Loading...
Agenda 07/09/2019 Item # 2B (6-11-19 BCC Meeting Minutes)07/09/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: June 11, 2019 - BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 07/09/2019 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 06/27/2019 10:54 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 06/27/2019 10:54 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 06/27/2019 10:54 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 07/09/2019 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 17 June 11, 2019 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 11, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: William L. McDaniel, Jr. Burt L. Saunders Donna Fiala Andy Solis Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Sean Callahan, Executive Director – Corp. Business Operations Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations June 11, 2019 Page 2 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, everybody. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I want to welcome everyone here this morning. We're going to start off with our invocation and pledge. The invocation's going to be led by Pastor Greg Ball from Destiny Church. Item # 1A INVOCATION GIVEN BY PASTOR GREG BALL OF DESTINY CHURCH PASTOR BALL: Thank you. If you could bow your hearts with the Lord -- to the Lord. God, we thank you for the opportunity to open this meeting with the invocation. We thank you for all of our county commissioners. They've gathered here today to make decisions for our community, and we pray that their efforts be blessed with insight, guided with understanding and wisdom. Your word tells us that wisdom is the principal thing; therefore, get wisdom, in all you're getting, get understanding. God, we ask you to guard their hearts and their minds, impart your supreme wisdom to their meeting, may they reach successful conclusions for what is best for our community and our fellow citizens. May they use their best skills and in judgments and keep themselves impartial and neutral as they consider the merits and the pitfalls of each matter that is placed before them today. Thank you for being our source of guidance today and every day. In Jesus' name, we pray, amen. June 11, 2019 Page 3 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Pastor. That was very nice. Commissioner Saunders, will you lead us this morning. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES; (ITEM #16K1 WAS MOVED TO ITEM #12A BY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR DURING AGENDA CHANGES); ITEM #17C WAS CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 25TH BCC MEETING. SPEAKERS: RICHARD PRICE AND MIKE FENNELLY) MR. CASALANGUIDA: And ladies and gentlemen, thank you. Commissioners, I only have one add-on item on the agenda from the Manager's side of the house. It's add-on Item 4B, a proclamation honoring those who served and sacrificed on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day. And we have two time-certains today, Commissioners. One, Item 11B, at 10:45 the fertilizer ordinance, and Item 9B, the PACE ordinance, at 1 p.m. And, Mr. Chairman, if I could, just keep Leo, our manager, in your thoughts and prayers. He's traveling back, I believe, today or tomorrow. His father passed away last week, and June 11, 2019 Page 4 he thanked everybody for their kind thoughts and appreciation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So with that, we're going to start down with the approval of -- well, let's do ex parte, approval of the agenda and the like. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes to the agenda and no ex parte disclosures on the consent or summary agenda. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. No changes, no corrections, and nothing to declare on the consent or the summary. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing to add and no conflicts -- or no disclosures. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No disclosures at this point -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- except for later on, which will come when we talk about Baumgarten. But also, I would like to pull 16K1 for a separate vote, and I think we did that before where we make a decision now and I -- clearly, there were two -- three fine candidates that came before the Tourist Development Council, but I would like to bring forward Mary Shay's name as a possible consideration. Do I speak now or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that would be the right time, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think if you pull it and we'll put it -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead and move it up to the -- you pick a spot, and we'll have a discussion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 12A. June 11, 2019 Page 5 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 12A. Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, myself, have no additions or changes or any disclosures on the consent or summary. So with that -- MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have two registered speakers for Item 17C. The first speaker is Richard Price. He will be followed by Mike -- I'm having trouble reading this -- Fennelly. I hope I've got that. MR. FENNELLY: Yes. MR. MILLER: Mr. Price, would you come up and speak. 17C? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 17C. MR. MILLER: 17C. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This was on the summary agenda. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. MR. PRICE: My name is Richard Price. I live at -- (Timer went off.) COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Your time is up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're done. Thank you, Richard. That was a well put together presentation. MR. MILLER: Go ahead, sir. MR. PRICE: I heard government was brief. I'm a single-family homeowner inside of Royal Wood, and I've read the application that's on file. It's signed by our president. It's not signed by the board of directors. There's been no resolution that I've been aware of. It's not been on any of our agenda items showing this transaction. Also, this involves a tremendous change of use of the property within the PUD. And, generally, when things of that nature June 11, 2019 Page 6 are that much changed, you would require a member approval. We haven't seen that either. So the question is, with no board approval, with no member approval, I'm just wondering about the validity of the motion in front of you. Okay. That's my question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm going to ask the County Attorney to address that, if you would, please. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we wouldn't have processed it unless we believed there was approval. It doesn't necessarily mean that 100 percent there was. Let me look into it, and if we could continue this item to the next meeting, we'll have the time to verify that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If I might say a little something. I went to their ribbon cutting, and there were a lot of people there and everybody celebrating the ribbon cutting, and they have already begun to tear the building down, actually. They've gutted the place, from what I understand. And so I don't know how you were missed, or maybe you're just saying that -- MR. PRICE: I've lived in the community several years. MR. KLATZKOW: Is your house close to the clubhouse? MR. PRICE: No. It's on the other end. MR. KLATZKOW: So your objection is that you don't believe there was authority by the membership? MR. PRICE: There's been no due notices. MR. KLATZKOW: We'd have to verify that. I just -- MR. PRICE: Okay. I've gone through, you know -- MR. KLATZKOW: This went through a Hearing Examiner process. This has been a lengthy process. This is the first June 11, 2019 Page 7 time the objection came up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Well, it's not an objection. He's just questioning the process and that -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: This is the first time the issue's come up, sir, and I'm saying that this has been through a very lengthy process, but we would be happy to check it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Continuance for two weeks. Will that delay the project? I mean, because all we're doing is really vacating a public interest in a right-of-way that's over there by where the clubhouse is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that's appropriate. We've done it in the past; continue it for two weeks. The gentleman will have a chance to speak to staff. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't stop all the work, though, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they've got lots of people working on it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly. MR. PRICE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: And Mr. Fennelly, that item's going to be continued for two weeks. Do you want to speak now or -- MR. FENNELLY: I would prefer to speak now, please. MR. MILLER: Sure, please. MR. FENNELLY: Thank you very much. Commissioners, my name is Mike Fennelly. I've been an owner at Royal Wood for almost 15 years now. For the last almost 10 years I have been a member of the board of directors. And I'd like to attest to you that all of the work and all of the support and June 11, 2019 Page 8 all of the procedural items for this SDPA were acco mplished approximately four years ago and only because of an oversight of not filing did we have to bring this forward now. So since we already had the approval of the community four years ago, we did not feel that we needed to go back out and request it at this time. I would like to say that Mr. Price represents a group of 16 disgruntled owners who are not willing to accept the majority of our community. The Royal Wood Master Board has continually supported the county. We have given land for the Santa Barbara extension. We most recently extended an easement for the Waste Management project so that they will be able to extend the building and processes at the corner of Santa Barbara and Rattlesnake Hammock. So at this point I would like to say that the Royal Wood Master Board was duly elected and authorized to enter into this request four years ago. There was only a mistake that it was not followed through and filed that brings us today. And I'd like to say that I think the previous speaker is in the wrong place. If he has a problem with what the Royal Wood Master Board is doing, then he needs to take us over to the next building. And I ask you to disregard his objection to this motion. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: That was your final speaker on the consent and summary agenda, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I appreciate the speaker's comments, but I think it's prudent if, in fact, we don't have the documentation from the actual board of directors that we continue the item for two weeks, let's just assert that everything is to Hoyle, and then we'll bring it forward and vote on it. June 11, 2019 Page 9 MR. KLATZKOW: I can't give you certainty today. I can give you certainty in two weeks. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. It should be placed on the consent agenda or summary again, either one. I don't know -- MR. KLATZKOW: It will go back to summary. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Logistically, it probably has to because it is a -- MR. KLATZKOW: Advertised. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- advertised -- an advertised event. So I'd be okay with continuing it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question. And that's fine. Just -- usually when there is controversy it's put before us; is that right? It doesn't go on summary. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't controversy. This is what happens in HOAs. People disagree, and unfortunately it doesn't rise up to the level until now. And I can't tell you who's right or who's wrong at this point in time. In two weeks I'll be able to tell you whether or not you the master's authority (sic) had the authority. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it's prudent for us to do that just to make sure, procedurally, that everything's okay. So with that -- and you want to -- somebody want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to continue to the next meeting. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For 17C. And then we're going to approve the agenda as -- make that part of your motion as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will -- I would like to request that we take 17C and put it on the next agenda for approval. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, that's the June 11, 2019 Page 10 first motion. It's been moved and seconded -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that we -- how'd you like that leading second? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I did. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Item 17C till our June 25th meeting. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, I'll call for a motion for the approval of today's agenda as adjusted. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve the agenda as adjusted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we accept today's agenda as adjusted. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. June 11, 2019 Page 11 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. June 11, 2019 Page 12 Item #2B REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 14, 2019 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 2B, the May 14th, 2019, BCC meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve the minutes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded the minutes from May 14th be approved as printed. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Now to our favorite part. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is our favorite part. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is. Item #3D PRESENTATION OF THE MAY 2019 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, PHIL GRAVITT, INSTRUMENTATION/ELECTRICAL TECHNICIAN, PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT – June 11, 2019 Page 13 PRESENTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, Item 3D is our presentation of the May 2019 Employee of the Month, team member of the month, Phil Gravitt, instrument/electrical technician with the Public Utilities Department. Phil, if you'd join us at the front. (Applause.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Phil, if you'd stand there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is the most important part. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is. Hold your award and face the audience and let us embarrass you a little bit in front of the group, all right. Phil has been with Collier County since 2016 and works in the Public Utilities wastewater power systems section. Phil's level of sustained dedication day in and day out continues to go unmatched. He is known for completing tasks, utilizing his superior skills and craftsmanship. Phil was assigned preventative maintenance tasks at the North County Water Reclamation Facility. Beyond performing a PM (sic) on the cabinet, he reworked the entire system and brought it to as-new, factory condition. His work extended the life of equipment another 10 years and has resulted in trouble-free equipment since the work was done. Phil's quiet demeanor, self-motivation, and process improvement skills have earned him the respect of both his team members and management alike. He's an outstanding team member and May 2019 Employee of the Month. Phil Gravitt. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Here we go. June 11, 2019 Page 14 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to speak, Phil? MR. GRAVITT: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Quiet demeanor, right? Item #4 PROCLAMATION - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 2019 AS YOUTH LEADERSHIP MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER FOUNDATION AMANDA BEIGHTS, TIFFANY LEHMAN, KATRINA VARELA AND ALEX BREAULT – ADOPTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 4A, proclamation designating June 2019 as Youth Leadership Month in Collier County. To be accepted by representatives of the Leadership Collier Foundation: Amanda Beights, Tiffany Lehman, Katrina Varela, and Alex Breault. Step forward. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to have young people here, isn't it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Amanda mentioned, as a graduate of the Youth Leadership Collier. And your name, ma'am (sic)? MR. ZAPPULA: Julien Zappulla. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations. June 11, 2019 Page 15 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this good? Should we move? You arrange us, Maria. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I had an opportunity to address this group a week, week-and-a-half ago, was it not? MS. BEIGHTS: Last week. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was an amazing experience. If you ever have an opportunity, please do. The questions that came forth were quite interesting. I really enjoyed it. Oh, please. Good morning. MS. BEIGHTS: Good morning. My name is Amanda Beights. I'm with the Leadership Collier Foundation. Youth Leadership Collier began in 2005. It's a week-long program dedicated to civic engagement and community leadership for rising seniors in high school. Our students tell us this program is life-changing as they learn about the intricacies of what makes this county run. In fact, one of their favorite activities last week was actually sitting in your chairs and learning about the process of a board of county commission meeting. It was one of their favorite activities, and they were very encouraged. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: These chairs are so bad I'm surprised no one complained. MS. BEIGHTS: Only 10 minutes, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They only had 10 minutes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be in our performance evaluation. MS. BEIGHTS: There were county managers and attorneys as well, and there were even public comment. And it was just a really fascinating experience for them, so much so that one of the students left with tears in her eyes and was hugging county staff and myself June 11, 2019 Page 16 and said, I just never realized how much access I have to make a difference. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Wow. MS. BEIGHTS: So we want to thank our county departments for their annual support in hosting us, all of our community partners, and we'd like to thank our founders of this program that began this program 15 years ago: Donna McNiven, whose daughter, Tiffany Lehman, is represented today. She continues to carry on her legacy for this program, and we're so grateful for that; Joan Cox; CJ Houston; Kathy Curatolo; and your very own Crystal Kinzel. So thank you so much, and here's to another 15 years. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amen. Thank you. (Applause.) Item #4B – Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet) PROCLAMATION HONORING THOSE WHO SERVED AND SACRIFICED TO LIBERATE EUROPE AND DEFEND AMERICA’S FREEDOM AND SECURITY ON THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY. ACCEPTED BY WORLD WAR II VETERANS JOHN BASIC, DAVID ISAACSON, DON MILLS, ROBERT SARGEANT, AND PAPPY WAGNER – ADOPTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to the add-on item, 4B, proclamation honoring those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe and defend America's freedom and security on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and I believe you'd like to read the names and read the proclamation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor's going to read the names and ranks, I believe, and then I'll read the proclamation -- June 11, 2019 Page 17 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and then we'll all get up and do the presentation of the proclamation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So as I read your name would you please just raise your hand. These are World War II Veterans: John Basic, Petty Officer Second Class, Navy Electric Technician; David Isaacson, Army Staff Sergeant. MR. ISAACSON: Navy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So David Isaac -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Navy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me; Pharmacist Mate Second Class Navy. MR. ISAACSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don Mills, Army Staff Sergeant; Robert Sargeant, Army Air Corps and Pattons Third Army; and Pappy Wagner, Private First Class Iwajima Marine. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I'd like to ask you to sit down, and we're going to read this proclamation. We might be here till tomorrow, so it's probably a lot more restful to sit down. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm a little bit of a slow reader. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, not that at all. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Whereas, on June 6th, 1944, D-Day, more than 130,000 Americans and Allied troops stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, and thousands more parachuted in behind enemy lines on a mission to retake Europe from control of Nazis; and, Whereas, the night before the operation, the largest amphibious assault in the history of the war, General Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a message to the Allied Expeditionary Force: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people June 11, 2019 Page 18 everywhere march with you. We will accept nothing less than full victory"; and, Whereas, paratroopers from the Army fell in behind enemy lines and shortly thereafter the first wave of American, British, and Canadian infantry divisions rushed forth onto the five beaches of the targeted 50-mile stretch of the French coastline codenamed Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword; and, Whereas, secure in the nobility of their cause and driven by the love of country, the heros of D-Day pressed forward against German onslaught. Through their gallantry and dedication to duty, they overwhelmed the enemy and secured the beachhead that allowed wave after wave of infantry to push onto the continent; and, Whereas, by day's end, the D-Day forces had pried upon Europe's door, through which streamed the forces of libertarian (sic) and ultimately ended the war, ended the horrors of the Holocaust, ended the tyrannical Hitler regime, and laid the foundation of a peace that persists to this day; and, Whereas, more than 28,000 veterans currently reside in Collier County, and many Collier County residents continue to serve on active duty in the National Guard and in the Reserve and components of the United States Armed Forces; and, Whereas, we pause to remember the 75th anniversary and honor all the brave soldiers and sailors and nurses and airmen whose selfless sacrifices catalyzed the deliverance of oppressed people and secured freedom for decades to come. May we always be true to the virtues and principles for those for which the greatest generation paid so dearly; and, Whereas, the United States of America will forever include the valor and sacrifices of the intrepid servicemen who took those beaches in Northwest France on June 6th, 1944. Now, therefore, the Collier County Board of County June 11, 2019 Page 19 Commissioners urge all citizens of Collier County to join in honoring those who served and sacrificed to liberate Europe and defend America's freedom. Signed, William L. McDaniel, Chairman. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all may be seated except for our honorees. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We were only one of 16-and-a-half in the armed forces. More than 10 percent of the country was in the armed forces. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow. MR. SMITH: Wayne Smith. These great gentlemen asked me to say thank you for your honor. And I'll just say one word. I was a prisoner of war for a while, and etched on a wall in one of our prison cells was the words "freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know," and you've set the stage and you've made it for me as well. So thank you for your great honor, and we thank all of you for recognizing these wonderful, wonderful gentlemen who, again, paved the way. Thanks. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Wayne. (Applause.) MR. SMITH: Mr. Isackson, by the way, was a D-Day honoree with the Legion of Merit, which is just behind a Congressional Medal of Honor. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that was heartwarming. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You should have been there on Monday. It was amazing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Could I get a motion to accept the proclamations. June 11, 2019 Page 20 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the proclamation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that the proclamations be accepted as presented. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir. Item #5B PRESENTATION OF THE RECOVERED REMNANTS OF THE U.S. FLAG THAT FLEW OVER THE COLLIER COUNTY PERMITTING OFFICE IN IMMOKALEE ON SEPT. 10, 2017, WHEN HURRICANE IRMA SWEPT THROUGH OUR AREA. TO BE PRESENTED BY THE STAFF FROM THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE MISSION: SHANNON BASSETT (SERVED IN THE U.S. NAVY), GREGORY GARCIA (SERVED IN THE U.S. AIR FORCE), JAMES ZUVER (SERVED IN THE U.S. ARMY), FELIX BURGOS (SERVED IN THE U.S. MARINE CORPS), TRISTAN PEREZ, WHO WAS A CADET IN THE JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS AT PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL – PRESENTED June 11, 2019 Page 21 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman and the Board, if it's your pleasure, could I jump to 5B, because it's a presentation of the flag from veterans, and I think it's consistent with what we just talked about a little bit. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. If our team could walk up as I call your name. Shannon Bassett served in the Navy; Felix Burgos, Marine Corps; Greg Garcia, Armed Force; James Zuver in the Army; and Tristan Perez, the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, Palmetto Ridge. And I'll tell you a little bit about them and what we're presenting to you. Commissioners, as you know, Friday, June 14th, is Flag Day, and through Hurricane Irma, they were unable to take the flag down. The system broke on the flagpole, and these folks took the flag down after the storm and cherished it, protected it, and put it in this presentation to give to the Board. And with that, we would like to hang that in the EOC commemorating Hurricane Irma. I think it's appropriate, and just accepted by the Board. If you all want to get in front, we'll take a picture of you in front of the Board with the flag. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. GARCIA: Actually, I'm a pretty loud guy. Anybody have any problem hearing me? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Greg, you need to be on the mic. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You need to be on the mic. But here -- wait, we can move the mic from the wall. MR. GARCIA: Unfortunately, one of the red stripes was missing upon retrieval, and we replaced it with a metallic that has a laser-etched message. "This battered flag flew over the Collier June 11, 2019 Page 22 County government building in Immokalee City through the devastation of Hurricane Irma on Sunday September 10th, 2017. And like the citizens of that community as well as everyone else within Collier County that stood fast, weathered the storm, and came out on the other side, may this flag continue to reflect and represent their determination to overcome and persevere in the face of any and all adversity." CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to say, why don't you just leave that right there for now. That's a nice place for it to be. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did it come out, the photograph? THE PHOTOGRAPHER: It came out really nice. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nice. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just say this is just another example of the dedication of our county staff. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. As we all know, the path of Irma came right up through the middle part of 951 and trailed out maybe two-and-a-half, three miles -- the eye went two-and-a-half, three miles east of us there -- or excuse me, west of us there in Immokalee. So there you are. What else do you say to that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Item #5D – Added ARTIST OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE – HAROLD KURZMAN; June 11, 2019 Page 23 ART ON DISPLAY IN THE BOARDROOM CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Before we go forward, I've been remiss. I'm going to -- since you went off-line, I'm going to. I forgot to announce the Artist of the Month, and there's some amazing art there in the back. Just quickly, the Artist of the Month is resident Harold Kurzman. Harold's interest in photography began when he worked for the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs. While stationed in Africa, Harold had the opportunity to photograph the beauty of Savanna's deserts, rivers, and safari park animals. After leaving government service, Harold worked as a consultant for international business films which gave him the opportunity to travel worldwide, including the locations in Turkey, the Philippines, and South America. It was at that time that travel photography became his passion. Upon retiring in '04, Harold made Collier County his home. His images have won numerous awards and have been featured in several galleries and publications. Before you leave today, if you have an opportunity, please take a moment and look at his work. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I add, Harold Kurzman also serves as vice chair for the Transportation Disadvantaged Program and has for many, many years and is faithful to that, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Thank you, Harold. Appreciate it very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now you may go. Item #5A June 11, 2019 Page 24 PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2019 TO THE NAPLES PLAYERS. ACCEPTED BY BRYCE ALEXANDER, EXECUTIVE ARTISTIC DIRECTOR, DEREK PERRY, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND BETHANY SAWYER OF THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes us back to Item 5A, presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for June 2019 to the Naples Players. To be accepted by Bryce Alexander, executive artist director; and Derek Perry, development director; also present is Bethany Sawyer representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Come on over here in the middle. You guys know the drill. (Applause.) MR. ALEXANDER: Good morning. My name is Bryce Alexander. I'm the executive artist director at the Naples Players, and I just wanted to say thank you to the county. This is obviously a nice reminder today of what an amazing community we live in; and also to the Chamber of Commerce. It's not often that we hear about non-profit arts organizations winning Business of the Month, but I think it's a wonderful sign of the movement that Collier County has towards arts and culture, and I think it's a nice reminder that arts and culture GDP in the United States is greater than that of the GDP of our nation's transportation and agriculture, which is, I think, stunning for most people. We hear a lot about farm bills and the things that we need to do to support the homeland of America, the heartland and, yet, arts and culture has a bigger economic impact on the nation than even those individual sectors, which is pretty spectacular. June 11, 2019 Page 25 And in the state of Florida, the Naples Players is, in many ways, regarded as one of the reasons that downtown Naples turned around 20 years ago. And so now we serve 60,000 people a year. We have an operating budget over three million. We have 550 active volunteers and more than 1,200 individuals in education. And we're not complaining, but I think it's worth noting that despite that large impact, the Naples Players last year received 10 grand in public support, and that's it. And that only comes from the state. There is no local tax that supports the art. There's no county tax; the state, when it can; and then the federal government when it also is approved. So we're not complaining. We're not asking you suddenly to create that. But I think as a strategic plan that you've put in place moves forward, that's something that's worth understanding about how the State of Florida falls and how arts and culture impacts our tourism community throughout the country and, certainly, locally. But thank you very much for having us and honoring us. I'm sure that there will be more arts and culture organizations in our future as you move down. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate it. (Applause.) Item #5C RECOGNITION OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEPHANIE VICK AND MEMBERS OF THE DOH-COLLIER TEAM FOR BEING AWARDED THE PRESTIGIOUS GOVERNOR'S STERLING AWARD FOR ACHIEVING HIGH STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE WITHIN THEIR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS. RECEIVING THE June 11, 2019 Page 26 RECOGNITION ARE ADMINISTRATOR VICK AND MEMBERS OF HER TEAM – PRESENTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, this is also a prestigious item. Item 5C, recognition of Florida Department of Health in Collier County, Administrator Stephanie Vick and the members of the Department of Health Collier Team, for being awarded the prestigious Governor's Sterling Award for high standards of performance, excellence within their management and operations. Receiving the recognition, our administrator, Stephanie Vick, and members of her team. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Leave it up to Stephanie to go the wrong way. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our audience is going to be empty when you guys leave. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: When they leave, the place is going to be empty. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, I thought everybody was here to see me, but they were just here to get that award. MS. VICK: Okay. So good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here again in front of you and for an exciting reason. I'm Stephanie Vick. I'm the health officer and administrator of our county Health Department. And as you saw, I had a number of our staff that came along with me this morning. We sincerely thank you for your recognition of our receipt of the Governor's Sterling Award. This award is about continuous improvement and achievement. It takes dedication and constant attention to results. It definitely June 11, 2019 Page 27 reflects the efforts of all of our staff. It's not just me. It's everybody. And I want you to know that there is a benefit to winning and striving towards this Sterling Award in that it helps us in management of our business operations now and a review of the past but prepares us for the future. So we're hoping to remain an excellent organization for Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm thinking you will. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Mr. Chairman, that takes you to your advertised public hearings: Item 9A and a companion, Item 11A. Do we have public comment? Okay, thank you. MR. MILLER: You want to do public comment on general -- Item 7 or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's next. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. MILLER: Yes. Item 7, we have one registered speaker. Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She's over there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On the wrong side of the room. MS. BURTON: Good morning, Collier County Commissioners. My name is Rae Ann Burton, Rural Golden Gate Estates. My comments cover basic concerns over proposed mixed-use developments, lack of cell phone towers, and denial of personal generators. They're endangering area homeowners' safety and welfare. Also, the developers are given carte blanche on building. June 11, 2019 Page 28 Constant rezoning requests from developers to increase unit density, unit height, and even build adjacent to existing developments. Who wants their home next to a high-rise with windows looking down on you? Units are increased in density so close together. Personal generators denied by county. Developer should provide generator backups for the developments, the same as utilities because of this denial. This would also cut down the number of people seeking hurricane shelter. Because of development growth, cell towers should be built within the development as they are in the fringe area. It would increase community's selling points, a better, safer, and reliable cell phone service, plus lease money from the cell phone companies. More consideration should be made on the impact made by the dense built communities, increase the people in cars, how to evaluate safety, and without harm. Golden Gate's Estates Rural can only build one occupied residence per acre. Why are developers permitted more and so close together? Check past evacuations of prior hurricane. Many stranded on I-75 because traffic could not move. I-75 has daily traffic accidents, and it's not even season. Thursday, June 6th a 500-pound bear was killed by a car near Bonita Springs; tied up southbound I-75 for hours. For Florida Fish and Wildlife, more bears will die. It is mating season. Their habitat is less. If growth is on the table, build the promised ATV park. More roads put them and bike riders and walkers in harm's way. I'm here to request that you honor the commissioner's mission/guiding principles: Vision to be the best community in America to live, work, and play. Build an AT (sic) park. June 11, 2019 Page 29 Mission - to deliver a high-quality, best-value public-services programs and facilities to meet the needs of our residents, visitors, and businesses today - growth regulated. Guiding principles - honesty, integrity, service, accountability, quality, consistent, respect, knowledge, stewardship, collaboration, self-initiating, self-correcting. Be true to the homeowners, not the developers. Motto - exceeding expections (sic) every day. This is what we expect from the Board. To make as little impact or destruction and to regulate the growth of Rural Golden Gate Estates to protect and to preserve wildlife and the rural environment. Thank you. MR. MILLER: That is our only registered speaker for Item 7. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Item #9A ORDINANCE 2019-11: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAUMGARTEN MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 400 June 11, 2019 Page 30 MULTIFAMILY AND/OR TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 270,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES AT THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 26, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 55.66+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED Item #11A A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH BCHD PARTNERS II, LLC., (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY) TO RESERVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY SYSTEM AND ALLOW A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SPECIFIC ACCESS POINTS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEVELOPER DONATING LAND AND EASEMENTS TO THE COUNTY AND RECEIVING STORMWATER FOR A FUTURE OVERPASS AT COLLIER BOULEVARD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD – APPROVED Okay. Mr. Chairman, board members, this takes us to Item 9A and Companion Item 11A, advertised public hearing. Item 9A is proposal to rezone a section of Rural Agricultural "A" zoning district to Mixed Use Planned Development known as Baumgarten MPUD to allow up to a maximum of 400 multifamily units and townhouse units and up to 270,000 square feet of commercial land uses. And this is at the southeast corner of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have five registered speakers for this item. June 11, 2019 Page 31 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it is an ex parte. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I'm going to go through. We'll do our ex parte now. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I've had meetings with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Genson, I've had numerous emails from neighboring residents, and a letter from the Tarpon Cove residents as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've also had -- I've received mail and email from residents. I've met with Rich Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold, David Genson, and there was somebody else. I can't remember. Was that it? Just the three of you? Okay. And then also there was a discussion with some Planning Commissioners, and I read the staff report. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I've had meetings with the representatives of the developer and some emails, telephone calls. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Meetings with developer and the developer's agents, meetings -- monitored not in great detail, but the Planning Commission meetings, both meetings, emails from constituents, telephone call. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, myself, have had meetings, correspondence, and emails as well. So with that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Petitioner presents. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. Wayne June 11, 2019 Page 32 Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates representing the applicant. With me today is David Genson and Dan Waters, both from Barron Collier Companies. Rich Yovanovich, our land-use counsel, and Norm Trebilcock, our traffic engineer, are here. I think I'll make a brief presentation for you and then be happy to answer any questions that you might have. So as most of you are aware, this is the former Pelican Nursery site at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. It's just under 56 acres. I'm bringing that up on the visualizer. It's just an aerial photograph that shows you the boundary of the property. You can see that the site's been cleared for the nursery operations that had existed there for the past 30 years or so, and then you see our neighbors immediately south at Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek to the east. And I think if you all monitored the Planning Commission meeting, you saw that there were several concessions made by the developer for this project. We reduced the square footage from 370,000 square feet to 270,000 square feet, and we also eliminated the hotel use from the proposal. I do want to point out one error that's an oopsie on my part. When we corrected that to reduce the square footages, I missed that in a location. This is known as Exhibit B to the PUD document, and you can see in the red highlights at the bottom we need to strike the reference to the hotel/motel and need to change the reference from 370,000 square feet to 270,000. This appears in two places in the PUD document. My error of not getting that corrected. We provided that to the County Attorney's Office so that your ordinance should be correct. This is of the PUD master plan. And, again, the -- one of the June 11, 2019 Page 33 attributes of this project is it is located in your activity center. It happens to be a master planned activity center, and it's owned by a singular entity, which means we get to manipulate the boundary of the activity center of commercial, and by doing that we were able to put residential adjacent to our two residential neighbors for the most part. The one mixed-use tract in the northeast corner of our tract abuts what was a cell tower site for Bent Creek when we started this process. There's a small preserve there as well. But this project, obviously, has access to Immokalee Road. It has access to Collier Boulevard. It's proposed to have a signalized access to Collier Boulevard, which is a benefit to both of the communities that will be interconnected to us, and I think that's a unique aspect of this project that both Bent Creek and Tuscany Cove wanted the interconnect. And, in fact, Tuscany Cove had provided a stub-out interconnection when they developed their property several years ago. This also has a companion developer agreement that, if we need to answer questions, Mr. Yovanovich would do that. But you can see along the top portion of this exhibit there's a right-of-way dedication that that land will be given to the county. We're taking in some of the water management for that, and that's a future grade-separated intersection. So that's a brief outline of where we are, and be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have no one lit up. Did you appropriately dock his pay for not fixing the documentation accordingly for today? And just as a point of clarity, when I was reading this, I thought you said that we were eliminating the hotel and adjusting the square footage down to 240-, and I think my -- is it 270-. June 11, 2019 Page 34 MR. ARNOLD: It should be 270-, and there's also a caveat in there, if you read the details, that anything above 250,000 square feet has to be associated with the self-storage. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: So it's actually less unless we build self-storage. That's the only way we get to 270,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I just thought I heard you say -- MR. ARNOLD: If I did, my apologies. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, for the record, what are we looking at? What are we reducing the square footage by? MR. ARNOLD: A hundred thousand square feet from 370 -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And eliminating the use of the hotel. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, with no comments, then we're going to go with our public comment. MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Robert Pritt, and he will be followed by Cheryl Ollila. MR. PRITT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hello, Robert. MR. PRITT: My name is Robert Pritt. I'm with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I represent Tuscany Cove Master Property Owners' Association. And I'm here to tell you that although we started out at odds with the developer over certain issues and some of the issues you've heard before in other context having to do with taller buildings next to single-family, existing single-family, and single-story homes, we were able to work that out. June 11, 2019 Page 35 Thanks to the Planning Commission, they continued the matter. We went back and talked, and both parties came to an agreement on that. It took some talking on both sides, but we were very happy to be able to report to the Planning Commission at the second meeting that we have worked it out. We've lost the -- on the screen we've lost the -- can you pull that back up, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Do you want the master plan? MR. PRITT: No, just the one you had up there a minute ago showing the -- at the bottom there you'll see -- it's kind of hard for me to see it -- but, yeah, right there. There's a setback line there. It says 105-foot building setback, and what that represents is the fact that they were able to pull their multifamily -- multistory, multifamily buildings away from -- as much as possible away from the property. And I don't know that that satisfies every single person in Tuscany Cove, but as far as the master association is concerned, they did agree to that, and some of the other things that Wayne Arnold alluded to a minute ago providing for some internal access back and forth. That's consistent with what this board encourages. That has been done, and so we're happy with that. I do have Gary Boutin, who is the vice president of Tuscany Cove. I don't think he plans to speak. We did put a card in, a speaker slip in, and he took the oath just in case you want to ask him any questions. But that's the position of the board, and we're happy to support the application. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Robert. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Cheryl Ollila. She will be followed by Dale Walters. MS. OLLILA: Good morning. I'm Cheryl Ollila. I'm the president of the Quarry Community Association. It's a 900-home community off Immokalee Road near this development. June 11, 2019 Page 36 I did attend the Planning Commission meeting and, like the attorney before me, was very pleased to see that agreements were worked out with the developer. I'm here today to continue our concerns as the Quarry community with the transportation and the lack of traffic signals along Immokalee Road. The county has planned a traffic signal at the intersection of Quarry Drive and Woodcrest with Immokalee Road, and that should be starting in the fall and the traffic signal working next May, according to Trinity Scott. But I asked in the Planning Commission meeting about the traffic denial -- the traffic signal denial of a light at Bellaire Bay Drive, which is where the Racetrac gas station is on Immokalee -- is denied because of some various reasons but also because it's in the way of the overpass or flyover. And it's my understanding that that flyover is not even in the 2040 plan of Collier County. So we're looking at potentially it's 25 years on the road. Bellaire Bay Drive 2,500 -- approximately 2,500 feet from the intersection of Immokalee and Collier. Goodland Bay Drive, which is another 1,100 feet east, so 3,600 feet away from the intersection, is where the Baumgarten development will align with Goodland Bay Drive. Again, a traffic signal will not be placed there because of this flyover. So the only traffic signal that is in the works, perhaps, for the next 30 or more years, is the traffic signal that's going at Quarry Drive, which is, perhaps, a mile. I'm not sure how far Quarry Drive is from Goodland Bay. I only know that Goodland Bay is 3,600 feet, approximately, according to Trinity Scott. The light that is going in with the Baumgarten development, that is south on Collier Boulevard at Pebblebrooke, and the Baumgarten development is only 1,100 feet south of that intersection. So for people traveling on Immokalee Road, they will not be able -- when June 11, 2019 Page 37 they leave the Baumgarten development and wish to travel west on Immokalee Road, they will have to make a right turn, he ad east, and then do their U-turn either at the Goodland Bay -- I understand there is a turn there but not a signal, so people will be taking their lives in their hands to try to make a U-turn in front of all that traffic going at 50 miles per hour, or they use in front of The Quarry, which is going to get very congested. We're very concerned about the lack of traffic signals for this planned flyover which our understanding is it's way down the road, perhaps not in my lifetime, and I don't know if it's contingent upon an agreement with Lee County to extend Collier Boulevard north. So my question is -- no problems with the development. We're glad to see stores and restaurants and things like that for us to use it out in our section of Collier County, but the traffic signal and safety issues are paramount. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dale Walters. He will be followed by Connie Walters. MR. WALTERS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, Dale. MR. WALTERS: I live directly behind this project plan, as well as do 37 other homeowners. So there are some of us that are concerned despite the comment you've already had. I was looking at the Collier County strategic planning workshop from 2017, and it states that the county will focus on growth management, that Collier County with focus on ways to create and maintain communities that are vibrant, attractive, and safe. A strategic goal is to preserve and enhance the safety, quality, value, character, and heritage of our neighborhoods. The plan states that Collier County is a rapidly growing area. It June 11, 2019 Page 38 is the county's responsibility to manage and promote the county's growth. The county's growth is managed to prevent inconsistent, undesirable, and unattractive growth. What I've just quoted is from the Collier County strategic plan in 2017. Well, at this time there are three home developments on Immokalee Road: Bent Creek, Richmond Park, and LaMorada, all of them within a half a mile east of the property being discussed. These communities are being developed right now. Also a new -- as new as the Addison Apartments, which is on the northwest corner at Collier and Immokalee Road. The addition of the proposed property does not seem to conform to the 2017 plan to have desirable growth within close proximity. The plan for this development will have apartments 65 feet tall, and they'll be close to our existing homes. I'm one of them, and these are single-story homes. I don't see how that will conform to the desirable, attractive growth that we're hoping to have. The strategic plan states it will preserve the character of our neighborhoods, so I'm just asking for you to consider that in this thought. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Dan. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Connie Walters, and she will be followed by Gary Boutin. MS. WALTERS: Good morning. I'm Connie Walters. I'm a long-time resident of Collier County since 1976. I probably know a lot of your family, your friends, your supervisors, your coworkers. Being here that long, you know a lot of people. And as you can imagine, I've seen a lot of change in Collier County. Some of it good, some of it not so good. But I wanted to speak to you today as a resident, as a mother, as a grandmother, as a coworker, as a friend, as a neighbor. It's an emotional issue for me because I live right where they're going to be June 11, 2019 Page 39 building. Therefore, I might stutter and stammer a little because my heart and my mind don't always work at the same conjunction as my mouth. So I wanted to talk about being a mother. When a child comes to you and they ask for five cookies, you know it's not good for them. And I am doing a little parallel here, as you can imagine, with the property development. I'm not against giving that child a cookie. That's perfectly fine. Everybody deserves to have a cookie; however, they know that if they ask for five cookies maybe they'll get three, and maybe they shouldn't because they'll get a tummy ache. Now, this tummy ache is what's going to affect everybody around them. Not only is it not good for their tummies; it's going to affect everybody that comes in contact with them, i.e., us. We want to give them a cookie. That's fine. I'm not against growth and development, but I do want it to be responsible, and I do feel that a 65-foot building next to single-family community is not a responsible development. They're going to be right behind my house. They will be looking in my lanai as I have my coffee in the morning. They will see me play with my grandchildren out on the porch. I will see their cars drive into their parking lot every night shine in my bedroom window. So my desire, give them their cookie, but make a berm, put trees on top of it. There is a waterway plan, but in front of most of our houses there, it will be a ditch and eventually will dry up or breed mosquitoes. Put the berm before the waterway or after the waterway. Put the parking lot on the other side of the building so it's not in our bedroom windows. I'm just asking for just some crumbs. Don't give them the five cookies. Please help us. Thank you. June 11, 2019 Page 40 MR. MILLER: And your next speaker is Gary Boutin, and he is your final speaker on this item. MR. BOUTIN: Good morning. I'm Gary Boutin from the Tuscany Cove HOA. I'm the vice president, and I'm here today to discuss our agreement with the developers. As part of the discussions we had, we came to an agreement, and as part of that agreement, we're here to support the project. But I understand some of the concerns of some of the residents. And I think really looking back at this overall, I think the designation of that area as an activity center was not known to anybody, really. I mean, anybody I ask, they said, do you know what that is? What does that means? And none of us really did, so we bought into the community, and we didn't understand what the potential was in the adjacent property. I don't know if that's anything -- there's anything that this board could do, but as far as the communication on that and what that means, maybe have a map that sort of shows that, if there's other places in the community, that may help the residents going forward. But I don't have any objection to what we've done so far, and we're in support of our -- of the agreement that we have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Gary. MR. BOUTIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have to say that I was pleased to see the interconnectivity between the surrounding communities as well. That's something that we've been stressing from our vantage point feeling that it saves the roadway if you can interconnect into the -- between these places as well, so I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. June 11, 2019 Page 41 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple things. Mr. Arnold, could you comment on the testimony that we just heard from the couple concerning the lights in the bedroom and that sort of thing -- MR. ARNOLD: Sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and the desire for a berm? I'm not sure where that is. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And maybe even show us the locations of the berm and the landscape. I'm sure there's some artist renderings floating around somewhere that could -- MR. ARNOLD: Let me just describe, and then I'll maybe show you a graphic that will help better depict that. But we did a video flyover with the drone during the Planning Commission, and we demonstrated that, that they have a mature buffer at Tuscany Cove that will remain intact. We'll have, also, a buffer on our side, obviously. It's going to be what's considered a Type B buffer. It's 15 feet in width. It has trees every 30 feet. It also has to have a hedge and a wall maintained at six feet in height. So one of the other components of this discussion was building height. And if you go to your regular zoning code, RMF16, C4, they have setbacks that are based on heights of the buildings. And in this particular case with the 105-foot setback that we agreed to, it far exceeds what otherwise would have been a 37-and-a-half-foot setback per your Land Development Code. So we think the combination of the landscape buffer that we will be providing -- the other component of that, one of the larger issues that Tuscany provided, this master plan is a little different than where we started because we did not have a lake on our south boundary. This master plan shows a lake system along the entire boundary, which gives the further separation between the two communities. So those were components of our discussion. June 11, 2019 Page 42 And if you'll give me a moment, I have a line -of-sight exhibit somewhere in my stack of stuff that we can show you. But we did that as well, a line-of-sight drawing. It's probably a little large for the exhibit. Back that out just a little. But it basically shows that between their mature buffer and our proposed buildings at the setback that they would be, there really is no direct line of sight between the two communities. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What are we looking at here? MR. ARNOLD: This is from the south boundary at Tuscany Cove looking into our community. You can see their mature buffer to the -- it shows that you'll end up with two levels of buffering. You have our water management lakes and then, obviously, theirs was a nice existing buffer. Our property was cleared for the nursery operations. There are a few scattered trees, but those have to come out because mostly they're exotic. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Are there any enhancements to the landscaping or to the berm that would protect some of those neighbors from what they perceive -- at least perceive to be potential for, you know, traffic -- or lights from automobiles in their windows and people being able to see into their lanai? I mean, I -- MR. ARNOLD: Personally -- Rich has got a different exhibit. Yeah, the hedge has to be 80 percent opaque within a year. So I think the fact that there are two hedges and two rows of trees, I don't think that lights are going to be a concern. We've also agreed to some other concessions with regard to outdoor amplified sound and music and things like that that help, obviously, make this a compatible relationship. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I have one other comment. I was meeting with Mr. Casalanguida and was concerned about the developer agreement, and I wanted to make sure that we didn't leave any money on the table, if you will. And I was advised June 11, 2019 Page 43 that Trinity Scott did a great job with negotiating that and did a nice job for the county in terms of protecting the public interest. I just wanted to indicate that. Also, there was discussion about traffic on Immokalee Road. And we're going to be talking a little bit about that. I know that the manager -- Mr. Casalanguida has that as a priority to deal with some of those intersections and deal with those traffic issues. I will be asking Mr. Casalanguida why there would be a reluctance to place a traffic light in an area where there may be an overpass in 30 or 40 years. So we're going to have that conversation today under council communications. So I'm not suggesting you need to stick around for that, but there will be some conversation about that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It will be an interesting tape for you to watch. I drive through there all the time, so... Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Those trees, are we looking at canopy trees? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, they are, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not palm trees? MR. ARNOLD: We can plant some palms, but I think we're -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Palm trees don't block light when they grow. The little ones do, but not -- how tall are these trees going to be? MR. ARNOLD: I believe they are 10 feet at time of planting is what the code requires for the canopy trees. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the kind of trees? MR. ARNOLD: Most likely they will be oaks. That seems to be the easiest material to get. They sustain, obviously, as well as any other native tree. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They are a pretty decent screen. June 11, 2019 Page 44 Okay. Any chance of enhancing that a little bit at your -- I know it's your dime; I understand that -- beyond the code? MR. ARNOLD: I can maybe take a moment to confer with my client. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That would be a good huddle to get into. MR. ARNOLD: Any other questions while they're discussing that behind my back? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, since we're on the landscape buffering, you know, that's one of my main discussion points I wanted to talk about, and I'd like for us -- I'd like to suggest today if the developer is in the mood -- but oftentimes the negative impacts that come from any kind of growth and development have to do with the construction. And I would -- and we're building a facility at the wastewater and water facility in Eastern Collier County. I would like to see if we can adjust our construction planning and do the landscape buffering first. Do the berm; do the wall; do the landscape buffering first as a part of our process just to enhance the reduction of negative impacts to the residents. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. There have been -- at times you've imposed upon us as we're doing our initial site work that we put the berm in as part of the initial site work, and we don't have an objection to doing that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like to have that in position, if we could possibly. And I would also like to know the definition between -- is the Type B buffer the most obstructive or prohibitive for light, sight, and sound barrier? Is it the most intense buffering that could, in fact, be utilized? What is the most, Mr. Bosi? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll let Mr. Bosi answer that. MR. BOSI: Good morning, Board. Mike Bosi, Planning and June 11, 2019 Page 45 Zoning director. I was just conferring with Nancy Gundlach, our project manager, who's also a landscape architect, and she had indicated a Type C would be the most vegetated and obstructing. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So while you're in huddle, would you consider doing a Type C along that south end where those residents, in fact, are? MR. YOVANOVICH: If someone can give me a hint as to the difference between a B and a C. MS. GUNDLACH: Double row of trees. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: More trees. MR. YOVANOVICH: I figured that. But is it 25 on center or 30 on center? I don't know the answer. MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. The difference between a B and a C buffer is the C buffer has a double row of trees, and I believe it's 25 feet on center. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, we had the similar issue years ago with Stevie Tomato, which was a commercial develo pment and it was adjacent to residential. We put in a substantial buffer as your requirement in between the two, far better than a Type C. I think it's been very successful. That buffer might be looked into as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't want to jump to that at this particular stage, but I would like to have a conversation with the developer -- I don't mean to get in front of you on this. Am I? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're heading down the same path. MR. YOVANOVICH: One thing I want to make sure, because make no mistake, we don't have commercial adjacent to residential. We have Tuscany Cove residential adjacent to our residential, so June 11, 2019 Page 46 that's what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not talking about that. I'm not talking about commercial. I'm happy with the layout, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The issue that is -- and that is that I would like to see the most opaque buffering along that southwest side minimumly (sic) along where that lake is along on the southwest side just to help buffer the folks in -- those residents. I mean, there's no argument that a single-family next to a 65-foot-tall building is a big deviation or differentiation from single-family residential to multifamily. I'm not talking about reducing the elevation of our building or anything. I just -- I want the construction of the berm first, and I would like it to be for that period for that swath of, however long that is, quarter of a mile, for that enhanced buffering to go in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well -- and, frankly, when we met with the Tuscany Cove HOA, the way they wanted to address multifamily next to single-family was to increase the setback from what your code would be of if you're -- if you're a 55-foot-tall building, your code would require a 27-and-a-half-foot setback. We're at 105 feet. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're pretty close to four times. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all happy with those concessions and the changes that have, in fact, been done. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, a new request, which didn't come up with the Planning Commission, was this enhanced buffer which was not requested by anybody in Tuscany Cove. We did commit that if there are pockets -- because Tuscany Cove -- pretty much every one of those homes in Tuscany Cove have a substantial buffer already, but where there were pockets we had agreed to do some additional planting. I don't know that we agreed an additional June 11, 2019 Page 47 planting of a quarter of a mile. That's different. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm guessing. I don't know what -- the lineage there. This map doesn't give me a foot from the southwest corner over to the end of that first lake. I don't think the entire piece of property's a quarter mile, is it? MR. YOVANOVICH: You said quarter of a mile, so I was trusting you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, trust me is a good thing, but put the other map back up, Sean, so I can be very, very clear. See where his -- see where the southwest corner of the property is, Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I see the southwest. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- extending to the east to where the end of the south lake is? Right there. That's where I'm talking about; Type C buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, however long -- Commissioner, when's your normal break? I mean, you're -- this is not something that we had been asked to consider, and I'd like to have a couple minutes to talk to my client about the cost impact of that. I don't think that's unreasonable or unfair to ask. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're in no hurry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not -- we're not in a hurry at all. Actually, we have all day. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do, too. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we're going to take a break at 10:30. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we do it -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want us to go through the balance of our questions, and then you can give me an answer to that when we come back? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Any other questions, June 11, 2019 Page 48 Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You handled that quite well, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: First time. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would like to first just commend all the parties on -- I mean, this is the way this process is supposed to work, the neighbors get together, they discuss what can make it the best development, and -- this is the way it's supposed to work. But I would like maybe for Mr. Arnold or staff to talk a little bit about the developer agreement because I think it's good for the residents to understand the commitments that the developer's made and the benefits to the county from this agreement, because it's substantial in relation to the overpass when it actually happens and stormwater and all of that. Because I think that's important. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, Trinity Scott put this together, the County Attorney assisted, and we did a final review. She did a fantastic job, and I'm sure she could walk you through it. Ms. Scott? MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I'll give you, as I gave the Planning Commission, the Reader's Digest version, not the full 20 pages, unless you would like me to read it. The developer is going to design and permit their stormwater management system to receive and tr eat the stormwater created by the planned overpass. They're also going to install three manholes along the right-of-way which allow us, when we construct the overpass, just to connect into those manholes; so we won't have to go on their property. Upon completion of the overpass, every five years the developer June 11, 2019 Page 49 is going to perform an inspection of their stormwater management system and provide that information back to us, so that way we know that our outfall is working well. They will also be responsible for their perpetual operation and maintenance of that shared stormwater system. They will be providing 1.34 acres along Immokalee Road which will allow for the construction of the future overpass. We needed some additional right-of-way in that area. If you go out there now, it's an area where we have no sidewalk. The sidewalk starts a little east of this, because we did not have the right -of-way when we widened Immokalee Road, so now this will allow that sidewalk to come out to Collier Boulevard as well. They're also providing a 20-foot utility easement that will allow us to relocate the FPL power poles when we begin construction. And the developer is also going to be waiving any and all claims for compensation and damages associated with our const ruction of the overpass as well as they will have to give notice to their tenants and buyers, both residential and commercial, who purchase or lease land from them that the overpass is planned. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's all at the developer's cost at this point? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including the perpetual -- MS. SCOTT: Operations and maintenance of the stormwater system, yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Very good. That's -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Really good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's worth a lot to the county -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- so thank you very much. June 11, 2019 Page 50 MS. SCOTT: And if I could, just for the record, this was a big ask by the county. This ask augmented efforts that our Deputy County Manager in his prior roles had already started as far as setting aside the right-of-way, and you see that on the north end where we've relocated the canal trying to set this intersection up for the future. And so this was kind of that last piece of the puzzle, so the developer came to the table, and they were very cooperative, and I have to say I'm really appreciative of that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Great job. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have one question. Is the overpass going to look as good as the one on Golden Gate Parkway? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be for a future board to decide where they want to spend their funds. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sixty million here, 60 million there; what do you do? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You set a standard. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to go ahead and -- are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, let's go ahead and take our court reporter's break now. Give you a minu te to rally your troops. How's that? We'll be back at 10:35. (A brief recess was had.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're back from our break. I would like to hear the answer to my question. How are you? MR. YOVANOVICH: How am I? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good. June 11, 2019 Page 51 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. How do you feel about the enhancement berm, or the landscaping, forgive me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here's our proposal, and I can show you an exhibit as to why we think it's appropriate what we're proposing. We will agree that within the Type B buffer we will include a fence which will have the vinyl slats in it to create additional opacity in addition to the required hedge that will be as part of the berm. So that will be for the entirety of that length that you're talking about. So that will provide additional opacity that would address any concerns of somehow -- and I could show you the site plan that somehow -- car lights are somehow going to go into people's backyards. Also, what I understood you to say, Commissioner McDaniel, that I drew on the exhibit, two lines was the area that you were -- I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same area. We will agree that there are -- and I can show you the drone flight, if you want to see that next. There are a couple of homes that, on the Tuscany side, they don't have their required trees. Where those two homes are we would do the additional plantings of a Type C buffer in the Type B buffer width on those two homes, or if there's three homes when you see the drone. There are very few homes in Tuscany Cove that don't have their required trees. Where that doesn't exist, we would do additional plantings to the Type C planting scheme but in the 15-foot width. We don't have 20 feet in width to do that, but the 15 feet will be sufficient for the plantings. So we propose that as a condition together with we would build this all as part of the site work; the berm would go in as part of the initial site work. We think that, together with the fact that we pulled the buildings back to 105 feet and all of the other additional commitments we made June 11, 2019 Page 52 in the developer agreement, more than -- more than address concerns for the community. So we would propose that as a landscaping condition. And if you want me to put the drone up, I'll show you the drone, and you'll see how much existing vegetation exists. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. What I'm trying to do is work this through my head to see that short of -- from a reduction of inconvenience standpoint -- reduction of impact standpoint. How are we, the government, going to monitor this to ensure -- I mean, because basically what you're proposing, in lieu of going from B to C in a buffer, you're proposing a fence. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we would do the fence the whole width -- the whole length, not just certain areas. It would be the entire length of that blue area, those two lines, and there would be a fence with the vinyl slats in it so it's basically opaque. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Virtually. And it's six feet high. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Six feet high. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, remember, we already have to do a hedge along that same area, so you're -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- double the opacity. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then in the areas where there is breaks in Tuscany's landscaping, you'll enhance to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: C. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to the C buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: The plantings of a C within the 15-foot wide -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On their property or on ours? MR. YOVANOVICH: It would be on our property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On yours. June 11, 2019 Page 53 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's better than it was. It's not as easy for me to follow, but it's better than it was. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the slats would have more opacity than the vegetation probably. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would agree. Slats don't grow. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And slats stay -- the 6-foot fence stays the 6-foot fence, and the enhanced trees would, ultimately, over time, help with the obstruction of the view of the height of the buildings and the single-family and that sort of thing. That's the reason I was going in that direction. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that, and that's in areas where they don't have their required trees. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I understand. Having said all that, I'm going to commend the developer and the community, the folks, for working together in a cooperative manner. I like the project. I am pleased with the cooperation that's transpired to get us to where we are. There's a lot of people that are impacted by this. So with those adjustments, I'm going to make a motion that we approve both of the items, 9A and 11A, I believe. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, if we could, staff traditionally puts something on the record. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Staff just wanted to put a perspective that we are in agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendation -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. MR. BOSI: -- the modifications being proposed. This plan is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and staff is recommending approval. June 11, 2019 Page 54 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think -- can I just -- that's an important thing to point out is that this is an activity center. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this is where we want this. MR. BOSI: Correct, Commissioner. This is the type of development that the Growth Management Plan would promote, and it follows your traditional transect planning concept of where you have a higher intensity of commercial activity stepped down with how -- with multifamily. So what it's going to do is assist with the housing diversity that we know we need more assistance of within this county, and then steps down to the lower residential to the projects. And with the distance, with the additional buffering, I think those conditions have been arranged towards where there will be as little impact -- and with the interconnection provided both from Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek, those are trips that will be not onto the system if they're going to get their goods and services when this shopping center does develop. So there's a lot of benefits and there's a lot of good practices that come from this development. Staff is fully in support. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Great job. Thanks. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Absolutely. Commissioner Taylor, do you have a question of Michael? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. The 37-and-a-half foot setback, can you -- MR. BOSI: Could I, yeah, confirm that the Land Development Code would only require that 37-and-a-half-foot setback off of a 75-foot building when you have residential to residential. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think that's a discussion for another day. But boy, oh, boy, we better change that. We better. June 11, 2019 Page 55 MR. BOSI: One comment, though. There's a concept within -- within planning schools of moving towards an airport, and they put single-family development right next to -- the development of Tuscany Cove at Bent Cheek chose to locate single-family development right next to the edge of an activity center. The expectation from anyone who purchased there with the recognition of what our Growth Management Plan is trying to promote within this area would put them on notice that a higher intensity type of development is what's being planned from our Growth Management Plan, the highest regulatory document that we have from a county standpoint. I'm not saying that we don't have to adhe re to the impacts of development, and I think the increased buffering is doing so, but those developments were put in close proximity to an area that's been designated since 1989 as the highest intensity area of land-use activity for the county. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh -- and I didn't say we did anything wrong, and certainly the developer has worked very hard to make these concessions. I'm just saying with the overall plan, that is absolutely ridiculous. That is 30 -- 37-and-a-half feet are we talking about? So how many yards is that? Tell me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ten; 10-yard line. MR. BOSI: Twelve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, 12-and-a-half line. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Depends on which way you fall. Where's the sword. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you've got now. Is the county at fault? No. Is the developer at fault? No. Is the original developer who's been smart to have sold it and not educated everybody? Of course. And, yes, it's a buyer beware, yes. June 11, 2019 Page 56 But I think there's something that perhaps we can do to start recognizing what is out there; that we are growing; that activity centers are now going to be claimed despite the astonishment of folks who live around it and start, you know, ameliorating it or changing the kind of buffers or something so that -- it would have been awful if it had been 37-and-a-half feet with a 65-foot building next to you. And that's where everybody's going. They're going up. They're not going -- it's not the old way of all the same level. Everyone's going up right now. So perhaps for another day, if I have consensus of my colleagues, that we could look at that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Happy to look at it, but I need to second your motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I'm so sorry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, that's okay. We're just -- we're ready to go. Your subject -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's another day. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's another day. It's been moved and seconded. And just as a point of clarification, are we in concert with the adjustment in the construction period to work on those buffers first just to reduce the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe I said we would agree to the condition that, as part of our site work -- we would do the buffers as part of our site work. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I missed that part, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the first thing I said. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded with those adjustments and conditions and recommendations of the CPC (sic) that the project be approved. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? June 11, 2019 Page 57 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, I couldn't have timed this thing more perfect. I guess your time -certain is 10:45. Item #11B DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING ORDINANCE NO. 2011-24, REGARDING THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY USE OF FERTILIZER ON URBAN LANDSCAPES – MOTION TO ADVERTISE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE – APPROVED So your next item, recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring for a public hearing an ordinance repealing and replacing Ordinance 2011-24 regarding the Florida friendly use of fertilizer or urban landscapes -- on urban landscapes. And Danette Kinaszczuk will present the item. MR. MILLER: And I have five public speakers, and it looks like more coming in for this item, sir. MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm Danette Kinaszczuk, your Pollution Control manager. Recent water-quality issue put the focus back to fertilizer, and in June 11, 2019 Page 58 February you guys all hosted a fertilizer workshop with the municipalities. Although we weren't all able to come together for a countywide ordinance, you asked that we bring back an ordinance base d on the more stringent recommendations that staff made during that workshop. So we're here today to protect our water quality by improving our fertilizer ordinance. I think everyone's goal is to keep what we see in this picture. Now, everything that we're proposing today may not be popular, but we looked at the science, we listened to the public comment, we looked at what the other communities were doing, and what we discovered is that what science shows that what's popular will make our water quality worse. So because we have water-quality impairments, we're required by state law to adopt, at a minimum, the state model ordinance, which is what we have right now. We'd like to take that further and implement some stricter requirements. Those more restrictive requirements are: A year-round phosphorus ban unless the soil test indicates phosphorous is needed; a minimum of 50 percent slow-release nitrogen content; a requirement that customers account for nutrients in reclaimed water when applying fertilizer, including a requirement that the utilities provide that information to their customers; a 10-foot setback to water for fertilizer application; and a requirement that grass clippings and fertilizer accidently applied on impervious surfaces are thoroughly cleaned up. So there's two points in this ordinance that have been of considerable public debate. As a reminder, your staff recommends a prohibited application period for nitrogen, not a wet season ban. If you've had a chance to read the common misconc eption staff report, June 11, 2019 Page 59 then you are aware that a wet season ban is detrimental to water quality. Also, contrary to what people keep saying, there is no scientific evidence that a wet season ban is effective. Additionally, the areas that have wet season bans and have had them for years still have algae issues. There has been a lot of public comment and presentations with people using the words "fertilizer ordinance" and "wet season ban" interchangeably and then stating that a wet season ban is effective, which is just not true. There's many components to a fertilizer ordinance such as annual limits on nitrogen and phosphorus, requirements for slow-release nitrogen, mandatory training for anybody who's applying fertilizer, prohibited application zones near water bodies, all of which have an impact on reducing the overall amount of nutrients that are applied to the turf. So I'm going to stop on this topic, because you've heard this from me already. There's a seven-page staff report that says it. Dr. Unruh is going to speak to it, and I'm sure there's some other speakers who will probably be commenting on that as well. So regarding the other point, regarding the application quantity for nitrogen, staff recommends no change from the state model ordinance and the turf rule, which clearly defines nitrogen application rates per the turf grass variety, and all of that is based on peer-reviewed scientific studies instead of like kind of a "one size fits all" that could result in overapplication of nitrogen on some turf varieties. So due to the more stringent nature of this ordinance, we're required to document that we've considered relevant scientific information including input from the Department of Environmental Protection, University of Florida (IFAS), the Department of June 11, 2019 Page 60 Agriculture, and all that must be made part of the public record. And although we did read so many scientific peer-reviewed studies on fertilizer and nutrients, more than we included in the staff report, I believe that shows we've done our due diligence in our research. We reached out to the three required state agencies. The changes we made based on their comments are in strikethrough/underline format in the proposed ordinance. University of Florida made four comments, and then we made four changes based on their comments. The Department of Environmental Protection had three comments, and we made two changes based on their comments. The change we didn't make was their comment about grass clippings in swales, and that was to be consistent with the best-management practices that say you compost that back into your yard. I also wanted to point out that in the Department of Environmental Protection's response letter, the DEP stated they developed the state model ordinance to provide guidance for local governments, and that guidance that they provided did not include a wet season ban. And we haven't received a response from the Department of Agriculture yet. So we wanted to make sure we met everybody's needs for public outreach, and as far as public outreach is concerned, the fertilizer workshop was held in February. We notified communities via task force meetings. A copy of the proposed ordinance was provided via email to fertilizer applicators who have gone through the green industries training. There's been communication with the Golf Course Superintendent Association, some local fertilizer companies, the Conservancy, Audubon, Florida Fish and Wildlife, and also reached out to Ave Maria and the Collier County Water District utilities since they would have the new requirements to provide the reclaimed water information to their customers. June 11, 2019 Page 61 So with that, the recommendation is to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring back for public hearing an ordinance repealing and replacing Ordinance 2011-24 regarding the Florida friendly use of fertilizer on urban landscapes. And then just one more thing; completely separate from the ordinance. During the workshop, we discussed some changes to the Land Development Code, such as a 10-foot no turf setback to water and a requirement for some percentage of Florida friendly landscaping for new and redevelopment. If you take a look at the nine principles of Florida friendly landscaping, you know, right plant, right place, quantifying that into Land Development Code is going to be a significant challenge, so we wanted to make sure -- not that we're not up for it, but it's going to be a challenge. We wanted to make sure that we're headed in the right direction and get the Board's authorization or some direction to pursue both of those amendments prior to investing the staff hours. Okay. And then up next you have Dr. Brian Unruh who's the professor of Environmental Horticulture and the associate center director at the University of Florida (IFAS) West Florida Research and Education Center. Dr. Unruh's research program focuses on providing real-world solutions. His work centers on water quality, nutrient leaching and runoff, water quantity, pest management, and new turf grass cultured (sic) for our development. Thank you. DR. UNRUH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, sir. DR. UNRUH: Just to start off and give you kind of a little bit of background about who's standing here before you and my role in what is going on, I think it's good to share with you that I joined the University of Florida back in January of 1996, and it was really in June 11, 2019 Page 62 January of 2000 where the very first fertilizer ordinance kind of came to be, and that was in St. Johns County just south of Jacksonville. Again, that was in January 2000. And so that was an interesting ordinance as it popped up. And so some of them our departmental administration and I hosted the very first, kind of, BMP development group meeting in July of 2000. And that then launched the development of the Green Industry BMP document that we've referenced here today already. That GI BMP that we started in 2000 was published in 2002, and then the following year in June of 2003, I pulled together a group of folks, and we started developing the golf course BMP manual that was then published in 2007. And then in February of 2006 we launched the development of the sod production BMPs. We are the only state in the nation who all aspects of the turf industry are covered by regulatory best-management practice manuals, and you see those. I think as a result of our success, the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America contracted with me in late 2015 to develop the national golf course BMP initiative where our goal is for all 50 states to have a document similar to what we have here in Florida in place by the year 2020. I report today that we have 25 states across the nation that are in motion. Sixteen states in the nation have BMP documents. Let's go back to September of 2010. We hosted a meeting that kind of started this whole BMP development group, and I gave a presentation, and in that presentation, I made the statement. I said, as scientists, we are often prone to show -- or say, "Show me the data." And in 2000, the year 2000, we lacked the data to really have confident best-management practices as it related to the green industry. And so, you know, in Florida our statutes require -- our Florida June 11, 2019 Page 63 Statutes define what a BMP is. And it's -- you know, it's evidence based and it's practical. And so that then led really to us working with the Department of Environmental Protection over the next couple years to develop the most comprehensive urban landscape study that has ever been conducted anywhere in the world, and it was really state specific, and I'll show you a little bit more detail of that. But over a period of eight years, so from 2004 to 2012 our DEP funded $4.2 million to address this issue that we're discussing here today. And so the title of that evaluation of urban warm-season turf fertilization and irrigation BMPs; often referred to as just the nutrient leaching project. Towards the end of that project in 2012, we developed a website, and I have included that QR code there so folks can see and scan and go to this website, and at this website we have listed, really, kind of the most prominent publications that are related to the research that was conducted. And they're all there. You can click on them and read for yourselves what the science says as it pertains to the issues that we're discussing here. We also did a nutrient management symposium, and those videos are all noted there as well. And so, basically, as we look at this, this was a statewide study, so I am based near Pensacola. Actually, we say oftentimes I'm based in whatever airplane I'm in or the Dodge truck I drive, because I do cover the whole state, but I reside, my family resides, near Pensacola. So the study was conducted in Pensacola, Gainesville, and in our facilities over in Fort Lauderdale, and we looked at everything from nutrient impacts on new landscapes, nutrient impacts on established landscapes. We looked at different fertilizer sources, different timings, looked at a lot of phosphorous work because we know that that is a primary concern as well. And so significant amount of work that came from that eight-year study. In my world, it's about scientific publications. I'm not going to June 11, 2019 Page 64 stand here and give you my opinion. I'm going to reference the data. The better the publication, the better the journal, the better the publication. And so all of those papers that I have referenced there were published in the top tier journals of my scientific field, and those being Crop Science, Journal of Environmental Equality, Agronomy Journal as well. And so let's just jump in, and just -- I've just grabbed a few of the key findings just to -- that speak to this issue. Most of these units are in kilograms of nitrogen per hectare. Most of us don't do that math daily, so we can just do a little primer her e. If they see 49 kilograms of nitrogen, that is one pound per thousand. Okay. So I did create some cheat sheets here, so when you see the data, that's two, four, eight -- or two, four, six, and 12 pounds of nitrogen that was applied every 60 days throughout the period of testing. And that top part of that graph there -- and I don't think -- I do have a mouse. That top part of that graph there, this section, is the data from Fort Lauderdale. And so I know in the past you've been presented some data that was not from this part of the state or from South Florida. And so here is the data from the state. So two pounds, four pounds, six pounds, 12 pounds. I will tell you that for Saint Augustine grass, which this study was done on, our IFAS recommendations are four to six pounds per year. And so our 12-pound rate here was 2X, the maximum use rate. Go over to the right side of the screen and you see these numbers .04, .05, .06, .14 pounds. So you can put up to 12 pounds of nitrogen per thousand square feet per year, and only .14 pounds are coming out the bottom of the system. We look at this -- you know, if we go back here and, you know, in Citra, there's very similar data. And so the key of that is that leaching from all in rates was similar except when the rates exceeded the UF/IFAS recommendations. June 11, 2019 Page 65 I teach a lot, and I often say, you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, and so I think a picture is worth a thousand words. This is why turf grasses, grasses in general, are the best known bio filters to man. We very intentionally plant grasses in remediation sites. Because of this root system that is there that can assimilate those nutrients, those heavy metals are assimilated into the plant and put into the system. And so you can see here, this is why very little nitrogen comes out of the bottom of a landscape. Moving on a little bit, the effects of sod-type irrigation fertilization and ortho phosphorus, phosphorus leaching from newly established St. Augustine. And when we looked across the trials that were done all over the state of Florida, they were very consistent, and that led to the BMP that says do not fertilize newly installed sod for 30 to 60 days after application. The reason for that is oftentimes when the sod is harvested from the production facility, there's going to be a little bit of fertilizer that's going to come with it. Just that disturbance process will cause a little bit of mineralization, and some nutrients are released. And so, therefore, you can see how this data was actually used to shape the model ordinance and the Urban Turf Rule where there are prohibitions in there that says do not fertilize newly established sod. And this is the data that was used to promulgate those rules. And the reason for another picture is, obviously, new grass simply doesn't have that fibrous root system established yes. Moving on. One of the -- and the staff have said that, you know, there are some ordinances that are putting out kind of a single rate, four pounds, for example, regardless of the turf species. Our work suggests that that is very problematic. And in this case here, this is bahiagrass, which is the common lawn grass. If you exceeded that -- or we were able to maintain acceptable quality when we stayed at that one pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet. And my concern, June 11, 2019 Page 66 when we push out, you know, kind of this blanket four pounds one-size-fits-all, we're going to lead to some overfertilization in turf, because people -- this whole issue is a people problem. It's not a plant problem. And so people are going to hear four pounds and make a general assumption that my grass must have four pounds. And so also of note here, that they were slightly elevated in leaching only occurred during Cycle 3 in Fort Lauderdale, which wa s actually February and March, not the rainy season. So proceeding along, I get asked the question: Can nutrients leach from turf? And the answer is yes. And it's generally when turf is damaged or mismanaged for whatever reason. And so if you look at the data here from, really, two years, 2008 and 2010, there were elevated periods of nutrient leaching. And what's really interesting, if you look at this slide here, is we can see this period right here where you so these elevated spikes, that was a time in which the turf was damaged by disease and, in particular, it was turf damaged by disease because of the overfertilization that was done through the treatment structures. Remember, we went really high rates. And so those high rates caused the disease to become -- or the turf to be weakened, and then the disease set in, and we saw these elevated levels of damage. My wife -- there was a football reference earlier, 12 yards. My wife is a football junkie, and so I have to endure football. But it's really interesting that, you know, football players need about 50 calories per 2.2 pounds of body weight. And so an average 300-pound lineman is going to eat 6,800 calories a day during the season. What happens when that lineman eats this many calories in the off-season? They get sluggish; they get overweight, and the same thing happens in our landscapes. We do some growth-potential modeling based off of temperature and some other parameters, and what you see here, these are other locations throughout the state of Florida. And we see that in June 11, 2019 Page 67 January -- and most of these top lines are here in South Florida. We see here in January and February that the turf is still growing but really probably only at about 40 percent of wide open. But in the heat of the season, in April, May, June, July, August, that is the season. That's when that plant has the enormous ability to assimilate those applied nutrients. It's in the off-season, just like the football player, that he's eating 6,800 calories in the off-season that they're going to see some problems start to exhibit. And so we base our recommendations for fertilizers off of three locations in the state based off of these temperatures in these growing months. And so this is North Florida and Central Florida and these -- if you look at the Urban Turf Rule, you'll see where the fertilizer by season is broke out. And we come down here to South Florida. And you see here we have Naples. In January, February, March, and April we're not assimilating a tremendous amount of nutrients. But look through here. Through these summer months when that grass is growing wide open, that root system is being formed, and that grass -- really, nitrogen actually becomes a limiting system, a limiting component in the system. You can throw it at it, and it will assimilate it and take it up and grow. And so, how are IFAS recommendations made? They're based off science. We have a group at the University of Florida called the Plant Nutrient Oversight Committee. I joke it's a group of people that walk in and wear black robes and we go before and stand and share the science. If we want to take a rate up, we have to document it with science. If we want to reduce a rate of fertilizer. And it doesn't matter whether it's turf grass or watermelons. All the Plant Nutrient Oversight Committee is looking at the science to make sure that those recommendations are vetted by science. If you look at the old recommendations, these are kind of pre June 11, 2019 Page 68 2003, and then our current IFAS recommenda tions for our North, Central and South Florida, you can see that we have reduced our fertilizer recommendations anywhere from about 25 to 80 percent based off that DEP research study. We sat at a table with DEP on one side, Deputy of Ag on the other when we were developing the Urban Turf Rule which are these numbers. And that is, with science, was borne out to say, these are what the IFAS recommended rates are there. One will quickly look at that St. Augustine and say, well, there was no change there. We've been growing St. Augustine grass for a long time in the state of Florida and, kind of, that collective body of intellects said, you know, we think these are the numbers and, sure enough, when the science from 2004 to 2012 came in, it substantiated those recommendations, and no changes were needed. So the reclaimed-water issue came up. This is one that oftentimes people say, you know, if you're irrigating your landscapes with purple pipe -- you know, water coming through purple pipes, that you do not need to fertilize. DEP provided some regulation on that. Basically it says that, you know, the advance wastewater treatment cannot exceed three parts per million of nitrogen, one part per million total P. I commend the staff who said, you know, those numbers should be taken into consideration. But let me show you something as well. This is from an irrigation pond that is supplied by City of Naples Water. And we look down here, and we see the desired range is from zero to five. The reclaimed water when this particular sample was taken was only about a .10 parts per million. So very negligible parts of nitrogen. So we go back to DEP, and they say three. And so if you look at this chart here, we see this value here, and nitrogen concentration and reclaimed wastewater. So three. If we go across the table here, we can see one inch of irrigation water, five inches, 10 inches, 20 inches, June 11, 2019 Page 69 30 inches and so on. When we take this information and we couple it with the South Florida rainfall data -- and this is from 2018 -- we can really see only these months where the orange bars are taller than the blue bars. Should sprinkler systems really even be running? And so May, June, July, August, September one ought not see irrigation sprinklers running every morning. They should be supplemental. In which case, if we look at these seven months and we take our irrigation estimates, we should only be at about 30 inches of irrigation during that period of time. And so if you take this 30 inches of irrigation water and if you assume this three parts per million of nitrogen, you're only providing a half a pound of nitrogen per thousand square feet coming off of that reclaimed water source. Dr. Brian Lapointe from Florida Atlantic University, who I have never met, he has been sharing some research where he's citing some of my data. And it's interesting to look at this, so Shaddox and Unruh, 2017, some Florida use statistics. And so this is the total fertilizer loading in the state of Florida. And then he makes a statement here, an assumption that 10 percent is running off, I'm not sure where he derived that statement. But if you look at that, his point is is that septic systems are providing greater than twofold more nitrogen in the system than is coming from fertilizer runoff, and he is assuming a very, very large number as well. As was stated already, there's currently laws in practice or laws in place that regulate fertilizer applicators. Those laws were developed off of the research from 2004 to 2012 as well. My team developed a fertilizer app that allows our applicators who are out in the state, they have a geo referenced mobile phone, they literally can mash a button, and it can pull up right exactly where they're standing to see what fertilizer ordinance is in place. So, again, June 11, 2019 Page 70 just another tool we've developed to help educate our applicators out there in the professional side of the business. So, finally, practical considerations. I think we must say that nutrients should/must be applied based on that plant's ability to assimilate them, not on any calendar-based regimen. If we base it off of a calendar, we're going to open ourselves up to some real potential problems. Healthy, dense turf is the key. Not providing the nutrition to the plant when it is in the middle of its season can lead to turf that will weaken itself and, as I showed, some of the data suggests that in unhealthy turf that loses its density, you can see an increased problem with nutrient impairment. And so, with that, I will field any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for this. What -- what's your sense on -- or what's your recommendation for polymer-coated fertilizers versus what is sold on the open market today? DR. UNRUH: So most fertilizers that you will see in the retail sector and in the commercial sector are using some type of coating, most of which now are polymer coated, okay. So the majority of fertilizer that is being used in the landscape industry today, that slow-release fraction is coming from a coated source of fertilizer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I can't speak to this, but I believe one of your graduates who actually worked with University of Florida, Tim Nance, actually worked on this, and his -- he spoke to us at an earlier meeting. He said that this fertilizer should be of high-quality fertilizer. There should be -- and I don't know. I wish I could -- you know what I'm talking about. DR. UNRUH: Sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it's not a $35 bag of June 11, 2019 Page 71 fertilizer; it's a $90 bag of fertilizer. I know because I bought it just recently. What's your sense on that in terms of the importance of having a high-quality fertilizer that has that polymer coating that will release over an eight- to 10-month period, so it really doesn't matter when you put it on? DR. UNRUH: So Mr. Nance spoke at the hearing that we had with the City of Naples, and so I heard him first hand explain, you know, his logic. He comes out of the side of the industry and worked many years in the ornamental side of the industry. The ornamental side -- and you've seen this when you've gone and bought a potted plant or a shrub. You will see these little prills on the surface of that. The polymer that they are using is called Osmocote, okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. DR. UNRUH: Osmocote is not recommended for use in turf at all, and here's the reason -- and it's not because of a cost. That is clearly a major issue. The reason for that is that that polymer really works on osmosis, and so it imbibes moisture and then will release the nutrients. Those prills are quite prone to breakage from foot traffic, mower wheel traffic, anything walking across the surface. And once that polymer is broken, you have a 100 percent soluble fertilizer, okay. So that fertilizer -- once that prill is stepped on is broken -- if you've ever, you know -- in your potted plants you can pick those little pills up and you can pop them they're full of water. So the technology -- that is very sound technology in the ornamental business because you don't have a whole lot of people walking through your shrubs. And then also in the landscape maintenance industry, they will put that fertilizer. When they put that plant in that, you know, 2-gallon pot or 5-gallon pot, they will put enough fertilizer that will grow that, you know, one time a year. And June 11, 2019 Page 72 it's a labor issue. And distribution of fertilizer amongst, you know, container production is difficult. The technologies that we use in turf fertilizer today, sulfur-coated ureas and polymer coats, methylated ureas, which are reacted natural organic products. And so all of these fertilizers that are used are -- the technology is proven. Scientifically, good stuff. One of the things -- and we get -- we have a tendency to get -- and I brought this slide back up because part of the work that we did was, if you look across the top, you see ammonium nitrate and urea, 30 percent slow release, 50 percent slow release, polymer coat, these two here are polymer coat, and then the BS is a biosolid. The plant only sees two types of nitrogen. It sees nitrate nitrogen. That's the one that can leach; and then it sees ammonium. NH4 and NO3. That's it. It doesn't matter whether you've put something on the ground that is green or yellow or smells terribly. That plant doesn't -- it has no ability to discern what flavor, what color, what smell of nitrogen you put on the ground. It only sees two types of nitrogen, and both of those are soluble. And so we then chemically, through a technology through the coating process or a chemical reaction, control the release of those nutrients so that they eke out a little bit of fertilizer over time. And so this -- a large part of this argument on slow release and fast release and 50 percents and 30 percents, that plant has no understanding of that. It only sees two nutrients or one nutrient in two forms, and both of those are 100 percent soluble. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which means? DR. UNRUH: Which means, back to your specific point, that the recommendation that Mr. Nance put forth is not supported in the turf research scientific literature. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So are we able to -- and maybe this is not your conversation to have with you, but if you can answer June 11, 2019 Page 73 it: Are we able to regulate the types of fertilizer sold in Collier County? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we go. How do we educate folks? Are we able to educate folks so that it's, you know, on a flyer, this is the best type of fertilizer, not putting any names; can we do that? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure how you would do that, but yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. DR. UNRUH: So we have county extension agents in all 67 counties of Florida and, you know, the Florida Friendly Landscaping Program is a UF/IFAS program, and all of those nine points that were up there -- you know, fertilization, there's an entire module that these landscapers are taught. Now, that's the commercial side of the business. The homeowner, the consumer side, that's much more difficult. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's my main concern. MS. KINASZCZUK: If I can just jump in real quick. We've done a lot of fertilizer outreach, and one of the things that we've done is included going into the Home Depots, the Ace Hardwares, and we've put signs up that say, this is what you should be using. So they have to let us do that. We're not allowed to make them do it, but most of the places have let us come in and do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. DR. UNRUH: The Urban Turf Rule, by the way -- the one that we often reference. The Urban Turf Rule is really a regulation on the fertilizer manufacturers, on bags of fertilizer that are 49 pounds and less, which is your retail consumer products in general. And so all of the laws in the Urban Turf Rule spell out exactly what's in the bag, what is required on that label, the square footage. These -- June 11, 2019 Page 74 the rates that I've shown you are all, by law, through that Urban Turf Rule required to be on those consumer products. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So then just a followup question and my final question to you. We talked about the real culprit, I think -- you did it very scientifically in the nitrogen issue -- and that's septic tanks. DR. UNRUH: That's one of the culprits. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the other one is? DR. UNRUH: Well, there's many. And so -- that's what's interesting. This whole issue surrounds nonpoint source pollution. Okay. Point source pollution you can point to a factory, and the pipe's sticking out and flowing stuff into the water. Nonpoint source pollution -- but what is really happening in the state of Florida and elsewhere in the nation is that groups have started pointing -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. DR. UNRUH: -- out where are the problems. Atmospheric deposition. Every time it rains, nitrogen hits the ground. Every evening when you see folks out walking their dogs, unless they have their little baggy, they're contributing to nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. We live -- you live in an area with practically a jungle. I mean, you know, big hedges and lots of trees. That leaf litter that comes off of those trees is a tremendous source of nutrients. Pollen is a high nitrogen-containing product. So in the season when the pollen dumps and your black cars turn yellow, nitrogen. And so there's lots of sources of these nutrients, and that's why this becomes very difficult. My concern with a fertilizer ordinance beyond, really, the model ordinance is the fact that I think we're -- we have a potential to be lulled into thinking that we're going to make a big impact by doing this, and the reality is -- and it was stated by Danette earlier -- is there is no evidence in the state of Florida or elsewhere that any restrictive June 11, 2019 Page 75 fertilizer ordinance is having any bearing. And I can stand here very confidently and state that there is no peer-reviewed scientific papers to substantiate that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you say that one more time, please. DR. UNRUH: Yes, ma'am. There are no known research or scientific publications that document and substantiate that urban fertilizer restrictive periods have had any impact, positive or negative. It does not exist. Those types of studies are very difficult to perform. They must be very long-term studies, and then you hope that you don't have something like Hurricane Irma come along in the middle of it, because the issues that we were experiencing here in the state, most scientists will tell you that -- in the south end of the state, most scientists will tell you that it's because Irma flipped Lake Okeechobee upside down. I mean, (indicating). And then you think about the tremendous tree loss and debris that was laying everywhere, that, you know, is a tremendous amount of nutrients that were disturbed in the environment, not to mention overflowing septic tanks and sewer systems that went south, and so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you all good? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Troy, how many public speakers? MR. MILLER: We have 10 registered speakers for this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten. MR. MILLER: Ten. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go. MR. MILLER: I would like to remind the speakers -- I'm going to call two names. I'd like you to use both podiums. The second speaker be ready, please. June 11, 2019 Page 76 Your first speaker is Dave Schewe. Thank you. He will be followed by Kelly McNab. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And is Kelly here? MR. MILLER: If you'll please queue up at that podium. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, there you are. Hey, Ms. Kelly. MR. SCHEWE: My name is Dave Schewe. I also have a pest control service and used to have a lawn service. I'm also here speaking as a resident of Collier County. Been in business since 1980. And through the years, I've gained a lot of experience. I don't have the scientific knowledge that Dr. Unruh has, but I do agree with all of his comments that he has made with his scientific studies. I also agree with Danette's proposals for the ordinances. But as a resident, I've been here since 1972, seen a lot of changes. I have a boat. I love the water. I don't want to destroy -- that's one of the reasons why I stayed here when I first came, because it is so beautiful, and the water. Where I'm from in South Haven, Michigan, it's a tourist town. It's on Lake Mich igan; just like Naples. That's why I love Naples, except I don't have no winter. But as far as the bans go, I don't think they should be implemented prior to -- I couldn't go to the City Council meeting because I was out of town, but I heard that there was going to be the ban. There were several lawns that I fertilized before the ban went into effect the first of June. Those few yards that I did in the City of Naples look 10 times better than the lawns that I did not fertilize. When the grass is growing, it's the best time to fertilize. The thicker the grass -- you know, with the county in the past you had the impervious, the water runoff. Where does that water go? It goes into your lawn and the ditches. The healthier the grass, the better it can filter this water before it goes into the estuaries and the canals. Also, oxygen. Everybody just looks as trees supply oxygen. Take carbon monoxide, turn it into oxygen. Grass does the same June 11, 2019 Page 77 thing, and look how much of that there is in this state. But I'm hoping that you will look at all the scientific data and make your decision on that. And I appreciate you listening to me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHUMANN: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kelly McNab. She will be followed by Dr. Eric Brown. MS. McNAB: Good morning. Kelly McNab, environmental planning specialist with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The Conservancy strongly advocates that Collier County adopts a sufficiently stringent fertilizer ordinance, one t hat includes a calendar-based rainy season ban on the application of fertilizer to turf as well as a four-pound cap on the amount of nitrogen that can be applied to turf. These components would help to not only reduce pollution and thus protect water-quality but would also improve enforcement opportunities. The City of Marco Island has implemented these critical aspects into their own stringent fertilizer ordinance, and the City of Naples has included them in their ordinance moving forward to the final reading this week, demonstrating that the municipalities within Collier County have identified the need to further protect our water resources. In our backup letter, we have provided ample scientific resources and case studies that lead to the conclusion that a rainy season blackout period and capping the amount of nitrogen applied to turf are not only effective measures to improve water quality but also these critical aspects do not lead to the supposed unintended consequences opponents of a strong ordinance suggest are possible. The water crisis we are currently facing is not just an environmental issue. It is also a health, safety, and welfare issue. June 11, 2019 Page 78 This means that you, as our commissioners, have the obligation to do all in your power to protect your citizens from harmful algal blooms and polluted water. One of the simplest ways to do this is by establishing a more stringent fertilizer ordinance. The county cannot control the current water-quality issues we are facing. You can, however, ensure that excess nutrients in the form of fertilizer do not go into the waterways during times of heavy rainfall by enacting the rainy season ban and limiting the amount of nitrogen that can be applied to turf. With the current status of our waters, everyone is part of the problem, and everyone must be part of the solution. This is an important opportunity. Please take advantage of it. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dr. Eric Brown, and he will be followed by Brad Cornell. DR. BROWN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Eric Brown. I'm the director of agronomy for Massey Services. We have a contingency here. We have over 25 people living and working in Collier County to take care of people and plants. The way we do that is to take the science from the university and turn it into an agronomic program that grows healthy plants in an urban landscape. These plants need to be managed, and professionals who are licensed and certified to do that should do that. The science has proven that healthy plants filter out pollutants, hold onto soil, and protect our water bodies. I urge you to let us do that as professionals. I know it's the right thing to do, and if we do that, we actually reduce pollutants in our water. The key to protecting water bodies is to keep nutrients out of it. The way you do that in an urban landscape is by having healthy plants, particularly grass, but landscaped plants that are taken care of June 11, 2019 Page 79 and healthy. That way the nutrients don't get in there. In an urban landscape, we have funnels and filters: Roofs, driveways, streets needs to be filtered by healthy plants. I urge you to listen to the university science and let us do our jobs and protect water quality. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell, and he will be followed by Fred Herron. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades and Audubon Florida. Appreciate the opportunity to address you. This is a good followup to the workshop you had in February. I'll just let you know that Audubon supports strengthening your fertilizer ordinance. This is a good thing. Many of the facets in the proposed ordinance are good. I do take exception to the issue of the relatively weak blackout periods for heavy rain two inches more in a 24-hour period. This is very -- as your staff note, it's a very small amount of time. And I want to point to Lee County's experience from their 2008 fertilizer ordinance that did have a summer blackout. Ernesto de la Vega -- Lasso de la Vega had published a study that was mentioned in the staff's backup for this item. And I've talked with Ernesto about this. He agrees with your staff that there are many facets of the Lee County fertilizer ban that -- their fertilizer ordinance that contributed to some good outcomes in terms of reducing nutrients. It wasn't just the summer blackout. So that's true. And so we all can agree on that. So the other aspect, though, is that you should recognize that that fertilizer ordinance did have a summer blackout, and you did not have increased nutrients. You did not have problems that are being predicted by the opponents of such blackouts. So I think that's June 11, 2019 Page 80 something to keep in mind. And it is very difficult to pull these things apart and attribute which is possible for the best outcomes. But that was a good outcome. There's also a lot more that we can do besides just the fertilizer ordinance to reduce nutrients pollution in Collier County and statewide. Littoral plantings in our lakes and ponds; we need more of that. You see a lot of ponds that have nothing. And you need plants. That's what takes up the nutrients. You know, where does that water go? You need to have -- And Dr. Serge Thomas from FGCU, he is an expert on lake management, and he has a lot of good input and recommendations on how to better manage lakes and reduce algae and nutrients. We need to do a better job of protecting and restoring wetlands. Wetlands are nature's kidneys. The natural, most effective, most cost-effective way of cleaning water. We need more wetlands throughout our landscapes, including in the urban areas. And we also -- we need to implement the Collier County Watershed Management Plan from 2011. There's a lot of strategies in there that will benefit. Finally, the last thing I'm going to point out is that we would not be talking about fertilizer ordinances if we weren't -- if we didn't plant so much grass everywhere. This is an exotic species that we're trying to maintain in a place that's not meant to be. Let's just get rid of the grass. Come and look at my yard in Naples Park. It's beautiful. It's all natives. It's not a bit of grass. That's what we should be doing. Thanks. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Fred Herron, and he will be followed by Dave Faries. MR. HERRON: Good morning. How you doing? I'm here representing TruGreen Lawn Care. I'm one of the branch managers in this area. June 11, 2019 Page 81 I've been a happy resident of Florida for five years; in Southwest Florida for nearly a year. I have two young kids, and I have family that comes to visit me, and nothing's more frustrating to me is when there's environmental things that go on that restrict our ability to enjoy the area. I try to be as environmentally conscious as humanly possible, recycling and everything else. And I certainly wouldn't work for a company if I thought that what we were producing would somehow degradate the environment. The nice thing about science that I like is that it's provable, it's up for peer review, and nobody can just make an unfounded claim without everybody attacking it and proving whether it's true. And based on my understanding, it does not appear that what we do impacts the environment in a negative way in any fashion. So I would just recommend and strongly urge you not to implement a restrictive measure that restricts our ability to provide good quality, not only customer service, but just beautifying the landscapes that we take care of. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dave Faries. He will be followed by Erica Marie Santella. MR. FARIES: Good morning. I'll be brief. My name is Dave Faries. I'm the general manager here at TruGreen in Fort Myers. We service this area. We have about 1,600 residential customers in Collier County. I've worked for the company for 30 years. And what's always made me proud about the company and the industry is we've always put the environment first, and we always will. We all saw what went on here with the water quality, an d the need to do something is strong, and I get that. What we ask is that we follow the science. We lean on IFAS a lot for our programs and our -- what we do and how we go about it and our best practices, and June 11, 2019 Page 82 we take this right down to every level at the office. So when we're servicing our community, we're doing the right thing, and that is our intention. And I just thank you for listening to me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Erica Marie Santella, and she will be followed by Michael Merendino. MS. SANTELLA: Thank you. My name is Erica Santella. I'm the region technical manager for TruGreen's 23 Florida branches, and I provide technical support to these folks. I developed their agronomic programs for trees, shrubs, lawns, palms. And they've changed a lot since I came here in 1985. And worked a lot with University of Florida, was part of helping to develop the best-management practices to protect Florida's water quality. And it's interesting that fertilizer is our second largest expense. So as a business we're going to use what's necessary, what's right, and what is good for the environment. So I'm asking that you support the ordinance as written and reject the efforts to add a summertime ban. We're professionals, and the reason most of us got into this industry is because we love the outside. I'm no exception. So during the day, we may be outside treating lawns and landscape, but in our free time we're out there, you heard people, boating, swimming -- I'm a big hiker. I like to be in the woods -- and scuba diving and doing all sorts of things out there that we love. And to suggest that we would do anything but protect the waters that we're going to play in on the weekends and sometimes in the evenings is kind of perplexing to me. So I'm asking you that you support the sound peer-reviewed science that folks like Dr. Brian Unruh, University of Florida, have developed, for our use, for the community, and for the environment. June 11, 2019 Page 83 Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Merendino, and he would be followed by Matt Germino. MR. MERENDINO: Hello. My name is Michael. I'm an avid hiker. I love going out in the water. I'm there every single -- every weekend I'm out on my kayak with my dogs having fun on the water. When this first happened last year I was devastated. When it happened I was yelling and screaming, hollering, everything about, you know, being out there and seeing, you know, algae blooms and green water out in Cape Coral, and I really would never do anything to harm our waters at all. The science is there. I fully believe in the science and what, you know, we've seen through science. So that's my main stand on that. So thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matt Germino. He will be followed by Todd Josko. MR. GERMINO: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. You know, I'm here on behalf of TruGreen but really, more importantly, I'm here on behalf of being a native Floridian. Our water's our number-one asset. Let's not kid ourselves there. Why wouldn't we want to protect it? So I'm all for, you know, the ordinance as it's been written. I'm fully against the summertime ban on nitrogen. It's not for, you know, just making lawns look prettier. Really, it comes down to the science. It comes down to the healthier turf grass helping filter the nonsense and all the pollutants that it can help with. You know, I've got two small kids. Being a Floridian, I love being in the water with them. Why would I want to, you know, be a culprit of, you know, potentially ruining that number-one resource, taking away from, you know, one of the biggest things that we enjoy June 11, 2019 Page 84 doing as a family, hanging out at the beach, you know, going fishing in the canals. It's what we love to do. I think that's why most of us are here is because we love the state. We love the beauty of it. And all we want to do is just keep it that way. Thanks for your time. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for this item is Todd Josko. MR. JOSKO: Good morning. My name is Todd Josko. I'm also on behalf TruGreen. I think I'm finishing the TruGreen portion of today's program. But appreciate being here today. Wanted to speak in favor of the ordinance you're bringing forward. I'd ask you to adopt that as it's written but, you know, to reject the call that you had for a rainy season ban. You know, TruGreen supports fertilizer ordinances. They're a great way to codify the best practices that professionals are taught and teach those to nonprofessionals who probably don't know maybe those best practices. So, you know, there are some additional more stringent provisions that you're bringing forward, and that's okay. They go beyond IFAS recommendations, but they're not going to cause any harm to the environment. The rainy reason ban is a little bit different, though. I mean, that potentially does cause harm to the environment. I'm not going to repeat the science that Dr. Unruh and others have presented of how, you know, the weakening of turf during the summertime can lead to more erosion, more runoff, as the grass is unable to trap those nutrients that, you know, come down from everywhere. If it rains, the rain's going to fall off the roof, and it's either going to go onto pervious surfaces like roads and go straight into stormwaters, or it's going to go into grasses and landscapes, and the turf is able to trap those nutrients before it makes its way into waterways. June 11, 2019 Page 85 So the turf provides a tremendous benefit as a buffer against all types of urban runoff, and that's why it's so important. There's also a nonscientific reason that these blackout periods harm the environment, and that is because, you know, nonprofessionals, they know that they can't take care of their lawn the way that they'd like to from June 1 to September 30th. And we've seen in other markets where there's an overapplication of fertilizer trying to beat the ban. You know, gosh, I know I can't do anything starting next week until September, so if one bag is good, then three bags is great, and that's exactly what we want to prevent from happening, because in those times, in the non-summer growing months, that's when the turf can't take up the nutrients, and that's when you see the leaching. So it's best to fertilize in the summertime. So, again, thank you for what you're doing. I know that, you know, there's calls for nonscientific measures, and the City of Marco Island and maybe the City of Naples, they got it wrong. And I know there's pressure to do something, but we ask you to please do what is in the best protection of water quality, and that is to move forward with your ordinance as written and do not add a summertime ban to it. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: That was it, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Thank you very much. Commissioner Taylor, you get to go first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I'd like to speak to staff, please. The question I have about the -- I just got rid of it -- the part of the ordinance that you talk about the 10-foot buffer between a turf or landscaping -- no, it's not even landscaping. It's just the turf and the canal. Again, this is an analogy, but it's strongly recommended. Why could it not be required? June 11, 2019 Page 86 MS. KINASZCZUK: The intent was to require it, so let's take a look at that real quick. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's strongly recommended, you said. MS. KINASZCZUK: I have under prohibitions, fertilizer should not be applied within 10 feet of any water body except the newly planted turf. Which section are you looking at? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it's a little bit further than that. No, maybe that's it. A voluntary 10-foot low-maintenance zone addition to water bodies is strongly recommended. MS. KINASZCZUK: So the low-maintenance zone is a little bit different than the 10-foot no turf setback. So a low-maintenance zone might be the littoral areas next to a pond and where you wouldn't need to apply a fertilizer, particularly if it was Florida friendly. So we're saying no turf from 10 feet to the water, and then we're recommending, instead of doing -- you know, maybe you have a seawall and a French drain. We would recommend better plantings that don't require fertilizer. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then, you know, the overspray of aquatic weed product zone. I would love to have that worded a little bit stronger but, again, I'm one person. And the reason is the overspraying of aquatic plants in water body like Lake Okeechobee, Florida Fish and Wildlife is notorious for this. In fact, across the state I'm understanding they're going from community to community because everyone is so outraged. It's hard to pinpoint certain weeds to be sprayed. So if you've got your homeowner -- and I'm speaking strictly not as a professional but as a homeowner. You know, you don't like this and so you spray it and kind of nuke the whole area. It's done. That drops to the bottom of the water body. I'd like that -- I don't know how you would strengthen that, but I June 11, 2019 Page 87 think it needs to be strengthened. Section 13, low-maintenance zones. I'm sorry. I didn't -- and that's on Page 8. It seems to me that spraying on a water body is, you know, tough. MS. KINASZCZUK: Well, the good news is is what we've determined from a survey is that 80 percent of the people in Collier County don't do their own lawn. So we can make any change that you want, but what we have to remember is that some people are trying to -- purposely are trying to spray in the pond to control aquatic weeds. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. MS. KINASZCZUK: What we always recommend and what we're trying to really move towards -- in fact, I think the stormwater group is looking for mechanical -- looking at a mechanical harvester this week. So, obviously, that's the direction we want to go. But in the meantime, we'll look at changing that to be -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Maybe just -- we can't do it now. I mean, if there's consensus up here with my colleagues -- I think it's very important to stress the danger, perhaps, or the precarious situation you have by spraying a water body for weeds. Now, of course, the finger points at us, but then we also have to communicate that to everyone. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Maybe we can catch that in the pollution ordinance. That would be a little easier, I think, to track upstream if those efforts were managed in that regard. MS. KINASZCZUK: We found that the Pollution Control Ordinance would be able to followed up with some best-management practices, so -- but we can have it both ways. We'll figure out a way to strengthen this language a little bit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And can we perhaps say instead of fertilizers shall not be applied within 10 feet of any water, June 11, 2019 Page 88 could we perhaps say within 15 feet, or is everyone, you know -- MS. KINASZCZUK: We had it -- it was three feet, and we bumped it up to 10 feet. And I'm comfortable with that based on that was, I believe that Dr. Unruh had spoken about at the City of Naples workshop is that the rotary spreader will throw a little less than 10 feet. So that's where we arrived at that number. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'm comfortable. Thank you. The other thing is, why wouldn't -- I know. I know. I don't mean to talk blasphemy right now, but why wouldn't we ban nitrogen application in the rainy months understanding that rain brings nitrogen to the grass? MS. KINASZCZUK: Okay. I'm probably going to let Dr. Unruh answer this one. But from what I understand is the quantity of nitrogen isn't going to be enough, or it's not going to be of a usable form. Let me see if Dr. Unruh has something contrary to that. DR. UNRUH: Nitrogen deposition from rain is actually very, very small quantity. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. DR. UNRUH: Okay. So when you look at it over the size of an area of say, you know, an entire county, that amount of nitrogen, you know, if it were applied to one lawn, then there might be a sufficient amount of nitrogen to, you know, contribute. But if we looked at the reclaimed water numbers, you know, it's three parts per million. And off the top of my head I'm not recalling the actual nitrogen deposition numbers. They're there. They're reported. There's actually a monitoring station in Everglades City. I mean -- and so it is a very, very small value. And so not even one that we would even, you know, put into consideration in our calculations of nutrient inputs or, I should say, June 11, 2019 Page 89 you know, reductions, you know, to those fertilizer rates. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I'm done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I have to say I've really appreciated everybody being here today. I learned a lot. I have great faith, by the way, in IFAS, and the University of Florida, and the professor. I don't know if you're professor or scientist or all of those wrapped up together, but you made some very important points here, and I learned a lot today as we sit here. These guys that came out, they work at this every day, and they knew what they were talking about, and they didn't have to be out here. They could still be outside. But I really enjoyed listening to them. And they're saying the same thing as the professor is saying and as our people are saying. So I can't see why we would change it when this is what their work is, and they're guiding us, and these people are telling us they're right. So I'm solidly on board with keeping it the way it is. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I just had a couple questions for Dr. Unruh, if that's -- if I might. We have a letter from the Conservancy dated June 10, 2019, and they have some findings in their letter. I don't know if you've had a chance to see that or not. One of the things that they indicate is that it says, as IFAS has acknowledged, in South Florida the growing season may be all year round. I saw your chart of the growing season, and I've got a lot of grass, and it does grow very small amounts other than in the wet season. But is that statement that in South Florida the growing June 11, 2019 Page 90 season may be all year round, is that a statement that is really accurate in the sense of why a summer ban would not be a problem? DR. UNRUH: So if we look at the data that you referenced, if we look -- you know, go back to -- what color is the line, kind of that purple line right in here, you know, in the dead of January, you know, you're somewhere probably around 18 or 20 percent of the growth potential. And so -- and then as you go into the season, obviously, we're wide open and growing grass. So, yes, the statement is accurate in the fact that the grasses are growing year round. I'll go back to my football player analogy. That football player is alive year round, okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And he grows year-round. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: He's burning some calories year round. DR. UNRUH: In the season, when they're doing two-a-days and running wind sprints and weight lifting in the -- you know, they are assimilating those calories that they have consumed. They're building proteins and storing some in the carbohydrates. The plants are doing the same thing. And so go back to that -- to the growing season of a warm season grass. It's potential to assimilate those nutrients that are applied as fertilizer or come through the reclaimed water site or rainfall deposition or the labrador that walked through the neighborhood. They're going to assimilate most of those nutrients in that peak growing season. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's another statement in there letter that said, Soldat and Petrovic in 2008 suggest nutrient losses are most likely when fertilizer is applied just before or during heavy rainfall. And, again, using this as example or justification for a ban during the rainy season. June 11, 2019 Page 91 I don't think I see anything faulty about the statement. I would guess that if you're applying fertilizer in a heavy rainfall, you're likely to have some runoff, but does that statement -- how would you respond to that statement in terms of arguing that there shouldn't be a ban during the rainy season? DR. UNRUH: So Dr. Petrovic, and then at the time his graduate student -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Soldat. Soldat and Petrovic. DR. UNRUH: Dr. Soldat's now in Wisconsin. Those were on cool-season grasses, but that's kind of -- they're cool-season grasses, which is really kind of irrelevant. But, nonetheless, if you do read that study, they would not support a rainy season ban. If we go back to really probably 2002, there's a book that Laurie Trenholm and I wrote that says do not fertilizer when rain is imminent, okay. Now to the commoner, if you go outside and the sky is black, and it looks like it's about to rain, probably ought to not get the fertilizer spreader and go spread fertilizers. And what has happened is that statement, which was a very practical statement, was taken out of context, and they said, well, in the rainy season in Florida rain is imminent every day. And is that an accurate statement? Potentially. The point is is that, you know, if you see that big, black cloud out there, then don't go out at that point and apply fertilizer. What's really interesting is when we do fertilize, we suggest/recommend that come back and actually apply about a quarter inch of irrigation to move fertilizer i nto that root zone. Once that fertilizer's moved into the root zone, the system -- those roots are going to start assimilating those applied nutrients. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's one other statement in their letter that basically says that there are two major components of a strong ordinance. One of those is the calendar-based rainy season June 11, 2019 Page 92 ban which we discussed and I think you've covered very, very well, and the other is a cap of -- a four-pound cap on the amount of nitrogen that can be applied to the turf. The model ordinance has various standards. I don't think that you went above four pounds on the -- obviously -- does that statement support -- or is that a supportable statement to say that the ordinance should have a four-pound cap on the amount of nitrogen? DR. UNRUH: That is a statement that has not substantiated any science. And as I said in my formal comments, that my concern with that is that -- the issue we're dealing with is a people issue. It's not a plant system issue. It's not a nutrient issue. It's a people issue. And what are people doing? And my concern, if you look at these nutrients recommendations that we have across the state of Florida, many of them are below four pounds, okay. And so, consequently, if put this -- and if you just look at this column, you know, the new -- I've got to look where I'm at. If you look at the South Florida recommendations here, you know, 1.44, 2.4, 4.56, 3, 4. My concern is if you put this four -pound number out there, that number's going to resonate with people, okay. And they're going to hear four pounds, and they're going to make an assumption that my grass needs four pounds, regardless to what they're growing. Now, the professionals in the industry down here -- for example, zoysia grass. If you put found pounds of nitrogen on zoysia grass a year, you're probably going to have some real problems in the near future just simply because that particular grass does not need that amount of nitrogen. And so the IFAS recommendations, which are, then, promulgated in the Urban Turf Rule, are based off of these numbers. To go back to making an ordinance that is more stringent than the model ordinance, I think, requires science, as I understand it, and there would be no science to substantiate that recommendation. June 11, 2019 Page 93 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason I wanted to ask those questions is we can make a political decision and ban fertilizers during certain periods of the year, and that will sound good, and we'll get a good article in the newspaper, and some of the environmental folks will think we did great work, or we can pay attention to what the science is, what the science shows, and you've pointed that out very, very effectively. So I guess my final question to you would be, in your opinion, based on the ordinance that staff has put together and based on the testimony and evidence or facts that you've provided to us, do you feel that this will be a strong ordinance to protect our water bodies in terms of dealing with the application of fertilizers? DR. UNRUH: I do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That's all. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I have a couple of questions, and it has -- it falls right in line. And I don't know if it's with you or with staff, probably with staff, and then that has to do with the people problem and the enforceability of these restrictions or suggestions. How are we going to manage that enforceability aspect? Commissioner Taylor talked about increasing the distance from spreading fertilization from three feet to 10 to maybe 15. What are the penalties associated with a violation? MS. KINASZCZUK: It's the typical code enforcement process. This year Code Enforcement has done 50 cases, so I really don't see that there's a problem with enforcement. There's plenty of different ways to enforce it, but it's a typical, you know, you get your education, and then if you continue to do it, you get another of violation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Because it was a question. I mean, you know, I think the proponents of the ban during the rainy season were trying to manage the people problem and an aggregation. June 11, 2019 Page 94 It rains -- MS. KINASZCZUK: I am 100 percent confident that Code Enforcement is capable of looking at a weather report. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would assume that they are, Danette. That wasn't where I was going. MS. KINASZCZUK: Oh, I know you weren't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The proponents of the ban are trying to manage the people issue in an aggregation during a particular period of time that it is easily determined that it's going to rain on a more regular basis than not, and so -- but science proves, or has shown -- the science that I've seen, in fact, shows that it really ends up being actually counterproductive when you actually have that ban in place because of the enforceability and the people problem and the notion that folks need to take action into their own hands. So that was one of the questions that I wanted to ask here. Now if you want, please, pop up the LDC amendments that you want us to be looking at as well. And how do you plan on -- I mean, I like all those things. Those are things that we ought to be moving into, our median landscape processes and everything. How are you -- are you going to -- are we going to take this on a case-by-case basis as these issues -- or we going to go hunting in the LDC in order to fix these issues? MS. KINASZCZUK: I think we're going to have to do a little bit of both. I think one of the things that we can -- obviously, fertilize appropriately, we're addressing here. I think we just need to look at it from new and redevelopment perspective how we can improve the requirements. I think one of them is going to have to look at where we place the turf. But like I mentioned earlier, it's going to be -- this is going to be hard to do and do it right, so it's going to take a lot of staff hours, so we just wanted to make sure we had some direction from June 11, 2019 Page 95 you guys before we headed into it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well -- and, again, I like the premise. I like the thought process, but also from the private sector side, I know that that can get rather cumbersome as you've blanketed a set of restrictions in an LDC or proposed LDC amendments that could be imposed on a subjective manner going forward without a lot of specificity. So I think sooner than later -- I mean, sooner than later we need to start to develop some parameters that can be brought before us to show the industry and the private sector what, in fact, we're looking at. Even enhancements in littoral plantings and the like that are going to assist with the nutrients reduction that goes in. So I think if we can get to that sooner than later, that would be -- that would make me feel a lot more comfortable. And I also would like to support the enhancement of the reduction in the lake spraying aspects that Commissioner Taylor brought up. That's a -- I'm a huge advocate of that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It starts with us. Mechanical harvesting. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By the neutered carp. That's what I do in my own lakes. That's -- I really do. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I ask the question? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who neuters the carp? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They come that way. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Still somebody has to do it, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Am I blushing now? Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make a motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go. June 11, 2019 Page 96 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To direct staff to advertise the ordinance that's been presented and bring it back for public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we advertise as it has been recommended. Your light is up. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I'm just going to say, I'm going to vote for this to bring this back for advertising. This has been very difficult for me. As you know -- and I've always looked at it through my narrow -- the homeowner that does her lawn or knows folks in my neighborhood who does. But if I look in the broader scope of things, golf courses, professional lawn care, things like that, people that are hired to take care of turf, the arguments by Dr. Unruh are very convincing. And as a member of the FAC Water Policy Committee, the mantra is "follow the science." And so we have another bite at this apple; the Conservancy should know this. But bring us the science, because what we've heard now is science that's, I think, very convincing with studies that have encompassed all the regions of the state; south, you know, central, and north. So I am supporting this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) June 11, 2019 Page 97 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We will be back at 1:05 for the 1 o'clock time-certain. MS. KINASZCZUK: Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a live mic, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good. Afternoon, everyone. Glad to have you back. Item #9B FURTHER DISCUSS THE ADOPTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) CONSUMER PROTECTION ORDINANCE TO BETTER PROTECT THE PUBLIC BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS – MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE JUNE 25, 2019 BCC MEETING; STAFF TO RE-DRAFT AND BRING BACK FOR REVIEW, AND TO WORK WITH THE PROVIDERS FOR A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT – APPROVED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Commissioners, this is your 1 p.m. time-certain, Item 9B. It's been continued from the May 14th BCC meeting. It's the recommendation to further discuss the adoption of the Collier County Property Assessed Clean Energy Program known as PACE, and Mr. Jamie French will present the item. MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have 12 registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve registered speakers, did you say? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twelve. June 11, 2019 Page 98 MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jamie French. I'm your deputy department head for the Growth Management Department. I know this item is not new to you, but I would say that staff has certainly along -- working with the County Attorney's Office, we have certainly taken your comments and the comments from the public as well as outside agencies into consideration with what we think you've directed us to do. I know in one of the previous meetings, Commissioner Solis, you pointed out that you'd like to see a difference between what our current membership agreement offers and what's being brought forward. And I recognize that as of the last -- as of the last meeting, your last meeting, the program was suspended. So we can either -- I can go through that list with you, and I can show you what our thought was behind some of the references we've made to the consumer protections or we can -- I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That would be helpful for me because that's what I was trying to understand was where did we start and where are we now side by side. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you could, just go through -- go through that briefly. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders is here now, and I would like for -- I would like for him to be able to hear that as well. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Okay. So this is just in a Word document. It's not a PowerPoint. So if you look at the highlighted areas that are identified within the ordinance just measured up against what you had within your standard membership agreement: Customer service. June 11, 2019 Page 99 So under the current resolution as it was written and was adopted, there's limited local requirements that are stated within that standard membership agreement, and there was a lot of direction that pointed back to what the state guidance was. Well, within this one it's a more defined: Program guidelines, dispute resolutions, records, as well as some enhanced customer service standards that many of the providers, by the way, publish in their own documentation. So in speaking with some of the providers, I don't think -- staff did not get the feedback that this was a sticking point with them, and I don't believe you've heard any testimony that has said we have a problem with customer service. I think they've all unilaterally come back and said we promote good customer service and communication with our client and our contractors. Then the residential portion. And I've identified these as residential restrictions or residential enhancements. This would not apply to commercial. So, currently, there's no local requirement, but what we're proposing is that we verify prior to entering into a finance agreement that the notice to lienholder is recorded. Now, the s tate does speak of that. So this offers further clarification to what the current statute says on PACE. It's just identifying, at a local level, this is important to us. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I ask a question as you're going along? Is that not the responsibility of the contractor for the notice of lienholder? MR. FRENCH: No, sir. In fact, what we've done here is that we've pulled out all contractor responsibilities. This is only focusing on the lending instrument. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. MR. FRENCH: So as we move down: The residential customer disclosure. There was some conversation about what they're doing in June 11, 2019 Page 100 Pasco County, and this is a Pasco County Tax Collector item where they require a disclosure agreement. So we actually took the Pasco County disclosure agreement that the Tax Collector requires them to process before he will place a lien on that property. We've tailored it a little bit to Collier, and we've pointed out some things -- kind of a "know before you owe" campaign. Understand what you're signing. It doesn't necessarily mean that the property owner still won't sign it. It just simply means that the county has identified, you, Mr. Property Owner or Ms. Property Owner, know what you're signing before you go into this agreement. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let me ask a couple questions about that, because I have some serious concerns about this particular provision because it's going to put the county, essentially, in the position of reviewing and approving one of these financing arrangements and that, I think, is a road to disaster. I don't think we should be in the middle of that. We certainly don't do that in terms of commercial or conventional financing for a construction loan. I mean, I'm seriously opposed to the county being the clearinghouse for any of it. MR. FRENCH: And, again, Commissioner, this was only brought back because the Board asked us to look at Pasco County and what they were doing. We had conversation with the Tax Collector's Office. I don't know if Mr. Ray -- Mr. Ray is here. But our takeaway from our conversation with the Tax Collector's Office is that this is a policy decision. It's not something that would be administered from his office. And I could certainly allow him to speak further on that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I get it; he doesn't want to do it either. June 11, 2019 Page 101 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He doesn't want to do it either. MR. FRENCH: Again, what we had looked at is no different than a building permit application, because most, if not all, of your PACE qualifying improvements are going to require a building permit either by owner/builder or by a licensed contractor. So that would simply come in with a building permit application. It's a conversation that our staff would have with the property owner just to confirm that it was their signature. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Again, I mean, I think that is the road to the county supervising the program and making sure that people understood. And, Nick, you and I had this conversation. I was under the impression that we're not going to be in that position, because I see that as we're going to create a whole 'nother level of review, and I think we would be taking on some liability and responsibility for making sure that people have read their financing documents. And it's a difference -- there's a difference between issuing a building permit and permit -- and construction drawing review and that kind of thing and reviewing in any way whether or not the financing agreement was something that the property owner should you have gotten into. And as a policy, I just don't even want to -- I mean, I'd rather not even have that conversation. And if that's one of the things that's going to be required, I mean, I think as a policy for the county that's just a very, very bad idea, because we're going to be taking on that responsibility, and we shouldn't be. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't think any of us do. I don't want to speak for everybody else, but we're going to get down that line here in a minute. So point made. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, consider June 11, 2019 Page 102 this: By a vote of three, we are the ones securing the loans for this company. We have liability, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have no liability for loans. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That is an incorrect statement. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. County Attorney, we don't have any liability for any of the loans? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have liability because we agree to have this program operate in Collier County. That's the liability. So I don't see -- when I read this document regarding the disclosure form, what I saw was just to verify with the owner that they knew and understood what they were being sold. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think from a policy standpoint, that is a very bad position to put our county staff in and the county. I mean, this is a -- this is a program that was established by the State. It would be the same as putting us in charge of reviewing whether or not somebody should have taken out a construction loan at any interest rate. I mean, it's just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think -- I think the word is "spurious analogy," because when you talk about a construction loan, that is with a bank. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A bank or a lender, let's just put it a lender. And they have to operate under fairly strict guidelines before they go ahead with loaning that entity tha t money. When you talk about this program, it's individual homeowners that are asked to agree to add the home improvement to their tax lien which might result in them forfeiting their home if they can't pay it June 11, 2019 Page 103 back. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which is exactly the same in a commercial loan situation, and I think our recession would refute what you're saying. I mean, people need to be responsible for the loans that they get into and the improvements they make to their property. We should not, as the county, be the ones supervising whether or not an owner has read and understood their financing documents. It's just bad policy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think our hands have dipped into that water of responsibility and liability when we agreed by a vote -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- of three to bring this program into the county. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would disagree with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's three votes to go forward with that language anyway, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Because what I was going to say is I agree with -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And before you go there, can Commissioner Fiala go first -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- and then -- it's Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And parts of it -- one place it says here, as they're talking to the client, part of their requirement in this form that they are to fill out is that they -- it's independently verified by them. And I was thinking about me, and I wouldn't know June 11, 2019 Page 104 the first thing about how to verify anything. You know, I wouldn't even know where to go to ask for verification. I thought, that would be a little confusing for me, and I would guess the same wit h the people that are taking the loan out. And also, although it talks about this, I don't know that any of them realize that their first payment comes due next year. That means all of them are in a bad situation financially, that's why they're seeking these loans, and then they're going to have to come up with a whole year's payment at the end of the year; every year they have to pay the whole year's payment. Do you think they actually can save up, say, $2,200 to make this payment once a year? It doesn't -- it's not collected monthly. And I'm thinking, boy, that's a real hardship on the people. I was very concerned about that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It can be collected on a monthly basis. One of the issues -- and we've had discussions about this, Commissioner Fiala, is the timing of the PACE loan and its implementation doesn't always coincide with the mortgagor's modification time frame in their mortgage. And so there can be a disparity between when the escrow period and the adjustments for the escrow on a monthly basis that all mortgages have when people elect to escrow their taxes, insurance, and the like in their mortgage payment and have their lender collect those -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's ask. Can we -- do you offer them to be collected once a month? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than a whole year? MS. WESNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: With the lender. MS. WESNER: Do you want us to respond? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm asking them, not you. June 11, 2019 Page 105 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I am answering. MS. WESNER: Commissioner Fiala, Kate Wesner, Ygrene Energy Fund. Yes, property owners that have a mortgage can escrow their property taxes with their lender. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they told that they can do that? MS. WESNER: Yes, ma'am. We disclose that in writing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You accept monthly payments on all of these mortgages if they ask for it? MS. WESNER: That is something they can ask their lender. Majority of lenders will allow them to escrow their taxes with them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing is, what I'm trying to do is make it easy for the people. MS. WESNER: Sure. I can appreciate that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because you're dealing with people -- they're not college graduates here in mosts cases, and they really -- some of them have difficulty with our English language. And we have to spell it out so that they don't get caught up in a plan and then lose their home because they didn't understand, and that's what I'm concerned with. MS. WESNER: Yes, ma'am. I could read you the language that we give to property owners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've read everything in here, I want to tell you. MS. WESNER: This is in our documentation, and we disclose to the property owner, your special assessment payments will be added to your property tax bill. Whether you pay your property taxes through your mortgage payment, using an escrow account, or if you pay them directly to the Tax Collector, you'll need to save an estimated amount for your first special assessment install ment. If you pay your taxes through your mortgage lender so that your June 11, 2019 Page 106 mortgage -- or you should notify your mortgage lender so that your monthly mortgage payment can be adjusted. So we tell them this in writing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they understand that? Because, you know, you're talking to people. And I don't care who it is. And I'll be the first one in line to say I'm -- they say, here's your agreement. Fill it out, you know, sign here, sign here. And if you want to read the whole thing, and it's pages long in most cases, you don't really read it well. And, not only that, if you do read it well, do you understand everything? MS. WESNER: I can appreciate your concern, Commissioner Fiala. So we put in a call. It's a recorded call with homeowne rs. A live person from our company calls a property owner and goes through the terms of the financing. This escrow payment and how you pay your taxes is clearly discussed with them so that they understand that, and this is all before the contractor starts work. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MS. WESNER: So if they have any reservations, any questions, concerns, they can pause, they can talk about it, you know, further with their financial advisor or their spouse. They've got time to deliberate that before that contractor moves forward. And so that's what this welcome call that we've tried to suggest be added to this consumer protection ordinance would be very valuable to require all the PACE providers to have a confirm-terms call with the property owner verifying they understand the things that they signed, and they can ask questions before anything moves forward. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, you and I can't talk, so I want to talk to you now. That's why this property assessment customer disclosure agreement is so very important June 11, 2019 Page 107 because it would put a county staff person to be able to communicate to the person who is considering or has signed up for this loan before the deal is signed. How do I qualify for this financing? How do I repay the PACE funds? Are there other costs? What happens if I have trouble making the increased tax payment? COMMISSIONER FIALA: But when the people are at their home and they're talking to them about getting this thing, do they ever say, now, take these papers and don't sign it today. We'll come back tomorrow so we can study, or the people just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is our verification. So the idea is the PACE contractor seals the deal. They go through the process with the provider. They call up. They get -- they understand the financing. They do their questionnaire by phone. Then this document comes to -- this is our document. This will come to the county, and the county will call. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you think it's a good idea then? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This disclosure form is a very, very good idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because the tax collector in Pasco County uses it, and I was told -- I talked maybe six PACE providers -- providers? Yes -- and actually two districts PACE folks over the last four days, and they indicated they didn't want to do business in Pasco because of this. But they have found out -- they are working, and now they are finally getting to the point where they're going back in Pasco because he insists that this be signed and go through, because what it does -- it's a safeguard for the consumer, which I believe is what -- who you are trying to protect and certainly who I'm trying to protect. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all trying to protect. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And the PACE program is June 11, 2019 Page 108 not required to look at whether your family budget can afford this additional loan or not, it says right in there, right? Okay. So they don't have to look at that. That's what -- the form says, how do I qualify for the financing, right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Where are we looking here? COMMISSIONER FIALA: On the top of the Page 2 right up here. And something about with the financing, which may be higher than other financially -- financing options available. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, it does say that, and that's a good thing. So then how much higher? You know, 3 percent and one's 12 percent, do they spell that out? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Say you ask me that question, and I'm trying to secure a PACE loan for, say, an air conditioner in my home, and you ask me that question as a county. My response to you might be, I never thought of that; you mean I could get the same loan at a lower price somewhere else? Maybe I'll t ake a look at that. And that just -- it just is -- it's an extra step to ensure that the homeowner understands everything that -- as much as we possibly can -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- about the loan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then it says here in another part -- now, this isn't in the same disclosure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. This is in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here it says the program standards: To ensure payment of the annual assessment with each year's tax bill. But in the other part it does -- some places in here it says monthly. I read that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's in the ordinance itself. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. June 11, 2019 Page 109 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was surprised PACE providers that have been created under this section of the statutes are considered local governments. It says it right here. "Are considered local governments." Well -- so no wonder they say, well, this is a government loan. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, we don't -- we collect it, but somehow it's become now we're the bad guys. Anyway, that's -- there's a number of things more, but I'll just be on my way, and you guys keep on talking. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to agree with Commissioner Solis in the sense that we don't want to put our county staff in the position of accepting and approving documentation. It's one thing for the -- and this may be one way to handle this particular issue. It's one thing to have the specific form that would require the PACE providers to make sure is properly filled out, notarized, and then have that presented to us for filing, but I wouldn't want to put a county employee in the position of discussing interest rates and other alternatives and is the form completely filled out properly, does the person understand what he's doing, because that does put us in the middle of -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- the approval process, and I don't think we should be there. This may be a question for Mr. French and for the providers. We have a form that apparently is being used in Pasco County. I don't think there's anything in the form that is problematic, but it does require a signature of the property owner, notarization. And is there a problem with simply having this as a required form to be filed with the county so that at least we know that this information has been June 11, 2019 Page 110 provided to the customer? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. In speaking with the Deputy County Manager and also with some of the PACE providers, much like a notice of commencement, it's required to get notarized, and so that was our approach on this. That form's a legal seal. We could, as a compromise -- if it's certainly the pleasure of the Board, we could look for that as part of the application process so that it would identify and we could put it within our land development software, attach it to the building permit so it's very front facing, that this is a PACE project, and it's go t the authorized county form that was signed by the property owner and notarized with no county follow-up. So that approval would only be, was the form signed and was it notarized. And if that was the case, it would simply just be a checkmark in the system, and that way we'd be able to have a better tracking mechanism from the permitting side. Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If there's a PACE financing and it turns out that the form is not properly filed or -- MR. FRENCH: We wouldn't know it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we wouldn't know, but if there was a compliant filed, we would certainly find out, and that would be a violation of the ordinance, and then we'd get into the penalty provision. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, Mr. Chairman, I would support having this type of a form filled out by the PACE provider and signed by the customer and filed with the county but not a form that would require the county to have interaction with the customer, because I think that that does put us into the middle of the financing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, Commissioner, you take out June 11, 2019 Page 111 the word "approval" because we're not going to talk to the customer and talk about different financing options. We are accepting the document as submitted and just notes that the customer knows the process he went through, and that's in furtherance to what Commissioner Solis asked. We're not approving the finance. Commissioner Taylor, we're not providing alternative terms or have you talk to anybody else. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You said that, though. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You said that. You said the county employee could actually stipulate alternative financing methodologies and rates and plant that seed for somebody to go somewhere else. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala read it, and I said, let's just play this out. It could happen. But it's never, ever a situation we're approving. We can't approve. We approved it when we allowed this program to come into Collier County. These are safeguards. It's all it is is safeguards. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is that finger up "I want to say something" or -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to continue with this -- the form for just a minute. At the beginning of the form it says that PACE, or Property Assessed Clean Energy program, is a government-sponsored program. And, clearly, it's a government -sponsored program, but if we have that on the form, it seems to me that we're -- that may need to be explained a little bit. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's misleading. MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. And this was the exact language out of Pasco. We can -- and June 11, 2019 Page 112 much like we're doing right now, we tailor it, but the PACE district -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We talked about that. MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am, and I made no pun and no reference. We amended the document to Collier County standards, but we did use Pasco as the base document to put this together. But with that said, the PACE districts are identified as a government type of a district within the statute; the PACE providers are not government entities. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's what I'm kind of getting at. If we're going to have anything that says "government sponsored," I think you need to explain that a little bit more. It's a program that's sanctioned by Florida Statutes, but we're not -- Collier County is not part of the program in the sense that we do not ap prove contractors. We don't approve -- obviously, we do the inspections on the work, but we're not part of the financing agreement and have no involvement in that, so... MR. FRENCH: We can clean that up, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, that was my only other issue. So, again, if we can have this as a form that it's required to be filled out, notarized by the PACE provider, then I'd have no problem with that. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. And in our conversation -- I know with Ygrene as well as with some of the other PACE providers, they're operating under something very similar like this in Pasco. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That doesn't make it right. MR. FRENCH: Well, sir, I can only say they didn't tell me it wouldn't work. June 11, 2019 Page 113 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. You've just said that multiple times, and I just want to say out loud there are some concerns with what's been proposed by -- verbatim out of Pasco County. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would actually like to take Commissioner Saunders' recommendation a little step further. I think this notice should say that, that this is not a Collier County program and that the county doesn't approve or review the financing statement, so that it's clear. That's one of the things I think we heard about was that somehow people were told that it was a local government program, and it's not. So, I mean, I think we should have a disclosure in extra large type. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In red. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: In red, whatever, that says that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bold and double underlined it. I agree. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That might be a path -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to make sure that that's clear. But with that type of clarification, I would support having this as part of the packet that's delivered to the county. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's fine. I mean, I was under the impression -- and one of the things that confused me, I think, is at the very beginning of the form in the bold type it says that there will be a review and approval of the form. That's what led me to believe, well, who's going to be doing that other than the county? I think we'd have to be very careful and maybe clarify that language at the very beginning, because it -- the PACE providers are already doing that through their own process. So adding that in there made me understand, just reading it, that we were going to be in that position now. June 11, 2019 Page 114 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Take out the word "approval." CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Commissioner Taylor, you're next, and then I have an idea I'd like to propose. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to speak to ask our tax collector, Mr. Ray. I have a question for him. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Pick a microphone, sir. MR. RAY: Either one? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Either one you want to. MR. RAY: Okay. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a question over -- it's come up on more than one occasion over the last couple weeks. Is it possible that you get these liens recorded at one time with the Tax Collector just -- let's just say they're gathered up over a year and filed in September. I'm using these, but the idea is, just because a loan has gone forward and signed, sealed, and delivered doesn't necessarily mean you know right away that we information, or is that incorrect? MR. RAY: The Tax Collector knows what the yearly non-ad valorem assessment is, because that comes to me on the tax roll. To tell you the truth, I don't know what the total loan is. I can look it up at Clerk Kinzel -- on Clerk Kinzel’s site if I was as smart as Rob. He can do that. I don't know what the loan is. I don't know the terms. I don't know the length of the loan. I know what comes up every year on the tax roll because Ygrene, just like the Pelican Marsh CDD and the Port of the Isles improvement district and the Larry Ray Better Lighting District out in East Naples every year gives me their little portion of the tax notice in a non-ad valorem assessment. You guys give me a millage rate. A little different. It's according to value. Non -ad valorem, not according to value. June 11, 2019 Page 115 So every year stands alone with me as far as my part of this deal is. Every year I'm going to put something on the tax notice, or I'm not going to put something on the tax notice depending on what these people send me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you don't know the end game? You don't know the amount at all? MR. RAY: I do not. Do not. Don't want to know. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't want to know. MR. RAY: Don't want to know. I am in the tax collecting business. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Collector. MR. RAY: I'm the collector. I want to collect it. And I have provisions for it, if it's not paid, that I collect it. And it works very well in Collier County. We had our tax sale the other day. We're now 99.9 percent of the tax roll has been collected, so... And some of it was PACE that we collected. And we sold a certificate on a PACE loan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what happens. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What does that mean? MR. RAY: That means that we sold a certificate that placed a superior lien for the taxes due on that property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because they couldn't pay it. MR. RAY: Because they did not pay it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They did not pay it. MR. RAY: They did not pay it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They didn't pay just their PACE, or they didn't pay their whole tax bill? MR. RAY: The tax bill is the tax bill is the tax bill. You don't pay part of it -- I don't accept partial payments. You either pay your taxes, or you do not pay your taxes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. June 11, 2019 Page 116 MR. RAY: Okay. So they did not pay their taxes to include the non-ad valorem assessment; therefore, I sold a lien. In two years, if they have not paid that lien -- I looked it up. It went for a quarter of a percent, so that means in two years if that has not been paid, that certificate holder will file for a tax deed sale. At that time, the homeowner is in jeopardy of losing that property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three years. MR. RAY: Two years. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two years. MR. RAY: Two years. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two years from the issuance of certificate, which is three. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which is right away, because this was -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Third year. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's the third year. MR. RAY: Two years from not paying your taxes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. It's a total of three. And then you pay that first-year certificate, and that carries you on for another 12 months. MR. RAY: Some people do that. That has been done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's how it can -- MR. RAY: I always stay two years behind, and some people do that, but not everybody. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a -- thank you, sir. It's good seeing you. MR. RAY: Always good to be here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a thought, and it was something that I've been thinking about for quite some time. We've talked about this on and off again since this PACE program was June 11, 2019 Page 117 approved last year and that is enhancing the consumer protections. I think all of us are in agreement, even with what I learned in Washington, D.C., back in the spring that there are enhancements that can be done to better protect the residents of Collier County that choose to participate in a PACE loan. What's been brought forth so far, though on the guise of consumer protections, hasn't actually, in my mind, added up to that. This, though, the pretense is, I believe, in good intent, isn't functional. I believe it puts the county in a position of a regulatory process that we would become liable for, and I don't want to see us do it. I concur with my two colleagues on the end. A thought that I had, if we were -- if we are -- and, Commissioner Saunders, I'm looking at you, because if we're going to continue on with the residential aspects of the PACE program, it's clear that enhancements to the consumer protection ordinance -- an ordinance needs to be developed to enhance consumer protections. So -- and we haven't reached that goal successfully in the processes so far that we've endeavored to do. I thought maybe we take it away from those who have been working on it so far, relegate the coordination of the ordinance to the Productivity Committee, an appointed group of citizens by us to develop an ordinance for those consumer protections, to enhance those consumer protections, and bring that back to us as opposed to the path that we've been traveling so far. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I believe, based on what staff has prepared, that we do have an ordinance. There may be some provisions in it that are difficult or not workable, and that's one of the reasons why we're kind of going through it. So, for example, we just talked about the form that's filed with the county, and we've made changes to that provision. We -- I think if we go through this, we probably could wind up with an ordinance June 11, 2019 Page 118 today based on -- basically, on what staff has presented to us. I'm not so sure I would support turning it over to the Productivity Committee. This is a difficult legal issue. They don't have that experience, and I don't think they really have that mission. So I don't think I would support the Productivity Committee. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it was a thought. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And a good thought, but I just think the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The arena that we've been operating -- well, and, you know, and that comes around from a legal question. Mr. Klatzkow, Commissioner Taylor was reading a portion of the whereases in the beginning of this ordinance that talks about the Section 1.63.01(7) are considered local governments. Is that a portion of the statute? MR. KLATZKOW: This is a local government statute. That's why there's an assessment placed on it, all right. That's not our local government. There was a local government that was crea ted by interlocal agreement that we're going through. We have an agreement with them, and a three-party agreement with them and Ygrene and the other providers. This is a local government program. It's not our local government program. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, and that's where -- the misconception oftentimes. I mean, you know, we've heard regularly that people construe this as a government program, and if the layman reads that, Florida Statute considers these PACE districts or considers the PACE providers local government, which is what that says. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And the State of Florida, the legislature is the one that brought this forward. So this is a state-sponsored program. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. June 11, 2019 Page 119 MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a Collier County sponsored program. That's the distinction. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So does that come back around, Commissioner Saunders, with regard -- or Solis, with regard to clarification of disclosure, if you will, or disclaimer of it being our program? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And, actually, I just -- I just pulled it up. And I'll just read it. It says, this form must be initialed, signed, and notarized before being filed with Collier County for review and approval prior to the execution of the PACE financing agreement. The review process, which sounds -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Approval. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, we just need to clean that up. And if there's another reference to a local government, maybe we can just parenthetically say what local government it is; that it's not Collier County, at least. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, if you go down beneath that, you'll see under "What is the residential PACE program" it's the definition of it, and it does call it a government -sponsored program that is used in Florida. And, frankly, the district personnel are very clear that it is commissioners or former commissioners sitting on their board at no wage. So they link it to government at every opportunity. Now, whether somebody that lives in Golden Gate City that doesn't speak the English language is going to be concerned whether it's Collier County or the State of Florida doesn't matter. They hear it's government, and that must mean it's good. So -- and then, of course, it took a government action, a vote of three on this commission, to bring it to Collier County, so that kind of sealed the deal. June 11, 2019 Page 120 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is a program -- it was a program that was created by the legislature, and we could make it simple. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Approved by us, and it is a viable program that helps people. There have been some who didn't perceive the help to be as great as, necessarily, what it could have been. The suggestion was to develop an ordinance to enhance the consumer protections. And so far the resolutions that have come before me have not done that. They have had language issues and printed statements that were counterintuitive, counterproductive, and not realistic with regard to conducting any kind of business. The commingling of the PACE provider with oversight and responsibility of the general contractor, it was prohibitive, so... Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me suggest a process, because we're kind of going around in circles. And everyone knows that this was approved on a 3-2 vote. We've heard that about six times today, so we don't need to do that anymore. We've got an ordinance in front of us, and I think we can go through this paragraph by paragraph. We've got a staff report that says if we adopt this ordinance -- and, obviously, we're going to make changes, then there's a program that staff has said they feel comfortable moving forward with. So the first issue was the form, and we've indicated, at least a majority of us, three of us, have indicated that we're okay with the form as long as it doesn't give any responsibility to the county other than accepting it, other than having it filed. And so the sentences would be, this form must be initialed, signed, and notarized before being filed with Collier County prior to the execution of the PACE financing agreement, period. And then we would clarify that this is not a Collier County sponsored program -- or Collier County program. It's a special taxing district or June 11, 2019 Page 121 whatever. There's a district. We can have some explanation in there, but it doesn't tie it to Collier County. So it seems to me we can move on to the next section. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you on the ordinance, or are you on the agreement for -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we're going down this -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a suggestion? I mean, I think these are the changes from what we have, and we can just go through each one of those, and -- is that what you're -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll wind up with an ordinance. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have, by the way? MR. MILLER: We have 13. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirteen. We had an extra one show up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should we listen to them, too? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's go through this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. In terms of -- you know, we've heard a lot of indication about the problems with the program, and we're trying to solve those. So I think the best thing to do -- and, again, this is just a suggestion; let's go through this process. Let's see where we wind up. If we wind up with an ordinance that the majority feels is one that's going to be sufficient, then we adopt the ordinance, and we move forward. If we don't get to that point, then the program's already been terminated. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. If it's the will of the Board to do that, then I'm okay with doing that. I mean, it's -- I mean, I June 11, 2019 Page 122 have -- personally, I have, in pretense, been in support of this program since I'm one of the three that's voted for it on a regular basis and -- but I also, at the same time, believe that there are necessary consumer protections -- I've talked to the PACE providers about that -- that could be implemented by our board to better protect our consumers. So if, in fact, that's the path that we're heading and we're going to -- if, in fact, we can reach a consensus, come up with an ordinance that does that and allows for the residential PACE program to continue on, then okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask a question? I'm not digressing, but I am a little bit. With the Productivity Committee, I believe senior staff is at these -- at the Productivity Committee; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have a liaison that goes and, depending on the topic, senior staff's assigned to it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And do we ever have any legal staff there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We haven't in the past. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it prohibitive to have legal staff there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's not. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's just -- we're always available if they ask. We've never been asked. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I think your idea of the Productivity Committee, another pair of eyes, after we go through this, might be an idea, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But if we -- mine was more of an "either or." I was rather -- I don't like adjusting things on the fly, in all candor. I don't like doing it this way. I mean, if it is the will of the Board to go forward with this on a paragraph by paragraph, I'm June 11, 2019 Page 123 good with that. But it would be my preference to not. And that was my thought, to relegate this off to the Productivity Committee to develop an ordinance that isn't prohibitive, that isn't counterproductive, that does enhance consumer protections, and bring that back to us by September. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think that -- I think we would -- I don't think it's a waste of time to look at this and to discuss this among ourselves before, if it is the will of this commission to send it to the Productivity Committee, because there may be nonstarters here. So just a thought. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I gotcha. Commissioners Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think I was the one that brought up whether or not there was a committee or something that could look at this. The Productivity Committee has a mission and a narrow focus of looking at departments and divisions of the county for purposes of trying to improve the efficiency of how the county operates. I mean, I agree with Commissioner Saunders. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is a -- you know, I mean, I think we're just going to be expanding what that committee -- and I would be in favor of let's just go through the revisions to the existing agreement, and we can vote on which ones we can live with, and then we should have an ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's do that. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to say, I think if we go through this line by line, we're going to hit a few places where we're going to have some conversation, but most of it's going to be acceptable. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's get on the same June 11, 2019 Page 124 page. Where are you at? MR. FRENCH: So what I'd like to do -- and you can see -- is on the residential cap on lending, there had been conversation in the past -- Commissioner McDaniel, you had brought up ability to pay and, of course, other commissioners and members of the public had talked about cap on lending. And the state does address that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Where is this information in my stuff? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's here on page -- MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry, sir. In the ordinance itself, that's going to be under 3C, and this chart was simply just created last night based off Commissioner Solis' conversation that he's had with u s in the past. I just thought it might be a more useful tool. But it's the exact language. And under 3C, and that's going to be on Page 3 or 4 of your ordinance, what it talks about is simply just some clarification to the already existing state language within the statute. And, Sean, could you zoom just to that section. And this is the passage out of the state. And so what we're suggesting is that if you -- if you look just under 12A, it simply says that without consent of the loan instrument holder of the mortgage company, the loan to value can only be 20 percent of the just value. That's the assessment. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're having a difficult time following you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's 12A? MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. Just on the overhea d. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not looking at the overhead projector. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: State statute. MR. FRENCH: I apologize, sir. That's just the state statute. I June 11, 2019 Page 125 was just making reference to it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 12A is the statute. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. FRENCH: And so the ordinance -- again, some of this language -- there's no local requirement. This is just simply a clarification to how much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And where does it stipulate this in the ordinance that I read? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: C3. MR. FRENCH: It's on Page 3, sir, under 3C. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Section 3, No. 3C. MR. FRENCH: Only for residential property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 12A. Okay. Now I'm with you. That's -- that's in the actual ordinance, not this agreement. Section 3, No. C. She has it highlighted. Now, we're not going through this paragraph by paragraph. We're going through this on your suggested adjustments. Do you understand that, Commissioner Saunders? MR. FRENCH: Simply the ordinance, that's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There it is. MR. FRENCH: So under Section C that's been -- you've got my pen mark next to it -- it simply just supplements the state language by calling out a clarification that it says the aggregate amount of the PACE loan or of the assessment cannot exceed 20 percent of the just value as determined by the Collier County Property Appraiser, which is language that's directly out of the statute. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, is this what the owner or the person who's seeking the loan reads? June 11, 2019 Page 126 MR. FRENCH: That would be in their agreement, in their PACE agreement. That language currently does exist, but what we've seen out of just going back and looking and working -- I know we've recently had some conversation with Clerk Kinzel’s Office, and reviewing some of these PACE assessments, we did see where some of the loans did exceed 20 percent of the property value as defined by the Property Appraiser. We don't know what the repair may or may not have been, but we did know that the assessment that was filed was greater than 20 percent. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty percent of the taxable value or the assessed -- the taxable value or the market value, or what are we talking about? MR. FRENCH: The just value would be the market value as determined by the Property Appraiser, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I wondered if -- at this juncture if Clerk Kinzel could put on the visualizer a computation that shows from the PACE provider how they calculate that, and then what the proposal is for -- in this C, how to calculate it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because it's somewhat up to interpretation on the definition of what the PACE assessment actually entails. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The aggregate. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, the just value is one portion, but then there's also -- there's some discussion with regard to the aggregate of the PACE assessment. Is it the front-end loan, or is it the total loan plus interest? MR. FRENCH: And out of fairness to the PACE providers that June 11, 2019 Page 127 are here with us today, sir, I would tell you that I have had conversation as far as their methodologies behind how they make that determination. So it might be best, if you would allow, that they can certainly explain their position. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We will. Crystal, do you want to go first? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying to look at, as we're doing this, as to somebody who's just learning the English language and I'm reading this, and I'm trying to say, do I know what aggregate means? Wait a minute. Do I understand that all PACE assessments -- you know, how many things does the person who's taking a loan, because they can't get a loan elsewhere, how much of that will they understand? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's a good question. CLERK KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel. Property valuation types -- and I think we reconciled this with Ygrene so that we do all agree on the actual valuation from the property appraiser's office and what would be used. And then we went through with them their methodology for calculating the 20 percent and how we would read this in the statute. So I'll put that on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Put that sheet that you just had back up there. Show me one line on that whole delineation of values that says "just value." CLERK KINZEL: It doesn't -- the just total is what is defined in the statute. It refers to it as just. Market, parentheses, just value in pink, the 225. So that's the one that you would get that would equate to the just value in the statute. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. CLERK KINZEL: Okay. June 11, 2019 Page 128 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I got all that. I just want to make sure that what we're putting in our ordinance reflects what we're talking about here from a laymen's perspective so that there is clarity with regard to just value, not in parentheses. And if we're going to call it market value, if the tax bill calls it market value, use market value in our ordinance, not -- CLERK KINZEL: Okay. We were trying to make it compatible, ordinance to statute. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, just value is a legal term. It's used in the statute. That's what we use. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I understand that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I'm not sure where the market value would even -- I understand that Property Appraiser is supposed to adjust values to market value as best as it can, but just value, isn't that the legal term that -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's the same thing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. But that -- there is a -- MR. KLATZKOW: But just value is the statutory definition. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of market value. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand that. All I'm doing is trying to provide for clarity for the laymen that's reading this not from a legal perspective or from a statutorily defined perspective. I just want our ordinance to say the same thing that the person who gets their tax bill to say. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that's kind of the point that I was trying to make. We pass an ordinance that has legal terms in it. Now, if someone doesn't understand it, that's fine. It can be explained to them, but we don't explain it to them in the ordinance. We use the terms that have a legal definition. That's all we can do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm okay with that as well. I June 11, 2019 Page 129 just -- it was -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It is somewhat confusing, though, because if you look on the Property Appraiser's website or the Tax Collector's website or whatever, you don't see something that says "just value." You see "market value." CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Market value, taxable value. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But that's why -- I mean, if you wanted to amend this proposed ordinance, you could put "just" in parentheses and put "market" beside it. I mean, it's synonymous, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Agreed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If you're an attorney, you use "just." If you're someone like me, you use "market." COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, that's a good question, because I was looking at -- I searched where just value comes up in the statutes and where market value comes up, and I couldn't find anything in the statute that actually tied t he definition of just value to market value as calculated by the Property Appraiser's Office. But it is confusing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The statute says "just value." COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we hear from our Tax Collector, please. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that's not his -- that's the Property Appraiser. MR. KLATZKOW: The statute requires the Property Appraiser to come up with just value. He then puts it on his website "market value," because nobody would understand "just value." (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: That's exactly what's going on. So the statute says, Property Appraiser, determine just value. He puts it on his screen as market value. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. June 11, 2019 Page 130 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Market and just are the same. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are the same? Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm the person who doesn't understand English very well. What does "just value" mean or even what does "market value" mean? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I wondered if we could ask Crystal to go through this, the other piece -- the other piece of paper that's there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sure she will. MR. FRENCH: So just as a point of clarification -- and I'm sorry to interrupt, but perhaps we could simply put in there, just for clarification -- I think the important term in here is "as determined by the Collier County Property Appraiser." So we could put "just value/market value," but we could wordsmith this in such a way to where the reader understood it's one or the other, which we understand, legally, they're the same, but it must always be determined by the Collier County Proper Appraiser, if that would work for the Board. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That works for me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's perfect. CLERK KINZEL: If that was that difficult, wait till you see this. Okay. If you look at the right side of the document, that's the Ygrene interpretation, and they use the Clean Energy Green Corridor program guidelines with the maximum financing is the initial set of -- at the lesser of 20 percent of the just value of the property as determined by the Property Appraiser or 15 percent of the market value, which would make you think that those are two different numbers. The statute for the calculation actually uses the phrase "the total amount of any non-ad valorem assessment." So when you look at the June 11, 2019 Page 131 Ygrene calculation, they're basing it on the amount financed for the program. The way we read -- and we've also confirmed that with other officers -- that the total amount of any assessment would be the total amount that you're assessing on the property. So in this case, for example, the 20-year term, with the improvement and the total cost of the 20,951, you would end up with the annual assessment of 2,298 for 20 years. So your total assessment would be much higher than the calculation that Ygrene's using. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So let's have Ygrenes come up here and give an explanation as to why that's the calculation they're using. MS. LAWSON: So hello. I'm Stacey Lawson. I'm one of the founders of the Ygrene Energy Fund and the founding CEO and vice chairman of the board. And we use a standard financial convention whereby the financed amount or principal value is the value used when calculating loan to value. This is a universally established principle in finance, and it has been additionally validated by our Green Corridor bond counsel, by the rating agencies, by our securitization underwriters, and by our lenders. It is what we use across our program and every other PACE provider uses across their programs, and it has been used widely in the capital markets. So this is a very unique interpretation by Collier County. We've never seen it before. And I don't think it conforms with standard financial practice. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's clearly -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is Florida Statutes' interpretation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to go there. It's clearly a differentiation in interpretation of Florida Statute. You just explained your ratification and justification for all of the reasons June 11, 2019 Page 132 you're able to tranche these debts up and put them out into a secondary marketplace not really suggesting that your regulations conform to what Florida Statute says. MS. LAWSON: I'm sorry if I misstated. This is related to the Florida Statute. So this is the Green Corridor attorneys and bond counsel that have reviewed the statute. In fact, as of this morning, they confirmed with me that the assessed amount -- the assessment amount is the principal value. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Principal value. That's the PACE -- MS. LAWSON: We'd be happy to set up a call, actually, with Clerk Kinzel and Green Corridor bond counsel and attorneys to review and clarify if that would be helpful. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not what the statute -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I meant no disrespect. Well, it's an -- no. It's Clerk Kinzel’s interpretation of the statute and what that adds up to and what Ygrene's counsel's interpretation of the statute is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, it says a clerk interpretation, but the statute is lifted verbatim, so that's not interpretation. That's a reference by Clerk Kinzel. But that's a verbatim from the Florida Statute that defines when the consent of the loan services or holders of any mortgage incumbering or otherwise secured by the property, meaning the bank or in the case of it's Habitat for Humanity, the total amount of any non-ad valorem assessment for a property under this section may not exceed 20 percent of the just value of the property. MS. LAWSON: The assessment is the principal value. Just like in a mortgage where you wouldn't include interest in your financed amount, if you have a $500,000 mortgage, the bank is looking at you as carrying a $500,000 obligation. You pay principal (sic) over time that may be a million dollars over the course of the term of the loan, June 11, 2019 Page 133 but you would never say that someone's obligation is a million dollars. It's still only 500,000. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Principal balance of -- MS. LAWSON: Principal balance is the assessment amount. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. And that's where the interpretation between our clerk's interpretation of the statute and the assessed amount, and Ygrene's maximum funding is the principal balance of the loan. We have to sign a disclosure -- when you borrow -- when you're doing a conventional loan, if you're borrowing $250,000 over a 30-year period, it tells you how much you have to pay over that entire 30-year period, but your obligation is only if you carry that to the end of that 30-year period, not when you sell the house five years from now and you've paid down on the principal from 250- to 245-. That's your exposure. MS. LAWSON: Correct, and the same with the PACE obligation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. That was why I was asking. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You see the huge difference it makes, though. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. And, certainly, one could construe that the obligation of the threshold of 20 percent is exceeded if you calculate it as Clerk Kinzel has. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I don't -- I mean, if this was the way you calculated for a 30-year fixed mortgage, no one would ever be able to get a mortgage because the interest -- when you add the interest over 30 years, your loan to value would be like that. It would -- that's not the way it's calculated. It's calculated upon what you're borrowing, the principal amount. CLERK KINZEL: And, Commissioners, we'll be glad to look at June 11, 2019 Page 134 anything they have. We have put together some information over the last couple of weeks. This was a portion of it. We are just looking at the straight pure language of the statute. As I said, we've also verified this with other people to try to get -- I mean, we're not really trying to interpret it. We're reading the total amount of any non-ad valorem assessment, which would be what are they being assessed? They're being assessed that much each year, the total. If they had meant annual, they might have said annual. Often, as we have just been discussing here, the legislature may not put it in clear terms as to their intent, but we can certainly go back and look at legislative intent a little bit further and come to a conclusion with Ygrene, okay? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. CLERK KINZEL: I don't think this makes or breaks the issue, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I think from this draft report that I believe everybody has, one of your -- year one of PACE impact in Collier County is that the average 2018 tax bill increased 117 percent due to the PACE assessment. CLERK KINZEL: But, Commissioner, that would be the one-year existing tax bill over the annual assessment that was added due to the PACE program. So those percentages are totally different issues. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. But what I'm saying is that it is important because the more -- this is very important to me, because the more -- Ygrene doesn't want to go beyond that 20 percent, and the interpretation of this is critical because you can see on the left it's 37 percent. On the right it's 18 percent. And that amount will determine how much the property owner can borrow. It's another issue of consumer protection and, clearly, if the June 11, 2019 Page 135 average tax bill in year one of the PACE has increased 117 percent, it's something that we need to pay attention to. CLERK KINZEL: I think what you're trying to say is that the Ygrene interpretations allows more people to qualify even though the overall cost of the issue may be detrimental to them. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, 117 percent -- CLERK KINZEL: That's what it says. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's the case in conventional financing. That's always the case in conventional financing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, conventional financing, you're not securing your home. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure, you are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, you are. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's a mortgage. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a mortgage. If you don't pay your mortgage, they take your house. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let me restate that. We, Collier County, aren't securing that loan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We, Collier County, are not securing these loans. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir, we are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are not. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are the security -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You lit up. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- of these loans. I'm done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to say we're kind of mixing two things here. One is the policy of do we keep a program. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry. June 11, 2019 Page 136 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're mixing two things here. We're talking about whether there should be a program, and we keep kind of falling back to that. What we're supposed to be doing today, I believe, is going through this ordinance. Now, if there's a question of interpretation as to what just value means, we can deal with that at some point, but that's what the statute says. That's what our ordinance says, and I would suggest that that particular paragraph, C, is going to be acceptable to everybody as we go through the ordinance -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay on task. I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- if we could just focus on ordinance as opposed to the political decision or the policy decision of the program itself. But let's see if we can come up with an ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would you be okay if we put "market value" in there in parentheses along with "just value"? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the spirit of cooperation, fine. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Slash "market value". COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I still like sticking to legal terms. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would imagine you would. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's generally the way you draft ordinances, but that's okay. We can put -- we can put in there, parentheses, what a willing seller -- or a willing buyer is willing to pay a willing seller if you want. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Quit. All right. Go ahead, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For whatever it's worth, I'm okay with that language as well. June 11, 2019 Page 137 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Leaving it as "just" or adding in "market"? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Parens "market." Whatever clarification you want, that's fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Parens "market." MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. We'll get it cleaned up for you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Slash, whatever. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Slash. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Either way. MR. FRENCH: Continuing to follow down on the ordinance language that was provided to you, under D, this addresses the ability to pay. And I know, Commissioner McDaniel, this was of interest to you. And in conversation, and I recognize -- I'm not trying to parrot Pasco County, but this was a -- this was a reference point that the Board asked us to go back and look at. This is the identical language that exists currently within their interlocal agreement with PACE providers that talks about -- that they do not exceed 5 percent of the property's fair market value, and then it addresses the ability to repay that basically says that it does not exceed 4 percent of the annual gross income of the household based off an affidavit signed by that property owner. There are some -- and Mr. Cohen and I participated in a federal call. There are some ideas being floated around at the federal level, and I know that there has been some conversation with regards to addressing truth-in-lending practices as well as ability to repay on these PACE financing agreements. We're not quite familiar with what actions have been passed, what's been instituted at either the federal or the state level, not yet. So this area is certainly subject to come back to you at a future date for discussion or potential amendment. June 11, 2019 Page 138 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, to me, personally, Jamie, when I read this, it commingled two sections. Now, you jumped from 20 percent of the fair slash parens market value to 5 percent of the fair market value and then commingled that with a percentage of the borrower's adjusted income, and it's all blended right into the same sentence. MR. FRENCH: One was cap on lending, sir. The other one was intended to be ability to pay based off of your income. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Doesn't the No. C above, take -- put a cap on lending at the same time? MR. FRENCH: Cap on lending, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So why reiterate it in a different format at a different percentage and a different definition in the next sentence? MR. FRENCH: What a suggestion might be is that we remove the 5 percent of fair market value and concentrate more so on the 4 percent of the annual gross income. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or some percentage of the annual gross income, yes. That was where I had a concern with that. That was -- I had a concern with the conjoining of those two. Since it's already stated in above, take it out, take the 5 percent out, and then come up with some percent of the annual gross income as the attainable revenue stream that's requisite for the PACE loan to go forward. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. If that's the will of the Board, that's what staff will do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you kind of restate what you're saying. You're on Paragraph D. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm on Paragraph D, and basically I'm talking about eliminating the first sentence down to the first comma. June 11, 2019 Page 139 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And ensure that -- and determined at the time of financing. That's all superfluous. Ensure that the total amount of the annual PACE assessments do not exceed 4 percent -- this says 4 percent of the total annual gross income of the property owner in the prior calendar year. Now, that 4 percent, I don't know that number in my head as to whether or not that's an attainable percentage to be able to satisfy the payment on the PACE assessment -- on the annual PACE assessment, so I don't know if that's high enough or low enough. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. How is that -- where does that number come from? Was it -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Pasco. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Pasco. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir, Pasco County. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Pasco. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So if you -- and the example is, if you have a PACE borrower who's making $30,000 a year, 4 percent of that's 1,200? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four percent; how much a year, sir? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 30,000. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. And, Commissioner, without knowing the debt to income on the other end, you don't know how much debt this homeowner's applied -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This isn't talking about debt to income. This is talking about annual gross income; gross. Top line. Not the other debts associated with this. This is just a -- this is a gauge to say these people make enough money to be able to pay their taxes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's one test. And I'll tell you, if you go to a lending community, they're going to ask you what other debts June 11, 2019 Page 140 do you have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't disagree with that, but we're not going to another lending community. We're talking about a PACE assessment here, and this is -- somebody picked this 4 percent as an okay number in Pasco County. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm okay with that -- the way you've amended this and using the 4 percent until we're told otherwise in terms of the percent, at least keeping through this part of the process. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't know if -- you know, I haven't done the math on the 4 percent number to be able to argue for or against it as a valid percentage. I'm trying to -- does your calculator have that many zeros? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is there a percentage like that in conventional financing of any kind? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Something that we can measure it against? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Conventional financing debt to income. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Debt to income, and that's total debt, so that 4 percent does equate to a $1,200 amount. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You'd have to have $25,000 in income for every thousand dollars in project costs? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sir? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think. I'm just trying to do a little bit of math. I may have done it wrong. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Say that again. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was thinking that -- if you had a one-thousand-dollar project, you'd have to have $25,000 in income. June 11, 2019 Page 141 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Plus or minus, yes, if you had a thousand-dollar-a-month -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It would be unusable. I mean, so for a $3,000 repair to your home, you'd need to be making $75,000. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I may not have done it right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I don't think that's right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Four percent on a -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're lawyers. We don't do math. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Who does math here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's 400 per 10,000. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Crystal does math. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just use that as a decimal. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Four hundred per 10,000. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four percent. So if you want to do a $30,000 improvement, 400 times three is 1,200. That's what your annual payment would be. That's your limit. MR. FRENCH: On an annual, that's correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's on the annual payment assessment. It's not the total of the loan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four hundred per 10,000. And then you figure that out for your annual payment. So if you did a $40,000 improvement, it's four times $400, it's $1,600. That's the most you would incur annually. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. But what would your total gross income have to be for a $30,000 improvement? That's what I'm trying to figure out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: About 56,000 or so. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends. And it's referenced in your annual payment. So it all would -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The annual does not exceed -- June 11, 2019 Page 142 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're looking at you, Nick. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Total amount of -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let's put Jamie on the hot seat here. Let's say you've got a $1,000 PACE assessment. Okay. Using that 4 percent, what would have to be the minimum income? MR. KLATZKOW: 25,000. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's what I said originally. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I didn't want to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Argue the point, yes. We're going around. I mean, 4 percent seems like a happy number. I mean, it's not -- I'm not saying it is or it isn't but, I mean, that doesn't seem prohibitive with regard to the amount -- of the amount of the expenses. MR. FRENCH: And by clarification, in speaking with the PACE providers, it's interesting to see Pasco either followed Broward or Broward followed Pasco, but the language does exist in -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In both. MR. FRENCH: -- other government communities. So that 4 percent number, we're not -- and to Commissioner Solis' point, we're not quite certain how they got to the number, but we simply looked at it as almost a guiding document that this is -- they're already operating under these policies. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And so in the process there would be some verification from the PACE provider that said -- an affidavit signed by the borrower that says, in order for you to get this PACE loan that has an assessment of $1,200, you have to sign an affidavit and show that you have earned 30,000 the year before. MR. FRENCH: It's by attestation, sir. The county staff would not be involved in that interview. June 11, 2019 Page 143 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand, but that's okay? Okay. We're okay with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have a consensus that we're okay with that? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay with that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the 4 percent's a happy number? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. FRENCH: So, sir, just -- if I might, just for staff clarification, the area that I've highlighted in green on the overhead, which is from Section D, the first portion of that where we talk about the annual tax assessments do not exceed 5 percent of the property's fair market value, you want that struck, correct? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MR. FRENCH: Okay. And then the rest of the language would be within the ordinance. Thank you. So this led to a little discussion as we get down to Section E and, really, the idea behind Section E was limiting the financing term based off of the qualified improvement's original stated manufacturer's warranty. So there had been discussion in the past when it came to air conditioners, and I think that -- I would never refer to myself as a subject-matter expert in anything other than maybe permitting, but A/C units typically, even though they carry somewhere between a five to 10-year warranty, we felt like this language was important so that a customer taking a 20-year loan on an air conditioner that may only be warrantied for 10 -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My understanding is that there are -- there are -- there is published useful life statistics for June 11, 2019 Page 144 different types of equipment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There is. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so a warranty doesn't really tell you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It doesn't coincide with the useful life. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've got an air conditioner that I just put in with a warranty of two or three years. It's going to last 12 years or 15 years. So there is some other guide other than a manufacturer's warranty, and I would suggest that we use that, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do vary quite a bit, sir. But, yes, there is a guide that talks about the useful life of a product. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know what that's called. Maybe it's part of the tax code. MR. FRENCH: We're happy to look further into that, sir. Perhaps see the product approvals which are designed by the engineers of the individual manufactured equipment. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask -- there are some folks that are kind of shaking their heads that maybe there is something in the tax code or somewhere that we can use, we can refer to. MR. TAUBE: Ben Taube, Ygrene Energy Funds. Yes, we -- the other programs we operate we reference U.S. Department of Energy EPA standards, other national third-party standards that do define the useful life of equipment. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is to me. Again, I don't like the warranty aspect. I mean, you know, you buy a new car and you get a three-year, 100,000-mile warranty, and the car lasts longer than three years. The warranty's just over. I know myself on an air-conditioning unit, it lasted 20 years. So June 11, 2019 Page 145 financing it for -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Each vendor provides a different warranty, so that's why. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. There is some standard that you could go to. We don't know necessarily what it's called, but... MR. FRENCH: We're happy to look that up, sir, and bring that back, and we could make reference to whatever the national standard is on product. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not the warranty. MR. KLATZKOW: It's an IRS standard, Commissioner. You're absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a what, sir? MR. KLATZKOW: The IRS does this. They have a table. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, because you depreciate your -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Commissioner Saunders is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I like that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We know they can do no wrong. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely, and everybody knows about it. If they don't, they find out. MR. FRENCH: Item F, sir? So the language -- because the statute does point to Chapter 489 of the Florida Statute that says that all qualifying improvements that require repair or a licensed contractor must follow both Section 1 and 2 of 489. Part of 489 is not only do you obtain a permit, but the contractor -- and it does put this -- the statute does put this requirement on the PACE provider, by the way. But part of that statute is that you obtain all necessary inspections to include a certificate of occupation or a certificate of June 11, 2019 Page 146 completion. What happens is that in the event that the permit expires or it voids, you no longer have a permit. So staff's interpretation in looking at that with our building official would be that you're in violation of Statute 489. So because the PACE statute does point to that, what we've -- what we've said in the past is prior to that assessment actually being closed out, that the customer not be left with a PACE assessment from a contractor that got paid but not close out the permit. It in no way, shape, or form does it put staff in a position where we don't want to do our job to followup through Contractors Licensing either through local or state agencies or perhaps a repair that was done without a permit where now we're having a conversation with both the contractor and the homeowner. Again, I've not mentioned anything at all where we would have a conversation with the PACE provider, because the contractor who is licensed takes on that obligation and owns that permit. But we can't get by the fact that the statute does point out that the PACE provider shall follow the rules set forth within Chapter 489 for contractors licensing and permitting. And what we're saying here is they not process any assessment. And speaking with Ygrene, they may have some language changes that they would be -- they'd be requesting, but we don't believe that that assessment should be closed out until the certificate of completion has been done so the property owner knows that my project is done. Current practice is is that the contractor and the property owner, for lack of a better term, they look back at the project. I'm okay. I'm okay. Here's your bill. And the county's not involved with that. So we believe the county's got a little bit of a liability primarily because we issued the permit. June 11, 2019 Page 147 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the certificate of completion. MR. FRENCH: And if they don't get the certificate of completion, that's where we have the liability. We have to go back and -- we have an opportunity, but we also have an obligation to close out that permit. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, did you have a question there? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I think Ygrene and some of the other providers have already said that they require a certificate of completion, so I don't think there's any problem with that language. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it's just signed by the owner, not from the county. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I think this is a good consumer protection. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This provides for a certificate of completion from the county which -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I see. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: From the county. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any contractor you hire, you need to have that. Now, I don't know what type of implications it has on the lender per se, and it really shouldn't, because the contractor has to complete the work in order to be paid, so... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's an obligation of the contractor's licensing, so... And as I found out -- and I'll say this to your credit and your department's credit, so many times, at least, I get calls about, you know, we can't get our final inspection, we can't get our final June 11, 2019 Page 148 inspection. Well, lo and behold, it's because there's something going on and the contractor hasn't called for the final inspection although the owner's being told by the contractor, no, no, we keep calling, and the county doesn't come out and do it. So I think that's a reasonable -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And in a conventional scenario, the retainage isn't paid until there's a CO and all that anyway, so... MR. FRENCH: You're correct, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think it's okay. MR. FRENCH: Then the last one, this came out from both discussion with the community as well as some of the community members that have spoke with you in the past where they really felt like that the use of financing for residential solar panels was not something that was measurable that consumers should be using a PACE loan to finance. Again, there's an argument that this does not qualify for PACE although what staff has found is that it does fall in line with many of the energy plans that the State of Florida has pushed forward, especially through the Florida Building Code. So, again, I would -- I might ask that might consider some public input on this, but this was put in there based off of the request of the public. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we should permit -- if we're going to permit the PACE program, we should permit the financing of residential solar. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, who's about to hit her button. Commissioner Taylor didn't hit her button. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think we're going to hear some testimony from some folks about there's a standard by which June 11, 2019 Page 149 solar makes sense for a home. And the question is, given the record, only the first-year record we have of the PACE program being operated in Collier County, we have learned that the houses are smaller houses and probably didn't need solar panels because they don't have pools. Their electric bill may not be over $250 a month, which seems to be a standard. But I think the public can speak to that. And it's nothing more than the technology and where it is right now with solar panels. It will get better. It's gotten better over all these years, but right now there seems to be a sweet spot that says, if you're not spending any more than $250 a month on electricity, you don't need a solar panel; it's going to be more cost to you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you light up again? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Anyway -- but we'll hear from the public on that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I would concur with Commissioner Saunders that we should -- we've got stipulations that allow for limitations of total amount of borrowing, total amount of income requisites to be able to do it. I think we should be able to do solar panels. It's part of the energy program. I mean, there are thresholds where it does make sense and it doesn't, and that's something that can ultimately be determined hopefully by the consumer. So but I think we should. I would like to see that be allowed. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's within the statute, right? I mean, it's within energy -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- efficiency and all of that, so I think the statute contemplates it. Now, if we remove that, though, going back to whatever that disclosure is that we want them to sign, there should be something in June 11, 2019 Page 150 there that says there's no guarantee as to the savings on a solar panel or something to that effect, I mean, because -- and that's already in some of the disclosures that the providers have. So I think we need to make sure that we have some language in there that puts them on notice that -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There are thresholds that need to be met in order for the savings to accommodate the expense. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's a -- that can be in that -- is it time for a break for her? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I think before you go to public comment, maybe it might be a good time for a break for Terri. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. What else we have to do before we go to public comment, Jamie? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We still have more of the ordinance to go. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, we have more of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So we're in agreement that we should eliminate G? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And that would allow for the financing on solar panels with the disclosure that there is a threshold that meets economic wherewithal. MR. FRENCH: And just to make comment on Commissioner Solis' comment, there is language in there that talks about energy improvements and energy audits and who that responsibility falls on. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just didn't know if that wasn't in there, if that was in the notice. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. It's in your disclosure agreement. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's already in there, okay. June 11, 2019 Page 151 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For the disclosure agreement. MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am. And I think that's what the commissioner had asked. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Okay. So the reporting of documents -- and I had a number of good conversations yesterday all the way into the evening with some of the PACE providers. But really what we're looking at here is not necessarily telling them what they have to keep in records, but we're asking that any records that they do keep, based on the event that we would -- that you as a board or that we were ordered to actually do an audit or a customer service finding on a particular PACE loan or maybe we look at all of them, we're asking them that they fall underneath the Chapter 119. And so what that means is that any records that they would have that they would supply to us would be public record. Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that -- if there was social security numbers or if there was driver's license information or personal information that is exempt from that code, that would have to be redacted. So I know that was of concern with some of the PACE providers, but we would follow that Chapter 119, just as much as we're asking them to do the same as they submit those records to us. So that means, just whatever you give me, we're going to redact what we have to, but it becomes public record. And that says that within 10 days upon request that they would provide that to the county at no charge. And then the last portion -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I have no issue. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll hear in a minute. I have a question. And just -- it just seems -- is this a typical practice of Collier County during an audit process on a construction project where information becomes a matter -- per Florida 119, per June 11, 2019 Page 152 Florida Statute 119 where -- I mean, because I'm reading canceled checks, bank account numbers. There's just a whole lot of information -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, we wouldn't ask this for a typical loan or anything. This is unusual, yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I have an issue with this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think Mr. French just indicated that the records that would be requested would only be records that providers would be maintaining, and the providers aren't going to be maintaining a lot of these records that would be between the contractor and the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and let me ask you this. Why would we want this? Why would we want this opportunity? MR. FRENCH: So where this comes into play is that if you've got subcontractors or supply -- supply houses that jump onto a notice of commencement that may have not gotten pai d where you've had a customer, in good earnest, go into business with a contractor and take a PACE provide -- or take a PACE loan -- and I'll just use Home Depot, Naples Lumber. They found mechanics liens because they jump on that notice of commencement. So that would be really the only time that we would go back in the event that we were doing a Contractor Licensing investigation or you, as a board, or we were asked to go back through and audit that process to determine whether or not we've got a good cl aim against a complainant that took a PACE loan. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I see that being problematic. Clerk Kinzel has a comment. CLERK KINZEL: Just, Commissioner, actually, you do include a 119 provision in all of your construction contracts. And I think, Jeff, that's by statute. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but that's between us and our June 11, 2019 Page 153 contractor. CLERK KINZEL: Correct. But it's supposed to be included in any contract you do have an agreement these, as providers. Now, a member agreement versus a contract, but it isn't an uncommon provision to include in your construction contracts. MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's required by statute, but these are not our contracts. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. That's where I'm wondering where -- CLERK KINZEL: This is your contract with them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- we end up in a position of authority or requisite for information -- MR. KLATZKOW: What this will do is it will actually give Crystal the ability to order (sic) a PACE provider that we're getting a lot of complaints from. That's what this will do at the end of the day. So if we're getting complaints, for example, from Ygrene, no offense, that there's, you know, bad things happening, Crystal would have the ability to take a look at their records and see whether or not that's true. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then ask for any and all documentation that doesn't disclose personal information. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Who will do that? MR. KLATZKOW: Your auditor, Crystal. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: That's the primary benefit of this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that a bad thing? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not good. It's not bad. It's just a tool that we have. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Checks and balances; part of government. June 11, 2019 Page 154 MR. FRENCH: And, Commissioners, if I might, this currently does not exist within your standard membership agreement. So we're very limited on any ability to audit based off the agreements that were signed previously. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The concern that I was trying to address is that there's a list of documentation here that the PACE provider most likely will not be collecting, and we don't want to create a situation where they have to collect canceled checks and things like that that are made between the property owner and the contractor. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Back-charged documentation, proposal documentation. Those are things that are -- those are things that are done by contractors. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So just change the wording that says -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about just eliminate 4? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You can't eliminate it; no. I wouldn't agree to that. That's our checks and balances. So why not just change it so that any records collected by the PACE provider, without specifying what they are, that they can be requested, and that all personal information will be redacted? Because I think in my conversations this week was that federal law prohibits certain information from going into the public realm, and we would follow federal law on this. So use the federal law as the -- as the deciding of what can come to us and be public and what cannot be. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Chapter 119 does that as well; Florida law does that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Does it? The PACE providers mentioned federal law. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just eliminate all that superfluous June 11, 2019 Page 155 document -- listing of information and everything in the middle and just follow whatever 119 stipulates? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we're talking about the documents that the PACE provider would be collecting on a particular client -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- routinely. So that's what we would be able to ask for. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All requested records maintained by PACE, by the PACE district, its employees, contractors, shall be deemed public records. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we are. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Take out the -- I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I'm okay with it. MR. FRENCH: We can clean that up, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it that hard? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, it's hard. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Again, to me, it's just problematic. I mean, I've watched our County Attorney flinching over this entire process, and I think it's problematic so -- but, you know, if there's -- if you're okay with it, I just -- I don't -- I don't -- I see it becoming problematic for someone who chooses to hunt. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- and I don't disagree with that. I mean, I -- and, of course, Clerk Kinzel’s a constitutional law officer and can audit whatever Clerk Kinzel wants to audit, I guess, but I'm not sure why you'd want to audit any of this stuff, but if it's not public money -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's why I'm -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, that's a good point. It's a point well made. June 11, 2019 Page 156 I guess the only -- the only thought is that if there are problematic PACE -- not providers, but contractors within the county, then how do we -- how would we ensure that they're removed from the program or not certified anymore, or whatever the term is by the providers PACE? What's the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do this. Let's all contemplate this for 10 minutes and come back at 2:55. How about that? Say "thank you," Terri. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you've got a live mic. You're back. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Where did we end up on the one before? You went to the next page. I was on Page 3 of 4 on the ordinance, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: So what we were talking about was the -- on the records provision identified the documents. And so just having some sidebar with Ygrene and PACE provider and Commissioner Solis, perhaps you amend that reference to just reference any and all documentation that's statutorily required. So that way in the event that we have a complaint that either gets to staff or gets to the Board, when we look at any type of violation of this ordinance, we would at least be able to go back and look at that statutorily required documentation versus calling them out line by line by line, because the State's pretty clear on what they have to do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So the State has specificity with the required documents that the PACE provider is supposed to keep, and that's what you will request -- or will be requested in the event of an audit, not all this? MR. FRENCH: That's correct. June 11, 2019 Page 157 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Exactly. Yes. Okay. Let's wait till the ladies get back before we move on. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the ladies at least. We started without you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sorry. But you are a minute late. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. A minute late. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And there was a penalty. We turned off your heater. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, you did. Oh, my goodness. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: He did it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You might have to turn it back on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It gets too cold here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll give you my jacket. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Now, we have decided -- well, we haven't decided anything. We have suggested that the documents portion, Page No. 4 here, be relegated to the statutorily required documents that PACE providers have to keep, not the language as is in here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I didn't know if you heard what we were talking about or not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what does that really mean? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The statute requires -- so we're told the statute is pretty specific on the required documentation that PACE providers are supposed to keep, and those are what then the county can ask for in the event of an audit or the process per this No. 4. June 11, 2019 Page 158 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that can't be altered or anything, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, not legally. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that works for you, Crystal? CLERK KINZEL: This was not my add -- audit portion. I'm just -- most contracts have 119, but we would audit based on the indications of whatever problem we were asked to look at, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And -- CLERK KINZEL: They can only provide what they have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And are you lit up from before, or is that on this? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's from before. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right, Jamie. Next? MR. FRENCH: Now, this has been discussed in all versions that have been brought forward to the Board in the past. Currently, the way the local membership agreement is -- or the standard membership agreement is written is that there is no violation outside of just canceling the agreement, kicking it out of the program. So what we're suggesting is that because this is an ordinance, and the reason why we bring it forward as an ordinance is it is executable as far as the penalty or punishment phase of this so that it may not necessarily be just a cancellation of the membership agreement or revocation. What this may do is that this would go through the consolidated code enforcement ordinance and either through the Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate. And I know that in speaking with the Ygrene staff last evening, they had concern with going to Code Enforcement versus Special Magistrate because it's -- we talked about Special Magistrate process where it's a -- we contract -- the Board contracts with a retired -- or a former judge or attorney that serves on that on the dais making that decision June 11, 2019 Page 159 much like they would in a court of law. But with that said, this -- this would have a punishable fine not to exceed $500, would be decided by the Magistrate, and the Board, as a result of a finding by the Special Magistrate, could revoke the membership agreement or, in this particular case, they could identify the property that was the found to be in violation. And in speaking with the Tax Collector, they prefer the word "the Board may direct," "the Board may request" that the Tax Collector remove that assessment from that property that was found to be in violation so that way it's no longer the responsibility of the county to collect on the PACE provider's behalf for a violation that they would have been found in violation of. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I know that there's going to be some question from the PACE provider or some statements. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think from our Tax Collector. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the Tax Collector. MR. RAY: Just to be clear, as I said before, you could request or we could talk and you'd say don't accept any more assessments on any future tax rolls from a parcel or a provider, but do not tell me to take an assessment off of a roll that has been certified to me and is out in the public domain as a tax notice. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That won't work. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can't do it. MR. RAY: That's not going to happen. So if it's there, it's there. If we don't want it to ever be there again, we can work out some language for that based on y'all's oversight, or whatever the right word is. But if I've got it cert ified -- and, I mean, that could be a day. If I got it yesterday and it was certified to me and you came to me today and said take it off -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Too bad. MR. RAY: -- that's not going to happen. June 11, 2019 Page 160 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then what you're saying is then on the next year -- MR. RAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- we could take it off? MR. RAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not include it. MR. RAY: Not include it. The loan doesn't go -- you know, it just gets out of my bailiwick. You all know a ll that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. RAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the question I was going to ask. If you had a 10-year assessment and there was some violation or, you know, it was a 10-year financing and there was a violation, we could go to you and say we would request that -- it's on the tax roll now, but take that particular one off; it won't be on the next one. MR. RAY: On the future, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just wanted to make sure I understood that. MR. RAY: That is correct. Now, if there was two certificates outstanding with that on there, it still could end up being a tax deed sale event -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sure. MR. RAY: -- because there might be some already there. But if they live two more years, maybe it wouldn't be, because we wouldn't be putting any more on there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For that particular piece of property and/or that -- MR. RAY: Or for that particular provider if you said they're all out. June 11, 2019 Page 161 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That particular provider, because these are violations -- excuse me, Commissioner Fiala. You're up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if, then, you did sell a tax deed after the two years, who does the money go to? Being that it's the county that's collecting it, who does the money go to? MR. RAY: Okay. I don't do any tax deeds. Crystal does tax deeds. But that's okay; I can answer the question. When it goes to Crystal for a tax deed auction, they auction the property off. The top -- first bit of money goes to the certificate holder, the guy that paid the taxes and his interest. So he's the guy that caused it. Then there's money left over. It gets a little confusing, because if there's a bank involved, it's probably not going to ever go to the tax deed sale because the bank's not going to let it go to a tax deed sale. They're going to come in and pay the taxes, and they're going to escrow it, or it will get -- I mean, it gets sideways, it will end up in a foreclosure probably, but it will not be a tax deed process. But let's say the guy did not have a mortgage; he or she did not have a mortgage and it went to tax deed. So now the top part of the money goes off and goes to the certificate holder that bought the certificate and paid those taxes that you guys use to run your government. The next bit of money would go to the number -one lienholder, would which be Ygrene, okay, for the balance of that debt they had. And then whatever's left over would go to the property owner, or there might be other claimants, subordinate liens. And all in all, until -- some might go to the property owner. So he doesn't have his house, my certificate holders get their money, the PACE provider gets their money. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the Ygrene people could actually just come in, then, and buy it, right, themselves? June 11, 2019 Page 162 MR. RAY: I don't know that -- well, of course, they could if they bid, yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In pretense, yes. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this is -- MR. RAY: Was I wrong? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no -- Tax Collector curveball here. What if there's a tax -- one tax certificate sold, and then we remove it from the tax bill for the next year and, moving forward, what happens to that tax certificate holder? Is he just -- he or she just in limbo with holding a tax certificate that's drawing interest that will never get paid? MR. RAY: Oh, they'll get paid. They still can cause it to go to sale. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The first certificate holder. MR. RAY: If you've got a certificate, you've paid somebody's taxes. Two years after that date, if you don't get your money, you can cause that property to be auctioned off for the taxes due if it's a non-homesteaded property, or for one-half the just value plus the taxes due if it is a homesteaded property. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If it's not on the -- MR. RAY: Opening bid. It usually goes for the market value. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But if it's not on the -- MR. RAY: No, no. I didn't take the property off the tax roll . I didn't put -- I did not put another PACE assessment on that property. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If there's a cert -- if there's a cert sold on the property because of tax -- because the taxes weren't paid then -- and then we found a PACE provider to not be playing fair and, by direction -- and I have an issue with this anyway -- this whole June 11, 2019 Page 163 process as an additional penalty. But if this were to stay in place and, by direction or suggestion, we ask the Tax Collector to take the special assessment off that particular piece of property because of an egregious act by a PACE provider, that cert holder, from the beginning, could still cause the property to be sold and get reimbursed for the taxes that they paid on that cert. The outstanding balance would be an issue with the PACE provider that actually put the lien on in the first place if it was suggested that that be removed off. MR. RAY: I think what would actually happen, now that I think my way through this, if you had an issue with somebody, then you would tell the PACE provider, do not send the Tax Collector another -- I'm not going to be monitoring. I got 280,000 tax bills. You tell them, don't send another assessment on that property if it's another -- don't send any more to the Tax Collector, and I would expect not to get it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm going to say this, since we're on the subject matter: I would like for us to not have to -- if, in fact, we find that a PACE provider is egregiously or regularly violating someone's rights, I would rather discontinue their relationship to continue to be a PACE provider and not be allowed to go back in on individual properties to take those liens off. I'm -- that last sentence is problematic to me. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We are kind of monkeying with the statute. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I'd like to make a comment and ask a question, if I might. I agree that removal of the lien is going to be problematic on several levels, when a $500 penalty certainly is not much of a stic k. Removal from the program certainly would be. But this is a question for the County Attorney. If we -- are we June 11, 2019 Page 164 limited to a $500 penalty? I know we're dealing with Code Enforcement and there's some statutory issues there. But if -- this really is not an issue like, you know, a violation of one of our codes, tree trimming or grass cutting type of thing. If we had a different penalty in there, would that be enforceable? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we could take out the $500, and then it would be really -- let's say it goes to the Code Enforcement Board or the Special -- they could then just impose whatever they deem appropriate. I think the maximum is $2,000 in certain situations. There is a maximum they can impose. But, yeah, we could take out the $500 limitation. But you're not going to get much more than that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I agree with the chairman that removal from the program is the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Biggest hammer. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- bigger harm. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think if we -- just looking at this, since the effort is to go through this, eliminate the last sentence that starts off "in addition to the imposition of a fine based upon a finding of violation of this particular ordinance." If we eliminate that whole -- that whole requisite and allow the fine -- you know, the fine per the -- because, really, the violation is only for the violation of this particular -- MR. KLATZKOW: The idea here wasn't the $500 fine. The idea here was you guys don't want to be involved in some sort of proceeding as to whether or not they actually violated the ordinance. So the proceeding would go through either your Special Magistrate or your Code Enforcement, and then staff would come back to you with that finding. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And tell us whether or not we remove the provider from the agreement with us? MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. June 11, 2019 Page 165 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. So taking out that last sentence would get us to that without meddling with an actual lien that's already been placed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why wouldn't you do that? If they're in violation of the statute, they're in violation of the taxpayer -- of our ordinance. They're in violation of the taxpayer who hired them to complete a job. We're not talking -- the job is we're going to finance the contractor knocking at your door to install something. Why would you not -- why would you continue to penalize -- well, it never is -- it isn't a question of penalizing because, frankly, the assessment on them continues, but at least they're not in jeopardy of losing their home, and that's -- that's the rub here. They could lose their home. So if they're in violation, if the PACE provider is in violation of this ordinance, it's twofold. First of all, the property that's in question, the assessment's taken off of it; it's given to the PACE provider. But it's no longer on their property. And then the second -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's where we become -- and, Commissioner, I see where you're going, but it's problematic becau se we become the judge and jury with regard to the validity of a lien that's been placed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we're suggesting -- we don't get to direct anything to the Tax Collector, though I like that idea. We can suggest that that lien be removed off of the property -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- but it just ends up being -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Request. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- problematic for us as a board. We're moving off into places where we don't need to be. I think -- MR. RAY: If I may. Yeah, in a way they're sort of -- in this June 11, 2019 Page 166 particular thing there's a couple of -- you know, the lien that's on the tax bill is a one-year portion of the deal. They've got a lien filed with Clerk Kinzel for the total thing. I said I don't get interested in that, but that lien is there. No matter what I do to the tax roll, that lien does not go away. They -- the minute they do that business and record that lien, they've got a lien, and it's a superior lien. I do the little bit every year that has a very specific procedure that goes two years you don't pay, you go to the tax deed sale. That lien's still there. If you-all -- if you decide not to put it on the tax roll ever again, the poor homeowner -- not the poor homeowner. The homeowner still has a lien for a new roof. May have had five years paid on it, may have 15 left. That's still there. It has nothing to do with the tax roll. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. Which is why I don't think we need to be meddling with it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think if we send this to the magistrate, we increase that $500 fine to whatever -- Mr. County Attorney, we send this to the magistrate, not to the Code Enforcement Board, we increase the fine to whatever the County Attorney tells us we can increase it to, and we terminate them from the program, I think that's sufficient. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If found to be in violation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Of the ordinance. Now, the property owner may feel that he was misled. There may be some violation there, but it's not going to be a situation where the property owner gets nothing. The property owner's going to still have the roof or the air conditioner, because there's going to be a certificate of completion that's been filed. So I don't think it's -- I don't think anybody gets hurt that way. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are -- now, let's just play this out. So we've determined the PACE provider is at fault, and we've June 11, 2019 Page 167 terminated them from the program. We've fined them -- let's just say we go to the degree. I think it's probably fine them 2,000 and then maybe -- it's probably not going to happen consecutively, fining and remove them from the program. It's one or the other and chances are -- let's just say we remove them from the program. We are still, as Collier County, securing the loan that they have -- they have originated. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The loan's already secured. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We, as Collier County, are not securing anything. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, we are, because we're allowing it to remain on the tax rolls -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- which means -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The loan is already recorded against the property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are not securing it. The lien is secured by the property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We remove ourselves from that, and we say we are not going to -- we are going to direct you not to put it on the tax rolls. We're removing ourselves from that part of it. Now, is there still a lien out there? Yes. Is it still on their property? Yes. It could be the same as a contractor, or it could be the same as a bank, but Collier County's not involved anymore. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a legal question -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- which I think -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not from me. June 11, 2019 Page 168 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- may impact this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, your light was up ahead of him. Do you want to -- okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Have you seen any other jurisdiction where a county has taken the step and tried to remove an assessment from the Tax Collector's tax bill? MR. FRENCH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And number two, there's -- I don't have the statute in front of me, but I'm assuming the statute -- there's nothing in the statute that says we can do that. So my question is: Are we talking about something that we don't even have the authority to do? Because the statute sets up a process for how these assessments are collected, and we're, essentially, going to change that if we include this, and -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So we need to investigate that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is that something that we can even do? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think you can do it. We'll take a -- we'll double-check if this is what the Board wants. I mean, if there are three votes for this. I'm not sure there are three votes for this to begin with. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't feel comfortable changing what the statute requires on the fly. MR. RAY: Well, actually, I think -- and I would have to do some checking, but it says that they can come in and do work in the county, and then they can sign a uniform collection agreement with me. Now, theoretically, we might not come to a uniform collection agreement so, therefore, they wouldn't be using the uniform collection method, which is what we've been talking about. It doesn't preclude them from doing work in the county as far as I know, June 11, 2019 Page 169 statutorily. Collecting it themselves, as Pelican Marsh could do -- I have a uniform collection agreement with Pelican Marsh and all these other people that I collect for, so they could actually be their own collector. It loses a little of its attractiveness, I would guess, if you're not on the tax bill with me collecting the money, turning it over to you. But I don't think there's anything statutorily that precludes that from happening. So to answer your question, I don't have it, but I could have something in there that says if you violate that, I will terminate the collection agreement. I hadn't thought that all the way through. I'm just talking. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's a potential that's certainly going to have an impact on the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't leave yet, Larry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's not going anywhere. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's certainly going to have an impact on the tranche sale. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So do we have -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to ask Larry something, if I can. So they were saying that they could also collect on this -- on their loans every month rather than -- MR. RAY: I don't know that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's got nothing to do with that. MR. RAY: I don't know that. I don't know that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because you don't do anything monthly, do you? MR. RAY: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I wanted to know. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman? June 11, 2019 Page 170 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we have at least three commissioners that have said it goes to the Magistrate, we want to increase the fine, and we want to eliminate that last sentence dealing with the lien removal. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed; 1, 2, 3. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would think, though, that you would like to know the answer whether we can do this or not, and that might just require a little bit of time. But I would think that that would be something that you'd be interested in finding out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sure we'll be able to find out, but we're going to go with one of Commissioner Saunders' signed dollars as to whether we can or can't. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I still worry about people trying to come up with a yearly payment unless there's something in here that's clearly spelled out as to how they can pay monthly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's got nothing to do with what we're talking about right now, though. You're talking about an escrow process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. I'm just saying -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I want to make sure that this -- that the ordinance states that they can pay monthly and that they understand that they do have to come up with a yearly payment, because I think it's going to -- it's going to put them in jeopardy of losing their house. If you only make 15,000 or $20,000 a year and you need to get this loan, you're not going to be able to come up with a couple thousand dollars each year at the end of the year. So I want it to be June 11, 2019 Page 171 spelled out clearly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. RAY: I'd like to say one more thing, then I'm going to let you all have it. That last little example I gave you, it's a policy question. So y'all decide policy. I'm not interested to not do business with these people. I have an agreement with them. And if y'all decide they're going to do business, I will collect the money per the agreement. If something changes that I have to change my agreement based on your ordinance, then we will look at doing whatever that requires, so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. Thank you. MR. RAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you, thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you lit up again. Is that from before? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think we've gone through the substantive part of the ordinance. We've made changes. I'd like to -- I'd like to find out what the providers' view is of the changes, and I'd also like to know what staff's view is in terms of we've taken your work product, and we've made some changes to it. Do you feel that we have watered this down to a point where it's no longer effective to protect the public, or do you think that it's a starting point, and if we have problems, we can come back later and fix them? MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioner. Based off the feedback that staff's received -- and Claudine and I have spoke, and I've spoken with Thaddeus in the past -- we believe that some of these -- some of these restrictions or some of these requirements already exist. You didn't change them much. So, no, we're better today than we would have been with a June 11, 2019 Page 172 standard membership agreement, and there's something actionable. And, quite honestly, if there's a violation, you're enabling us with the ability to be able to get the records and take it through the Special Magistrate's process, which is what we did not have before, so... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one of the Ygrene folks a question? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know who that would be, but I'd like to get someone's opinion concerning what we've done with this ordinance in terms of workability from your perspective. MR. TAUBE: Yes. Thank you, Commissioners. Ben Taube with Ygrene. So we feel like we're very close. There's a couple of terms that we would go through, but I don't think we're far apart at all. There are a couple clarification -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What are those clarifications? MR. TAUBE: Do you want me to go through a few? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I want you to go through all of them, whatever you have. This is your opportunity, as far as I'm concerned. MR. TAUBE: Yeah. It will not take that long. I think as it relates to Section 2B, it's just a clarification of how to treat confidential information as requested from us as an administrator. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, wait a second. 2B. MR. TAUBE: 2B. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Section 2 or -- MR. TAUBE: Sorry. Section 3; Section 3. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3B. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Section 3. MR. TAUBE: Number 2. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number 2B, transparent customer June 11, 2019 Page 173 feedback? MR. TAUBE: Right. It's now -- we don't have an issue with the process. It's just a question of how we treat confidential information. It's just very simple but just making sure that we are treating it as confidential. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Chapter 191 is pretty restrictive on confidential information, so you should be okay. MR. TAUBE: Got it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Shouldn't that say require the "property owner"? Require the property to file with Collier County. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, property owner. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Should that say "property owner"? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: B. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good catch. Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What line are you on? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: B, where the marker is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On B, 3B. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 3B, okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Prior to entering into a PACE financing agreement requires. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You went down to another one here. We were still back up on 2B or not 2B. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. He made a mistake. He misspoke. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we now? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3B, 3B. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're on 3B. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all right. It just looked like there was a word missing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There was. That was a good June 11, 2019 Page 174 catch. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And next time, just for staff's -- to help us, if you could have line numbers on these, it would make it a lot easier for us. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hopefully we won't have to do this again. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is that something you can -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Entering into a PACE financing agreement requirement. Require the property owner, it should be. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Owner. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ben, are you on 3B with us, or are you off -- MR. TAUBE: I have not gotten to 3B yet. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Where are you at, Ben? Don't follow the marker. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We were on -- I think we were on Section 3.2B I think is where we started. MR. TAUBE: Sorry, sorry. 2D. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 2D. MR. TAUBE: D. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't be sorry. It's just -- it's very confusing, and I have three different people saying three different things, and Jamie put the marker on a fourth thing. So we'll blame Jamie. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we resolved y our concern there because we do have a public records law that protects private information. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's up on 2B. MR. TAUBE: That's fine. Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's actually 2D, I think. June 11, 2019 Page 175 MR. TAUBE: It is 2D, sorry. I misspoke. It was 2D. Want me to move on? The next one is 3A. Our concern with 3A is it -- there's a requirement for the consent for a lender to provide an increase in escrow. And as we've said in the past, getting consent from a lender -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's an "or" there. MR. TAUBE: There is an "or," but just understand it's a unattainable -- the second part of the "or" is not attainable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Is the first part? MR. TAUBE: The first part is. We do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They do do the first part, but the second part is not attainable. MR. TAUBE: So we would be fine with a notice to the lender for an escrow increase, and we can provide a template, but we're not going to be able to provide you a consent form. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Commissioners, again, for the record again, Jamie French. The statute's pretty clear on this. In the event that they exceed the 20 percent, they are required by statute to obtain consent from the lender. They don't have a choice. So the reason why we put the "or" in there is because it does give them some flexibility. But under the Florida Statute, it says that in the event that you're going to do something more than 20 percent, one, you have to get the consent of the mortgage c ompany or the instrument holder, or it may require an energy audit. So the state does provide some provisions here that we found that -- again, and I had this conversation with them last night. The "or" really kind of, in our view, really makes it de minimis, because we're looking for -- if they're going to be under 20 or right at 20, they just give the mortgage company a notice; hey, we're doing it. June 11, 2019 Page 176 MR. TAUBE: So our response to that would be if we add the qualifying statute language that says above 20 percent for that provision, then we would be fine with that. Let's just mirror image what the statute says. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have an issue with that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nor do I. I just -- MR. KLATZKOW: If we're going to mirror the statute, why bother? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, and that's -- well -- and/or -- and, again, I mean, the other side of that equation is the "or" allows for that provision to be -- that whole sentence allows for that to be -- the only time they would be required per statute to get that consent was if they were in excess of, and I thought the statute was -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So if the statute requires that already, I would agree just deleting that language after the "or" would make some sense. We're not going to get consent ordinarily. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And they're going to have to have consent pursuant to the statute. So, I mean, we could -- if you wanted to, we could put a period after PACE assessment and just state what the statute says there, or take it out. The advantage of -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure why we care that we're notifying the mortgage holder to begin with. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're not sure what? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what the benefit is to anybody requiring them to notify the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The benefit of having it in the ordinance is that if they violate the ordinance, then we can fine them and terminate them. June 11, 2019 Page 177 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it also provides for protection. Commissioner Fiala's brought up on a regular basis about notifying the owner and allowing for the mortgagor to modify the mortgage to be able to collect on a monthly basis. They have to adjust their escrow amount in order to compensate for the increase in the assessment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, they don't. I don't understand what you mean by that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By having to have notice to the finance -- the mortgagor, the assessment, that puts -- that puts the property owner on notice that there's an assessment that's due on their property and that the mortgagor can and will adjust their mortgage during the modification period for the monthly collection of the assessment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We got rid of that. Isn't that part of D? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we didn't. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 3D? Ensure that -- we got rid of that. The total amount of annual taxes and assessments don't exceed 5 percent of the property's fair market value. We just got rid of that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, we didn't. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Those are two different things. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are two different things. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are they two different things? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So why wouldn't you -- why wouldn't you -- I guess I have a question of Mr. Taube. How often -- how often do you -- we don't know what you're doing until it appears on the tax rolls; isn't that correct? You don't send a notice to us every time your contractor goes and seals a deal, right? June 11, 2019 Page 178 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: With this ordinance they will. MR. TAUBE: You get a permit application, you get the notice of commencement, and there's a filing on record of the lien. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So that's a notification. And with dollar amounts? MR. TAUBE: Dollar amounts. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All of that? MR. TAUBE: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And this notice to the mortgagor allows for the property -- is an additional for the property owner to know that there is an assessment against the property and that at the -- because the mortgage modification period is specified in the mortgagor's language, and that happens every year, and it puts them on notice that during that modification period they have to adjust the escrow amount that's withheld from the property owner in order to make the next year's tax payment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: By having -- by forcing that notice, that is a provision that we have a checks and balance, if you will, to ensure that they have notified the lender, and the property owner at the same time is notified as well that that assessment's out there against the property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But getting consent is -- is un-accomplishable. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But you have to get consent if the assessment's more than 20 percent. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Per statute. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. So why don't we put a period on the second line there where it says PACE finance June 11, 2019 Page 179 agreement and PACE assessment. Put a period there. And then mirror the language of the statute that if it's more than 20 percent of the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just leave it out. We don't have to regurgitate it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, you reference the statute. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason that I'm suggesting that we put it in there is because then it becomes a violation of this ordinance. It's not just a violation of the statute. And then we can take intive (sic) action based on a violation of statute. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In the event that that consent's not done by somebody who does a loan more than 20 percent, we have the right to then revoke their PACE agreement. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I see. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Any problem with that? I mean, that's just mirroring the statute. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Except that in that same sentence it's talking about annual assessment, right? But if they don't want to use annual assessment, if they want to make it a monthly payment -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're talking about the option right at the time of the loan that they can opt whether they want it on a yearly assessment or whether they want it prorated on a monthly basis. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but it didn't say that, does it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it doesn't; ma'am, it doesn't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're not going to be able to force them to do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not force. I don't think that June 11, 2019 Page 180 they -- I just don't know how a person who's already having financial problems and that's why they're seeking out this program to fix whatever they want to or -- you know, the new roof or whatever, and they can't do it by themselves and they can't get a loan, and they don't have a credit card, how can they come up with one payment at the end of each year? I don't know. MS. LAWSON: Would it be possible to clarify that point? So the assessment is always an annual assessment under Florida law, but the property owner -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Florida law, it's always an annual assessment? MS. LAWSON: Correct, but under the mortgage relationship, they can choose to escrow a monthly portion of that annual payment and pay that on a monthly basis. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much does that cost them extra? MS. LAWSON: Nothing. It's a choice that every property owner has to escrow their monthly payment under their mortgage. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it say that in here and is it spelled out for the people to understand? MS. LAWSON: Yes. As I think it was Ben or Kate earlier was reading from our disclosures, that we make it very clear that the property owner can notify their mortgage holder to increase the escrow in the amount of the PACE assessment on a monthly basis. We also provide several forms for them to do that, and we provide letters. We send three letters a year after the assessment is put on the tax rolls where we remind the property owner that they should either be accumulating the amount of the monthly payment over time or that they should notice their mortgage lender in order for it to place it in escrow. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of these people, though, are June 11, 2019 Page 181 living from paycheck to paycheck. And I don't think that that would work out very well. I know some people that work right here at the county don't make very much money at all. Like our EMS people, they make lousy money. And, you know, sometimes they can't set aside the money. Yes, it's a wise thing to do, but if they can't, then -- MS. LAWSON: I think you would be actually happy to know that the majority of property owners actually do add the PACE assessment to their escrow account and pay the escrows on a monthly basis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second. Commissioner Saunders, and then it's Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I just felt that we were -- we had some language or at least I was suggesting some language for Paragraph 3A that -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's okay with me. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then we can move on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you okay with that, Commissioner Solis, that language increase -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- or that language adjustment? And, Commissioner Solis, your light was light up. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just going to say, I mean, the assessment appears on the tax bill. Most lenders will require an escrow of the whole tax bill. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It will be part of what's being escrowed anyway. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it's not -- you know, and they also escrow the insurance. June 11, 2019 Page 182 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Accident insurance, PPI, everything. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So most of the lenders are going to do this anyway because they want to make sure that the taxes are being paid. It's the whole tax bill. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do they find out that they want to include this? I mean, does somebody have to report to them and say now I bought this? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay up on the mic. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, it's a part of the tax bill. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's too late. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Number one -- well, let me finish. Number one, it's going to be part of the tax bill that can cr eate that kind of catch-up escrow situation, but what I think she's explaining is that the property owner's also advised, too, if they want to do this, notify their lender to start including it right away. MS. LAWSON: In addition, as A states, we actually send, ourselves, a notice to the lender to notify them that the assessment has been placed so the lender already has been advised to increase the escrow amounts to be commensurate with the increased tax bill. So we notice the lender, we advise the property owner to notice the lender and, by all accounts, most lenders do this proactively because they want the tax monies covered. So a vast majority of property owners that have a mortgage -- if they don't have a mortgage then, of course, they're doing this themselves. But vast majority of property owners who have a mortgage pay, through the monthly escrow, the amount that would be due to satisfy the annual obligation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make my statement, and then you can take my name off. I don't think government should be in this business. We are now June 11, 2019 Page 183 getting into a business where we're supporting a for-profit business, encouraging -- not encouraging. We're collecting their fees for them, even though -- because it goes on their tax bill, right? And so we collect, and then we have to send the money to you when we collect your money, right? MS. LAWSON: You collect the taxes, and those taxes are remitted to an escrow agent who remits them to the bondholders. It was stated earlier that Ygrene receives those monies but, in fact, it's the bondholder. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're actually giving you the privilege to use government as, like, you know -- you know, the government is backing this or supporting -- not supporting it but backing it, and I just don't think government should be in this business. I just -- I think it's wrong. That's just my comment. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Comment's been made. And the language in 3A is okay for three of us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's going to read, "mirror the statute," strike all -- everything after assessment and include the records "mirror the Florida Statute"? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. It's not going to say "mirror the statute." It's going to have the language in there dealing with notifying the -- it's going to have the language in there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The language. MR. FRENCH: Just for some clarification, sir, what we might suggest -- because the language isn't -- it's not a lift and copy. We would simply just make reference to anything above the 20 percent would require -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. MR. FRENCH: -- an agreement by the lender. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And didn't you already say that that was per statute? June 11, 2019 Page 184 MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. That's identified, and I believe Commissioner Saunders said he wanted it left in there for -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Enforcement. MR. FRENCH: Enforcement. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I hope you don't have a whole lot more. MR. TAUBE: I'll make them quick, but I do need staff for the next one. On 3B, Jamie, we had a discussion yesterday that -- about prior to entering into the PACE finance agreement. That would be prior to entering into the PACE lien for the disclosure to be submitted? MR. FRENCH: So that's correct. They had asked that that language -- and I'd defer to the County Attorney's Office, but the language "PACE finance agreement" what they're -- I think what they're focused primarily on is "the PACE lien." So by terms of the finance agreement, they've started a negotiation. They've agreed upon a price. They've agreed upon the project. The lien won't be filed until the certificate of occupancy or the certificate of completion. It still gets us there. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MR. FRENCH: It's just the way it's written they said they can't even go into an agreement or negotiation for an agreement. We're simply -- I think from county staff's perspective, we're simply looking at making sure that all of the requirements within th e statute were followed so that the consumer's unprotected and has a lien against them with an unfinished project. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The lien is the issue, not the financing agreement. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This isn't what 3B says. This has nothing to do with notice of commencement. This has to do with that June 11, 2019 Page 185 other agreement we haven't even gotten to yet, and it also says at the end of it that it's reviewed and approved by some designated county employee. This has nothing to do with certificate of completion. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I am. MR. FRENCH: We're only focused on the term in 3B, "PACE financing agreement." They'd like that changed to "PACE lien." That's it. MR. KLATZKOW: Why "PACE lien"? I'm not following. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: PACE lien. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: PACE lien. However, I think the Chairman's point is well taken. I mean, this is the issue that we discussed at the beginning. We're putting a county employee in the position of reviewing and approving something. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: As opposed to just receipt. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've made those changes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that will be -- okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be gone. We're going to bring this back to you, but we've made those changes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MS. LAWSON: The additional request that we had was that it be prior to recording the PACE lien. MR. KLATZKOW: So you would get it to all the agreements with the property owner, and the lien's not recorded until the job is finished, right? MS. LAWSON: The lien is -- MR. KLATZKOW: You file -- you don't file the lien until the entire job is finished, correct? MS. LAWSON: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. And so what you're saying is after the property owner has signed all the financing agreements and after the work has already been done, at that moment in the time, that's June 11, 2019 Page 186 when we ask to file the disclosure statement? MR. PEREZ: County Attorney, Rafael Perez. The process that Jamie illustrated earlier says when contractor goes to submit his NOC and also his building permit, he would also, additionally, submit this documentation. Before we could get there and get a contractor to say, okay, I'm going to go do this process, he needs to know if he's going to -- if this is going to qualify. MR. KLATZKOW: If we're doing it your way, the property -- doing it your way, the property owner would have gone through the entire process and only at the very end does he have to sign that document that discloses the entire process. MR. PEREZ: What we're saying, sir, is that we want the person to get approved. They're approved. They have an approval of an amount. Then the contractor, they have agreed. Now before you could start a project, you've got to go do the process that Mr. French identified. So you've got to do A -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. Now you're at the process where the hired work's been done, and the property owner says, wait a second, this disclosure isn't exactly what I was told. Now what do we do? MR. PEREZ: So at the time, if the property owner comes and says, you know what, I've changed my mind, cancels the application, it's fine. It happens every day. We don't hold them -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but the property -- but the work's been done. MR. PEREZ: No, no, no. You've got to do -- so let me walk this a little slower. Property owner talks to the contractor, applies, gets approved, okay, I want to do an improvement on my property. Okay. Let's go ahead get the financial agreement on how much it's going to cost me; June 11, 2019 Page 187 through Ygrene, not through the process. He gets approved. We give him a notice to proceed. Now the contractor needs to go to the Building Department with a building permit with an NOC, and the form that is going to be created. The property owner has to sign it. So they're going to read it, and those get submitted. If at that moment the property owner decides, you know what, I want to walk away, call Ygrene and we cancel. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But you said to put it down at the time of the lien. MR. PEREZ: What we're saying is, we've got to let the first process happen -- the way it's done here -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just asking for the word. Right now we have a proposed financing agreement. MR. PEREZ: What we're asking for is, you can't have -- no contractor -- I am a general contractor. I am not going to go without a form of financing or a form of cash to go submit a building permit. I first have to get an approval; then I'll go do the step. It just has to be -- that's what we're asking, that the steps be, first, allow them to get approved; then the next step is go submit the documentation that is required by ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: What language do you want us to put there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Prior to the issue of the building permit. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. I just want from them. What language do you want us to change? MR. PEREZ: We agree with Mr. Nick. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So let me throw a wrench into this. With air conditioners, they're installed before you got the permit. June 11, 2019 Page 188 MR. PEREZ: So we did talk to Mr. French that there has to be an emergency clause. I think there's an emergency clause in state statute, so Mr. French could add that because, yes, if my mom, a senior, or my baby, newborn baby, which there is, needs an A/C , I am going to do it immediately. I'm not going to tell them, hey, wait for the permit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What if -- what if it's a very aggressive contractor that says, oh, I can install it today, and they say, oh, boy, wouldn't this be great. What do we do then? MR. PEREZ: That's a process we have to define. I was just giving you the -- 80 percent of our projects are not A/C. So that's one process. For an emergency clause, we can work out and discuss an emergency process, what the process is for that. Mr. French, we're talking about an emergency process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What if the emergency is on the part of the contractor, which means it's on the part of the other side? What I'm saying is, is that it -- yes, we have to figure that out, and probably this isn't the time to do it, but that has to be figured out. Because, again and again in this county, contractors will install air conditioners before they pull permits. MR. PEREZ: So the emergency clause is our finance agreement has a lot of language that goes through detail. Our welcome call confirmation call explains that this is not a government program, explains that the contractors -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not talking about that. MR. PEREZ: But I'm saying there's already a safe guard for this one situation where there's an A/C. That is a recorded call; we have that. We also have a finance agreement. So we internally have that available. So I'm not sure how you want to work this, but we're just saying that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I care about it being June 11, 2019 Page 189 incorporated into this ordinance so that folks that want air conditioners and contractors that are PACE contractors install it without a permit, they don't come back to us and say, ah, yeah, but it's not required by this ordinance. Whatever you do is fine. I want it in here, and I think that's going to require a little bit more debate that probably shouldn't happen at almost 4 o'clock this afternoon. MS. LAWSON: Just also to clarify on this point. We were trying to avoid a process -- a process -- an inadvertent process misstep that would actually cause the program to be nonfunctional. It's not that we're tied to the time of lien. We are trying to make that it wasn't prior to when a contractor would actually -- that it would actually inhibit the approval -- the application approval process. So we would be equally happy with contemporaneously entering into a PACE financing or contemporaneously with entering into performing our welcome call. It can't be prior to the PACE financing, because that would actually be a process misstep that would cause grave harm to the program design. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a comment? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, if we do what our Assistant County Manager is saying, that this has to be provided prior to the issuance of the building permit, that should take care of it. I mean, there's this issue of an emergency installation, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You still have to get a permit. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've still got to get a permit. MS. LAWSON: That would be fine with us; yeah, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What happens if the air conditioner's in the house? It's all done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do the work, and then they June 11, 2019 Page 190 submit this information. The homeowner still has to validate it, and it still has to come to staff to look at. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They don't end up with a lien. If it's not -- if the homeowner doesn't do this after the fact even, they don't have a lien. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's not part of the permit, it won't be issued. Can't close it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the permit won't be issued, then Ygrene doesn't have a lien, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So they're exposed. MR. FRENCH: So they still could not file the lien because they've not obtained a certificate of completion. So what the statute says is that typically you would have a 48-hour period to obtain your permit in the event of emergency repair. So air-conditioning, roof, broken window, something like that, to where the home was exposed, or it was not able to meet the current code. So they had a 48 -hour window to get their permit. Either way, by using issue of the permit, they still cannot file th e lien until the certificate of completion has been acquired, and that has to be acquired by the county. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what if the repair is not an emergency but a very aggressive contractor? MR. FRENCH: Well, then the contractors -- that's where we would come in, ma'am, and they've got to explain themselves to our building official and our building director as to the reason why they did a repair without a permit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's have that incorporated somehow in this. MR. FRENCH: I can only -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. That's moving over into June 11, 2019 Page 191 regulating the contractors that this ordinance is not about. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No one seems to be protecting the property owner. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We already have those protections under our Contractor Licensing and the requisites for the conduct of business in Collier County by a general contractor. This ordinance has to do with the PACE financing and that arrangement, not the general contractor. You've gone off into a supposition of a special interest or a special circumstance with an aggressive contractor, and by changing that language, per what I understand, prior to entering into -- or prior to an issuance of a building permit, the rest of that sentence flows? MR. FRENCH: So Chapter 49 and Chapter 553 is going to regulate that industry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. MR. FRENCH: And 49 is mentioned within the PACE statute. So we would aggressively go after the contractor who installed an air conditioner, one, without a contract, maybe committed fraud, and we would involve the state. They're not a general contractor; they're a specialty contractor that's both issued a local license or state license. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what about the lien? MR. FRENCH: The lien cannot get recorded until a certificate of completion has been issued by the county. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. FRENCH: And so we're not going to issue a permit no matter who finances it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So even though the -- let's say the air conditioner's installed, no lien can be filed because, say, it was -- it's not -- say there's a problem and it's an aggressive contractor and the owner doesn't really want to go forward, but the air June 11, 2019 Page 192 conditioner's in there, and you would not issue a permit for completion? MR. FRENCH: No. They'd have to have -- they'd have to have a notice of commencement, they'd have to have the building permit application, they'd have to follow -- despite who pays for it, they still have to follow the state law. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the rest of that language is going to get cleaned up in there with regard to review and approval and all that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're almost on our second page of notes but, yes, everything you've said so far has been collected. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Ben? MR. TAUBE: Sorry to continue to stay on 3B, but I think it's an overarching comment about two items. One being the disclosure that's attached to the back. Just our comment is is that we would be more than willing to work with staff on creating the disclosure that models after what we're doing in other counties. This one is a little bit more lengthy and a bit misleading in the way it reads. So we'd be happy to work on language that is -- conforms to our other programs. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We haven't got to that disclosure yet. I assume that that's going to be part of what we talk about today. So right now we're working specifically on the ordinance. MR. TAUBE: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There are things within -- I would have -- happy to not have the disclosure at all, but that's -- that helps, so... Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to ask if there are any other issues. MS. LAWSON: Yes, there are. June 11, 2019 Page 193 So related to 3B, the other item that we had asked staff to change was the reference to notary. We do electronic IDV verification through the credit bureaus where we actually do live calls to confirm the identity of the person signing documents. And so rather than having a wet signature and a notary, which causes additional process delays, we would like there to be reference -- either have that struck or have reference to an alternate process that accomplishes the same thing. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd be okay with that. I mean, this is the -- what century are we in now? 21st century? So there are a lot of different ways. Jamie? MR. FRENCH: So they're required at time of application or before they can receive their first inspection to have a notice of commencement. So whether or not that notice of commencement is done by electronic signature or done by notary stamp, that's administered under state statute under Crystal's office. I would tell you, sir, that 99 percent of the permits we have seen, whether they're scanned in or whether they're supplied to us, it's not a wet signature. The contractor's already got a notary there to sign the notice of commencement by the property owner. Staff would disagree. We don't believe that this is going add any additional step other than the fact that it's going to put some additional consumer protections in that the contractor's just got to get a signature, and they can notarize both forms right there. MS. LAWSON: Perhaps we could provide both options, because it may very well be that this notice is signed not coincident with the filing of the permit; that it actually is part of our application process, and we deliver that to the property owners, for instance, along with our welcome call, which will not be coincident with the permit process. June 11, 2019 Page 194 So if we could be allowed either option; it will be either electronically notarized via our IDV or physically notarized. It gets to the same end. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think the design of this is that you do deliver it at the time. Whatever you do is not the issue. It's what the county wants you to do. MS. LAWSON: We would deliver it to the county at that time, but perhaps we would have accomplished the notary procedure prior to that delivery. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm inclined to go along with what Mr. French has just said. He said that most of them are (sic) wet signatures. So I understand that that may create some difficulty, but... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're going to go along with what Jamie had to say on that one. MR. TAUBE: Okay. So this is the final one, on 3F. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three what? MR. TAUBE: 3F; 3 (sic) as in Frank. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I gotcha. MR. TAUBE: We would -- for this section all we would like is a clarification that we would not make final payment until the certificate of completion is complete. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say that again. MR. TAUBE: We would like to be able to make some payment, but we will not make the final payment to the contractor until t he certificate of completion has been filed with the county or inspected with the county. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's F? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But that has nothing to do with you. This is a PACE assessment coming back against the property until June 11, 2019 Page 195 the certificate of completion is done. How you treat your contractors is your business. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I like the word "your." That's important in this conversation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that changes the whole scenario, because my understanding's always been that no payments are made to the contractor until the end and until the certificate of completion is signed by the owner, and now we're adding that no payment will be made until the county issues a CO or a certificate of completion. So I'll tell you why I'm concerned: Because one of the things that I have found is a big protection for the owners here is just that, that there's no payment made until the end, so there's no scenario in which the contractor can get ahead of releases and things on the owner. MR. PEREZ: Commissioner Solis, what we're asking for is there's situations where -- remember the property owner still has to sign our certificate, Ygrene's certificate of completion. If that's not signed, we won't disburse. What you're -- what it is saying is your certificate of completion, your final, which we're okay. What we're saying is in some situations something happened. They need an engineering letter. The engineer letter takes five weeks. The material supplier wants to put a lien on the property. We want to be able to release some form of payment if necessary to material suppliers so it doesn't become a bigger problem. That's all we're saying. Final payment will be issued when -- the certificate of completion from the county. So it gives us flexibility to -- if we have to pay something. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can always pay something. All we're June 11, 2019 Page 196 saying is that you're not going to slap the assessment on the property until the job's done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This has nothing to do with you paying your contractor. MR. KLATZKOW: You can pay the contractor anything you want. MR. PEREZ: We're just making sure so we don't violate the ordinance. We're trying to make sure we're clear. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're off in a different subject matter per my understanding. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just -- you know, this has to do with the PACE assessment against the property owner for the qualifying improvements. And you cannot put the lien against the property until the certificate of completion has been issued, period. MR. PEREZ: We understand. We just wanted to make sure if we did that they wouldn't cause us -- if we disburse something, you wouldn't come and say, oh, you disbursed something to a material supplier. You violated the rules. We just wanted a clarification. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My understanding was is that the way this normally happens is that until you get the certificate of completion signed by the owner that there's no disbursements made. MR. PEREZ: Exactly. But in this situation, then the county wants their certificate of completion, which they're calling their final inspection, to be done. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. PEREZ: Today it doesn't work that way, because there's scenarios. If the property owner says, yes, pay them, pay the contractor, because they've done the work. Unfortunately, there's some reason we can't get a final inspection. There's a lot of reasons. It could be a project with multiple measures, right? It could hav e an A/C, it could have this. And due to the fact that the complete June 11, 2019 Page 197 building permit is not finaled, they're not going to give you a final for the whole building permit if -- like, if it's a window job and you're doing multiple measures -- until the whole job is not (sic) finished, you don't get a building final. That's just how it works. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's got nothing to do with us. Certificate of completion allows for you to pay the contractor or put the lien again the property. We don't care when you pay the contractor. MR. PEREZ: Ygrene certificate of completion; is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, it doesn't say that. It says a certificate of completion from Collier County. MS. LAWSON: I think that's where we're getting confused. Ygrene has a certificate of completion, and if the property owner signs it, we can pay the contractor on their behalf. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you choose to. MS. LAWSON: If we choose to. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if you do do that, that's your business. But per this ordinance, it's Collier County's certificate of completion. MS. LAWSON: Correct. So that's -- I think that's where we're getting confused which is now there is an additional certificate of completion. What we're asking is to the degree that the property owner signs off -- because, again, as Rafael said, there can be multiple phases of a job, and it can be time to pay the window -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're talking two different things. You can't -- F says you can't file an assessment until the county Building Department says you're complete per the permit. That's what this says. How you pay your contractor and what you do with the homeowner, you can't assess the homeowner until the Collier June 11, 2019 Page 198 County inspector says the job's done. MS. LAWSON: The problem is we can't -- we can't do any of it without an assessment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can't submit the assessment until the job gets its final certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion? So how would you put -- MS. LAWSON: That is what this is saying, but that is not -- so this is a new process. And we're saying, we would like to be able, in a long job where you've got, say, long lead time is windows, and you had an A/C put in, and they're two different contractors, we wo uld close out a portion of that, get a certificate of completion, and pay for that piece, but we do that with the assessment in place. So we're trying to reconcile this element of not being able to place a lien at all prior to this very end stage. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you had multiple permits for multiple jobs, when you completed a permit for, say, windows, and let's say this assessment was for three things: Windows, A/C, and roof -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And three contractors. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- and three permits, okay, or general permit, and they completed windows and they wanted a lien for windows, and the county building inspector says they're done, the windows meet inspection, then you're all set. MS. LAWSON: Then we can place a lien for that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the windows. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For the windows. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For nothing else, but not for the whole assessment. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Once you receive a certificate of completion from us. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: For the windows. June 11, 2019 Page 199 MS. LAWSON: Okay. Then we would have to file multiple liens on the property. That typically hasn't been our practice because it's -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: But that's up to you, because what if you never complete the roof, and -- MS. LAWSON: Then we would never -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then no assessment will be filed because you wouldn't have a certificate of completion for the entire job. MS. LAWSON: In this new process. We're just trying -- so, please forgive us for just trying to reconcile -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. MS. LAWSON: -- this new element given it has similar language to our existing phrasing with the certificate of completion and how that affects the actual structure of the program. I'm not sure where to -- I mean, we had suggested -- that's why we had suggested language that was final payment to contractors. I understand that we, perhaps, misunderstood the relevance. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. It has nothing to do with payment to your contractor. MS. LAWSON: Right. This is a nontrivial (sic) impact, so I think maybe we need to regroup on it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What does "nontrivial" means? MS. LAWSON: It means it would have a significant operational impact in terms of getting -- handling these situations like a multiphase job in a way that would allow for the relevant parties to get the payments that they're due in the appropriate times. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: A quick question, then a comment. Other than this particular provision at this point, are you finished with your -- June 11, 2019 Page 200 MS. LAWSON: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Mr. Chairman, obviously, we can't pass an ordinance tonight. I don't think anybody really fully comprehends what we've done. Staff will have to go back and rework everything. This will be a very unpopular, perhaps, motion, but I'm going to make a motion at some point -- I'll make it now; we can talk about it -- but to continue this until our next meeting, have staff redraft all of this that we've done, distribute it, and then at our next meeting consider final passage. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would second that. I think that's a very wise decision. We're wordsmithing as we sit here. I don't think -- and we've got some concerns with at least one PACE provider. I haven't talked to the other PACE providers nor the districts that I spoke to. They haven't seen it. There's more than one in this game here, so I think it would be very wise to continue this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And part of that motion would be for staff to work with the providers in terms of the disclosure statement. They indicated that they have some language and things that would make it better disclosure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to let the record reflect that I wanted to do this at the beginning of this process, just so you know. I'm joking. I'm just messing with you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're going to get to speak. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sit down, Michael. I'll get to you. I've already -- I know we've got Star Trek DVR'ed in the back, so we're good. So we're going to -- it's been moved and seconded that -- we're going to continue it to when, Commissioner Saunders, the next meeting? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Our two-day meeting. June 11, 2019 Page 201 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not a two-day meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What'd you say? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Looking like two days, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: Three-day. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Really? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's looking like two days, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All the more reason why we need to have more meetings. We'll have that discussion when we move into it. Well, it's been moved and seconded for now. We're going to move and second that we continue this item until our June 25th, parentheses, 26th meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're going away? No, it's not okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's stay on task here, please, if we can. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just heard something germane. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know. Well, it was new news to me that we had -- somebody's thinking about a two-day meeting on our 25th meeting. But it's been moved and seconded we continue this item to the 25th. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, do we want to hear from the public comment first before we move? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's go. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 13 registered speakers. I'll remind the speakers to use both podiums. I'll call two names. Please queue up so you can be standing by. June 11, 2019 Page 202 Your first speaker is Jury Paulson. He'll be followed by Devesh Nirmul. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He's no longer here. He had to go to work. MR. MILLER: Devesh Nirmul will be followed by John Harney. MR. NIRMUL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Devesh Nirmul. I represent the Florida PACE Funding Agency. We did have a chance to speak with Commissioner Taylor and staff and other commissioners over the past few weeks. I want to make it clear that -- and we spent probably 25 minutes with you, Commissioners, explaining the districts and the importance of that oversight in governance model, the special local government that -- on that -- in that district you have a board made up of peers, County Commissions and administrative staff. And they all feel that our program is working just fine. The few things that have come up in this ordinance are the exception rather than the rule across the over two-thirds of the state that we work in. And I want to remind everybody that the staff did vet our program in intensive detail, and we were given a clean bill of health. We're happy with our program. We feel that in Pasco -- you should know we just got re-entered into Pasco County, because we did object to the disclosure, the way that it was handled through the mechanism of the Tax Collector, and the operational burden of that whole process. It goes back to the delineation between being a lender and being a contractor and also being able to provide something of value and accessibility to the property owner. Let's go back to the statute. It was a compelling public purpose after we had a failed insurance market and when we have an issue June 11, 2019 Page 203 when we're dealing with impacts of climate and trying to be more energy efficient. That was the public side of this. The other side of that with the state statute is instead of going down the path of ability to pay, they did have underwriting standards that prevent particular homeowners in situations of having previous bankruptcies or any record of mispayment to access PACE. Everything that we've done from permit requirements to the way the payment works on our sign-off of a completion certificate, et cetera, ties into this spirit of the statutory guidance. And I think a lot of what we're seeing is working against the ability of the program to perform successfully to make the property improvements that -- private capital, there's been basically a paucity of private capital to these ends. And this enables that money to flow. So, I mean, on the specific details, we still have a problem with the notarization. Pasco County even does not require that. And on the completion, we've had this dialogue with other jurisdictions. The idea is that we do all we can as a lender to make sure that final inspection is called. But whatever extenuating circumstances are there between the process of closing that out and the contractor, we have to still run our business. And so I think it's important that we find that important delineation where our role is and where it isn't. But it would be quite a hardship to operate under the ordinance that came here today. The edits, obviously, are very welcomed. The few remaining things are what we're concerned about. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Harney. He'll be followed by Michael Schumann. MR. HARNEY: I'm John Harney. My address is 7426 Acorn Way, Naples. I worked with Jury Paulson and several other volunteers and staff members to do interviews. When we were here two weeks ago June 11, 2019 Page 204 we heard that there were 400 completed jobs; there were only three complaints. We were suspicious of that. And we contacted our 25 homeowners who are involved in the PACE program. Nine of them said that they had problems, and they all said the same thing. There were four points that they brought up. All of them said PACE was represented as a government program. They all said that they were misled to believe that they would owe very little, if anything, out of pocket; that this would be paid for some other way; some mysterious way that was pitched by the contractors. Notary publics were not present with any of them during the signing of their extremely detailed agreements which were frequently or nearly always done on tablets or even cell phones; so they were almost impossible to read. And the possibility of losing their home by not making sufficient payments on what would become the first lien on their home was not explained to them thoroughly, if at all. Our problem with this program is not the ordinance. It's not the basic construction of the program. It is how is it executed with the public. The public has found, as they are getting into these agreements, that it's not being represented to them properly. As a result of that, they're entering into agreements which are onerous, which are impossible to pay for many of them, and because of the fact that it's being sold to them improperly at the street level, this program cannot work. We do not feel that the homeowners are being supported properly by the county by the continuation of this program, that the homeowners have been taken advantage of by the contractors, and because of the fact that the county has been involved with this program, in their own minds, that makes the county complicit as well. We've had a lot of conversation today about distancing the county from the program and finding ways to separate the county June 11, 2019 Page 205 from the program. In the mind of the public, they're all connected. There's no way to separate them. It's all one to the people who are involved in these PACE loans. Thanks for your time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Schumann. He'll be followed by Karen Beatty. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Michael, sorry about yelling at you there. I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't forgetting you. MR. SCHUMANN: Not a problem. I appreciate it. It's been a very long day, and I hope to get through this very quickly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Three minutes. MR. SCHUMANN: I was assured by Mr. Saunders yesterday that we would have sufficient time to make our point, so I appreciate your indulgence. I'm not going to go and talk about all the problems that we've had with the PACE program; you've heard that in many previous meetings. What I want to do is focus today on the issues that you really need to address, okay. And, basically, there's really two separate issues. There's the first issue, which is the current status of the PACE ordinance and whether or not you're going to terminate the residential PACE program completely or if you're going to implement some kind of additional consumer protections. But there is a second thing that I think you need to take a look at that has not been discussed today at all, and that is the current performance of the PACE providers that you already have agreements with and whether it's appropriate to continue doing business with some of these providers. And I'll get into that, but let's focus first on the proposed consumer ordinance. The first thing that I want to mention is there was a lot of discussion about what do you do when somebody has an emergency air-conditioning repair? Okay. And I think what is really June 11, 2019 Page 206 a misconception is the PACE ordinance -- the PACE statute that was passed in Florida is not a statute to basically provide financing for repairs, whether when it's an air conditioner or whether it's hurricane damage or whatever. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a mechanism to do three very, very specific improvements to a property. One is an improvement that improves energy conservation and efficiency improvement, and I've handed out your statute; secondly, improvements that relate to renewable energy; and, thirdly, improvements that deal with wind resistance. Now, if you have hurricane damage or some other damage and as part of the repair you're meeting one of these three criteria, then you can use this ordinance; however, if you look at Paragraph 13 of the ordinance, the ordinance requires -- the statute, I mean. I'm sorry. The statute requires that before you can move ahead with PACE financing, the property owner needs to provide 30 days' notice to the lienholders, to the mortgage lenders before they can even, you know, sign a financing agreement. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I had advised this gentleman that I would make sure he had time to go through his thing. I realize we have a three-minute limit. He's getting ready to run out of time, so I wanted to -- I can ask him questions, but... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah -- no. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I can ask him questions, too. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Or we could let him go for a few minutes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I just want to be fair to everyone. And Michael is -- you're off -- I want to be fair to everyone, but I also want you to have an opportunity to speak, so... MR. SCHUMANN: I appreciate it. The bottom line is the Florida Statute, the Paragraph 13, requires 30 days prior notice before you can use PACE financing, and that June 11, 2019 Page 207 makes it impossible to use for an emergency air-conditioning repair. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So, necessarily, then, that entire discussion with regard to an emergency air-conditioning repair was a waste of time. MR. SCHUMANN: That is correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We should have heard from the public first. MR. SCHUMANN: Right. Moving on. The consumer disclosure document is a step in the right direction, but the problem is -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Turn off those buttons -- excuse me, Michael. Shut the time off. Let him speak until Commissioner Saunders says he's done. MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. MR. SCHUMANN: Okay. The problem with the consumer disclosure document, the way it's presented and the way it's included in the proposed ordinance is it's just another piece of paper in a big stack that people are signing on an iPad that they don't read. It's really meaningless, okay. If you want to basically have a document that means something, you basically have to have people sign it in front of somebody that doesn't have money in the pot that is a neutral party that can sit down and determine whether or not the person understands what they're reading, whether or not they've read it, okay, and can explain any questions to them. If you're not going to do that, this is a waste of time. I mean, there's already probably an inch of paperwork that is presented to people on an iPhone or an iPad that their eyes just glaze over. This is just going to be another piece of paper. So don't get too hung up on how effective that's going to be. As far as the limits, okay, I just want to give you some business June 11, 2019 Page 208 numbers. Your drop in the 5 percent of the property market value, which is redundant. The next limit, the limit on the annual PACE assessment of 4 percent of the property owner's gross limit -- gross income. That is actually an important limit, okay. And let's take the classic example; if you have a property owner that has a $40,000 household income, that means that their PACE assessment can't be more than $1,600 a year. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. MR. SCHUMANN: All right. What that translates into, if you're talking about an 8 percent loan, that's a $16,000 limit on an improvement. If it's a 4 percent loan, which it should be, it would be a $22,000 improvement. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I ask you to stay to the specifics with regard to your disagreements with the ordinance and the adjustments we've already made? MR. SCHUMANN: Sure. As far as the limit on the warranty term limit on the PACE assessments, my suggestion there would be take the common things like, you know, A/C, roof windows, and just create a schedule, and just say, okay, for A/C we're going to have 10-year limit. You know, for a roof, 15; for windows, 20. You know, make it simple. The building -- the requiring the certificate of completion on the building permit before you can issue a lien, that's imperative. So I totally think you need to stick to your guns on that. Finally, in terms of the penalty for violations, the discussion about whether or not the PACE assessment can be challenged, I understand why you wouldn't want to get in the middle of that argument, but I think it's important that in your o rdinance you provide a private clause of action. So if the PACE provider does not follow the state statute or the ordinance, that either the property owner or the mortgage lender has the opportunity to challenge the June 11, 2019 Page 209 assessment in court. Okay. Now I want to talk a little bit about the actual performance of the existing PACE providers over the last two years, all right, and in particular I'm going to focus on Ygrene. And the only reason we're doing that is because in Collier County, probably 90 percent of your PACE projects are Ygrene related, all right. And I think, basically, if you look at what's been going on, Ygrene has consistently misrepresented what they do both in their process as well as what kind of improvements are eligible for the PACE program. And the classic example of that, they've made a very, very big deal in front of you and in the public about the rigorous process they have for qualifying contractors, yet they signed up Bruno and Summitwood Works who together probably are close to half of the projects that have been recorded as liens in Collier County, and both of them are, basically, no longer qualified and are under investigation for fraudulent practices, all right. In addition, if you go onto Ygrene's website today and you look at what kind of projects are eligible for PACE financing in Florida, they claim that standby generators are permitted. That's totally untrue. You know, standby generators, if you look at the Florida state statute, it's not an energy conservation or efficiency improvement, it's not a renewable energy improvement, and it's certainly not a wind-resistent improvement. Same thing applies to electrical panel upgrades, electrical wiring monitorization, and seawalls. I mean, seawalls have nothing to do with what's authorized in the PACE ordinance, and they're not even attached to buildings, which is a requirement in Subchapter 10 in the Florida Statute. So, again -- the other thing is timely lack of notice to lenders. You know, as I mentioned before, Paragraph 13 of the state statute June 11, 2019 Page 210 requires 30-days notice to the existing lenders before you can move ahead with PACE financing. That hasn't occurred in a single case that we've looked at a Ygrene project. Every single Ygrene project we've looked at, Ygrene is actually the one that has notified the lender, and generally the notification is sent out on the same day that the property owner signs the financing agreement, which is in total violation of the state statute. All right. The next slide, let's talk about the relationship between Green Corridor and Ygrene, all right. And a lot of people don't understand this. Green Corridor is actually considered a local government that has been organized which is the actual entity that's providing loans and doing the assessments to the property owners. Ygrene is basically a for-profit company that is their administrative agent that basically provides loan origination and servicing, customer service, management and legal services, and raising capital for Green Corridor. But, basically, Ygrene is just an entity that more or less runs Green Corridor's day-to-day operations. And as such, Ygrene has a fiduciary responsibility to Green Corridor of, A, transparency and also, B, procuring costs, services, and capital for Green Corridor at competitive pricing, all right? But what's really happening? All right. How does Green Corridor raise capital? So Ygrene really acts as the underwriter for Green Corridor's municipal bond issues. Now, are they selling these bonds on a competitive basis using competitive bidding? No. Green Corridor is selling the bonds to Ygrene as a private-placement transaction at a typical interest rate of 7 to 8 percent, all right. These are bonds that if they were sold on the open market would sell for probably 3 to 4 percent. Then Ygrene is going out to Wall Street and selling Triple A rated bonds using those green energy June 11, 2019 Page 211 bonds as collateral, and they're getting 3-and-a-half to 4 percent is what they're selling their bonds for and collecting 4 percent as the interest spread as their profit. Now, is this violating their fiduciary responsibility to Green Corridor? All right. Is this ethical? Is this legal? Does Collier County want to be the bill collector for this kind of enterprise? Thank you very much. Thank for letting me spend some extra time. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Karen Beatty. I understand she is no longer present. So Stacey Lawson. Stacey's been ceded an additional three minutes from Kate Wesner, who is present, and Stacey will be followed by Ben Taube. MS. LAWSON: Good afternoon. Again, for the record, I'm Stacey Lawson. I'm a founder of Ygrene Energy Fund, and I am -- I've been in the PACE industry from the very beginning. I was the founding CEO of Ygrene and am the vice chairman of the board. Thank you, Commissioners, for the lengthy discussion on PACE. We are a willing partner to get to the ordinance that we're all hoping will be an improvement to Collier County's PACE program. I wanted to just take my time to respond to some of the other public comments to make sure that you all have the appropriate information you needed to make sure that you recognize the Ygrene program as a sound program. When we founded Ygrene nearly a decade ago, it was with a mission of public service, both providing accessible and affordable financing to the communities and the property owners that we serve for them to protect their homes and families against severe climate and rising energy costs. In listening to the public testimony over the last number of sessions -- and really the biggest challenge that we've had over the course in the industry has been this misunderstanding between the June 11, 2019 Page 212 role of Ygrene as an administrator and financial provider and the contractors. And I hope that it's clear by this point that we are not a contractor and that contractors are not our employees, agents, or affiliates. They are independent third parties, and unlike the state licensing board and perhaps other government entities, we don't have any legal jurisdiction over contractors, but we do have -- we do have the ability to demand certain rules of engagement with them in order to get them access to the program, and we can certainly terminate -- suspend or terminate them to the degree they don't comply with those. So we have a little bit of leverage, and we use that on behalf of property owners the very best that we can. In fact, when we set out to build the business, we recognized that no other home improvement financiers provide any oversight over contractors. If you look at banks, you look at unsecured lenders, you look at credit cards, none of them are policing contractors. And we felt that we could actually provide this extra benefit, extra protection to homeowners by assisting with oversight monitoring and policies for contractors along with all of the other consumer protections. So we use this leverage on behalf of property owners and, as a result, the complaint rates that you heard about are very consistent across all of our programs. We see complaint rates in the 1 to 3 percent range. In fact, in Collier it's less than 1 percent while in the general home improvement markets, complaints run in the double digits, sometimes upwards of 20 percent. So to put this into perspective, during the period where we funded 400 projects in Collier County, there are over 2 -- excuse me -- 20,000 building permits that were pulled all without any oversight of contractors. And I would venture to guess that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of issues. Ygrene had three June 11, 2019 Page 213 complaints. So I just wanted to share the thought that villainizing PACE is sort of like having a police force that has brought down crime from 20 percent to 1 percent and then blaming the police for any remaining crime that's left, right? We are, in fact, providing consumer protections and oversight that does not exist with any other form of financing, and that is the reason you're only seeing 1 percent or less issues within Collier County. Along these lines and at the request of the commissioners, Commissioners Taylor and Saunders, Ygrene has actually provided to you all a point-by -point correction to the myriad of false remarks that have come from certain speakers in recent meetings. And I don't want to go through those points here; rather to point that out to you. Hopefully you have those documents. We've provided those and the transcripts of several property owners that actually appeared here. But because some of these pieces are relevant to the ordinance and comments that you've heard from the public, when we get to that I wanted to just make a few notes on that. There were various statistics cited in various public comments related to Ygrene's average fair market value, average assessment, average tax increase, average loan to value, th e calculation of just value. We found all of these comments to be incorrect, and the accurate data has been provided to you in that report. It was stated that notices of PACE assessments were not sent to lenders in a timely manner. This is absolutely incorrect. We have confirmed that all notices have been timely mailed from the inception of the program, and that has actually been confirmed by the log of our third-party provider who sends the mail, sends the notices. So that is not something that we think is debatable. We have the log, and we can provide that to the degree that you're interested. It was stated that property owners without equity in their home June 11, 2019 Page 214 could still borrow when they might be underwater. This is incorrect. We require at least 10 percent equity in the property and the combined mortgage debt plus PACE lien cannot exceed 100 percent. It was stated that IRS, state, and other tax liens existed on PACE improved properties. This is incorrect. All Collier files have been reviewed, and there were no involuntary liens. It was stated that there were issues with misrepresentation, disclosures, terms, conditions, and I just want to remind the council again that we have conducted recorded confirmation calls with 100 percent of Collier County PACE participants in which they walk through each of the disclosures, the fact that it's not a government program, and that all financing rates, terms, and fees are disclosed to them, in which case they actually acknowledge understanding of those and acceptance of those terms. And we will be happy to provide to you any of those transcripts or actually hear the recorded calls for any property owner that we find has an issue. Do I have the additional time of my colleague? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. MS. LAWSON: I'm almost finished. MR. TAUBE: I'll cede my time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you don't need to start the clock. Just let her finish. MS. LAWSON: The transcripts have been provided for the two property owners that appeared in chambers who mentione d that they didn't understand this was a government program or that it wasn't a government program or they'd have to repay, and you can clearly hear and read in those transcripts that they acknowledged that the program was not a government program; that they would have to repay; and that the terms and fees were clearly disclosed; and they agreed to them. June 11, 2019 Page 215 It was stated several times that the financing documents and confirmation calls were not provided in the consumers preferred language. This is incorrect. Ygrene has offered financing documentation and confirmation calls in English, Spanish, Haitian-Creole, and even Portuguese in Collier County, and we provided a summary table that shows the various types of calls and documents that were sent out and how many in which language. It was stated that Ygrene was subject to a federal class-action lawsuit, and Ms. Mola, who had mentioned that, conveniently avoided mentioning the fact that the bulk of those claims have been dismissed by the courts with prejudice. Interesting information to have. And most recently it was suggested that some projects may have exceeded 20 percent of just value, and we believe strongly this is incorrect. In fact, we've had multiple conversations with our attorneys and bond counsel and, again, as I mentioned earlier, believe that the financed amount, the principal value is the component used when calculating loan to value, widely accepted across the financial industry, and that, in fact, the actual elements of the statute clarify that, and there are elements beyond those that were referenced in the brief conversation of this that make it quite clear and that our bond counsel would be thrilled to talk with you about it. So I guess in summary, I will just say that, you know, as a founder of Ygrene, as someone who has worked with a team from the very early days, we are absolutely committed to running an exemplary program. If we have made any missteps or mistakes along the way, we apologize. Let me be the first to take accountability and tell you we will work with you to make sure that this program is absolutely top-notch. And our stats really do tell the story. In Ygrene's 10-year history, there has not been a single foreclosure related to a PACE lien. In a decade in operation, not one . June 11, 2019 Page 216 See if you can find a mortgage lender or any other financial provider who can say the same. Our complaint rates, as I mentioned, are an industry low 1 to 3 percent. We take that 1 percent very seriously. So we have a whole operation in place to help deal with contractor complaints, workmanship, or other issues that do arise in the process because, no doubt, there will always be a bad apple, and we try to make sure that our processes catch that, and that we eliminate contractors from the program who are not operating as we would like them to be. And, then, Ygrene has a 97 percent satisfaction rating among our customers. Really one of the highest scores that I've seen in many financial companies. And then, of course, most importantly, Collier County homeowners have benefited from this both in terms of energy savings, insurance premium reductions, all of the things we've talked about in the past. So, in summary, we believe that the program is working, and we are dedicated to ensuring a safe and well -functioning PACE program for Collier County, protecting our customers, ensuring positive outcomes, and really a seamless experience from end to end, making sure the operations work for people has always been and will remain our very, very top priority. As it relates to the ordinance, we don't have one issue that was -- we noted at the very end there that is a -- still a substantially large issue. So I just want to -- hope that we will have the opportunity to work with staff. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So noted. Thank you. MR. MILLER: All right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taube, did you still need to speak? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, he waived his time. MR. MILLER: Then your next speaker is Bill Shade, and he'll June 11, 2019 Page 217 be followed by Marceau Berteau. MS. LEFKOW: Bill had to go back to work. MR. MILLER: Marceau Berteau will be followed by Lisa Lefkow. MR. BERTEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you so much for your hard working. You work very hard. But you know one thing I want to tell you today, please, you have to talk to Ygrene today. Let them know, don't use the government name to do the kooky thing. Whatever they're doing, they're doing something wrong. They make the government look ugly. When they come to you, they say that that's a government program. You don't have to pay nothing out of your pocket. And it's just like a doctor, when the doctor give you a shot, he rub your skin with alcohol so you don't feel it. That's what they're doing. Now, my situation right now, I'm in big trouble because when they talking to me, they tell me that that's a program from the government. I'm not going to pay nothing out of my pocket, but now if I -- if you were -- I can just pass you those bills and you can see. And they charge, like, 7 -- I don't know, 7.4 percent. If I can pass it to -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, if somebody could take that. MR. BERTEAU: And now I think I'm in trouble. I might lose my house, you know, because I'm not working. I've been involved in a big accident. I tell you that before when I came here last time. And I've been diagnosed with glaucoma, and I have a bladder problem. My wife, she's the only one who's working in the house. And because of PACE program, I cannot even put gas in my car. I cannot even put food on my table for my kids. I have three kids in my house. June 11, 2019 Page 218 So I hope those people will change this program, because this program is not right for the -- especially for low-income person like me. So let's put my both feet on one shoes. I don't know what to do . And I'm glad that that was Habitat who was my mortgage company. If that was a different company, maybe I already lose my house, because I been -- I used to pay on time, but since after Ygrene put this bill on top of my mortgage, I cannot even pay on ti me anymore. So I don't know what I can do, and I hope this program is -- disappear from Collier County because it's a lot of poor people in Collier County. Even though it's a lot of rich people, but there's poor people, too. And I'm qualified from this house because of Habitat. If it was another company, I would never be qualified. Because when they tell me I'm going to be qualified -- I was not even -- I'm sorry. I'm just going to have to put one more words. I was not even qualified for 18 panels they put on my roof, 18 panels, and you're going to see how much money they charged me. Like almost like $46,000; 18 solar panel on my roof. I think that's not right. Somebody need to change this problem in Collier County, please, because I don't want nobody else get hurt, and that's exactly the reason I'm here even though I've been here since 1 o'clock until now. It's almost 5 o'clock, and I have my three other little kids in the house to take care, and I cannot even take care of them. That's very sad. I don't want nobody else get hurt, and that's why I'm here. Thank you so very much to have me here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lisa Lefkow. She'll be followed by Dan Lopez. MS. LEFKOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Lisa Lefkow, CEO, Habitat for Humanity. We've spend an incredible amount of time on this topic. We've June 11, 2019 Page 219 spent four meetings discussing this. We've spent hour upon hour upon hour discussing it. At the beginning of this meeting we spent an inordinate amount of time with you discussing why this was not your program. This is your program. It is your decision to continue the program or to cease the program. It is your program. You authorized the program. You enter into agreement with the program. This is your program. As we are looking at the ordinance that has been proposed to you, I would remind you that we've spent a great deal of time listening to the lender, the financer, and not paying attention to the consumer. We have cowed and bowed to the lender, and offered them every opportunity to talk about what makes the program work for them without hearing from the public. You have heard from the public. You've heard from the public in a number of times and places. We have, as you heard Mr. Harney reference, spoken to nine Habitat for Humanity homeowners who entered into PACE agreements. Nine out of nine wished to enter a complaint when that was offered to them. When we asked why they had not previously done that, they said they had absolutely no idea that that was possible, nor would they have the vaguest idea how to go about doing that. As we look at the ordinance that you have before you today, there are a number of things that you have stricken from the ordinance based on what Ygrene has proposed to you that were put in simply to protect the public, to protect Collier County homeowners. As you are aware, in some of the work that has been done to evaluate the program, the majority of those that have entered into PACE liens live in low-income neighborhoods and are clearly low-income or fixed-income folks. The basic advertisement seems to target this sort of client base. As we look at the program, you know, the things beginning with June 11, 2019 Page 220 the disclosure form, all of these things -- and, certainly, as you have heard from the lender, all of these things are done. Yes, they are, certainly, but they are also coached along the way. So as the lender makes the welcome call to evaluate whether the client understands that this is not a government program, that it will be collected on their tax bill, that they understand the financing mechanism, as we've talked to, again, Habitat for Humanity homeowners, so I can tell you about 25 of them, they attest to being coached and being told this is -- when you get this call, just answer yes to every question. There are enumerable instances where we can talk about contractor violations and contractor misinterpretations, mis-presentation. There are three levels here. So Ygrene's responsibility is to train the contractors and to have contractor oversight. You've just heard some testimony to how they are doing that and the pride that they take in that, but we've seen egregious violations of contractor practice. You've heard over and over again about statutory violations. There are a number of issues with the financing mechanism and model, things that put the county in its own seemingly double bind. Like the fact that your SHIP down payment assistance lien, which must stay in second position, is now relegated by the PACE loan which, by the way, is not a loan, but a lien. So there are a number of levels here, and ultimately it comes to you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you almost done? MS. LEFKOW: Last thing let me say, that we have taken away from the public in their contract with the PACE providers their opportunity for that checks and balances of the free market, which is the opportunity to sue. There cannot be a lawsuit by a PACE client June 11, 2019 Page 221 because they waived that opportunity in their contract with Ygrene. So they can't even defend themself. Marceau cannot issue a suit based on his -- the mis-presentation, although it may be completely fraudulent, because he has already waived that right. So, ultimately, that comes back to you. And so I would plead with you. We have now spent an extraordinary amount of time. I can't imagine that you do this on a regular basis. This, obviously, is fraught with issue, with question, with concern. Yesterday, in meeting with Commissioner Saunders, I shared that under my vows of ordination I vow to live a life and really, on a daily basis, that plays out in three things: To do good, to do no harm, and to stay in love with God. I'll allow you the third. Do good and do no harm. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker is Dan Lopez, and I'm assuming Mr. Lopez is no longer with us at this meeting. So that would be it, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So now we've heard from the public speakers. There's been a motion and a second to continue this item until our June 25th meeting. Is there any other discussion by my colleagues? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Real quick one. What's the difference between a loan and a lien? You made a point of mentioning it's not a loan; it's a lien. MR. KLATZKOW: You secure a loan with a lien. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: You secure a loan with a lien. They're two separate things. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Lien secures the payment of the loan. June 11, 2019 Page 222 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a security instrument. It's been moved and seconded that we -- are you okay with that answer? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll ask further later on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We're going to -- it's been moved and seconded we continue this item till the June 25th meeting. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, do you want to check with Terri to see if she's okay -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How you doing, Terri? THE COURT REPORTER: A break would be good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry? THE COURT REPORTER: A break would be good. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll be back at 5. (A brief recess was had.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. We have a few items left. Item #11C EVALUATING THE OPTIONS FOR THE REZONING OF LOT #11 FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY SIX (RMF-6) TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL/GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE June 11, 2019 Page 223 DISTRICT (C-5/GTMUD) AS REQUESTED AT THE APRIL 23, 2019, PUBLIC HEARING UNDER AGENDA ITEM #6, PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MICHAEL TIRPAK AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE OPTIONS PROVIDED – MOTION TO FOLLOW STAFF’S OPTION #5 – APPROVED Commissioner, we're at Item 11C. It's a recommendation to evaluate the options for the rezoning of Lot 11 from residential multifamily to heavy commercial. This item was presented April 23rd as a public petition. Michael Bosi will present the item. He's presented several options, and he has a staff recommendation. Mike? MR. BOSI: Thank you, Nick. Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. At the April 23rd Board of County Commissioners meeting under public petition, Mr. Tirpak asked the Board to assist with an issue related to a code enforcement case. The Board directed staff to work with Mr. Tirpak. Before we could move forward on addressing the issue, we wanted to frame the issue and give the Board options in terms of how to evaluate the -- how to evaluate the road forward. What you see on the screen on the visualizer are four lots that are owned by Mr. Tirpak. The two lots that are not in yellow, 13 and 14, were purchased by Mr. Tirpak in 2000. The two lots that are in yellow, 11 and 12, were purchased by Mr. Tirpak in 2006. And as you can see, Lot 11, which is the westernmost on the screen, is zoned RFM6; the Lot 12 is be zoned C5, Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District. Within the aerials, you can see in January of 1995 the two lots were vegetated, and in '99 they were very vegetated. In 2004, they June 11, 2019 Page 224 were cleared. We believe they were cleared by a Michael Valentine, who was the owner at the time. As indicated, Mr. Tirpak purchased the property in 2006. And in 2006/2007, you can start to see that usage of that property started to be used for storage. As you can see, 2010, 2012, it starts a little bit more intensity. In this past -- or this past year, a notice of violation was issued. It was indicated that the utilization of these lots were never done by proper permitting, never sought to expand the commercial operations onto the two lots. It was just encroached upon with the storage of vehicles. From looking at the specifics, it turns out that to find a remedy for the issue, there's three things that need to be done. There needs to be a small-scale amendment to change the future land-use designation to allow for that Lot 11 to be rezoned from residential to commercial, there needs to be a rezoning process that has to happen as part -- as a companion item to that small-scale amendment, and as well as a Site Improvement Plan. Any commercial business when you encroach upon another property or incorporate that property into your business, it has to go through the Site Development Plan to help ensure compatibility and all the code requirements are met. Staff had put just a real brief estimation as to what -- the cost associated with all of these activities. It's right around $45,775, about $46,000 in whole for all of the different activities. We put together five different options that the Board could consider moving forward with. The first one is for Mr. Tirpak to file the petition to amend the Growth Management Plan to provide for the rezone, and then after rezoning in Growth Management Plan would similarly go through, then he would submit the SIP. That's the traditional route where the property owner is paying for the activity that's going on. And, like I said, that total cost is right around $46,000. June 11, 2019 Page 225 Option 2 would be for the Board to direct staff to have the General Fund pay for the application fee for the GMP amendment and the rezoning but have Mr. Tirpak satisfy the costs for advertising associated with the petitions, the consultant fees, as well as the SIP, and then that split about $28,275 for Mr. Tirpak; about 18,000 for the county. Option 3 would be for the Board to direct staff to have the General Fund pay for the application fee for the GMP amendment, rezoning, as well as the cost of advertising with the associated petitions, and the rest would be associated with Mr. Tirpak. And that would be a $25,775 split for Mr. Tirpak, and then a $20,000 cost for the county. And 4 would be for the Board of County Commissioners to direct staff to initiate the GMP amendment process, rezoning as county funded initiated companion petitions, and develop requirement materials to satisfy the neighborhood information meeting and all of the rezoning requests and data and analysis. In that scenario the county would pick up a tab of about just under $39,000, and Mr. Tirpak would be left with the SIP at the end of that process. And then the fifth option, and that's the staff-recommended option, is for the Board to take no action related to the GMP amendment for the rezoning process or for the small-scale amendment and direct staff to work with Mr. Tirpak to legally incorporate Lot 12, which is the one that's -- which is zoned C5, into his business, and then provide -- utilize 11 as additional buffering for the neighborhood, the residential properties that sit to the west of this property, develop the lot as a residential -- from residential purposes, or put it on the market. That's the -- that's the recommendation from staff. I know that has -- from speaking with Mr. Tirpak, that could have complications June 11, 2019 Page 226 in terms of how his business would operate. But from a staff's perspective, that was the recommendation that we've arrived upon for the Board consideration. And I know Mr. Tirpak has some perspective that he would like to share with the Board as you're going through your deliberations. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. For him, or do you want to hear from Mr. Tirpak? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good, sir. MR. BOSI: That completes my PowerPoint. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Would you do me a favor and pop back the aerial photos from '95 forward and let that just sit up there. And Mr. Tirpak, I believe, is here. Would you like to speak, sir? MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, he's registered. Do you want me to put a time on this? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I mean, this is a -- this is a -- he's here for us to make a decision on, so... MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. MR. TIRPAK: Okay. I'd like to thank the Board and everybody involved and -- for extending me this courtesy, and I appreciate the help from everyone involved. Let me start -- I wasn't going to start here, but I have to because of the way Michael put on his. One thing I'd like folks to understand, when I bought this property, these two lots, I bought them from a commercial in dustrial realtor, Michael Valentine. The property had been owned by a commercial industrial gentleman before me. Michael Valentine sold it to him. He had me fence it because I was in the fence business next door when we bought it. I fenced it. I got a commercial fence permit because it was June 11, 2019 Page 227 commercial, and I fenced it. And Jim Morandy off and on parked cars there. That's what he bought it for, because he was a car dealer, and he put overstock cars there. Well, Jim Morandy lost it. It went back to Valentine under the land contract. He came to me and wanted to know if I wanted to buy it, so I bought it thinking that -- and he told you -- Morandy told me, Michael Valentine told me, the Collier County appraiser's website said it was zoned commercial. I didn't know that that wasn't the zoning. I just -- I mean, I'm a layman. I didn't know that these two departments didn't coordinate their labels of properties. So I thought it was commercial, I thought it was C5, and that's why I bought it. Years later I find out that only half of it was C5, and so -- and this is when the county gave me the citation that wasn't because of a complaint. It was because they just were doing a little extracurricular activity on the street after there was a complaint of p arking, and they started doing some checking and found out that this was not totally right. So, now, another thing I didn't realize -- because when I bought my buildings next door, the property, when I bought it, I bought it from a gentleman that had it for 10 or 12 years. I didn't have to come to the county and say, hey, I'm moving in there, and now I'm going to be doing this, that, and the other thing because there were tenants in there, and I just bought it, and we carried on. So I felt it was the same thing when I bought this other piece of land that this other guy was parking cars on, that I'd buy it. And, you know, he parked cars there; I can park cars there. I didn't know -- you know, again, blame me. It was dumb, I guess. But this is how it ended up. And all of a sudden now I'm in this situation. Well, since I got into this situation, I did a little digging. And I talked to my neighbor next door. He's a 90-year-old man; been there June 11, 2019 Page 228 since 1950. His brother owned the property that I bought , these two lots. His brother passed away, I think, in 2004 or '5 or something like that. Maybe it was a little later, but anyhow. And he told me that he knew about it; that the zoning was changed. Him and his brother found out, he said, several years later. He didn't say exactly when. But he never realized that the man that built my buildings that I owned around zero lot line, he owned those properties plus about six down, and he got all those properties changed. I think it was Lots 11 through 20, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere in there. But he needed Lot 12 to be zoned commercial so he could build a zero-lot-line building. And he just took it on his own, didn't tell anybody, walked into the board meeting back then and said, I'd like to get all these changed to commercial, and they never asked him, they never looked into whether he owned the properties or not. They just passed it. Now, one thing in the executive summary that I got from the folks on Horseshoe Drive, they mention that this fellow -- they couldn't find this -- anything on this documentation. I do have to disagree with that regarding the point made in the executive summary. The petition by Vernon Dunkley, was the gentleman's name, to change Lot 12 from residential to commercial zo ning, could not be substantiated; this is what the summary said. Quote, no file or petition were found in the records to verify the claim. I have both -- all the records right here. They were there. They are there. They're here. And it was -- I have the resolution. I have the whatever they call it, the initial request to change them. So it's all there, and it's in black and white. The man never owned the property. He duped the county, and 45 years later, I got duped because of it, too, because I thought I was buying commercial land, both lots. June 11, 2019 Page 229 I mean, it was one address, you know; 3023 Terrace Avenue is what it was. And, in all honesty, for -- I didn't even realize -- and, again, you know, I'm an old-school guy. I shake hands, and the deal's done, whatever. But, in all honesty, I didn't even know I bought two lots, you know. I just -- they said, here's the lots, you know, for sale, and do you want to buy it. I didn't realize it was two. So, look, I'm not here to try to humiliate the county nor this nor the past board but, again, I must say, if the Board had checked the validity of Vernon Dunkley's petition and claim of ownership on Lot 12 when he applied for the change of zoning, he would have been caught in his deception and turned down, and none of us would be here today because I would have never bought the property had it been zoned residential. The error was made by the Board at the time, and I'm asking this board to right this wrong and have the compassion and the courage to correct this mistake and grant me the use of Option 4 as described in your executive summary. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala's first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So when I was reading my agenda on Sunday, I couldn't figure out where this property was, and I wanted to see -- I like to go out and see some of these things on my own, so I went over to see, and I did find it. And I noticed that both properties were full, and you were saying you needed it to park cars, right, or park vehicles, or what ever? MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, yeah. Well, after -- yeah. The original -- Mr. Morandy, who bought it before me and then lost it, he parked cars there, overstock cars for his car dealership. I started parking boats and motor homes there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I noticed there were some businesses on there, too, right, or it looked like it. I was just June 11, 2019 Page 230 going to ask you about that. MR. TIRPAK: Well, the businesses -- the business buildings are next door. They're on Lots, let's see, 11 and 12 -- they're 13 and 14 I own, and those are big metal buildings with overhead doors and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I thought I even saw a taxi service on there, but maybe that was just another one that you park there. MR. TIRPAK: No. I used to have a taxi company there, but, no, there's no taxi there now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, something said taxi, anyway. That's okay. I was just wondering if there are -- if you're buying it to park cars, is that also allowed to have, like, say -- you know, like, cars for sale or business or things for sale? I didn't know. MR. TIRPAK: I believe so. I believe so. I think a C5 zoning -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 5C is the most lucrative zoning we have. MR. TIRPAK: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it isn't now, but it's going to be -- he needs to change it to C5. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I know. But C5 zoning is the most lucrative -- MR. TIRPAK: Well, I'm just -- my big thing is I just don't understand how -- and then the CRA came along, the Bayshore redevelopment, and they split my -- those two lots. They split the property right up the middle. Half -- one half is in the Bayshore area, and the other half is out of it now. So -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know about that. Do you know about that, Penny? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. That was done in -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) June 11, 2019 Page 231 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no. That's quite all right, Donna. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's after 5. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They must have done it when they drew the boundaries back in 2000. But I don't understand what you -- may I? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You go ahead. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't understand what you said about you have evidence that the Board actually approved the rezoning of that land. MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, I've got the -- everything's here. I mean, it's right here. The resolution -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I need to hear from staff because, obviously, Mr. Tirpak -- MR. BOSI: One of the relevant pieces of information is contained within your executive summary, and it's an email from Mr. Mark Strain, the County Hearing Examiner. And before the April 23rd public petition, Mr. Tirpak was working with Mr. Strain as to what options were available to him. And from conversations with Mark, we've not been able to validate any of his claims of illegal zoning with -- on the property. We've -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You've gone back and looked in the records and -- MR. BOSI: We have not been able to validate the cla ims of illegal zoning. And from my awareness, I'm not -- I'm not aware of many people who are better at researching Collier County for records than the Hearing Examiner and, from our work together, we just haven't -- we weren't able to substantiate that. I'm not saying it couldn't have been, but I'm just saying we weren't able to substantiate that based upon what evidence was in the record. June 11, 2019 Page 232 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. TIRPAK: I mean, here's the petition number, R9 -- or 691C, the date, the petitioner's name. I mean, everything's here and how he applied for it, and then there's -- I have the resolution. The next page is the resolution. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just trying to verify what was on the property, whatever you want to do with it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, you know, there again, I mean -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have choices. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We do. We do have choices, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: It looks like four options. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Basically five options. There are five options that have been presented, and it's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. There it is, the fifth. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of the -- one of the suggestions is to wave our magic wand and help this gentleman out. So, you know -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, we typically don't up-zone property -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- at our cost. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But, I mean, my question to you, sir, you bought the piece of property. It's named under one address. What was it -- and it was zoned commercial. MR. TIRPAK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Were you taxed at a commercial rate? MR. TIRPAK: I believe so, because it still is -- in fact, as of today, it's still shown as commercial on the Appraiser's website. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And is it C5? June 11, 2019 Page 233 MR. KLATZKOW: Just hold on. The issue's Lot 11. MR. BOSI: The Property Appraiser uses a land-use designation. MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on, Mike. The issue's Lot 11, right? MR. BOSI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: You just gave me something that rezoned Lot 12. MR. TIRPAK: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: What you're relying on was a rezone of Lots 12 through 20. MR. TIRPAK: Well, Lot 11 is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Lot 11 is a different lot. MR. TIRPAK: Lot 11 is the one that didn't get changed. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it was not -- it was never asked to be changed. So what -- so you're telling the Commission that this was wrongly rezoned. It was not wrongly rezoned. MR. TIRPAK: No, he didn't own Lot 12. He had no permission -- MR. KLATZKOW: Would you rather have less of a zoning? We can give you back less of a zoning. MR. TIRPAK: I didn't know it at the time. MR. KLATZKOW: This was up-zoned. Okay. There was a request for it to up-zone, which he benefits from. It has nothing to do with the residential lot. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. And the residential lot is the one in question. MR. KLATZKOW: And the residential lot is the problem. MR. TIRPAK: Let me say one more thing. At the time this was done, there was a house on the lot that Mr. Lyon owned, Duane Lyon, and the house sat on both of the properties. I mean, it encroached on both properties. So, I mean, there was a house there. This Dunkley guy, who was a developer, whatever -- well, I looked June 11, 2019 Page 234 up into -- I actually looked into his history somewhat, and he was -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't mean to interrupt you, sir. But to clarify the point, Lot 12 was erroneously or illegally or whatever -- MR. TIRPAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- rezoned by somebody who didn't own it. MR. TIRPAK: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: It got up-zoned. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You've been the beneficiary of that. Lot 11 was not. MR. TIRPAK: But when, again -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're asking us to up-zone it for you because of a misconception? MR. TIRPAK: Well, because when I bought it, I again, I was sold it as lot -- as commercial C5, and the appraiser's website showed it as commercial. MR. KLATZKOW: But the issue is the county -- he said the county did wrong here. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: Under no possibility did we do wrong here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Someone other -- other than someone's designated Lot 11 as being commercial that was under the tax -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that wasn't the county. Maybe it was the seller that said that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And/or the Tax Assessor's Office. According to this gentleman's representation, Lot 11 was zoned commercial. MR. TIRPAK: Lot 12 -- Lot 12 was zoned commercial. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 was zoned commercial but June 11, 2019 Page 235 we're -- MR. TIRPAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The discussion today is about 11, correct. MR. TIRPAK: Well -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The westerly piece. MR. TIRPAK: -- both lots because -- again, hadn't this guy deceived the county back then, lied about it and got his deal -- MR. KLATZKOW: It has nothing to do with Lot 11. MR. TIRPAK: But so what? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it does, it has everything to do, because you're talking about Lot 11. You want it changed, the zoning changed, so you can continue to run your business on it. MR. TIRPAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In order to do this, we have to change the zoning. Lot 12 is -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Already zoned. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- is water down the river. MR. TIRPAK: But it doesn't matter that somebody -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No -- MR. TIRPAK: -- cheated on you? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- not for this conversation. You benefited from that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 is legal. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's residential. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is it? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lot 12 is legal. There's a benefit there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 11. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lot 11. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 11 is still residential, and that's June 11, 2019 Page 236 the one you're asking us to change. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And when it's up-zoned, it will have significantly more value. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, of course. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And there's -- just to mention also, there's a lot of change going on in that street, which was always run down. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now there's brand-new buildings going up. They look like commercial buildings, of course. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the issue of what -- the CRA border being defined where, you know, Lot 12 is in the CRA, Lot 11 -- MR. TIRPAK: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- really doesn't -- is not germane to this. It doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter to you, sir, because what -- you have a thriving business east of Lot 12, and you want to get Lot 12 into that mix, but -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lot 12 is. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Lot 11. Lot 11, excuse me. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: When were the CRA boundaries drawn? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 2000 is when it was established. MR. TIRPAK: I don't even care if Lot 11 is zoned commercial. Well, I do and I don't. It all depends if somebody will let me do this -- and I don't understand this part of the code. But I don't want to use it other than to drive across it to get to Lot 12. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. MR. TIRPAK: That's all I would like to do. And they came up months ago. And, Mike, you weren't even in that June 11, 2019 Page 237 meeting. But months ago I had a meeting with them, and they said, well, there's kind of a little loophole thing here. We can give you permission to do off-site parking. And I said, I don't need off-site parking. Well, you just have to put one parking space in. It will suffice just to, you know, wink, wink, this will work, and then you can drive across that land. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we give him a variance that he drives across the land and there's no -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. BOSI: The option that was identified by the Hearing Examiner was for Lot 11 to seek a parking exemption. A parking exemption would be to allow for a residential property to utilize for commercial parking. Now, the storage of vehicles is a different animal. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He says he's -- MR. TIRPAK: I don't -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You don't want to store your vehicles. MR. TIRPAK: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All he wants to do is drive across this land. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was waiting for Mr. Bosi to tell us what kind of a motion we need to effectuate what he just said he needed, which is to drive across it. No parking, no storage. Just -- MR. BOSI: Well, what I -- MR. KLATZKOW: All he wants to do is drive across it? MR. TIRPAK: Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't want to park on it? MR. TIRPAK: No, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't want to use it for anything? June 11, 2019 Page 238 MR. BOSI: But what would be the purpose of -- his commercial business abuts Lot 12. Lot 12 is where he would store cars. Why would you need to -- Lot 11 is adjoining a residential lot. MR. KLATZKOW: But he's not using it for anything. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, he is. MR. KLATZKOW: No, he just wants to drive across it. MR. TIRPAK: I just want to drive across it. That's all. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But right now he's -- MR. TIRPAK: And the reason I need it is because I need room to get, like, a 40-foot motor home in there. I have back in and -- yeah, they'll back in, they'll drive across Lot 11 and park it on Lot 12. That's it. Boom, and they may not get in that thing for two months, three months. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Let us do some talking now, okay. We'll try to solve this for you, but don't interrupt. So what do we need to do? MR. BOSI: If the Board needed us to explore and follow Option 5, work with Mr. Tirpak on an SIP process -- SIP process recognizes older properties that it gives us the flexibility in terms of how we address it, and we -- as long as we understand that Lot 11 will not be utilized for storage of vehicles, could have some ingress/egress, we can make that work. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm making that motion based on the testimony that we just heard. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll second that. And you've heard that testimony here. And your testimony stands, sir, no parking of any cars. You just want it for access. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a question. My light's on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, your light's on. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, question: Can you – June 11, 2019 Page 239 Mr. Bosi, can you explain to me what is Lot 11 and what is Lot 12 on these pictures? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Left and right, sir. MR. BOSI: If you look, Lot 11 is the westernmost, the farthest to the -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's where the buildings are? MR. BOSI: No, those are the lots in question. That is the residential lot, 11. 11 is the furthest. And the buildings are -- the buildings are where the -- where it's white. That's where his -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what I was getting at. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go back to the aerial. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Go back to the aerial. So if the commercial buildings are on -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirteen and 14. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- 13 and 14, what do you need to drive to Lot 11 for? MR. BOSI: That's the question I had that that's -- MR. TIRPAK: Thirteen and 14, the lots have been razed, and there's no access from the building side to get to those lots. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But what are you going to drive over there to do? MR. TIRPAK: Park motor home or a boat storage on Lot 12. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that's storage. You can't -- MR. TIRPAK: No, on Lot 12 only. Not 11. I can get -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What do you need to go through Lot 11 to get to Lot 12 for? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Current years of this lot, the way it looks today -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This is what I'm trying to understand. We're trying to help you, but I'm trying to understand June 11, 2019 Page 240 why you need to go through Lot 11 to get to Lot 12. MR. TIRPAK: I don't -- I don't necessarily have to get through Lot 11, but I need to be able to pull into Lot 11 momentarily and back up so I can store my motor home on Lot 12. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And only your motor home? MR. TIRPAK: No, no. Other people's boats and motor homes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Lot 12 is commercial, sir. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: What would help is if Michael -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to move everything off of Lot 11? MR. TIRPAK: Yeah, yeah. I don't think there's anything on there right now today. I've moved it all off of -- everything's on -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was only there on Sunday, so maybe you've moved them since then. I don't know. MR. TIRPAK: Were you looking at the place with the covering across the fence? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looking at the place that was right next door to that place that I needed to call Code Enforcement about because they've got so much trash out in the front of their house, and then the lot next to it is your 11, and then the lot next to it is your 12, right? And -- but 11 had lots of cars on there and stuff. MR. TIRPAK: No, you must have been looking at the wrong -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I must be looking at the wrong one. MR. BOSI: Commissioners, if you look at April of 2010 -- and thank you, Nick. He just reminded me the visualizer does have the capabilities. Lot 11 is the westernmost lot. Lot 12, which is zoned commercial, abuts his commercial buildings, as you can see. So June 11, 2019 Page 241 that's the orientation of the facility. So -- and I guess Mr. Tirpak is saying that he just needs to be able to back onto it to be able to store, but the storage of the vehicles will only be allowed, by zoning, on Lot 12, which is the lot that abuts his buildings. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it looks like in 2016 there was some storage of vehicles and things on 11 -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which caused the code issue. MR. TIRPAK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- which caused the issue, and in '17 it's been -- it looks like it's been cleaned up except for in the back where there is some. Do we have any from '18? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No aerial photos from '18, so we're -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And I must be having them confused then with half and half of your 11, yes. That must be what it is, because the other one had a lot of things on there, lots more. So maybe I didn't see the line down the middle or something. MR. TIRPAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I noticed -- MR. TIRPAK: I've been working. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- right next door to that other property, that residential. MR. TIRPAK: The citation was handed out, yes, I admit. There was things on 11, too, because I didn't know I was wrong. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Now you know. Now you're not going to be able to sell it as anything other than that -- MR. TIRPAK: I know. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- residential with whatever he said -- June 11, 2019 Page 242 MR. TIRPAK: It's going to be tough. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to be able to let you drive your bus across it. MR. TIRPAK: That's all I want to do is be able to drive across it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How wide is Lot 12? MR. BOSI: They're both 40 feet. MR. TIRPAK: Forty feet. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They're both 40 feet. Narrow. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Forty feet? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. It's been moved and seconded that we do what Mr. Bosi said. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'll support the motion but, you know, this is commercial property, it was bought as commercial property. You've got to do your due diligence, I'm sorry, and verify the zoning and exactly what you can do with all of the property when you're going to buy something like this. And if there's something we can do -- but I'm very skeptical that it's going to be used as a driveway. MR. TIRPAK: Well, yes, but -- but. You know, we're lucky if three or four people go in and out of there in a week. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, but I mean, if it's not just you, then it's not a residential use. It's a commercial use. This is -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Tirpak, I would be quiet and sit down while you're ahead. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a motion and second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: With all due respect, sir, we're going to help you try to do this. MR. TIRPAK: All right. June 11, 2019 Page 243 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. Let's go forward here. It's been moved and seconded that we allow for that use to be entertained. MR. TIRPAK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. You all right with that, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. We'll work with -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? MR. TIRPAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Item #11D FUNDING FOR A TRUCK HAUL BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT FOR THE CLAM PASS, NORTH PARK SHORE AND PARK SHORE BEACH SEGMENTS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN IN THE FALL 2019 (APPROXIMATELY NOVEMBER 1, 2019) FOR AND NOT TO EXCEED PROJECT EXPENDITURE OF $5,500,000 (EXCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES) AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – MOTION TO APPROVE – APPROVED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes use to Item 11D. It's a recommendation to approve June 11, 2019 Page 244 funding for truck haul beach renourishment project for the Clam Pass, North Parkshore, and Parkshore beach segments. Mr. Gary McAlpin will present. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion -- second. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that was a good presentation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All day. MR. McALPIN: Can I at least say my name for the record? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All day. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I will vouch for the fact that I saw the presentation at the TDC. It was a wonderful presentation. It could not have been any clearer, and I'll support the motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation with regard to the haul routes. Any other discussion? MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. No discussion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Quickly, just quickly. When are you going to let the neighborhoods know that you're going to be trucking? MR. McALPIN: Well, we're going to have a discussion -- once we -- once we get our design done, we're going to have a sit-down with the City of Naples, and we'll notify Lee County. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. June 11, 2019 Page 245 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Item #12A RESOLUTION 2019-104: APPOINTING AMANDA COX TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL – ADOPTED MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, that takes you to your last item, Item 12A, which was 16K1, which is an appointment to the TDC. And, Commissioner Taylor, I believe you pulled this off the agenda. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I did. And this is not to negate your role, sir, as Chairman of the TDC, but I'd like to bring Mary Shay's qualifications to this board for the reconsideration of her -- of her capabilities and talents to bring an important part of tourism to the TDC board decision-making. Mary Shay, as you know, was president of the Sports Council, which is huge, because we're building a sports center for amateur sports. So she's got her handle on sports. The other thing is that she represents the hotels that are going to support this kind of activity going forward. And those hotels are not represented on this board right now, and that's where I'm going with this. Amanda Cox, very qualified, lovely woman; kind of a new kid in town, very busy with the J.W. Marriott. We already have a west of 41 and, in this case, a Marco Island hotel. I would make it equivalent to a west of 41 hotel. And we have the Hilton is represented on your board. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is. June 11, 2019 Page 246 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I just -- I think she will -- I think she's a hard worker. Not always the most tactful, but her heart's in the right place, and I think she is so supportive. She's just had vast experience, not only in -- not only in the smaller hotels, but she's sold in hotels throughout this country, and the major names out of Washington D.C., so she understands the business. But, more importantly, she now understands Collier County, and she also understands the sports industry. So that's why I'm suggesting that she would be, I think, a very good appointment to this board, and that's why I brought her name forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to suggest just the opposite. And, obviously, she's very well qualified, so this is not a reflection on any of the applicants. But we have a committee that's made a unanimous recommendation, and if we start to diverge from that, that then begins to make it more of a political appointment. So my personal belief is that we should try to avoid that when we can and we have a unanimous decision. But more importantly than that -- because we do have the ultimate decision -- if we don't appoint Amanda Cox, then there will be nobody on that council from Marco Island other than a City Council member, and we'll have a half a do zen from the City of Naples but none from Marco Island. And Marco Island provides 25 percent of the tourist tax. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Am I wrong, we do have someone from Marco Island? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You've got a City Council member. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, City Council; yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: City Council member. June 11, 2019 Page 247 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he doesn't know tourism. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And Naples, you have Andy Solis, Michelle McLeod, Daniel Sullivan, Clark Hill. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dan Sullivan is leaving. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sullivan's on his way out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the vacancy. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Nancy Kerns, Susan Becker, right? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ski Olesky, and then Victor Rios. That rounds it out. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, Victor Rios. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Victor Rios is the only Marco Island -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's the Marco Island. Well, the other thing just so -- and I'll add this to the mix. Dan Sullivan's appointment was made contrary to the recommendation of the TDC board, and he did just fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, he did. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to point my finger at Andy Solis and say, you were right there, and it says they voted unanimously for this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I was just going to ask you for your opinion, but -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was a very difficult decision. They're both incredibly qualified and, you know, they both came and made presentations, and it was a unanimous decision without any hesitation. Having said that, I will share what I said to Mary Shay myself, is that one of the things that she has committed to helping me with is June 11, 2019 Page 248 the mental-health efforts in Collier County. And as I told Nick the other day, we need a Mary Shay to spearhead that. We need somebody -- because we're talking about changing everybody's perspective on how we look at mental health in our community and how we go about dealing with the mental issues that are constantly coming up. And I really hope that -- I mean -- and I would think that she would be the right person to help me do that. So I've asked her to please just -- let's focus on that. For me, while the TDC is very, very important, I think everybody understands that for me changing what we're doing on mental health is more important in some respects. So it was unanimous. We talked about it. We listened to both of them. We looked at their resumés. You know, having -- the J.W. Marriott's probably going to be the largest contributor also to the TDC in terms of revenue. I would not feel comfortable as the chairman supporting a motion that would disregard the TDC's decision that was made unanimously. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. I'll entertain a motion then. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll move -- well, I'll move to accept -- gosh -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Amanda Cox. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Amanda Cox as the representative to the TDC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we stay with the recommendation of the TDC. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. June 11, 2019 Page 249 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- same sign, same sound. So moved; 4-1. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNCATIONS MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, Commissioners. That takes us to your last item, staff and commission general communications. We have no workshops coming up. I will remind the Board and the public we've got a budget workshop next week on the 20th in the morning. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One. No workshops but then a workshop; is that what you just said? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, budget workshop; no board. Budget workshop's a little different. In the morning of the 20th, and the carryover day for the 21st, I think, Mr. Isackson, again, once again, has delivered you a really good budget package, and the manager's letter's included, so I expect that we will move along with that. Also, you have a board meeting scheduled for the 25th, and we've talked a little bit that it will probably go the 26th. So I just want to give you some forewarning on that. And the last comment I have is just to recognize, we didn't get a chance to, is Danette Kinaszczuk. She did an amazing job today with public outreach -- Danette with the fertilizer ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Danette. Nobody can say her last June 11, 2019 Page 250 name; Danette. MR. CASALANGUIDA: She did a wonderful job reaching out to everybody and making sure -- and that's all I have, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She did a great job putting that together. MR. CASALANGUIDA: She did. She communicated with everybody. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you've done a very good job today as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Except I ran a little bit over. I was doing good in the morning. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You ruined it when you said we'd be done by noon. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you remember that long conversation we had about that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: None of us are long-winded up here, though, are we? Absolutely not. Not our fault. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And how about our County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, but I concur about Danette. She did a great job. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. And our clerk? CLERK KINZEL: No. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, sir. I have three things. One is I just wanted to bring up and get some consensus on having the mental-health workshop that we've been trying to schedule for the 29th of October. It's actually the last Tuesday of that month. June 11, 2019 Page 251 Hopefully the strategic plan will be in a form that can be presented to us, and the request has been made to have it on the 29th. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-ninth of June? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of October. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Why? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Why is it made, the request to do it at that date specifically? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think there were just some scheduling issues with getting everyone there. That was the day that -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is just a draft of the mental-health plan that we're -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That we're waiting on, right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- waiting on. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And they have been working diligently on it. They're going through each of the seven of the priorities. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay, cool. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's one that's -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: October 26th. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or 29th; 29th. It's the last Tuesday. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Forgive me. It's October 29th. That's one. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's one. Number two, I handed out -- I've had a request from the Naples art district which is an area between Pine Ridge and Trade Center Way between Airport and Taylor -- or Shirley Street, really. There are over 60 members of the art district. They're artists. They have galleries in this area. It is -- I don't know if anybody's been to an event there, but it's -- in terms of arts and artists working together and June 11, 2019 Page 252 collaborating and creating some incredible artwork, it's really blooming there. And there's a request for a designation of that area. In the first page you can see the area that's marked there as a -- as a Collier County cultural and arts district. I think there's something similar in the Bayshore area. They're doing a great job. They're -- every day there's more artists moving in there, and I think it's a great idea, and I'd like to bring that back in the future if there's some consensus that we can do this. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to see if you agree that we wait until the consultant comes with this report because, I mean, they are prime now to come into our community. So if we could -- before we designate anything, let's give them an opportunity to certainly -- well, become acquainted with is a very, very vibrant part of the arts. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, this -- these are 60 -- 60 artists that have asked for this that are already located there. I mean, I don't know -- I mean, what would the -- what would the study say; that they shouldn't be there or -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I don't think so. It's a strategic plan. You know, you've got -- they call themselves the Naples Art District. Then you've got Bayshore Arts District. You know, maybe they should call themselves the Pine Ridge Art District. You know, there's a lot of -- this is highly competitive. You've immersed yourself -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not to mention this is in -- forgive me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is an industrial park. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And designating an arts district in June 11, 2019 Page 253 the heart of one of the two square miles of industrially zoned lands -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't think it changes any land uses or anything like that. It's just that really it's a designation for marketing purposes to help people know that there's -- there are artists and galleries in that area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I thought -- when I saw Naples Art District, I thought of the art district downtown where they have the art galleries. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: City of Naples. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. So maybe they would want to make it clearly that it's Pine Ridge. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. They intend to work with the consultants and are going to be involved in that. There's -- the group that's the head of the organization, Paula Brody; others in town will certainly be involved in that. I'm just bringing this up for informational purposes. When, in fact, the designation or the resolution they would want to bring that up, I don't specifically know, but I wanted to bring this to every's attention because it is something that's being requested of me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then last, Mr. Carnell is back there. Pickleball, we need a water fountain at Veterans P ark in the pickleball courts badly before somebody gets dehydrated. There's no -- and, unfortunately, that person was almost me when I was there playing pickleball. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you practicing for our match? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, man. I'm ready to go. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's totally wrong. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, anyway, if we could look at that, I've had a number of emails about it and I was there. And it's -- the closest water fountain is, like, on the other side of Veterans across June 11, 2019 Page 254 the parking lot. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's really important to have that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, it is. So if somebody could look at that, I'd appreciate it. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's readdress the Naples Art District. What are you looking for us to do? You want us to bless for you to bring this back at another time? I mean, because I wouldn't be opposed to hearing about it again, but what were you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I was just -- this is informational. Again -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- they're going to come and make a presentation. I just wanted to pass that along. They asked if I would do that, and so -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you are. You have done that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I'm meeting my word. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. The first thing is I was at the museums. They had a presentation the other day over at the museum downtown, and it was with the -- come on, Donna. Say it, say it, say it -- With the D-Day presentation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Monday, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you couldn't understand what anybody was saying because the sound system is so bad. So I suggested that maybe we needed a new sound system. The county would have, like, a sound system especially for the museums, but anyplace else, too, where they're speaking with a crowd of people that are outside, a traveling sound system with a person who knows how to work it. The people that were talking to me said they have to June 11, 2019 Page 255 know how to work it because, I guess, without Troy there, they tried to get the thing to working, and it really wouldn't work. And you were there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it was so hot that the thing was melting, and it would go down like that (indicating). Everybody had a hard time with it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was very, very -- and I would support that idea, Commissioner Fiala. It was very frustrating for me. It was an unbelievably humbling experience for me to be addressing that group of people, and I got rather irritated with the young man that was running the sound system because the reverberation that was coming while I was trying to address that crowd was -- and people were yelling, my friends -- well, a couple -- I say they're my friends. Folks that I knew were in the back were yelling that they couldn't hear me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. And your voice is loud. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then there were the elderly whose voice was a little shaky -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Like yours. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and they couldn't understand them at all. So it was really tough. So I think it would be a good idea, a good investment. I don't know how -- where you're going to put it, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've already started on that, ma'am. And we've talked to Troy, and we've got the team looking at it right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very good. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The other thing, I think somebody June 11, 2019 Page 256 else might be talking about, is the school board, but maybe somebody else is going to be bringing that up. Has anybody else talked to Kam Patton? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I talked to her. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So that will be under budget, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think we're getting a letter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's a letter coming from her. I wasn't planning on bringing it up tonight. She just gave us a phone call. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. That's all for me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, a couple of things. I'd like to see if there's any interest -- we talked about earlier on the Baumgarten public hearing regarding the 37.5 setback for residential from -- in the activity centers. I'd like to see if there's any willingness to kind of explore it to see how we could -- understanding this is infill, a lot of it. We're now developing land that is adjacent to residential throughout this county; just to explore this. And I'd have to have a -- you know, it has to be a consensus. We may not want to change it. We may want to change it, but I'd like to really look at it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can have Thaddeus and his team meet with you, Commissioner, and just make sure that -- you know, explain it a little bit better and walk you through where it would be a problem, maybe not be a problem, and if you found it was something you wanted to bring forward. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm happy to do something preliminarily, but then maybe eventually, depending on -- June 11, 2019 Page 257 MR. CASALANGUIDA: What you find and -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, if that's an agreement. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That would be a fine way to go there, and then we know how many -- because these activity centers have been delineated since the -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- ZRO in 1990 with these regulations and stipulations, and they are, basically, vestitures. So we have to -- we need to be very -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not a well. It's a vestiture. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, of course. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the concession that was made today by the developer was a pretty decent concession. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I like the idea of having you meet with our staff and find out how many there are; how many were, in fact, the issues. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What we could do? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And, second of all, I think -- Commissioner Solis, I think you requested that the Clam Pass discussion not be at our next meeting, and I know you'll be grateful for that, but I wasn't aware of that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I haven't made that kind of request. I thought -- I was told that there was no plan on that coming up until October from staff. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I was told about three weeks ago by the County Manager it was coming up on the 25th, but I would like to make a request to see if we can get consensus with everybody here so it's very clear and it's written down, because it's a June 11, 2019 Page 258 moving target here. I'd like it to come in the high season: January, February, or March. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Can I make -- are you talking about the parking garage at Seagate? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like this discussed in January, February, and March. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd like to lean forward and look at my colleagues and see who is in favor of that parking garage. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to object to doing that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you say? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I said I'm going to object to the question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is not the appropriate time. We're having discussions concerning that. It's going to come back. I have no problem with it coming back winter. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In the high season. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But to turn around and say, who's in favor of this now, I'm not going to answer the question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But speaking of that park, I just happened to go over there on Saturday with someone else just for another reason altogether, and -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You get around. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, I know. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You really do. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it was about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on a Saturday. Well, of course, I never expected to see anybody there on a hot 2 o'clock afternoon Saturday. The place was jammed. I was so surprised. I thought it was going to be rather empty. June 11, 2019 Page 259 And what I noticed was the hotel next door had all of their chairs almost all the way up to the waterline, and then they had their umbrellas and everything. There weren't many people in them, but they were all there. And I thought, that's exactly what they're talking about, obstructing other people's way to get to the water. And then the people that were in this place -- now, I know I've heard from the Tourism Bureau that on the weekends people from the other coast like to come over. And I was guessing that some of them were from the other coast. They had their families and everything, and they had their strollers, so I figured they had to drive here. Then there was -- there were other people, and I just happened to ask, "Where are you from?" you know. And I thought they would say "the other coast," but this couple was from England. And they said they come every year. They come to Orlando and then they drive down here and stay a few days. But, you know, if you can't get a place on the beach, it's kind of tough. And so I was just thinking -- and I know that some other beaches now have been -- also been cordoned off if somebody lives in a house behind them, and people try to go to the beach, and they're told to get off the beach. So I don't know what we can do, but I think that ought to be something we ought to talk about at some point in time, because that is the reason tourists come here. And we need to address that and find some type of a solution that we can all live with. And it probably has to be done sooner than later, because now people are taking possession of the beach, and it's going to hit our tourism business and the hotels. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that wasn't where I was going with that but -- and I wonder, Commissioner Saunders, you seem to be offended by -- because I thought we gave pretty -- when we talked about the parking garage before, there was an ongoing study that was June 11, 2019 Page 260 being done, and -- but I thought we -- I thought the Board gave pretty specific decisions to not pursue the parking garage. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: First of all, two things. Number one, I don't ever get offended, so take that off the table. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. I didn't want you to be. I just wanted to make sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't want to make a decision -- be forced into making a decision on something that's not even on the agenda and at 6 o'clock at night, very controversial, and I just don't think it's an appropriate question to ask at this time. Now, it's appropriate to put it on the agenda, and Commissioner Taylor has suggested we do that when people are here -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and I agree with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: January, February, March. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Again, I do have selective memory issues; I'll admit to that. And my selective memory was that there was basic consent to not go forward with the parking garage. But I'll acquiesce to the -- in the fall have another discussion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, no; January -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: High season. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- February, or March, one of those. Pick your dates. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm the fine with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that -- we all okay with that? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My understanding is that staff was coming back in October with an update. I know there's still June 11, 2019 Page 261 discussions going on with the foundation which, you know, has a major impact on all of it, so -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the foundation -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I don't think it's time to talk about it anyway. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What foundation? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The Pelican Bay Foundation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And, Commissioners, I think our goal was to bring back not only Clam Pass but look a little comprehensively again with basically the direction you gave us in that little workshop session: Distribution, the other properties as well, too. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In January, February, March. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fine, ma'am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One of those three months. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, anything else? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have two things. I was approached by one of the members of the Planning Advisory Board for the City of Naples. He would like to see a joint meeting between the City of Naples planning board and the Collier County planning board. My reaction was, certainly have no objection to that. Perhaps we could, by consensus, say to our planning board, if they want to have a meeting like that, go ahead and set it up; that they're authorized to do that. So that's number one. So unless there's some objection to our planning board meeting with the city planning board -- June 11, 2019 Page 262 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's communication. That's nine-tenths of the law. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let both planning boards know that they're -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll reach out to the city manager and make sure he runs it appropriately through his city council and -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If our board wants to have the meeting. I'm not trying to force a meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think we have to have a purpose. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The second item, and this goes along with what Commissioner Fiala was saying. We've got this -- a couple major beach renourishment projects we've already approved one today. When we do those beach projects, that changes the erosion control line, and my understanding is that everything seaward of the erosion control line is public. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I don't know where the erosion control line is when you get up to the Ritz-Carlton and on the north end, but there are a lot of hoteliers that are blocking off the beach. And I suspect that what we need to do is put some marking in as to where the erosion control line is so that everyone knows. So the law enforcement comes out there, and they shoo people away based on what the hoteliers are telling them, and I've gotten several complaints from that. But it is public from the erosion control line seaward. So if we could maybe give some consideration to being able to publicly demarcate where that line is so that people know it and so that law enforcement knows it as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Commissioner, I'll just tell you from the calls I receive, that may cut both ways. Maybe I'd like to June 11, 2019 Page 263 have Gary McAlpin, when the time's right, show you the maps of the erosion control lines because sometimes people will go in landward of the erosion control line, and people don't say anything. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I understand that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So if we mark them with anything -- and, you know, Gary's a real good resource in terms of what we've done in the past, and maybe I'll have him put something together and just -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Maybe in the fall. Obviously, we don't want to do anything now because our next meeting will take two days. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perhaps in early September you could give us some presentation on that. And if we feel that we need to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- mark that in different locations, especially with the new beach renourishment project coming up. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good time to do it, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Beaches are our greatest attraction for tourism. And, by the way, for the people who live here, it also pulls their taxes down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, Commissioner Saunders, Senator Passidomo -- did you have any more you wanted to bring up? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Senator Passidomo, when that legislation passed, talked about that erosion control line as if everybody knows where it is, and there's only a few of us that do. And I said, when that came through, it's setting up for litigious June 11, 2019 Page 264 opportunity for people to be talking about it. I mean, there's two clear delineated lines on the beach that any Yankee from Pennsylvania can see, and one's your weed line and one's where the water is, and those are really the only two that the regular Joe can see. After that it's up to discretion as to where that erosion control line is. And I've seen videos where the sheriff's been running people off because they're not sitting in wet sand, and that's not the delineation of that erosion control line. So I would welcome a presentation in that regard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a great idea, too, yeah. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I say something about our two-day meeting coming up? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. It's one day. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we try to keep everything in one day, it's been my experience -- and Commissioner Fiala and I think Commissioner Saunders, I understand you're traveling the next day. You get giddy. You don't think after a certain period of time because it's too much. And in order to -- you know, either what we -- look at the -- maybe look at the agenda and move things to the magic date of July the 9th, which is supposed to be a kumbaya moment, but maybe it's not going to be a kumbaya moment. But to have -- they want January -- they want July as this kumbaya moment like it's a nice way to end the session. We don't put controversy there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, it's not for kumbaya. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: As long as the meeting ends, that's kumbaya right there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We should have that right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because of the consideration portion -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, anyway, I just would like to June 11, 2019 Page 265 see -- so that we discuss it, because I am not into spending nine or 10 hours with a meeting. Even if you do feed me, it's not going to work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, if we work with the Chair, if the Chair will sit with me and Leo, which I'm sure he will, we'll go over what looks like a schedule for the 25th. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somehow the Chair's getting blamed for a two-day meeting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Drink a lot of coffee and you can stay up, but -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ready to go. And the Chair's also suggested regularly that we have more meetings. So maybe one of these days we'll start thinking about that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes we have Chairs that don't say much, and sometimes we have Chairs that say more. You never can tell. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're not sure which. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pick your druthers. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right now the Chair's got one little comment. He was told he can't talk about the parking garage at Seagate, so we won't. And then we're going to go -- there is one thing I would -- did you find out about the intercity meeting put on by the Chamber September 5th and 6th? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing that right now, sir. We've got some calls in just to de-conflict that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we all got that email from Mr. Barker, the chairman of the Chamber, that two-day meeting. It's an intercity meeting. I would like to go if I can, but our budget hearing is on the 5th, and I'll bolt to Orlando that night just simply because I'm watching what's happening with our RPC. It's about to fold. If -- I can't say out loud because I'm one of many on the RPC, but our RPC is being shifted around, at my direction, by the way, June 11, 2019 Page 266 assistance, with how it's going. The authority of the RPC's been taken away and moved to an informational process, and we're minimally going to move to every other month with meeting, if not even less than that, and try to get into the kumbaya stuff as opposed to the authoritative approval processes that we're currently relegated. And I think this intercity meeting, sounds like, might be something that we could become involved in to foster the communication of local governments in a more collaborative manner. Other than that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for your patience. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Kumbaya. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- kumbaya. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll see you all on the 25th. **** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7550, “GOLDEN GATE COLLECTOR SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS,” TO HERITAGE UTILITIES, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $722,826.20; TO ACKNOWLEDGE A TIME EXTENSION TO A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GOLDEN GATE COLLECTOR SIDEWALKS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS (FPN #435116-1-58-01, PROJECT NO. 33504); APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE AND THE ATTACHED June 11, 2019 Page 267 BUDGET AMENDMENT; AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 3) – TO PROVIDE SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN GOLDEN GATE ON SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM COPPER LEAF LANE TO CEDAR TREE LANE AND ON GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM 50TH STREET SW TO TROPICANA BOULEVARD Item #16A2 ACKNOWLEDGING THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION’S (MPO) PLANNING (PL) GRANT FOR FY19/20 AND RECOGNIZE THE MPO BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $839,988, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2019. (ALL DISTRICTS) – NO LOCAL MATCH IS REQUIRED Item #16A3 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (“DEP”) AGREEMENT NO. S0859 BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NAPLES PARK AREA/BASIN INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROJECT FOR STORMWATER, WATER AND WASTEWATER (PHASE I), TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT BY 184 CALENDAR DAYS AND TO MAKE MINOR UPDATES TO CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 2) – PHASE I OF THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 110TH AVE N. AND 107TH AVE N. June 11, 2019 Page 268 Item #16A4 THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO CONTRACT NO. 18-7245 WITH TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC.; TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL TASKS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A5 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR A 2020-2021 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING REQUEST UNDER CONTRACT NO.15-6382 FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $19,896, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 4) – IN PREPARATION OF THE 2020- 2021 LGFR FOR COLLIER COUNTY’S SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS; SOUTH MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS, AND THE COUNTY’S INLET PROJECTS: WIGGINS PASS AND DOCTORS PASS AS WELL AS APPLICATIONS FOR STATE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR HURRICANE IRMA REPAIR PROJECTS Item #16A6 June 11, 2019 Page 269 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 17-7097 WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; FOR ADDITIONAL TIME AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS REQUIRED FOR THE COLLIER CREEK MODELING STUDY, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1) – IN ORDER TO ADDRESS COMMENTS FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO SUPPORT PERMITTING OF A LONG-TERM SOLUTION FOR COLLIER CREEK, APTIM HAS PREPARED A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PO NO. 45-179398; APTIM IS REQUESTING AN INCREASE OF $78,427 AND AN ADDITIONAL 365 DAYS, BRINGING THE TOTAL OF THIS CONTRACT TO $377, 386.30 Item #16A7 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PARK SHORE BEACH RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $27,894.80, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 4) – TO ASSIST THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT ACTIVITIES ON PARK SHORE BEACH. THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE CLAM PASS MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF June 11, 2019 Page 270 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT Item #16A8 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.; TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR NORTH PARK SHORE BEACH RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO.15-6382 FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $27,894.80, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 4) – TO ASSIST THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT ACTIVITIES ON NORTH PARK SHORE BEACH; THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE CLAM PASS MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT Item #16A9 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CLAM PASS PARK June 11, 2019 Page 271 RENOURISHMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO.15-6382 FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $45,498.50, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 2) – TO ASSIST THE COUNTY IN CONDUCTING BEACH RENOURISHMENT ACTIVITIES ON CLAM PASS PARK BEACH; THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDING ENGINEERING DESIGN, SURVEYING OF THE CLAM PASS MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, PREPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, COORDINATION WITH PERMITTING AGENCIES FOR NOTICE TO PROCEED, AND SERVE AS THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION EVENT Item #16A10 SCHEDULING AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 25, 2019, FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO PERMANENT EMERGENCY GENERATORS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16A11 THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PROPERTY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE June 11, 2019 Page 272 CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (DISTRICT 2) – ADJACENT TO THE ARTHREX DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, THE OWNER AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS Item #16A12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR GASPAR SELF-STORAGE, PL20180000252, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,455.65 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON APRIL 23, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A13 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR WINDING CYPRESS AMENITY CENTER, PL2016000168, ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE SEWER FACILITIES, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL June 11, 2019 Page 273 OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $12,698.01 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON APRIL 23, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A14 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR GASPAR STATION PHASE 3, PL20170004364 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON APRIL 23, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A15 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR RACETRAC AT PINE RIDGE, SDP 98-28, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, June 11, 2019 Page 274 TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,692 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON MAY 14, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A16 FINAL ACCEPTANCE ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR WINDING CYPRESS LIFT STATION #3, FORCE MAIN AND WATER MAIN, PL20160001589, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON APRIL 4, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE Item #16A17 RESOLUTION 2019-98: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE June 11, 2019 Page 275 FINAL PLAT OF TWINEAGLES GRAND ARBORS PHASE TWO C BLOCK 109, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140000392, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A18 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CURRENTS OF NAPLES AN ESPLANADE COMMUNITY – PHASE 1, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20180003018) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY. (DISTRICT 1) – W/STIPULATIONS Item #16A19 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND STANDING OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE OAKES BOULEVARD PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (DISTRICT 3) – THE OWNER AGREES TO MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OAKES BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED IN THE LANDSCAPE PLANS Item #16A20 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $318,525 WHICH June 11, 2019 Page 276 WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER PL20180000634 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH WINDING CYPRESS PHASE 3. (DISTRICT 1) – WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED, AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY Item #16A21 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,088 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR LANDSCAPE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH LOT 8 SIERRA MEADOWS, PL20130000496. (DISTRICT 1) – THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY Item #16A22 THE 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR FUND 195-BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE FUND 185 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A23 A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 13-6164 AUTHORIZE THE June 11, 2019 Page 277 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER IN A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $118,642 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 1) – THE PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR PROPOSED 2019/2020 RE-NOURISHMENT OF THE SOUTH MARCO BEACH PROJECT AT THE SOUTH END OF MARCO ISLAND; A CONSTRUCTION BID OPTION MAY BE TO COMBINE WITH WATER TURKEY BAY DREDGING FOR POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS Item #16A24 A PROPOSAL BY CSA OCEAN SCIENCES, INC.; TO CONTINUE THE REQUIRED POST-CONSTRUCTION HARDBOTTOM MONITORING FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT IN SUMMER 2019 WITH CSA OCEAN SCIENCES, INC. FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $94,578.90 UNDER THE ALREADY APPROVED AND EXECUTED CONTRACT NO. 17- 7188 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 4) – TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT POST-CONSTRUCTION HARDBOTTOM MONITORING TO ENSURE ALL IMPACTS FROM THE 2018 RED TIDE EVENT ARE ASSESSED AND DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO 2019 BEACH NOURISHMENT Item #16A25 A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR June 11, 2019 Page 278 WIGGINS PASS INTERIM DREDGING UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $46,978 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING, PERMITTING, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR THE PROPOSED 2019/2020 INTERIM MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF A PORTION OF THE WIGGINS PASS NAVIGATION CHANNEL/CONSTRUCTION; BIDDING MAY BE COMBINED WITH WATER TURKEY BAY DREDGING FOR POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS Item #16A26 A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR WATER TURKEY BAY CHANNEL DREDGING UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $64,880, REACTIVATE CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 AND EXTEND THROUGH DECEMBER 5, 2019, AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM. (DISTRICT 2) – THE WATER TURKEY BAY PROJECT INVOLVES NEARSHORE SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AND MAY BE CONDUCTED DURING THE LATTER PORTION OF THE 2019 SEA TURTLE NESTING SEASON Item #16A27 June 11, 2019 Page 279 STAFF RECOMMENDED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GRANT APPLICATION REQUESTS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY-2019-2020 IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,745,300; BUDGET THESE EXPENDITURES AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A28 THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. 19-7512 WITH EARTH TECH ENTERPRISES, INC.; FOR AN ADDITIONAL $6,000 REQUIRED TO REPAIR TERMINAL GROIN DAMAGES CAUSED BY HURRICANE IRMA AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – WHILE THE HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IS ON SITE FROM THE MARCO ISLAND CENTRAL BEACH REGRADE PROJECT Item #16C1 INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 19-7506, “COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS HURRICANE REPAIRS,” TO BD CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPROVE THE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,713.50, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – PRIMARILY CONSISTS OF REPAIRS TO VARIOUS DAMAGED ELEMENTS AT COLLIER COUNTY’S MUSEUMS; THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED IN June 11, 2019 Page 280 COORDINATION WITH MUSEUM TECHNICAL STAFF AND FEMA TO ENSURE WORK DONE ON STRUCTURES LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL PLACES IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,644,417 TO REALLOCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING H, 3RD FLOOR HVAC REPLACEMENT (PROJECT #50164). (DISTRICT 1) Item #16C3 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $657,000 TO ALLOCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING H ROOF REPLACEMENT (PROJECT #50165). (DISTRICT 1) Item #16C4 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,756,220 TO ALLOCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAPLES REGIONAL LIBRARY HVAC REPLACEMENT (PROJECT #50163). (DISTRICT 4) Item #16C5 June 11, 2019 Page 281 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,525,501 TO ALLOCATE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THE J1/J2 CHILLER PLANT & HVAC UPGRADES (PROJECT #50166). (DISTRICT 1) Item #16C6 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,000 TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED SERVICE REQUESTS AND MAINTENANCE FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C7 TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID #18-7422, “SRO WELLS NO.1 AND NO. 3/9 TRANSFORMER REPLACEMENT,” TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF NAPLES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,711 FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO PAD-MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS (PROJECT #50154). (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE SUPPLIER CANNOT PROVIDE A TRANSFORMER TO FIT THE EXISTING CONCRETE PAD Item #16C8 AMENDMENT #2 TO AGREEMENT #14-6345 WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., FOR BASIN 305 (PROJECT NUMBER 70141) OF THE "WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM," June 11, 2019 Page 282 FOR INCREASING THE HOURLY RATES IN THE BASIS OF COMPENSATION. (DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 4) – DUE TO THE ESCALATION OF COSTS SINCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED THE VENDOR REQUESTED AN INCREASE IN HOURLY PERSONNEL RATES; RATES PROPOSAL HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED APPROXIMATELY 6% IN TOTAL FROM RATES ESTABLISHED FOR 2015 AGREEMENT #14-6345; THIS IS LOWER THAN THE 8.2% INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR SOUTH URBAN, ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED Item #16C9 A SECOND AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH HOMETOWN LANDMARK, LLC, FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF COUNTYOWNED VACANT PROPERTY. (DISTRICT 2) – TO EXTEND THE LEASE TERM TO AUGUST 14, 2020 Item #16C10 A DISTRICT OFFICE LEASE AMENDMENT WITH CONGRESSMAN MARIO DIAZ-BALART FOR CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY-OWNED OFFICE SPACE. (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL UTILITIES, JANITORIAL SERVICE, AND LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE TO THE LEASED SPACE; THE CONGRESSMAN WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE CHARGES; THE ANNUAL RENTAL OF $10 WILL BE PAID AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE GENERAL FUND (001) Item #16C11 June 11, 2019 Page 283 A DOCUMENT NECESSARY TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OVER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AT 512 103RD AVE. N., NAPLES, FL 34108. (DISTRICT 2) – TO CONVEY AN EASEMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE ON COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT PROPERTY REQUIRED TO POWER A NEW PUMP STATION Item #16C12 A PAYMENT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA GOVERNMENT UTILITY AUTHORITY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT FOR IRMA RELATED DISASTER REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO THE FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBAWARD AND GRANT AGREEMENT (CONTRACT NUMBER: Z0644) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D1 EXECUTION OF THE 2018/2019 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT AWARD (SECTION 5307) IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,180 IN THE TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL BUS SHELTERS THROUGH THE FEDERAL TRANSIT June 11, 2019 Page 284 ADMINISTRATION TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR THE DESIGN, PURCHASE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 12 METAL BUS SHELTERS (INCLUDES AMENITIES SUCH AS BIKE RACKS, BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES) Item #16D2 CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,179.80 FOR FULL PAYMENT OF A COUNTYWIDE IMPACT FEE FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FOR PROPERTY AT 13691 LEGACY LANE, NAPLES, FL Item #16D3 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GREEN & GREEN INVESTMENTS, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, FOR APPROXIMATELY 28.70 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $874,000 AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D4 A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,098.41 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS UNIT THAT IS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FOR June 11, 2019 Page 285 PROPERTY AT 7821 BRISTOL CIRCLE, NAPLES, FL Item #16D5 EXPENDITURES FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE ANNUAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LICENSES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS, AND TO ADD THE INSTALLATION OF THE I-TIVA AUTOMATED INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION MODULE AND SUPPORT PACKAGE, WITH INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC.; FOR LIBRARY SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUPPORT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $180,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS BUDGETED THROUGH FY 2021. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D6 RESOLUTION 2019-99: SUPPORTING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION IN SEEKING NATIONAL ACCREDITATION AS A VALID AND PROPER PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO HOST THE ACCREDITATION COMMISSION NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D7 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STUDENT SCHOOL YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR COUNTY RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE AGREEMENT WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM JULY 1, 2019 UNTIL JUNE 30, 2020 AND INCLUDE THE June 11, 2019 Page 286 SUMMER CAMP PROGRAMS AND SCHOOL YEAR FOR 2019/2020; ANNUAL COSTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INCLUDING SUMMER CAMP, IS ESTIMATED TO BE APPROXIMATELY $60,000 Item #16D8 A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE 2019/2020 FUNDING AWARD. (ALL DISTRICTS) – IT IS ESTIMATED COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE AWARDED A TOTAL OF $599,670 IN SHIP FUNDING; FUNDS TO BE USED TO IMPLEMENT SHIP PROGRAM STRATEGIES OUTLINED IN THE 2019/2022 LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN Item #16D9 ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING PROGRAM INCOME IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,250. (ALL DISTRICTS) – FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13691 LEGACY LANE, NAPLES, FL Item #16D10 RELEASING A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP MORTGAGE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR A HOME DESTROYED BY FIRE AND HELD AFFORDABLE FOR June 11, 2019 Page 287 SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS. (DISTRICT 1) – FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3100 POLLY AVENUE, NAPLES, FL Item #16E1 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL. (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE NET TOTAL FOR ELEVEN (11) ITEMS IS $182,681.14 Item #16F1 A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY. (ALL DISTRICTS) – BA #19-555 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR VETERINARIAN FEES TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY AND SPECIALITY SERVICES AT DAS Item #16F2 RESOLUTION 2019-100: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16G1 SUBMITTAL OF AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION June 11, 2019 Page 288 ADMINISTRATION REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL $1,700,745 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN AIRCRAFT APRON AND AIRFIELD SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT PROJECT, WITH ESTIMATED COSTS OF $1,889,717. (DISTRICT 1) – WITH A REQUIRED LOCAL 10% MATCH OF $188,971.70 AVAILABLE WITHIN AIRPORT CAPITAL FUND (496) PROJECT #33484 Item #16G2 SUBMITTAL OF AN AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (AIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REQUESTING $189,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF THE EXTENSION OF TAXIWAY C AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT WITH A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $210,000. (DISTRICT 5) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16J1 DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT AND POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JUSTICE AND MENTAL HEALTH COLLABORATION PROGRAM FY2019. AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND 2019 GRANT FUNDS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J2 June 11, 2019 Page 289 DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT AND POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BJA STOP SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING PROGRAM FY2019. AUTHORIZE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND APPROVE THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND 2019 GRANT FUNDS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J3 TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN MAY 16 AND MAY 29, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J4 DETERMINING VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JUNE 5, 2019. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K1 – Moved to Item #12A (Per Commissioner Taylor during Agenda Changes) Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2019-101: APPOINTING CHLOE BOWMAN, June 11, 2019 Page 290 SERVING AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER, TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM EXPIRING ON FEBRUARY 14, 2022, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K3 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P.A. (ALL DISTRICTS) – EXTENDS THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2021, INCLUDES THREE 1-YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS, REFLECTS CHANGES OF MEMBERS IN THE FIRM, AND ADJUSTS FEES Item #17A ORDINANCE 2019-08: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE SENDING LANDS AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT; BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.01.03 ESSENTIAL SERVICES AND SECTION 2.03.08 RURAL June 11, 2019 Page 291 FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND SECTION 2.03.09 OPEN SPACE DISTRICT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE (ALLDISTRICTS) Item #17B RESOLUTION 2019-102: AMENDING THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) TO REVISE THE SRA MASTER PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4.08.07.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND SPECIFICALLY TO: REMOVE FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE SRA 12.19 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SRA; REMOVE FROM THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE SRA .55 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL, AT THE INTERSECTION OF CAMP KEAIS ROAD AND POPE JOHN PAUL II BOULEVARD; AND TO ADD TO THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE SRA 12.74 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL, TO THE SOUTH OF BELLERAWALK CIRCLE; AND TO REVISE APPENDIX A OF THE TOWN PLAN, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 16 THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (DISTRICT 5) Item #17C – Continued to the June 25, 2019 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet) June 11, 2019 Page 292 RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PETITION VAC- PL20180003283, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE COUNTY AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE PARK AND PRESERVE AREA LOCATED IN BLOCK “K” AND A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN TRACT “N” OF ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, UNIT ONE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 16 AND A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN TRACT “N” OF ROYAL WOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, UNIT TWO, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 19 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ACCEPT PETITIONER’S GRANT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO REPLACE THE VACATED PORTION OF THE PARK AND PRESERVE AREA AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS. (DISTRICT 1) Item #17D ORDINANCE 2019-09: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CREATE THE PLANTATION ISLAND OVERLAY WHICH WILL ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN ADDITION TO THE USES June 11, 2019 Page 293 PERMITTED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT; BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS; SECTION FOUR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (DISTRICT 5) Item #17E RESOLUTION 2019-103: AMENDING APPENDIX A SCHEDULE 1 TO ELIMINATE FIRE ASSEMBLY BASE CHARGES EFFECTIVE MARCH 12, 2019, AND INCREASE POTABLE WATER BASE CHARGES ACROSS THE USER BASE PURSUANT TO THE BOARD’S DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT OPTION 2 AS DISCUSSED AT THE MARCH 12, 2019 MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11C. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #17F ORDINANCE 2019-10: AMENDING THE FUNCTION, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE COASTAL WATER QUALITY COORDINATION, EDUCATION, OVERSIGHT AND OUTREACH FOR ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY INCLUDING THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND EVERGLADES CITY AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) June 11, 2019 Page 294 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ WILLIAM L. McDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK ___________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on _____________________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.