Agenda 12/10/2019 Item # 2B (Minutes 10/22/19 Regular)12/10/2019
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 2.B
Item Summary: October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 12/10/2019
Prepared by:
Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: MaryJo Brock
11/07/2019 2:24 PM
Submitted by:
Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: Leo E. Ochs
11/07/2019 2:24 PM
Approved By:
Review:
County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 11/07/2019 2:24 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/10/2019 9:00 AM
2.B
Packet Pg. 21
October 22, 2019
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 22, 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:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
October 22, 2019
Page 2
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please come to
order. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, good morning. Good
morning, everybody. Thank you for being here.
We're going to start this morning's meeting off with our
invocation and pledge. Reverend Edward Gleason of Trinity by the
Cove Episcopal Church is going to lead us, if you would all rise.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - INVOCATION
GIVEN
REVEREND GLEASON: Almighty God, teach our people to
rely on your strength and to accept their responsibilities to their
fellow citizens; that they may elect trustworthy leaders and make
wise decisions for the well-being of our society; that we may serve
you faithfully in our generation and honor your holy name.
And we pray you send down upon those who hold office in this
county the spirit of wisdom, charity, and justice; that with steadfast
purpose, they may faithfully serve in their offices to promote the
well-being of all people.
We offer these, our petitions and desires, through your holy
name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor, will you
lead us this morning in the Pledge?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would be honored.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning, sir.
October 22, 2019
Page 3
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; (ITEMS MOVED: #16C11 TO #11O; #16K1 TO
#12A; #16K4 TO #12B; AND #16E6 TO #11P)
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Commissioners. These are your
proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners'
meeting of October 22nd, 2019.
The first proposed change is to add a Proclamation to this
morning's agenda. It will become Item 4J on your agenda. This is a
Proclamation designating October 24th as World Polio Day. That
item was moved at Commissioner -- or added at Commissioner
McDaniel's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16D1 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11N under the County Manager's
regular agenda. This move was made at Commissioner Taylor's
request. It's an item having to do with an award of a contract for
some landscape beautification at the entrance to the Rich King
Memorial Greenway.
One agenda note this morning, Commissioners, relating to
Item 16C3 on your consent agenda. We had a transposition of a
number. The correct number is $9,830, not $9,030. That correction
is made by the staff.
And we have three time-sensitive items today, Commissioners.
The first item is 11A. That has to do with murals and public art.
That will be heard immediately following 5B, which is your
presentation item today.
October 22, 2019
Page 4
And then immediately following 11A we'll ask you to
hear -- excuse me -- yes. Immediately following 11A we'll ask you
to hear Item 11B. This is the staff analysis resulting from a prior
public petition regarding stormwater management on Cope Lane.
And then, finally, Item 11L. This is the proposed changes to
the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, will be heard no sooner
than 1:00 p.m. this afternoon.
Those are all the changes that I have this morning,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just those?
MR. OCHS: Just those.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, let's go through our
ex parte and adjustments to the agenda from up here. We're going to
go the opposite direction this morning.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no changes to the
agenda, and I have no disclosures on the items on our consent
agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want me to go down on the
other end and come back?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Go down to the other
end till I get my ex parte. I don't seem to have any ex parte here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And call Sherry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sherry, yep.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you're listening.
Good morning, Mr. Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chairman, good morning. I
have no changes and no disclosures on the consent agenda or
summary judgment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
Commissioner Fiala, good morning.
October 22, 2019
Page 5
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. How are you?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I notice that I match a couple of
the ladies in the audience.
Okay. On the consent agenda -- oh, I have no disclosures on
the consent agenda and nothing on the summary agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Changes to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, there was some things
that I wanted to talk about, but maybe I could bring them up sooner
or later during the meeting. There's a few things on the consent
agenda that are problematic to me.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to move them up?
Make the announcement. We'll allow you to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, there are a couple
things, like 16C11, regarding --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not going to talk about them
now. If you want to move them up to the top, let's make that
adjustment to the agenda, and then we'll talk about them when Leo
adds them in an appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just hate to waste the
time --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's no waste of time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. 16K1, 16K4,
and --
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I'm sorry. Could we take these one at a
time and I track them for you. First one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't follow me talking so
fast? I'll take my time, Leo. 16C11. 16K --
MR. OCHS: Okay. That will become Item 11O on your
regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They'll print.
October 22, 2019
Page 6
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16K1.
MR. OCHS: Okay. And that would become Item 12A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And 16K4.
MR. OCHS: That will become Item 12B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there you have it.
Did you find your ex parte yet?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. And a pen.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So with -- there's nothing with
anything on the consent agenda at all, and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
And I have one declaration on 16A7. I did have phone
conversations with those folks on that plat adjustment. And other
than that, no other additional adjustments to the agenda.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we did have several registered
speakers for 16E6.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, yes, yes, yes. Let's go ahead
and talk about that right now.
County Manager -- it's 16E7, Troy?
MR. MILLER: Six.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Six; 16E6.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. You have a staff recommendation to
terminate an active solicitation for a water and sewer construction
project. That's the staff recommendation.
We had a series of bid protests between the first two bidders on
that project. We ultimately discovered that one of our staff members
had made an error as part of the process in accepting some documents
late. So the staff is recommending that we start that process over
October 22, 2019
Page 7
again. That's our recommendation, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to do that.
MR. OCHS: Well, you have two speakers, I think, that want to
address the Board on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry.
MR. MILLER: Actually, I have four speakers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There are four speakers with
regard to this item, and my question to my colleagues here is, do you
want to move this up and have it as an actual public discussion, or do
you want to hear it now?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it should be --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's hear it now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We've got to hear it now, I
think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speakers are here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's just hear it now, yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you okay
with that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. That's what we'll do.
MR. MILLER: So you'll hear the speakers now?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker's Daniel Higgins. Now, he's
been ceded additional time from Matthew Deluca. Can you raise
your hand, Matthew?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And Mike LeBelle. So he's going to have nine
minutes. He assures me he won't take that much time. He will be
followed by Ken, is it Fritz?
MR. FRITZ: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Daniel -- or, yeah, Daniel, if you want
October 22, 2019
Page 8
to come up to this podium.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And while he's coming up here,
this item is 16E6 on our consent agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And the decision for the Board is
whether you want to move this -- after you hear the speakers, if you
want to move this to the regular agenda for discussion, whether you
want to leave it where it is and accept the staff recommendation, or if
you decide you want to hear it but you don't want to hear it today, we
can schedule it for a subsequent meeting.
MR. HIGGINS: Good morning, Chair and members of the
Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to address you about
Consent Agenda Item 16E6, county Solicitation Number 19-7612.
It's also referred to as 96th Avenue Improvements.
I'm Dan Higgins, Vice-President of Douglas N. Higgins,
Incorporated. We've been doing work for Collier County since
1989. We've done a lot of heavy civil, underground, work pump
stations, and we're also on the emergency call for Collier County.
The relief we're requesting is that the item be taken off the
consent agenda, ultimately, so that -- you know, ultimately even
come off today so that this could be revisited by staff. We don't
think termination of this solicitation is in the best interest of the
county, its citizens, and taxpayers.
Collier County filed procurement process by upholding the
Higgins protest and denying the Andrew's counterprotest. Just so
you know, Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., I'll refer to as Higgins, and
Andrew's Site Work I'll refer to as Andrew.
Higgins submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid.
The Andrew bid was nonresponsive. Andrew failed to complete
required grant forms prior to bid time, and when submitting the
required forms after the fact, Andrew violated the county ethical
requirements by knowingly submitting false and misleading
October 22, 2019
Page 9
information.
In the latest improper appeal, Andrew improperly introduced a
new claim. Andrew now claims that Collier County staff is
responsible for Andrew submitting false and misleading forms. This
is not true. Andrew chose to fill out the required forms -- to not fill
out the required forms prior to bid time and chose to submit false and
misleading information.
Andrew incorrectly argues that since there is not a percentage
DBE goal, the required forms are not required. This is not true and
is clear in the bid documents. I have here in the bid documents
where it says that the forms need to be completed.
Somebody asked if there was a percentage goal, and there was
not, but you still have to fill out your minorities and your
disadvantaged businesses. That way if you're using a disadvantaged
business, you don't shop it after the fact. So that way they're still
protected even if there isn't a goal. We listed ours.
We think there's two options that -- at least two options that
county staff has to do that are better than terminating the solicitation.
Option 1 would be to go back. It was referred that somebody made
an error. We only can assume that that was done in good faith and it
was an innocent error by staff, but Andrew has not been
punished -- or hurt if they were to go back and review their bid
without those forms. Those forms were required. We think that
Andrew's bid would be nonresponsive for that.
All the parties agree, in Andrew's thing they now claim at the
11th hour that they should not have turned in those forms. So the
county, Higgins, and Andrew agree on that.
The other option would be for Collier County to deny Andrew's
appeal and award the project to Higgins. Because we're confident on
this, we think the county stance is so strong in what Andrews (sic)
did was wrong, we will defend the county. We'll spend all the
October 22, 2019
Page 10
attorney's fees to defend the county, and we'll indemnify the county.
So if there were some judgment in Andrew's favor, we would pay
that. That could be drafted up with county staff and with the
attorneys.
We think that that way this job could move forward, get
completed, and the county would have no risk. It's just a win for the
county.
We're doing 95th Avenue right now, and all of Naples Park and
the finger streets, I think that's been the most successful job, is
keeping the homeowners happy, and we would look for the
opportunity to do that on 96th.
Higgins did nothing wrong. Higgins had the low responsive
responsible bid. We think that it was an innocent error by Collier
County that really didn't harm Andrew. Andrew definitely did stuff
that was wrong. They didn't turn in the required form, and then they
turned in false and misleading information.
For Andrew, they want a second bite at the apple. They want a
rebid because they know that their bid's nonresponsive.
So in summary, we just -- we feel that there's more options to
the county; that this should be put back to the staff and maybe come
back in two weeks. We just think it's the right thing to do.
One of the reasons we would like to defend the county in this is
that Andrews -- this happens in contracting. People do unethical
things. Once you go to rebid it, we loss our standing to go after
Andrews, okay. We would like to keep that standing because we
think that they've done this wrong here, they've done it wrong -- we
know they've done it wrong in Venice. They're using this as a tool
to have a competitive advantage.
The other thing I researched is that Higgins e-verifies. It's a
requirement of the county. It's a requirement of most municipalities.
Andrew, I could find them, that they e-verified. But CR Utilities,
October 22, 2019
Page 11
who they use as an MBE that runs out of their own office, does not
e-verify. They've been in operation since 2017. Andrews is
working with them. We would like to do discovery on that to show
that that's improper.
I just -- I really appreciate you listening to us. I would hope
that this would come off the agenda. You could have discussion;
and I would hope that it would be put back to staff to revisit, because
some of the options that we're giving are excellent options.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You are Mr. Higgins?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: From a timing standpoint, when
did you learn about this circumstance on our consent agenda?
MR. HIGGINS: Okay. Late Thursday we were able to pull up
the agenda, or early Friday.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it actually goes live on
Wednesday nights at midnight on the Wednesday before our meeting.
And so for future reference, please, ask the commissioner of the
district; if you have an issue with a consent-agenda item, and they
oftentimes will move it up to the top so you can come in at a stated
time to be able to do that and not be maneuvering through. And if
you can't get the commissioner of the district, ask me.
MR. HIGGINS: Okay. We've been fortunate in the 30 years,
we're not here. We just successfully do the jobs. I've learned, and I
hear you now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But that statement's made mostly
for education, because there are a lot of things that are getting moved
into our consent agenda, and there, obviously, are a lot of businesses.
MR. HIGGINS: So -- and, you know, this brings up a point
also. In the procurement manual in how you do your protests, we
followed that to the letter. We haven't contacted any commissioners.
We haven't contacted any employees. Like, everything's happened
October 22, 2019
Page 12
between the attorneys.
That's one of the reasons that we didn't reach out to anybody,
right; because we've made sure that we've followed it. Throughout
the process, Andrews has not followed the procedure. And we think
there's enough -- we don't think Andrews should win by doing stuff
improper. And whatever happened with the county was innocent.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis, do you have a
question of Mr. Higgins or --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Actually, let's hear the other
speakers, and then I really have a question for the County Attorney.
MR. MILLER: Was Mr. Fritz going to cede time to you?
MR. HIGGINS: So what I would suggest or -- if we could, he
would cede it to me, but if I could answer any questions as part of
that time. We don't necessarily need more time. We appreciate that
you've listened, but we could answer anything you ask.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. Do we have
another speaker?
MR. MILLER: The only other speaker was ceding time to
Mr. Higgins. His slip came late, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
Appreciate you coming in.
MR. HIGGINS: I'll sit down, and if you need me back --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sit down, stand.
MR. HIGGINS: Oh, I'll stay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're welcome to stand if you
wish. They have a question.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Question for the County Attorney.
There's been two protests that have gone through the normal
procedural, right? I'm assuming? There was a protest and a
counterprotest, and --
October 22, 2019
Page 13
MR. KLATZKOW: On this particular item?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: The protest hasn't gone through the
process yet, I don't believe.
MR. OCHS: No. Mr. Coyman probably would be the best to
take you through this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry.
MR. COYMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name,
for the record, is Ted Coyman. I'm Director of Procurement
Services.
This solicitation you had nine bids. We had healthy activity on
it. And the two lowest firms -- you've heard from one, which is
Doug Higgins -- bid approximately 5.3 million and Andrew Site
Work was the apparent low. It was about 90,000 less than
Mr. Higgins. So Andrews came in at approximately 5.2 million.
Andrews should have been deemed nonresponsive at the point
the bids were opened. And the reason I'm saying that is I'm going to
put a document on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Higgins, if you wish to have a
seat, you're welcome to.
MR. HIGGINS: Thank you.
MR. COYMAN: This document was submitted as part of the
Andrew Site Work bid. It's not properly filled out, and it takes
exception to a required grant form.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before we go on, if we're going to make a
decision on this, this should get pulled and put on the regular agenda
so that everybody has a chance to be here. The only issue now is
whether or not you want to pull it onto the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And I'm trying to
understand the history, so that's all.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I was going to ask
October 22, 2019
Page 14
staff -- and I would echo what your concerns are, I'd just like to
hear -- just a broad overview so we can determine --
MR. KLATZKOW: Whether you want to put it on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
MR. COYMAN: After receiving this document as part of the
apparent low bidder, staff inappropriately asked the bidder to correct
the document, and what appeared in its place was a material change
to the bid pack.
So you can see this is just one of seven pages that appeared as a
correction to the bidder's submittal. Now, this is a sealed bid. It's
not best practice to ever allow bidders to go in and make material
changes to the bid after the bid's closed. You can approve a minor
irregularity. A minor irregularity is if I had 40 pages and all the
documents were signed and you missed one. A reasonable person
would see that it was an error, and you confirm that with the vendor.
And I, under my authority, can allow that as a minor irregularity.
That's not in this case. There are multiple components that were
added to the bid.
So on that basis, Andrews should be deemed nonresponsive.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have any questions?
MR. COYMAN: Now, what happened is this information that
was added to the bid then became a public record. So when
Mr. Higgins filed his protest and asked to review Andrew's bid,
Mr. Higgins was given all this additional information. In it
contained some information that can be characterized as misleading
or false.
It was on that basis that Mr. Higgins filed a protest. I upheld
that not knowing that the bid had been modified. But I upheld it
based on the information that was in the bid. It was, in fact,
October 22, 2019
Page 15
misleading.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My question is, how can you
cancel the contract, go back out for rebid, and hold an even playing
field now that the cat's out of the box?
MR. COYMAN: Well, there is obviously pricing that's been
exposed, but I can argue that the vendors will be even more
aggressive to underbid the prices that are out there. It doesn't
necessarily mean that the prices will go up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm not disputing that. I'm
thinking we ought to hear this in more detail.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Did Higgins have the lowest
conforming bid at the time that the bids were opened?
MR. COYMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. It seems to me that
that's the answer to the whole issue. And if we need to put this on
the agenda to deal with it, then --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Second my motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll third it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor lit up here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll follow the motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
seconded that we move 16E6 up top to have another discussion about
it. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Leo, what number is that one
going to be?
MR. OCHS: That's --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: County Manager, forgive me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's going to be tomorrow.
October 22, 2019
Page 16
MR. OCHS: 11B.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, it's not. We're ordering pizza.
Anybody wants pizza, stay late. We're doing it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What was the number?
MR. OCHS: 11P, as in Paul.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 11P, as in Paul.
With that, 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. There you go. Let's
get on with this.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 22, 2019
Add-On Proclamation Item 4J: Proclamation designating October 24, 2019 as World Polio Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by Beverly Dahlstrom, President-Elect of Rotary Club of Naples
Bay, Jerry Grandey, Director at Large Youth Service Chair, Jamie Weaver, Secretary of Rotary
Club of Naples Bay, Larry Wright, Past District Governor, and Haris Marcel Domond, President of
Rotary Club of Naples Bay. (Commissioner McDaniel’s request)
Move Item 16D1 to Item 11N: Recommendation to approve a Right-Of-Way Consent Agreement
with Florida Power & Light Company authorizing the Radio Road Beautification Municipal
Service Taxing Unit to landscape the entrance to the Rich King Memorial Greenway along Radio
Road. (Commissioner Taylor’s request)
Note:
Item 16C3 title on agenda index should read: Recommendation to approve a Utility Easement
within property acquired for a future park at an estimated cost not to exceed $9,030 $9,830, Project
# 70196.1. (Staff’s request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11A to be heard immediately following Item 5B
Item 11B to be heard immediately following Item 11A
Item 11L to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.
11/7/2019 1:58 PM
October 22, 2019
Page 17
Item #2B
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER
24, 2019 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to -- Item 2B is
approval of the September 24th, 2019, Board of County
Commissioner meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
the meeting minutes as published are approved. 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.
Item #3D
RECOGNIZING SHERI CALHOUN, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRAINING COORDINATOR, AS
THE SEPTEMBER 2019 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH –
RECOGNIZED
October 22, 2019
Page 18
MR. OCHS: Item 3D is a recommendation to recognize Sheri
Calhoun, Administrative Services Department training coordinator,
as the September 2019 Employee of the Month. Sheri, if you'd
please step forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You've got to come up to the
front.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is the most important part of
this whole process. Plus we give you a plaque. Congratulations.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
MS. CALHOUN: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Stand right there; get your photo.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Make sure you stand in the middle.
MR. OCHS: Stand right there, Sheri. I'm going to tell the
audience a little bit more about you, okay?
Commissioners, Sheri's been working in our Human Resources
Department since 2017. Her passion for teaching and facilitation of
learning is obvious to anyone who attends any of her instruction led
training events.
Sheri's responsible for overseeing the county's high school
summer internship program which just concluded its fourth year.
The internship program has been a tremendous success for the
county, continues to grow and flourish with each year, from its start
in 2016 with six students to having 19 students in 2019.
A successful program like this requires a great deal of
administrative oversight and behind-the-scenes coordination. Sheri
partners with the community, the Collier County Public Schools,
Lorenzo Walker Technical School, the NAACP of Collier County,
and the Naples Chamber of Commerce to publicize and promote the
county's internship program to all of the students in the community.
October 22, 2019
Page 19
She truly goes above and beyond to ensure that the students
have a positive work and learning experience and that the divisions
see the value of hosting an intern and how it positively impacts the
lives of students in our organization. This is just one of many
reasons Sheri is most deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Sheri Calhoun, your
2019 September Employee of the Month.
Congratulations, Sheri.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Sir, we move to this morning's proclamations, if
we may.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm ready to go.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS – ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 3, 2019 AS
DIABETES AWARENESS DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY JOE & TAMI BALAVAGE, DOLPH & SHARON
VON ARX, STEVE WHEELER, PAUL TINE, AND DR. DEB
SELMON – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4A is a proclamation designating
November 3rd, 2019, as Diabetes Awareness Day in Collier County.
To be accepted by Joe and Tami Balavage, Dolph and Sharon von
Arx, Steve Wheeler, Paul Tine, and Dr. Deb Selmon.
If you'd please step forward and be recognized.
October 22, 2019
Page 20
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2019 AS SAFE
INFANT SLEEP MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY RACHAEL WAGNER, RN, MANAGER OF
THE BABY UNIT, NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
SELENA LUCAS, RN, CINDY WHETSELL, RN , DANNA
BREEDEN, RN, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -
COLLIER COUNTY, AND RYAN LUKOSAVICH, FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating
October 2019 as Safe Infant Sleep Month in Collier County. To be
accepted by Rachael Wagner, RN, Manager of the Baby Unit at the
Naples Community Hospital; Selena Lucas, RN; Cindy Whetsell,
RN; Danna Breeden, RN, with the Florida Department of Health at
Collier County; and Ryan Lukosavich from the Florida Department
of Children and Families.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hi. Thank you for all you're
doing for us.
(Applause.)
MS. WHETSELL: Thank you, Commissioners, and Leo.
Thank you so much for this proclamation.
Each year -- oh, I'm Cindy Whetsell, the Director of Nursing for
the Department of Health in Collier County.
Each year the U.S. loses nearly 3,700 babies to sudden,
unexpected infant death. The American Medical Association reports
that an infant is nine times more likely to be a victim of accidental
October 22, 2019
Page 21
suffocation than an 18-year-old is to be in a fatal car crash.
Educating parents that the risk of death due to unsafe sleep
situations is high but can be prevented remains a necessary and
critical strategy in our efforts to keep infants safe.
The month of October marks the observance of Infant Safe
Sleep Month in Collier County to increase visibility and delivery of
consistent infant safe sleep messages to expected parents, new
parents, grandparents, and other caregivers.
We've had one death in Collier County this year due to unsafe
sleep. The state of Florida has had 65 deaths. That means at least
one baby is dying every week in Florida due to unsafe sleep.
I'd like to thank the staff of the Department of Health in Collier
County, the Safe Sleep Committee, and our community partners for
their hard work and dedication to this initiative. Babies are safest
alone, on their back in a crib or safe sleeping area every time for
sleep.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Someone of authority come and fix
our lights, and you leave your fingers off the buttons. There we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's just figuring out how they
work.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's go to the next.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 26, 2019 AS
COLLIER COUNTY ALUMNAE CHAPTER OF DELTA
SIGMA THETA SORORITY DAY. ACCEPTED BY
CYNTHIA CAVE, CHAPTER PRESIDENT, AND RHONDA
BURNS, SORORITY MEMBER –ADOPTED
October 22, 2019
Page 22
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating
October 26th, 2019, as Collier County Alumnae Chapter of Delta
Sigma Theta Sorority Day. To be accepted by Cynthia Cave,
Chapter President, and Rhonda Burns, Sorority Member. Ladies.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 10, 2019 AS
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM AND JANET G. AND HARVEY D.
COHEN EDUCATION CENTER GRAND OPENING AND
DEDICATION DAY. ACCEPTED BY SUSAN SUAREZ,
PRESIDENT & CEO OF THE MUSEUM – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation designating
November 10th, 2019, as Holocaust Museum and Janet G. and
Harvey D. Cohen Dedication Day. To be accepted by Susan Suarez,
President and CEO of the Museum.
MS. SUAREZ: I'm joined by some of my board members.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to announce that after
we're done with the pictures?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At the microphone.
MS. SUAREZ: I'm Susan Suarez, president and CEO of the
Holocaust Museum and Cohen Education Center, and I'm very
grateful to my board members who joined me here this morning:
Ashley Solomon, Larry Baer, and Hymie Askt.
The Holocaust Museum has been serving the Naples and
Southwest Florida area since 2001. And we are very excited to be
opening our new museum. We've been open now for about one
month, and we invite you all to come to our grand opening and
October 22, 2019
Page 23
dedication on Sunday, November 10th, from 3:00 to 5:00 in the
afternoon. It's free and open to the public, that ceremony.
Last year we served over 30,000 people either in the museum or
in other programs throughout the community. More than 10,000 of
those visitors were students and teachers.
Our mission is to teach the lessons of the Holocaust to
prevent -- sorry -- to inspire action against bigotry, hatred, and
violence. We teach students to connect the lessons of the Holocaust
to things that they see in their lives today so that they do not just
stand by when they see bullying or other hateful activities, but they
will be up-standers rather than bystanders.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is it located?
MS. SUAREZ: Our new museum is six miles north of the old
location. It is at Imperial Golf Course Boulevard and U.S. 41; just
between Immokalee Road and Wiggins Pass Road on 41.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Ms. Susan.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I must say, it is a beautiful
space. I haven't been there since you broke ground so long ago, but
it's exciting. And congratulations. It's long overdue. Well done.
MS. SUAREZ: Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 24, 2019 AS
PARTY HEARTY FOR CHARITY DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY DANIEL & BARBARA MELVIN, RICK
LOCASTRO, COURTNEY STRONG, DENISE MURPHY AND
STEPHANIE LUCARELLI – ADOPTED
October 22, 2019
Page 24
MR. OCHS: Item 4E is a proclamation designating
October 24th, 2019, as Party Hearty for Charity Day in Collier
County. To be accepted by Daniel and Barbara Melvin, Rick
LoCastro, Courtney Strong, Denise Murphy, and Stephanie Lucarelli.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just say, while you're
assembling, that Mr. Melvin has a beautiful voice. And he sings in
so many places it's like --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Beautiful wife.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and a beautiful wife.
MS. MELVIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You guys were prepared. You
had him lined up perfect. Outstanding.
(Applause.)
MS. MELVIN: Good morning, everyone. My name is
Barbara Melvin. I'm the president of the Party with a Purpose
Foundation, also known as Party Hearty for Charity.
And what we're doing is, this is our sixth annual event where we
are hosting -- this year the Wounded Warriors of Collier County will
be our beneficiary. Daniel and I took our birthdays and turned it into
a gala. So on October 24th at the Hilton in Naples we'll be having
our sixth annual event.
We're up here with my husband, Daniel Melvin, who's the CEO;
we're up here with our MC, which is Rick LoCastro; and our vice
president, and treasurer, Denise Murphy. Thank you all.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time, Barbara? Barbara,
what time?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ms. Barbara, what time is it?
MS. MELVIN: It starts at 5:00.
October 22, 2019
Page 25
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It starts at 5:00.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I want to know if Mr. LoCastro is
going to be the DJ, too.
MS. MELVIN: We'll be in trouble.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right.
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 20 - 26, 2019 AS
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY CONNIE KINDSVATER, PRESIDENT, LOUISE
FRANCK, VICE PRESIDENT, JON ZOLER, PAST PRESIDENT,
TRISH BENISCH, PUBLICITY CHAIR, AND NICK LINN,
EMERITUS BOARD MEMBER – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4F is a proclamation designating
October 20th through the 26th, 2019, as Friends of the Library Week
in Collier County. To be accepted by Connie Kindsvater, President
of the Collier County Friends of the Library; Louise Franck, Vice-
President; Jon Zoler, past President; Trish Benisch, Publicity Chair;
and Nick Linn, Emeritus Board Member.
Please step forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't see them. Oh, there.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Either you brought a lot of
cameras, or you have a few extra ones handed to you.
MS. KINDSVATER: Thank you, Commissioners, for this
honor, the proclamation. I'm Connie Kindsvater. I'm president of
the Friends of the Library of Collier County, and you heard all the
other people who are here with us, and also we have one more
October 22, 2019
Page 26
member. Patty's right there, and she's a board member as well.
From the very first lending library in 1957, the Friends of the
Library have been instrumental in the development and expansion of
the library system in Collier County.
The Friends have had a productive and close working
partnership with the Collier County library staffs and the individual
branches. We believe that this collaboration has provided needed
educational, entertainment, and cultural service to the people of
Collier County.
We want to thank Tanya Williams, library director, for helping
the Friends be even more effective in today's Collier County library
system.
Tanya, are you here? There she is, in the back.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In the back.
MS. KINDSVATER: We look forward to the future and to
continue working together to provide the public with knowledge and
services, especially that can be attained by employing the various
new digital technologies.
And if you haven't yet been to one of our library branches -- we
have 10 of them -- you should go. We have a wonderful library
system in Collier County, and we'd love to show it off to you and,
even better, become a Friend.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 25
- NOVEMBER 1, 2019 AS “MOBILITY WEEK" IN COLLIER
COUNTY IN RECOGNITION OF A COUNTY EFFORT TO
IMPROVE THE MOBILITY AND WELL-BEING OF THE
October 22, 2019
Page 27
COMMUNITY. ACCEPTED BY JESSICA CRANE, BLUE ZONES
PROJECT-SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY POLICY
SPECIALIST; REGINALD WILSON, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH IN COLLIER COUNTY; STEVE CARNELL,
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT HEAD; MICHELLE
ARNOLD, PUBLIC TRANSIT AND NEIGHBORHOOD
ENHANCEMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR; AND OMAR DELEON,
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT MANAGER - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4G is a proclamation designating the week
of October 25th through November 1st, 2019, as Mobility Week in
Collier County in recognition of the efforts to improve the mobility
and well-being of the members of our community.
To be accepted this morning by Jessica Crane, Blue Zones
Project, Southwest Florida Community Policy Specialist; Reginald
Wilson with the Florida Department of Health in Collier County;
Steve Carnell, Public Services Department Head; Michelle Arnold,
Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division Director;
and Omar DeLeon, Collier County CCSO; and members of our
public transit staff.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, it's going to be interesting to
see how you get us all back centered.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who gets the proclamation?
Somebody has to take this.
(Applause.)
MS. CRANE: Good morning, Chair, Commissioners. We just
want to -- on behalf of Blue Zones project -- I'm Jessica Crane with
the Blue Zones project.
On behalf of Blue Zones project, Collier Area Transit, Florida
Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health, we just
October 22, 2019
Page 28
want to thank you all for recognizing October 25th through
November 1st as Mobility Week here in Collier County.
Mobility Week started in 2002 in Europe, and it was really the
European Commission calling upon cities to come up with creative
solutions to tackle urban challenges, such as traffic congestion and air
pollution. And so in 2016, Florida Department of Transportation
took the initiative out to Central Florida to pilot it in Central Florida.
And they had such success with Mobility Week in Central Florida
that they did start doing it statewide last year. So this is only the
second year we've been doing this.
We did want to partner with CAT. We know how important
getting folks to use all modalities are, you know, not only for
physical health -- obviously, if you go biking or walking, but even
taking transit. Transit, according to the CDC, you can get your 30
minutes of daily physical needed activity just by walking to your bus
stop.
And so we do know it's great for physical health, but it's also
good for environmental health, because we are reducing air pollution,
and then also great for your mental and emotional health when you
don't have to sit in traffic, right?
So we do appreciate you recognizing it right now. For this
week, again, partnering with Collier Area Transit, Blue Zones project
is offering a dinner for two for anyone in the community that bikes,
walks, or takes transit to any destination for this week. All you have
to do is take a picture of yourself doing it and send it to us via social
media, either our Facebook page, Blue Zones Project, Southwest
Florida, or you can send it to any of the local team directly to be
entered to win that dinner for two to any Blue Zone project restaurant
of your choosing.
So we hope the community will get out and participate in
Mobility Week and, of course, safely as well. Any --
October 22, 2019
Page 29
MS. ARNOLD: And just really quickly, Michelle Arnold, for
the record.
We're -- our contribution is November 1st we're having a free
day of transit, so we encourage everyone to come out and try transit.
We're encouraging the commissioners to try transit. If you need help
planning a trip, I will help you along that way, or you can go to "my
bus." We've got an app that you can use and plan your trip just like
you would on Google. Just put your origin destination. It will tell
you exactly how much you have to walk and what buses you need to
get on. And I would encourage you-all to do that November 1st.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why were you laughing when she
said for me to ride the bus, Jessica?
MS. CRANE: I just want to see it. Make sure you tag us.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're great buses.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. CARNELL: If I could, Mr. Chairman, one other footnote.
At the beginning of November, we're going to be trying a pilot
program at Vanderbilt Beach with installation of the Mobi-mat
product which essentially is a portable mat walking surface that
enables people, either handicapped individuals or people with other
walking-related challenges, to walk on to the beach and get actually
down to the water. So we'll be implementing that on a pilot basis at
the beginning of November.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's called a Mobi-mat.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mobi-mat.
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just a plug for the City of
Naples, if any of you aren't really saltwater folks but would like to
access a pool, the River Park pool is completely handicap accessible,
October 22, 2019
Page 30
including a lift, including very, very trained people to help you. So
take advantage of a great pool in the City of Naples.
Item #4H
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 20 - 26, 2019 AS
WORKING FORESTS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY CLARK RYALS, SENIOR FORESTER, AND
MIKE WESTON CALOOSAHATCHEE FORESTRY CENTER –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4H is a proclamation designating
October 20th through 26th, 2019, as Working Forest Week in Collier
County. To be accepted by Clark Rylas and Mike Weston with the
Caloosahatchee Forestry Center. Gentlemen.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to say a few words?
(Applause.)
MR. WESTON: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Mike
Weston, Resource Administrator with Caloosahatchee Forestry
Center.
I just want to express my appreciation that you-all recognize this
week as Working Forest Week.
As you know, Florida is a big agricultural producer in the
country and also worldwide with timber. Obviously, about a year
ago Hurricane Michael devastated about three million acres in North
Florida. They're still working; they're going to be working for years
to recover from that.
We do still have work forests down in South Florida. It's not
necessarily lots of timber production. We do produce mulch, and
they will truck some stuff up to North Florida for plywood
October 22, 2019
Page 31
production. But mainly with that, it's going to be recreation, clean
water, you know, water storage and also our urban areas, having trees
for beautification, and also just functionality.
And, again, trees work all the time. They don't even go to
sleep, and we only have about a week of dormant season. So thank
you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Thank you,
Michael.
(Applause.)
Item #4I
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 11, 2019 AS
VFW BUDDY POPPY DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY RANDOLPH CASH AND ALICE, SENIOR VP OF THE
AUXILIARY – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4I is a proclamation designating
November 11, 2019, as VFW Buddy Poppy Day in Collier County.
To be accepted by Randy Cash and Anthony Roupp. Gentlemen and
ladies.
(Applause.)
MS. ALICE: I'm not Anthony.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was just going to say. Want to
come up, Mary Ellen? Mary Ellen, do you want to come up and
center?
MS. MARY ELLEN: I am the picture taker.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, you are the picture taker.
MR. OCHS: He'll help you with the picture, Mary Ellen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I wasn't sure whether -- I was
going to ask you if you wanted to say a few words but then I knew
October 22, 2019
Page 32
you would. So go.
MR. CASH: I've always got something to say.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
MR. CASH: I'd like to thank the Commission for this
proclamation. The Buddy Poppies is a program by the VFW to get
poppies out in our communities to remember those who gave their
lives in service of our country. And it started, actually, you know, at
the end of World War I with Armistice Day.
So we will be distributing poppies within the community,
coming up -- the runup to Veterans Day. And the other side of that
is the VFW purchases -- nationally purchases all its poppies from a
company that employs only disabled workers. So that is an added
benefit for our poppy drive.
Now, Memorial Day is a day to remember those who gave their
lives in defense of our country. Veterans Day is to recognize those
veterans and soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that are still here.
So on November 11th, freedom is not free. Think of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Randolph.
(Applause.)
MR. CASH: Oh, I neglected. This is not Tony. This is Alice.
Alice is our senior vice president of our auxiliary, and I apologize for
not recognizing you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And last but not least.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #4J
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 22, 2019 AS
WORLD POLIO DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
BEVERLY DAHLSTROM, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF ROTARY
October 22, 2019
Page 33
CLUB OF NAPLES BAY, JERRY GRANDEY, DIRECTOR AT
LARGE YOUTH SERVICE CHAIR, LARRY WRIGHT, PAST
DISTRICT GOVERNOR, AND HARIS MARCEL DOMOND,
PRESIDENT OF ROTARY CLUB OF NAPLES BAY – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4J. This is a proclamation designating
October 24th, 2019, as World Polio Day in Collier County. To be
accepted by Beverly Dahlstrom, President Elect of Rotary Club of
Naples Bay; Jerry Grandey, Director at large, Youth Service Chair;
Larry Wright, past District Governor; and Haris Domond, President.
Please step forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. DAHLSTROM: Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Wayne Dahlstrom, a past president of the Rotary Club of
Naples Bay.
There are seven Rotary clubs in Naples, but in the world, we are
accepting this award on behalf of 35,000 Rotary clubs in the world
operating in 200 countries with 2,100,000 Rotarians with one
common cause, and that is make the difference in a community where
the club resides.
For example, in the country of India, five years ago every
Rotary club in the country of India gave an injection, two drops on
each child's mouth, 1,200,000 children were vaccinated in one day
preventing polio.
(Applause.)
MR. DOLSTROM: This is what we're all about. Haris is
currently the President of our Rotary club, and, Haris, you have a few
things you'd like to say.
MR. DOMOND: Good morning, Commissioners, County
October 22, 2019
Page 34
Manager, Deputy. My name is Haris Domond, for the record.
I wanted just to just give you two seconds of understanding of
when he said polio drive. So what it means, it's 10 cents -- less than
10 cents to eradicate polio across our globe. It requires 10 cents.
And if you can imagine, for 10 cents we can immunize many people
that have been receiving or have had polio or have been affected by
polio.
All we're asking is find a cause, make it your cause. Let's
eradicate this one virus from our society for the rest of our world.
And just by giving 10 cents or finding a way of donating 10 cents.
That's less than a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A lot less.
MR. DOMOND: All I'm saying, it takes 10 cents. Thank you,
sir. Thank you again, guys.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could please have a motion to
approve today's proclamations.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded.
And as a point of discussion, I just would like to recognize my
assistant, Sue Filson. There was 10 of these things, plus the
Employee of the Month, and I don't -- it all goes very seamlessly not
because of me. It's because of her and the organizational prowess I
can just wheel back here and get what I need and go. So I want to
say -- I'm sure she's watching. Thank you, Sue.
With that, it's been moved and seconded. Any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
October 22, 2019
Page 35
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. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we move to today's presentations.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONER BILL MCDANIEL
RECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER DONNA FIALA AS THE
RECIPIENT OF THE 2019 TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED WILLIAM G. AND BUDD BELL LIFETIME
ACHIEVEMENT AWARD – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation by Commissioner
McDaniel recognizing Commissioner Donna Fiala as the recipient of
the 2019 Transportation Disadvantaged William G. and Budd Bell
Lifetime Achievement Award.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How about that. Do we have to
come down front?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, this is not something I
applied for. I got handed this many, many, many years ago, but it's
because of people like Lorraine Lantz and Brandy Otero, who's been
with me just about the whole trip. They make it all easy. I just go
in and, you know -- but I've just been one that held on for a few
years. But I want to thank you all for that. And the State was really
nice. They presented a nice award and everything, so...
October 22, 2019
Page 36
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Very good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a few points that I'd like to
make, if I may. On September 8th at the 40th Annual Commission
for Transportation Disadvantaged Award Program, the Florida
Commission of Transportation Disadvantaged recognized
Commissioner Fiala as the recipient of the William G. and Budd Bell
Lifetime Achievement Award.
The award was created in honor of Dr. William Bell and his
wife Budd Bell who were instrumental in early development of
Florida coordinated transportation program and advocated for
continued support of that program.
The long and the short of the balance of these talking points is
Commissioner Fiala has been the longest serving chair of our
Transportation for the Disadvantaged Board that we've ever had;
17-plus years. And it's just with a warm heart that I say thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Commissioner.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL WESTON, OF THE
CALOOSAHATCHEE FORESTRY CENTER, AND THE
PICAYUNE STRAND STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT
PLAN ADVISORY GROUP TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER
MCDANIEL'S APPOINTMENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE
FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF
THE FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE 10 YEAR LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN – PRESENTED
October 22, 2019
Page 37
MR. OCHS: We move to Item 5B this morning. This is a
presentation by Michael Weston of the Caloosahatchee Forestry
Center and the Picayune Strand State Forest Land Management Plan
Advisory Group to recognize Commissioner McDaniel's appointment
by the director of the Florida Forest Service to serve as a member of
the Florida Forest Service in the development of the 10-year Land
Management Plan.
Good morning, Mr. Weston. Yes, congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's pretty cool; a log.
MR. WESTON: It's pine. South Florida slash pine.
So as part of -- if all you don't know, 73,000-acre Picayune
Strand State Forest is kind of the gateway to the Everglades. If you
go east of County Road 951 past some of the beautiful developments
out there, you get into the forest. And we've got a lot of
land-management activity.
The forest started in the mid '90s, and then every 10 years now
we solicit a -- we do a management plan, and we solicit public
comment for that.
As part of that, we ask our members of the community, local
governments, organizations to serve on a management plan advisory
group. They actually organize, review the plan, take public
comment, and then provide recommendations to the Florida Forest
Service to help complete this 10-year plan, a process that started
about a year ago.
And just appreciate Commissioner McDaniel agreeing to serve
on that. Definitely his efforts are going to be very well appreciated.
And we look forward to the next 10 years and see what we can do to,
you know, help the forest but also help the citizens of Collier to be
able to recreate and use it.
October 22, 2019
Page 38
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. Thank you, Michael.
Appreciate it very much. I just would like to say it's an honor for me
to have been selected to serve on this committee. For anybody who
has ever listened to me talk, it is imperative that when taxpayer
money is spent to acquire lands for the benefit of the public, the
public needs to have access. And so that's my advocacy on a regular
basis. So thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 11A.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have anybody on the 6 and
7?
MR. MILLER: We do have one registered speaker for public
comments.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: First, let's do -- let's --
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, forgive me. You know what,
we're still in -- I'm sorry, Deborah. Please come on. I didn't mean
to jump. I'll let you go, Leo. My bad.
Item #11A
A REPORT ON CURRENT CODES AND REGULATIONS THAT
GOVERN MURALS IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO
ACCEPT THE REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
ONCE THE STUDY IS COMPLETE IN THE SPRING (STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS) APPROVED
MR. OCHS: This is Item 11A. It's a recommendation to
accept the report on current codes and regulations that govern murals
in Collier County. Deborah Forester, your CRA Director, will make
a brief presentation.
MS. FORESTER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
October 22, 2019
Page 39
record, Deborah Forester, CRA Director.
There we go, thank you.
The current code is -- has a very broad definition of what a
mural is. It is a sign that is a painting or an artistic work comprised
of photographs or an arrangement of color that displays commercial
or noncommercial messages.
Murals have been considered prohibited throughout the county
except where specifically allowed by two existing ordinances. And
those areas that allow murals are your two redevelopment areas:
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle and Immokalee.
In 2010, the Immokalee code was revised to allow for murals.
Murals are reviewed and accepted by Collier County redevelopment
staff, and murals must not contain any text for the purpose of
advertising a business or commercial activity. And today the local
Redevelopment Advisory Board also reviews and makes
recommendations on the murals.
In 2012, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA code was all
amended. Their definition of murals contains a variety of criteria
that includes location and size. The review and approval must be
done by the local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Currently, there are three murals in the Bayshore/Gateway CRA.
In April of 2018, the Board directed staff to suspend taking any
applications for new murals.
Immokalee has four murals that are currently installed and two
murals that are approved but pending installation.
While we were reviewing the Bayshore CRA code, we realized
that there are some criteria that needs to be expanded on. Those
include clear definitions: Clear definition of permissible artwork,
complete list of allowable locations, performance standards,
long-term maintenance guidelines, and liability and enforcement.
We also know that economic development can be spurred by
October 22, 2019
Page 40
murals. We have examples from Wynwood Walls in Miami; from
the Shine, St. Petersburg's mural festival, which is a week-long
festival; and also the town of Lake Placid is known for the town of
murals.
So our next steps are we have been waiting for the Arts and
Cultural Strategic Plan to be brought forward to the Board for review
and adoption sometime in March or April of 2020. That plan should
include the assessment of whether or not we have a cultural
department within Collier County Government or a partnership with
outside organizations. And this could lead to a public arts advisory
committee.
The Bayshore CRA redevelopment plan was updated and
adopted in 2019. Included in that plan are short-term noncapital
expenditures that include an art and cultural plan.
Phase 1 could focus on just public visible art, which could
include criteria, selection process, and maintenance, so the Bayshore
CRA could proceed with a public arts master plan as a pilot project
for the county with the existing consultant that is currently working
on the Arts and Cultural Strategic Plan, or the BCC could direct a
countywide master plan.
And with that, staff's here to answer any questions you may
have, and I also have other images of other murals that are local or
throughout the state of Florida.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any discussion? I mean, I was
present when we were discussing these issues in Immokalee. How's
Bayshore folks feel?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think it's more of an
issue -- the bigger picture is that clearly murals can be an economic
driver.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or not.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, it depends on how it's --
October 22, 2019
Page 41
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed. Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- organized. It depends on the
standards. It depends on the direction that this board wants to take
with it. If they don't want to take it as an economic driver, then I
would suggest that we take the moratorium off of murals and forget
about it and just allow it -- allow them to move the way they're going
to move. If we do want this as an economic driver, then my
suggestion is to wait for the strategic arts plan and look -- and look at
and study and ask, I guess, the CRA director to study other their areas
such as Wynwood. I think it's The Crush.
MS. FORESTER: There's another area, I believe it's in Denver,
called The Crush Wall.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The Crush Walls.
MS. FORESTER: So they're all over the country.
There's -- internationally murals have been known do generate
tourism and economic development.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And to attract a level of artist
that will draw the people and to have these murals change --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right, as time goes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- which is fascinating, and also
to incorporate, in one case, actually disadvantaged communities
where their artists -- to bring their -- their art to the forefront.
So -- but we have to proceed very carefully and deliberately in my
opinion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I concur. We do have some
public speakers.
MR. MILLER: I have one registered public speaker,
Mr. Chairman, Laura Burns.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, a public speaker.
MS. BURNS: Good morning. And for the record, Laura
Burns, executive director of the United Arts Council.
October 22, 2019
Page 42
First off, I just want to thank the Commission and also the
community for supporting the plan, moving forward for arts and
culture to make sure that we do this in an organized fashion to impact
our community in the best way possible.
So I'll make a few specific statements about this presentation
and conversations that we've had. Given the current interest in
public art in the county and the public realm and with the
municipalities, it's important to remember that having policies,
procedures, guidelines and the like will also -- that will provide an
overarching policy, and it gives the county the opportunity to define
the role of public art and economic development as well as
community well-being and the county's role, if any, with individual
districts and those municipalities.
So there's an opportunity to do the countywide plan, and it's our
opinion at the arts council, that that's the wisest approach. And it
would be fiscally wise because you can piggyback on existing
programming and contracts that are there.
And it's understood completely that there's a desire for murals in
Bayshore, and it's quite possible to move forward with the plan for
the mural program in Bayshore and/or Immokalee sooner rather than
later and that this can be done currently or even before the full county
process begins as long as that information is fed into and out of an
overarching county plan.
So if the county chooses to piggyback on the Arts and Cultural
Strategic Plan contract, there will be time and cost efficiencies. The
foundation for community engagement and familiarity with the issues
are already there, and the opportunities are at hand.
So I just wanted to make those few statements so that you can
take that under consideration as you're moving forward.
Happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Make a motion? The
October 22, 2019
Page 43
recommendation by staff is so accept this report. And I think it -- I
heard you say that it would be prudent for us to wait until the
completion of the study and then make our recommendations in the
spring.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll move that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When do you expect the plan to be
ready?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: March, April, 2'20; 2020.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know they've been anxious to get
started because the -- it is considered the art district and, you know,
everybody's excited, but I realize that there's organization involved,
too.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So it's been moved and seconded
that we accept this report and staff's recommendation. 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.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So then there's a Part
2 to this. Okay. So the strategic art plan won't get involved in a
October 22, 2019
Page 44
public arts program structure for the county, and I think -- I hope I'm
putting that correctly.
And I know the Bayshore arts district wanted a public arts
program. Why do you need the public arts program? The same
issues. It's an economic driver. There are -- with sculpture, with
art, public art, there are questions of insurance liability, maintenance,
let alone who is out there displaying their works on public streets or
wherever.
And so it might be a good time to consider -- and we don't
necessarily have to make that decision today, but to consider a public
arts program to develop for the county so when these great ideas
come in all parts of the county, not just in Bayshore and in
Immokalee, there are kind of rules of the road to follow and we
aren't, as a county, left with unnecessary expenses that can happen.
And having been at the initiation of a public arts program on
the -- in Naples, on the Naples City Council, I have seen the
importance of that structure when you are displaying art in the public
forum.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wouldn't it be prudent for us to be
having those discussions after the completion of this study?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It might be, but I think it might
help to -- maybe not today.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly not today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But maybe look at it maybe
before the end of the year or even right at the beginning of this next
year, not when the strategic arts plan finishes before but it does. I
think it would be very helpful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could I add, the East Naples
community plans to introduce public art actually in about February.
It was supposed to be introduced a little earlier, and it's a statue, and
it's going to be right in the middle of the road, and it's already being
October 22, 2019
Page 45
planned and everything, but I don't know if it --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I don't think that should
stop that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think that should stop
that. But going forward, I think you are a pioneer in this. You
know, you're bringing this forward, and I think it will cause a lot of
interest and have more folks wanting to do it.
So I think there should be some kind of structure and, as I say,
rules of the road, or foundational -- foundational information and
rules that allow the community to not only enjoy public art, but
prosper from it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think you're right about
tourism. I remember when they had one of the things in the City of
Naples. And I forget what the -- was it a --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, they had Gators Galore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. There's been a couple of
them.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the Turtles on the Town.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They really attract people,
and they give them guidelines and let the artists take -- move
forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that would be wonderful.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Good. So we can
maybe get some timing from our strategic arts plan folks about their
involvement because, again, it seems smart to piggyback upon what
is already being undertaken right now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would suggest maybe we have
a -- whip up an agenda item, bring it forward, and then we could have
it open to the public and talk about it.
October 22, 2019
Page 46
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll whip it up, sir. I certainly
will.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't think -- I mean, we've
already voted -- didn't we take a vote on that?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go do our -- I think we have a
couple of speakers on the items not on today's agenda; do we not?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We have one more item that was
immediately following this one that we noted at the beginning of the
meeting.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. OCHS: This is Item 11B, sir, and this was an item that
had been continued from the October 8th, 2019, board meeting. It's
a recommendation to accept the staff analysis on the flow patterns
and control elevations in the Cope Lane area.
Ms. Amy Patterson will make the presentation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before we go forward, how many
public speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: I have three registered speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Because I'm coming up on
a court reporter's break, and I was thinking maybe we would come
off agenda -- is there any petitions for -- Troy, are there any petitions
for speakers not on today's agenda?
MR. MILLER: We have one speaker on Item 7, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Why don't we go ahead and do
that, then we'll take a break and come and do this after the court
reporter break, because this is going to take a minute.
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the Board, yes, sir.
October 22, 2019
Page 47
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Okay. So that moves us to Item 7 on your
agenda this morning. It's Public Comments on General Topics Not
on the Current or Future Agenda.
MR. MILLER: Your one registered speaker is Rae Ann
Burton.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And after Rae Ann's done, then
we'll take a 10-minute-ish break and then come back for the regular
schedule.
MS. BURTON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Rae Ann Burton, Rural Golden Gate Estates.
When is too much traffic, too many buildings and developments,
increased density, and continued violation of the Growth
Management Plan and zoning laws enough? How much more traffic
and declined quality of life should Collier County residents suffer to
satisfy the insatiable profits/needs of few developers?
Since there is not enough time to repeat the policies and goals of
Golden Gate Growth Management Plan, I'll quote Rural Golden Gate
Estates' vision statement. Quote, Rural Golden Gate Estates is an
interconnected, low-density residential community with limited
goods and services in neighborhood centers defined by rural
character with appreciation for nature, quiet surroundings, unquote.
It is the job of the commissioners to protect, to preserve, to
provide safe and efficient county and local roadways; to protect the
property of the residents and health of natural environmental.
If this growth and development is so great, why, then, is there so
much public outcry? Take the staff's recommendation to deny 9C on
October 22, 2019
Page 48
today's agenda. There is a lack of concern by the developers for
wildlife.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second, Rae Ann. This is on
items not on today's agenda.
MS. BURTON: Right. I'm not talking about that one.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You just made a recommendation
for today's agenda. Do not do that twice.
MS. BURTON: There is a lack of concern by the developers
for wildlife. They have plowed over burrowing owls' nest or placed
mothballs in burrows. Wildlife and environmental is being
destroyed. Panthers and bears are killed on failing roads, and the
Board wants to build more.
Golden Gate's not the only neighborhood that is concerned.
There are other neighborhoods along Collier and Immokalee that are
protesting this growth density.
Please listen to the voices of the citizens, the homeowners, the
voters. Do not allow developers' desire for profit to destroy our
quiet, unique, urban and rural neighborhoods. We live here. We
should have a say on what is in our neighborhood, not developers
seeking a profit.
Dense unities (sic) mean dense, small apartment, and how many
are neglected after the builders leave? Dare I say, Fort Myers, the
Laurels and Sunrise Towers.
The Board states that it cannot refuse growth and building, but
the Board can. Even this very room has a limit on how many people
it will hold. So the Board can and must control building. The
Estate homeowners cannot put more than one house on an acre, so
how can the Board justify more for the developer?
The real density we need is cell towers. There are no strong
cell towers for any cell service. Storm warnings, emergency
warnings all on cell phones. Mine only works if my landline
October 22, 2019
Page 49
computer modem is on. This is putting the existing homeowners at
risk. I pray that the Board listens to our desires and concerns and
acts in our best interest. The Board should be our voice, not the
developers'.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Rae Ann.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before we go to break, I was
complimenting Sue on how everything goes seamlessly and forgot to
give Commissioner Fiala her plaque.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll be back at 10:45.
(A brief recess was had from 10:23 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Since I gave you an extra six
minutes I'm taking -- well, no, we're right on time. There you go.
Item #9A
AN ORDINANCE THE KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS,
LLC SMALL-SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE
89-05, AS AMENDED, AND TO TRANSMIT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY -
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 12, 2019 BCC
MEETING – APPROVED
Item #9B
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, AS AMENDED,
October 22, 2019
Page 50
THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT BY ADDING 300 MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL
DWELLING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE IN ADDITION TO
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ONLY
BUILDINGS; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS RELATED TO THE
RESIDENTIAL USES; BY REVISING DEVELOPMENT
COMMITMENTS AND BY REVISING THE MASTER PLAN.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41
AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11,
12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.35+/- ACRES; AND
BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 12, 2019 BCC MEETING –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, before we move forward with
Item 11B, I did receive during the break a request from the petitioner
on Item 9A and 9B. That's the Courthouse Shadows Small-Scale
Amendment to the Growth Management Plan and also a rezone
petition. They've asked for those items to be continued to the next
meeting in November.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you need a motion on that? I
think we do.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we continue those two items until our next stated communication.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What were the two items,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 9A and B. It was the Courthouse
October 22, 2019
Page 51
Shadows project. It's been moved and seconded that we continue 9A
and B until our November meeting.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have four speakers. Would
you mind if I called their names just to reinforce to let them know
that this item has been continued?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course.
MR. MILLER: Marge McAlister, Robert Smith, Brad Cornell,
and Al Schantzen, that item has been continued to the next meeting.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. We will hear that in our
November meeting, November 12th. Did we vote on that yet?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
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. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11B
STAFF ANALYSIS ON THE FLOW PATTERNS AND CONTROL
ELEVATIONS IN THE COPE LANE AREA, WHICH IS WITHIN
THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BOUNDARIES - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED
October 22, 2019
Page 52
MR. OCHS: That takes us now to Item 11B. This item was
continued from your October 8th BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to accept the staff analysis on the flow patterns and
control elevations in the Cope Lane area. The Board will recall that
this was a staff report directed as a result of a previous public petition
that the Board heard --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: -- this year. Ms. Patterson will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, director
of capital project planning, impact fees, and program management.
I'm joined today by several members of our team: Mr. Jerry
Kurtz, chief stormwater engineer for Collier County; Mr. Brad
Jackson, stormwater engineer for the Big Cypress Basin; and
Mr. Dominic Amico from ABB, who's our outside engineer.
I have a presentation if you'd like me to go through it walking
you through the area and some of the concerns and giving you an
overview of the issue, or if you'd like to go to questions; it's
completely up to the Board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Does anybody have any questions?
I've reviewed the package.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to just do a
quick -- quick-through, and then if there -- generate any, we'll go.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But I mean, I think it deserves a
little bit of explanation.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. We have extensive backup
as part of your package, but I will walk you through a quick
presentation. It's only eight slides.
Just to orient you to what we're looking at, this is the original
LASIP or the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Master Plan
October 22, 2019
Page 53
outlined by the black line. This is a 17-square-mile project area. It
took over 16 years to permit and 11 years to construct, and you can
see the stats there on the side of the improvements, including channel
improvements, weirs, lakes, a pump station, flows, and 110 acres of
mitigation area.
If you look at the arrow pointing to the red box, that's Cope
Lane area that we're discussing today.
This is just a zoom-in of the area. And you can see the black
wavy lines represent the historic overland flow, and the directional
arrows, and those indicate also state and federal jurisdictional
wetlands in this area.
We're zooming in even closer now. Mr. Wingate, who was the
presenter on the public petitions, property is in the yellow box. And
if you look at each one of the red dots in the area, those represent
wetland mitigation lands.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Excuse me, Amy. If everybody
would please silence their phones and/or shut them off, I would
appreciate it. Thank you.
Go ahead, Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: We're going to look again at the property,
and now you can look at not only our overland directional flows by
the arrows, but you can look at this, which shows the elevations. So
the areas colored in blue and green are lower in elevations, and
through this you can clearly see the flowway area through these
properties.
This is just a topographic survey of Cope. This is just a
representation to show you that we went through the area and we
know all of the elevations throughout the area, including
Mr. Wingate's property. In the box you can see some statistics about
the base flood elevation, the elevations of the area near the homes,
and then also the bottoms of the swales, the County Barn Road weir
October 22, 2019
Page 54
and then the particular slab elevation in question.
This is just a picture of the County Barn Road weir, one of the
weirs that's been discussed. This is looking north at the east side of
County Barn Road. This controls water levels on the east side of
County Barn Road, and it's about 500 feet south of Cope Lane. And
you can see in this picture the water levels are fairly low, and the
weir is not discharging.
Again, this is just more of the overland flows and also some
more of your control elevations for the various structures in the
LASIP area. Just trying to show you a representation of where -- as
you start higher up to the properties and as you move down as the
water heads down towards discharge points further down in the
system.
And that is the end of our presentation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
MS. PATTERSON: If you have any questions --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very informative. Thank you.
And just as a point of clarification, the permits were issued on that in
2005?
MS. PATTERSON: 2005.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So we've been moving forward on
that entire geographic area with the actual construction since.
MS. PATTERSON: Eleven years of construction. We are still
actively monitoring the area and looking at any adjustments and
things that need to be made. We will be, obviously, monitoring per
the permit for the next several years, also including water quality.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You identified this area as a
state wetland or jurisdictional wetland or --
MS. PATTERSON: There are areas within the LASIP
boundaries that are both state and federal jurisdictional wetlands, so
October 22, 2019
Page 55
they are protected.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What does that mean?
MS. PATTERSON: It means that they're protected wetlands
that can't be touched. So part of designing this project, we had to
ensure that we weren't going to negatively affect those wetlands in
order -- making them too dry or too wet. They had to be preserved
and protected.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so folks can build in there
as long as they respect the fact that it needs to maintain as a wetland,
right?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. Now, some of the properties
have wetlands that can't be touched, so the portions of the buildable
property still have to protect the wetlands, and some of these
properties will never be built on because they've been put into
conservation in order for other things to be constructed, like Falling
Waters. A lot of the red dots were conservation parcels that were
needed for the Falling Waters project to move forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Troy, how many speakers do we
have?
MR. MILLER: We have four registered speakers today,
Mr. Chairman. Your first speaker is Bill Wingate. He's been ceded
three additional minutes from Joanne McGuire. Ms. McGuire, could
you indicate your presence?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. Mr. Wingate will be followed by
Skip Riffle.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Wingate, if you'll start to come
October 22, 2019
Page 56
on up.
MR. WINGATE: Skip Riffle would like to speak first, please.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. We'll allow Skip to go first
then. We'll acquiesce to the request.
MR. RIFFLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can he be handed a mic?
MR. RIFFLE: Thank you very much. I would appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you very much for
hearing us.
Cope Lane -- and may I hand you these? These are petitions
for -- one for each of the commissioners.
Cope Lane, yes, we're wet, but we were dry years before this
LASIP was put in place. We are -- the building around us has
created a bowl, and we're at the bottom of the bowl.
The flow pattern is correct up here except for the fact that Crews
Road elevation is 10 feet, and it holds all the water back on the north
side of it, so it does not allow it to continue to flow on down to the
southwest.
The weir on County Barn Road, they had it projected at 6.7 feet.
It's set at 8.7 feet, and that was in the original design portion of the
two thousand, I think you said, five LASIP program. At 8.7 feet.
Mr. Wingate's property is at 7.2 feet. That's almost a foot and a half
below of water on his property.
My property, the flow is supposed to be southwest. This year
I've been watching the storm drain to my left at Santa Barbara.
Instead of flowing out, it was bubbling up and coming back toward
my property; not flowing to the east, but flowing to the west
absolutely opposite of the flow chart.
On the other end, from County Barn Road, it's supposed to drain
to the west to the County Barn canal. It wasn't. It was up high
October 22, 2019
Page 57
enough that it was draining to the east all the way back to
Mr. Wingate's property.
I think you've seen some pictures that Mr. Wingate had sent you
that his entire back property looked like something out of Lake
Okeechobee with all the trees growing up through it.
Pardon me, but we're getting flooded out. And in the past four
years, we've gone to the county, the road department under
Mr. Gossard and told him, hey, we're swamped. And he would go
lower the weirs and let -- and within a day and a half, the water was
gone.
Now we've gone to the county and said, please lower it because
we're swamped again, and they said we can't do it.
Southwest Florida Water Management is in control of it. They
won't let us do it. The lake there is higher than Mr. Wingate's
property, and that is flowing -- that's the lake on County Barn -- is
flowing into the ditch right back up Cope Lane into our properties.
We don't understand it.
So with that, I'm going to just say, please, save our homes.
We're only nine people there, and the petition you've got signed by all
nine of us. We were there long before Falling Waters and all the rest
of them, so --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
STPHAO: -- please take this into consideration. Thank you so
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bill Wingate, who's been
ceded the additional time. He will be followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. WINGATE: Good morning, Commissioners. Bill
Wingate. I live at 5855 Cope Lane.
October '12, me and my wife purchased our home on five acres
on Cope Lane, our single-family residence, to be our last home.
During the rainy season we get water. We're low. We get
October 22, 2019
Page 58
water in our ditches. It floods into our front yard. Our property
from -- on one side flows into our property and flows southwest back
through the woods. Well, it doesn't do that anymore.
We've got a 9-foot-3 elevated weir on Santa Barbara Boulevard
just south of Crews Road. That backs up water against the flow
pattern, which they're showing you here. This flow pattern is going
opposite of these arrows. I've documented it. I've given you videos
of it. The last meeting I was here I gave you four years worth of
videos and pictures. The pictures they show you of this weir with no
water in it. When this water is almost about to overflow, it's flowing
into all of our properties on Cope Lane, and it's coming in from the
south of our properties from Cope Lane, because Crews Road is not
allowing the flow of water to flow southwest.
2000 -- August 19, 2016, I met with Water Management at my
house, the engineers, for the first time and was informed at this
meeting what the LASIP plan entailed. For two years I had been
living there already, two-and-a-half-years, and everything was pretty
well fine, but they put the weir in and all of a sudden I've got water in
our ditches for months on end, and it's breaching my front and
backyard and everybody else's on Cope Lane.
So I start complaining. All the neighbors start complaining.
I'm like, what's going on with this? And they're like, I don't know.
You know, we used to get water. It used to drain off, and now since
they put the weirs in, now we're swamped out.
And what did we get? We got pushback from the county.
We're not doing anything. We're going to keep it as-is. We're
going to monitor it.
Basically, all of our water, the sheet flow on the property from
Cope Lane flows southwest behind Fleet Management. It's supposed
to. It stops at Crews Road. It should go due southwest. Here's a
Collier County-owned property right in the line of that sheet flow that
October 22, 2019
Page 59
you guys just bought in 2006 for like, I think $900,000, which is in a
jurisdictional wetland, which has a permitted -- it looks like in public
record, a retention pond to keep Wyndemere Lake from flooding, but
none of that's built.
But all of this sheet flow coming from our property is supposed
to go right past Crews Road and right into where you guys own that
property, but it's not doing that. It's being stopped at Crews Road.
You're pushing water in from all of the properties east of Santa
Barbara Boulevard against the flow of water, against every plan that
you guys have in front of you.
All of the arrows shown on this plan, the water's flowing against
it, against it. It's stopping the natural flow southwest at Crews Road,
and it's backing up into this big square lake right here. Pushed in
here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Wingate, point on the viewer
so that everybody can see, please.
MR. WINGATE: This water here is not going this way. It's
going this way and being pushed up in there and behind all of our
back properties.
This is Fleet Management right here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And you have to stay on the
microphone.
MR. WINGATE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We got pretty much everything
that you were saying. You just -- you moved away from the
microphone.
MR. WINGATE: I need a headset.
Okay. So this water is not flowing this way. This water flows
this way. There's a weir right here at 9.3 feet. It stops the water
from going this way as it's planned. It punches all that water in
behind us. These are all TDRs that Falling Waters had to buy, so,
October 22, 2019
Page 60
you know, the county wants to swamp all this property, but you can't
swamp all of that and ours. We were permitted long before that.
So what's going on here is all this water's coming in, swamping
this property. There's a 10-foot wall right here where Fleet
Management is, and you guys own 10 acres right here that you just
bought in 2006 which has permits for a big retention pond here which
you've called a jurisdictional wetland, which should receive all of this
water. This is how it's supposed to flow. It's not flowing that way.
It's stopping.
So, basically, what we're doing, we're taking the brunt of all of
this. This plan would work great if none of our properties were here.
Yeah, it would swamp the whole area, and everybody in Lely would
be happy. But, you know, that's unfortunate. There's an easy fix for
it. You could just cut right across Crews Road; let it go into the
woods, but then you'd have a bunch of water where -- Whitaker
where Habitat for Humanity looks like it's going to build about a
15-acre housing complex there.
So it appears that we're retaining all of this water to keep
everything south of Crews Road dry. And Crews Road is just a rock
road with just one residence on it, which they just recently put a
driveway on because he didn't want to go through Habitat for
Humanity's property.
So, anyway, I met with the president of ABB with one of my
neighbors, why he was hired. And instructions for his job to review
this as a third-party engineer to -- which was a very informative
meeting because he informed us that, you know, the water was
designed to go southwest. It wasn't designed to -- stopped up.
All of the arrows on the plans, with the LASIP plan -- it's a
183-page plan -- shows where the water's supposed to flow. And in
a perfect world, with their plan, if all of the 9-foot-3 elevation on one
side, 8-foot-7 elevation on the other side was one big, solid lake of
October 22, 2019
Page 61
water, the only thing sticking out of that lake would be our houses.
Our properties would be under water.
So the pictures they show you, they're not accurate.
The most important part of the data that they presented to you
was the elevations of the weirs. They're a foot higher than our
private properties. If you guys look at them reports and look at the
data and look at what they showed you here, that County Barn weir is
not 6.7 foot because when that weir --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Wingate?
MR. WINGATE: -- gets this much lower --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Your time is up.
MR. WINGATE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wrap it up. I mean, you can
finish your point, sir. I mean --
MR. WINGATE: All right. So by not adjusting these weirs,
our properties -- to allow our properties to flow in perpetuity, you're
violating our private property rights. It's not like we're in a court of
law. It's just common sense. We live there. That's our private
properties. We all have five acres, a couple less than that, but we
have beautiful homes. We should not be flooded out because you
guys, you know, created some design, you know, that works
perfectly.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. WINGATE: It's not us, you know. You guys need to do
what's right for the community, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Mr. Wingate.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item
is Brad Cornell.
MR. WINGATE: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm
October 22, 2019
Page 62
here on behalf of the Audubon Western Everglades.
And I wanted to address this issue more generally as a wetland
issue. I am sympathetic to the neighbors who are dealing with
water, and I will note that our former office in the City of Naples
regularly got water in our parking lot, on the street in front of us.
We couldn't even drive in the street on sunny days when it was a
seasonal high tide. You know, it was just coming up right out of the
storm sewers.
So this is not an isolated problem. This is something that's
going to be increasingly an issue we're going to have to deal with as a
community. As sea level rise advances, as we have storms, just the
summer rainy seasons themselves.
Lely, that whole area, is a low area, as the neighbors are telling
you, so we need to figure out a way to accommodate that. It may be
something where we need to buy some properties out. But East
Bonita Springs is another place that this same sort of thing happens.
People built their houses in the floodplain of the Imperial River.
Well, now, FEMA's recognizing, after several claims of flood
damage, all right, well, we're not going to pay anymore. We're
going to buy these houses out.
Setting that aside, whether that's the appropriate solution or not,
I don't know. But I would love to hear the Big Cypress Basin. I see
their engineer, hydrologic engineer here. It would be interesting to
hear what their take is on this.
We need to see these wetlands protected. They're important for
the whole community in terms of if you're concerned about harmful
algal blooms, red tide or blue-green algae, wetlands are a very
important part of that solution. They're nature's kidneys. That's
how we clean nutrients out of water.
And it's one thing to have water in the streets. It's another thing
to have it on your first floor. So there's some different ways we
October 22, 2019
Page 63
account for what is flood damage and what is flood protection.
Again, I'd like to hear the Big Cypress Basin address that, but I
do want to say we've got to do everything we can to keep the
wetlands that we've got. They're important in that Lely stormwater
system. The system was designed to have not only a big, giant
canal, but also to have wetlands that attenuate the flood waters.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just would like to hear from
staff. There were certain allegations made that the weirs -- you're
misrepresenting the height of the weirs. I think it's extremely
important to put on the record. Thank you.
MR. KURTZ: Hello, Jerry Kurtz, the record.
Yeah, I wrote down a couple of notes here. One -- the thing
about the weirs is the numbers that we've shown in our presentation
are correct. They're checked, double-checked, triple-checked. Our
weir numbers are correct.
The weirs are set up to let the wetlands fill up when it's raining
in the beginning of the summer, and then when they reach their peak
stages, which are based on biological indicators, stain marks on trees
and various historic high-water marks, then the weirs are allowed to
flow.
All the weirs work that way. So as it rains, the whole area, the
whole neighborhood fills up. When it gets to the control elevation,
which are not as high as Mr. Wingate suggests, they're at the proper
elevation, then all the weirs will flow downstream to the next set of
weirs, to the next set of weirs. It's a cascading gravity system.
So all those weirs were set in full awareness of the wetlands and
the house elevations. So all those weirs are below any house slab
elevation, any roadway elevation. The roads will not flood under
October 22, 2019
Page 64
normal conditions as the weirs discharge. I promise you that all the
weirs are set properly and constructed properly.
And one other point about the flow direction in the
neighborhood, I've been walking, riding, inspecting that
neighborhood for many years. In this business, there's a thing we
call stage-dependent flows. What this means is as the water builds
up during the rainy season and reaches various levels, it can flow in
different directions because the water is -- the area is filling. It's
finding the low points and the high points as it builds higher and
higher and higher.
So one day when the levels are filling and building, you can see
flow in one direction. As it fills up to the top, then it would flow in
the designed permitted direction.
So Skip and Bill's observations are correct; you can see water
flowing in opposite directions during specific times, but at the peak,
when the system is full, the water does flow in the directions it's
designed and permitted to do. And that's just -- you're just merely
witnessing the whole neighborhood filling. And the water will find
the low spots. It's just finding the low spots, and that's what the
system's designed to do, and that's what the system's doing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How much of a factor is sea
level rise?
MR. KURTZ: This far away from any tidal waters, I don't
think sea level rise is coming into play out there yet. I really don't
think so. It's more of where the rainfall comes. You know, the
rainfall still is spotty and can be local and here and there. So I don't
think sea level rise is playing a part today in this area.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Jerry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you okay?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
October 22, 2019
Page 65
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a couple things.
I was riding around with one of the residents in her golf cart.
And we went to the different -- where the grates -- the storm drains.
That would be called storm drains with the grates there. And, of
course, they were buried under a lot of water. So they couldn't drain
anything because they were flooded. And I was wondering, is that
normal?
MR. KURTZ: Yeah. So, great question, Commissioner. We
see this a lot around town.
Just because a catch basin during the middle of the rainy season
is inundated, covered with water, is not an indication that there's a
problem. It could be, but in most cases it's not. Those structures
are set at the elevations they're set for multiple different reasons, and
I see this around town. When people observe a catch basin
inundated, full of water and no movement of water over the catch
basin, it's not an indication of a problem usually. It's just merely
reflecting that the area is full of water, and it will begin to bleed
down naturally. And that's what the LASIP system is designed to
do.
When we come into an area and master plan an area with a
retrofitted stormwater management system, it's designed to restore
the natural and mimic the natural cycles as if nothing was built there.
So when you see pockets of water here and there over catch
basins, not necessarily an indication of a problem, and in this case
absolutely not an indication of a problem.
I look at those elevations as I look at the weirs, and you can
measure the depth of water at those points and tell that the system's
working as designed and permitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I saw a map that
showed --
October 22, 2019
Page 66
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Stay on your mic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am. I can't eat it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You don't need to eat it. Just
move it up here. Because you know my mother will be getting at me
because she can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot that I was going to say
now. Hold on just a minute. Well, I have another thing to say until
I get back to that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I lost my train of
thought. I was talking about the storm drains and
sometimes -- sometimes the drawings and the engineers could be a
little off and sometimes, you know, it isn't always a matter of being
correct.
Anyway, there's -- now we -- I've seen it on a map. Here's what
I was going to say. When I see it on a map, that center part of that
map, it's dark green. You know that it's water, and it's all wetlands.
And then around there then, you know, it comes up and down.
Now, we're just allowed -- we -- the commissioners had seen
something on our agenda, oh, a couple months back about building a
senior housing thing right there. And I'm thinking, if these people
are having so many problems -- oh, and then there's another
community, 154 units, and they're going to be building right there,
and if these people -- they're not in the dark green. They're on the
outside -- are going to be there, and now there are others. What is
going to happen? Why do we allow that to happen? Because we
see right here that there's problems with people that have been there
forever.
I wonder -- you know, I hope that we're thinking that through,
because -- you know, we don't need to cause more problems with
that, and I'm concerned with that.
October 22, 2019
Page 67
MR. KURTZ: Yes. And I liked your comment about
sometimes there can be an error or something is missed with
engineers, planners, and that is why, Commissioner, we have studied
and studied.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know you have, Jerry.
MR. KURTZ: We have checked everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like you said, sometimes it flows
one way, sometimes the water flows another way. You can't say that
they're imagining this, because you can see it.
Like somebody else said, well, they're located in a jurisdictional
wetland, but I don't know that they knew that when they bought 25
years ago either.
MR. KURTZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know that anybody would
know that. I'm just trying to find out, is there a way we can help
them? I don't know what it can be because I -- you know, I don't
know anything about that, but --
MR. KURTZ: To speak to your comment about the future
remaining parcels being developed upon, the beauty of this LASIP
system is it's taken all that into account. The elevations are set
correctly. So when these new last few developments come in -- and,
as you know, we just had a new -- one or two developments being
built along County Barn Road north of Cope Lane. They fit in with
the plan itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's way on the outskirts,
though, right?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not right on the base of it.
MR. KURTZ: So the wetland kind of is at the center. In this
particular neighborhood, the wetland is in the center. And what the
wetland does and what the system allows the wetland to do is to fill
October 22, 2019
Page 68
up, and that does what we call attenuates the flows and all the rainfall
we get. That's a storage. It's like a surge tank or area, only it's in
the natural lands.
So when that fills up to where it needs to be, the system flows,
and it flows out all sides, all ends. So it's -- the comments that we've
had and the studying that we've done all last summer is watching this
system fill up and react and draw down and fill up and react.
In fact, we had two named storm events threaten the community
this summer. That's the conditions when we do lower the weirs.
We lower the weirs to make space in the storage area in case we're
going to get --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Only when South Florida Water
Management District allows you to do that, right?
MR. KURTZ: Well, it's not that they allow us to do. It's we're
all sitting around the same table. We're all watching the weather
reports. We make the decisions together. It's not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. KURTZ: It's not, like, a mandate. We're all at the same
table at the same room. We've got the big screen up there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I got the word that -- from one of
our staff members that said we can't do anything until South Florida
Water Management District gives us the signal to do it.
MR. KURTZ: I wouldn't say that's actually characterized
accurately. It's an extreme partnership. We are literally -- at those
points in the summer, we are talking hourly back and forth to each
other as the updates come in. It's like, what are you doing with this
weir over here? What are you doing with this one over here?
We're so tightly coordinated for the community so that we
provide the best flood protection we can in anticipation of the storm.
So this year was wonderful for us, this past summer, to lower
those weirs and watch it drain out so that we know we can drain
October 22, 2019
Page 69
during an extreme event and we can hold it where it needs to be
during normal conditions not affecting any roadways, not affecting
anybody's drainfields or septic systems.
The woods are wet. All the low-lying areas -- oh, and all the
ditches are full. They're 2-foot-deep ditches. They're full to the top
with water, but that's where it should be. That's where it's designed
to be. But the homes and the roads and the driveway are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just ask two more
questions.
MR. KURTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The first one is, before we put the
LASIP project in, did we have this problem?
MR. KURTZ: Yes. In fact, the LASIP project improved the
drainage out but in controlled circumstances. But prior to LASIP,
there was horrible flooding in that area. In fact, in a much bigger
area. It even carried over east --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew it was bigger.
MR. KURTZ: -- of Santa Barbara.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It got all the way over to
Rattlesnake Hammock Road and stuff. I do know that. I just
wondered if that particular area, you know, it has helped it. They
keep saying -- and, you know, I wasn't there. I mean, I've been here
forever, but I wasn't in there to see what it was like when it did rain
or when it didn't rain before LASIP or anything. I was asking that.
MR. KURTZ: The best information is we built massive
channels to channel the excess water away quickly when the big
storm's coming.
So the good news is, it's providing the flood protection system
that the area needs, and it will function when it needs to to keep water
out of the people's homes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two more questions, and then I'm
October 22, 2019
Page 70
done. The two projects that are going to be built that you guys have
approved already and -- in --
MR. KURTZ: In the process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- approval process, right?
Okay. How do we know that -- I'm sure they're going to have
to build up higher, and water flows down. And what happens when
that water flows down into their area and they aren't higher? How
are we going to manage that?
MR. KURTZ: They will both come in higher, but both of the
projects have reserved large sections of land that will not be touched,
cleared, or manipulated any way to continue to allow the water to go
around those projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, those large sections
aren't in the middle of the water -- the concentration of water, right?
It's going to be on the outside because the concentration of the water
isn't going to help these people.
MR. KURTZ: The preserve areas are set where the natural
flow pattern already exists, not to disrupt it. So in other words, large
segments of both properties will remain as is, and the water will pass
through there around the development and the low area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand our staff really wants
to help them. I do that -- I do understand. I understand that they
don't feel that way, and I understand that the situations are different
than they were a few years ago. What I'm trying to do is find a way
that everybody can win on this thing and not just a loser and a
winner.
MR. KURTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so is there a way that you can
help these people?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, yes. As we did all summer long -- and we
do this all around the county, not just in Cope Lane. When the rains
October 22, 2019
Page 71
are coming and the system's building up -- the water's building up
everywhere, we're watching, we're checking the weirs. We have a
lot of staff people involved checking the wetlands, checking the
roadways, checking the weirs. We are helping, and we will help,
and we will continue to help not only in the Cope Lane area but all
the low-lying areas around.
This is a classic example of having older low-lying houses near
natural lands. These are our very specific areas in the system, and
we watch them very closely all summer long, all year long. So we
are helping. We will help. We continue to help. We're not asleep
at the switches on this one by any means. We will be there, and we
will make sure the system operates as permitted and designed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you have people back here
that were supposed to speak? It looks like somebody -- they're kind
of lining up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. They're here to answer our
questions if we have them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. I don't know --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have any more?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those are my questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have a statement that I'd like to
make, and it's -- because I concur with -- don't go away, Jerry or
Amy. Somebody come up there. I want to talk to somebody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I concur with Commissioner
Fiala with regard to the concerns and the manipulation of these weirs,
ditches, so ons and so forth. And it's important that my friends,
friend, and maybe friend someday, hear this, because where I come
from a ditch is made to move water away. It's not here in South
Florida. There is -- there are levels in the ditches that are maintained
to be attenuation efforts to rehydrate subsurface aquifers. And so
October 22, 2019
Page 72
where I look at a ditch and I assume that it's going to move the water
away on an immediate basis, it's not.
I deal with this in Golden Gate Estates on a regular -- all of the
time. We have those mile-long roads that cul-de-sac into the canal
systems. Back in the day the canals were made to dehydrate the land
to make it habitable for the human race.
We've subsequently learned that that dehydration is having
negative impacts on our ecosystem for all of us from a water
quantity, water quality, all the way across the board.
So it's the balance -- and it's a scary process, because the balance
is being manipulated by a man, by South Florida Water Management
District, by county staff.
And what's good and what's bad with this rehydration is
necessarily yet to be determined. We've learned about it in
Corkscrew Sanctuary Swamp and the enormous hydric maneuvers
that come with the annual rainfall. The sporadicism with the water
and the rains that, in fact, come -- it's not like the old days, Skip, back
in the '80s when you could set your watch every day. It would rain
at 2:00, quit at 7:00, and we have a beautiful sunset. It's not that way
anymore. So there's a balance.
I would like to ask -- because I'm hesitant to come off of all of
the science over here at this stage, but I would like to ask that we pay
as close attention as we possibly can to protect the residents that are
already, in fact, here.
Now, on the statement that Mr. Kurtz made, we, on the advance
of a rain event, lower the canals. Well, there are a lot of companies
and businesses that utilize our canal system for irrigation. I actually
had one golf course community that draws water out of the canal
system for irrigation; couldn't do it anymore. Had to flick on the
switch in order to irrigate the golf course because we had dropped the
canal. The rain event didn't come, and so there was negative impacts
October 22, 2019
Page 73
on a commercial business.
So this is not necessarily what you're going to want to hear, but
this is -- it's going to be a balance for a while until we figure out the
happy spot for the rehydration, for the ecosystem, and the human race
at the same time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just feel protective over
the people. I understand what you're saying, and I see that you're
trying to work with them. I think we just need to work closely with
them. I understand all of the facts and figures. I also understand
that human error gets involved in there as well.
So I don't say that this is resolved. I just think that we need to
keep working as closely as we can to help them get through, and
maybe we're going to find a solution for all of this. I don't think that
they bought inside of the wetlands. I think they -- you know, we
helped the wetlands to stay wetter, and I think that that was the point
of the whole LASIP thing. So now we have to figure out how to
help them.
MS. PATTERSON: We're committed to helping them. We've
had eyes on the system, as Jerry said, all summer long every single
day either between my staff or the road maintenance staff. We've
had three engineers independently review the documents for this, and
we'll continue to keep our eyes on it. So the LASIP program was a
balance between flood protection and protection of natural resources.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, I'm going to be
here one more year, and so I'm going to be paying very close
attention. Before I leave this office I want to make sure that they're
taken care of.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we'll work real closely, okay?
So I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Motion -- we're done, Skip. No
October 22, 2019
Page 74
more public input, please. It's been moved that we approve -- there
are two other commissioners that wish to speak. Somebody want to
second the motion to dismiss, and then we'll go?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we approve the staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just have a question. And I don't
want to necessarily get into a big conversation. Is Crews Road a
county road, or is it a private road? Does anybody know?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's private.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And you can just -- you can let me
know later if you want.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Let us get back to you so we don't
give you the wrong information.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And just a quick comment.
I support the motion, but I also support the comments from
Commissioner Fiala in terms of continuing to see what can be done in
that neighborhood, so...
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept staff's recommendations. 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.)
October 22, 2019
Page 75
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to be your best friend for
a while, okay?
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Thank you.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2019-205: TO AFFIRM STAFF'S
OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE APPEAL
THEREFROM CONCERNING OLD GROVES ROAD IN THE
VINEYARDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL
ALLOW THE ENTITIES TO GO DIRECTLY TO COURT TO
ADDRESS THEIR DISPUTE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
THAT PART OF THE VINEYARDS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD, EAST OF AIRPORT ROAD AND WEST OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH
AND RANGE 25 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
MOTION TO ACCEPT RAY BELLOWS AS AN EXPERT
WITNESS – APPROVED; MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD THE INTERPRETATION
AND DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK INTO THE OPTION OF RIGHT-
IN RIGHT-OUT TURN LANES ONTO LIVINGSTON ROAD FOR
THE ORCHARDS – APPROVED; RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
2019-205 ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we move to Item 8A under Board
of Zoning Appeals. This item is a quasi-judicial item, and it will
require both ex parte disclosure and swearing in of all the
participants.
October 22, 2019
Page 76
This is a recommendation to affirm the staff's official
interpretation and reject the appeal therefrom concerning Old Groves
Road in the Vineyards Planned Unit Development which will allow
the entities to go directly to court to address their dispute.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have 13 registered speakers
for this item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: County -- and I believe our County
Attorney has a statement that he'd like to make.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, just real briefly. I would like to
add a couple documents into the record saying that I believe --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second. There's a -- yes, if
that information can be delivered to the court reporter, all of it. I
don't need that right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: Who's delivering that information?
MR. ADAMCZYK: It's copies of the appeal, the exact same --
MR. KLATZKOW: Are they already on the record?
MR. ADAMCZYK: If -- yeah, we filed. We just didn't know
if the commissioners wanted to look at them.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. That's fine. I just wanted to
know what you're handing them, that's all.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Yeah, same thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, because I think there's
a possibility that this may go to the courts, I'd like to add a couple
things to the record, including the procedures that I sent to you
yesterday.
I'd like to add documents I received from Chris Thornton, and
I'd like to put one thing on the overhead as well.
This is not a legislative matter. This is a quasi-judicial matter.
This is the standard of review that's up on the monitor for the Board.
And that's it.
MR. OCHS: Ex parte, sir.
October 22, 2019
Page 77
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I'll go with Commissioner
Solis first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I've had meetings and I
received numerous emails. I've met with Attorney Thornton,
Orchards residents, Mr. Bittner, and Mr. Mansika, and I've received
emails from both communities, the Groves and the Orchards, and the
attorneys representing both of those parties.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. I
had meetings with the County Attorney and with staff and
assistants -- and my assistant met with the Orchids Association while
I was out of town, and he briefed me on that meeting. I've received
multiple emails from the Piper's Grove community.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've had meetings and correspondence, emails as well with
representatives of both communities that are involved in this, and I
would suggest, if the County Attorney could, give us a quick
definition of substantial competent evidence. I know what that
means, but just for the Board in general and the public, because that's
the standard that we have to utilize in going either way on this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It's not -- it's not evidence that is
iffy. It's evidence that's solid, we'll just say. It's --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My understanding is that it
does not include public comment.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it's comment that's relevant to the
hearing, it does, but if it's not relevant to the hearing, it is not
substantial competent evidence. It's just facts that are essential to the
underlying decision.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did that answer your question,
October 22, 2019
Page 78
Commissioner Saunders? Because, I mean, it almost -- it almost
seems counterintuitive to me. I mean, public comments, folks are
allowed to say whatever they wish.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's on legislative. This is
quasi-judicial.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand, but in the sworn-in
expert-witness process it would be different than a public comment.
MR. KLATZKOW: Except that if a person stands up and says
I don't like it because I don't like it, that's not evidence of anything,
all right. I don't like it because it would cause me additional traffic
on my road, that would be substantial competent, evidence. It has to
be testimony that is relevant to the actual issue.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Thank you for that
clarification.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Meetings, correspondence,
emails, calls, personal meeting with Dr. John Mansika -- doctor?
Mr. John Mansika and Mr. Kevin Bittner. No meetings with the
Piper group. That's it; lots of emails.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. And I, as well, have had
meetings, correspondence, and emails. And then I see
Commissioner Solis is lit up, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. And following along in
what Commissioner Saunders was saying, I just want to make sure
that everybody, especially everyone here, understands what the
standard of review is. It says, the Board of Zoning Appeals or the
Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals, whichever is applicable,
shall not be authorized to modify or reject the County Manager or
designee's or building official's interpretation unless the Board finds
that the determination is not supported by substantial competent
evidence or that the official interpretation is contrary to Growth
October 22, 2019
Page 79
Management Plans, Future Land Use Map, the LDC or other zoning
atlas and building codes, whichever is applicable. So, I mean, we
have to -- we're limited to determining whether or not the staff's
interpretation is not supported.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're essentially giving deference to
staff.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Okay. I just want to make
sure that we understand that that's -- we have a standard of review
that's limited, and we're not necessarily entitled to -- you know, this is
not a legislative process, right. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely, sir.
And with that.
MR. OCHS: Sir, excuse me. You have to swear the witnesses.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, yeah. Sorry about that.
MR. OCHS: Stand if you're going to give testimony.
MR. MILLER: If you've registered to speak, you want to stand
here.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Commissioners, Mark
Adamczyk. I represent The Orchards Community Association as
their general legal counsel and a registered lobbyist.
We are here today -- you may notice a lot of folks in the room
today. I've noticed that there was a lot of residents from the
Orchards and also a lot of residents from Piper's Grove. They are
represented by the Groves Residence Association, which is an entity
that operates their community -- the common areas in their
community and the roads that we're going to be discussing today are
at issue.
So what I'd like to say at the start, you know, the theme of this is
I'd like to stay focused on the documents, though. There's a lot of
documents we're going to be showing you today. There's a lot of
October 22, 2019
Page 80
documents we've submitted in the appeal of the official
interpretation. And we believe, without question, that the PUD
language, the PUD master plans, the subdivision plats for the
communities, the site development approvals, and all the records that
are accumulated by staff in giving those approvals, without question,
provide that all property within the Vineyards PUD west of
Livingston Road going towards Airport Road are required to have
two access points, Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road.
We believe it says without question. We don't believe the
official interpretation adequately addressed it. And what I'd like for
today, if we can, is to have a new review of the documents, and what
we would like is direction from the Board that the official
interpretation be reversed and that the language, the required access
points, be enforced.
We know the executive summary that says that this is a private
matter and should be resolved in the courts. Well, one, do we want
to provoke two communities into litigation? That's a concern I have.
And, two, I think this is very much a public matter, and we're going
to see why as we go through the documents that govern the access
that required interconnection, which is an important policy for this
county. And it's especially important in this area. And I have
a -- let me get to the map of it just because I intended to kind of go
through that. But I wanted to point out -- I'm told I can -- oh, all
right.
It's particularly important for this portion of this PUD because,
as you can see over here, that's Airport Road, the Old Groves Road
entrance is the Airport connection.
The Vanderbilt Beach section is here. That's the entrance, the
main -- the one and only entrance into the Orchards community.
The entrance I pointed to at Airport Road serves as the one entrance
for Piper's Grove on the west there. They also have access out onto
October 22, 2019
Page 81
Vanderbilt Beach Road through Old Groves Road. They don't have
two points of access.
And the reason why, going back to the early '90s, that when
these communities were approved, that the interconnection was
required, is because of the possibility of the future commercial tract.
It first started off as a smaller commercial tract and then was
amended down the road, I think in 1995, to add more commercial
acreage, which is what we have now.
And the internal traffic from the Groves, Piper's Grove, North
Groves, and the Orchards in accessing that commercial property and
accessing Vanderbilt and Airport removes the overflow of traffic
onto the larger collector roads. Very important policy. And I think
the documents show, without question, that when the developers
received approval to plat and develop the Orchards plat and develop
Piper's Grove it -- Piper's Grove, it was, without question, a
requirement.
There's a reference in the declaration of easements, which I'll get
to later referenced in the executive summary, that, oh, it's an
easement between two private parties. That only tells a small
portion of the story. That easement was required before these
developers were given approvals to develop these properties as they
are now. They were built properly with the required
interconnection, but it's the installation of a gate by the property
owners on the west side of this portion of the PUD that refuses
access, denies access to the property owners on the east, which is the
Orchards and the petitioner here today.
So I've mentioned the official interpretation. That's why we're
here, to appeal the interpretation of staff when we asked for
assistance on this. We first asked that a code action be filed because
of what we believe is a clear code violation. We were told by Code
Enforcement and the County Attorney's Office that they would not
October 22, 2019
Page 82
pursue it, and they deemed it a private matter.
Our next step was to consider an official interpretation, which
we pursued. That official interpretation, which is Tab B in our
appeal materials and, of course, it's in the record, states, essentially,
that they don't find that -- Zoning did not find any violation of code
and that because the PUD is silent on the placement of gates, there
could not be a violation here. That's all the conclusion we got. We
did not get, I don't believe, a substantive response to the documents
that I'm going to show you that show the developer commitments and
the approvals that were a requirement -- the required interconnection,
we don't believe, was adequately addressed in the official
interpretation, and we're asking for a different result today.
But I think the official interpretation misses the mark on the
gates. Orchards is not seeking that the gates -- that code required
them to remove their gates. We're not seeking this to be a public
interconnection point. All we're seeking is the right to have the
access that we believe was guaranteed and required when all of this
part of the PUD was developed.
All that is required to resolve this issue is that Groves provide
access only to Orchards residents for vehicular/pedestrian ingress and
egress as required by the declaration of easements, which I'll get to.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
going to ask that -- again, that we all silence our cell phones, and we
hold our personal thoughts and comments to ourselves while these
folks are speaking, and I'll ensure that the same respect is given to
you.
And what is your name, again, sir.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Mark Adamczyk.
Okay. I mentioned the gates. And the official interpretation
says, well, there's no restriction in the PUD or most PUDs on the
placement of gates. I agree. I've looked a lot of PUDs. It usually
October 22, 2019
Page 83
is not addressed. But this particular gate serves a very important
function and is very different than any old gates. It eliminates the
required interconnection that was clearly laid out in the development
approvals. Only one community that's in the room today that's part
of this portion of the PUD has the two required access points.
Orchards, almost 350 homes, only has the one at a very dangerous
left-hand turn coming out onto Vanderbilt, and I think we'll probably
hear some public comment on that today.
But I want to get back to the PUD. 85-15 -- Ordinance 85-15,
the Vineyards PUD, the original version, multiple access points to the
residents within Piper's Grove, North Groves, the Orchards. It
doesn't reference those communities by name because they weren't
named yet. This is 1985. But the property governed by this PUD,
we clearly believe, states that all properties west of Livingston Road
are required to have the two access points, which incorporates the
commercial, which is very important.
So we disagree with the portion of the official interpretation that
says the Vineyards PUD is not that -- that is devoid of access-point
commitments. We believe it's visually in the PUD master plan all
along the way. The original version was in '85. It was amended in
1991. Again in 1995. No removal that we can see of the required
interconnection.
The only -- you're probably going to hear some comments from
Groves today about how the 1995 amendment to this PUD changed
the game or changed the rules on this interconnection. It did not.
I've looked at the BOCC minutes from the meeting where that
amendment was approved. No discussion of removal of the access
point. The only issue in the substance of that meeting was to
increase the size of the commercial parcel where the Publix now is at
Airport and Vanderbilt from six acres to 30 acres and remove it
further to the west, all that more important that the interconnection be
October 22, 2019
Page 84
retained.
I'm going to turn now to some of those important documents,
Commissioners, that I referenced earlier in the presentation. The
first is found in Exhibit G of the binders that we delivered today in
case you want to actually see the document, but it's also on the
screen. And I'm going to read the pertinent point.
This is from the Vineyards PUD as amended in Ordinance
91-75. Access to the project shall be restricted to those access
points --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Several of my colleagues would
like to see your binder.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Binders.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I assume that's what you wanted as
well?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Adamczyk, G tab?
MR. ADAMCZYK: Yes, Commissioner, absolutely. G.
That's from the Vineyards PUD, the portion that addresses access.
So I think it's very important. Language in these PUDs are
clear and dictate what the land-use rights are. The word "access
points" is used, which is plural. And they show in Exhibit A1 and
A2, which I've just flipped to on the next slide point -- here's -- that's
aforementioned Old Groves entrance off Airport. Up slightly to
the -- I guess that would be north and east is the other access point off
Vanderbilt.
As you can see, the master plan treats this as all of an
interconnected system. I know it's not very legible. That's the best
we can do, but it shows the multiple access points.
October 22, 2019
Page 85
This is Exhibit A2. Exhibits A1 and A2 are in Tab F of your
binder, if you'd like to see it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just as a point of clarification,
Mark, point at the 2 -- at the Orchards and Piper's Grove, if you
would, with the cursor, please.
MR. ADAMCZYK: The entrance to where, sir?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The two subdivisions. The
dividing between the two subdivisions on this map.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I believe it's approximately there.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I've marked approximately where the gate
is.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And this was developed well in
advance of Livingston Road? Livingston Road was not in in '91.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Correct. I believe it was planned. It's
referenced in the planning notes and comments and commitments
we've seen in the history of this but -- and, of course, Vanderbilt and
access were -- Vanderbilt and Airport were the only two existing
access points, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And in the original slide or photo
that you had up of the subdivisions, Livingston was cut off on the
east side. Does the Orchards have access out onto Livingston?
MR. ADAMCZYK: It does not.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It shows it here.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I believe it would be permissible under the
PUD. I'm just saying the access does not currently exist.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On the map -- or the picture that
you showed earlier, that portion was cut off of the picture. So I was
just trying to clarify it.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Okay. No. I apologize for that. I think
you're going to hear likely some comments from Groves about, well,
October 22, 2019
Page 86
Orchards has the ability to get out to Livingston, and that might be
true at some point, but the point is we're looking at the documents
that say Vanderbilt and Airport, and we believe it was a code
requirement, and it was incorporated directly into the subdivision
plats that were approved before development in the early '90s.
I mentioned before Ordinance 95-62. I want to just end any and
all doubt on this. We don't believe that when the ordinance was
amended in '95 after the approvals were given for the development of
the Orchards and Piper's that the interconnection requirement was
removed. Again, I looked at the minutes. They're public records.
It was a discussion about the relocation of commercial from the east
out by -- I think it's Village Walk at Livingston, shifting it to the
west, which is now -- I forget the name of the -- Naples Walk, where
the Publix is at Airport and Vanderbilt Road, that commercial site,
which is part of this PUD.
Again, interconnection, if it was enforced, would eliminate a
critical issue with traffic going -- forced out onto Vanderbilt from one
point at the Orchards. We believe the intent was to keep that
internal traffic within the PUD. Not public interconnections. Just
the residents.
I want to show the master plans, which was -- the 1995 PUD
master plan, which was provided by Groves before today and filed as
a response. This would be it right here. It says, New Vineyards
PUD master plan. Down there where the arrow is, it's not hard to
read, but I got in on the physical document itself. It says "access."
There's access off Airport.
I just don't see anything in the master plan where the concept of
the required interconnection was removed. There's no discussion, I
assure you, in the approvals and meetings and minutes leading up to
the approval of those ordinances and amendments. Again, this was
done just to permit the relocation of the commercial acreage.
October 22, 2019
Page 87
So one question you may be having is, how did Collier County
ensure that the interconnection requirement was met? We know that
the original PUD was adopted in 1985. We know that 1991, 1992
the Orchards and Piper's Grove's developers were going through their
zoning and approvals process.
So what happened to make sure that the connection would be
lasting and perpetual? Piper's Grove developer -- I'm going to get
into some of the developer commitments that were made here which
are critical to PUDs. The whole purpose of a PUD is to ensure that
these commitments are met.
We'll show that the Site Development Plans for both Piper's and
Orchards are consistent with the requirement for the multiple access
points and that stipulations were made in planning meetings that the
entrance points would provide the Orchards residents with through
access to the commercial site and Airport Road.
Site Development Plan pre-application meeting notes from May
of 1992, project name location, Piper's Grove direct from the very
first meeting notes of meeting: Access gates at entrance points
proposed will stipulate. This is the developer of Piper's Grove
stipulating that the residents east of the project, which is now where
the Orchards is, in the Vineyards PUD will require through access to
the commercial site. Right now that's not the case.
The Orchards residents have to go out onto Vanderbilt, currently
make a left-hand turn just to go back into the Publix shopping center.
If that left-hand turn is closed, as we've been hearing it may be the
case, then Orchards residents to go west or south would have to go
right onto Vanderbilt Beach, make a U-turn on -- U-turn on
Vanderbilt just to get -- I mean, it really is a problem. And we
believe it could have been addressed years ago, and we'd like to see it
addressed today.
Piper's Grove project, Planning Services Division Transportation
October 22, 2019
Page 88
memorandum -- we've highlighted the language on the slides -- and
I've kind of bolded over to the right, states that the Site Development
Plan for Piper's Grove provides interconnection to Orchards parcel.
Here is probably one of the most important pieces of information and
language of the day: Which is consistent with the approved PUD
master plan. A condition of planning to get approvals for this
subdivision was the interconnection to the Orchards. The gate itself
is not the issue. Keep the gate. That's fine with the Orchards. It's
the access through for the interconnection. Consistent with the
approved PUD master plan.
In 1990 when the Orchards parcel to the east was in its planning
and approval stages, the Planning Commission approved a process
that the project is to have access from Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Airport Road. Access to the Orchards is from Vanderbilt Beach
Road, an existing two-lane collector facility, and Airport Road, an
existing four-lane facility.
In this next slide I've included the actual documents that I cited
on the previous slide.
Traffic impact analysis for the Orchards in 1990. We all know
that the traffic -- in most cases the traffic impact analysis is required
for approval of these subdivisions to analyze the impact on the
collector roads and any internal roads, but mainly the roads that
surround the division. The traffic analysis assumed 10 percent of
residential trips from the Orchards/Pipers would be kept internal to
access on site, shopping and commercial.
So when I mentioned the importance of interconnection in
particular with this PUD, here's -- it goes back to the shopping and
residential. And this is 1990 after the creation of the PUD. So we
see the development process, the county along the way, referring
back to the interconnection as of utmost importance. Why?
Because it's required by the PUD, the original PUD master plan, and
October 22, 2019
Page 89
all amendments.
Resolution 90-503 approving the Orchards Site Development
Plan. Manager Milk is quoted as indicating that the main access is
intended for Vanderbilt Beach Road with another point of access onto
Airport Road.
Now, this is -- I think other than the reference to the PUD, the
consistency before, I think this is one of the most important things
that I'd like, respectfully, for you to pay attention to today.
When the Piper's Grove subdivision plat was approved in the
early 1990s after the creation of the PUD, there is a clear reference on
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of those subdivision plats to a declaration of
easements between the developer of Orchards and the developer of
Piper's Grove that provides that all communities in this portion of the
PUD are to have the interconnection and the required two points of
access.
I have practiced law in Naples since 2005, particularly in real
estate, and I've never seen such a specific plat reference to a specific
easement agreement. There's general easements and dedications for
utilities and whatnot, but this is a specific reference in the recorded
plat.
In fact, the Phase 1 plat of Piper's, there was a reference to the
declaration of the easements that the developers agreed to and were
required to enter into to get approvals. The recording information
isn't there yet. It's blank. That tells me that it was in the process of
being created as a requirement of subdivision plat approval. This
wasn't a preexisting easement between two private parties because
they felt like it.
I wanted to show visuals of what I was mentioning. I was
trying to guide you to the appropriate tab, if you want to see the plat
reference. Yeah, M, as in Mark, is where you can see the Piper's
Grove subdivision plat in the reference to the declaration of
October 22, 2019
Page 90
easements.
So, yes, was that declaration of easements entered into by the
developers as a condition of getting approvals to divide these parcels
for development? Yes. But the easement was -- we believe it's
clear in the record was a required easement and we all know, when
we're subdividing these properties, the county in the planning stages
wants to assure that there's legal right of access.
Well, this provided it, but the reference to the plat and the
approved subdivision plat is enormous. It's just -- it can't be ignored.
And we don't believe that it was given proper weight in the official
interpretation.
I've also provided the second phase of Piper's Grove, the same
reference to the declaration of easements. Again, now
recorded -- this time recorded, I should say, with the information in
the public records.
So, in summary, what this issue means, when Phase 1 of Piper's
Grove which is closest to Airport Road, and then Phase 2, which is
closer to Vanderbilt, when those two subdivision were approved,
there was the maintenance of this easement requirement specifically
required on the first page of the plat.
For the public to be able to see, there's the actual notes from the
plats I've been discussing in larger print. It just -- it's very much
worth noting that the owner of the contiguous tract consisting of
approximately 84 acres to the east of Piper's Grove for vehicular and
pedestrian access and egress over Old Groves Road, the whole reason
we're here today, those 84 acres are the Orchards. That's it. It's not
any more or less than that. It's not public. It's not another portion
of the PUD. Just -- that limited it to the portion of the PUD just west
of Livingston Road.
Well, we talked about the standard of review at the beginning,
the standard that there be substantial and compelling evidence that
October 22, 2019
Page 91
the official interpretation is erroneous or not consistent with the PUD,
the LDC, and the other standards that our county must follow.
I think we've outlined why this is not merely a private matter.
The developers were required to provide this easement to ensure the
interconnection. There is notes in the approvals that it's consistent
with the approved PUD master plan. And, again, the issue is not the
installation of the gates themselves or whether the PUD says where
they can or can't be placed; the issue is the required access.
That's the violation that we see. That was what we saw in the
official interpretation that was the result, and we didn't get it, so that's
why we're here today on an appeal.
I want to also point the commissioners to what we believe is a
second violation in this whole scenario involving the Land
Development Code. I recently had a case where a homeowners
association client of mine shared a road next to another homeowners
association, and they were tired of the flow-through. They believed
that they owned their road and they had the right to gate it off.
We talked to county staff about that, to plan, and they said, well,
you're going to need a Site Development Plan amendment for that, a
substantial one. And, oh, by the way, it requires the consent of the
adjoining community that you wish to block off. And that's what we
were told would be the process for getting that amendment, through
the public hearing process, and so we see this kind of as analogous.
We have one community that put up gates some time ago. We
haven't seen the approvals, the Site Development Plan amendments,
the plat amendments, the plats that reference the declaration of
easements or a PUD amendment that requires the interconnection
requirements. So we kind of feel like we're here today asking for the
code to be enforced, the burden's on the Orchards when, really, we
think that the access should be required until those amendments are
put in place by the party that wants to block it off on.
October 22, 2019
Page 92
I mean, it kind of feels a little reversed, but we're here and we're
presenting the points, and that's just how we see that, you know, the
other violation would be not going through the process of amending
the approvals.
I wanted to cite a -- well, briefly, the executive summary states
the county had not previously taken action on this matter. There is a
code case from 2005. It's in the records. It started and stopped.
When we asked for an explanation, we were told that the code
supervisor at the time wasn't supposed to pursue it. Apparently, it
was an Orchards resident. And my response to that, does that
change the substance of the documents that -- what we've laid out as
to -- and, apparently, it's my understanding of Code Enforcement at
that time -- and I could be wrong -- that any officer or supervisor or
director could file a complaint. It may require a resident complaint
now, but back in -- so, anyways, that's the reason we were given.
We did not see a thorough -- a full response to the actual
documents that we've laid out. And we don't think that -- you know,
whichever supervisor was in charge of the case, we think they got it
right by opening the case and moving it forward. The substance
wasn't changed because of something internal.
You said I have up to 60 minutes, Mr. Klatzkow? I don't think
I need much more.
MR. KLATZKOW: About a half hour left.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Yeah, okay. I don't think I'm going to
need that. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: We would hope so.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And Terri is typing with her eyes
closed.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I'll try to slow down. Well, not slow
down, but...
I wanted to -- I wanted to bring out a case that I had extensive
October 22, 2019
Page 93
involvement in because I represented Delasol and Milano off
Livingston Road at the time, and still do. In 2008, Imperial Golf
Estates sued those two communities for the rights to have their
second access road onto Livingston. We all know that's now in
existence and has been so for about 10 years.
What I want to just kind of get on the record is that we're taking
the position the executive summary has said that that was a private
matter; we don't get involved in easement disputes. Well, that case
involved some very old easements, you know, that apparently
connected Imperial to where Livingston is now, and it involved the
PUDs. The PUDs for both Melano and Delasol had some references
to connection at some point.
There was a relentless code action brought against my client,
Milano, until they acquiesced in providing the access. And I'm
thinking to myself, wait, we're in a private lawsuit here, it's going to
get resolved, but the code action continued.
So if you're wondering about precedent for getting involved and
making sure that the required interconnection happens,
notwithstanding any private easements, there is precedent for that.
In closing, the presentation on the appeal, I've included a couple
slides, and we've put it in our appeal so it's in the record that we
believe that the official interpretation is also inconsistent with the
Growth Management Plan and the FLUE policies talking about
interconnection of local streets and points within neighborhoods.
We've included, you know, cites to that.
And I think what we're really asking for is an official
interpretation, if not overturned entirely in the Orchards favor, is
something -- something that gives -- that provides a thorough analysis
of all the documents we've just submitted, the Growth Management
Plan, the plats, and the approval.
So I've outlined what I believe are three options that the Board
October 22, 2019
Page 94
has today because I don't want there to be, you know, looking at this
in a bubble, if we can avoid it, that there's only affirm or deny. I
believe that the first option, which is Orchard's request, is that the
official interpretation be disaffirmed based on the compelling and
substantial evidence showing that the PUD and all subsequent
approvals require the two access points and that Code Enforcement
be directed to enforce that.
Option 2 would be to disaffirm the official interpretation based
on the evidence and require that Groves provide the required access
until they've obtained all the approvals and amendments required by
the LDC to amend their Site Development Plans and plats to maintain
the status quo. You know, I think there could be some relief here
where the Orchards have what they believe is their legal right of
access until the land-use approvals are given for the blocked access.
You know, and in the Option 3, which I hope would be
worst-case based on the relatively short official interpretation, is that
it be disaffirmed and sort of remanded back. You know, this is a
quasi-judicial process. I believe it's within the Board's authority to
send it back to zoning for a review of everything we've provided
today and provide substantive responses on why we're wrong.
The only response I saw in the official interpretation is that,
well, the PUD doesn't say where you can or can't put gates. We just
think it misses the mark.
So we've provided a couple options in addition to disaffirming
the interpretation.
And I really want to thank you for your time, and if you have
any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any questions? What is my
colleagues' pleasure here with lunch? Do you want to take lunch, or
do you want to work through?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd work through it.
October 22, 2019
Page 95
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What about the court reporter?
Where are we in terms of --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry? We've got to give Terri
a break, but I'm okay with working on to get through this hearing,
and then we'll take our lunch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's supposed to be here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. I was supposed to be
somewhere, but this is an important issue and I'm going to stay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten minutes. We'll be back at
12:17.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I do have a couple of
questions, so when we get back.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you want to do that first before
we go?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Real quickly, and -- so you
referenced a couple things: One was the 1990 SDP that was
approved for the entire piece, the whole PUD, right?
MR. ADAMCZYK: I believe, Commissioner Solis, that was
for the -- for the -- let me go back to it. For the Orchards -- I want to
make sure I get to the right one that you're questioning -- you have a
question on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was a 1990 SDP that was
approved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Was what your question? I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My question is, was that SDP ever
amended? Because, I mean, if it was amended, we have to look at
October 22, 2019
Page 96
what the current SDP is, because it could have changed. So my
question is, was that SDP ever changed?
MR. ADAMCZYK: In our public records request, we have not
seen anything that talks to the issue of the requirement of the
interconnection at the multiple access points. It may have been, but
what I was trying to present was the commitments given when the,
you know, original communities were approved.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But would you agree that
subsequent changes to an SDP or plats or PUDs could change that?
I mean, we have to look at what the current approval, the most
current approval is.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I would agree. If there was a subdivision
plat amendment, an SDP amendment, PUD or something along those
lines that changed the requirement, I don't think we'd be here today.
In fact, I think that would have been the first thing cited in the official
interpretation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And we'll be back at 12:19.
(A brief recess was had from 12:09 p.m. to 12:19 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, good afternoon everybody.
We're going to -- we have some procedural things that we need to
follow through with, and our County Attorney is going to outline
those and assist me in directing traffic here, so...
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The next part of the process is staff,
if they so wish, may ask questions of Mr. Adamczyk.
Ray, do you have any questions you want to ask?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Which one of our staff's going to,
if you have any?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's voluntary. You don't have to ask
questions, but --
October 22, 2019
Page 97
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm zoning
manager for the county.
I don't have any specific questions to rebut this. I believe the
executive summary speaks for itself.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Ray.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Thornton, this is your opportunity to
ask any questions if you'd like to.
MR. THORNTON: I don't have any.
MR. KLATZKOW: Otherwise, it's your turn up, and you have
an hour.
MR. THORNTON: Good morning, Commissioners,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me be here today.
My name is Chris Thornton. I'm with Trieser Collins Law
Firm, and I'm representing the Groves Residence Association today.
We have 388 units. I don't think they'll all speak today. But if you
are here from the Groves, could you please raise your hand just to
show that you're here.
We will have a few testify to some factual matters about how
long their private road has been gated with that gate in place.
And I think I'll do my rebuttal at the end. But you do want to
make sure that my submittal -- Mr. Klatzkow mentioned that I made
a submittal. I want to make sure that's included in the record on the
appeal.
MR. KLATZKOW: It has been included in the record.
MR. THORNTON: First of all, the most important point I want
you to get from all of this today is that this road that we're talking
about has been gated for 25 years. The old -- the Piper's Grove
people moved in there and bought in circa 1993 -- it's actually 26
years -- 1993, and their road has been privately gated from the
Airport Road side since that time. That road was put in and gated
before Orchards existed, before Naples Walk existed, and before
October 22, 2019
Page 98
Piper's Grove Phase 2 existed.
The west -- east side with the Orchards entrance is was gated as
soon as Orchards went in. So our private roads have been gated the
entire time consistent with the PUD as it existed when everything
was done.
You don't have any evidence in the record to overturn the
interpretation, in my opinion. And the testimony's going show that
25 years.
This is a quasi-judicial matter, as your County Attorney has
explained, and I'd just like to point out to you that what we're doing,
the scope of your review that Mr. Klatzkow pointed out to you is to
competent substantial evidence to interpret and say that staff's
interpretation of the PUD is wrong. That's what you're supposed to
be looking at. Nobody has given you a copy of the PUD. You don't
even have one. The applicant didn't submit one.
This is a 1985 PUD that's been amended many times since then.
Nobody is looking at the PUD, because they're basically trying to put
it on me to prove a negative. They're telling you that the PUD says
we have to have access, the PUD says this, the PUD says that. The
PUD's not even in your record. I'm not introducing it. I've got the
PUD right here. I'm not putting it in the record. You don't have a
PUD in the record to even look at. I don't know how you could
review or decide what it says.
Basically, we should not be obligated to prove a negative. The
staff correctly interpreted the PUD. The PUD doesn't say anywhere
it this that the Orchards or anybody else gets to go through the
Groves' private roads, so you should uphold your staff's
interpretation.
Your staff is the only people giving you any expert testimony
about what the PUD says. That interpretation is the only competent
substantial evidence you have in your record. The PUD's not even
October 22, 2019
Page 99
in the record.
So in the absence of any other competent substantial evidence,
you should say that Mike Bosi and Ray Bellows and your County
Attorney's Office are correct in the official interpretation that got
issued.
This is a brief summary of where I'm going with this, a brief
roadmap. The interpretation is correct, and you should uphold it. I
mean, I would like for Ray to get approved as an expert before he
testifies or when he testifies. His testimony will be the only expert
testimony you're going to get as far as I know.
This road has been gated for more than 25 years. Your scope is
limited to interpreting the LDC and the PUD. Nobody's given
you -- nobody has pointed to any provision of any PUD anywhere
that says this road's supposed to be opened up.
All of the petitioner's exhibits and arguments come from
preliminary pre-meeting application notes, staff reports, and other
stuff from circa 1990 era, and all of that stuff -- first of all, just
because somebody says something in a pre-app meeting doesn't mean
that it gets incorporated into the final approval. The Board of
County Commissioners gets to say final approval. So just because
there's a note in a pre-app meeting note does not mean it made it into
the final approval.
Secondly, I'm going to show you probably five plats and one
PUD amendment that were all done subsequent to those 1990 notes.
So all that stuff that happened in 1990 was looking at an older
version of this project. The Vineyards project was originally
designed with a spine road. You know the Vineyards has a
north/south spine road that goes all the way through the Vineyards?
Their original plan in '85 had an east/west spine road that went
through from Vanderbilt all the way -- through Livingston, through
Island Walk, and connected to the Vineyards east, but that project
October 22, 2019
Page 100
never got built. All those staff reports that he's pointing at are from
old versions of the project that never got built and were superseded
by subsequent plats and PUD amendments.
This is a private matter. All references to that 1993 easement
agreement are between us and them. I mean, basically, the Piper's
Grove has been sitting around since about 2002 waiting for that
lawsuit to happen. It never happened. They just keep trying to
make the county -- use the county as their leverage to get their free
access through our community. At some point hopefully it will
come to an end.
You should be cognizant that this issue doesn't just -- today we
only hear between the Groves and the Orchards, but the PUD that
we're talking about is the entire Vineyards PUD. And if you
determine today or in the future that my private community, the
Groves, is not allowed to have private gated roads because of this
language in the Vineyards PUD, then I don't see how you can not
apply that same conclusion to the rest of the Vineyards, and there's at
least 36 private gated communities in the Vineyards that are not
Groves or Orchards.
The Orchards has sat on their hands and missed at least a dozen
opportunities to appeal. All that stuff that Mr. Adamczyk
mentioned, plats, SDPs, building permits, PUD amendments, they've
never appealed any of those. They're trying to open up plat
approvals from 1993 through 1995 today, 20 years later, and you
shouldn't give them that extra bite at the apple. If they wanted to
appeal a plat in 1995, they should have done it in 1995. It's too late
to challenge.
This is a location map. The main points I want you to take
from this map, the road we're talking about is -- this is Orchards with
the red arrow I'm pointing to now. See if I can do this. This is
Groves, and the road basically goes from Vanderbilt through the
October 22, 2019
Page 101
Groves' private gate to Airport. But this outlined in red is the whole
Vineyards PUD. So if there's language in the Vineyards PUD that
says you can't have a private gated road, you're going to have to
enforce that through the whole Vineyards PUD, which is 1,930 acres
and 5,608 units.
I'd also like to point out from this exhibit, I think Mr. Adamczyk
made an allegation that there's some language in the PUD that says
all of the Vineyard's PUD lands west have to have two access points.
Village Walk only has one access point. It's in Vineyards west.
So if you're going to open up a spine road, a public spine road
from Airport through Groves through Orchards through Livingston
through Village Walk, you're going to have to eminent domain. You
can't just say I have to open my gate.
The whole plan for this community did, in the early '80s, have
that spine road going east/west. It doesn't anymore. That project
never got built.
And the fact that Village Walk was approved with one access
point shows that all of the communities in village -- in Vineyards
west don't have to have two access points. They don't and Orchards
doesn't.
This is the -- this highlighted in yellow is called the Old Groves
Road. It's a platted piece of property platted by Procacci. Groves
owns it. It's dedicated to Groves on the plat, and our gate is right
here. Through private negotiations with the Naples Walk people, the
Naples Walk people for Publix, they do get to come through here.
Our gate is behind so that they can access the Publix up here.
But this is a private road owned by the Groves. This piece is a
different platted piece, Tract 5, Piper's Grove Phase 1. It's also
owned by the Groves. Dedicated to the Groves. And this gate has
been here since 1993, the evidence will show.
This is the plat of that road. Just including that to show you it
October 22, 2019
Page 102
was approved in 1992. The dedication is to the Groves Residence
Association.
This is the next plat for Piper's Grove Phase 1. Again, the only
dedications are to the Grove's Residence Association, not to the
Orchards. And this is for that piece that's behind our gate in Piper's
Grove Phase 1. This was a 1993 plat. Again, that tract is owned by
Groves and dedicated only to Groves.
At the far eastern end of the dispute, this is the Groves Road.
This one is dedicated -- this one is dedicated on its plat to the Groves.
It's owned by the Orchards. It's not part of the Orchards plat. It's a
separately platted piece of property. There's four platted pieces of
property that make up this road.
I want to point out on this map that the Orchards has a gate right
there, so their roads are privately gated. We have a gate right here
making our road privately gated. We both share this ingress/egress
point.
And I think just background, staff can -- I think what spurred a
lot of this to come up again is that the Orchards has been complaining
about their access to Vanderbilt for a long time, since going back, I
think, to '02, I'll show you. They complained enough that the county
finally said, well, we have the answer to your problem. We're going
to close the median cut. You're not going to be able to go across
there anymore. There's too much traffic on Vanderbilt. So when
the county gets enough money in transportation funds, they're going
to close the median cut, and instead of going out on Vanderbilt down
to Publix, they're going to have to exit and go east and do a U-turn.
It will be even worse. So the squeaky wheel sometimes gets the
grease, but it might not be what you want. So that -- that's kind of
what made this come back again, I think.
Again, this is the plat of that piece of road. It's dedicated to the
Groves. That's my client.
October 22, 2019
Page 103
And this -- just finally, to wrap up the plats, this is the Piper's
Grove Phase 2. It dedicates the road we're talking about to the
Groves.
And, yeah, there are general notes. I'll just -- this is sort of part
of my rebuttal. General notes don't create any easements. And I, on
behalf of Groves, vociferously dispute any allegation that that private
easement gives anybody in the Orchards the right to use our roads.
That's a private matter. I disagree. I don't think they get to use any
of our roads under that easement document for lots of reasons.
This is Exhibit F from the petitioner's appeal package. I told
you nobody's given you the PUD to look at, so I don't see how you
could rule against me. But this particular exhibit is misleading. It
is showing, as you can see, Village Walk as a golf course community.
It is showing these accesses off of Livingston. It is showing what is
now the Orchards as a much larger community than whatever got
built. This multifamily, which is now the Piper's Grove, is much
bigger than is shown in this plan. This is the only plan submitted by
the applicant. This is a 1991 plan. This is not the current plan.
And this road they're pointing at doesn't exist in the current plan.
I want to take a moment to show you -- I mean, we might as
well go all the way back. Can I use the visualizer for a second? So
that's a 1987 version. You see that east/west spine road. That's
what all those old reports are talking about. All that old stuff in
preliminary meetings in staff reports from 1990 was talking about a
version of the Vineyards that had golf and Village Walk, it had an
east/west spine road that went probably public, maybe not public.
Nothing says you can't have any gates. But all of that stuff is talking
about an old plan.
And I want to show one more part. I don't know if you can see
the whole thing, but that's the east part of the Vineyards on a 1987
version. You can see on the west side that spine road that everybody
October 22, 2019
Page 104
uses to get up and down through the Vineyards.
There's an eastern spine road on that plan, and there's a bunch of
other roads in that plan that are not public today and not open to
everybody. The only road that goes all the way through is that one
spine road.
So if you decide that based on some old plans that all the roads
in the Vineyards have to be opened up, that's going to be a big can of
worms. We're not just talking about Groves and Orchards.
So I'm going to now go back to my -- thank you.
So this is the exhibit submitted by the petitioner to show that he
gets to use our road. And I'm going to scroll to the actual plan.
There's only -- there's not that many differences. The main one that I
notice is that there's no roads shown here. That's the main one that I
notice. The other main difference is that that commercial is very
small, five acres in this 1991 plan, and it's -- all the commercial from
over here got shifted in this new plan. The other main difference is
here you can see the multifamily here got a lot bigger, that's Piper's
Grove, compared to the old plan.
So in the old plan it was a short -- a short jaunt out this road to
get from the single-family out to Airport, but that's not the current
plan. Basically, the old plan never got built.
The other main difference is Village Walk looks a lot different.
So no road, the commercial's a lot bigger, and Village Walk is a lot
different.
The Orchards plat -- the Orchards is complaining that they want
to get to Publix a lot quicker and that they only have one access
point. Their plat was designed in 1994 with two additional
punch-outs. I'm going to show you where they are. This is the face
of their plat with the dedications. Dedication 3 says they're
Temporary Easements 1 and 2. No. A says, upon continuing
Gardner Drive, that's going to go out to Livingston. The next one
October 22, 2019
Page 105
says, upon continuing Grove Road. I might have them confused.
Basically, their plat -- this is Sheet 5.
You see this temporary cul-de-sac is only temporary because
they can punch out to Vanderbilt. Nothing's stopping them from
doing that, that I know of, except money.
This is Sheet 7 of their plat, Temporary Easement No.2. They
could punch out to Livingston. If they want other ingress/egress
points, they have them. They'd just rather come free through the
Groves Road rather than punch them out with their own money.
So the main thing I want you to take from this is there's two
different -- I'm saying it's too late to appeal. All of that stuff that
they're pointing at -- I'm going to put this red arrow right here -- is
right around the time of the 1991 PUD amendment. After that '91
PUD amendment, we had the plat of Tract A, Old Groves Road; plat,
Piper's Grove Phase 1; plat, Groves Road; plat, the Orchard; plat,
Piper's Grove Phase 2.
In 1995 the whole PUD got amended. In 2006 the DRI not
amended. All those opportunities, first of all, happened after those
staff reports they're pointing at and supersede those staff reports.
Secondly, they sat on their hands and didn't challenge any of this
stuff. They sat here while you approved all these plats and didn't say
we want to have access.
Your code, Section 250-58, gives any aggrieved party 30 days to
appeal a plat, 30 days to appeal a Site Development Plan, 30 days to
appeal a building permit. Nobody ever did that.
I didn't list any Site Development Plans here, and,
Commissioner Solis, your question to the petition was about did that
SDP get amended. I'm personally not aware of any Site
Development Plan having ever been issued for Piper's Grove or for
the Orchards. If they were, they're not in the record and haven't been
submitted by the applicant.
October 22, 2019
Page 106
The applicant is calling stuff Site Development Plan. But the
way a residential project happens is you get your zoning, you get
your plat, and you sell your lots. I'm not aware of any Site
Development Plans.
So they're telling you that there's a Site Development Plan that
requires access. A, I don't think there is a Site Development Plan; B,
if there is, nobody's given it to you; and, C, even if there was, it's all
been superseded by this more recent stuff that's happened.
So they missed all these chances to appeal, and they're trying to
open up all this stuff.
I did find our building permits. Our gates are permitted, as far
as I can tell. I'm not introducing them into evidence. Nobody's
proven that they're not out there. Our first gate was built in 1993.
We totally replaced it in 2004. And our other gate on the Orchards
side went in the same time Orchards got built.
Under Section 95-11, Florida Statutes, the Orchards has five
years to bring a lawsuit to enforce that easement from the day that
they knew they were blocked. They've known they were blocked
since at least 2002. I think that's 17 years ago.
On your evidence, again, I'll reiterate, all the evidence you're
looking at is from the 1990 time frame. It's all been superseded, and
it's all from pre-application discussions that never got incorporated
into the final approvals.
You've got no business trying to enforce that private easement.
And I'll tell you, I mean, the PUD's not even in your record. I don't
know how you can tell me standing here that that PUD requires me to
give you access if you haven't seen the PUD.
Just very briefly regarding timing. This is your County
Commission minutes from March 26th of '02. This is when the
Orchards appeared here complaining about access under Vanderbilt
and how there was too much traffic, and they wanted a traffic light.
October 22, 2019
Page 107
Commissioner Henning says on Page 41, maybe you should go
to the Piper's and talk to them about getting access.
Commissioner Carter says, but the private -- let me see where
that is. And the Orchards people said they haven't talked about that
in '02.
Commissioner Carter says, but that's a private easement dispute
between the communities; something the county wouldn't get
involved in.
Commissioner Carter got it right in '02 in these chambers. And
Tom Olliff pointed out that that was probably an opportunity for
interconnectivity that the county missed out on a long time ago when
the PUD got split up. So Tom Olliff had it right as well in '02.
In '05 there was a formal code enforcement matter opened by
complaint from the Orchards. In the end, after lots of meetings and
discussions about ways to resolve it -- I've highlighted the most
important part to me. After extensive research, final determination
regarding access through Piper's Grove is that there was no ordinance
or code violation; therefore, it is a civil issue and the prerogative of
the Orchards to determine if they wish to hire counsel and proceed
legally if so desired. That was 2005; 14 years ago.
In 2006, Piper's Grove wrote to the City of Naples and copied
Commissioner Halas to inform the city that their police chief
appeared to be using his rights and electronics as a police officer to
illegally access our gates and use it as a shortcut for his family. And
this is a copy of the letter to the -- from Piper's Grove to the city
complaining about that.
And this letter, for factual purposes, establishes that our roads
are private as of this letter in '06 and that the gate had been recently
upgraded to try to thwart the Orchards people, who were illegally and
improperly getting clickers for our gate -- we had to upgrade the
whole gate system because somehow they were getting through the
October 22, 2019
Page 108
gate.
The Growth Management Plan arguments, all I'm really going to
say about them is when a project comes to you, you approve it under
the code and ordinances in effect at the time. This is a 1985 PUD
and DRI that has been reviewed through your staff procedures many,
many times, as I pointed out, through all the PUD amendments, all
the plats. I don't know of any Site Development Plans, but the
building permits.
And the only provisions they're pointing at are from your
current -- your current Growth Management Plan has some stuff that
does encourage interconnectivity. You can't use a provision from
today's Growth Management Plan to go back to 1985 and redo the
Vineyards.
My presentation is summarized, in conclusion, we want you to
uphold your staff's interpretation. Your staff is the only experts that
have given you any competent substantial evidence about this. You
don't even have the PUD in your packages.
In -- I do have a bit of rebuttal, very briefly.
There was a statement made that the PUD requires all property
that's in the Vineyards west have two access points. That can't be
true if Village Walk doesn't have two. Village Walk is part of
Vineyards west. They only have one.
There were several mentions made of the word "cross-access"
and "interconnection." You're not going to find those words
anywhere in the plat or even in that easement document that's been
referenced so much. There was never any plan to have
interconnection or cross-access. And those words are not in any of
the documents that are subject to your review today.
I want to point out Exhibit G and Exhibit F from the applicant's
appeal packets, especially Exhibit F. They're misleading. Those
are from an old version of the PUD that never got built, and the PUD
October 22, 2019
Page 109
has been amended since then.
As I said, I'm not aware of any Site Development Plan ever for
this property. And, like I said, preliminary staff comments and
even -- even conditions imposed in the staff reports, if the staff report
comes to you and says, we recommend you approve this PUD on the
condition that A, B, C whatever, the Board of County Commissioners
doesn't have to follow those recommendations. What you approve
as the Board of County Commissioners is what is final, and nothing
in this PUD requires this access that they're asking for.
All that preliminary stuff was preliminary discussions. It was
never included in any final approval, and it has been superseded by
subsequent approvals.
I'll be willing to answer any questions you have. I'm here for
cross-examination if anybody wants it. And we will have a couple
public speakers.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I see no questions up here, so I
think we go back to staff to ask questions again.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, whether Mr. Adamczyk wants to
cross-examine, yes or no.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Rebuttal?
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have time for rebuttal a little later.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I don't think there's any witnesses to
cross-examine at this time.
MR. MILLER: He has to be up here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've got to come up here.
Whatever you're going to say has to be on the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Bellows, do you want to -- ask any
questions?
MR. BELLOWS: No questions.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I actually do have one question for
Mr. Thornton.
October 22, 2019
Page 110
Mr. Thornton, you said throughout your presentation that the
PUD is not in the record before the Commissioners. Would you
agree that if the staff interpreted the PUD, which is the one and only
request, and that issue is now up on appeal, that the PUD is
absolutely in the record?
MR. THORNTON: No. I'm not sure which parts of the PUD
they looked at. I'm not sure which parts of the PUD you looked at.
MR. ADAMCZYK: We can only assume when we asked staff
to interpret the PUD as a whole and all amendments as to whether we
had the right of access, that it was reviewed. It's like saying a
complaint is filed in a lawsuit and then up on appeal that the
complaint's not in the record.
Also, Mr. Thornton is Village Walk -- because you mentioned
Village Walk a couple of times. Is that east or west of Livingston
Road?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: West.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Just to correct, my testimony was that all
properties west of Livingston Road as required by this section of the
PUD are entitled to the Vanderbilt and Airport -- Village Walk's
irrelevant, is the point.
MR. THORNTON: Village Walk is part of the Vineyards west,
and it is east of Livingston as shown on this map.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I would agree with that. And my
testimony was that the PUD requires all properties west of Livingston
Road, which does not include Village Walk, to have the access
points, mainly because of the commercial which Village Walk
doesn't have.
Let me see if I have anything else.
Mr. Thornton, you had said that you're not aware of any Site
Development Plan applicable to Piper's Grove and that you've only
seen plats and a PUD. So I think that addresses Commissioner Solis'
October 22, 2019
Page 111
question about any future Site Development Plans amendments that
could be in play here.
So, I mean, my point and question would be, in order to put in a
gate to block access, which is not shown on your plat, would you
have not been required to get a plat amendment?
MR. THORNTON: No, I wouldn't.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Well, we disagree. I guess that's all we
have for now.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's time now for staff's presentation, to be
followed by public comment.
MR. THORNTON: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'm the zoning
manager for Growth Management and Zoning Services Section.
The PUD is the controlling document. It is a zoning ordinance.
It contains conditions of approval. The plats and subdivision -- or
Site Development Plans are development orders that are found
consistent with the zoning regulations.
In this case, the official interpretation rendered by Mike Bosi did
not find any specific criteria that would prohibit a gated community
at this location.
As was mentioned during the testimony by both parties, there
have been subsequent amendments to both the PUD document and to
the various plats. None of those private streets are covered by any
LDC regulation or any PUD regulation that would prohibit the gating
of the community.
That's all I have, but I would be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you get
to go first.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'll be fairly quick.
I would make a motion to accept his testimony as expert
testimony. He's an expert planner and has been recognized as such
October 22, 2019
Page 112
in other forums.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That was asked by one of the
petitioners that we do that. It's been moved and seconded that we
accept Mr. Bellow's testimony as expert. 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.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no other comments.
MR. BELLOWS: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: If any -- if either Mr. Adamczyk or
Mr. Thornton wants to ask Ray any questions, now would be the
time.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I'm sorry, Mr. Klatzkow. What was that?
MR. KLATZKOW: If either you or Mr. Thornton wish to ask
Mr. Bellows any questions, now is the time.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Oh, no questions for Mr. Bellows.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Thornton, no? I'm getting a
head nod out of Mr. Thornton.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's time for the public.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And now are we -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How many public speakers?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How many public speakers do we
have?
October 22, 2019
Page 113
MR. MILLER: We had dropped off a couple because they
were the presenters. I think it's, like, 11.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. MILLER: And then we had one leave.
Your first speaker is Gerv Audette. He's been ceded three
additional minutes from David Norat.
Mr. Norat, could you raise your hand.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: He will be followed by William Mountford.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chair, would you want to --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- give a little bit explanation about
repetitiveness.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd be happy to.
Folks, ladies and gentlemen, while we're moving through this
process, I would ask for you to be as succinct as possible. If
someone who is -- who has come up to the podium -- your name will
be called. If someone has come up and you're about to say the same
thing, raise your hand and say, I concur, and then we can move
through that -- we can move through this. I mean, you certainly all
are welcome to have your time, but we try to keep the repetitiveness
to a low roar. Go.
MR. AUDETTE: Ladies and gentlemen --
MR. MILLER: You'll need to pull the microphone down, sir.
MR. AUDETTE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioners,
and now it's been an anonymous (sic) decision that you now are the
jury.
I have been involved in this thing going back to -- many years;
25 years. I got everything in my mind.
You know Mr. Procacci, who represented Vineyards, and
Mr. Saade. In November 14th, 1995, this -- Donna might remember
October 22, 2019
Page 114
this -- I was before the jury then. And at that time we were talking
about rezoning Plot A. And Mr. Saade stood up, and we were
talking about the road from Airport Road to our gatehouse. He said
that is a -- that is a public road from Airport to our gatehouse,
because he wanted to use that for a housing development that was
going in there.
Then he said, from the guardhouse in are private roads built by
the developer. That's his statements, and here it is. The
commissioners -- everything that they said at the Commissioners'
meeting that day.
Now, several years ago -- does this show up on the map I'm
pointing to? That plot there, which was owned by the Vineyards,
was dedicated to Plot A, Plot B, Plot C. A, the shopping center; B,
Piper's Grove; and, C, North Groves. That's his statement. It's now
documented at the county. D was never mentioned. A, B, and C.
Okay.
Let's go back. It goes back and says that Groves Road is a
public road up to the gatehouse, their gatehouse and our gatehouse.
We have the right to use it. We have a right to go out, but it doesn't
say that the Orchards have a right to come in to Old Groves Road.
That's documented. That's right here.
Now, being that six years, seven years ago, maybe less, this is
what Mr. Saade dedicated to Plot A, Plot B, and Plot C. That is now
our road. We own it. You go to your county of records, you ask
who owns it, it says Piper's Grove. I mean, the Grove's residents.
Also it states in there, from day one in the documents, that Plot
A pays two-thirds of the upkeep of the entrance, Plot B pays
one-third, Plot C pays one-third. We've been paying that for 25
years.
Piper's Grove built Old Groves Road, the gatehouse, all the way
down to the parking lot of the clubhouse. They paid for that from
October 22, 2019
Page 115
the price of their condo. When North Groves came into being, we
paid for the other section of Old Groves to the back gate, east gate,
and the east gate, we paid for that. So if you look at the drawings,
you'll see that it's -- Piper's Grove owns this, North Grove owns that.
So there's two different developments paid for this road.
I don't know how the Orchards can say that they have a right.
This -- going back to what's happening today. I don't go -- I don't
have to work. I'll stay home and have somebody else pay for my
stuff. You know, that's what we've got going today again, and that
seems like we did all the work, we did all the paying. They want to
do it free.
So our lives now -- we had 25 years of happiness, and I don't
think that there's any rights -- who's playing me a song? I've got to
shut off. It's shut off. Maybe it's an omen.
But, anyhow, that's what I got to say. There's no other way.
There's proof here that Michael Saade gave it to us.
Thank you, gentlemen. If there's any questions, I'll be glad to
answer them.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody show him how to shut
his phone off. That's twice now.
MR. AUDETTE: Oh. It's an alarm to see the cancer doctor.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, it's yours? It's actually yours
that's going off?
MR. AUDETTE: Yeah. It's an alarm. I've got to see my
cancer doctor. Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis, did you have
a question for the --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. AUDETTE: We're all set?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're all set.
October 22, 2019
Page 116
MR. AUDETTE: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Mountford, and
he --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hold the applause.
MR. MILLER: -- will be followed by Glorya McNard (sic).
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say those names again. I was
interrupting.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mr. William Mountford.
He will be followed by Glorya McNard.
MR. MOUNTFORD: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners, my name is William Mountford. I've lived in
Piper's Grove for 21 years. I'm currently on the Groves Residence
Board of Directors. And I'd like to supplement what you've heard
here today.
On 2017, in the summer more specifically, Mr. Adamczyk on
behalf of the Orchards wrote a letter to Piper's Grove and said that
they want to have access or the gate removed. And in response to
that, we retained Mr. Thornton who answered the question.
There were some brief settlement negotiations, and this matter
laid dormant until April of 2019 when we read in the newspaper that
the Orchards had gone to the -- had gone to -- through the process of
trying to attempt to go through the zoning board to achieve what they
needed.
And I would just like to note that for the time -- when that
opinion was written by the zoning officer, he had had input from the
Orchards but absolutely no input at all from Piper's Grove.
And you see what I deem to be a concise and all-encompassing
opinion that he rendered on his own. And then we're here today.
And I'm only saying this because as an old retired lawyer, when I saw
that in April of 2019, I said, oh, my God. Here we go. It's an end
run. He had a perfectly legal right to do the end run, but he's trying
October 22, 2019
Page 117
to do on the cheap what I believe that should be done in the Circuit
Court of Appeals, because the issues before you today are legal, and
you're sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeal. The issues before you,
I submit, are now legal, and they should go to the Circuit Court.
And the other thing is this: No matter what happens here today,
the Orchards does not give up their right to bring a matter again in the
circuit court and re-litigate this. Now, for 25 years we've had a gated
community, and all of a sudden they need access. And I don't know
about the statutes of limitation or laches, or whatever you want to call
it, but I think it's putting Piper's Grove in a pretty bad position that we
constantly have to fight off threats that are never carried through.
That's all I have to say. And I ask the other 11 speakers to
allow Mr. Barron to speak and that everybody else waive it because I
know you're short on time. Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: For those --
MR. MOUNTFORD: I apologize for my attire, but it was
doctor originated, not on my own devices.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, for those of you that don't know,
Mr. Mountford was a valued member of the County Attorney's Office
for many, many years.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you go. How you doing?
The gentleman was a member of the County Attorney Office
originally.
MR. MILLER: Your next --
MR. MOUNTFORD: That was 10 years. Then I got a
disability and gave up practicing law.
MR. MILLER: Your next registered speaker is Glorya
McWard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought I recognized him.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And who's after Glorya?
MR. MILLER: She will be followed by Bruce Barron.
October 22, 2019
Page 118
MS. McWARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I just want to say I moved to Piper's Grove seven years ago
mainly because it was a gated community. And I feel -- as a widow,
I feel very safe there. By opening the gates and allowing at least 350
cars coming through our community, I wouldn't feel very safe.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bruce Barron. He'll be
followed by Jenine Polvsen. Ms. Polvsen, if you could come to the
other podium and wait.
MR. BARRON: Well, I was going to say good morning,
but -- so good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce
Barron, and I'm a resident living in Piper's Grove. We want to thank
you for listening to us today.
Our community is here today in support of the planning and
zoning staff's determination that our private gated roads in the Groves
remain private. And it's been heard before that in 1985 the Picacci
brothers, Joe and Michael, had the Vineyards PUD rezoned from
agricultural farming to residential.
The Collier County board made this happen, and it was
approved. Mr. Jim Wallace, who designed and built this
community, purchased the Piper's acreage from the Picaccis. He
then began developing Piper's Grove.
Through his company, Touch Stone, he marketed and sold the
units as part of a gated community, and it was supported by the
sitting commissioners at that time.
In 1994 my wife and I came and put our initial deposit down to
save our unit, and at that time I had to drive through a gated -- the
front gate off of Airport road at the time. And we were drawn to this
community due to its wonderful location and, most importantly, that
it was private and gated. I guess you've heard that word enough
October 22, 2019
Page 119
today.
Old Groves Road, along with the surrounding roads in there, like
Oleander, Orchid Bay, Silver Trumpet, Plumbago are the roads that
go through and are part of Piper's that are exclusively used and
maintained by all residents through our assessments during the past
25 years.
The Orchards community wants to only use our road as a
shortcut to Airport. Even to the most untrained eye and observer, it's
obvious that Old Groves Road was designed for local traffic only and
not outside traffic.
Of great concern is the safety of our walking residents and their
children. Our posted speed limits are, like, 10 to 15 miles an hour.
And I live in the north, and on more occasions than I can count,
Orchards residents who have illegally gotten their hands on our gate
passes are seen speeding through our community at 40 miles per hour
or higher. They have total disregard for our safety.
And I'm not privy to where any of you Commissioners live, but
if you live in a private gated community, you would also fight to the
bitter end to keep it that way. None of you would like to open your
community to outside traffic.
We all unanimously oppose the Orchards trying to interfere with
our community and damage the value and serenity we currently
enjoy. If the Orchards desires or needs additional access, they
already have been deeded a second ingress and egress point out.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jenine Polvsen. She's
been ceded three additional minutes from Jacqueline Connelly --
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: -- who is present.
Ms. Polvsen will be followed by Norman Feder.
October 22, 2019
Page 120
MS. POLVSEN: Hi. Thank you very much for giving me this
opportunity to speak. My name is Jennies Polvsen. I live in the
Orchards.
And unlike Mr. Barron, we have no harm. We have no reason
to want to cause harm to Piper's Grove. We don't. We've been
maybe neighbors for 30 years, and yet I hear this stuff about us
speeding through there doing illegal activities. That is outrageous.
We're your neighbors.
You come out your road, and you exit into our gate. You do
that. We allow that. We don't put up barriers because they're
crooks or criminals coming through our open area. We're neighbors.
And I am tired of being treated like we're second-class citizens here.
Why was this code case closed? Why was it? It is not a civil
matter; it is a public matter. And this was a mistake by the County
Attorney's Office. This was a mistake back then. The fact that
Mr. Thornton has the gall to stand here and say no PUD. I don't
have to submit one. That's baloney. The fact that you don't have
Florida Statutes in front of your face doesn't mean that I don't have to
comply with the law. It's a given.
We need to be treated fundamentally fair. That's what we're
asking for. That is the guidance that all of you have as public
servants. People make mistakes. Staff makes mistakes. But you're
held to that standard by all of us, and this is fundamental fairness, and
this is the law, and this is the PUD.
And you hold me accountable for cutting down a tree if I choose
to do that for $5,000. Where's your accountability to us? It is the
law. You hold us accountable for ordinances. You hold us
accountable for everything else. You're accountable for your PUD,
you're accountable for your site plan, and you're accountable for your
plat, and you make that decision.
And, yes, I'm sorry, it is much later, 25 years later. I
October 22, 2019
Page 121
understand how that upsets you folks, but it upset us. We're
landlocked. We can't go anywhere. We go out our subdivision, try
to make a left. It's a suicide. It's suicide, yet Piper's Grove people
still come out. We get backlogged. They get to turn right and have
a shortcut over towards Livingston.
For me to go to Publix, the safest way, I'll drive out my
entranceway, I'll go all the way to Livingston, go down Livingston, I
will go down to Orange Blossom then all the way back up Airport
Road.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm going to be asking the
folks -- one second. I'm done with this. No more communication
amongst yourselves. I have asked these folks to show you the
respect, and I'm going to ask the same of you. Please no mumbling.
Proceed.
MS. POLVSEN: Thank you, sir. Thank you. I appreciate
that.
So, yes, I could do a U-turn. I want you guys to live your life
doing U-turns at Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston. It doesn't
work. Okay.
You're going to add a whole more hundreds of thousands, I
believe, homes east of us. Those subdivisions are going to empty
onto Immokalee and onto Vanderbilt. Hundred -- is it 1.2 million
more cars and vehicles will dump on that.
Mr. Andy -- Mr. Solis, I don't know. That's the rumor I heard.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a rumor.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a rumor.
MS. POLVSEN: That's going to be hundreds of thousands of
vehicles; it's going to be a lot. Maybe not 1.2 million. How do you
think us people that have lived in the Orchards from 2005 -- excuse
me -- from 1994 to '95 feel? We are landlocked. And we are
asking for fundamental fairness. That's all we want. And we ask
October 22, 2019
Page 122
you to follow your ethical and moral and your legal obligation to us
because we can't function where we are.
And with that I think I provided you substantial competent
evidence. So, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Norman Feder. He'll be
followed by Kevin Bittner.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, Norman Feder. I'm a resident
of the Orchards.
I appreciate fully the folks here from Piper's and their concerns.
I'm not going to try to address the legal issue, because I realize this is
quasi-judicial, and that's what you as a board have to address right
now.
But I do want to make sure that, unlike what I saw in the
executive summary, which was to say it's quasi-judicial, just send it
the courts, wham, bam, the issue's over. No, it's not.
The fact of the matter is there are significant concerns for folks
in the Orchards. There's significant operational deficiencies being
created by that situation that exists today.
It was noted that 25 years the gates were put up. Yeah, the
other gate was put up just as the Orchards was being developed.
Whether or not that's right, I'm going to leave that for you folks to
decide. As I said, I'm not going to get into the legal aspect.
But I will note that in that 25 years ago you had a four-laned
Airport that almost stopped at that point, but close to it, and you had a
two-lane Vanderbilt Beach Road. You now have a six-lane
thoroughfare on both Airport and on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and the
Orchards has only access to Vanderbilt Beach Road, not to Airport,
as exists today, because of that gate that is established at Piper's. If
that gate stays there, then we still have that problem, and this board
does have purview and responsibility under your legislative
provisions to address the safety and protection of the residents within
October 22, 2019
Page 123
Orchards.
So I would submit to you that you've got some options. And,
again, I'm outside of your issue here today, and I appreciate the few
minutes to hit that.
The fact of the matter is, the easiest from -- least impact on the
county road system is to allow access through Piper's, but that may or
may not be legally an option or one this board decides to pursue.
If you don't pursue that, you could put a signal in at the
Orchards. The fact of the matter is, you've got a half-mile spacing
both from Airport and Livingston. And the safety issues are there.
What I can provide in the way of competent and significant
testimony is my experience going in and out telling my wife she has
to take a right-hand, not try to take that left out. And that's only if
you're not backed up in traffic that's backed up past the entranceway
to the Orchards where I'm afraid to even take a right out to try to get
to that left turn up at Livingston, because of good ole' Good
Samaritan issues. The first person might let you out, and you're
about ready to get killed by another one moving up in another lane,
and it's very hard.
So then the answer was, okay, we're going to put a turn lane in
between the Orchards entrance and Livingston. You could never get
over to it. I'm going to tell you that other than a few hours a day,
you never will get over to it. And guess what? This is all within an
older population and the fact that the county is now taking action.
So I'm going to put back to you your responsibility: To extend
Vanderbilt Beach Road to encourage all that additional traffic to
come across this area. You need to provide an answer, and I would
ask you to get with staff to work with Orchards to try and find some
way to address the concerns.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Norm.
October 22, 2019
Page 124
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kevin Bittner. He'll be
followed by John Mansika.
MR. BITTNER: Yes. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
I'm Kevin Bittner.
MR. THORNTON: May I ask a question of Mr. Feder if I get a
chance?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are they allowed to cross-examine
our public speakers? And, Commissioner Saunders, did you have a
question for Norm as well?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was going to ask Norm a
quick question, because there's been -- there's been some discussion
about other access points that the Orchards have the potential of
having. You're a transportation expert, and I mean, you've
been -- everybody knows that. What are those other access points
that are potentials and why --
MR. FEDER: The only one that you really have -- it was
mentioned that there's an access opportunity to Airport other than the
one that exists, and it's not there, and you'd have to make unusual
modifications.
There is the possibility, and one that actually I would think is
something that, hopefully if county staff looks at it, to set up a
right-in, right-out to Livingston, which would have to be pushed
down as far as it can away from the Vanderbilt Beach Road
intersection, but it still would only be a right-in, right-out, but it
would definitely provide some relief.
Right now if you've got an emergency -- by the way, to
Piper's -- well, I guess they've got a second access to Airport. If we
have an emergency situation -- I'm with Fire now -- emergency
situation at the entrance to Piper's and the Orchards on Vanderbilt
Beach Road, there's no way out for folks in the Orchards. So at least
a right-out would have provided that opportunity and other issues as
October 22, 2019
Page 125
well.
Does that answer your question, Commissioner?
(No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Thornton, did you have a
question for Norm?
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir. It's very similar to yours. I just
wanted to ask Norm, why hasn't the Orchards built this access point
to Livingston which is shown on the Orchards plat Sheet 7.
MR. FEDER: I can't specifically answer it, but I can tell you
my impression. My impression is, number one, that Livingston
didn't exist when that plat issue was there, but beyond that, there was
an effort to try and give land actually to the fire district, long before
my time there. And that land was going to be for a fire station.
And then there was a whole bunch of litigation back and forth -- and
I'm not sure I'm privy to all of that -- but it never materialized.
Now, would I tell you that it would be nice to have that access
point? Personally, yes. But, nonetheless, I can't speak for
everybody in the Orchards. But that's an access point option. Why
wasn't it built at the time? I believe it was tied up to some idea of a
fire station going in on that land that is between what would be the
Orchards and Livingston as it now exists.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're saying there was going to
be a fire station in the FP&L easement?
MR. FEDER: No. Actually, the Orchards has land in addition
to where it is, and it came back, I believe, to the Orchards, but it was
set up for the fire to go into that land.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which is what you're referring to
as --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
October 22, 2019
Page 126
MR. FEDER: At the end of the cul-de-sac of Groves
Boulevard -- Groves road itself.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right here. Are we looking at
this as we speak? It looks like a cul-de-sac; am I incorrect?
MR. FEDER: Yes. It is a cul-de-sac or a semi cul-de-sac, if
you will.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And this was the proposed
location or --
MR. FEDER: Just past -- can I put it on here? Can that be
seen? Well, just past -- this cul-de-sac which exists today, just past
it is land owned by --
MR. MILLER: Just touch the screen in front of you, Norm, and
it will show up.
MR. FEDER: Just past this cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But, Norm, that's the FPL. You
can't put anything in there except a road.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's an FPL easement.
MR. FEDER: This land right here. This is the cul-de-sac.
This is the cul-de-sac -- is this on? This is the cul-de-sac that you're
talking about. This is the end of Groves Road.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. FEDER: Right past that and behind the homes that are
here is a tract of land --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: To the south, not to the west,
right?
MR. FEDER: -- that is part of the Orchards, if you will, as I
understand it now. There's discussion trying to get that to be a fire
station. And so the extension over the easement and to
that -- because you'd need to come down here before the county
would probably want to give you right-in, right-out because they
October 22, 2019
Page 127
don't want it right up next to Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. Thank you, Norm. And
I don't know that Mr. Feder's qualified to answer why that easement
or that access point hasn't been put out. That was a developer
decision at some stage.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. I'm not submitting myself as an expert to
answer that question.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next registered public
speaker is Kevin Bittner, and he'll be followed by John Mansika.
MR. BITTNER: Yes. I'm Kevin Bittner. I'm the current
president of the Orchards HOA. Lived there for about five years. I
also, prior to that, owned a condo in Piper's Grove, so I'm definitely
familiar with this issue.
Basically -- I'll be brief, because most of what I was going to say
has been said by others. But, basically, in the Orchards now you
have 330 homeowners/condo owners that have to time when they
leave the development. If it's during the afternoon hours, as
Mr. Burr (sic) said, I have two young drivers. We don't let them
leave between 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 because it's just too dangerous turning
out to Vanderbilt.
I hear from other retirees in the community that they just -- they
don't -- they can't come and go as they please, unfortunately, because
they're concerned with the safety of pulling out onto Vanderbilt
Beach.
I just want to hit on a couple of issues. Attorney Thornton
stated that, you know, Mark was presenting old PUD plans but yet he
pulled up the same Piper's Grove title sheet to specify that that road,
Groves Road was, in fact, titled and deeded to the Groves residents.
It was on that same sheet where, at the bottom, that it had the
easement that allowed access to that, not just to any other of the
October 22, 2019
Page 128
Vineyards PUD, but specifically for the 84 acres to the east, which is
now the Orchards.
Now -- and I agree that just because it's a general note on a PUD
title sheet, that does not grant the access unless followed through.
But that exact same verbiage is in the declarations for the owners in
the Piper's Grove. I know because I lived there, and I was given that
same declaration sheet. It's the exact same verbiage which specifies
to the 84 acres to the east, which is now the Orchards.
And Mr. Bellows, he mentioned that he did agree that Piper's
had the right to place a gate on Old Groves, but I don't think he
addressed that they had the right to restrict the access to the Orchards.
We agree -- just to be clear, we do not want the gates taken down.
We don't think that should be a public road. We just feel that we
have a right to have access to it via key cards for our residences.
We understand that we should be -- we would have to
participate in a cost-sharing scenario for the maintenance of that road
going forward. We understand that. We're not trying to get
anything for free or to open that up to anything other than the
Orchards residents that we feel is originally warranted for, and that's
all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What's your name again, sir?
MR. BITTNER: Kevin Bittner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Kevin.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for
this item is John Mansika.
MR. THORNTON: I have a couple questions for Mr. Bittner,
if I may.
MR. BITTNER: Yes, sir.
MR. THORNTON: Mr. Chairman, my name's Chris Thornton
again.
Just two quick questions, Mr. Bittner. First of all, you've
October 22, 2019
Page 129
referenced some private covenants that you said required this road to
be put in. Are those documents part of the record today?
MR. BITTNER: Mark can attest -- I believe the declarations
for the Piper's Grove were part of the appeals record. Is that correct
or not?
MR. ADAMCZYK: I don't know. I talked about it throughout
my testimony.
MR. BITTNER: Then yes.
MR. THORNTON: And, secondly, I'll ask you the same
question I asked Mr. Feder. I'm wondering if you know why the
Orchards hasn't used its rights to punch out the access to Livingston.
MR. BITTNER: I've only lived there for four years and been
the HOA president for four weeks, so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lucky you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You missed the first meeting,
didn't you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Welcome.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker is
John Mansika.
MR. MANSIKA: Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing
us to have this today.
Most of what I was going to say has been addressed, but I do
want to point out the safety. We do take our life in hands going out
and making a left any time of day, and from 4:00 and 6:00 you can't
get out at all. To make a right between 4:00 and 6:00, you might get
lucky and someone let you out, but you'll never get across three lanes
to make that U-turn, so you go down to Livingston or -- all the way
around to the shopping center to get your groceries.
What you are experiencing today is what future residents are
going to experience 20 years from now on the decisions you're
making now on PUDs, and will they be sacred now then as this was
October 22, 2019
Page 130
supposed to have been sacred 20 years ago?
Things change. I never cared about making a -- going through
our neighbor's, because I had a two-lane street out in front of me
when we purchased there. It was never an issue. The more
accidents that occur out there, the bigger the issue becomes, and that's
what we have today.
I would love to be able to go out and make a right on
Livingston, and that may happen, and that may happen soon. And if
that happens and the congestion of these thousands more cars, Piper's
Grove may need or may want to come out to Livingston through our
property. That could happen if Airport Road becomes what it
certainly looks like it's going to become, bumper to bumper, and
Vanderbilt the same way. So that is a good idea for the future.
But for now, for now, we need to be able to get to the shopping
center without putting our life in our hands. And that's basically all I
have to say.
MR. MILLER: That was your final registered speaker,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Very good, very
good.
Commissioner -- do we have, procedurally, anything else to do
with the cross-examination?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's time for either Mr. Thornton or
Mr. Adamczyk to have any final comments.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Just have a few brief ones.
Mr. Miller, is it possible to get my slides back up?
MR. MILLER: Yes. Give me a minute.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Sure. While we're waiting on that, I only
need the slides for one final point which I can't believe I didn't make
earlier, but I only didn't because I didn't realize the testimony that
we'd hear; didn't know that yet.
October 22, 2019
Page 131
But, you know, in closing, it comes back to the documents. I
mean, we laid out document after document on the approvals that
were provided, and what we heard was developer commitments made
by the developers of both communities, Piper's and Orchards, we saw
them on the screen that required them to then enter into a declaration
of easements in the early 1990s providing for all communities west of
Livingston Road.
There was mention earlier, a gentleman said, well, it's A, B, C.
It includes D. D -- attached in the declaration of easements that
we've talked about all day that's on Piper's plats, Tract D is the
Orchards. It absolutely was included in these easements. There's
no doubt. That was the only reason they got approvals to build it
this way, and it includes the required connection.
So we saw that in the developer commitments. The purpose of
a PUD is to ensure developer commitments are adhered to.
Mr. Thornton, I don't blame him for arguing this, that the PUD's
not in the record. I mean, nonsense. That's why we're here. That's
what the County Attorney and the -- I'm sorry, the zoning director
was asked to interpret. I didn't hear anything from, interestingly,
Piper's or Mr. Thornton as to why the PUD doesn't require what the
Orchards has been raising.
I've explained in the language regarding it was referenced in
multiple access points. I showed the various maps along the way all
showing the two access points. I mean, it's sort of laughable to say
that the '95 amendment removed the road, I think I heard that, at
Airport. Of course, there's a road. It's Groves -- Old Groves Road
we've been talking about all day.
The bigger picture here is that there's -- the requirement -- the
mandated reciprocal access is being blocked by one side -- one group
of people in this room, and they enjoy the two points of access.
They have that safety. They have that convenience, and we believe
October 22, 2019
Page 132
it's required.
So, in closing, thank you for bringing that back up, Mr. -- I need
to get to the slide, because it's -- I know everyone's starving and -- but
this is very important.
Okay. This is -- this is Exhibit J, and anybody that has a
binder -- any of the commissioners that have a binder in front of
them -- and since -- I went back and looked at it, this is the document
that I really highlighted earlier, and I'm going to quote it again. This
is the Planning Services Division from the Transportation
memorandum issued by Mr. Ray Bellows who was sworn in as an
expert in this matter earlier, okay.
That says -- Mr. Bellows says that the Site Development Plan
for Piper's Grove provides for interconnection to the Orchards parcel,
which is consistent with the approved PUD document.
I can't -- I have to leave it at that. He was sworn in as the
expert.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Thornton?
MR. THORNTON: Thank you, Commissioners.
My main point that I want you to take from this is the gate's
been there for 25 years. The residents of the Groves have complied
with all the approvals that have been issued for their property. And I
wanted to -- let me look at this slide one more time.
MR. MILLER: Your slide or theirs?
MR. THORNTON: Mr. Adamczyk's last slide; right there.
This is dated June 1992. I've already given you a list of all the plat
amendments and PUD amendments that came after this. I also want
to point out this -- it says intro, the subject plat contains
61.38-something acres. That project never got built. Piper's Grove
Phase 1 got platted and Piper's Grove Phase 2 got platted. It's about
30 and 30, but they never came in as this plat.
This -- like I'm trying to explain to you, this is staff
October 22, 2019
Page 133
report's -- ultimately, when a project comes through the county
process, the applicant makes a case, the staff makes a report, it gets
finalized in the PUD or on a plat. These preliminary mechanizations
leading up to the final approvals are not enforceable. And if you're
going to -- I hope you will, for the Groves, uphold your staff
decision. But if you're not, if you're going to reject staff's
interpretation, you need to at least point to what section of the PUD
you say requires this access, because there's been nobody, no
discussion today of any section of that PUD that requires that.
Thank you very much.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that closes the public portion of this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding.
Commissioner Solis was lit up first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Obviously, this is -- it's a
difficult issue. I mean, it's two well-established communities that
are at odds. And I wish there was a way -- and I've said this to
Mr. Thornton and anybody else that would listen, that, you know, we
have to find a way to be good neighbors.
I think -- let me get to the appeal first. And I'm going to
support the staff's opinion, and I want to say why clearly on the
record. Number one, I haven't seen any -- and we have a
burden -- the appellant has a burden to show by competent substantial
evidence that the interpretation was wrong, and because of
amendments to amendments to the plats, references to roads,
references to all sorts of things, which is a mess, I think, if you took
the time and looked at -- because I have, and this is what I used to do
until recently -- looked at the way the plats are done and everything,
it is a mess.
But, nevertheless, the standard is whether or not there is
competent substantial evidence to show that -- sorry -- that the
opinion -- the interpretation was in error.
October 22, 2019
Page 134
Pre-app notes are pre-app notes. They are not evidence of
what's in the PUD, and they certainly cannot create easement rights.
I think one of the things that is telling, I think, is competent
substantial evidence, was the discussion from the County
Commission notes where Mr. Olliff actually testified that, yeah, that
interconnection would have been nice, but we gave that up. I think
that's evidence of what the intent was.
The reference -- you know, I have to put my hat on as a former
lawyer myself. You know, the reference in the Phase 1 plat in the
notes are just notes. Those -- and I've litigated that before. Those
don't create easement rights. The dedication section of a plat creates
easement rights. So I don't think I can rely upon that to reach the
conclusion that it was an error either.
So having said that, there's nothing that I can rely on that I can
say is competent substantial evidence to show that the interpretation
is in error.
Having said that -- and I'm going to make a motion to uphold the
staff's interpretation. I think we have some work to do, because I
think this issue of access for both the Orchards and the Groves is
something that we need to address.
You know, I've lived in Pine Ridge for almost 20 years, and as
time went on, we could only take lefts out onto Goodlette for the
exact same reasons, and now you have to come out and take a left
and go down and pull a U-turn. Because of growth, I think that's
something that we've had to do in a lot of places in Collier County,
unfortunately, but that's -- it's a safety issue, and that's what's
required.
But I'm going to make it a point to sit with staff and see what we
can do to make it as safe as we can, you know. And I hope that
there's some consideration from the Orchards about a right-in,
right-out -- I mean, where there's a will, there's a way -- onto
October 22, 2019
Page 135
Livingston that might at least provide some relief.
But we have our experts; it's our staff. And I just can't see how
we can rule against that. At least I can't. So I'm going to make a
motion that we approve the formal interpretation from the staff.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly cannot disagree with the statements that
Commissioner Solis has made in terms of the evidence and the staff
situation.
I do want to ask our staff a question concerning the potential
Livingston Road right-in, right-out. You know, we do a lot of
roadwork to increase and improve public safety.
And the question for Mr. Casalanguida or Mr. Ochs is, can we
assist the Orchards in terms of facilitating that access? And, if so, is
that something that would take a great deal of time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, from a planning perspective and
permitting perspective, that would be easy for us to do, crossing an
easement, and we've done it many times. As far as who pays for that
access, that's -- obviously we'd expect the development to. We have
in the past.
But in terms of permitting and processing an application, we
could certainly do that. It's about 350 feet south of the intersection.
A typical turn lane on a 45-mile-an-hour road is 180 feet. So there's
enough room to put in a deceleration lane and an access point at that
location.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I assume there would be no
ability to have a left-out and left-in at that location.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not a left-out. You might be able to
get a directional left-in. But I think the right-in, right-out is pretty
straightforward to do.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Well, I'm going
October 22, 2019
Page 136
to second the motion because I think the legal argument has been
well laid out --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- by Commissioner Solis.
But as part of that motion, as part of that second, I'm going to
ask Commissioner Solis to add to that motion, if you would, direction
to staff to take a look at that right-in, right-out to Livingston and see
what staff can do to help facilitate getting that done as quickly as
possible.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd make that amendment to the
motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. I have no other lights up.
I was going to second the motion myself but -- and I want to
say -- does Bryan Milk still work for us?
MR. OCHS: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's blame this on him. And, by
the way, Bryan is my friend. I've known him forever.
I do want to say that it is paramount for us as a
community -- Mr. Casalanguida's talked about it. Mr. Feder, when
you were director of Transportation, we talked about the internal
connectivity to keep residents from having to flow out on these
arterial roads of ours.
I would really like to see the communities come to some kind of
an agreement to allow for access. I mean, I made a joke when I was
talking to some of the applicants about moving the other gate out and
forcing it, and that's certainly not going to be an acceptable path to
travel.
But I really would like to see -- not litigation. I would like to
see a cooperation understanding of the safety aspects, and that access
through there, limited to the residents of those two communities
October 22, 2019
Page 137
especially -- both ways. Especially if we can facilitate what
Commissioner Saunders suggested with the right-in, right-out over on
Livingston Road through the Orchards. That would be a benefit to
the folks in Piper's as well.
But I have to concur with my colleagues and uphold what our
staff has made a recommendation for. But it is and has been good
planning all along to provide for internal connectivity through these
communities and not force people out onto the arterial roads.
So be that as it may, that's my two cents.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just want to say that it
saddens me to see two fine, upstanding communities both upstanding
people with beautiful homes and then blocking each other out and not
even helping one another. It just -- it breaks my heart to see
something like that happen. These people are knowledgeable. You
know, they're smart. They're educated, and they're --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're putting up a block. It
just saddens me.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
seconded and amended on the second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I speak?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Your light wasn't up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
I think it was Robert Frost that said that -- it was a poem about
good fences make good neighbors, and he disagreed with that. And
I'm of the opinion of Robert Frost.
It was a very sad comment. It was very sad hearing -- for me,
as a commissioner, to hear the comments of your neighbors. These
are people you probably meet in the store. These are people who
October 22, 2019
Page 138
probably pay the same amount of money, maybe more, than you've
paid for your places, and yet somehow they become discarded? You
don't trust them? They're black and dark and horrible? Something's
terrible going to happen?
What -- is this what's happened with gated communities? Is
this why, in some places, they don't have as many as Collier County?
We're known as a wonderful, open, friendly community, and I
hope we maintain it. And I know that this was a very passionate
argument with you. I understand that. And I have to -- I will vote
with the majority here, but I do hope, as my colleague to my right has
said, that somehow the passion and the anger can be put aside and
you work this out.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make one more comment?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of course. You weren't lit up
either, but I let her go, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just a follow-up, I think, on the
way we all feel about neighbors in this kind of a situation,
that -- since we're giving direction to staff to investigate an
alternative that would potentially alleviate some of the concerns of
getting out onto Vanderbilt, as a former litigator, I would -- I would
just think about the cost of litigation in relation to the cost of, maybe,
some access.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fixing the roads.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll just say that to everyone
involved, that there may be -- there's probably a solution to this that's
not an all-or-nothing proposition, although it seems that way today.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Perfect.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well said.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well said.
It's been moved and seconded, and the amendment was made
October 22, 2019
Page 139
and accepted that we take staff's recommendation. 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.
Let's go. We'll be back at 2:46.
(A luncheon recess was had from 1:46 p.m. to 2:46 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Sir, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, that's good. Thank you, sir.
It's been on. Commissioner Fiala's up here cooking hot dogs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I get so cold up here, so I have to
have a heater.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you're the hot dog she's
cooking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oftentimes --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was pretty good.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you think that all up by
yourself?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just listen.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's go.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just so everybody knows, I believe
we're going to take 9C, which is our remaining advertised public
hearing item and then move to Item 11, which is the discussion on the
October 22, 2019
Page 140
RLSA, if that --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- works for the Board.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That works for the Chair.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2019-206: DENY A SINGLE PETITION FROM
THE 2018 CYCLE THREE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS FOR AN AMENDMENT PROPOSED TO THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE
VENTANA POINTE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY AND
DISAPPROVE FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW
AND COMMENTS RESPONSE - ADOPTED W/CCPC
RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVED LANGUAGE
CHANGES, AND CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS NEED
TO BE READY PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF GMP AMENDMENT
MR. OCHS: Item 9C is a recommendation to deny a single
petition from the 2018 Cycle 3 of the Growth Management Plan
amendments for an amendment proposed to the Future Land Use
Element to establish the Ventana Point residential overlay and
disapprove for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity for review and comment.
And the petitioner normally makes the presentation at this point,
sir.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Good afternoon.
For the record, Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here on behalf of
the applicant. Ryan Zuckerman is the applicant. He's here with me;
Rich Yovanovich is our land-use attorney; Brent Addison is the civil
October 22, 2019
Page 141
engineer with Banks Engineering; and Jeremy Sterling is our
ecologist. Jeremy's with Earth Tech Environmental.
I know you've already had a long day. I will try my best to be
as brief as I can be and still get the points on the record that I need to.
The subject property is shown on your screens right now. It's
zoned A agriculture, but it falls under the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District Overlay, and it's designated as receiving.
This is the zoning map, and this is the Future Land Use Map.
The teal color represents receiving; the yellow represents urban.
There is a transitional overlay right here that applies to the Heritage
Bay DRI. The urban boundary is right here, and the subject property
is outlined in purple right there. So this is one mile between the
urban boundary and the subject property. Actually, .9 miles.
This graphic shows that a little bit better. It shows the urban
boundary and where the subject property is located. You'll note, I'll
probably repeat this, but direct access to a six-lane arterial roadway,
that being Immokalee Road, and the property is served by Collier
County Sewer and Water, so it has central sewer and water public
services.
I'm not going to go over the RFMUD history because I think
you've had a busy day, and most of you are very familiar with -- if
not all of you are very familiar with that. So I'll skip that.
Just to say that its been about 18 years. How about that? I'll
summarize by saying it's been 18 years. About five years ago, I
think, before Bruce Anderson retired, he and I prepared a white paper
dealing with recommended changes to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District. And after Bruce retired, the Board authorized a -- four
separate restudies, and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is one of
those restudies that has not progressed, which is what drove the need
for us to submit our independent separate Comp Plan amendment.
I want to point on the visualizer, you'll see a graphic. A portion
October 22, 2019
Page 142
of this property was taken for the widening of Immokalee Road, a
little bit more than two acres, which brought the -- I think 2.9 acres,
which brought the size of the property down below 40 acres. It's
37.62 acres right now. It was 40.36, I think, when it was -- or 35
when it was -- in its original state before the widening.
That's important because right now you still have a 40-acre
minimum for clustered residential development. Your staff -- both
Bruce and I in the white paper and your staff have been consistently
recommending eliminating that 40-acre cap. But, obviously, that
hasn't been done yet because the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
restudy has not gotten that far yet. 2.94 was the amount of the
taking.
This graphic is just another graphic that shows the location of
the three designations in and around the area; that being receiving,
sending, and neutral. All of those are within the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District Overlay.
So this is Immokalee Road, and the subject property would be
right there.
We made an argument that requesting this amendment
constituted a transitional approach to allowing some additional
density in this area. One of the things that were expressed as a
concern that we heard from members of the Planning Commission
who, by the way, voted six to nothing unanimously to recommend
approval of this amendment was that they were concerned about this
being precedential.
And so on your screen the subject property is right here.
We -- I've looked at the vacant property in this area. There are three
vacant properties within that one-mile boundary east of the urban
boundary which, again, is right here. There's one here, one here, and
one here. Only two of those have direct access to Immokalee Road.
We did hold a NIM. And this is, I think, important because
October 22, 2019
Page 143
there was about 15 members of the public there, and there were
issues raised about our proposal -- one issue was using Richards
Road. I'll show you where that is in one second -- which is a private
roadway adjacent to the east of our property. In fact, 30 feet of it is
on our property of that -- of the total 60-foot private roadway.
So the residents there expressed concerns about using that road.
It's really not well improved. It's more of a dirt road. We would
have improved it to our access. They also were concerned about the
buffers. The code-required buffers were 10 feet in width. That's
what we were showing. And then they also had a concern about the
density. We were asking for 2.5 units per acre; 95 units.
So we made a commitment to the folks to take a look at those
issues. This was our original site plan. And you can see that we
were going to come off of Richards Road, which is right here, and we
were going to access the property this way.
This is our revised plan. So we went back and we met with
staff, and we were able to get staff to concur that we could access the
property off of Immokalee Road right here. We have to put in a turn
lane, which we will do, and we have to share access here with the
property to our west in the event that that property develops, which
we will also do. We also increased the -- so no using Richards
Road.
We also increased these buffers along the perimeter to 20 feet
with enhanced plantings. We have a substantial preserve right here.
And we reduced the density from 95 to 77, which is 2.05 units per
acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Show me where Richards Road
was again --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, Richards Road is right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- please.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This map. Richards Road goes
October 22, 2019
Page 144
north and south, and he's --
MR. MULHERE: This is Sundance, which runs --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: East and west.
MR. MULHERE: -- I'm not sure -- east and west, I think.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct, west.
MR. MULHERE: So, again, 77 units. We're 1.9 miles east of
Collier Boulevard, .9 miles east of the urban boundary. Our position
is that this, you know, could be used as a test case to look
at -- because my client has been out looking to acquire TDRs, and it's
kind of hard to find them.
I think you-all remember the discussions you had on the rural
fringe is that sending landowners, especially for the smaller parcels,
really can only expect to get two TDRs. They're not going to spend
money to clean up the property, and they're not going to find
somebody to accept the property, a public conservation entity.
So they get what's called the early entry -- the base density
bonus, excuse me, the base TDR and the early entry TDR.
They don't see value in that. I mean, they're selling for about
15,000, plus or minus. So that's $30,000. So those smaller property
owners say, that's not enough value for me to sell my development
rights. So they're a little harder to come by.
Also, I don't know if you're all aware of it, but I think your early
entry either has or will expire. And I'm assuming that staff is
coming back to address that issue in posthaste because, otherwise,
they'll only be able to probably get one TDR from their sending-land
property, and there was a commitment made as part of the adoption
of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that the mechanism to
compensate these landowners was through this TDR program.
I think I mentioned it's served by sewer and water.
I wanted to just take a moment to give you an example of what I
think is a very similar situation that's been in existence for a long
October 22, 2019
Page 145
time. Not all the facts are the same, but very similar. We're talking
about a transition.
South of Davis, along Collier Boulevard -- and, Commissioner
Fiala, I know you're very familiar with this -- there's a one-mile
stretch that's called the Urban Residential Fringe. That was to be a
transition between the urban area and the rural area.
In that URF, that Urban Residential Fringe, the base density is
1.5 units per acre, and you can increase your density by transferring
in one TDR to 2.5.
Our position is that this is the same situation. This property is
within one mile of the urban boundary. It has central sewer and
water. It has direct access to a six-lane roadway. Why would you
necessarily limit it to only one unit per acre? We had to address
some of the neighbors' concerns. We believe we've done that.
Even in this scenario, we would be required to purchase
somewhere in the neighborhood of 37 TDRs that otherwise are not
going to get purchased. First, we've got to find somebody to sell
them to us, but we believe we can do that. I want to go to the
proposed text because we have some changes to it. We met --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That was on purpose, Leo.
MR. MULHERE: Is this on now? Is it on? Can you hear
me?
MR. OCHS: Operator error.
MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure where that -- what do I want? I
want the visualizer.
Okay. On the visualizer -- I hope you can read that. I can
make it a little bigger. In the yellow text is some language that you
do not have in your packet that was based on comments and
conversations and concerns that were raised in meetings that we had
with the Commissioners, certain commissioners, and I think the issue
was to try to provide some language that would direct the acquisition
October 22, 2019
Page 146
of the TDRs to those sending landowners who hadn't severed their
TDRs -- most of those are smaller properties, 5-, 10-acre properties,
or even less -- and not to buy them from what some people have
called a TDR broker or what others have called just somebody who
has a lot of TDRs.
So the language we came up with, highlighted in yellow, are
limitations on our ability to get the one density dwelling unit for each
TDR we buy. We only get that if we enter into a contract to
purchase TDR credits from sending lands that have not severed TDRs
as of the date of the contracts, and the owner subsequently severs the
TDR credits prior to closing on the sale of the TDR credits, or the
other issue was the fact that there are a number of credits that haven't
been claimed that relate to the environmental restoration.
So there's four potential credits. One is a base; you get that.
The other was the early entry, which I think is expired, might have
expired, but -- and then the third is you get a credit for
environmentally cleaning up the property, removing the exotics and
making it acceptable -- theoretically acceptable to be taken by a
conservation entity. That fourth one has been very difficult.
You know, these conservation entities do not want to accept
more financial responsibility for maintaining property. So it has
been a problem.
But the third one is available. So if a -- if my client, for
example, acquires several five-acre parcels that haven't severed their
TDRs, assuming the early entry gets straightened out, he could then
acquire -- he would get the base. He would get the early entry or a
double base, however you deal with that, and then he would clean the
property up and get that one, so three per five as opposed today the
best you're probably going to do is two, maybe one, depending on the
early entry.
So I know -- I'm sorry. I know that was a little bit longer.
October 22, 2019
Page 147
That was a little bit longer than I intended to be, but I think that
explains our situation.
I just want to reiterate one more time that we did get a 6-0 vote
of approval from the Planning Commission.
And I'll try to respond to any questions, and whatever ones I
can't, then I'll bring up Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Anybody have any questions
besides me?
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: You ready for the staff report, sir?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David
Weeks of your Comprehensive Planning staff.
And this item on the visualizer succinctly shows why staff does
not support this amendment. Number one, we do not see a
transition.
The comparison was made to the Urban Residential Fringe
subdistrict along 951, and in that scenario you have properties
immediately adjacent to the urban boundary. So the urban
designation, Urban Residential Fringe subdistrict, allows a density of
one-and-a-half units per acre or, if you use TDR credits,
two-and-a-half units per acre, and immediately adjacent to that you
have the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District sending lands.
On the west side of 951 you have the urban residential
subdistrict which allows a density of four units per acre or higher if
you qualify for density bonuses.
So the Urban Residential Fringe is a transition from the higher
density allowed on one side of 951, and then to the properties one
mile to the east.
And the subject -- case of the subject property, it is not abutting
the urban boundary. You have nine-tenths of a mile separating the
October 22, 2019
Page 148
subject site from the urban boundary where higher densities are
allowed.
So properties to the east, to the west, and to the south are all
limited to the same density as the subject property, one unit per five
acres unless a property is 40 acres or larger and can, therefore,
participate in the TDR program, in which case the maximum density
is one unit per acre. The request here is for just over two. So staff's
position is there is no transition being provided.
Secondly, we believe the proposed density is out of character
with the three-mile corridor of the rural fringe receiving lands starting
.9 miles to the west heading all the way to the east.
I suspect this is difficult to read. I'll simply say -- summarize it
by saying what I just did, and that is all the surrounding properties are
limited to a density of one unit per acre or less, and only one unit per
acre if the property is large enough to participate in the TDR program
in which case could be one unit per acre.
And there's only, I think, two or three parcels shown within this
three-mile corridor where the TDR credits are used. So the vast
majority of the properties surrounding the subject site and further to
the east are limited to one unit per five acres.
And, finally, staff beliefs it inappropriate to create a TDR
program -- excuse me -- TDR provision that is unique to this property
only. No other property in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District will
be allowed the density that's being proposed here. This is the type of
piecemeal planning that staff does not support.
Notwithstanding that it has been four years since you gave your
direction for the restudies to proceed and the rural fringe amendments
have not yet come before you, we still think it is not appropriate for
this amendment to be approved.
So staff has recommended denial. We do have an alternative
recommendation. As Mr. Mulhere mentioned, the subject property
October 22, 2019
Page 149
previously comprised of more than 40 acres, which means it was
eligible to participate in the TDR program up to one unit per acre.
So staff's alternative recommendation, if and only if the Board is
inclined to approve an amendment for this property, is to make the
property owner whole, and that is notwithstanding that the property is
less than 40 acres now, that the property be able to participate in the
TDR program as if it did meet that 40-acre requirement.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nobody else is lit up, so I'll just
go.
It was mentioned about the early bonus program having expired
or soon to be expired. Can you enlighten us.
MR. WEEKS: It expired last month. You'll have an item on
your agenda next meeting requesting direction to staff to initiate the
necessary amendments to our regulations to reinstate that.
And the staff perspective is we were asking for, I think it's five
years, maybe four, but that would be an interim provision. And then
when those rural fringe amendments do get before you, then you can
make a decision that would be what we'd consider permanent,
whether it be to extend that early-entry bonus for a longer period of
time or to replace it with just a straightforward two credits --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Per five acres.
MR. WEEKS: -- for participation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just to replace the early -- because
the bonus is 20 years old, so...
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Earliest --
MR. WEEKS: A little less than that, but lengthy.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sixteen.
MR. WEEKS: It came about, I think, in 2005. Quite some
time, yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been a minute. And then the
October 22, 2019
Page 150
other question I wanted you to reiterate or make another statement
was irrespective of their request -- because they're wanting to go to
77 units, I think.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And within the bounds of the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District, if we were to waive the 40-acre minimum
criterion, they would then -- even if -- because they're only at
37-and-a-half or so, but that's close. They still, within the bounds of
the existing Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, would only be able to
go to one unit per acre, which would be a total of 40 units-ish.
MR. WEEKS: It would be 37.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So -- and my
question -- and this is just a thought, because we're all having
discussions about concentric compact development trying to allow
for density increases. It's -- is there not sufficient infrastructure to
handle the additional density request?
MR. WEEKS: I believe there is sufficient infrastructure.
Commissioner, that's not our concern. Our concern is the
appropriateness of the location. This is not within the urban
designated area. It's not within a rural village. Those are the areas
where we want, in particular, the compact mixed-use development.
What you have here is a residential-only development of
37-point-something acres and isolated.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I see. Okay. I have no other
questions.
MR. MULHERE: May I respond to a couple of comments?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Certainly.
MR. MULHERE: Obviously, respectfully -- and I mean that
because David is one of the best we've had in this county.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would agree with that.
MR. MULHERE: We disagree on some matters. And I want
October 22, 2019
Page 151
to just show you a couple of specifics. I mean, I think it's a little bit
of semantics. But out of character -- out of character with the area,
because there's a -- there's a net density or -- excuse me -- a gross
density of one unit per acre, but there's a lot of net density that's a lot
higher than one unit per acre.
But also, I mean, in the August 2016, the white paper from the
Community Planning section Zoning Division of your staff
recommended -- I want to put it on the visualizer -- in receiving lands
recommended modify residential standards, density standards, for
clustering, remove the 40-acre minimum, and increase density to two
units per acre. Now, it didn't go any further because the study didn't
go any further, but it was recommended.
I don't think two units per acre is out of character. These are
going to be detached single-family homes, because that was a
condition -- assuming you agree with that condition, that was a
condition placed by the Planning Commission on this
recommendation with their recommendation for approval.
And -- excuse me, wrong direction. I wanted to go to this
exhibit right here. You have a DRI across the street. Yes, I mean,
there are -- there's some multifamily product right here. Yes, there's
some large lakes there, but there is the Heritage Bay DRI. It's four
sections of land. It's low density because it's four sections of land,
but it is suburban-style development.
David said something about we want to reserve the higher
density for mixed use, and this is single-use residential. Well, of
course, it is. All of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District receiving
lands outside of a village are single use. I mean, as far as residential,
that's all that's allowed. You're not doing mixed use and commercial
outside of a village.
If you look at this exhibit, you've got these few parcels that
could be developed in addition to the subject parcel. There's nothing
October 22, 2019
Page 152
that would prevent an applicant from coming in for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment within this what I call a transitional zone, which is
the same as the Urban Residential Fringe. It's one mile.
Now, what makes this different from the rest of the Urban
Residential Fringe which is, I think three miles wide, as David said,
is, one, it's served by Collier County sewer and water; two, it has
direct access to a six-lane roadway; three, it is within one mile of the
urban boundary. We've said elsewhere that's appropriate for a
transition, but in this location for some reason it's not appropriate for
a transition.
Again, I mean, we just disagree, and I think the -- you know,
Planning Commission supported what we requested.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, I just would want to add
that we tried to design a program that would stimulate the
smaller-parcel sending lands to actually be acquired and put into
preservation, and that's why we made the slight modifications to the
language that would require going out and acquiring new parcels that
haven't yet had the TDRs severed, because those lands are smaller
parcels not participating in the program. By going through this
process, we could afford to pay enough to that owner of a five-acre
parcel to now say I don't want to put a house on it. I'll sell you the
TDRs, and maybe I'll go buy some land somewhere else.
Second, by adding the other one where we had to go and
improve or clean up lands, those lands right now aren't being cleaned
up. So it's not -- people were trying to characterize this as a buy one
get one free. We're not buying one and getting one free. We're
actually required now to put lands -- acquire lands to go into the
program for preservation that aren't right now in that program and
requiring us to clean up lands that aren't right now being cleaned up.
The concern was we would go -- I'll just call it a TDR banker,
and we would buy one TDR for $15,000. But we would effectively
October 22, 2019
Page 153
get two TDRs for that to reduce the price to $7,500, which would put
these other landowners at a disadvantage because, you know, they
were not -- we weren't out there trying to buy those.
I hope with these tweaks we've not devalued the remaining
sending lands. We've actually encouraged Ryan to go out and buy
those lands and sever the first two TDRs or buy from somebody who
severed the first two TDRs, the cleanup credit and the conveyance
credit.
So we're trying to further stimulate the program and not have it
be a buy one get one free, which I think staff has kind of
characterized it as. That was never the intent.
Your Planning Commission -- I think they used the phrase
"we're not going to give away density like candy" at some recent
Planning Commission meetings -- thought this was a good area to
increase the density from one to two and liked the concept of going
out and trying to acquire TDRs.
So we would request that the Planning Commission -- I'm
sorry -- the Board of County Commissioners follow the Planning
Commission recommendation and transmit this is to the State with a
recommendation that the State comment on it, and then we come
back.
One of the things I wanted to point out, and Bob forgot to
mention, was after the NIM we sent out the modified master plan to
our neighbors who were there and, in fact, our closest neighbor who
was one of the most vocal -- person who raised the most concerns has
actually sent in an email of support of this proposed project.
So we would hope that with that you would give us an
opportunity to go through the formal adoption process as well as the
PUD amendment process or PUD adoption process and go out and
acquire those lands that aren't currently participating in the program.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So just to allow me to repeat back,
October 22, 2019
Page 154
you are going to buy 35 TDRs?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We would go out and buy enough
lands, which I think is 85 acres that aren't -- and we have to work on
the math because, you know, when we talked about this yesterday,
Commissioner McDaniel, I may not have got the math right. We
would have to buy enough lands to result in 35 TDRs. And if it's
two per five, you help me do the math, I think that was 85 acres, if
you remember correctly, that are not currently participating in the
program, or we would have to go get those TDRs from some of the
third and fourth credit that are not participating in the cleanup and
convenience credit or some combination of the two to arrive at 35
TDRs.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So the equivocation for the TDRs
has to do with the acquisition of land that has not yet had the TDRs
severed from --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's the actual doing something that
the program originally was supposed to do --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- which was entice people to give
up those development rights, transfer them, and preserve and protect.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And that's what we're trying
to do.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It hasn't been that way. I mean,
the restrictions that were put upon those early bonus, the original -- I
call it the original "you own your land, you get a TDR." There
hasn't been as many. And then the last two, with regard to the
restoration and the dedication, is to give the -- because we don't have
agencies that will, in fact, take the land -- have not been successful
for the entire period of this process. There aren't a lot of agencies
that will take these lands, so...
October 22, 2019
Page 155
I have to say I was concerned about the buy-one-get-one-free
issue. I was not in support of that by any stretch of the imagination.
I thought that was a terrible devaluation for those that do, in fact, own
TDRs. But I can see validity in this request, especially if we're
incenting to actually go acquire land that the TDRs have yet to have
been severed.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what -- I just wanted a
point of clarity. What you're saying is we don't have the TDRs now,
but we'll make sure that we get them?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Before we break ground or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before we get to use any of the bonus.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Before we approve you for your
final or before for your adoption?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're going to definitely do our best to
try to have all of that land under contract prior to the adoption
hearing and the PUD hearing. But we would absolutely understand
that it would be a precondition that we can even apply for a plat
before we get all those lands; otherwise, we would be at one per
five -- one per five acres.
So, I mean, we have every incentive in the world to try to get
those under contract between now and what I think will be around
January, February to get those lands under contract. And I've told
Ryan to try really hard to get it under contract.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm going to make a motion to
move forward for the transmittal but with specific clarity that I want
those acquisitions accomplished before we come back for the
adoption hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I only ask that I get it under
contract, because to buy and sever without knowing that I get a GMP
October 22, 2019
Page 156
amendment adopted and -- or maybe within 30 days of approval,
something like that, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm okay with that.
Contractual -- I mean, you're not being bequeathed this right by
transmittal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And adoption is the second
process, and there is another public hearing in front of the Planning
Commission before the adoption actually comes back before us, and
so I just want to be very, very clear --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I got it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that I'm -- I think you said it
earlier to those that you're going to be paying close attention. I'm
going to be paying close attention to the contractual arrangements.
And it's going to also assist us in this valuation process of these
TDRs, because if the developer's able to go out and acquire land at a
significantly less rate than what the TDRs are going, that's going to
have an impact as well on the overall market of those TDRs.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think we're going to get it at a
lower rate.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Nor do I. Nor do I. But I just
want to be very clear that I'm not going to pass this for final adoption
without --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Being under contract.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- specific review of those. And
contractual ownership is sufficient for me, Rich. I mean, I
understand that there are things that are going to come and go, but
I'm okay with it in that regard.
I think that gets us to where we need to go. So I'll make a
motion to approve -- approve the item per the recommendations of
the Planning Commission.
October 22, 2019
Page 157
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have any registered
speakers on this?
MR. MILLER: We do not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming with the tweaks that we
put on the screen as well, Commissioner McDaniel?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, those specific language
changes I can't make a -- I think that has to be reviewed by our
counsel and by staff in order for us to actually --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was. That's language approved by
the --
MR. KLATZKOW: It was.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. So yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Does that -- those tweaks to the
language, does that make any difference to staff in terms of the staff's
position given that it does seem to further what our hopes are about
the TDRs?
MR. WEEKS: We do see some benefit in that language, but it
does not change our recommendation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Could I speak? Mr. Weeks, so
even with this language and the developer agreeing to make sure that
the TDRs are backing up his request for density, this is still
problematic for the staff because it's an intensification of an area that
doesn't qualify for it, so to speak?
MR. WEEKS: Correct. The end result is they will get double
the density that any other property in the rural fringe that qualifies for
the TDR program could get.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
October 22, 2019
Page 158
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Weeks?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Should we be changing the
program so that other property owners can get more density to make
the program more viable? I mean, I understand what you're saying.
I don't have a particular problem with two units per acre. I don't
have a particular problem with one unit per acre; obviously, the
property owner does. But I'm wondering if we need to make some
other changes.
MR. WEEKS: I think we do, and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District restudy has yielded that conclusion that we need to make
more changes, but exactly what those changes should be, you know,
if you approve this at two units per acre, maybe the rural fringe
amendments will be to change things to allow three units per acre or
one-and-a-half units per acre. We simply don't know if it will be for
any particular size of properties, you know, the threshold that must be
met, or if it would only be for mixed-use projects. We don't have
those details yet. We simply don't.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the approval of this
does not require us to do anything on properties. I understand there's
only two properties that fit into this category and only one of the
other ones has access to the main highway. Is that an accurate
statement? That's what the --
MR. WEEKS: Staff would concur with that, yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
MR. WEEKS: Oh, I'm sorry. We would agree that you do
not -- agree there's little likelihood of another property in the same
one-mile corridor coming forward to ask for the same thing. And,
certainly if you approve this, you're not bound -- that doesn't
specifically set a precedent for any other property owner.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If we approve this today,
October 22, 2019
Page 159
we're only approving for the transmittal. This all comes back?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, for adoption.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like -- in the
interim -- I'm going to go ahead and second the motion because I
think that -- I don't have any particular issues with this, but I would
like to say two things: One, that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for
this when it comes back.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would like your analysis
when this comes back as to whether or not we should make some
changes so that you can get two units per acre in those areas.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, Mr. Weeks, would you be
so kind to put up on the visualizer again the density. I don't know if
it was yours or Mr. Mulhere's representation of the density
surrounding the property. Please.
MR. WEEKS: So all properties within the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District receiving lands, that three-mile corridor, would be
limited to a density of one unit per five acres. The exceptions to that
are noted on this exhibit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And right now Immokalee
is -- yeah. Is not -- it's a heavily traveled road, let me put it that way.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Mr. Weeks, how far behind
are we in the adoption of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District
amendments?
MR. WEEKS: I'm looking back at Anita Jenkins, the
community planning director. I think it's fair to say it will be a few
months before we get to the transmittal hearings.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. WEEKS: And that's separated by probably three months
October 22, 2019
Page 160
or so till adoption after that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, what's been going
through my head is I wonder if we could split the second part in half
so, you know, you get a little bit more but not the whole thing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Like one-and-a-half?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than two units,
one-and-a-half.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd feel better about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That way, then, you get closer to
the mark that they were shooting for, but you get a little bit more than
what it's designated as. I just thought it would be a good
compromise.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, you know, I don't disagree
with either of you other than the fact that we're -- that's kind of -- I
mean, it's ours to approve or disapprove based upon what they're
requesting, and I think the incentivization to actually go out and buy
land where TDRs have yet to have been severed, which is one of the
original premiseses (sic), if that's a word, of the rural fringe for
environmental protection that hasn't -- those stipulations were put in
there to generate those additional TDRs to do the environmental
cleanup, to do the mitigation work, to actually transfer the ownership
to somebody else really haven't ever been done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just thinking --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Am I incorrect?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, no. I think you're -- I was just
going to say, the difference is, like, what, 18 units?
October 22, 2019
Page 161
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, to do that, the difference is
18 units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, one of the things that the
Planning Commission focused on was they really wanted to see to be
detached single-family.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And they also wanted -- they want
reasonably priced housing close to the urban area. And the market
for this is in, you know, the 350- price-point range which is -- which
is, you know, a nice price point for reasonably priced housing. And
I think the Planning Commission liked that that two units per acre
could bring the price of the houses down, and they would be
standalone single-family; otherwise, you'd -- we'd be out. That's not
what Zuckerman Homes does. But the price points, they'd be bigger
lots, more expensive housing. And they thought there was a nice
blend of those two things by allowing to go to two units per acre,
which was not an unreasonably high density, had been discussed in
prior white papers, hopefully will be part of whatever the staff
amendments they're generating anyway, and we can always revisit
this at adoption. If you transmit at 1.5, you can't go up. We can
talk about it at adoption.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know what -- and, again, my
thoughts are, this is a transmittal hearing. I've given a very specific
statement that I'm going to be watching how they actually acquire
these additional TDRs, if they acquire these additional TDRs, and
whether or not I approve it at the actual adoption is going to be
predicated upon that. So it's not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the Planning
Commission's -- you know, went for it. You know, I like that idea.
I just was thinking of some -- I think it was Penny Taylor that just
October 22, 2019
Page 162
brought up the Immokalee Road and how much traffic there is, and I
was thinking -- not that 37 cars will make all the difference in the
world, but, you know -- and I realize that the Planning Commission
6-0 approved it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still thinking.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if you call for the vote, I'll
vote.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it's been moved and
seconded that we move it forward. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Four-1.
You're not allowed to talk after we voted. What are you doing?
MR. WEEKS: Clarification.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
MR. WEEKS: So that was with the applicant's language that
they placed on the visualizer, and did that also include your comment
about having land under contract by the time of the adoption?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
October 22, 2019
Page 163
Item #11L
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
FOR PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY, DEVELOP A REGIONAL
WATER PARTNERSHIP, AND DRAFT LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENTS – APPROVED; NEED AN ANALYSIS OF
THE CREDITS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11L on
today's agenda. This is a recommendation to direct staff to initiate
the Growth Management Plan amendment process for proposed
changes to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, also develop a
regional water partnership and draft development code amendments.
Mr. Thaddeus Cohen, your Growth Management department
head, will make the presentation.
MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we've 18 registered
speakers for this item.
MR. COHEN: Thank you. Thaddeus Cohen, department
head, Growth Management.
When I spoke with you last, we had a white paper -- and it
sounds like that's being familiar language again today -- that we had a
comment period on. And what we said we would do over the
summer is have an opportunity to speak with some of the
stakeholders to see if we can narrow some of the differences that had
arisen from the paper that had -- excuse me -- the paper that was out
there and circulating.
I think we've narrowed the gap somewhat. And as we go
forward what I would like to do is first recognize the fact that this has
been a very long process; that there has been a lot of community
October 22, 2019
Page 164
involvement. And one of the things that's been pointed out to me is
that some of the folks who have great contributions to how we're
thinking about the Rural Lands Stewardship program are no longer
with us. But I think, again, it's an opportunity for us to take a look at
the public engagement that we've had over the last few years.
I'm going to start in a different location, which is with the staff
recommendations. We wanted to bring forward the Growth
Management Plan amendments for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay as prepared by the Five-Year Review Committee and
presented in an RLSA white paper. We're looking to develop a
regional water partnership and draft Land Development Code
amendments that address the SRA characteristics as outlined in that
five-year review as well as the RLSA white paper.
And it's a process that you're very much familiar with. We did
the same thing for the Golden Gate as well as Immokalee Area
Master Plans in which we've had public workshops. We did an
analysis, generated white paper, and then we request from you the
ability to prepare amendment to move forward.
What's the basis of us being able to move forward? We think,
first of all, we've been in limbo for almost over a decade only due to
the lack of agreement as to who is going to pay for these
amendments. The Five-Year Review Committee recommendations
have been prepared in an underline and strikethrough.
There is -- a majority of the stakeholders still believe that this is
the way to go forward, and also that a majority of the RLSA white
paper recommendations are included in that five-year review. And,
additionally, we believe that the recommendations approve the
program -- improve the program.
We're going to provide an overview, we're going to take a look
back as to what it is that we're trying to accomplish, and then we're
going to process the way forward. As an overview, as you know, it's
October 22, 2019
Page 165
been since 1999 in which the first adoption order was created, the
overlay program. There was a five-year review, and then we spent
the last two years in the public workshop looking at the white paper
recommendations.
And I want to take a moment for you to think about at that
adoption what we've been able to achieve: Preservation of the
natural resources, protect agriculture, and improve the pattern of
growth.
And, interestingly, this program was ongoing working
relationships among environmentalists, landowners, and community
advocates and representatives. That was the thesis in which they
took a look at the program when it was started.
What have been the benefits today? 55,000 acres preserved at
no cost to the public; a town, five thousand acres with Ave Maria;
manufacturing expansion; two villages with two still under
consideration; and somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 acres of
preservation pending.
What did people see as the future? So we saw what today's
benefits are. So back in the early 2000s, as the future was
somewhere around 134,000 acres of flowway, Camp Keais Strand,
the OK Slough, being able to protect agriculture, add additional
panther corridors, 45,000 acres of towns and villages, and I think
important as well is the diversification of Eastern Collier County
economy.
So what were those recommendations at that time? They were
grouped into areas of interest. First, general purpose and structure.
You could provide additional use for five years for the SSA credits,
add the Fish and Wildlife to conservation easements.
Retention of agriculture was important. So how do you
incentivize that? Landowners voluntarily eliminated nonagricultural
uses in exchange for credits. There was a thought of being able to
October 22, 2019
Page 166
create an agriculture advisory council. Protection of the natural
resources, establish credits for north and south panther corridors.
Taking a critical look at the tier system for restoration and
define those with credits, clarify the status of the WRA. So if you
had water treatment areas and they were considered part of the SRA,
those acreages would be included, and conditional uses would require
Environmental Impact Statements.
Characteristics of towns and villages: Increase the towns from
4,000 to 5,000 acres; villages from 1,000 to 1,500; eliminate hamlets
as a particular development use that was not particularly useful;
redefine compact rural development uses to support agricultural and
natural resources, tourism; and cap credits at roughly 404,000 and
then recalibrate the ratio of credits from eight per acre to 10 per acre.
And then there were some technical requirements, taking a look
at how you handle the master plans and the modifications of towns
and villages, and public/private roads in the SRAs would be
maintained and how that would take place as far as infrastructure
funding is concerned.
It was also looked upon as what happens outside of the RLSA.
So you'd want to be able to develop a map of potential wildlife
crossings, being able to direct nonagricultural uses away from
habitat, being able to reduce the conflict between us and the animals
out there, and to be able to say that if you have access to historical or
cultural resources, how would those be handled and defined.
Transportation was another key element. The county was to
adopt a plan, in essence, how it is that we believe as the county we
thought we should handle long-range transportation and mobility and
then how the developers work around the plan that the county came
up with as an important partnership in looking at infrastructure as you
move forward.
So credits. Today you have base credits, early-entry credits,
October 22, 2019
Page 167
and restoration credits. What was being proposed and what was
recognized is the fact that we need to address issues of panther credits
as well as agriculture and recalibrate those at the same time.
So today we sit with somewhere in the neighborhood of
72,000 acres as a footprint with 4,600 -- excuse me -- 460,000
acre -- excuse me -- credits that are available. And what was being
proposed was a shrinkage of that footprint to 45,000 acres and
somewhere around 404,000 credits.
So I find that very interesting in a voluntary program that the
consensus was around shrinking credits as well as shrinking the
footprint that would be left for development.
So that brings us to where we are today with the white paper.
Twelve months or more of 12 engagements with the community
focused on water resources, agriculture, environment as well as
towns and village.
We think that there's an opportunity to create a paradigm shift.
Instead of having each of our projects looked at individually, that
there's a partnership or an enhancement of the partnership between
the county, the Water Management District, the basin board, and the
special districts that take a look at, I'll call, extra jurisdictional issues
with water flows for discharges into those basins, filter marshes,
management plans for flowways.
Water is clearly a high level of importance today, and we think
that being able to create those resources and partnerships will help us
be able to solve some of those issues that we can't solve individually.
Agriculture protection is still one of the key issues in how it is
that we're able to incentivize that as we go forward.
Environmental protection, being able to cap the credits and
acreage, again, is something that's been agreed upon.
Towns and villages, being able to look at housing diversity to be
able to reach the various price points in order to create the diversity
October 22, 2019
Page 168
of housing that we believe is important; how it is that you look at
towns and villages and the density that's required for those.
And what I also find interesting is that when you look at the
Opportunity Naples 2014 document, business location in Eastern
Collier County was one of the key factors that they had as far as
being able to create additional economic opportunities for this
community.
Annual monitoring is something that is still there, maybe every
five years. The old EAR process had every seven. And so maybe
there's an opportunity for us to reassess at a period of time how the
development or how the towns, the villages are moving forward, how
it is that we partner in being able to move forward with the
infrastructure that's created and what's needed.
So how do we get from where we are to where we need to be?
It's our recommendation that we take the five-year committee review
and the GMP amendment and move those with the related land
development recommendations -- excuse me -- Land Development
Code issues as one track, and then take the white paper and move that
as a separate track.
So they're going at the same time, but they're not conjoined.
What I've said to the various stakeholders is to be able to get to where
we want to be with more walkable, more sustainable communities,
we need to take that next step to educate a new baseline and a new
benchmark. And, again, we believe that the recommendation is an
improvement to the current program, so this allows us to be able to
then move forward with the white paper recommendations.
So that brings us back to where we started as to what is our
recommendation: Bring forth the Growth Management amendments
for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay as prepared by the
five-year committee and present it in an RLSA white paper; let us be
able to move forward with regional water partnership; and then draft
October 22, 2019
Page 169
the Land Development Code amendments to address the RSA (sic)
characteristics as outlined in the Five-Year Review Committee paper
as well as the white paper.
So we think that moving forward allows us, again, to create a
new baseline. It's an improvement to our current program that has
tremendous success, as you can see when we started. And we think
it's a way forward for us to be able to get from where we are today
with the developments that are coming through and have a better
conversation with landowners and environmentalists and other
stakeholders as we try to create a future for Collier County in the
eastern part of our community. And that's our presentation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No? Okay. Let's go to our
public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your first speaker is Franklin
Adams, and he'll be followed by Nick Penniman.
MR. ADAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you
for moving this item forward on the agenda. We appreciate it.
For the record, I'm Franklin Adams. I'm here on behalf of the
Florida Wildlife Federation. We've been involved with this issue for
many, many years. And, as you may recall, we were involved in the
1997 decision on the litigation of which led to the RLSA being
formed. And Meredith had to catch an airplane; you'll have to
accept me.
We saw -- and I live out in Golden Gate Estates. We saw what
that place was when I was young. It was primarily wetland area. It
was probably part of the Big Cypress swamp and -- but it
gradually -- we know the history of it -- began to develop, and it's
built out quite a bit today.
There are problems with wildlife being able to move through the
October 22, 2019
Page 170
area, continuing sprawl and development, loss of native vegetation
out there, continued loss of, you know, the rural reasons for why a lot
of people moved out there.
So the RSLA (sic) was set in place to try to address this issue of
growth and prevent this type of sprawl or development further out
east in the area which is designated today as RLSA.
It was a collaboration between conservation groups, the farmers,
the ranchers, the landowners, and the county and trying to address
this issue, because, as you know, back in the early '90s we weren't
addressing growth or sprawl or permitting.
This approach allows the county and us to conserve a lot of land
that, under the one unit per five acres, would amount to a massive
amount of more buildings, sprawl, which is happening out there right
now.
The five-year review did expose that there are some imbalances
in the program, and to address these imbalances the five-year review
recommendations were presented to improve the program. These
recommendations had broad consensus among stakeholders, and even
a group of panther experts agreed that the RLSA five-year review
recommendations represented an enhancement to panther
conservation over the existing overlay.
It's been 10 years since this consensus took place, and we urge
you to adopt the white paper and to take the action today to begin to
move the process forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Frank.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nick Penniman. He will
be followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. PENNIMAN: Good afternoon. As you know, I'd
recently retired from the Growth Management Oversight Committee,
which I was chair for the last year or so.
October 22, 2019
Page 171
I don't think the county needs a committee which no longer has
a public purpose. And our original purpose, as defined by the
county commissioners, was for public participation, the process.
I think we did a good job with the RFMUD. We had great
participation with Golden Gate somewhat -- a little bit less with
Immokalee, with their existing overlay, also a little bit less. And the
rural fringe is a -- I mean, the rural lands is a very difficult way to get
the public to come into a single place at a time certain. So we didn't
have the best public participation we would have liked to, but we
tried our best.
I'd like to say that what you're about to decide is probably the
most important decision that the Commission's going to make in the
next 10 years and maybe even the next 20 years.
I was not involved in 2002. I was deeply involved in the 2005
review when 2008 and '9 came along because I was on the
Environmental Advisory Committee for the county, and I was part of
the three-person subcommittee that looked carefully at the RLSA
recommendations of the five-year review that Mr.
McDaniel -- Commissioner McDaniel was part of. All of these three
processes have gone through great public input.
But I would urge you to carefully look at the white paper that
has come out of the Planning Commission and -- or the planning
process right now. It was created by a group of independent experts,
not anyone with any particular self-interest or interest, and the white
paper seems to me to have an awful lot, and it is good.
Mr. Cohen and I had a little conversation about disagreements
that I have with the white paper, but I think that of all of the
documents that you've got, it's by far the best. Better than the 2005
amendment and review and certainly better than the -- than what is
now in 2002.
So I respectfully suggest that the white paper is the best
October 22, 2019
Page 172
alternative for you to consider both in the Growth Management Plan
and the LDC. Mr. Cohen and I disagree on that.
But, nonetheless, what you've got here is a great piece of work,
and I hope you adopt it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away, Nick.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Penniman, you were my
choice for the committee, so I do have to -- I haven't had a
conversation with you, and I do apologize for that.
But, just briefly, can you tell me on what points you agree with
staff on what they're recommending today.
MR. PENNIMAN: Well -- and I'm going to go to Mr. Cohen's
comments on the white paper.
The word "require" was taken out six times. It seems to me that
when you do work in the Land Development Code, particularly, the
requirement forces development into a certain direction. Mr. Cohen
says that that really wasn't the purpose of taking the words out, but it
was that -- to have an ongoing conversation about what was in those
particular parts of the white paper.
I don't necessarily agree that the GMP should be based on the
five-year review, because I'm not sure, based on my experience with
the five-year review, that it's really better than the current white
paper.
So I would say that those are the two major areas of
disagreement. But Mr. Cohen and I had a good conversation, and
possibly work things out in the future.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We will.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Nicole
Johnson, and she will be followed by April Olson.
MS. JOHNSON: Great, thank you. Good afternoon,
October 22, 2019
Page 173
Commissioners. For the record, Nicole Johnson here on behalf of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
As you're aware, the Conservancy has been participating in the
RLSA program since its inception. And based on the program's
stated objective, which was to allow 16,800 acres of new towns and
villages while retaining the remaining 91 percent of the RLSA as
conservation and ag, we were supportive; however, we now know the
program's development capacity is somewhere up around 250 percent
more development than was originally anticipated, and we know that
the program needs to be updated with new best-available science for
the endangered Florida panther.
At the heart of the issue is really the credit system, the math
behind the program. These credits and their value are both the
currency and the foundation upon which the RLSA is based.
The county didn't understand the math in 2002, and it resulted
in exponentially more development capacity. The county cannot
afford to misunderstand and get it wrong with the five-year review.
As an example, your staff's presentation references the five-year
review and states that the current program has about 460,000 credits.
In reality, the five-year review only acknowledged 315,000 credits.
Back then WilsonMiller did the tabulations and told everyone
315,000 credits, and it would equate to 43,300 acres of SRAs.
Using the now 11-year-old proposal advocated by staff, the
public is expected to accept that cap of 404,000 credits and
45,000 acres of SRAs will result in nothing left over for
one-unit-per-five-acre ranchettes. Two problems with that: First,
this does nothing to direct development away from Primary Panther
Habitat; second, a lot has happened since 2008, and it affects the very
credit policies we're being asked to move forward and that you are
being asked to move forward to a transmittal package.
Here's what's happened since 2008: Today there aren't 97,000
October 22, 2019
Page 174
credits vested and pending but over 226,000 credits according to your
staff's analysis. That means there's over 31,000 acres of SRAs that
will be using the eight-credit-per-acre formula, not the proposed
10-credit-per-acre formula. This matters because if you use these
outdated assumptions, your math is going to be wrong.
If you remember only one thing from my comments today,
please remember that with such a complex crediting system, the math
is critical. It's foundational. The county should have learned what
happens originally from not understanding the math behind these
credits.
The Conservancy does not recommend moving forward with the
five-year review recommendations. We ask you to use the
May 2019 white paper as the basis for discussion and to include the
fundamental flaws of the program that have been discussed by the
Conservancy and others.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is April Olson. She's been
ceded three additional minutes from Kelly Andrew. Ms. Andrew,
can you indicate your presence. Raise your --
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. She has a total of six minutes, and
she will be followed by Doug Hartman.
MS. OLSON: Good afternoon, Chairman McDaniel and
Commissioners. For the record, my name is April Olson. I'm here
on behalf of Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our 7,000
supporting families.
We believe, as Mr. Penniman had said, that decisions you make
on the RLSA is one of the most important decisions this board will
ever make.
Since the current program proposes over 43,000 acres worth of
development and would nearly double the existing population of
October 22, 2019
Page 175
Collier County. The county must ensure that the RLSA adequately
protects natural resources and taxpayer dollars. And because
generations far into the future will inherit these communities, it must
be a community planning effort.
After a lengthy two-year public restudy process involving many
of the county's concerned citizens and other stakeholders, including
significant staff time and work paid for outside consultants, staff has
now apparently decided to change the focus of the recommendations
from the May 2019 white paper to the now decade-old five-year
recommendations.
There are many issues with this approach. First, the five-year
recommendations were never part of the community-based RLSA
workshops that occurred in 2018 and 2019.
Second, the community has been given less than a week to
respond to these changes at this hearing.
Third, reports by Dr. Robert Frakes and Dr. Reed Noss, experts
in their field, demonstrated that 45,000 acres worth of development in
the RLSA would be extremely detrimental to most of the 19 listed
species in the RLSA, including the endangered Florida panther.
Fourth, the overwhelming majority of those who attended the
workshops over the past few years have stated that they want a
reduction in RLSA development, not an increase, which the five-year
recommendations propose. Look at the feedback tracker that the
county has posted on the website, and you'll see that that's true.
Finally, Joe Minicozzi from Urban 3, as you know, a nationally
renowned urban planner, has demonstrated to you that the large
receiving areas and low densities proposed for the current RLSA
program would provide significantly lower tax returns to the county
when compared to truly walkable communities like downtown
Naples.
Nevertheless, the five-year recommendations that staff now
October 22, 2019
Page 176
propose to include would further increase the size of villages and
towns, making them less compact, thus providing an even lower
taxable value per acre for Collier County. Staff has never
determined if the county can afford this.
While the May 2019 white paper recommendations were not
perfect and still did not address the fundamental flaws of the
program, we appreciated that Mr. Van Lengen listened and
considered public input. He included recommendations based on
considerable deliberation and discussion and added language with
some teeth, language that clearly obligated developers to comply with
the new recommendations.
And if you remember at that March 5th BCC workshop on
future growth and development, there was a lengthy discussion
regarding the difficulty of staff to hold developers accountable to the
LDC and GMP due to a lack of strong language.
It was discussed at the workshop that it was better to use
"require" than to "encourage." So it was surprising to see that staff
in their recent edits to the white paper removed the word "require" in
at least six of the recommendations. Why in the world would staff
remove language that clearly obligates developers to adhere to the
recommendations?
The recent changes to the white paper raises other questions.
First, on Slide 21 of Mr. Cohen's presentation, it shows that the
five-year -- if the five-year recommendations are implemented, then
up to 45,000 acres could be developed as SRAs and zero acres would
be left as open areas. Right here.
And we also know that Eastern Collier Property Owners,
referred to as ECPO, have applied for a federal mega-permit to
develop 45,000 acres of the RLSA, but there are over 20,000 acres of
additional lands that are owned by other landowners, not ECPO.
And nearly all of these 20,000 acres are located within the open area,
October 22, 2019
Page 177
including Hyde Park, which is currently under review as a village.
So what happens if the landowners of those other 20,000 acres
later decide to develop their land? Is the county going to forbid the
other landowners from developing their lands because of the
45,000-acre cap?
The second question I have is that staff is now recommending a
countywide plan for an Eastern Collier County transportation
network. If the road network is similar to what landowners proposed
during the five-year review, as you see here, the cost for the roadway
network would be over $7.8 billion. Are you aware that the
landowners in their federal permit application have stated that FDOT
and the MPO are responsible for mitigation costs, not the landowners,
which it states -- which it states in that paragraph there.
The mitigation costs could be in the hundreds of millions or
even billions of dollars. But who knows, as the county hasn't
determined these costs.
My last question is: When will the county provide the missing
NRI data for the RLSA program? The NRI data is important not
only for determining the areas that are more suited for development,
but the data's also important for determining how many stewardship
credits landowners can earn, which are the currency of the program.
At the Rivergrass Village hearing, the updated NRI data was
provided after staff wrote their report. At that point it was too late.
We hope you require the county to accept and make public the
data for the NRI program before any more SSA and SRA
applications come forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, April.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Doug Hartman. He'll be
followed by Tom Jones.
MR. HARTMAN: Good afternoon. I have to admire the
October 22, 2019
Page 178
patience of the members of the Commission. They've been sitting
here an awfully long time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I'm patient, but
Commissioner Taylor's not.
MR. HARTMAN: I'm Doug Hartman. I come today to speak
from two different hats. One hat is as a participant in the workshops
developing the white paper. The other is as the former chairman of
the Senior Advisory Committee for the county.
We had two subjects to cover. First, I want to very quickly
about universal design. I don't believe it's particularly controversial,
but it may not have understanding on the part of some of the
commissioners.
The universal design is contained in your packet at Page 982. It
is a national program to redesign the interior part of new housing so
that it can be occupied by residents from the age of middle age
through their senior years, senior senior years. It involves some
modifications.
The proposal we have put before you, which has been approved
by the staff and by the CCCP (sic) is to require new developers who
make a sale of a house that is not yet constructed or not yet built out
to offer -- the only requirement is to offer a universal housing option
to all new buyers in the county.
This allows them to mandate or to install a single entrance, at
least one with no steps, it allows them to widen the doorways from
the standard of 32 inches to 36 inches so that wheelchairs can be
moved through with ease, it widens the hallways, it modifies the
layout of bathrooms and kitchens. The long list of items is contained
in the library for the white paper which is listed at the end of the
white paper.
The second and more important issue is the issue that I want to
raise with regard to my observations as a member of the public that
October 22, 2019
Page 179
did the workshops.
The amendments to the LDC and the GMP layout of the towns
is the area I want to focus on. Policy 1.2 and 4.7 call for compact,
walkable town centers with continuum between the rural and the
town center and mixed use throughout. None of these terms are
sufficiently defined in the white paper or the regulations to allow the
staff to defend their position in negotiations with developers.
Therefore, I strongly recommend you look at redefining or improving
the definition of these particular items.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom Jones. He will be
followed by Alan Reynolds.
MR. JONES: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Jones. I'm
employed by the Barron Collier Companies. I'm here on behalf of
my company as well as the other members of the Eastern Collier
Property Owners.
And I'd like to note for the record, October 22nd, 2002, we were
in this same room 17 years ago talking about the same item that we're
talking about today.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's not been quite 17 years
yet.
MR. JONES: Well, October 22nd, I'm sure it's 17 years. So
here we are again, and I hope this commission is as enlightened as the
commission that, on October 22nd in 2002, adopted the rural lands
program.
I'm here today to encourage you and ask you to support and vote
in favor of the staff's recommendations as presented in their
executive summary.
Secondly, I'd like to clarify something. There seems to be a
never-ending drumbeat that somehow in 2002, the Commission, the
community, the Conservancy, and everybody else was fooled and
October 22, 2019
Page 180
hangs onto this concept that only 16,000 acres of development were
going to take place.
In the transmittal hearing, as read by Ms. Johnson earlier, that's
exactly true. But as you know, a transmittal hearing is followed by
an ORC. And the Department of Community Affairs at the time
submitted a report of objections, recommendations, and comments,
and as a result of that, the program that was adopted on October 22nd
in 2002 changed -- it had a number of changes to it which primarily
focused around the number of credits that could be generated.
And at that hearing, then executive director of the Conservancy
supported that program. Mr. Davis, and I'll quote: No, I'll be brief,
because I did meet with a couple of you last week and shared some
concerns that we still had, and I wanted to make it clear that those
concerns have been worked out and we now feel that we can fully
support the plan as it comes to you today.
And that day was the adoption hearing when the credit
calibrations were changed at the request of the State of Florida.
It is a dramatic improvement what we saw back at transmittal
time through the efforts of DCA, on and on and on, and we urge you
to adopt it today. Let's put this 16,000-acre rumor to bed once and
for all.
So, again, if you'd like to support the creation of agricultural
preservation credits, if you want to identify specific credits available
for panther corridors which do not exist, if you want to cap the
development acreage, that's 45,000 acres as opposed to the 43- that
potentially could be done, which it's more, and if you want to cap the
credits at 400,000 -- at 404,000 acres, I'd ask you to support the
county's recommendations in their executive summary.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alan Reynolds. He'll be
followed by Neale Montgomery.
October 22, 2019
Page 181
MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon. My name is Alan
Reynolds. I'm a land-use planner with Stantec. I've been here in
Collier County practicing planning for 40 years, and for about half of
that time I've been working on the Rural Lands Stewardship program
with Eastern Collier Property Owners, with the county, and with
other stakeholders.
And, you know, it's something that I hope and I believe the
county should be proud of. It's become a benchmark program in the
United States for how you can incentivize public benefits in
conservation by working collaboratively with landowners and other
interested parties.
We talk a lot about stakeholders, and there was a lot of
stakeholder involvement in the -- certainly in the adoption, in the
five-year review, and in the recent white paper. To me, the
stakeholders of -- the property owners that own the land, farm the
land, are stewards of the land, manage the land, are the definition of
the critical stakeholders. And in a voluntary program, it's very
important to make sure that there's a balance and that the stakeholders
and the people who are actually going to help make the program
work are with it, and they have been.
Since 2002 staff made a great presentation about what's
happened. Sometimes I think we lose perspective of what
50,000 acres means, but to think about putting 50,000 acres in
conservation, in permanent protection without a single dollar of
taxpayer money spent -- and that's just to date. That number will go
up over time -- just compare that to Collier's great Conservation
Collier program where the taxpayers actually taxed themselves to buy
land. There's been about 4,200 acres in the same amount of time
that the stewardship program has put 50,000 acres into protection.
That's a 12-1 ratio.
So sometimes we get bogged down in a lot of details about
October 22, 2019
Page 182
credits and whatnot, but it's unarguable that this program has done an
outstanding job of putting land into conservation and doing it in a
way that property owners are collaborating.
Please understand that this program -- when property owners
give up their rights for a stewardship credit, what's a stewardship
credit, and why does it have value? It has value for one reason
alone, and that is Collier County administers and honors a program
that they adopted. That creates the value of a credit. Otherwise, it's
just an intangible thing.
So it's very important that -- to encourage people to participate
in a program that they feel that they understand the rules and that
there's certainty. So there's a huge responsibility to make sure that
we don't do things that could mess up a program.
During the five-year review process, there was an extraordinary
effort, 30 public meetings over two years. And by the end of that
process in this room in 2009 all of the parties agreed to a negotiated
conclusion by then Commissioner Coyle that said we're going to cap
acres and we're going to cap credits. Neither of those caps exist in
the adopted plan today. All of the parties agreed to that. That
includes the Florida Wildlife Federation, Audubon, Defenders of
Wildlife, and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. Everybody
agreed.
So the five-year recommendation that your staff is saying let's
adopt them after 10 years were agreed to 10 years ago and then got,
unfortunately, caught up in a never-ending process of trying to get
them to the finish line.
So we do support the staff's recommendation. We think it's a
wise thing to move forward. Let's reset the base here where we can
get from 90,000 acres of protection to 134,000 acres of protection.
Bear in mind that as part of that agreement, property owners gave up
some things, okay. They gave -- they agreed to a cap where one did
October 22, 2019
Page 183
not exist, they agreed to voluntarily give up rights on another
40,000 acres of ag land in return for credits, they agreed to reduce the
number of restoration credits that they earned, and a lot of other
things. So there was clearly a give and take in that process.
ECPO has never wavered from its position from 10 years ago.
We're standing here today saying we still honor what we said we
would honor 10 years ago, and we would really encourage you to
give staff the direction to move the five-year amendments forward
and to also do the implementing Land Development Code
amendments that accompany those.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Neale Montgomery.
He'll be followed by Alison Wescott.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's a she'll be followed by.
She will be followed by.
MR. MILLER: My apologies. Forgive me.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I didn't pick the name. My folks did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How are you, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's your name?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon. For the record,
Neale Montgomery. I'm here representing ECPO.
You folks were the forerunners, as you know, and after you
adopted the RLSA, in 163 there was included a statutory provision,
but there's some interesting things in that statutory provision. One is
that the State recognizes that it's an incentive-based program. I
heard somebody earlier say you should be requiring them. You
can't. By statute, it's an incentive-based program. It's voluntary.
Another thing that the statute provides, and it's in your
ordinance, this is optional, and so the baseline rights, property rights
don't go away. So you can't regulate those away or, if you do, there's
other issues that come into play.
October 22, 2019
Page 184
And, thirdly, there are incentives in the statute, and there's a
specific reference that says even though Collier County's regulations
went into effect earlier, those incentives still must be provided to
property owners in Collier County.
There's been discussion about the five-year review, and that's
actually required by 4.08.03. And that's interesting to look at
because it says, many of the tools, techniques, and strategies of the
RLSA are new, innovative, and incentive-based and have yet to be
tested. So the county required itself to look at this and then to send
the information to DCA, now the DEO, and then make the necessary
amendments. So we need to follow what's actually in your
ordinance.
And as Mr. Reynolds has already testified, there was an
agreement on that. The property owners agreed to the provisions in
the five-year study. So you need to take the first step as required by
your ordinance and adopt the five-year amendments. Then, by
virtue, again, of 163, once you adopt the Comp Plan amendment, you
must, therefore, adopt the Land Development Code. So that has to
be the second step.
What you're being asked to do is not follow your ordinance and
just jump over all that and go to the last step and consider the white
paper. Well, this says you don't know if it works, so you need to
take the next step. So you need to take the next step and then give it
a chance to see how that works and then come back and evaluate that.
Plus, as you know, there's an EAR amendment.
So if you've identified things that needed to be changed in your
Comp Plan, they actually should have been done -- they should have
been done in 2009, and if they weren't done then, they should have
been done when you did the EAR amendments, and they weren't.
So I'm going to ask you to follow the staff recommendation:
Adopt the five-year review, do the implementing Land Development
October 22, 2019
Page 185
Code regulations, and then evaluate that and come back with
whatever you deem on the necessary next (sic) changes, but it has to
be a program that the landowners rely on, because you can't take
away their right, and you can't change it from an incentive-based
program.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Alison Wescott. She will
be followed by Judith Hushon.
MS. WESCOTT: Thank you very much. I'm a citizen of
Collier County. These comments are on my own, and I was one of
those many citizens that participated in the restudy workshops over
the last two years.
Okay. I want to say that land -- I believe that landowners and
developers must do a better job to uphold their side of the grand
bargain that was struck with the State and the county nearly 20 years
ago, which today is known as the RLSA overlay or the RLSA
program.
I believe there are three key obstacles to a better RLSA overlay.
Number one, the current program plan lacks the latest panther science
to inform its land values through the Natural Resources Index.
Needless to say, this makes it difficult to protect the endangered
Florida panther and other listed species found in abundance on the
RLSA as well as invaluable water resources there.
Number two, there's currently an asymmetry of information.
The data used to value the land and determine what land should be
open to development and which land should be preserved was created
by consultants working for and paid for by ECPO, the landowners,
and not the county.
For the sake of transparency and the accountability of our local
institutions, the county should take this data, should hold this data,
and it currently does not. The status quo keeps the county staff and
October 22, 2019
Page 186
our citizens largely in the dark when it comes to management
decisions made -- made for the protected lands of the RLSA.
Number three, the unintended consequences of
over-incentivizing the designation of land for restoration by
landowners and the mechanism for this has resulted in very little
implementation of actual restoration but, on the other hand, a rapid
acceleration of available restoration credits. Remember, this is the
currency of the program. And this could -- this could produce larger
development, a greater footprint in the RLSA than was ever
imagined.
I ask the Board of County Commissioners and staff to remove
these obstacles and hold developers to a higher standard. We can
and we must do better. Let us keep in mind that conservation
development has been defined as a project that dedicates a
minimum -- a minimum of 50 percent of the total development parcel
to open space for conservation.
So we are at the bare minimum with the RLSA, and one doesn't
have to look very far to find an example of a developer willing to
give more than 50 percent back to nature. Babcock Ranch chose to
develop just 18 percent, or 17,000 acres, of its land out of
91,300 acres. It negotiated a transfer of 90 percent of that land back
to the State for preservation. The spirit of the RLSA overlay calls
for innovation and smart growth.
And thank you very much for your time. Sorry to run out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was your name?
MS. WESCOTT: Alison Wescott.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Troy, how many more
speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: About 10 at this point.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ten? Let's take a 10-minute court
reporter's break, and then we'll come back. He said 10 more left,
October 22, 2019
Page 187
correct?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. So, I'm going to -- Ms. Judy,
forgive me. I'm going to -- Terri's going cross-eyed on me.
(A brief recess was had from 4:20 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next public speaker is
Judith Hushon.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hold on, Troy. If we
can -- everybody come to order, please.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judith Hushon. She was
ceded three additional minutes from Gary Bromley, who is here, and
she'll be followed by Liesa Priddy.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Liesa.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Liesa.
MR. MILLER: L-i-e-s-a, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Liesa. We're giving you the
annunciation.
MR. MILLER: First Neale, and now Liesa.
MS. HUSHON: Hello, Commissioners. Good afternoon. It's
been a long one.
The white paper identifies areas of the RLSA Growth
Management Plan that need to be updated. However, it's not
completely accurate in what it says needs to be done to the Natural
Resources Index.
This is -- this presentation relates to Points 1 and 5 in that memo
that I sent to you-all over the weekend. You-all should have that.
I've also put it into the record.
In 2002, WilsonMiller calculated scores for each of the one-acre
squares within the RLSA. To this day, staff is relying on these old
October 22, 2019
Page 188
calculations. These are Year 2000 calculations. These are
20-year-old calculations, and that's what we're still using.
Most of the variables are static that go into the NRI. Only,
really, the one we have to -- there's land cover. Yes, that change -- it
could change, but that's easy to change. The other one that's more
difficult, of course, is the threatened and endangered species
population areas.
When the GMP was passed, then County Attorney Nancy Lenan
(phonetic) said she knew updates would be needed. Similarly, there
was a memo from Mac Hatcher and Laura Roys. You may
remember them. They were environmental scientists with the
Growth Management Division.
And during the five-year review in 2008/9 they were
commenting on the NRI and requested an update. Their request was
ignored. It has not been updated. We are still using 2000 data.
At the time the GMP was prepared, it was recognized that more
needed to be known about Florida panthers and their required habitat.
In 2002 there were only a few panthers who had been collared on
public lands. This was like CREW and the panther preserve, and we
only knew where they were during the daytime. That's only when
we monitored them.
Now we monitor them 24/7, and we know that during the
evening they go hunting on croplands and in range lands and in citrus
groves. That's where they go hunting. During the day, they sleep.
So if you go on an inspection tour of a piece of property, you'll
never see them during the day, or your odds of seeing them are
almost nil because they're sleeping somewhere back in some hollow,
because that's what they do. If you go out at night, you might find
something.
Therefore, an expert panther study was commissioned because
they knew they didn't have enough data on panthers. And in 2008
October 22, 2019
Page 189
some preliminary results were available, and we had Primary Panther
Habitat defined. And this is what Mac Hatcher and Laura Roys were
trying to get incorporated. I now would like to ask you to, again,
please incorporate that.
Each panther has a territory of about 200 miles. That's females.
Males have more. The odds of seeing one, again, that gets really
low.
But they need that much land. If they are pushed closer
together, they fight and kill each other. You will see that in the
newspaper sometimes; there are deaths.
Primary and Secondary Panther Habitats have been identified by
expert panels in two studies, and they're listed in that document I
gave to you. Also, panther populations need to be connected, which
means we need panther corridors set aside for their use.
Recently during the Rivergrass review, Ken Passarella said that
he did not use any of the new data or more recent panther sighting
data from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or FWCC. He only used the
old 2002 data. There's an example. We didn't do that.
What this meant was that areas where panthers are, that we now
know are, weren't scored as such. We cannot continue to rely on old
data and science when more up-to-date information is available.
We need to direct staff to obtain the initial foundational data
from WilsonMiller Stantec, acquire all available data from the
panther team review, FWCC, and USWS, et cetera.
We need to combine these data along with the consideration of
panther primary and secondary habitats.
One of the things we definitely need to do -- and this isn't even
included in your white paper -- add FLUCFCS codes to the panther
preferred habitat covering range land, cropland, and citrus groves,
and these are mostly the 200 and 300s codes, and that was also in
what I gave you.
October 22, 2019
Page 190
Set aside the needed panther corridors as Habitat Stewardship
Areas and don't award quarter credits until the panther can get all the
way from here to here. That's what I'm asking you.
Finally, I just wanted to bring up, I'm on the board of the
Conservancy, and I see this stuff regularly, but this is the exact words
out of the 2002 hearing, October 22nd, 2002. And it's right here. I
just thought you might want to take a look at it. It does say
16,800 acres, so...
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Ms. Judy.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Liesa Priddy. She'll be
followed by Patricia Forkan.
MS. PRIDDY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Liesa Priddy, and my family is the
third largest landowner in the county. We're part of the Eastern
Collier Property Owners group that has an interest in the future of our
property, both financially and as stewards of the land, and I did
participate in the RLSA restudy sessions.
We operate JB Ranch in the southeast portion of the county and
have done so since the 1940s. Our ranch is in Primary Panther
Habitat and has one of the highest panther densities in the state.
I would like to comment on the last speaker. Panthers do travel
during the day. I've seen them on multiple occasions during the day,
and my employees see them on a regular basis, and I guarantee you
we are not working at night.
I tell you this to emphasize that we have skin in the game.
While many here today are concerned about how the growth of
Collier County proceeds, let me be emphatic that no one is as
concerned as we are. We live and work every day in the RLSA area.
We have been at the table of collaborating on the RLSA for
almost 20 years. We aren't developers, and we're not big business.
October 22, 2019
Page 191
Our industry is agriculture.
It would be fine with us if not one more house was built in
Collier County. In fact, some of the ones that we have now could go
away, and we'd be happy, but that isn't a reality. Reality is that
growth will continue, but it is the responsibility of all of us that it be
done responsibly.
Right now on our property, we can build one house per five
acres, just as Golden Gate has. But who wants that? I don't think
anybody does. So for us the best alternative is the RLSA program
and the enhancements that the five-year review implementation
would bring.
As you know, the RLSA was established 17 years ago to address
natural resource protection, preservation of ag lands, and urban
sprawl in response to a judge's final order.
Part of the RLSA requirement is to have five-year reviews.
This was completed in 2009 after exhaustive work but never
implemented. Ten years later here we are again after another
exhaustive restudy process.
The staff has issued a white paper with recommendations. If
the Commission is truly concerned with growth management in the
county, it is clear as to what must happen today. I appeal to you to
direct staff to bring forward GMP amendments for the RLSA overlay
as prepared by the Five-Year Review Committee and repeated in the
RLSA white paper, including LDC amendments necessary to
implement those GMP amendments.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Patricia Forkan. She's
been ceded three additional minutes from Michael Seef. Is
Michael --
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Oh, there he is. I'm sorry, Michael. And she
October 22, 2019
Page 192
will be followed by Gaylene Vasaturo.
MS. FORKAN: Well, I thought I was going to say almost good
morning, but it's quite late. I watched some of the goings-on this
morning. So I luckily have not been here all day the way you have.
I had and I am -- my name, Patricia Forkan. I am a board
member of the league of county -- of league of women -- League of
Women Voters of Collier County. I want to get that out.
We have been very interested in this whole issue, and a number
of our members asked us to get involved with it. And I'm here to tell
you we may have only been involved for two years, but it does feel
like 20. It has been a long slog, and it's -- I hope you are ready for
more.
Our goal is to preserve land and our objectives are to preserve
not only land but agriculture land, uplands, habitat for wildlife, water
resources. And we want to prevent sprawl. And I know you've all
heard from your own constituents about sprawl. And what we're
concerned about is that's what's going to happen in Eastern Collier,
and I'll tell you why a little later.
But we were gratified to see some of the concerns of the League
of Women Voters made it into the white paper, which was really
nice, and -- but now with Kris Van Lengen gone and Mr. Bosi gone,
we're not really sure what happened, but the new white paper has
some changes in it, and we are unhappy with them.
And you've heard this already. Things like the word "require"
have been deleted, and this has been talked about in this body before.
What can you require? That shouldn't stand. We should put those
words back in because we all know from experience that "encourage"
or "recommend" doesn't really cut it.
The League is seeking your assurance that the revisions to the
RLSA Overlay will, among other things, actually preserve ag lands
and have adequate panther corridors. We want to have the
October 22, 2019
Page 193
stewardship credits recalibrated to be more involved with making
sure there are enough for environmentally sensitive lands.
Right now having them all put together in one way instead of
enough caps for each of the areas -- and you'll hear more about this
from the next speaker -- is problematic. We want to have compact
mixed-use walkable villages and towns rather than the business as
usual, auto-centric gated community. We want to make sure that the
added developments don't contribute to the nutrient discharge which
is currently polluting our estuaries and coastlands.
We recognize that this will take time. Unfortunately, in the
meantime development patterns will be set, restoration credits will be
awarded sometimes inappropriately, and land critical for wildlife
corridors may actually be unavailable.
Although at the present we only have one town in the RLSA,
which is Ave Maria, our first RLSA village, Rivergrass, is now
before the Planning Commission, and applications are in process for
four more villages. In fact, the speed at which new villages are now
being proposed suggests a rush to avoid the impending changes to the
RLSA.
Before inappropriate development patterns within the RLSA get
solidified, the League asks you to direct staff to put a hold on
accepting all further applications for towns and villages until the
current RLSA revisions can be finalized and used for review.
It is critical we get the RLS (sic) program right. And needless
to say, the protection of our water quality and water quantity at this
point are certainly of utmost concern.
The recent Planning Commission's all-day reviews of Rivergrass
located within the RLSA clearly demonstrated why the RLSA needs
revision. Although the applicant claimed they were meeting all LDC
requirements, it was obvious the intent of the RLSA will not be
achieved. One hundred percent of the public comments before the
October 22, 2019
Page 194
Planning Commission last week were against approval of this project.
Several Planning Commissioners indicated they did not have the
necessary regulatory tools or guidance from the BCC for them to
require changes in the applicant's proposal beyond what was already
in the code. And there are numerous things that you can see from
what they proposed. Instead of walkable areas, instead of roads
where you've heard many times they should have many accesses,
instead they have endless long cul-de-sac loops. Just more of the
same.
And, of course, everybody knows the bear -- the big problem
there is the huge road that everybody's going to have to run across,
drive across, or not go across, which is Oil Well Road.
So we would hope that you would at least consider the current
white paper, not as amended by Mr. Cohen, but the one that has some
of the better recommendations in it. And we implore you to look at
putting a stop to -- and a moratorium maybe for future applications.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gaylene Vasaturo. She's
been ceded three additional minutes from Bonnie Michaels.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And Ms. Vasaturo will be followed by Neville.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Neville Williams. I know his last
name.
MS. VASATURO: The Rural Lands -- Rural Lands
Stewardship program, I can't --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Could you please state your name
for the record.
MS. VASATURO: Gaylene Vasaturo.
The Rural Lands Stewardship program is not accomplishing its
goals of preserving ag, directing development away from wetlands
and listed species habitat, and avoiding sprawl.
October 22, 2019
Page 195
Major focus of the five-year -- the 2009 five-year review
recommendations is to add stewardship credits, increase development
acreage, and to expand the footprints of towns and villages. The
recommendations do not make changes that will accomplish the
overlay's goals.
After two years of public process, last May the county produced
a white paper recommending needed improvements, but the county's
presentation today made significant changes to those
recommendations. It deletes several important recommendations, it
revises others, and, of course, you've heard it removes "require" from
many of the -- six of the recommendations.
For GMP amendments, the county is putting forward only 18 of
the 51 recommendations in the white paper. Those 18 coincide with
the five-year review recommendations. You should be able to
consider all the white paper recommendations. And I've provided
you a copy of the May recommendations because they don't appear to
be in your package.
There were also significant concerns raised in the restudy
process that are not addressed in the white paper. Consider this:
Don't allow excess credits. The five-year review recommendations
will create many more credits than are needed for 45,000 acres of
development. These excess credits will fuel development in the rest
of Collier County. That's because the five-year review
recommendations allow excess credits to be used in the rest of Collier
County.
In 2008 WilsonMiller estimated the five-year review
recommendations would increase the credits from 315,000 to
421,000. During the 2009 Board of County Commission hearing on
the five-year review recommendations, the Environmental Advisory
Council, the Planning Commission, county staff, and many in
community groups expressed concern about excess credits.
October 22, 2019
Page 196
The Planning Commission and many others asked that the
credits be capped at 315,000. The county staff expressed the need to
review all data and analysis, take a good look at the credits because,
quote, we don't want to create a surplus.
Commissioner Coyle concluded the hearing stating, quote, there
will be no excess credits created.
Keep that promise. Make the following changes to limit excess
credits: Provide caps for each separate category of credits: For
base credits, restoration credits, and ag credits. This is a white paper
recommendation that was deleted from -- today by the county's
presentation.
And restoration has two subcategories. There's credits you get
for just designating land for restoration; those are R1 credits. And
you get credits for restoring land; those are R2 credits. Capping
each category of credits is important; otherwise, the R1 credits and
the ag credits will -- could use up all the credits to the cap with very
little left over for actual restoration or wildlife corridors.
Cap ag credits at 50 percent. This was a white paper
recommendation. The white paper estimated a potential 100,000
credits -- ag credits could be created.
Eliminate the R1 credits because they're duplicative, and they
aren't working to get land restored. The white paper points out that
to date R1 credits alone doubled the credit compensation to
landowners who created Stewardship Sending Areas without the
necessity to do any restoration. Indeed, at this time there are 55,000
SSA acres, but less than 500 acres have been restored.
Require 12 credits per SRA -- SRA acre instead of 10. Second,
revise the Rural Lands Stewardship program to support long-term
survival of panthers. One of the most important revisions you can
make to the program and the Land Development Code is to correct
the 2002 definition of preferred and tolerated habitat for panthers.
October 22, 2019
Page 197
This old definition limits panther habitat to a small group of
FLUCFCS codes. Panther studies completed since 2002 show that
this definition is inaccurate and that it fails to include habitat that
panther experts have identified as essential to the long-term survival
of the panther.
Many comments raised this issue to the Five-Year Review
Committee and more recently to the county and the restudy process,
but neither address this issue.
Finally, revise the program to create a balanced restoration
credit system and provide standards to assure effective restoration.
Do this by reinstating the deleted white paper recommendation that
says engage an independent third party to determine the needed
restoration activity in RLSA private lands so that credits can be
reasonably estimated and structured, add specificity to restoration
standards, and objectivity to the acres claimed by different restoration
types.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is -- all I have is Neville.
He will be followed by Susan Calkins.
MR. WILLIAMS: I swear I wrote my name down.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Selective memory, Neville.
MR. MILLER: He's like Madonna. It's Neville.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Neville Williams.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Neville
Williams speaking as a private citizen.
God, I admire your fortitude.
I got involved in the RLSA and rural fringe restudy process two
years ago because I believe this was a chance for the public to have a
say about the direction of growth in the county -- this county.
I've lived in three counties where local government successfully
October 22, 2019
Page 198
manage their growth. In one, using a strong transferable
development rights program coupled with a TDR bank, they were
able to save a third of the county as an agricultural reserve.
In the second, a city purchased a wide swath of land, creating a
preservation green belt that stopped all urban sprawl.
In the third, where I was involved, we made peace with a giant
developer that wanted to build a tourist village that threatened our
town. The town and the developer, after initial hostility, finally
worked together for a solution that was a win-win for everyone.
How did these three counties save themselves from massive
sprawl and runaway development? They had the necessary tools in
the form of strong zoning ordinances and master plans that put the
government in charge. In each case, developers had to follow the
wishes of the county, not the other way around. Developers were
required, not encouraged, to follow explicit planning rules.
Everything you need regarding tools, zoning regs, and land-use
codes were clearly outlined in detail in the Toward Better Places
Community Character Plan prepared for the county 20 years
ago -- almost 20 years ago, but they were never adopted.
The white paper before you is an excellent piece of work with
many fine recommendations and cogent analyses; however, some
things are missing from the paper, such as plans for a workable TDR
program and bank. Provisions for affordable at -- TDR bank.
Provisions for affordable housing and incentivizing new
urbanism instead of sprawling single-family gated and concentric
communities, ideas for which the public expressed strong support at
the workshops.
While all this planning talk was going on, a developer applied
for approval of a new village in the RLSA that, as one member of the
Planning Commission said last week, makes a mockery of good
planning and innovative design and is far from meeting the goals and
October 22, 2019
Page 199
plans for the rural lands.
The county's boards and agencies do not have the rules and
regulations on the books yet necessary to enforce or shape sustainable
smart growth, compact design as embodied in the RLSA and rural
fringe intentions and plans.
You can fix this, but it will take time. So before the eastern
landowners come back with application for six more towns and
villages, it may be necessary to impose a timeout or a moratorium on
any new project approvals. Hillsborough County is currently
considering a moratorium on new development in rural lands -- rural
areas.
There's no evidence that 33,000 Collier residents want to entrust
the future of the county's health, coastal waters, traffic, pollution,
wildlife, and livability to special interests. They want to build tens
of thousands of homes 35 miles from the coast.
Planning staff need direction from you, elected to represent the
public not special interests, to truly create a better place. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Calkins. She'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. CALKINS: Susan Calkins. And I'm one of those people
who were around when they did the -- well, I think I came to town at
the 2'02 and then was here for the 2'09 review and saw a lot of the
problems that were in the five-year review amendments suggestions.
So when this restudy came up, I saw it as an opportunity to
participate and maybe make -- help be involved in some ways that
would make this program better and better than it would have been if
we had simply followed the five-year review recommendations.
I find it very troubling today that you have the white paper -- in
fact, you have two -- well, you don't have the May. You don't have
the May 2019 white paper. You have an October white paper.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have May.
October 22, 2019
Page 200
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: May 21.
MS. CALKINS: Gaylene just gave it to you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
MS. CALKINS: But in your packet.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, yeah.
MS. CALKINS: It was October.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: In the packet, no.
MS. CALKINS: So, anyway, I was going to say, I find that
somewhat troubling and find it very troubling you had only five days
to look at this. I know some of you participated. I saw your faces
at the restudy but -- well, a lot of you haven't been. So it's important
that you really seriously look at those.
I think that, as been said, yes, it's been a long time, you know,
and there's a lot of people who want to say, let's push this through
right now. But, as Nick Penniman said, it's also a very, very
important decision. We're at a critical juncture, and I think it's
extremely important that you take the time to look at the white paper.
I feel that it's a tremendous mistake to go ahead with the
five-year review and then let the Land Development Code issues that
came out of the restudy come along later on. We don't know exactly
when.
And I'll point out the two important reasons for that, and I'm
afraid that I'm stepping on the toes of a colleague's whose paper I
promised to read for her.
So I think two important consequences of letting the Land
Development Code go and not dealing with it now have to do with
the fact that some of the suggestions in there are ones which -- such
as on fiscal neutrality which will definitely speak to the tremendous
costs that are going to be involved in this RLSA if it goes through as
people it to go through today. There's tremendous costs. But there
are pieces in that white paper which address that, both fiscal
October 22, 2019
Page 201
neutrality and also issues about sprawl.
And if we don't pay attention to that white paper -- so please
consider a workshop on it. Consider holding off today and make
that a -- it's important. It's tremendously important --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you.
MS. CALKINS: -- decision.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Chair.
I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Audubon Western
Everglades and Audubon Florida and its Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary.
Audubon Western Everglades, as you know, along with Florida
Wildlife Federation and the Department of Community Affairs,
challenged the county to do a better job of protecting rural resources
on 300,000 acres back in 1997. It was that lawsuit that resulted in
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the TDR program and the
Rural Lands Stewardship program.
We knew that it was an experimental pilot, and so it was built
into the program to have a five-year review. Your predecessors
appointed me to that five-year review committee. The Chair also
was on that, sitting next to me. So we share that experience. And
in that assessment we recognized that it was a successful program. It
was meeting the three criteria of the program, of protecting resources,
farms, and coming up with innovative development techniques;
however -- oh, one of the most important things that came out of that
was that four conservation groups, four leading conservation groups,
including Audubon, have established a long-term working
relationship with the big landowners of Collier County, which is
important because that's how we're going to make progress.
We also found that there were needs to improve the program.
You've heard lots of input on that today. Most notably, we needed
October 22, 2019
Page 202
to figure out a way to better protect farms and ranches from existing
zoning of one unit per five acres, and we also needed to protect
panther corridors and shallow seasonal wetlands.
So we've put together recommendations in that five-year review
10 years ago in the form of GMP -- Growth Management Plan
amendments. We've waited a long time for those. I spent two years
working on that along with the Chair. It's frustrating to see them sit
on the shelf. They are still pertinent today.
Audubon recommends that you give direction to staff to bring
these back as transmittal and adoption of Growth Management Plan
amendments from the five-year review. These are going to provide
the basis for further evolution of this program, and, frankly, it's the
first step. There's more to be done, but this is a consensus first step
we believe that should be taken now.
My last point is that Rural Lands Stewardship is a settlement of
a long-standing disagreement over how to protect public interests on
almost 200,000 acres of private lands. This strategy is the future of
conservation in Collier County and, Audubon believes, nationwide.
If we cannot figure out how to protect and make large private
landowners partners in regional scale conservation, we will fail in
conserving the mega fauna like Florida panthers, wood storks, and
black bears, and many others species which share these wide-ranging
habitats.
We will also fail to solve our water-quality and water-quantity
issues. So this is something we need to do today. Please move
forward with the five-year review recommendations as a first step.
Thanks.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner, I'd like to ask
Brad a question, if I could.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Brad, can you come back, please.
October 22, 2019
Page 203
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple quick
questions.
MR. CORNELL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's been a lot of talk
about the data that was collected 20 years ago. And some folks
have -- in some conversations I've had, have said we need to redo that
data. Some folks have said the data that has been collected is fine,
and the other issue is we haven't been able to see it because, I believe,
Stantec has that data.
Do we need to do more data collection, or was the data
collection 20 years ago sufficient?
MR. CORNELL: You always need to do more data collection.
Monitoring and watching what's going on in nature is important, and
that's always a part of good planning.
I think you even heard April from the Conservancy -- April
Olson -- speak about the fact that the data do exist, the NRI data.
She first said that they were missing but then she said they do exist,
but they came in late and were available late.
Those data from the originals analysis and mapping do exist and
are available; however, the Habitat Conservation Plan that is being
pursued by the landowners for this -- largely this same area is
bringing in new data and analysis from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service review. We should be using those, too.
But let me point out one other thing, and that is, what we're
dealing with here is a political animal. I mean, we've got lots of
natural animals we're trying to protect, but the vehicle is a political
creation, and it's a compromise. I told you, this is a settlement of a
long-standing argument about how do we protect resources on private
lands.
So bring us all the data you can bring. We should be looking at
everything, but at the end of the day, it's a compromise, and we've got
October 22, 2019
Page 204
to figure out how to protect the most that we can with the data that
we know about.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if we vote to move
forward today --
MR. CORNELL: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- all we're really doing is
setting in motion the process that will require coming back to the
Commission and going to the Planning Commission. So there will
be a fairly long process before anything is --
MR. CORNELL: Could be a year.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- ultimately finalized. Is
there a need to do some additional data collecting during that year, or
do we need to get with Stantec to get the data that they have?
MR. COHEN: I think you should --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Or if we did move forward,
are we creating a problem because of that issue?
MR. CORNELL: I don't think you're creating a problem. We
spent two years looking at these data in 2007 to 2009, and we brought
them to the County Commission back then. That was a really
comprehensive look at the data and analysis and how the program
operated.
And, again, it's a very large-scale political issue of, where are
we going to protect? What are we going to allow to be developed?
The development was based on largely cleared farm fields, those
areas. Some of those are Primary Panther Habitats. But I will point
out that there are also primary panther mapped habitats in Golden
Gate Estates. What are we doing about those? Golden Gate Estates
is on Primary Panther Habitat, too. We're not doing anything. And
those are actually being mitigated in Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
So that was a political decision not to work on Primary Panther
Habitat protection in Golden Gate Estates. You know, whether that
October 22, 2019
Page 205
was a mistake or not, it's the way it was. And I think that what we've
got here is a successful program that's protecting large-scale regional
connections for panthers and wetlands. I don't know how you argue
with that. You can always refine it more with more data.
So yes, get the data. Your staff should have those NRI scoring
data, and we should add to that what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service is looking at right now in the HCP.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is that why you lit up there?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Or you might have another
comment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll call on you in a second. We're
done with the public hearing now.
Commissioner Solis, you're first.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And I'd like to thank Brad
Cornell. That was a good summary of the program. And I think it
is important to remember that this, one, is a voluntary program and,
two, it was the result of a challenge to how we were dealing with or
not dealing with sensitive lands.
I heard somebody say, I thought, that it was not a successful
program and that it's not doing what it's intended to do. And I mean,
I'll just go back to the 55,000 acres that have been preserved, the
creation of the Town of Ave Maria. I mean, these five-year
revisions do what I understand is a goal, and that is it caps the credits
down from 460,000 credits to 404-, and most importantly maybe, it
caps the -- it limits the footprint down to 45,000 acres from 73,000
acres of development.
And I think there was a slide. I think it was Al Reynolds that
had a slide that I think is -- it shows the success of this program.
October 22, 2019
Page 206
There was 50,000 acres at zero cost to the taxpayers have been
preserved. Zero cost to the taxpayers. No maintenance costs. As
opposed to -- I mean, we have this great Conservation Collier
program where we've preserved 4,000 acres at a cost of $100 million.
I mean, this is a successful program, in my estimation, by any stretch
of the imagination. I mean, it is incredibly successful.
So these amendments -- the five-year amendments were
not -- they were not not adopted -- sorry for the double
negative -- because they weren't valid, they weren't good
amendments, they weren't amendments that the majority of the
stakeholders were in agreement on. It was because, who was going
to pay the $100,000?
I mean, the hindsight, I think everybody sitting here would have
said, well, that -- you know, that would have been a small price to
pay to get this thing done.
I think they're good revisions. I think they're revisions that we
have to -- we have to start somewhere. The rest of the revisions in
the white paper, there are good recommendations in the white paper,
but we have to start, and I think -- as I understand it, one of the
reasons we have to start is because there is still development
happening today at one per five, which the whole point of this
program was to avoid that.
So I think we need to take this first step. And it's going to be a
living document. It's going to be a continual process with data
coming in all the time that we're going to continue to address, but I'm
going to -- I'd like to make a motion to approve staff's
recommendation that we accept the five-year revisions and that the
LDC amendments go -- not tie together, but they proceed as well and
start moving this forward, because if we don't take the first step, I
think we'll be here in another five years having this same
conversation, because everything's constantly changing, and we need
October 22, 2019
Page 207
to move it forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't want to stop you, but I
want to second that motion because it's a good one.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. I'm sorry. Did we
want to hear --
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just a slight --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I've got a couple of questions.
You've got something different in the recommendations that you
want us to make.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have more to say.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. We've got a whole bunch
more to say. I'm last.
MR. COHEN: Just a slight amendment, which is, yes, the
recommendation of the five-year committee and the LDC and also
move forward with the white paper recommendation.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And the --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. COHEN: Regional water initiative as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. The --
MR. OCHS: The three parts.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, the three -- the
recommendations that staff has made.
MR. COHEN: Correct. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what I heard you say, and
that's what you seconded?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, I did, and I seconded
because, as Commissioner Solis said, also let's get started on this
thing.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Start.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's stop spinning our wheels, but
October 22, 2019
Page 208
let's move forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is your turn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is.
And, Brad Cornell, there you are. You know what, you are
such a reasonable guy, and you always have such a beautiful and fair
way of presenting everything, and I've always admired you, and you
did it again.
Somebody mentioned -- well, I'll say work in progress. This is
a work in progress, but we have to begin in order for it to progress,
right?
And this covers so many gambits right now. You've got the
animals being protected. You've got the water being protected, and
we're all very concerned about that. You've also got homes that we
need to get. And I say that because we're having problems right
now. People are pretty -- out there pretty dissatisfied with the fact
that there's so much more growth going on, and they're yelling about
that, and everybody's building on top of everything.
Well, that's because we can't grow anyplace because it's all
inside here, number one. And number two, you know, they mention
all over the country, all over the United States that Naples is the place
to be, the healthiest, happiest community in the country. They say it
over and over and over. Well, everybody, when they're retiring, they
want to come over here and retire and be healthy and happy.
But if you don't have any place for them, then you start building
on top of one another, and then you can't move around in your cars.
You know, we have to think of all of that as well.
I think it's a well-rounded plan. I think we should move
forward and all work together for that same cause. And so, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you go.
Commissioner Saunders?
October 22, 2019
Page 209
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just, I guess, a comment for
Thaddeus Cohen, maybe even a question before we take a quick vote
here.
The Conservancy has raised some interesting issues, and I'm
prepared to move forward today because I know this is not the final
say. Do you need any more time to evaluate Ms. Olson's comments
before we move forward, or are you satisfied that you've had enough
time?
MR. COHEN: I'm satisfied that we've had enough time.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. As we go
forward, I assume that we can still consider some of those issues.
MR. COHEN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just not -- because I'd like
for staff to make sure we're not missing something, because she's
raised some very good points. And she and I have met a couple
times to discuss this. So I'm prepared to move forward with it under
the condition that we have some further dialogue with the
Conservancy and to make sure that we're not missing something.
MR. COHEN: And that's what we've done through the entire
process. We'll continue to reach out.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And how did you get ahead of
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I turned her button off and
turned mine on.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's a long reach.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now it's your turn.
Do you want to go again?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a couple of things I'd
October 22, 2019
Page 210
like to ask my colleagues, a couple of things that -- for the folks that
weren't here, I did view the Planning Commission meeting on
Thursday. And, you know, it was clear that a developer had a larger
submission and then fragmented it, and the fragmenting of it has
caused our own staff to rate the development as a C minus.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This development?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This development, yes. Not
the -- the development that's in the works -- in going through the
process, excuse me.
And I'm wondering if we shouldn't explore, as part of what we
want planning staff to do, a rule, a prohibition to -- in fragmenting a
development, that we should treat it as a whole and as an aggregate.
And I'd like to see if there's any support to do that, because I don't
know about you, but I kind of am very proud of Collier County.
People talk about it as a well-planned community and beautiful, and,
you know, achieving the goals that I think you, ma'am, being here as
long as you have, really worked hard for.
And I think it might be an idea going forward, especially in this
area that has yet to be developed, that we minimize the temptation to
fragment developments and to ask developers to look at them as a
whole. Remember, this one I'm talking about was submitted as a
town, and now it's three villages, which I understand -- four villages,
which I understand from Planning staff indicates that they have a
lower threshold to meet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does that mean, "lower
threshold"?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The rules aren't -- do not apply
as strictly as they would with a town.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chair, if I could.
Commissioner, yes, we're -- we have a project that's going
October 22, 2019
Page 211
through the process. And one of the things that the white paper talks
about is aggregation. As these different villages come in, how do
you take a look at them as a whole to be able to address issues of
connectivity, how we get more economic development, because
currently you can do, say, 2,500 units, maybe 80,000 square foot of
commercial retail, but that doesn't provide you with what I call a
great technical term of the stuff that creates the economic vibrancy.
So those are one of the things that we want to be able to address
as you allow us to go forward in taking a look at those kinds of
issues.
So as these are lined up on the runway to be able to come
forward, I think this will provide us at least with the tools to be able
to have that broader conversation as to how do we start to address
those issues, and the white paper does speak to that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But does the staff's
recommendation speak to that?
MR. COHEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It does?
MR. COHEN: That's one of the recommendations in here to be
able to look at the aggregation of the village the same as it was, say,
in the old DRI days. And once you get to a particular threshold, then
how it is that you start to look at the civic responsibilities as
whether -- and economic responsibilities that you can then pull into
those as you create those villages and need to group together.
So those are the challenges that we have, but we think this
process, allowing us to go forward, will allow us to address those in
the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, now that you're speaking,
I'd like to know why you move -- why you got rid of the "requires."
MR. COHEN: I tend not to like to put on my old hat, but I do it
from time to time. There are -- it is a voluntary program, and when
October 22, 2019
Page 212
you look at the statutory requirements, it becomes more difficult to
say "require" when you're looking for incentives.
So I think what was more necessary was how it is that we keep
the door open for the conversation as to how towns and villages are
to be developed. And the economic development component is not
very well addressed in any of the recommendations, and I believe
that's important for Collier County according to the Opportunity
Naples 2014.
So we said, let's address those issues as to how do you think
about density? How do you think about town cores? How do you
think about villages? And how do you think about those
aggregations?
So if you're going to do a "require," I think that starts to shut the
door on those conversations when at this point all we're looking for is
a framework to go forward. "Require" or any of those kinds of
mandates, if they occur, would be more appropriate in the Land
Development Code, not in just the framework that you're trying to
move forward as a policy statement.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I would agree with you
except this latest submission by a developer has shown that your
reasoning is fallacious.
MR. COHEN: Well, the reasoning I think at this point --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The reality test is now.
MR. COHEN: And there's no tool. There's no tool now. As
we talked about, we're here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Argument by the developer's
attorney is that we meet the code, that's --
MR. COHEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- all we have to do.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All the more reason that we need
to do this.
October 22, 2019
Page 213
MR. COHEN: Move forward. We're here, Commissioner, and
we're trying to get here. And what we're asking for today is a step to
allow us to move in the direction that all of you and a lot of the
speakers have spoken about.
We can't get there if we stay where we are. We can only
encourage and do those kinds of things. If we get to where we want
to go, the first step is a reduction in the caps, 450,000 acres, and then
we can have conversations on how do you create a town.
If you're going to come forward with a town -- and what I've
talked to folks about is if it looks like a town and walks like a town,
then maybe we, as the county, may need to think about the process
differently, and how do we create that partnership?
A young person talked about Babcock. Well, I talked to Syd
Kitson. How do you create that partnership to be able to do what
he's doing there in Lee County? It's a different relationship as to
how you think about infrastructure, how do you think about the
demographics of who you're trying to attract community, and how
you thing about economic development. Those are the strategies
that we don't currently have in place, but today it appears you may be
allowing us to move forward to have better conversations about that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think we do have a
home example of how to create a town, and it's Ave Maria.
MR. COHEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I hope you've had a
conversation with Barron Collier also.
MR. COHEN: Uh-huh. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. The other thing that
I'd like to see if there's any support -- and that's not part of this, so
maybe we'll wait until this vote, and then I'll ask for something
afterwards, and that's fine. It would not be part of this. But it is
part of it, but it's not part of the actual --
October 22, 2019
Page 214
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's wait until we get through
with this, and then I'll come back to you before we go to the next.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Got it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you still have to leave?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was the 20-minute break in
the morning that ruined everything.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. Sorry about that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot to check my notes, I had
another note here, too. In order for these towns to function well, I
think we ought to have housing for the workforce as well so that they
don't have to drive from the coast all the way out there.
MR. COHEN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And somebody here mentioned
that, and I wanted to make sure to include.
MR. COHEN: And that was -- again, one of the white paper
recommendations is to take a look at housing and the density that's
associated with that in order to create diversity in the housing price
points.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just wanted to make sure
workforce could live there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think we need to define
diversity, please.
MR. COHEN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. How do you define
"diversity"?
MR. COHEN: It's a range of housing opportunities that can be
affordable across the income spectrum of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that codified anywhere?
October 22, 2019
Page 215
MR. COHEN: Not currently. It is part of what you're moving
towards, though, as you allow Bembridge to go forward for
affordable units.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On the state level, is it codified?
The diverse housing, is that codified?
MR. COHEN: No. It's encouraged that you have housing that
meets the requirements of your community.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But, no, I mean the definition of
diversity -- diverse housing?
MR. COHEN: No. Not that I'm aware of, no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to incentivize it.
I have a quick question, and I don't know if it's for you or for
Anita, and it had to do with Commissioner Saunders' question about
the best data available. It was my recollection that there was
requisites within the RLSA for SSAs and their creation that the
newest data be available, specifically with the NRI appropriation; is
that correct, Anita?
MS. JENKINS: Anita Jenkins with Community Planning.
Commissioner, the Land Development Code provides -- I'll put
this on the overhead. The Land Development Code provides the
specific FLUCFCS codes that we review against. So each time a
stewardship sending area comes in for approval or a stewardship
receiving area comes in for consideration, our staff is looking at each
one of the indices and comparing those as it's addressed in the Land
Development Code as they should to see what that NRI score is, and
it's specific there. You can see that specifically they have to look at
FLUCFCS codes 310, 321.
So it's all, you know, laid out in the Land Development Code
specifically to what our staff has to analyze for these NRIs.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. That was a
October 22, 2019
Page 216
point that I'm -- thank you for clarifying that, because it's been a
concern that's been raised regularly, and -- going back to the review
of the original NRI scoring, and that was what was done to establish
the RLSA in 2012.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And then going forward as the new
information comes available for the creation of the new SSAs, any
new information is assimilated as those are done.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
MS. JENKINS: So that NRI model --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say that again for me. I thought
that's what -- the question that I asked.
MS. JENKINS: That is. Our staff is directed by the Land
Development Code specifically to look at land cover, listed species,
all of the indices --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MS. JENKINS: -- and look at all of those by FLUCFCS codes
and by other data that's available to them following the Land
Development Code, and that's what they do.
The original NRI model that was created was created to address
this map or to create this map. What it did, it showed you where the
highest natural resource values were, in flowways and habitat areas.
So that model that created all those little pixels that you'll
remember, you know, from real dark black, high natural resource
indices down to the light gray ones. That information created this
map. This is your land -- or your land-use map. So from that
information, we created the flowways, the Habitat Stewardship
Areas, and the WRAs as high natural resource values.
As each project comes in, our staff, your staff, looks at all of the
FLUCFCS codes as directed by the Land Development Code to
evaluate those.
October 22, 2019
Page 217
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So when new information comes
in with regard to those FLUCFCS codes, that is applicable to those
FLUCFCS codes as we're in the review process?
MS. JENKINS: So those FLUCFCS codes are --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please.
MS. JENKINS: So they base the information on the
information that they have on those FLUCFCS codes. So they'll get
that information from the source on agriculture, land-use covers and
things like that based on that NRI data, and evaluate that and bring it
forward.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I add to that? It's my
understanding, though, the original data that was created to create the
NRI --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wait a second. He's filling her
ear.
MS. JENKINS: I've got two ears. I'm good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. Anyway, so
understand the original data, the recipe, so to speak, that created this
NRI data is not available?
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that that is what everyone
is looking for, because with that, then there is a way to see if the
creation of the NRI values attributed to these lands are accurate.
And, as we all know, nature doesn't stay in the same place the same
day. Every day is different, and we're unable to develop
that -- understand what the baseline -- if we don't have the baseline,
which is what I think for the lack of a better description is what is
missing in this equation, then we really can't determine whether what
we're doing today is right and what we might be doing tomorrow.
MS. JENKINS: So each time an application comes in, that
October 22, 2019
Page 218
baseline is established, and we can recreate that. Each layer of your
NRI we score; our staff scores one. So if it says that -- you know,
the agriculture cover is cropland, and it gets -- don't quote me on this
because I don't have the scores up here and it's hard to read.
So just, for instance, if cropland gets .2 and our FLUCFCS
mapping from these scores show .2, our staff puts in .2. If it shows
the telemetry is there, it puts that in. So we do check all of that and
update, you know, the NRI with each application, not update it, but
check it --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Check it.
MS. JENKINS: -- with each application that's brought in.
And when we come forward with the amendments to this, we
can go through that in detail with you, because you can look at the
policies, then, all grouped together and see how it works better, and
we can go through that with you in detail.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I don't think you can really
do it unless you have the original data, which I understand was lost
when WilsonMiller became Stantec, and that's the issue at hand.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you shaking your head in a
positive manner with regard to that or not? Because it was my -- I
mean, the NRI values that were established in 2002 were the ones
that were utilized to create the RLSA that we have today. And so
when new -- and this is maybe where I misspoke, but when new
information is brought forward, we have new technology, LiDAR
maps, things along those lines for the FLUCFCS coding and the like,
those are what's, in fact, utilized for the NRI values that were
established in 2002 and then brought forward with new information
that we, in fact, have available utilizing the original NRI valuations.
MS. JENKINS: That's correct, consistent with the policies in
your Land Development Code that you have created.
October 22, 2019
Page 219
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So -- now the establishment of
those NRI values are, in fact, there with the creation of the RLSA in
2002.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it's all in how they came
about. How were these values applied? That's that information.
That's the information that's missing in the equation. It's going back
one step more.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I gotcha.
And I learned a lot of my patience and my ability to compromise
because I sat next to Brad for two years on that Five-Year Review
Committee. I learned it all from him, yes. Just so you know, that
was a compliment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He could teach a class.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He did.
With that, I think we're done with discussion. It's been moved
and seconded that we accept staff's recommendations as printed in
the executive summary. 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.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so the other thing that I
wanted to say -- I would like, as part of -- and it doesn't have to be a
year from now. I'd like to have a credit analysis. There are
numbers about the number of credits, 406 plus-or-minus gives me a
October 22, 2019
Page 220
great deal of angst. I'd like to have accurate credit analysis of how
many credits are in the system, because that is the currency. I think
it's very, very important, and I think the public would like that also.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to get that as we go
through the process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I'd like to go and say,
today, just as -- today we have these many credits. I think that's
critical.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, isn't that what we just said
we were going to approve, that -- there's a cap on the credits --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't ask for a cap.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- now. It's 404-.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I asked for an accurate --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Estimation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- estimation -- no. An
accurate representation of the credits. How many credits?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because there might be more than
404-?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 406-.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But there's a cap.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Plus or minus.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It doesn't matter. They're capped
at 404-.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that's one opinion.
What's wrong with asking for an analysis of accurate data? Data
drives this whole program. If we don't have the number accurately,
we can't figure it out. I think we need the data, and that's just a
request that I would have. I can't imagine it would be difficult to do
that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would suggest that -- put
that on as an agenda item or ask staff to come back with some
October 22, 2019
Page 221
information. Let's talk about that at a future meeting, because it is
getting a little late.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Oh, I don't want to talk
about it now. Oh, about whether or not to even ask for it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, no. I think everybody
would agree, or at least the majority of us would agree --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that it's a good analysis.
Let's just have staff handle that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't think it's part of the
discussion.
MR. OCHS: So we're moving forward with the analysis of the
credits?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just like to thank
everybody that was involved in this whole process.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All of you-all.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All the stakeholders. I mean, this
is the way I think good communities are made. The landowners, the
groups, the environmental groups, everybody got together and came
up with something, you know, that not everybody's completely happy
with because everybody gave up something, but I think this is the
way this process is supposed to work, and I think it's a model for how
these things are supposed to happen. So thank you for all your
patience.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
Item #11M
October 22, 2019
Page 222
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AND THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING
FOR THE INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF TWO
IMPACT FEE STUDIES; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 25, 2019, FOR ALL RATE
CATEGORIES THAT ARE DECREASING AND A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 2, 2020, FOR ALL RATE
CATEGORIES THAT ARE INCREASING AND
NEW/REPLACEMENT LAND USE CATEGORIES BEING
ADDED TO THE FEE SCHEDULES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 163.31801(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REVISED DEFINITIONS AND UPDATE OF
THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF
ROAD IMPACT FEES TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES (COA) TO COMPLY WITH
THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES -
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I can move to Item 11M, please.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. OCHS: That is a recommendation to move forward with
the updates to your road impact fees and your water and wastewater
impact fees. Ms. Patterson is available to present or respond to
October 22, 2019
Page 223
questions from the Board.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if there's -- if
there are no questions or registered speakers, I would make a motion
to approve that, unless there's some --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are there any registered speakers,
Troy?
MR. MILLER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys have been here all day
long, haven't you?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And are you in dire need of
making your presentations? It's been moved and seconded.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I am going to not vote for it. I
think it flies right straight in the face of the conversations of housing
affordability, and that 30 percent increase and one-time tax and
imposition on the first one in is inappropriate. But I'm just one.
So with that, it's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's
recommendation. Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On this topic?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On the impact fee increase.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I didn't hear who moved.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded.
The book -- excuse me. Commissioner Saunders and -- I almost
called them the bookends.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is this a time-sensitive thing? Do
we need to do this today?
MR. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the
record. There's a couple of reasons why yes. This is a requirement
of your ordinance, and this is only the first step in a two-step process.
October 22, 2019
Page 224
This action today gives us permission to advertise the ordinance
and come back for the required public hearing. So we'll be back to
see you again in November, and we can discuss it --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: -- further at that time at your pleasure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And earlier on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll do time-certain for you.
MS. PATTERSON: It will be an advertised public hearing for
the next meeting as required by the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When I read 1.4 billion (sic)
remaining in our -- that's what it says, remaining average daily
capacity, $1.4 million, I thought, I need more explanation on that, and
that's a lot, you know. I didn't know if there was any urgency if that
we have stuff hanging around.
MS. PATTERSON: We have Mr. Bellone here from public
utilities if you want us to briefly address that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I want to just keep on going.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. We'll go through that
during the advertised public hearing, and that might be the time to do
it anyway so that the public's here and people can -- whoever wants
to comment on it.
MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to give some of these
people that have been waiting all day a little bit of --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Pizza.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not pizza.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept staff's recommendations. Is there any other discussion?
All in favor?
October 22, 2019
Page 225
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed?
Aye.
So moved, 4-1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to wait on that, too. I
don't want to vote on that now, okay? That's -- just what we were
talking about, the impact fees.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So did you vote?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it's 3-2.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's 3-2. It passed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm one of the two, or are you one
of the two?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'm just moving it forward so
that we can get to an advertised public hearing and have some
conversation about it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need to advertise because some of
these rates are going down --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say that again.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and you can't keep charging people the
higher rate. That's why we have to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So we're going to have an
opportunity that's not at 6:00 to dig into this.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I've already dug into it. I'm not
going to change, but it's 3-2. It passed. You may moved forward
with that.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Let's take care of our Vanderbilt people.
October 22, 2019
Page 226
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do them.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 11F, 11G, 11H.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, 11F, G, and H; is that what
you said?
Item #11F
THE REVISED ALIGNMENT OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO 16TH STREET
NE – APPROVED
Item #11G
TWO PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
LAND (PARCELS 163FEE AND 164FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION - APPROVED
Item #11H
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS
(PARCELS 111RDUE1 AND 111RDUE2) AND ACCEPTANCE
OF DONATION OF EASEMENTS (PARCELS 111TCE, 111TDRE
AND 101TCE) REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS TO
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (PROJECT NO. 60168) AND
MASSEY STREET (PROJECT NO. 60109) (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $465,500) – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioners. 11F, G, and H are all staff
items related to the realignment of Vanderbilt Road and related
property acquisitions.
October 22, 2019
Page 227
Mr. Ahmad can take you through a brief presentation or respond
to questions.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are there any public speakers on
this?
MR. MILLER: I don't have anyone registered for 11F, G, or H.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm going to make a motion to
approve all three.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is there 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.
Next time I'll do you first.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know it speaks volumes of
neighborhood involvement but, you know, a staff that looked at it and
went and looked at it again, and, you know, A, just hats off to
everyone on this one, and especially since you've been here since
9:00 this morning.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And community involvement. I
mean, how many meetings have we had? Jiminy Christmas, Jiminy
Christmas. So thank you all for -- because persistence is what got us
to where we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't it a fun day?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
October 22, 2019
Page 228
Item #11C
REVIEW THE PROPOSED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND
EVALUATION CRITERIA TO DEVELOP AN INVITATION TO
NEGOTIATE (ITN) SEEKING A PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP (P3) TO PROVIDE A GOLF AND
REDEVELOPMENT COMPONENT ON THE GOLDEN GATE
GOLF COURSE PROPERTY - MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH ITN AND STAFF TO EXPLORE REMOVING THE CAP
REGARDING NUMBER OF SEATS IN THE RESTAURANT –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11C, Commissioners, is a recommendation to
review the proposed goals and objectives and evaluation criteria to
develop an invitation to negotiate seeking a public/private partnership
to provide a golf and redevelopment component on the Golden Gate
Golf Course property.
Mr. Willig.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know if we need a
whole lot of discussion on the Board. I'm going to make a motion to
approve that to move forward. That will give us some opportunity to
see what types of options we have for golf and for other types of
amenities that would be a benefit. But I would also -- I've gone
through the existing zoning on the golf course with staff. And
there's a maximum number of seats in a restaurant, and I think
that -- I think the maximum number is 150. And so I'd like, as part
of the motion, to direct staff to start the process of changing that
number so that there will be some flexibility. So just eliminate the
cap on the number of seats in a restaurant so that when a vendor
October 22, 2019
Page 229
comes in with a proposal, they'll know that there's some flexibility
there.
So my motion is to approve moving forward with the ITN and
directing staff to take a look at changing or eliminating the cap on the
number of seats in a restaurant operation if one is ultimately
approved by this board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So is it a minimum number of
150 or maximum number?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, it's a maximum number.
And most restaurants have more seats than that. And the 150 is an
old number, probably 50 years ago when that was put in there. So
I'd like to eliminate that cap.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Have you got a public speaker or
two?
MR. MILLER: Assuming he's still here. I do have a
registered speaker for this item, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, go ahead -- I don't think
we're going to need your presentation.
MR. MILLER: Rick Rainville.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you're in favor, I wouldn't.
MR. RAINVILLE: Good evening, Chairman and
Commissioners. I do not need to speak for this item. So I was just
here. I'll be here to answer some questions on related items.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And my questions -- I'm going to
second the motion, Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My question is -- concern is the
unintended consequences of eliminating that cap. There are parking
requisites, and I can see -- I can see the opportunity for that to be
necessitated as long as we're accommodating for infrastructure,
October 22, 2019
Page 230
parking, safety for patrons and the like.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This cannot be a restaurant
with more than 150 seats unless there's parking for the additional
seats. So this will all come back to us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so those types of code
requirements would have to be met. I just want to make sure that a
bidder has the knowledge that they're not limited to a 150-seat
restaurant, because that probably would not work economically.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I'm with you now. So it's
been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, you want to remove the
cap entirely or you want to raise the cap?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'd like to remove the cap so
that a bidder has the flexibility.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what we'll do.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We ultimately make the
decision. It's not that we're going to make a change and then we
have no say in this, but I just want to remove the cap.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, excuse me. That cap is
for restaurants countywide?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, no, no, no, no. We're
talking about a specific zoning on that property that right now has a
limit of 150 seats.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, excuse me. I
misunderstood. I support that completely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. It's just site specific.
It deals with that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Actually, when you said it, I
actually was under the impression you were looking to lift it for the
whole county.
October 22, 2019
Page 231
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. This is just site
specific.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I just was -- that was
where I was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. Me, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will we be announcing these
meetings as this group meets to discuss and all of this so that the
people that are interested can be at these meetings?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely. All we're doing
is directing staff to start a process and come back to us.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. Is
there any further 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.
Item #11D
REVIEW THE UNSOLICITED OFFER FROM THE GULF COAST
JUNIOR GOLF TOUR, INC., D/B/A THE FIRST TEE OF
NAPLES/COLLIER (THE FIRST TEE) TO TEMPORARILY
OPERATE THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE (GOLF
COURSE) WHILE THE COUNTY DETERMINES THE FUTURE
October 22, 2019
Page 232
USE OF THE PROPERTY AND WAIVE THE BASE
APPLICATION FEE OF $10,000, AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO DENY
THE REQUEST – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to review the
unsolicited offer from the Gulf Coast Junior Golf Tour doing
business as The First Tee of Naples to temporarily operate the
Golden Gate Golf Course while the county determines the future use
of the property, and if so approved then waive the base application
fee of $10,000.
Mr. Willig is available to present or respond to questions from
the Board.
MR. WILLIG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Geoff Willig
for the record.
In the executive summary we provided the solicitation --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One second, Geoffrey. I think
we're going to save you.
MR. WILLIG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The executive summary says that
the request is for direction to review this unsolicited offer. That's
what we're being asked to vote on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you want to carry it forward, then
we have to advertise it by Florida Statute. So you review it, and then
you'd say if we're interested or not. If you are interested, then we
have to advertise it for 30 days. So you would review it and provide
comment, either you're interested or you're not, and then we would
advertise it if you are.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So first we have to review it.
Staff has to review it, and then we decide whether or not we're
interested and whether or not we're going to advertise it?
October 22, 2019
Page 233
MR. OCHS: Yes. We've reviewed it. We're presenting it
here in this executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've already reviewed it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, you've already --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, this is what -- that's what I'm
trying to figure out.
MR. OCHS: Yes. So it would probably be worth a minute
just to go over the highlights of what's being presented.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
I knew what we were doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And weren't we going to try then
to get it -- I read someplace in here -- I'm sorry I can't tell you the
place I read. But it was supposed to -- you're hoping to present it, or
the people can start putting it into shape by January?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that was one of the -- part of the
schedule of the proposed operation that Geoff's going to take you
through here real quickly.
MR. WILLIG: Yes. The unsolicited proposal that we received
from The First Tee is they're recommending a two-year agreement.
Their intent would be to open up for operations starting in December.
But based on the requirements that the County Manager mentioned of
having to take this out and solicit it for other offers, it's likely we
wouldn't be back with a negotiated offer until January.
Their -- the agreement or the unsolicited proposal would have a
monthly management fee of $25,000. There would be some upfront
costs required to get the golf course to playable condition, and they
would ask that we would -- the county would provide $100,000 up
front. And then with all those numbers together, my estimations,
based on my understanding, put it around $400,000 for the first year
of operations and an additional 300,000 if we went to the second
October 22, 2019
Page 234
year.
That's basically the gist of their offer. And I can answer any
questions about that if you have any.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You lit up again?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, just a quick question. Right
now we have an agreement just to maintain it?
MR. WILLIG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's, what, 25,000 a month?
MR. OCHS: Twenty-two, five.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-two, five?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. WILLIG: And that's in a follow-up item as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So two years of that, what's the
cost of just doing that as opposed to what they're proposing?
MR. WILLIG: I had done the calculations. One moment.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: About the same.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Roughly 260,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they can't really play on that
field right now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No.
So why would we maintain it if people can't even use it and if
we find out that it can be a lucrative business?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So it was -- 400,000 what I
heard --
MR. WILLIG: First year.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- investment for the first year.
MR. WILLIG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just the maintenance is about
2-something, 300,000.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 260-.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 260-.
October 22, 2019
Page 235
MR. WILLIG: And there is an item in their proposal that talks
about reimbursing the county.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's 50 percent of the
hundred thousand.
MR. WILLIG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 50,000 dollars.
MR. WILLIG: Over two years.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Over two years, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So right now the maintenance if
it went for two years at 25,000 a month --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 600,000.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- is 600,000. And then this
offer, as unsolicited, said that it would be 400- around, with --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: First year.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For the first year. And the
second year is.
MR. WILLIG: An additional about 300,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you explain why it's
400,000 the first year, please.
MR. WILLIG: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: In the executive summary it
does say 450,000, so just --
MR. WILLIG: Yeah. I've got a table here that I put together.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Mr. Vice Chair, I'll be right back.
MR. WILLIG: So from my --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't vote until I get back.
MR. WILLIG: So from my reading of their unsolicited
proposal, I put together this table that kind of outlines the costs that
are associated with -- or in their proposal.
The $100,000, that is incorporating -- sorry, that seems to
October 22, 2019
Page 236
incorporate some of these course-recovery and operation cost, which
is turf recovery for 50,000 irrigation repairs at 20,000, and then the
golf cart for five months or about six months, somewhere in there,
during season. That total right here gets you to, what is it, 90,000.
And that -- that was just a rough estimate with -- I wasn't sure
how many months they would need for the golf carts, and we also
don't know, according to their proposal, how much it would cost to
provide a golf shop or clubhouse and golf cart storage on the property
since the previous owner had that underneath one of the buildings on
the hotel property.
So their hundred thousand kind of incorporates some of these
fees, but -- and then their management fee for the full year at $25,000
is $300,000. And then you've got equipment and leases which
would me mowers, additional mowers that are needed to operate the
course at $60,000.
So total, depending on what it is for the golf carts, how many
months they need, you're looking 420,000 or -- yeah, 420,000, but we
also don't know what it would cost for the golf shop and golf cart
storage. So that could be on top of that 420,000.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, we may have
some registered speakers, but in anticipation of that, I'm going to
make a motion to deny this request; that we not move forward with
this operation. Four of us have consistently said we don't want to get
bogged down in a golf course operation where we know we're going
to be spending a lot of money, and we've got a consultant on board to
kind of give us some advice of what we can do.
We're going to be doing an ITN here as quickly as possible to
see what operators may be out there where it doesn't cost us anything,
and there may be a reconfiguration of the golf course.
So I'm going to make a motion to deny this request, and
we -- there will be some conversation on the next one as well, but on
October 22, 2019
Page 237
this particular one, I would make a motion not to move forward with
the golf course. There's a huge expense associated with it, and we're
probably going to be doing something that would be inconsistent with
that operation anyway.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Public speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. One speaker, Rick Rainville.
MR. RAINVILLE: Good evening again, Chairman,
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
I will make this brief. And thank you, Geoff. I am
here -- Rick Rainville, for the record, on behalf of The First Tee,
Naples, Collier.
The proposal that you have in front of you was contemplating
operating -- re-opening the golf course and reoperating it throughout
2020 and then potentially into 2021. The First Tee is certainly
committed to bringing back golf to this property. The First Tee is
currently working with the county and it's, I believe, in a great
partnership.
The First Tee is also very flexible and has shown that we've
been very flexible and can continue to be. Understanding now that
the -- with some more intent is to fast-track the RFP process. The
First Tee is certainly, along with its partners, going to participate in
that, and we're excited to do that.
We also know that this is something that is temporary. The
First Tee would be very flexible. The First Tee was offering to
return 50 percent of the upfront cost. I do think that there's some
clarification that is needed. A lot of those items on that $100,000
can be done on a straight pass-through cost with regard to
overseeding the golf course, and that's the recovery costs somewhere
in the vicinity of 30- to $50,000 depending on the extent of it, trying
to get the golf course open for January, we'll say, which would be
October 22, 2019
Page 238
critical.
The First Tee would be willing to not only participate but return
that. The problem is is what's the commitment, right, and how long
is that process?
Getting through this upcoming season, certainly critical. It
changes a lot of things. If it's something that can morph into a new
agreement or into starting up for the redevelopment sometime in the
middle of 2020, that would change things a lot. I don't believe that
the costs are nearly going to be more than the $25,000 management
fee, which today it's 22,5-. I do believe that we can reach an
agreement where The First Tee can absorb much of the cost, i.e., the
golf cart storage in the operations, the additional equipment rental
that may be needed, which is above and beyond what is currently in
place at the property. Those things could be absorbed into the
operational costs, which The First Tee would take on.
So we can certainly minimize the risk, if not clearly define it as
a flat rate for this proposal to open the golf course. And it may be
that that is -- we re-open the golf course and it stays open until, which
might be fast-tracked, middle of 2020, and we just go through that
RFP.
So The First Tee is committed to this. We're very flexible, and
we certainly understand where the Commissioners' standpoint is with
regard to getting bogged down into management and ownership of a
golf course. That's why we're here.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. All right. It's been moved
and seconded that we deny the -- deny the item -- I'm trying to -- I'm
trying to re -- the unsolicited request for the operational -- operational
aspects of the golf course. It's been moved and seconded.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As you all know -- I
October 22, 2019
Page 239
understand nobody wants this -- and I think for some reason nobody
has any foresight to see this is the only piece of land left that we
have, and you want to put more housing on it. We can build housing
anyplace. You want to build it on there, and I don't understand why
when we're spending $100 million on a sports stadium for the youth
games, right? And we're not -- we are not even covering a golf
course. I don't understand it. I'm sorry that I think nobody has any
foresight.
But I certainly don't agree with it. And someday when you
think back -- I'll probably be dead, and you're going to say, oh, you
know what? She was really right, but --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I hope you're really wrong.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I plan on living for a long,
long time.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That part I hope you're really right
on, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have a feeling that in about
six or eight months you're going to be okay with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't think so at all.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we've missed the best
opportunity we could have.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll see.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Time will tell. Time will tell.
All right. It's been moved and seconded that we deny this
unsolicited offer. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
October 22, 2019
Page 240
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1 that we deny.
MR. WILLIG: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11E
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT #19-068-NS FOR
ONE-HUNDRED AND TWENTY DAY EXTENSION TO THE
TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE
GULF COAST JUNIOR GOLF TOUR, INC., D/B/A THE FIRST
TEE OF NAPLES/COLLIER ("FIRST TEE”) FOR
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF
COURSE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO PROVIDE
GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
SERVICES - MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, another related item is Item 11E,
and this is a recommendation to extend the current maintenance
agreement on the grounds at the golf course with The First Tee of
Naples.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval. And the
reason I'm so quick on it, I read the executive summary which
basically said it would be more expensive for the staff to maintain the
golf course than to have First Tee, and I think it's -- and I would like
to see them stay engaged.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But nobody can play golf or
October 22, 2019
Page 241
anything, right? I just wanted --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Rainville is registered to speak if he
wanted to come up and address that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, he is? I'm going to second
the motion.
MR. RAINVILLE: The golf course is not in condition to open
currently. We would have to look at other options as we go forward
now that the Commission has voted.
But, certainly, The First Tee is a willing partner with the county
here and very engaged in this process and will continue to be. And I
think not only are we fulfilling the mandate for the current state of
the golf course, but we're actually improving it some, so...
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And if I'm not mistaken, the
maintenance operations that we have that we were successful in
negotiating with you prior to our summer break are not precluding us
of making any final decisions with the size, shape, and color of the
golf course. I mean, we're -- it's obviously going to require some
increase in maintenance and overseeding and things, as you said, in
order to become playable.
MR. RAINVILLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But what we are doing is a
minimum, adequate, and not necessarily a detriment for our going
forward making decisions?
MR. RAINVILLE: That's correct. We are maintaining the
golf course today in a state that will not preclude from future golf,
including potentially opening for some temporary period where there
may be some overseeding and some grooming work done.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do that by hand, though.
MR. RAINVILLE: We're actively, I would say, improving the
site.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. Okay.
October 22, 2019
Page 242
MR. RAINVILLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. And, Mr. Chairman,
I'm going to support the motion, but I'm going to suggest that -- and
this is not a reflection on First Fee or KOVA at all, so don't take this
that way at all. But I want to make sure we're getting the best price
we can, and I think we should go through -- at some point go through
a competitive bid.
So I support the motion to maintain the agreement we have right
now for the next couple of months, but I think staff needs to see if
there's other options in terms of maintaining that, because I would -- I
mean, 22,500 a month sounds like a lot to me. It may not be, but the
only way we can know is if we do some selection.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Prudent.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's fair enough.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Prudent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, why do you maintain it if
you're not going to use it for anything?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I don't concur with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seriously.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm being serious. I'm about to
give you an answer. I don't concur with your thought processes that
we're not going to use it for anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But until then we don't know what
it's going to be.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. That's the reason why
we hired -- or we agreed to do the ITN in the first place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't even trying to be cranky
or anything.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no. I was being cranky.
Was I being cranky back?
October 22, 2019
Page 243
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you weren't. I was just
thinking that you thought I was. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll be cranky.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. You can do it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's just messing with you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's 6:00.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He's looking at me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If we're not going to use it as a
golf course but we're not quite sure what we're going to do, maybe
put a restaurant, maybe put a veterans home, what are we maintaining
it for? Is that just to mow it or something?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, yes. And it was part of the
process. And, again, I don't want to -- I can take time here. I mean,
there's more to maintaining a golf course and allowing it to be in
some sensical form of use than just mowing the grass, and when we
started this process; that's all that we were --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's not going to be a golf
course.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it has the potential of being a
golf course, and -- but we have to move through that process that
we're in right now. January or February probably is when we're
going to be hearing back from those others, and then we're going to
have a better picture.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Golf was one of the things that the
consultants were going to be considering as a use.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: As they develop the options for the
property, golf is one of them. So it's not that we've decided there
will not be any golf.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Well, somebody just said
four of us decided not to have golf courses.
October 22, 2019
Page 244
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, you keep saying that, and we
did not decide that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's what he just said.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, you said that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, she said it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no. Let's say it again.
Children.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Children? Did you just call me --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I did. Let's just be very clear.
What we're saying is is that we're keeping our options open --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- but we're not going to
commit to a golf course at this point.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're not not committing to the
golf course. It's open. Our options are open.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And despite some opinions, it
could be nine holes, it could be 12 holes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or it could be 18.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Or it could be 18.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Our options are open. Could be
zero. So with that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We are -- someone -- have we
made a motion yet?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think we voted yet.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Taylor made a motion.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. I seconded
it. We've had an enormous amount of discussion about continuing
on with the current maintenance agreement. There any other
discussion?
(No response.)
October 22, 2019
Page 245
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Staff's going to look
at competitive selections.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
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.
Item #11I
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH MCDOWELL HOUSING
PARTNERS, LLC, FOR INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE NO. 19-
7556, “BEMBRIDGE PUD AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND
DEVELOPMENT” - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this moves us on to Item 11I.
This is a recommendation to approve a developer agreement with
McDowell Housing Partners, LLC, for the Bembridge PUD
affordable housing land development project.
Mr. Giblin is available to make a presentation.
MR. GIBLIN: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record
again, Cormac Giblin. I'm your housing, grant development, and
operations manager.
This starts a trio of items that are implementing prior Board
October 22, 2019
Page 246
direction on three items that were contained in your Community
Housing Plan. If you recall, the community --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was going to make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's hurry up and vote while
Commissioner Saunders isn't here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Speakers?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, sir, we do not.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept staff's recommendation. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you.
Item #11J
RESOLUTION 2019-207: THE GUIDELINES, CRITERIA,
ANNUAL WORK PLAN, ASSOCIATED POLICY, AND
RESOLUTION FOR THE LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
TRUST FUND AND AUTHORIZE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
October 22, 2019
Page 247
PROGRAM – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 11J Is a recommendation to approve the
guidelines, criteria, annual work plan, associated policy, and
resolution for the local affordable housing trust fund and authorize
implementation of the program. Mr. Giblin again.
MR. GIBLIN: Again, for the record, Cormac Giblin, your
housing, grant, development and operations manager.
Again, this is following prior Board direction as accepted in the
Community Housing Plan. The recommendation in which to create
a local housing trust fund. You did that as a board on April 24th of
2018, and through that direction, you directed the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee to take some time to develop the
criteria and work plan that would ultimately be used to make award
of that -- of those funds.
I'll run through some of this very quickly. The resolution says
that the awards from the funds shall be made at the discretion of the
BCC. The Community and Human Services Division will act as the
administrator, and the AHAC would work with the BCC and CHS
staff to develop the specific eligibility criteria.
Your resolution from last year lined up eight eligible activities
that are listed on the screen, and the Commission did leave
yourselves the opportunity to adjust this list as you see fit.
Per the resolution, projects funded through the trust fund will
include an application process, underwriting standards, and loan or
doc -- loan or grant documents that would guarantee affordability
periods in concert with prior board direction, and all awards would be
presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
The trust fund is funded with proceeds from the sale of county
surplus property, repayments of affordable housing density bonus
units, and donations.
October 22, 2019
Page 248
The AHAC recommends that the Board continue to explore
long-term, recurring, and reliable revenue sources for the trust fund.
The balance in the trust fund right now is about $164,000.
When the items were presented to you last year as part of the
housing plan, the recommendation was to create the local housing
trust fund and also to identify and begin a recurring and relying
revenue source. At that time the Board did create the trust fund but
did not move forward with identifying any revenue to fund it, and
that's what the AHAC is requesting direction to continue to explore.
We have proposed the following work plan: It would mirror
the work plan how most of our grant funds are run through an annual
cycle with application period occurring in the January, February time
frame. They are received and reviewed by the Ranking and Review
Committee and brought back to the Board of County Commissioners
for approval in the spring, and then that cycle would repeat itself
annually.
So the recommendation is to approve those guidelines, criteria,
and work plan as developed in concert with the AHAC for use of
funding from the local housing trust fund.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one question. This is a
great plan. Everything is fine, and I don't have a problem with that.
But this isn't done through HUD, is it?
MR. GIBLIN: No, ma'am. These are local dollars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So I was wondering -- I
know we can't ever say, you know, that somebody has to be a U.S.
citizen when it comes through HUD or anything like that. But I was
wondering -- somebody said to me one day recently, she said, my son
wants to go to college, but I can't even get any of the government
funding to help him and yet they give it to everybody else that's going
through. Same with buying affordable housing.
October 22, 2019
Page 249
She said, we're trying to buy an affordable house, and they can't
buy them. They don't seem to be eligible just because they're
Americans. I said, no, no, everybody's eligible.
She said, well, is there something that we U.S. citizens can just
apply for? And so I was wondering, could you ever make
this -- being that it has nothing to do with HUD or the state or
anything, just us locally, could you first require that they're
legitimately U.S. citizens? Not residents.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's --
MR. GIBLIN: I'll defer to the County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can limit it to U.S. residents and
naturalized aliens, so basically anybody with a green card. You can't
discriminate against naturalized aliens.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: You start getting into -- you start running
into the federal issues.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They have a green card.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the green cards. See, now
that is the problem, because many times the green cards expire after
they get the house, and nobody ever checks to make sure that they
still have a green card. That's why I wanted to see about U.S.
citizens, especially, you know, sons and daughters of residents here.
And I was just wondering about that.
We're very, very good to people that come into our country and
to come into our county, and you can tell by all the names that we
approve, you know; we're very, very good to them, it's very seldom
we do anything for U.S. citizens. And I would like to see us do that.
It's taxpayers that pay for it. I didn't know if that was legal, so I
asked the County Attorney, and he said yes, right?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think he said that you can't
discriminate against green card holders.
October 22, 2019
Page 250
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, if their green card isn't
valid, then they shouldn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I don't think
anybody's -- and there only has to be -- the way it is right now, only
one has to have a green card. Nobody else has to be even here
legally in the house; is that correct? Yes.
MR. GIBLIN: Right now the Board's policy and the Board
direction is that we do impose those requirements on all of our grant
recipients even with the federal pass-through dollars, the SHIP
money as well, CDBG money, the HOME money; we do require that
they be either a citizen or hold a valid green card.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that is all the residents,
because that's specifically what she asked.
MR. GIBLIN: The entire household or just the head of
household?
MS. SONNTAG: It's the applicants. So it would be the
husband and wife would have to both be.
MR. GIBLIN: Both, both applicants. Husband and wife
would be -- both of them would be required.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My friend was telling me her kid
is, you know, just out of college, has to pay all the college fees and
everything, can't afford a down payment or anything like that, would
love to be this, but they don't seem to ever give it to people like me,
and I'm not eligible, and I don't know why. And, you know, I don't
know either. But I thought maybe we could make it
somewhat -- being that this has nothing to do with HUD or anything,
maybe we could make it that they were U.S. citizens.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not about HUD. It's federal Fair
Housing Act. You can't discriminate against people as far as
October 22, 2019
Page 251
housing. It's like, if you want to rent your house to someone, you
can't say, well, I don't want this ethnic group or that ethnic group.
You can't discriminate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: So under the feds, you can't -- once
they've got a green card, you just can't discriminate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just thought I'd try.
That's all right, because she needs to know. And it's a shame,
because it's hard for our own Americans to get anything, but I guess
that's okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it's important, we have
no intention of discriminating with regard to this. That wasn't -- that
wasn't the intent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't the point.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The point is, you know -- I tell
you, we just have some great employees that are Hispanic employees
that I just love to death, and they work for us at the county parks, and
they are now U.S. citizens, and they're eligible for anything and, boy,
you know, they're really welcome. But sometimes people aren't
eligible even though they're U.S. citizens. I don't know why -- I
don't know. Anyway, I would have to ask the person who asked me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If they don't qualify, they don't
quality. I mean, I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, anyway, I'll just let that slide
on by. I was hoping that we could make some kind of special
something or another that they would, you know, be considered,
but --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Giblin, donations -- and
that's one of your criteria, that people can donate to the land trust. Is
October 22, 2019
Page 252
it tax deductible?
MR. GIBLIN: This is the trust fund, so it would be -- we're
talking dollars, not land.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
MR. GIBLIN: And I don't know --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Probably not, right? Yeah.
Land can be donated?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Yeah, you're thinking
more that than cash. Got it.
MR. OCHS: Next item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is there a provision in the plan for
funding to come out of general ad valorem?
MR. GIBLIN: There is not.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, I just tried, but I didn't
mean to hold things up.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're -- I think we're okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You get your questions answered?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. I'll call for a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
seconded that we approve the guidelines -- or the recommendations
of staff for 11I, how about that, so that Terri doesn't have to write all
that down.
MR. OCHS: 11J, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Excuse me, 11J. My bad. I
wasn't on the right one. Any other discussion?
October 22, 2019
Page 253
(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. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11K
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 19-7577,
“ESTABLISHMENT OF A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY LAND
TRUST,” TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
SW FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A H.E.L.P. ("H.E.L.P.") - MOTION TO
DENY – FAILED; MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S
RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to 11K. This is a recommendation
to award a contract establishing a not profit -- not-for-profit
community land trust to Housing Development Corporation of
Southwest Florida. Mr. Giblin.
MR. GIBLIN: Again, for the record, Cormac Giblin, housing,
grant, and development operations manager.
Again, this is the final in the trio of housing-related items here
on your agenda that are bringing to you finalization of Community
Housing Plan actions that you have approved in the Community
Housing Plan and last year through specific direction to staff.
October 22, 2019
Page 254
Last year you gave staff direction on April 24th to move forward
with the creation of a community land trust and to release an RFP to
solicit community partners to provide that service.
The request in the item was to allocate $100,000 over two years
to cover the two-year startup costs of the new organization. That
funding was approved through your budget process. We released the
RFP on April 5th. It went out to over 12,000 vendors. It was
extended a couple times to garner more interest, and the review
committee has selected the proposal from H.E.L.P. to be
recommended for funding.
Just a brief overview about what is the community land trust.
It's a permanent non-profit ownership to own the land. The units
that are built on the land are sold or rented to income-qualified
households with the land remaining in ownership of the community
land trust for a 99-year land lease. It separates the price of the land
from the price of the housing in order to maintain affordability for the
long term.
The scope of services that we looked for was for an organization
to essentially create a brand-new 501(c)3 non-profit organization
organized as a community land trust. They will need to follow the
typical steps in organizing a new organization, which would be filing
articles of incorporation, adopting bylaws, seating a board, and
moving forward with conducting their business.
The deliverables in our contract are that they provide us
quarterly updates, official meeting minutes, invoices, and then the
final deliverable will be at the end of the two years that they will have
completed all of the steps necessary to become incorporated and a
functioning non-profit in Collier County, evidence of separate
financial accounts and have management -- have at least one parcel
under their community land trust management with housing being
developed on it. And so the recommendation is to award the RFP to
October 22, 2019
Page 255
H.E.L.P. of South Florida.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just two questions. For 99
years. Now, who builds a house on there, first of all?
MR. GIBLIN: It would be the organization would then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whatever organization awards that
or something?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct. The H.E.L.P. would -- the community
land trust would look for developers and builder partners to build the
housing, and then H.E.L.P. would manage it for 99 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, what happens -- I
can only judge from what I see in my community here, not by
anything else. But I go -- I went into Victoria Falls. Well, it's
pretty -- it's not pretty -- not pretty anymore, or you go into Naples
Manor and, heck, they're not even 50 years old and some of them are
not livable. What do they -- who -- what did they do with that
house, or does it just stay there for the 99 years or what?
MR. GIBLIN: That is one of the advantages of the community
land trust model is because you have an active management company
or an active management organization who maintains property
standards, who makes necessary repairs, who upkeeps the general
area. So it's a partnership between the people in the housing and the
landowners who would be the community land trust to maintain those
standards for the long-term. That's one of the advantages of the
extended term is that we would have assurances that that housing is
kept up to standard for the long-term.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Rentals, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you kind of be in control of
that, so if it isn't -- I don't know what kind of teeth you would have,
but you could force them to bring it up to livable conditions?
MR. GIBLIN: It would -- the county would not be a party to
October 22, 2019
Page 256
the community land trust. It's a private non-profit group,
organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then who would keep tabs of
that private non-profit for 99 years?
MR. GIBLIN: They would monitor themselves. They'd be
subjected to normal county code enforcement as any other property
owner.
I would assume that they would be coming to the county for
awards of grants, future funding to spur development on their land,
and through those development agreements, we can then put the
county's teeth into keeping the properties up to snuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So at 99 years, then,
because we all know what properties look like after 50 years, are you
going to be distributing them equally -- equitably throughout the
county, or is it just going to be in one area? And you know who I'm
thinking of.
MR. GIBLIN: Again, the county is not going to be the
community land trust. We're -- this is a private, not-for-profit --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that.
MR. GIBLIN: -- who could buy property wherever they see
best.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they can -- so you can't tell
them, then, to buy property -- distribute it equally around, or not
equally, but equitably?
MR. GIBLIN: Again --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I realize you're not going to be
buying anything like on Vineyards Boulevard or anything, don't get
me wrong, but at least so that it's spread out a little bit.
MR. GIBLIN: The representative from H.E.L.P. is here. I
would think that they would want to maintain a good partner
relationship with the county, and --
October 22, 2019
Page 257
MR. KLATZKOW: They're going to buy wherever it's cheap.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh?
MR. KLATZKOW: They're going to buy wherever it's cheap,
because that's going to be Commissioner McDaniel's district and your
district largely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And probably Commissioner Burt
Saunders' district, too, in the City of --
MR. KLATZKOW: Portion, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Golden Gate, yeah. They go
there, too. We know where they all are going. But I'm afraid of
what they will do to drag down the community around them if they're
not maintained properly. And right now we could keep track of it.
We could go and look by ourselves, but it's not their responsibility to
do that. What's --
MR. KLATZKOW: But you can't control --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- assured that the neighbors
around there --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you can't control that unless you
want to have county housing, and I don't think you want to have
county housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it kind of sounds like we're
going to.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this will be private.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But who can make sure the
private people keep it?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My question is is who's going to
fund this? Where did the 100,000 come for the seed money?
MR. GIBLIN: You approved it through your budget.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It got approved through the budget,
right.
MR. GIBLIN: Yes.
October 22, 2019
Page 258
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And where did it come from?
MR. GIBLIN: It came from General Fund reserves.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: General Fund, right. And
so -- and what's the difference between this non-for-profit and the
land trust that we already have?
MR. GIBLIN: We don't currently have a land trust,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Housing trust fund? That's not the
same.
MR. GIBLIN: No. The housing trust fund that you approved
on your last item.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
MR. GIBLIN: It's a checking account.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. But it also accepts land.
MR. GIBLIN: It does not. It's a -- it's a financial checking
account. Think of it as that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I thought I heard Commissioner
Taylor say where do the contributions come from? It can be land.
MR. GIBLIN: If someone wanted to donate land to the county,
we could sell it as surplus, and that fund -- those funds would go to
the trust fund.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. If someone wanted to
donate land, you would need a mechanism like this to receive the
land?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now, I share the same concerns as
Commissioner Fiala in that there's a 99-year lease necessarily on the
land, and I understand the rationale behind that. It allows for a
reduction in the housing costs. But I don't see it -- I don't understand
the premise -- or how we're going to manage that from a -- how it can
be managed to maintain quality housing.
October 22, 2019
Page 259
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know, I would invite
everyone to go in the City of Naples and look at the George
Washington Carver Apartments and see quality, that when they were
constructed and they moved people from a terrible place which was
McDonald's Quarters. McDonald's Quarters was so bad that they
didn't -- when they moved the people out, they burned it down.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. I remember.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And they moved people to
George Washington Carver Apartments, and everyone said, this is
going to look like you know what. This is terrible. I would invite
everyone to go and look see today.
There's a management company on premise. They rent.
People are appreciative, and they take care of their places, and it's
open. There's no gates, no gates. And you can walk through it, and
you can walk through it at 1 o'clock in the morning. It's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's -- there's three of us that
are going to have those in our -- in our communities. Is this what we
want? And there's probably one of us that's going to have most of
them.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you know, it's also for
elderly and disabled people. It's not just people that are recently --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No restrictions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. It's elderly and disabled
also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This one I'm going to have trouble
voting on, I'm sorry -- voting for. I understand what you want. And
it would be -- in an ideal world if we had an ideal company who
could oversee it all the time and we had somebody from our staff
making sure that it's right or having some teeth to say you're not
doing it right, but we don't have any of that. So I'm sorry, I cannot
vote for that one.
October 22, 2019
Page 260
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Giblin, if the company that
we're considering hiring doesn't perform accordingly, I'm assuming
in the contract there are opportunities to dissolve the relationship; is
that correct?
MR. GIBLIN: There are. It's a -- only -- it's a two-year
contract, and after that they are their own entity. You could decide
never to fund them again and -- or to provide them with any grant
funding towards properties.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And they're going
to -- and the relationship is such that they would be solicitous of
funding from the county; is that correct?
MR. GIBLIN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to deny.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second the motion to deny. Is
there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor for the motion to
deny?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The motion fails 3-2.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to
approve the staff recommendation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded we
accept staff's recommendation. Any other discussion?
October 22, 2019
Page 261
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let me guess how this is going to
go. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye -- no, I'm sorry. I'm going to
vote in the nay. Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye.
It's 3-2, you pass.
MR. GIBLIN: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11N
A RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AUTHORIZING THE RADIO
ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT TO LANDSCAPE THE ENTRANCE TO THE RICH KING
MEMORIAL GREENWAY ALONG RADIO ROAD - MOTION
TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 11N,
previously Item 16D1 moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner
Taylor's request.
This is a recommendation to approve a right-of-way consent
agreement with Florida Power and Light Company authorizing the
Radio Road Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit to
landscape the entrance to the Rich King Memorial Greenway along
Radio Road.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much, and I did
October 22, 2019
Page 262
move it to this agenda to be heard from the consent agenda at the
request of Ms. Sherman, who I don't believe is here, but I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think she's been here all
day.
MR. MILLER: No. I have one registered speaker, and it's
Roy Anderson.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Anderson is here on their
behalf; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: I'm here for questions. This is something that
we've been asked to move forward, and we're doing as requested by
the Board previously, so...
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't understand you, I'm
sorry.
MS. ARNOLD: I'm just here for questions. And this is an
item that was previously authorized by the Board for us to move
forward, and we're trying to get the permits to move forward with the
project.
MR. OCHS: It's within the current boundaries of the MSTU.
MR. MILLER: Are you ready for your speaker, sir?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I am ready for the speaker.
Forgive me.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
afternoon. I'm Roy Anderson from Countryside.
The Countryside Master Board asked me to come here to tell
you that we're against this project and we do not want to see it go
forward in any way through the MSTU. The Rich King Memorial
Greenway project is an overreach by the MSTU, as was the
Devonshire landscaping.
Number two, the master boards of the three major Radio Road
communities voted to dissolve the Radio Road MSTU. This was
October 22, 2019
Page 263
explained in great detail at the March 26th, the red-shirt meeting,
which happened to be at the same time as the Chairman's birthday.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right about that time.
MR. ANDERSON: The BCC heard from ours and other's
protests and did not vote to include the Rich King boundaries into the
MSTU.
The BCC zeroed out the MSTU budget for FY2020, and we
testified in support of that at the September 5th budget hearing. So
we thank you for that.
Last point is that even though this immediate project is not for
funding or for project approval, we do not wish to see this project
advanced in any way by the BCC.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So there you are.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. It's up to me? Thank
you. We received two letters. I don't know if you've seen them;
one from Mr. Carnell, and, I believe -- I think that's the one we
received, and then also I reviewed Michelle's letter.
MS. ARNOLD: I can help. This is an existing project --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You answered --
MS. ARNOLD: -- that was put on hold, and at your
March 26th meeting you-all authorized us to lift the hold and
continue with the project, and we are doing that.
And this is a permit that we're having to apply for, a
right-of-way permit, essentially, through Florida Power and Light so
that we can get their authorization to -- you know, they check to
make sure that we don't have anything in excess of 14 feet in height
and those types of things. So we're complying with their regulations
because it's within the power line.
This is in an existing MSTU boundaries. This is a project that
October 22, 2019
Page 264
has been, you know, contemplated since 2013. This is not a new
project. And this is something that we continually hear from from
Countryside, and staff would like to proceed with this project and
stop delaying it any further.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ms. Arnold, one of the -- I was
trying to remember it, the date of it, but you did respond to a letter
that Mrs. Sherman sent regarding -- and the question was, how many
other MSTUs contribute to areas that are ongoing that are not
contiguous to their properties? And I think you named several of
them. And do you remember those neighborhoods that you named?
I've got the letter in the back, but there's several.
MS. ARNOLD: I mean, all of our MSTUs have responsibilities
for projects within the boundaries. Not all of the projects are
contiguous to a specific development, because the MSTUs are larger
areas in some cases. And, you know, those individuals within the
boundaries are the ones that are benefiting, and that's why they're in
the boundaries.
I understand that Countryside and some of the other
communities are not necessarily in favor of this, but we've had this
discussion over and over and over again. And as I said, we'd like to
move forward with this right now.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. As much as I love
landscaping, and I think that we really need landscaping at the Rich
King Greenway because a lot of people use that, was it -- was that
boundary for the original MSTU --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- expanded?
MS. ARNOLD: No. It's not expand -- it's not an expansion of
the boundaries. It's the existing boundaries. All we're asking for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's in the -- that's -- I was
October 22, 2019
Page 265
trying to say --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was it originally in the boundaries
of the MSTU --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- period?
MS. ARNOLD: Period. Yes, it was. There's been no
modifications --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you all know that? See,
because that makes a big difference. And I don't think that's ever
been stated before.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we made that decision in
March.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: March. We did but, you know,
that was the question of whether they wanted to expand it, but we
made that decision in March to go ahead with the landscaping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I remember when we made
the decision.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I'm saying is, I don't
remember us speaking about it was in the original boundaries,
and -- but is that what it was, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. For this particular project, it is
within the existing boundaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's what I wanted to
know.
MR. ANDERSON: It's within the Radio Road right-of-way.
It's just the entrance.
The thing that was shot down on the 26th was expanding the
October 22, 2019
Page 266
boundaries further south where the bike path actually is. That did
not happen. But we don't even want this project, so that's our
position. But this is part of the existing boundaries --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So --
MR. ANDERSON: -- of the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it's really within their rights to
do that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to clarify.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have an estimate of the
cost associated with this landscaping?
MS. ARNOLD: It's been so long, we need to go get a redesign,
and I don't want to speak to the cost --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: About?
MS. ARNOLD: -- but all of the expenditures would be within
the current budget, and --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's okay that you don't know. I
just -- I just was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the maintenance, it's
ongoing maintenance as well?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's part of it as well.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the only area that we're talking about is
at the entrance along Radio Road. That's the extent of the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that entrance is in the
boundaries?
MS. ARNOLD: And it's in the existing boundaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In here you said there's an
estimate of 25,000.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I mean that was --
October 22, 2019
Page 267
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
MS. ARNOLD: -- several years ago.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Several years ago. I'd like to
move approval.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How can they -- at some point in
time, how can they change the boundaries of their MSTU? I know
that they -- they've mentioned that, right?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we've gone over this about three
different times --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know that.
MR. OCHS: -- petitions from Ms. Sherman, and the Board has
considered expansion of boundaries and have denied that, and the last
time you took an action on this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that we have to -- right
now, because we've already voted on it, and we've talked about doing
it and moving forward. Being that Mr. Anderson --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is here, I was just wondering is
there some point in time that this MSTU can be retired, or can they
just keep on going?
I think it's a beautiful thing and, you know, I love all the
landscaping and everything. I'm just trying to find an answer for
them that they can live with, if there is one.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That was the discussion in March.
They petitioned you to shut down the MSTU and not expand the
boundaries. This board heard all the testimony, decided not to
expand the boundaries but not to shut down the MSTU, to not levy a
millage in the current FY, and to move forward with this
beautification project at the entrance to the Greenway.
October 22, 2019
Page 268
So we're just coming forward with the steps needed to
implement Board direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, Mr. Ochs, now he can go back
and tell his people what we've said. I'm just trying to --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- close this subject --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not going to be closed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- forever, okay?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not going to be closed
because -- so in any case --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But at least this year, sir, you
can smile because we didn't -- there's no millage; there's no millage,
there's no assessment.
MR. ANDERSON: That's right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll see you again next year.
MR. ANDERSON: We appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. It's been moved and
forwarded (sic) that we accept staff's recommendations for the
landscaping and -- or the consent agreement with FPL for the
MSTU's landscaping at the entrance. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. 4-1, you pass.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
October 22, 2019
Page 269
MR. OCHS: I just wanted to mention, Mr. Anderson's a great
friend of Collier County, former employee, engineer in the
Transportation Department.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Heck, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim DeLony?
MR. OCHS: No, Roy Anderson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is he a friend of Jim DeLony?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. ANDERSON: We actually work together now. We were
both rangers at Glen Eagle. And Jim actually works for me now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell him we said hi.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, do tell him we said hello.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll do that.
MR. OCHS: Pay back is heck, hey, Roy?
Item #11O
TERMINATE THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES CITY – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11O is previously Item 16C11. This was a
recommendation to terminate the technical assistance interlocal
agreement between the county, the county water/sewer district, and
the City of Everglades.
Commissioner Fiala moved this forward to the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I need a little help with
this, and Crystal -- Crystal and I were talking about this, and this is
why I pulled it. And, Crystal, could you help me with this, please.
THE CLERK: Yes, Commissioner.
October 22, 2019
Page 270
One of our questions was the language that was in the executive
summary said if and when it was paid back on the $47,000, I guess,
that's there. Is that -- is it a receivable or isn't it? If or when? Is it
forgiven on the 47,000 that's already spent?
MR. BELLONE: Well, Crystal -- Joe Bellone, director of
Financial Operations for Public Utilities.
Crystal, in the year-end memo, we've recorded that $47,000 as a
contingent receivable. It's not recorded in the books, but it is
contingent. So it's there. It's noted, but it's not on the books as a
receivable. It's contingent.
MR. OCHS: We'll invoice, and just like the bridge, if they
don't pay, eventually we'll come back and ask the Board to write it
off as a bad debt.
THE CLERK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, they raised their fees last
month. They actually raised the utility rates last month, and they are
soliciting funds as we speak in Tallahassee for the improvements to
the plant and wastewater facilities. And so there is an opportunity
some day that this might not be as upside down as what it has been.
THE CLERK: Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for -- now we have it on
the record and cleared up. Okay. What's the second one?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we have to do -- we have to
vote on this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, it's been moved and seconded
that we approve staff's recommendations with regard to this
termination of the agreement.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
October 22, 2019
Page 271
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.
Item #11P
TERMINATION OF COUNTY SOLICITATION NUMBER 19-
7612 “96TH AVENUE NORTH PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL
PROJECT” AND REFUND ALL ASSOCIATED PROTEST
FILING FEES TO ANDREW SITEWORK, LLC AND DOUGLAS
N. HIGGINS, INC. - MOTION TO AWARD BID TO LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11P is previously 16E6 on the consent
agenda. This is a recommendation to approve the termination of
county solicitation No. 19-7612. This is the 96th Avenue North
Public Utilities renewal project. And Mr. Coyman will continue
from his discussion this morning on this item.
MR. COYMAN: Commissioners, again, for the record, Ted
Coyman, director of Procurement Services.
I just want to be really clear on this. You've got a bidder who
triggered the protest appeal process, all right. So this is a bidder,
Andrew Site Works. Under the ordinance, I'm not able to do much
other than allow the appeal process to unfold.
But in the discovery of what transpired, we did document that
October 22, 2019
Page 272
there was irregularity on staff's behavior in accepting documents in
after the bid had closed. That's unacceptable.
So what's in front of you is a request to just terminate the
solicitation and give back the protest fee money that was collected
from both parties, 5,000 each.
The Board also has two other options. One is to allow the
protest appeal process to go forward and unfold which would take, I
would estimate, in excess of two months, and I think you'll be right
back here with the same conclusion that I'm sharing with you right
now, is that there was an irregularity that took place by staff which
caused the problem.
The third option is to award to the Douglas Higgins Company.
It's -- based on my findings, he is the lowest responsive responsible
vendor, and it would be my intention to award to him. But, again,
I'm not -- I have no authority to throw out the protest appeal process
that was triggered.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's why we're here.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it's not what you -- I'm
sorry. You were first.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes.
Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You were first place.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good.
That's not what you said in your executive summary. You said
you wanted to go out and rebid it all again.
MR. COYMAN: Yes. And the executive summary, we
consulted with the County Attorney's Office, and the initial thought
was that was the cleanest, just to terminate the procurement, refund
the money, and re-solicit it.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead.
October 22, 2019
Page 273
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I disagree that that's the
cleanest approach.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We had a lowest responsible
bidder, and that was Higgins. Staff made a mistake by assisting the
next bidder that wasn't responsive. And so I think correcting the
staff mistake is simply let's award the bid, deny the appeal, and
replace -- refund their appeal dollars -- I don't think there should ever
have been an appeal -- award the bid to Higgins, that's the lowest
responsible bidder, make -- we'll make a finding that the bid of the
party was not consistent --
MR. COYMAN: Responsive.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- with our requirements.
Staff made a mistake to help them, but staff was not helping the
ultimate lowest responsible bidder. So I'll make that motion to
award the bid.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Third. Fourth.
Commissioner Solis, do you want to talk us out of it?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. Let's just go.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You say that to me all the time,
so...
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.
October 22, 2019
Page 274
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12A
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE IN THE
CONTRACT DISPUTE CASE STYLED JOHNSON CONTROLS,
INC., V. COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO. 2019-CA-3326, NOW PENDING
IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 12A was previously Item 16K1 on your
County Attorney consent agenda moved at Commissioner Fiala's
request. It's a recommendation to approve a settlement agreement
and release in a contract dispute case from Johnson Controls and the
county.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. And I'm just going to give the
very narrow approach to this rather than an expanded approach given
the time.
There are a number of invoices that are outstanding to Johnson
Controls. They date back, predominantly, to 2016 and 2017. I'll
remind you that we live under a Prompt Payment Act in Florida.
A lot of these invoices staff was of the opinion should have been
paid. Clerk's staff was of the opinion they should not have been
paid. That's why a lot of these things were under dispute.
Eventually Johnson Controls brought suit. We sat down. We have
a settlement agreement here where Johnson Controls was asking for
176,000, and I believe we're agreeing to pay 105,000 to settle this.
October 22, 2019
Page 275
It's my opinion that if we go to court on this, we will not get as
favorable a result as the settlement agreement. I am also concerned
of Johnson Controls amending their complaint alleging the fair
Prompt Payment Act, that would be 1 percent interest per month,
compounded monthly, plus they'd be entitled to attorney's fees.
So it's my recommendation that this settlement and release be
approved and that we be done with that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: About to sneeze. Madam Clerk.
I almost called her Crystal.
THE CLERK: Thank you, Chairman.
Actually, Jeff, I think that's quite a misrepresentation. This was
actually a good item of great working together with county staff and
the Clerk's Office. Some of the billings that JCI had submitted, the
work was not completed, the work was not done. The department
rejected them. We rejected them. We worked very well together to
identify all of the issues.
The magnitude of the unpaid was about double what they're
asking to settle. I think it's a great idea. I purely understand
litigation and other issue. We will be issuing an audit report on all
the deficiencies. There were cost issues with Johnson.
But this is really, I think, a good item. We worked with staff.
Some of the items didn't even make it to the Clerk's Office because
the work was either inappropriately done or not completed.
So this was not the Clerk in a nonpayment on time of an invoice,
so --
MR. KLATZKOW: Again, I wanted to --
THE CLERK: -- it's a good situation.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no need to get into anything
further.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a
October 22, 2019
Page 276
motion to approve the item. We need to follow the advice of our
County Attorney, and I'm glad that the Clerk and the County are
working together so well.
THE CLERK: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Great news.
THE CLERK: We did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that
we accept the recommendations of staff. 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.
Item #12B
WAIVE DEDUCTING OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AGAINST
WEST CONSTRUCTION INC., (COLLIER COUNTY BID NO. 18-
7240 - MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT NEW
TERMINAL & ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS) IN EXCESS OF
WITHHELD RETAINAGE UNTIL THE END OF THE PROJECT -
MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 12B was previously Item 16K4 moved by
October 22, 2019
Page 277
Commissioner Fiala this morning to the regular County Attorney
agenda. It's a recommendation to waive deducting of liquidated
damages against West Construction, Incorporated, they are the
contractor on the Marco Island new airport terminal building, in
excess of withheld retainage until the end of the project.
MR. KLATZKOW: And this is trying to make the best out of a
bad situation, to put it bluntly. The contractor working on the Marco
Island terminal building has substantial delays, substantial delays.
At this point in time, liquidated damages are accruing at the rate
of approximately $3,600 a day. We have a choice here to either
deduct that from his monthly payment or wait until the end or
towards the end of this project and then deal with the liquidated
damages.
The first priority is to get this project done. That's the first
priority. The problem with deducting the liquidated damages from
the monthly payments is that the contractor may not have enough
money to pay the subcontractors, which will result in further delays
and further disputes between the contractor and us.
So to make -- to take a bad situation and try to make it a little
better, okay, it's our advice that we do not implement the liquidated
damage reduction from the monthly payments at this time. We get
this project completed, and at the end of the project, the county may
or may not have a claim, the contractor may or may not have a claim,
but we can deal with it with a brand-new airport anyway, and we'll
take care of it then.
Hopefully this building is of high quality when it's done, and
hopefully we'll be able to enjoy it for many, many years after this
unfortunate issue with the contractor is forgotten.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a question. Being
that we have problems with the contractor and, of course, we're
October 22, 2019
Page 278
obligated to take the lowest bidder, if we know that the bidder isn't as
good of a performer or builder, could we reject that and --
MR. KLATZKOW: I think in hindsight, knowing what we
know now -- you know, if we knew then what we knew (sic) now, we
would not have awarded this contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we did.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Number one. Number two -- and
I'm sorry. Did you get your questions answered?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How many days behind is the
contractor?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, God. Over 200.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred days behind, and
they are traveling at a tune of how many -- how much per day of
liquidated damages?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's, like, $3,500 a day.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thirty-five, $3,600 a day. Now
are we -- and my question -- and this is just me, you know. And,
again, I can see where -- I can see where you're going with regard to
trying to move this forward, but are we rewarding bad behavior?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Where have we been with regard
to the management of this contract? How did it get 200-some-odd
days behind for us to even be having this conversation?
Because -- and now I see us getting ready to -- because that's like a
truckload of money that we're going to have owed in liquidated
damages, and we're going to get to litigate for that, is what I heard.
They may have a case. We may have a case.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Given the sum of money in
liquidated damages, it's going to be extensive. You know, there will
be another discussion with this board maybe six months from now,
October 22, 2019
Page 279
nine months from now, whenever this project's done as to what we
want to do with this.
Now, understand, this isn't out-of-pocket money, okay. The
point of the liquidated damages is so that we would have a project
done by a certain date.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. I understand that. And
we're 200 days behind, and I know we want -- everybody wants to
get the project done. There's nobody that doesn't want to get the
project done. But we're staring at a large sum of money in liquidated
damages, and we're rewarding a contractor who's already 200 days
behind.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're postponing -- we're postponing the
claim is what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we have very good
outside counsel assisting the County Attorney, and his advice is to
waive this at this time, and I'll make the motion to do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Second. Third.
Okay. It doesn't add up.
Madam Clerk?
THE CLERK: Just the phrasing on the motion was to waive
this. I think the County Attorney's indicating we're not waiving the
liquidated damages. We are just not deducting them from the
current pay. We will continue retainage.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're waiving our right to take them
now --
THE CLERK: Right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- but we are not waiving our rights to the
claim.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what I heard. We're
just -- we're not pulling it out of the retainage as we're going -- as we
October 22, 2019
Page 280
have done so far.
And then -- and, Commissioner Fiala, you were lit up. Do you
have anything to say?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't. I think I said it already.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
And, Commissioner Saunders, you made your motion. So
moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation with
regard to pulling out the liquidated damages interimly here. 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.
Item #10A
OFFICIALLY RENAME THE NORTHEAST COLLIER
RECYCLING DROP-OFF CENTER AT 825 39TH AVENUE
NORTHEAST, AS THE TIM NANCE RECYCLING DROP-OFF
CENTER – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 10A under
Board of County Commissioners. This was a recommendation to
officially rename the Northeast Collier Recycling Dropoff Center as
the Tim Nance Recycling Dropoff Center.
October 22, 2019
Page 281
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll move that we recycle
Commissioner Tim Nance.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You want --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You want me out? Is that what
the deal is? You want to recycle --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're just going to recycle him in
a big --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- plastic thing.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you're going to recycle him in
general. Outstanding. Well, I think it's a wonderful idea, and a nice
place for a plaque for him. 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.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 15, Staff and Commission
General Communications.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is the one we've been looking
October 22, 2019
Page 282
for.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Just a reminder for the Commissioners next
Tuesday in this boardroom starting at 9 a.m. is your Mental Health
and Addiction Ad Hoc Committee Workshop. That will be a very
full agenda, so we'll be starting prompting at 9 a.m.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right.
MR. OCHS: And I know the Chairman is going to be on time
and ready.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely, as I always am.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Except for today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless he has a mental-health
problem.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One little 10-minute extension.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the only other item I have is I
received a letter -- or I was copied on a letter that was addressed to
community leaders from Chief Michael Choate from the Immokalee
Fire Control District asking for letters of support on a legislate --
State Legislative Budget Appropriation request that they're making
this session to replace their fire station at their New Market Road
location in Immokalee.
I didn't know if the Board had any interest in the staff drafting a
letter for the Chair's signature supporting that or whether you wanted
to stay out of that.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You want to hear from me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we should support this
action. It's a request by the fire district to build a new firehouse
across the street from the main firehouse that they have in
Immokalee. The building that they're currently occupying is an old
packinghouse. So when a storm -- when a storm hits -- when we end
October 22, 2019
Page 283
up in the cone of a storm, they have to load all their stuff and leave.
My first responders have to leave town because they don't have a
facility.
If this appropriation were to come to fruition -- they're asking
for five million. If the appropriation were to come to fruition, it
would be a huge benefit for our residents in Immokalee proper.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all they want us to do is write a
letter to support their efforts?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Support their request for the five
million, I think, is what they're actually asking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Will they pay for the staff?
Or do we have to front that as well?
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We already got them for the
upfront money on the other piece.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: If you need a motion on that, I've
got four head nods.
MR. OCHS: I just needed to know.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She's saying five head nods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just made the motion.
MR. OCHS: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Madam Clerk?
THE CLERK: Nothing else. I've said enough today. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You did. Waited till the end, too.
Let's go right on down the line. That's --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're shooting for 7:00 --
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- like a song, right on down the
October 22, 2019
Page 284
line.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're shooting for 7:00?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal, thank you for pointing out
some of those things that I brought up. I wasn't -- I didn't bring them
up myself. Crystal pointed it out, and they were so interesting, and I
think they all needed to vote on that, and you got the right votes.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So thank you for doing that, and
everybody else have a great week.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing. Thank you,
though.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Troy, how long would it take
you to boot that up? Forget it. We'll do it another time.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It will hold. All right. No, I
have nothing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to tell you, it was as cold as
cold can be in Amish country; 34 degrees, and the wedding was
outside. That's all.
CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I have nothing either. With
that, we are adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner
Saunders and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
October 22, 2019
Page 285
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2019-196: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-
66, AS AMENDED, THAT CREATED AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING CHAPTER
FOUR, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, MORE
SPECIFICALLY TO AMEND SECTION I.2, SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS (SDP), TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES
FOR AIRSPACE OBSTRUCTION REVIEW; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA
ITEM #16A2 AND AGENDA ITEM #17A)
Item #16A2
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SUPERSEDING THE 2001 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. (THIS
IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16A1 AND AGENDA
ITEM #17A) (ALL DISTRICTS) – RELATED TO THE REVIEW
OF AIRPORT HAZARDS AND INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES,
AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 333, FLORIDA STATUTES (F.S.)
Item #16A3
RECOGNIZING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY AND HUMAN
SERVICES DIVISION UNDER THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR NAPLES MANOR
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $80,000 AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT (PROJECT NO. 33649-01). (ALL DISTRICTS) –
October 22, 2019
Page 286
THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM THROUGHOUT
NAPLES MANOR IS OVER 50 YEARS OLD AND CONSISTS OF
ROADSIDE SWALES AND DRIVEWAY CULVERTS WITH
CORRUGATED METAL PIPES
Item #16A4
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,240 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.902.30,
PL20160000715 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH MAPLE
RIDGE RESERVE PHASES 2-4, AND EXCAVATION PERMIT
59.902.38, PL20170003388 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
SILVERWOOD AT AVE MARIA PHASE 1. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16A5
AGREEMENT NO. LPA0008 WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANTATION ISLAND HURRICANE
IRMA WATERWAY RECOVERY PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE
ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. PROJECT
NUMBER 60238. (DISTRICT 1) – $312,500 WAS INCLUDED IN
THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT; FUNDS WILL BE
USED TO PERFORM A PRE-DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION STUDY FOR DEVELOPING A RESTORATION
PLAN FOR PLANTATION ISLAND WATERWAYS
Item #16A6
October 22, 2019
Page 287
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF SAVANNAH AT NAPLES
RESERVE REPLAT (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20190000578),
APPROVE THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, APPROVE THE AMOUNT OF
THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CLERK TO RELEASE THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED SECURITY
FOR SAVANNAH AT NAPLES RESERVE UPON ACCEPTANCE
OF THE SECURITY FOR THIS REPLAT. (DISTRICT 1)
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF 7-ELEVEN #41151,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20190002007. (DISTRICT 3) –
LOCATED OFF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PHASE 2A,
PL20170002967 AND 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 5) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER
DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP WAS
CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
October 22, 2019
Page 288
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PHASES 2B-1,
PL20180001253 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 5) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER
DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP WAS
CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE RANCH AT ORANGE BLOSSOM PHASES 2B-2 AND
2D, PL20180000066 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 5) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER
DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP WAS
CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
October 22, 2019
Page 289
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT CONVEYANCE OF
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 10B, PL20180000563
AND 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 4) – A
FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS IN MATERIALS
AND WORKMANSHIP WAS CONDUCTED BY
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2019, IN
COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE
FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A12
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 10C, PL20180000793
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN
THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 4) – THE
DEVELOPER HAS CONSTRUCTED THE POTABLE WATER
AND SEWER FACILITIES WITHIN DEDICATED EASEMENTS
TO SERVE THIS DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A13
October 22, 2019
Page 290
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT CONVEYANCE OF
POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES –
PHASE 3 PARCEL H3, PL20170002745 AND AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT. (DISTRICT 3) – A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER
DEFECTS IN MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP WAS
CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF ON
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019, IN COORDINATION WITH PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2019-197: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF TWINEAGLES GRAND ARBORS, PHASE
TWO C BLOCK 111, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20120001072,
AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16A15
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR WORK WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-
WAY; PERMIT PRROW20180213761. (DISTRICT 2 )
October 22, 2019
Page 291
Item #16A16
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR WORK WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-
WAY; PERMIT PRROW20180100678. (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16A17
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,480 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.150,
PL20160002876 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH SERENO
GROVE (F/K/A SERENO AT PELICAN MARSH). (DISTRICT 2)
Item #16A18
AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE AWARD OF
INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7609, “SUNSHINE BLVD.
SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT”, TO ZEP
CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,987.50;
AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE A TIME EXTENSION TO A LOCAL
AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SUNSHINE BLVD. SIDEWALK AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
PROJECT (FPN #435030-1-58-01, PROJECT NO. 33505); AND TO
PROVIDE FOR A 10% OWNERS ALLOWANCE OF $50,000 FOR
POTENTIAL UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS, AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES CONTRACT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT. (DISTRICT 3) – FOR SIDEWALK
October 22, 2019
Page 292
IMPROVEMENTS IN GOLDEN GATE ON THE WEST SIDE OF
SUNSHINE BOULEVARD FROM 100 FEET SOUTH OF 17TH
AVENUE SW TO GREEN BOULEVARD, INCLUDING A
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER GREEN CANAL
Item #16A19
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT #18-7286,
"GOODLETTE- FRANK ROAD AT FLEISCHMANN
BOULEVARD ROADWAY AND SIGNALIZATION
IMPROVEMENTS," WHICH ADDS 69 DAYS TO THE
CONTRACT TIME DUE TO A DESIGN REVISION (PROJECT
NO. 60172.6). (DISTRICT 4) – LENGTHENING NORTHBOUND
AND SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANES IN THE MEDIAN OF
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD, AT THE FLEISCHMANN
BOULEVARD/ZOO ENTRANCE, ADDING A RIGHT TURN
LANE FOR SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC ONTO WESTBOUND
FLEISCHMANN BOULEVARD AND UPGRADING AN
EXISTING CONCRETE STRAIN POLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO A
STEEL MAST ARM STRUCTURE
Item #16A20
STAFF TO BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AN
ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO CLARIFY THE
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, CRITERIA FOR REVIEW, AND
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS THAT WILL
REQUIRE THE USE OF COUNTY OWNED OR MAINTAINED
RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND ALLOW APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH
EVENTS TO BE PROCESSED UNDER THE PROPOSED NEW
October 22, 2019
Page 293
STANDARDS WHILE THE LDC AMENDMENT PROCESS IS
PENDING. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16C1
A $501,773.95 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR
QUOTATION NO. 14-6213-133 FOR THE “I-75 ALLIGATOR
ALLEY WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT”, TO
QUALITY ENTERPRISES, USA, INC. (PROJECT NUMBER
70246). (DISTRICT 3) – FOR A PROJECT OFF DAVIS
BOULEVARD AND BEDZEL CIRCLE
Item #16C2
ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FROM AECOM TECHNICAL
SERVICES, INC., TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES UNDER
AGREEMENT #14-6345, AND AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF A
PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $291,614, FOR
UPCOMING PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION OF THE 24”
LIVINGSTON ROAD FORCE MAIN, WHICH IS LOCATED
WITHIN THE WASTEWATER BASIN 305 PROGRAM.
(DISTRICT 4) – FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 8,800 FT 24”
FORCE MAIN TO BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG LIVINGSTON
ROAD AND REHABILITATION OF PUMP STATION 110.00
Item #16C3 – Amount Corrected (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR
A FUTURE PARK AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED
$9,030, $9,830 (PER AGENDA CHANGE SHEET) PROJECT
October 22, 2019
Page 294
#70196.1 (DISTRICT 5) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C4
A LETTER AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE GRANT WRITING
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR A PERIOD OF TWELVE
MONTHS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES CITY. (DISTRICT 5) – PER THE NEW
AGREEMENT, THE COUNTY’S EXPECTED EXPOSURE WILL
NOT EXCEED $50,000
Item #16C5
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION UNDER CONTRACT #19-7525,
“COLLIER COUNTY LITTLE LEAGUE PARKS REPAIRS” TO
CAPITAL CONTRACTOR, IN THE AMOUNT OF $236,600. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – TO REPAIR HURRICANE IRMA DAMAGES AT
CINDY MYSELS PARK, STARCHER PETTAY PARK, AND
TONY ROSBOUGH COMMUNITY PARK
Item #16C6
AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ") NO. 19-9601
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525, “GMD GENERATOR AND
FACILITY DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS,” TO CAPITAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $423,650. FISCAL
IMPACT: FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $423,650 ARE
AVAILABLE IN “CDES CAPITAL” FUND (309) IN PROJECT
NO. 50161.3. (DISTRICT 1) – TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY
October 22, 2019
Page 295
POWER FOR THE ENTIRE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
FACILITY LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
Item #16C7
AGREEMENTS FOR INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) #19-7565,
“ANNUAL LANDSCAPING PUBLIC UTILITIES FACILITIES,”
TO: CARIBBEAN LAWN & GARDEN OF SW NAPLES FL.,
INC., A & M PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, LLC, GROUND
ZERO LANDSCAPING SERVICES, INC., AND WALKERS
SERVICE, INC, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE AGREEMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) – THE BASE ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT IS ESTIMATED TO BE $750,000
PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL AND UNANTICIPATED SERVICES
Item #16C8
THE TRANSFER OF 1.33 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
COLLIER COUNTY TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT, AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED
$142,980 (PLUS CLOSING COSTS), AND AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND
BUDGET AMENDMENTS (PROJECT NUMBER 70249).
(DISTRICT 3) – TO ACQUIRE A SUITABLE TRACT OF LAND
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MASTER PUMP
STATION (MPS)
Item #16C9
AWARDING AN AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID
(“ITB”) NO. 19-7595, “GREASE TRAP HAULING,” TO
October 22, 2019
Page 296
SOUTHERN SANITATION INC., FOR COUNTY-WIDE GREASE
TRAP HAULING. (ALL DISTRICTS) – SERVICES WILL BE
UTILIZED TO EMPTY GREASE TRAPS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH GUIDELINES OF VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES/
AGENCIES WHERE GIVEN FACILITIES ARE LOCATED
Item #16C10
A PURCHASE ORDER MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT NO.
18-7311-1, FOR THE “SCRWTP ELECTRICAL RELIABILITY
PROJECT” TO SIMMONDS ELECTRICAL OF NAPLES, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $16,504.83, PROJECT NO. 70069. (ALL
DISTRICTS)
Item #16C11 - Moved to Item #11O (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16D1 – Moved to Item #11N (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D2
A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,500 AND ONE (1)
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT (NET FISCAL IMPACT:
$2,500). (DISTRICT 1) – FUNDS ARE CONSIDERED PROGRAM
INCOME AND MAY BE USED FOR ELIGIBLE SHIP
ACTIVITIES
Item #16D3
October 22, 2019
Page 297
A SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,500. (NET FISCAL
IMPACT: $4,500). (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16D4
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED
CEREBRAL PALSY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., FOR
THE PS19-02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FREE TO BE ME PUBLIC SERVICES TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT. (DISTRICT 4) – TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES TO ADULT PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Item #16D5
AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND
ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY
ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND COLLIER
COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO EXTEND THE
EMERGENCY HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
GRANT PERIOD FOR SIXTY (60) DAYS OR UNTIL A NEW
2019 CONTRACT IS EXECUTED, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
(ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRYFORWARD
INTEREST EARNED FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2019 THROUGH
JUNE 2019 ON ADVANCED LIBRARY FUNDING RECEIVED
October 22, 2019
Page 298
FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO SUPPORT
LIBRARY SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE USE OF
COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS (NET FISCAL IMPACT:
$4,094.94) (ALL DISTRICTS) – INTEREST EARNINGS MAY BE
USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COUNTY AND ARE
REINVESTED BACK INTO THE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
Item #16D7
TIME EXTENSION AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS FOR SECTION 5339 BUS
AND BUS FACILITIES GRANT FUNDS FOR AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT ("ADA") IMPROVEMENTS TO
RURAL AREA BUS STOPS AND A SERVICE DEVELOPMENT
GRANT JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A MOBILE APPLICATION AND
ASSOCIATED MARKETING PLAN. (ALL DISTRICTS) –
EXTENDING AGREEMENT NOS. G0575, G0015, G0A60 AND
G0L50 TO DECEMBER 31, 2020, TO COMPLETE NECESSARY
ADA IMPROVEMENTS AND DEVELOP A MOBILE
APPLICATION AND MARKETING PLAN
Item #16D8
TERMINATING AGREEMENT #18-7249, “DAS DESIGN
BUILDING RENOVATIONS”, WITH ADG ARCHITECTURE,
LLC, FOR CONVENIENCE. (DISTRICT 3) – STAFF IS SEEKING
TO RELOCATE THE DAS FACILITY TO A NEW LOCATION
WHERE IT CAN CONSOLIDATE ALL ANIMAL HOLDING
RESOURCES; THERE IS NO CURRENT NEED TO EXPEND
October 22, 2019
Page 299
FUNDS ON DESIGN AND SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF
A NEW DOG HOLDING FACILITY ON EXISTING DAS
PROPERTY
Item #16D9
THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 17-7198,
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (“CMAR”) CONTRACT
TO REVISE AND CORRECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
STANDARD RATES IN EXHIBIT “G” TO THE CMAR FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX. (DISTRICT 5) – TO
ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF TITLE AND PAY RATE
CATEGORIES
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 2019-198: ACCEPTING NATIONAL FITNESS
CAMPAIGN GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000
FOR THREE (3) FITNESS COURTS® ASSOCIATED WITH THE
COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS COMPLEX AND EVENTS
CENTER, NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK, AND BIG
CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK AND ALLOCATING
MATCH FUNDS FOR THE THREE (3) FITNESS COURTS® AS
PART OF THE 2020 NATIONAL FITNESS CAMPAIGN.
(DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 2, DISTRICT 5)
Item #16E1
RENEWING AGREEMENT #16-0036, PHARMACY BENEFIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, WITH ENVISION
PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, LLC, AND AMEND THE
October 22, 2019
Page 300
CURRENT AGREEMENT TO REFLECT IMPROVED TERMS
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2020. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E2
ADVERTISING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2004-12, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING CLASSIFICATIONS
OF CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY (COPCN) A BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS)
PROVISION
Item #16E3
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT
SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER
CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD
APPROVAL. (ALL DISTRICTS) – INCLUDES TWO (2) CHANGE
ORDERS THAT IN AGGREGATE MODIFY CONTRACTS BY
$9,000.00, ADDS 64 CALENDAR DAYS TO COMPLETION
PERIODS, ZERO (0) AMENDMENTS FOR THE PERIOD AND
TWO (2) AFTER THE FACT MEMOS WITH A FISCAL IMPACT
OF $14,159.00
Item #16E4
AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) – INCLUDES NO
October 22, 2019
Page 301
ON-LINE SALES THIS PERIOD, TRADE-INS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $5,000 AND A ZERO NET BOOK VALUE OF DISPOSED OR
TRADED-IN ITEMS
Item #16E5
RESOLUTION 2019-199: DONATING TWO (2) SURPLUS
AMBULANCES TO FLORIDA SOUTHWESTERN STATE
COLLEGE AND HODGES UNIVERSITY FOR USE IN THEIR
PARAMEDIC TRAINING PROGRAMS (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16E6 - Moved to Item #11P (Per the Commission during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16F1
FY2019/20 DUES PAYMENT TO FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, WHICH THIS YEAR FEATURES A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT FOR THE PUBLIC AWARENESS FUND. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,959 AND AN
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF $17,627 FOR THE
PUBLIC AWARENESS FUND
Item #16F2
EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONCESSIONAIRE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
PICKLEBALL ENTERPRISES LLC D/B/A PICKLEBALL PRO
SHOP OF COLLIER COUNTY (“PICKLEBALL PRO SHOP”).
(ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
October 22, 2019
Page 302
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2019-200: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16F4
AN EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE SPONSORSHIP
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPIRIT
PROMOTIONS FOR THE 2020-2024 U.S. OPEN PICKLEBALL
CHAMPIONSHIPS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM. (ALL DISTRICTS) – AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1
AN AFTER-THE-FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) GRANT OFFER IN THE
AMOUNT OF $195,513, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AIRFIELD
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (FISCAL IMPACT: $195,513 FAA)
(DISTRICT 1) – TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS
APPROXIMATELY $217,237; THIS AGREEMENT
SUPPLEMENTS EXISTING FUNDING UNDER FAA GRANT
AGREEMENT 3-12-0142-012-2018
Item #16G2
October 22, 2019
Page 303
RESOLUTION 2019-201: AN AFTER-THE FACT ACCEPTANCE
OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,209, AND TO APPROVE
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
ATTACHED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT NO. G1B89 FOR
EXTENSION OF TAXIWAY C AT THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT (FISCAL IMPACT: $210,209 FAA;
$11,678 FDOT, AND $11,678 LOCAL MATCH.) (DISTRICT 5)
Item #16J1
ENDORSING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY COMBINED EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENT
AND CERTIFICATION THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020. (ALL
DISTRICTS) – FUNDS WILL BE USED TO SUPPLEMENT AND
NOT SUPPLANT SHERIFF’S OFFICE LAW ENFORCEMENT
PURPOSES
Item #16J2
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 AND
OCTOBER 9, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06.
(ALL DISTRICTS)
October 22, 2019
Page 304
Item #16J3
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND
PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF OCTOBER 16,
2019. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #16K1 – Moved to Item #12A (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2019-202: APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD. (DISTRICT 2) –
APPOINTING PETER GRIFFITH TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF
THE VACANT TERM EXPIRING MARCH 31, 2021
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2019-203: REAPPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MAINTENANCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE. (DISTRICT 4) – REAPPOINTING JIM KING TO
THE TERM EXPIRING MARCH 13, 2023
Item #16K4 – Moved to Item #12B (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #17A
October 22, 2019
Page 305
ORDINANCE 2019-35: 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 AMEND THE AIRPORT ZONING MAPS FOR NAPLES
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT, EVERGLADES AIRPARK, AND IMMOKALEE
AIRPORT; TO ADD A REVIEW PROCESS FOR AIRSPACE
OBSTRUCTIONS; TO ADD AIRPORT LAND USE
RESTRICTIONS; TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL PRICING
SIGNAGE FOR FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS AND TO
ALLOW ELECTRONIC FUEL PRICING SIGNS; 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; CHAPTER FOUR – SITE
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING
SECTION 4.02.06 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN
AIRPORT ZONES; CHAPTER FIVE – SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.05.05 FACILITIES
WITH FUEL PUMPS, SECTION 5.06.00 SIGN REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS BY LAND USE CLASSIFICATION,
SECTION 5.06.06 PROHIBITED SIGNS; AND APPENDIX D
AIRPORT ZONING; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO
October 22, 2019
Page 306
AGENDA ITEM #16A1 AND AGENDA ITEM #16A2). (ALL
DISTRICTS)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2019-36: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2005-54,
AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED MANDATORY SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION, BY ADDING PROVISIONS RELATED
TO THE BEARWISE PROGRAM. (ALL DISTRICTS)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2019-204: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS)
October 22, 2019
Page 307
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:58 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.