and see if there was appropriate linkage to support those changes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- do you want the consultant to go through the advisory boards also? I would hope so. Because that always spurs good dialogue and conversation. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, you know, depending on what $90,000 buys, I'm sure the RFP could be written. Page 377 Packet Page-789- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. December 13-14, 2011 MR. McELWAINE: Up to. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Up to. Well, it'll go pretty quick, Andrew, I hate to say it. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Trust me, it's like the government budget. You know, you say that the project's going to be 2 million, it's going to be 2 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that analysis probably would have to be presented at the advisory board level to answer questions, too. So I think that would be realistic to ask for that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're forgetting change orders, Commissioner Hiller. COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And expired contracts. COMMISSIONER HILLER: And expired contracts. MR. OCHS: Ouch, ouch. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ouch. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, contract dates don't mean anything to us, right? You just continue to spend the money. You have to abide by our rules. Once we start with your $90,000, there's no end to it. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Hiller dissenting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: What item did you want to cover first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- there was one off the Page 378 Packet Page-790- Exal' �13 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 COMIVIISSIONER HILLER: So right now we've basically let a project to do work where we have no idea what the total exposure on the whole system is. So we're basically shooting in the dark? MR. CHMELIK: No, not at all, not at all. COMMISSIONER HILLER: A hundred million dollars towards MR. CHMELIK: We've identified assets that are 25, 35 years old that need rehabilitation where we've had failures, where we've identified worst first, and we're going after those in a coordinated industry-standard method. COMMISSIONER HILLER: But just for those three basins, not for the 20 basins. MR. CHMELIK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's the problem. I mean, we have to look at the totality of the system. I mean, we have limited resources. I'd like this brought back. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's for another day's meeting. That's not the topic. MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where do we go now, County Manager? Item #11B REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION #12-5905, RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA (RLSA) PROGRAM REVIEW, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON OBTAINING SERVICES FROM AN OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT FIRM TO PERFORM REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE RLSA AMENDMENT PACKAGE — MOTION TO RETURN THE CONSERVANCY'S $80,000 CONTRIBUTION AND INITIATE RLSA PROPOSED Page 137 Packet Page -791- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 AMENDMENTS WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF AN OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT FIRM — APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we go to Item 11B on your agenda. It's a recommendation to reject all bids submitted in response to Solicitation 12-5905, Rural Land Stewardship Area program review, and provide direction to staff on obtaining services from an outside independent firm to perform review and analysis of the RLSA amendment package. Mr. Bosi will present. MR. BOSI: Good afternoon, Commission. Mike Bosi, interim director of planning and zoning. I'd just like to put a little disclaimer. As the director of planning and zoning, the area of expertise within my possession is that of the planning. This is the procurement process. It's a little bit outside of my area of expertise, so if I stumble, I apologize. Let me give you a context of why we're here and what we're asking to do. As the county manager had indicated, we're asking to reject all bids, and it lays within a fault of mine of why we're here. Back in January of 2011 we adopted the EAR report, and as part of that EAR report we said the Rural Land Stewardship five-year review program that was conducted from 2007 and concluded in 2009 was going to stand as the county's assessment of the Rural Land Stewardship Area. It was being included as part of the EAR-based amendments. At the December 14, 2011, Board of County Commissioners' meeting, I came before the BCC, asked the board to separate the EAR-based amendments out from the -- or separate the RLSA amendments out from the majority of the EAR-based amendments just because we know of the issues and the amount of time that was going to be associated with passing those individual RLSA five-year amendments. And the board agreed to that, said trail behind, lag Page 138 Packet Page-792- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 behind the EAR-based amendments with the RLSA five-year review amendments. Just as a sidenote, October 30th of this month, the CCPC will be making recommendations on adoption for the majority of the EAR-based amendments. And December 11th of this year, the EAR-based amendment adoption item will be on the board's public hearing. So we're somewhat at a lag right now. On April 10th of 2012, the Board of County Commissioners -- we brought an executive summary before the board to officially direct staff to accept the contribution from the Conservancy. And let me take a step back. At that December 14th meeting in 2011, when you segmented out the RLSA amendments, the Conservancy had volunteered up to $90,000 to pay for an outside review, an outside consultant to review the data and analysis in the amendment packages that were submitted to the board at their April 21, 2009, meeting, and provide for a third-party arbitrator to those amendment packages. April 10th of this year, the board directed staff to accept that money. On April 11th, I was contacted by the Conservancy, indicated that a grant agreement or a contract was needed to facilitate the exchange of funds. On the 26th of April, staff provided the Conservancy with a draft contract based upon the scope of work that was attached to that April 10th executive summary. On May 2nd, I -- we issued the invitation for bids at my sign-off with purchasing, but in the meantime we were still finalizing the contract with the Conservancy. On the 25th we received draft language from the Conservancy in addition to the contract that related to the independence of the outside counsel. Now, with -- on the visualizer, the very top is what was associated with the -- with the scope of work that the Board of County Commissioners directed staff -- on April 10th, they directed staff to accept the funds, and it basically said it should not be -- the vendor Page 139 Packet Page-793- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 who would perform services for the county, initiate a Rural Land Stewardship Area five-year review are not eligible for selection due to the requirement for an independent review. That was attached to that scope of work on the 10th. The language that came from the Conservancy was a little -- was a little bit more restrictive. That language was not contained within the invitation to bid. Within the invitation to bid, it was that original language that was concluded within that scope of work. Because of that, because of my error, because I initiated the invitation to bid before we had finalized that contract, that important information was omitted from that invitation to bid. So the submitters were not aware of that. When we resolved the -- when we resolved the contract issue with the Conservancy, it included their more restrictive language. Within that contract we evaluated the proposals based upon the proposals that were submitted. None of the -- none of the firms that submitted met any one of the -- all of the criterias contained within the scope of work as well as the no-conflict clause that's contained within our contract. Based upon that, we are -- we're here asking the Board of County Commissioners to provide us with direction in terms of how we move forward. Now, I think there's a number of parties that were part of that five-year review process that want to speak on this item, so there's a lot of interest, and there's a lot of competing interests that are involved within these RLSA five-year amendments. So we see the value of an outside counsel, but we also see that we're a year behind the rest of the EAR-based amendment process. We're asking the Board of County Commissioners: One would be -- the option would be to direct staff to repost that invitation to bid with those -- that no-conflict clause clearly articulated within that invitation to bid so that all submitters are clearly understanding the Page 140 Packet Page-794- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 conditions that we're asking for and the filter that we're asking for in Agoatt terms of how we're going to select the firm. If that is not the desire of the Board of County Commissioners, then the second option would be direct staff to return the $80,000 to date that the Conservancy has provided to the county to fund that outside consultant and move forward without that retention of a third-party firm. And a third potential possibility that wasn't included within your executive summary would be if the board feels strongly for that third-party firm, to fund that yourself. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mike, I need some clarification on something. It's unclear to me, based upon what you've said, whether the county failed to include the proper language in the RFP or whether the terms of the Conservancy's grant of money for that purpose were -- the.terms were changed after we produced the RFP. Which one is it? MR. BOSI: The scope of work that went on the April 10th executive summary is the bolded -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, wait a minute. I want to know, what did the people who bid on this receive? MR. BOSI: The language that is at the very top of that -- of the visualizer -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- is that qualifier language in terms of no competition. That's what was in the invitation to bid, and that's what was in the scope of work that the board approved on April 10th. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Was that in accordance with the agreement that you had with the Conservancy at that point in time? MR. BOSI: There was no formalized agreement. There was the no-conflict clause that -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the Conservancy changed -- well, maybe not changed -- but provided you with clarification about Page 141 Packet Page -795- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 the terms under which they would grant this money to have this work done; is that what we're saying? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That -- now, I can't imagine why we ever would have put ourselves in that position, but nevertheless. So we put out an RFP without working out an arrangement with the Conservancy first. MR. BOSI: That's on my shoulders. And -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Henning, would you like to hear the public, or do you want to go? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to go. I made a mistake earlier today, so -- and I need to own up for it later on. You're only human. But I appreciate the fact that you're willing to own up, that you're human. Who are the bidders that bidded on this, the professionals? MR. BOSI: And I know the type is too small. The low bid was from Ivey Planning Group, but it was a single-source firm. The second bid was AECOM. The third bid in terms of pricing was Tindale & Oliver. The fourth was the Planning Center out of Santa Ana, California; and then we had Murphy Planning Group out of Fort Myers; and Harrison, Rivard, Duncan, Buzzett out of Panama City in Florida; and the last was VHB MillerSellen out of Orlando, Florida. So we had seven total bids. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying that none of these fit the criteria for what is provided in the RFP? MR. BOSI: They could not meet all of the conditions within the scope of work as well as the additional no-conflict clause between the -- with the county and the Conservancy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think there's any firm Page 142 Packet Page-796- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 out there that -- well, we don't know until we ask. MR. BOSI: We're not sure. We -- we're hesitant -- we don't want -- we don't want to delay the process that much further, but we also recognize the value that the third party can provide to this process in terms of an arbitrator towards, you know, some of the arguments that could be put forward. We're hopeful that we would receive a qualified bidder, and that's why we're seeking that direction. That was the first recommendation that was suggested by staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you feel that Former Commissioner Mark Strain, Planning Commissioner Mark Strain, can do an analysis and -- MR. BOSI: I would have to -- I'm sure if he had put together a proposal and a team, he would receive very -- he would receive the same scrutiny that any other bidder would have based upon the qualifications and the time spent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Except for we could have got it for free. Not anymore, I guess. There's no growth out in RLSA. Actually there's no growth, very little growth, in the urban area. Is there really a need to update it? MR. BOSI: And that's -- that would be the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The one thing I would say is the -- since the outset of the Rural Land Stewardship Area, the one criticism that I think that has been lobbied against it was that it did not provide the level of specificity or certainty that was contained in terms of what's the intensity of development and what would be the infrastructure required to provide for that development. And the one thing I would say about from that time when it was -- when it was passed back in early 2000 to this time, and the five-year review has produced a lot more specificity towards where that development was going to be transpiring within the Rural Land Page 143 Packet Page-797- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 Stewardship Area. And one of the key components of the proposed amendments was a specific cap on the intensity of number of acres that could be provided. So in that regards, it would be an improvement. Could the system continue to exist as it is without any -- without any further modifications? I think that it could. But I think that what happened for -- between 2007 and 2009 was -- there's three real interest groups within that area. You've got your property owners, you've got your ag. interest, your environmental components. You have one pie. Everyone wants to make sure that their advocacy group, their portion that they're representing has a fair representation. And I think that all those people sat down at the table -- and there was a series of 23 public meetings. We had a series of a number of meetings with the Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning Commission that -- a series of compromises that were arranged that produced improvements to the overall program. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, that's a sidenote from the item on the agenda. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking us to not issue the proposal, return the money to the Conservancy; however, I just don't feel that there's a need at this time. There's no pressure on growth out there. There's no -- there's no property rights taking being proposed. There's no threats on the environment. There's no threats on agricultural use out there. So my opinion is we don't -- we don't do anything on the second question and let's, you know, kick this down the road when the economy starts -- after the elections, the economy starts getting better. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is the motion other than Page 144 Packet Page -798- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 kicking it down the road? Is there a more technical term for that or ,„wiso not? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, the recommendations -- accept staffs recommendations and further give staff the -- well, I should say the county manager not to bring any RLSA amendments back until the appropriate building pressure on the RLSA, when they foresee building happening in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? We still have public speakers, by the way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to hear the public speakers first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll -- how many public speakers? MR. MILLER: You have five. One has ceded her time to another speaker, so there will be four in total. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker, Nicole Johnson, has ceded her three minutes to Andrew McElwain, who will be speaking for six minutes. He will be followed by Nancy Payton. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you very much. For the record, Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy. I'm not really prepared to speak directly on Mr. Henning's motion. It sounds fine. I was going to talk to the issue of what to do, and I was simply going to say that we support Mr. Casalanguida and his staff, and if they want to cancel it and give us our money back, we're fine with that. If they feel there's a need to continue, an opportunity to continue, we're fine with that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's a carrying charge. MR. McELWAINE: Yeah, I'm charging you interest, yeah. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've been having to hold that money for some time now. Page 145 Packet Page-799- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 MR. McELWAINE: Yeah, I know. It's earning at least a quarter percent, sir. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, not here. It's a lot more than that here. MR. McELWAINE: I want to see your investment portfolio. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Me, too. MR. McELWAINE: In any event, we'll support whatever decision you make in terms of the use of the Conservancy money. I see the landowners want us to have it back, and we're fine with that. The -- I do want to address the idea that there's been some unnecessary delay or somehow I pulled a fast one on Mr. Klatzkow and Mr. Coyle with the changes to the -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: You could never do that. They're both so smart. That would not be possible, especially Coyle. MR. McELWAINE: That was my mother-in-law -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's right for the second time today. MR. McELWAINE: Exactly. Well, both my mother-in-law and my teenage son will be happy to dispute the notion that I could do that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no one -- MR. McELWAINE: Heaven help the person that tries to put one over on Mr. Coyle. They would not have a good day. The upshot is that the contract that we did agree to was very much in keeping with the stipulations from last December. Mr. Coyle said repeatedly that he wanted to keep the study free of bias, including any bias from the county, even -- the stipulation even said that the consultant should report directly to the board, not to the staff. So, again, I feel that the contract that Mr. Klatzkow signed and that Mr. Coyle signed was entirely in keeping with the stipulations, and I do reject the allegation that that's not the case. Second -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: I haven't heard that allegation, by the way. Page 146 Packet Page-800- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 MR. McELWAINE: Well, there is a three-page letter to that ,0004; effect that -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you introduce that into the record? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that one. Okay. MR. McELWAINE: It's my only copy. So I do want to reject that emphatically. And I also want to reject the idea that somehow we were trying to delay anything. Actually, I have sent emails to Mr. Klatzkow that, in fact, in January I began asking for a gift agreement between the Conservancy and the county. I asked again in February, and those emails are on file, and I wasn't responded to until April. And I said, again, we need a gift agreement to govern the use of the funds, and that's when we began the negotiating process that resulted in the grant agreement. So, again, I think we tried very hard to do this right. And I think, finally, I would note that for the landowners to now say this is all unnecessary, I can tell you that not two weeks ago they were lobbying one of my board members, a member of my executive committee, to pick one of the vendors here and get us to approve one of the proposed vendors. So, clearly, two weeks ago it wasn't a delay or too little as they allege in their letter. So in any event, I'm happy with whatever you decide. If the decision is to give us our money back, that's fine. I'm not sure we need a whole lot more public speakers to say whether the contract was valid or not or whatever. If the decision is to give us our money back as they've asked, I'm happy with that. COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion to refund -- MR. McELWAINE: There's a motion on the table. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We already have a motion we have to deal with. COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a second one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's do the first one first. But I'd Page 147 Packet Page-801- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 just like to ask you a question. At the point in time when it would seem appropriate that we hire someone to do an unbiased evaluation, can we -- can you sort of keep that money in escrow, and we can talk about it again? MR. McELWAINE: Well, sir, you have the money. And, certainly, I'd be happy to do what you like. Right now the county has it. And if the decision is to proceed and try to find an independent consultant, which is one of the recommendations on the table, we won't oppose that. The landowners have said you should just give it back, not do it; I'm fine with that as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay, fine. Thank you. We have a motion to -- MR. MILLER: Commissioner, we have more speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry? MR. MILLER: We have more speakers. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Nancy Payton. Ms. Payton will be followed by Brad Cornell. MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton. I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation and also Defenders of Wildlife today. Both our organizations -- and both the organizations did participate in the five-year review process quite actively and have been involved in the RLSA for a number of years. We support moving ahead with the amendments. We would like to see the amendments move forward. There's been a tremendous amount of public staff, appointed committee members, time devoted to refining the RLSA program, and improving it. So we think that it should move forward. But we think it should move forward now without the independent reviewer, at least funded through the county with the Conservancy's grant. We appreciate the grant, and we like the idea of an independent review, and we supported the scope of work, which was presented in a Page 148 Packet Page-802- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 public forum for the public to comment and provide input. What we don't appreciate is the business of the contract that was negotiated not in the sunshine. The public, the federation, Defenders, and I'm sure there are others, didn't realize that contract was underway, and the contract does somewhat change the scope of work. And if it didn't change the scope of work, why didn't it come back or at least be on the consent agenda for the public to have some knowledge of that? It was a bit of a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're talking about the contract between the Conservancy and Collier County for the use of that money? MS. PAYTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. PAYTON: See, the public got to speak on the scope of work, but then the public didn't know that there was also this contract that was going to be negotiated, and that would have been fine. I saw a copy of the contract that the county proposed, and it just reflected what was in the scope of work, but then there were additions to it, and I think that began to undermine the idea of an independent review and an independent company working on that. And -- well, I don't think you're ever going to find a contractor that's going to meet the needs of the Conservancy and the staff and the public. And so I agree that -- kindly return the money to the Conservancy and let's move on. If they'd like to use that money to hire a contractor, that would be fine, and that information could be brought forward during the transmittal and adoption process, but let's move forward, and let's have everything happen in the sunshine. So a summary of our recommendation is please move forward with these amendments. Who knows, they may not even get past the transmittal hearing, but at least we can move forward. And thank you • to the Conservancy, but no thank you for the money. MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next public speaker is Brad x Page 149 Packet Page-803- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 Cornell. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I believe Commissioner Henning's motion is slightly different than what you're suggesting. Is it? MS. PAYTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it or is it not? MS. PAYTON: Commissioner Henning, as I understand, says let's just forget about the RLSA for an unknown amount of time, period of time. Federation and Defenders are saying let's move forward with those amendments that were crafted through a very public process without the independent review that would be funded by the grant from the Conservancy. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the Conservancy is essentially saying don't move forward with the amendments and don't hire a consultant right now? MR. McELWAINE: Well, I think Commissioner Henning's motion is just fine. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. McELWAINE: I agree with him that there's no real need for this right now. On the other hand, the issue that I really came prepared to speak to was just a question of the use of our funds. My statement on that was, simply, whatever you'd like to do, we're happy to work with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much. MS. PAYTON: May I comment that there is a need to address the RLSA amendments, and it's not probably in the best interest of the county and the growth plan to wait till there's a problem. Let's be proactive and deal with it now and be ready when that development comes so we can properly control it rather than playing catch-up or retrofitting. So I think that there is a valid reason to move those amendments forward now and be ready if and when that development comes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Page 150 Packet Page-804- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your next speaker is Brad AO*a Cornell. Mr. Cornell will be followed by John Passidomo. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society and Audubon of Florida. Regarding the motion that's on the floor, I agree with Nancy that doing nothing, so to speak, really flies in the face of the whole concept of land-use planning. You know, you're supposed to be doing this stuff ahead of time. Don't wait for, you know, a problem to develop. Let's make the playing field look like what it's supposed to be. You know, you guys are in charge of land use. You know, call it the way you think it should be. Audubon supports staff recommendation to return the $80,000 to the Conservancy and direct staff to promptly initiate transmittal of the Rural Land Stewardship Area five-year review EAR amendments. Staff, I believe, are fully capable of reviewing these amendments and the data and analysis to go with them. I served for you on your RLSA five-year review committee from 2007 to. 2009, the entire time. We reviewed substantial data and analysis for the EAR amendments that were proposed, as well as lots and lots of public input, including very specific edits recommended by the Planning Commission, the vast majority of which were quickly incorporated by the five-year review committee into those amendments. The five-year review amendments include many benefits for the public and for the county. A couple of them are the limits on acreage and credits for urban development incentives for the Rural Land Stewardship which maximizes both habitat and farming acreage. And also the creation of much-improved incentives to protect farming and preserve or restore the entire agri -- area of critical state concern for the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is the eastern part of the county. Those are called Ag Stewardship Credits. Those are Page 151 Packet Page-805- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 tremendously beneficial and big improvements to this program. We need them. And even if nothing is happening in terms of development now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't put them in place now. A third-party review of the RLSA five-year review amendments was a reasonable idea 10 months ago, but the county and the Conservancy have been unable to agree on any contractor. And I say the time's up. Let's stop delaying these very beneficial RLSA amendments. It should not take five years to implement the five-year review amendments, all of which your committee recommended after a very robust public process. So please move forward with those in transmittal. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Commissioners, your final registered speaker on this item is John Passidomo. MR. PASSIDOMO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 5th Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm represents the Eastern Collier Property Owners. Our clients collectively own significant ownership interest in the almost 200,000 acres which comprise the Rural Land Stewardship Area -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you list those property owners? MR. PASSIDOMO: I can, but I'd have to do it from memory. I think they have each signed a letter that was transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. There are eight in number. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just for the people in the community who don't know who they are. MR. PASSIDOMO: Certainly. Thank you. They are Pacific Tomato Growers; Collier Enterprises; Half Circle L Ranch Partnership; English Brothers; Barron Collier Companies; Consolidated Citrus; King Ranch, Incorporated; Alico Land Development Corporation; and the Priddy family. Our clients in the aggregate own almost 200,000, almost -- a Page 152 Packet Page -806- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 significant part of that 200,000 acres that comprise the Rural Land 04 Stewardship Area in Northeastern Collier County. They have for over 10 years worked with environmental advocates to develop private sector incentives to promote the RLSA goals of environmental stewardship, smart growth, and agricultural preservation. In 2007 -- a historical perspective might be of interest certainly to the public, and I know each of the commissioners has been engaged in this process from time to time. But in 2007, Collier County began its required five-year review of the RLSA's landmark strategic plan for the Rural Land Stewardship Area. And in April 2009, after almost two years of work by a citizen committee appointed by the Board of County Commissioners in over 25 public hearings and meetings, the Board of County Commissioners adopted improvements to the proposed RLSA program proposed by the citizens' committee and revised by the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Committee, and it directed that staff move forward with the public hearings for review and adoption of those recommended improvements to the program. Now, three-and-a-half years later, that directive from the Board of County Commissioners has not been implemented. Indeed, two years ago, on October 15, 2010, the Department of Community Affairs, in their assessment of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, said it was about time for the county to get on with this work. We, respectfully, submit that there's no reason for the delay. As suggested by Mr. Cornell, this is a planning process. It's at a long-range planning process, and it really is a strategic plan for Eastern Collier County, which is intended to go to buildout 30, 40, 50, 60 years from now. Whatever the immediate projections for growth are, frankly, are immaterial to the long-range planning. We, respectfully, request that you move forward, that you adopt Option No. 2 recommended by your planning staff, and we stand Page 153 Packet Page-807- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 ready to participate in those public hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We no longer have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, my motion did not say, Brad, wait till development is knocking on the door or is too late. You know, have staff bring it back when it is appropriate. So I just remind everybody, you need four-fifths to adopt this, okay. So you better do it right. You ain't going to get it. I guarantee you that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm sorry. We -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was finished. CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no. I just sort of talked over that last statement you had. Commissioner Fiala didn't hear it. Would you mind saying again? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What part didn't you understand? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Something about four-fifths. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need four-fifths to adopt a Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who were you saying that to? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was saying that to Mr. Passidomo. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't saying it to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't know. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. All I was going to do is make Page 154 Packet Page -808- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 a motion. Staff asked for direction, and so my direction is direct staff to return the $80,000. This was okay with the Conservancy, provided to the county from the Conservancy to fund the retention of the third-party firm, and direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendment process without the independent review to finalize the EAR-based amendments. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. Commissioner Hiller? I'm sorry? MR. OCHS: I apologize. Did the motion also include rejecting the bids? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It doesn't, but that certainly was her intent, I believe. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it must. Yes, thank you for -- thank you for bringing that to my attention. Please include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Hiller? COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. The thing that was astounding to me in this entire discussion is what Nancy brought out about this contract being executed out of the sunshine. And I applaud you for recognizing that because I just found out about it, and I was appalled also. And it's absolutely not a reflection on Conservancy's part, because it isn't Conservancy that did it. It is the county that did it, and specifically it was Commissioner Coyle that did it, and I don't see how that can happen. This is what happened in the Gilchrist case. Wasn't that the same issue there, that a contract was executed outside of the -- was it -- which -- wasn't that in that audit? Yeah. So, I mean, I think we need to have some sort of procedure in place to ensure that no contracts are executed that the board has not seen and voted on. Page 155 Packet Page-809- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 So, Nancy, thank you for bringing this forward, because this is actually the second time this has been highlighted in the last two meetings. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal was just making a face that said, you know, that wasn't what happened. Andy, would you please tell us what happened? MR. McELWAINE: I guess -- I'm not the county attorney, so I am -- you should be very grateful for that. The -- COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. They probably would be really happy. They could get by with a lot of stuff. MR. McELWAINE: That's for sure, because I wouldn't know what they were talking -- I don't know enough Latin. The upshot is it really was -- my understanding at the time was because what we had was consistent with the stipulations that Commissioner Coyle made in his motion in December, that there was no further process that the board needed, but I'll defer to your much wiser counsel on that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just to clarify that, did I engage in any contract negotiations with you? MR. McELWAINE: No, sir, not to the best of my knowledge. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have you seen my signature on any contract with you? MR. McELWAINE: Yes, sir, the final -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. McELWAINE: -- the final agreement for Mr. Klatzkow's signature and then yours on behalf of the -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right. It was deemed legally sufficient by our county attorney -- MR. McELWAINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- is that not correct? MR. McELWAINE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not enough. I mean, it still Page 156 Packet Page -810- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 needs to come back to the board. So, Nancy, you're absolutely right. Thank you. And it's no reflection on you, but thank you. MR. McELWAINE: Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for those facts. Legal sufficiency -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why are we always trying to make the county look bad? COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not. We're trying to make sure -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like it to me. If you were saying that Commissioner Coyle went, snuck around and made this little agreement with the Conservancy and nobody else knew it, and that certainly makes us look bad. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it -- bottom line is it can't be done. I mean, all contracts have to come back to the board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It wasn't done. COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was. The contract needs to come back before the board, has to be approved by the board. If the county attorney says it's legally sufficient, that's nice. It still needs the board's approval. And we didn't say go back, you know, put this in a contract, and we accept it as written. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager (sic), would you please explain to Commissioner Hiller what the facts are? COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Attorney you mean? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, I just don't remember what happened here. Typically, what often will happen is that the board will take action, and then they'll authorize the chairman to sign based on that action. That may have happened here. Sometimes what we'll do is we'll do legal review of an agreement and get it back to staff. Sometimes staff inadvertently just doesn't put it on executive summary. There are -- they may be under the Page 157 Packet Page-811- 1/8/2013 Item 10.Q. October 23, 2012 understanding that they can simply just take it to the chair. I don't know what the particulars are on this, but I don't know why this is an issue either. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't, because we have now -- I've just made a motion to cancel everything we've done, right, return the $80,000 and initiate -- and direct staff to initiate the RLSA amendment process. So, I mean, whatever -- whatever is being talked about -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is irrelevant. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just disregard entirely and move forward. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's -- it passes 4-1 with Commissioner Henning dissenting. Let's go on. COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nancy, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter, and we'll come back, maybe. (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we -- the Board of County Commission meeting is back in order. We have a lot of things to do in a fairly short period of time. Commissioner Henning (sic) is having to leave here at 5 p.m. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I could leave at 9 p.m. Page 158 Packet Page-812-