Loading...
Agenda 12/10/2019 Item # 2C (Minutes 11/12/19 Regular)12/10/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.C Item Summary: November 12, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 12/10/2019 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 12/02/2019 8:34 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 12/02/2019 8:34 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 12/02/2019 8:34 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/10/2019 9:00 AM 2.C Packet Pg. 22 November 12, 2019 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 12, 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 Page 1 November 12, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB) Airport Authority AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 November 12, 2019 9:00 AM Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 - Chair; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3 – Vice-Chair Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1; CRAB Co-Chair Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2 Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.” PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD Page 2 November 12, 2019 WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Reverend Tony Fisher, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Greater Naples 2. AGENDA AND MINUTES A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.) B. October 8, 2019 BCC Meeting Minutes C. October 29, 2019 BCC Mental Health and Addiction Ad Hoc Committee Workshop Meeting Minutes 3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS Page 3 November 12, 2019 A. EMPLOYEE B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS C. RETIREES D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 4. PROCLAMATIONS A. Proclamation designating November 18 - 22, 2019 as American Education Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Beth Hatch, Executive Director of Pathways Early Education Center of Immokalee. B. Proclamation designating November 20 - 27, 2019 as Farm-City Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Garrett Richter, 2019 Chair of the Farm City BBQ, Cyndee Woolley, President of the Farm City BBQ of Collier County, Inc., and representatives of the four youth leadership development programs benefitting from the proceeds of Farm City BBQ: Collier County 4H Association; Youth Leadership Collier; Collier County Junior Deputies League; and Key Club International. C. Proclamation designating November 2019 as National Hospice and Palliative Care Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jaysen Roa, President & CEO, Avow Hospice, Inc. 5. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for November 2019 to the Boys & Girls Club of Collier County. To be accepted by Megan McCarthy Beauvais, President & CEO, Jose Hernandez, COO, Dena Liston, Chief Development Officer, along with Board Members Mary Pat Hussey and David Grogan. Also attending is Bethany Sawyer, representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. 6. PUBLIC PETITIONS 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA Page 4 November 12, 2019 8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting. Recommendation to approve by 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. (Adoption Hearing) (Coordinator Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner) (This is a companion to Agenda Item #9B) (District 4) B. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting. This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, 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. (This is a companion to agenda Item #9A) (District 4) C. This item was continued from the October 22, 2019 BCC Meeting and has been continued indefinitely. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD), to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 616+/- acres. (PL20180003155) (District 5) Page 5 November 12, 2019 D. Recommendation to review and approve the 2019 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and Schedule of Capital Improvements as provided for in Section 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes and adopt a Resolution that updates the 5- Year Capital Improvement Schedules. (PL20190000983/CPSP-2019-1) (All Districts) E. Recommendation to approve 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. (All Districts) 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. This item to be heard immediately following Item #11A. Recommendation to purchase the 37 acre SD Corporation/Cypress Landings II parcels under the Conservation Collier program previously included in the cycle 9 Acquisition A List in the amount of $1,580,000, which the owners have indicated they are willing to accept. (Commissioner Fiala) (District 1) 11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT A. Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Future Acquisition Strategies document. (Summer Araque, Conservation Collier Program Coordinator) (All Districts) B. Recommendation to evaluate two (2) options for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Joint Participation Agreement (JPA), for new landscaping on US 41 East (Collier Boulevard to Greenway Road), and Page 6 November 12, 2019 Collier Boulevard South (US 41 East to Shell Island Road). (Joe Delate, Principal Project Manager, Road Maintenance) (District 1) C. Recommendation to approve the award of Invitation to Bid No. 19-7611, U.S. 41 North Water Main Replacement Phase 2, to PWC Joint Venture, LLC, in the amount of $2,488,340, authorize the Chairman to sig n the attached agreement, and authorize the necessary budget amendments, Project Number 70247. (Tom Chmelik, Director Engineering and Project Management Division) (District 2) D. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7655 to Florida Dredge and Dock LLC in the amount of $2,351,000 for the dredging of Water Turkey Bay, Wiggins Pass and Caxambas Pass for the Marco South beach renourishment, authorize necessary budget amendments, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Agreement, and make a find ing that this item promotes tourism. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Manager, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management) (All Districts) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A. AIRPORT B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Page 7 November 12, 2019 1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Summit Place in Naples Phase III, Application Number AR-6935, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3) 2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Avila Unit Six, Application Number PL20120001662, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 4) 3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Madison Estates, Application Number 99-16, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 2) 4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Pebblebrooke Commercial Phase IV, Application Number AR-5145, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3) 5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Southeast Immokalee, Application Number AR-3410, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 5) 6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Eden on the Bay, Application Number 99-02, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 2) 7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Torino and Miramonte, Application Number AR-6320, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 4) 8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Cordoba at Lely Resort, Application Number AR-13078, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 1) Page 8 November 12, 2019 9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of Barefoot Bay, Application Number 00-36, and authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 2) 10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water facilities, and accept the conveyance of the potable water for Neighborhood Shoppes at Orangetree. (Water Main Extension), PL20180001641. (District 5) 11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples – Learning Center, PL20180002553 and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $5,750.16 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 3) 12) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the conveyance of the potable water facilities for Richmond Park (Fire Hydrant), PL20170002337 and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $4,839.16 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 5) 13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility facilities for Hiwasse – Lock-Up Storage, PL20180002067, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $13,593.27 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 4) 14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 7C, PL20180001299 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 4) Page 9 November 12, 2019 15) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for The Club at Pelican Bay, PL20180002468, and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of $13,260.49 to the Project Engineer or Developer’s designated agent. (District 2) 16) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Preferred Materials, Inc., for construction of the “Oil Well Road Shoulder Improvements – Segment I” project, in the amount of $596,370.44 (Project 60231.2) and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Work Order. (District 5) 17) Recommendation to award a Work Order to Ajax Paving Industries of FL, LLC, for construction of the “Everglades Boulevard North Shoulder Improvements – Segment I” project, in the amount of $620,373.28 (Project 60237.1). (District 5) 18) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-a-Road Program Agreement for the roadway segment of Wilson Boulevard (from Immokalee Road south for 1.5 miles) with two (2) recognition signs and two (2) Adopt- a-Road logo signs for a total cost of $200 with the volunteer group, Collier County Cash Cows, Inc. (District 5) 19) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with a value of $220,980.21 for payment of $730.21 in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Janice Rives and Arturo Rives, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM20160008025 relating to property located at 5378 Broward St, Collier County, Florida. (District 1) 20) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 12-234, to remove the tri-annual amendment cycles and allow for amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to be processed, reviewed and scheduled for public hearing as submitted, as aligned with the Florida Statute 163.3184. (All Districts) 21) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Amendment No. 5 to Contract No. 18-7245 with Taylor Engineering, Page 10 November 12, 2019 Inc., to include additional tasks for the Collier County Comprehensive Watershed Improvement Plan. (All Districts) 22) Recommendation to approve two donation agreements for the conveyance of drainage easements (Parcels 445DE and 446DE) required for Gulfview Drive. Estimated Fiscal Impact: $1,000. (District 4) 23) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien with an accrued value of $18,927.18 for payment of $1,827.18 in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Randolph Codner and Van B. Rhone, relating to property located at 4343 22nd Ave SE, Collier County, Florida. (District 5) 24) Recommendation to authorize staff to utilize $199,674 from the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone Trust Fund for a Golden Gate Parkway Complete Street Study and authorize the necessary budget amendments. (District 3) 25) Recommendation to direct Staff to extend the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District’s (RFMUD) “Early Entry” bonus Transfer of Developments Rights (TDR) credit, as provided for in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and in the Land Development Code (LDC). (District 3, District 5) 26) Recommendation to approve the Selection Committee’s ranking and authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations with Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc., dba Tindale Oliver, related to Request for Professional Services No. 19-7563, “East Naples Community Development Plan.” (District 1) 27) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to establish a standard template for Construction Bonds associated with the collocation of small wireless facilities on County utility poles on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. (All Districts) 28) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash Bond in the amount of $3,580 which was posted as a development guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA) (PL20160000314) Page 11 November 12, 2019 for work associated with Anthem Parkway Extension. (District 5 29) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Performance Bond in the amount of $46,300 which was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.079, PL20120001414 for work associated with Twin Eagles Phase 2B – Block 106. (District 5) 30) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Performance Bond in the amount of $1,000,000 which was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Numbers 60.100, PL20120002540; 60.100-1, PL20130002717; 60.100-2, PL20140000342; 60.100-3, PL20150000128 for work associated with Naples Reserve Phase One. (District 1) 31) Recommendation to extend the existing contracts with Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC, and Humiston & Moore Engineers, P.A. under Agreement #15-6382, “Grant Funded Professional Services for Coastal Zone,” for a period of up to 180 days to allow staff to complete negotiations for a new agreement and to prevent a lapse in this service. (All Districts) 32) Recommendation to hear a Land Development Code Amendment at two regularly scheduled daytime hearings and waive the nighttime hearing requirement. (District 3) B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking for Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 19-7634, “Heritage Bay Government Center Design,” and authorize staff to beg in contract negotiations with the top-ranked company, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., so that staff can bring a contract back to the Board at a subsequent meeting. (District 4) 2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7531, “Plumbing Parts and Supplies,” to Palm Beach Plumbing Parts, Inc., as the primary vendor, and Jameson Currie Corporation Inc. d/b/a Jameson Page 12 November 12, 2019 Supply, Inc., as the secondary vendor, for County-wide plumbing parts and supplies. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to award Agreements for Request for Qualification No. 19-7539, “Roofing Replacement Contractors,” for County-wide roofing replacement services to: Advanced Roofing, Inc., F.A. Remodeling and Repairs Inc., Crowther Roofing and Sheet Metal of Florida, Inc., Above All Roofing Contractor, LLC, and Target Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to take any and all legal action necessary to ensure that the property located at 249 Brockington Drive, which escheated to the county due to the prior owner’s failure to pay taxes, is vacated of any occupants and the dilapidated trailer on the property is removed or demolished, if it remains. (District 1) 5) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment for the Facilities Management Division in the amount of $1,869,000 to fund the Jail’s Kitchen Replacement and Safety Upgrades Project (53007) from the Infrastructure Sales Surtax. (District 1) 6) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 19-7593, “Palm River Utility Improvements,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the top ranked firm, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. (District 2) 7) Recommendation to approve the award of Invitation to Bid No. 19 - 7625, U.S. 41 East Water Main Replacement, to DBE Management, Inc., d/b/a DBE Utility Services, authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement, in the amount of $660,591, and approve the necessary budget amendment (Project Number 70248). (District 1) 8) Recommendation to approve the selection committee rankings and authorize entering into negotiations for a contract related to Request for Professional Services (RPS) Number 19-7621, "Golden Gate Wastewater Engineer of Record (EOR) and Infrastructure Improvements." (District 3) Page 13 November 12, 2019 9) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments in the amount of $911,912.93 for the Vanderbilt Drive Cul-de-sacs Public Utilities Renewal, Project Number 70122. (District 2) 10) Recommendation to approve the Easement Agreement with Bradstrom Village Condominium Association, Inc., a Florida not-for- profit corporation, at a cost not to exceed $4,553 for the acquisition of a Utility Easement for proposed water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, Project Number 70043. (District 1) D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 19-7630 to Infinite Construction, LLC, for the “Barefoot Beach Boardwalk and Pavilion Replacement,” in the amount of $225,343.28, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement, authorize the necessary budget amendment and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (District 2) 2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County and David Lawrence Mental Health Center to administer the allocation of the state-mandated match for FY20 in the amount of $2,335,934. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve a Temporary Right of Entry Agreement with Fischer Brothers Industries, Inc., to allow a portion of the Rich King Greenway be utilized as an access and staging area for a Moon Lake development lake bank remediation project, at no cost to the County. (District 4) 4) Recommendation to approve an “after-the-fact” contract and an attestation statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., for the Emergency Home Energy Assistance Program and authorize a Budget Amendment to ensure continuous funding for FY19/20. (Net Fiscal Impact $73,218.87) (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to approve one (1) satisfaction of mortgage for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program where the term of the Page 14 November 12, 2019 obligation has been met. (District 5) 6) Recommendation to approve two (2) mortgage satisfactions for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership loan program in the combined amount of $33,458 and approve an associated Budget Amendment. (District 4, District 5) 7) Recommendation to approve one (1) Release of Lien for an owner who has met the 15-year affordability term of a State Housing Initiatives Partnership Grant Agreement for Deferral of 100% of Collier County Impact Fees for Single-Family Affordable Housing Dwelling, provide a refund. (District 1) 8) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $68,981.24 to fund lobby and office improvements at Collier Museum at Government Center. (District 1) 9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County Manager to sign all documents required to accept an initial distribution from The Harvey M. Shreve Jr. Irrevocable Trust of 1997 (Trust), in the amount of $1,600,000 and any subsequent distributions to the Collier County Public Library, and to approve any necessary Budget Amendments. (All Districts) 10) Recommendation to approve upon arrival a FY2019/2020 Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 rural grant award in the amount of $484,276 to provide transit service to the rural area of Collier County; approve a resolution authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement and all necessary budget amendments and certifications. Total fiscal impact is $968,552 with a Federal share of $484,276 and local match of $484,276. (All Districts) 11) Recommendation to approve and execute upon arrival the FY20 -21 Public Transportation Grant Agreement (PTGA) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the amount of $1,965,584 providing for State funding for eligible Collier County fixed -route transit administrative, management, and operational expenses in the amount of $982,792, approve a local match in the amount of $982,792 and authorize necessary Budget Amendments (All Districts) Page 15 November 12, 2019 12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to establish a “No Overnight Parking” Zone at the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Facility located at 8300 Radio Road. (District 3) 13) Recommendation to accept the donation from Naples Velo Cycling Alliance, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, for the purposes of upgrading a starting gate at Naples BMX Sports Park and approve the Temporary Right of Entry with Bonness, Inc. to perform excavation/site work required to install a new starting gate (District 4) 14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Agreement #H0311 from the Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM) in the amount of $225,000 for hardening of the University Extension Services’ (UES) Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS) Building and associated Budget Amendments which include a local match contribution of $75,000, and a Resolution to authorize the County Manager or designee to revise and execute any and all documents necessary to apply for and/or receive the HMGP. (All Districts) E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-ME, “Professional Services Library – Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Technology Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the top five ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-CE, “Professional Services Library – Civil Engineering Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with all thirty-six ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-AR, Page 16 November 12, 2019 “Professional Services Library - Architectural Study, Planning and Design Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with the top nine ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking of Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-TR, “Professional Services Library – Transit Planning, Design and/or Study Category,” and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations with all four ranked firms, so that proposed agreements may be brought back for the Board’s consideration at a subsequent meeting. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 18-7432-AH, “Professional Services Library - Architectural Historic Preservation, Study, Planning and Design Category,” to Parker/Mudgett/Smith Architects, Inc., Bender & Associates Architects, P.A., MLD Architects, LLC, and Renker, Eich, Parks Architects, Inc., and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements. (All Districts) 6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and annual Statewide Mutual Aide Agreement between Collier County and other counties, municipalities, and independent special districts and the State of Florida, Division of Emergency Management. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to renew the annual Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for Collier County Emergency Medical Services to provide Class 1 Advanced Life Support Transport (ALS) for one year and authorize the Chairman to execute the Permit and Certificate. (All Districts) 8) Recommendation to recognize carry-forward from accrued interest earned from the period July 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019 by EMS County Grant revenue and appropriate funds for a total amount 9) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and Page 17 November 12, 2019 notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts) 10) Recommendation to approve the Administrative Reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts) 11) Recommendation to accept an award of $63,560 in grant funds from the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services for supplies and training and to authorize necessary Budget Amendments. (All Districts) F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS 1) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget amendments impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and including $25,000 and $50,000, respectively. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds) to the FY2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to use Tourist Development Tax Promotion Funds to support the upcoming December 2019 Sports Tourism Events the Gatorade College Soccer Showcase December 7th-8th, 2019 up to $9,100 and the Kelleher Firm Holiday Hoopfest December 27th-30th, 2019 up to $5,625 for a total up to $14,725 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve Summit Orthopedic Technologies, Inc., (“Summit”) as a qualified applicant to the Collier County Basic Industry Job Growth Promotion Incentive Program and approve the attached agreement for Project “Peak.” (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to authorize a $146,000 budget amendment recognizing carryforward for two purchase orders that did not roll from FY 2019 to FY 2020. (All Districts) 6) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Agreement # 19-7509 between Cultural Planning Group, LLC and Collier County Page 18 November 12, 2019 to increase reimbursable travel expenses in an amount not to exceed $4,326 and make a finding that this action promotes tourism to Collier County. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to authorize a Work Order under Agreement No. 14-6213, “Utility Contractors,” for Pelican Bay Lake 2-9 Restoration to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., in the amount of $682,722.70. (District 5) G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 1) Recommendation to approve the Fourth Amendment to Agreement No. 16-6561, “Design Services for Marco Executive Terminal,” with Atkins North America, Inc., in the amount of $31,450 for Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services associated with Bid Alternates 1 and 2 and authorize the Chairman to execute the Amendment, and to approve including the costs associated with construction of Bid Alternates 1 and 2 in Quality Enterprises USA, Inc. Contract No. 18-7366 - Marco Airport Apron & Associated Safety Improvements, increasing the amount of the award by $621,365 from $3,689,425 to $4,310,790 and authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute a Change Order for the increase to Contract No. 18- 7366. (District 1) 2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign Agreement No. 19-7558, “Design and Related Services for the Immokalee Regional Airport Runway 18/36 Project,” and the “Taxiway C Extension Project” in the lump sum not-to-exceed amount of $680,344 with Hole Montes, Inc. (All Districts) H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1) Recommendation to review the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) Water Policy Committee’s 2019-20 proposed guiding principles to be submitted to the Governor and Legislature for their consideration at the 2020 Legislative session. (Commissioner Taylor) (All Districts) I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Page 19 November 12, 2019 J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of the quarter ended September 30, 2019. (All Districts) 2) 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 October 10, 2019 and October 30, 2019 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval of the submittal of the Application for Funding Assistance for the Sheriff’s Office Residential Substance Abuse Treatment grant. (All Districts) 4) Recommendation to authorize execution of the budget amendment for $635,000 for communications VESTA Hardware Replacement (9-1- 1). (All Districts) 5) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of November 6, 2019. (All Districts) K. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1) Recommendation to appoint a member to Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts) 2) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. (All Districts) 3) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification Advisory Committee. (District 2) 4) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Historic/Archaeological Preservation Board. (All Districts) 5) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Health Facilities Authority. (All Districts) Page 20 November 12, 2019 6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a settlement agreement between Jeffrey and Brenda Lane and Collier County, related to dispute over ownership of a drainage easement within the property located at 6915 Oakmont Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the County accepting ownership of the drainage easement and future maintenance of the drainage line and both parties waiving costs incurred in relation to the failure and replacement of the prior drainage line. (All Districts) 7) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring back for public hearing, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2018- 21, in order to codify the Board’s appointment of alternate members of the Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Oversight Committee. (All Districts) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all participants must be sworn in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 17-45, as amended, the Logan/Immokalee Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), to increase the maximum allowable size of a dry cleaning plant from 1,500 square feet to 2,500 square feet; and providing for an effective date, for property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 18.6+/- acres. (District 1) Page 21 November 12, 2019 B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance establishing a ban against cast net fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford. (District 5) C. Recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-12, as amended, by adding to the classifications of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) a Basic Life Support (BLS) provision within the Class 2 Inter- facility transport services provision. (All Districts) D. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments (appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Adopted Budget. (All Districts) 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting November 12, 2019 Move Item 17B to Item 9F: Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance establishing a ban against cast net fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford. (Commissioner Taylor’s request) Time Certain Items: Item 9E to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. Item 10A to be heard immediately following Item 11A 12/2/2019 8:40 AM November 12, 2019 Page 2 MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please come to order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. Good morning, everybody. As soon as we get Commissioner Fiala up here, we'll get going. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm up here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, since you're all standing, if you all would rise, please, we're going to do the prayer and the pledge. Reverend Tony Fisher from the Unitarian Universal Congregation is here this morning. Item #1A INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVEREND TONY FISHER OF THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSAL CONGREGATION REVEREND FISHER: Good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. REVEREND FISHER: Spirit of life, God of our deepest understanding, we stand in awe at the wonder. At the gifts with which we have been graced: This planet, this life, the beauty of our beloved county, the shared commitment within this room for the well-being of all citizens. On this day after Veterans Day, we honor with deep gratitude all those citizens who have given so much of themselves in service to our country and the armed forces. For all we have and all for which we can be grateful, we know we live in a fragile world where the difference between have and have not, between security and vulnerability, between good health and ill can be, oh, so slight. We live in a world where tumult and November 12, 2019 Page 3 uncertainty are written not only in the faces we see on our television screens but in those we know as we go about our daily rounds and those we are aware of sitting close to us in these seats this morning. We live in a fragile world where all have experienced loss, where we all know regret, where we all feel pain. Spirit of love, as our Commissioners begin their work this day and we all move forward into the season of Thanksgivings, may they and we be filled with the compassion, the strength, the humility, the courage to overcome our own fears, move beyond our disagreements, and reach out our hands and our hearts in the spirit of gratitude and generosity. Stay with us now and always as we strive toward the goal of beloved community today and every day here in this fragile world. Amen. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, will you lead us today? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will. Please stay with me... (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Mr. Chair, I just would like to remark what a wonderful invocation that was. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It really, really was. Thank you. Very nice. All right. County Manager, good morning. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES November 12, 2019 Page 4 MR. OCHS: Good morning, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of November 12th, 2019. The first proposed change is to move Item 17B from your summary agenda to become Item 9F under your advertised public hearings. This is a recommendation to adopt an ordinance establishing a ban against cast-net fishing at the Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford, and this is moved at Commissioner Taylor's request. We have a couple of time-sensitive items today on your agenda commissioners. The first is Item 9E. That will be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. That's a discussion about your proposed impact fee adjustments, and Commissioner McDaniel has asked that to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., and Item 10A is to be heard immediately following Item 11A. And those are all the changes that I have, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. Well, let's go through and see if anybody else has any changes or adjustments. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes, no adjustments, and nothing to disclose on the consent or summary agenda, if we're already to that. I would like to ask one question about something that's on the consent agenda. And I'm sorry. It was related to putting out a proposal or an RFP for utility services in the Palm River area. And I thought I had flagged it, but I can't see it now. Just wondering what -- the timeline on that work beginning just so I can prepare my constituents for that -- and you can tell me later. That's fine. I'm just curious. MR. OCHS: We'll get you the schedule, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. November 12, 2019 Page 5 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And yesterday was a holiday, so there wasn't staff meetings and typical questions that we get answered. So, Commissioner Fiala, good morning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning. Well, I, too, have nothing to declare on the consent agenda. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, excuse me. If you could pull that microphone up. There you go. I can hear you, but the rest -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Red Tide. Oh, I mean, Mr. County Manager. MR. OCHS: Red tie, did you say? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She was commenting on your Halloween costume. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. No good deed goes unpunished. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our County Manager dressed like the Red Tide on Halloween, and if that isn't innovative, I don't know who is. But, anyway, I got a kick out of it. So I have nothing to declare on the summary or consent agenda, or rather -- summary agenda, and I have no changes, no additions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And there you are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing to declare. No changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have nothing to declare and no changes as well, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I have nothing to declare. I do have a couple of questions. On 16A16, I wasn't able to find a map. This isn't -- I don't -- just make a note. I'd like to see a map of the work area for that. November 12, 2019 Page 6 MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 16A18, I'd like to know who Collier County Cash Cows are and what they do. It was a group that signed up for a road project. It's Adopt-A-Road. And I've never heard of the Collier County Cash Cows before, so I think we ought to -- I even Googled them, and I couldn't find them on Google. MR. OCHS: I'd like to find them as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do what? MR. OCHS: I'd like to find them as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I bet you would. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we should know before we pass that, huh? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I think it's probably been well vetted -- and, no, it hasn't been -- MR. KLATZKOW: Not necessarily, no. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, I'm not going to pull it. It's okay. I just -- I found it interesting. And then on D9, maybe we ought to name one of our libraries after the contributor, that trust. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not that one. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not that library? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, give it consideration at some point. That was a pretty big bequeath. I have no other changes or adjustments. Before we go on -- well, let's do a motion and a second on the agenda and its adjustments. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that. And I would just ask the County Manager if, before the end of the meeting, he could find out who Cash Cows are before we seal this meeting, because we don't November 12, 2019 Page 7 know who we're talking about. Speaking of blind voting; that would be it. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'll do it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can't imagine that something would end up on our agenda that hadn't been pushed through, but it's potential. And they are -- it's an Adopt-A-Road project. So it's all being coordinated in picking up trash and doing the proper thing, so... I would -- before we go on and do anything else, I want to -- because I always forgot this. We have an Artist of the Month. Lidia Dick is her name, and I'm probably mispronouncing it. Lidea? Lidia. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nope, Lidia. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Lidia has carried a passion for art around the world living in countries like Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and China. She obtained formal training and received an associate's in arts at Delta College. There she focused on oil paintings. She continued her training in Mexico City where she expanded her techniques into bronze sculptures, and then also in Thailand where she learned A sian arts. She was given the opportunity to display her work at numerous solo and group exhibitions, and worked with multiple recognized artists around the world. Lidia hopes to bring together the physical and spiritual worlds of art and inspire thoughts and feelings through her work. If you have a moment today, please, while we're on one of our breaks, the court reporter or lunch, please take a moment. Her art's displayed around the back. November 12, 2019 Page 8 Item #2B BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 8, 2019 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Let's go ahead and do our minutes. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item 2B is approval of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting minutes of October 8th, 2019. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes from October 8th. 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 #2C BCC MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 29, 2019 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED November 12, 2019 Page 9 Item 2C is approval of the October 29th, 2019, Board of County Commissioners' Mental-Health and Addiction Ad Hoc Committee workshop meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that the minutes from our mental health workshop be accepted. 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 #4 PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL PROCLAMATIONS – ADOPTED Item #4A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18-22, 2019 AS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY BETH HATCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PATHWAYS EARLY EDUCATION CENTER OF IMMOKALEE – ADOPTED November 12, 2019 Page 10 MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes us to this morning's proclamations. Item 4A is a proclamation designating November 18th through the 22nd, 2019, as American Education Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Beth Hatch, executive director of Pathways Early Education Center of Immokalee. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I knew you were here somewhere. MS. HATCH: On behalf of Pathways, thank you so much for all your support for the past 55 years. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please go to the microphone and say that. MS. HATCH: On behalf of Pathways, all the children of Immokalee, for your support for the past 55 years, we thank you as we continue forward with over 400 on the waiting list, and the purchase of our land across the street just last week, we will continue to expand and serve the little under 1,200 children in Immokalee. So. Thank you. Thank you -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. MS. HATCH: -- for all your support. Have a great day. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I love that bunch. Item #4B PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 20 - 27, 2019 AS FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY GARRETT RICHTER, 2019 CHAIR OF THE FARM CITY BBQ, CYNDEE WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ November 12, 2019 Page 11 OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE FOUR YOUTH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BENEFITTING FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FARM CITY BBQ: COLLIER COUNTY 4H ASSOCIATION; YOUTH LEADERSHIP COLLIER; COLLIER COUNTY JUNIOR DEPUTIES LEAGUE; AND KEY CLUB INTERNATIONAL – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating November 20th through the 27th, 2019, as Farm-City Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Garrett Richter, 2019 Chair of the Farm-City Barbecue; Cyndee Woolley, president of the Farm-City Barbecue of Collier County; and representatives of the four youth leadership development programs benefiting from the proceeds of Farm-City Barbecue: Collier County 4H Association, Youth Leadership Collier, Collier County Junior Deputies League, and the Key Club International. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people in the audience are going to Farm-City Barbecue? Raise your hand. All right. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all going to be there serving you. MS. WOOLLEY: We're looking forward to it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, almost all of us. MS. WOOLLEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Cyndee Woolley. I'm the volunteer president of Farm-City Barbecue, Inc., of Collier County. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you volunteer for that presidentship? November 12, 2019 Page 12 MS. WOOLLEY: I volunteered for it, and it's my love, my love and passion for quite a few years now. On Wednesday, November 27th, we're returning to Cambier Park. Thankfully, the trees have filled in, so it will be a littl e bit shadier this time, following Hurricane Irma. We are expecting a record 3,000 in attendance. And part of what we're so proud about with the Farm-City Barbecue is we've donated more than $500,000 back to youth leadership programs through 4H, Youth Leadership Collier, Junior Deputies, and Kiwanis Key Clubs. Now, some people think that Farm-City Barbecue is strictly about promoting the agricultural community, and while we do that, part of what makes Farm-City Barbecue so special is we're not just celebrating one aspect of the community. We're celebrating the relationships that make a community stronger. From the farmer to the truck driver, to the banker and the entrepreneurs; it wouldn't work if we didn't work together. So, Commissioners, with that, I'd like to extend my thank you, my appreciation on behalf of the committee for your support, and I'd like to introduce our chair, Garrett Richter, to say a couple of words. MR. RICHTER: Thank you, Cyndee. Good morning, Commissioners. It's always an honor to be in your company. Thank you for your service. I know each and every one of you are very proud to serve the citizens of Collier County with good government, with good policy, with good decisions, and I know that many or all of you will enjoy serv ing the citizens of Collier County the Wednesday before Thanksgiving with good food, good camaraderie, and good times. I believe that the Farm-City -- the Farm-City day that alternates between the city and the rural area is, in my opinion, the number-one most enjoyable and effective gathering that I attend year after year. And thank you for your service to the county, and thank you for November 12, 2019 Page 13 serving up good steaks, corn, and, of course, Immokalee salad. Thank you, all. (Applause.) Item #4C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2019 AS NATIONAL HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JAYSEN ROA, PRESIDENT & CEO, AVOW HOSPICE, INC. – ADOPTED CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Item 4C is a proclamation designating November 2019 as National Hospice and Palliative Care Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jaysen Roa, president and CEO of Avow Hospice, Incorporated. Please step forward and receive your proclamation. (Applause.) MR. ROA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jaysen Roa. I am the president and CEO of the Avow companies, including Avow Hospice. Thank you so much for this honor. On behalf of our board of directors, our hundreds of staff, our hundreds of volunteers and, of course, the thousands of patients and families that we serve in Collier County each and every year, thank you so much for recognizing all that we do. We really appreciate the support of Collier County and truly appreciate the support of the County Commission. So thank you for all that you do, and on behalf of everyone at Avow, thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I can get a motion to approve November 12, 2019 Page 14 today's proclamations, please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve the proclamations. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that our proclamations be accepted. 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 #5A PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER 2019 TO THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MEGAN MCCARTHY BEAUVAIS, PRESIDENT & CEO, JOSE HERNANDEZ, COO, DENA LISTON, CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALONG WITH BOARD MEMBERS MARY PAT HUSSEY AND DAVID GROGAN. ALSO ATTENDING IS BETHANY SAWYER, REPRESENTING THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for November 2019 to the Board of County November 12, 2019 Page 15 Commissioners Boys and Girls Club of Collier County. To be accepted this morning by Megan McCarthy Beauvais, president and CEO; Jose Hernandez, chief operating officer; Dena Liston, chief development officer; Mary Pat Hussey and David Grogan, board members; and Bethany Sawyer representing the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. MS. BEAUVAIS: Good morning. I think this is the first time somebody has said my last name correctly, so thank you very much. MR. OCHS: You're welcome. Aimee gets all the credit in the board offices. MS. BEAUVAIS: Megan McCarthy Beauvais, yeah. Well, you did a fantastic job. I just wanted to say thank you as president and CEO of the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County, on behalf of our board of trustees, on behalf of our staff and the over 3,000 kids that we work with on a yearly basis, primarily in the East Naples and Immokalee areas. We really are trying to raise good citizens. We want them to become County Commissioners. We want them to be productive, caring, responsible members of society. We do that through academics, character and leadership development help, and really trying to teach them the skills on how to get along with people, how to communicate, how to solve issues peacefully. Those are skills that we think are necessary in today's world. They get that in addition to all the other enrichment activities, and we do that for less than $2,000 a kid with 100 percent scholarships. So we thank you for your support, we thank the Chamber for recognizing us as well, and we couldn't do it without Collier County community, so thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Very nice. November 12, 2019 Page 16 Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 7 this morning, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker under Item 7, David Grogan. MR. GROGAN: Good morning. David Grogan. I'm here today to alert you to the rampant fraud which is occurring in our condominium and homeowners associations. I'll give you some background as to why it's become so rampant. Back in 2016 the Miami-Dade District Attorney convened a grand jury to look into the practices of the condo division of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation since they had received so many complaints from citizens. The 35-page grand-jury report, which came out in February 2017, was far worse than anyone had imagined. Among the findings was that its own investigators had never even been trained to conduct an investigation. One of the main recommendations of the report was to revamp the election monitor program. So I set out to talk to the new head of DBPR, Mr. Beshears, by sending an email to his communications department, which did not receive a reply. After about a week, I sent another email. Again, no reply. After waiting another week, I sent a third email which said, "I hope you can appreciate the irony of not receiving any communication from the communications department." COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ha-ha. Sorry. November 12, 2019 Page 17 MR. GROGAN: Minutes later -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did. You appreciated it, right? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It was funny. MR. GROGAN: Minutes later my phone rang, and it was the head of the condominium division. I said, okay, that's a start. He hadn't read the grand jury report, which had been out for over a year, so I told him about the findings regarding the election monitoring program. And he said but, Mr. Grogan, we have an election monitor program. It's run by the ombudsman's office. So I asked him, who is the ombudsman? And what he said next made me think that this could be a Saturday Night Live skit. He said, there isn't one. I then talked to a manager in the ombudsman's office who said that he had been told not to appoint any new election monitors and not to hold any election monitor training classes. So as we approach the third anniversary of the grand-jury report, a very bad situation has become even worse. So I ask the Commissioners, could you just please simply raise your hand if you're in favor of finding common-sense solutions to protecting Collier County citizens from association fraud. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who wouldn't be in favor of that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Raises hand.) MR. GROGAN: Well, I'm glad to see the response. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I understand given your experience with elected officials and government you were -- you did have to ask that question. So what can we do? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. MR. GROGAN: Well, I will be returning, and I hope to meet with each of you individually to discuss that. November 12, 2019 Page 18 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was going to say, let's get -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's nothing we can do. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I was going to say, it's a State issue, is it not? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Division of Condominiums, yeah. MR. GROGAN: Well, I think some local leadership just in terms of maybe contacting the proper State officials will also be good. We'll get together and talk. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do a quick letter and bring it up as an agenda item and have some discussion, public input. I'm sure you're not the only one that feels the way that you do. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You started out talking about rampant fraud. What's the rampant fraud you're referring to? MR. GROGAN: Well, what might be good is I could send you the 35-page grand-jury report as well as many articles of fraud occurring in associations. So I think it would be educational. It's definitely a topic, just by virtue of how they've been handled at the State level that for the most part complaints have been buried. And the grand-jury report is pretty good about telling you that. So it's not coming from me. It's coming from the grand-jury report. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But that was -- okay. My question really is, is there fraud in Collier County that you're asking us to look at, or this is just kind of a 10,000-foot look at the process? MR. GROGAN: What we really need to do, what's really needed is some common-sense solutions to prevent fraud from happening as well as detect it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. November 12, 2019 Page 19 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll bring it up and have it as a discussion. Thank you. MR. GROGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, David. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that was our only registered speaker for public comment. Items #9A & #9B (ONE MOTION TAKEN ON BOTH ITEMS) Item #9A ORDINANCE 2019-39: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE BY 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 – ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS Item #9B ORDINANCE 2019-40: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, AS AMENDED, 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 November 12, 2019 Page 20 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 – ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 9 this morning, your advertised public hearings. We'll hear Item 9A and 9B together as companion items. These items were continued from your October 22nd board meeting. Item 9B does require that ex parte disclosure be provided by the commissioners, and members that are going to participate are required to be sworn in. Item 9A is a recommendation to approve a small-scale amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for a project known as GR -- KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, and Item 9B is a recommendation to amend the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development to add 300 multifamily rental units as permitted use in addition to the commercial development. MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we have two registered speakers for this item. MR. OCHS: So, Mr. Chairman, ex parte disclosure, please, and then we'll swear the participants. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. On 9B I've had communications with Mr. Yovanovich, Mr. Kirby of Kite Realty, Rob Sucher or -- Sucher, emails from Mr. Smith, that's the neighbor, November 12, 2019 Page 21 and correspondence from the Haldeman Creek MSTBU advisory board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I've had multiple meetings with the applicant and with his counsel, I've had special CRA meetings, I've attended CRA meetings, and I've had discussions with CRA members and also nearby community members, emails, discussions with county staff, and with Planning Commission staff. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I also have had correspondence and meetings concerning the 9A and 9B. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Again, very much -- very similar: Meetings, correspondence, emails, calls. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There you are. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Clearly -- attended CRA meetings, spoke to a couple folks from the MSTU board, spoke to Audubon about the trees, and I think that's -- and visited the site, of course. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I, as well, have had meetings, correspondence, emails, and calls. So with that, that's -- everybody rise who's going to give testimony today and be sworn in, please. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich Yovanovich, for the record, on behalf of the petitioner and applicant. You have two requests before you today pertaining to the Courthouse Shadows project right across the street from the November 12, 2019 Page 22 government center. One is a Growth Management Plan amendment on 10 acres of that property to allow for an overall density of 300 apartment units on the 20.35 acres that is the overall PUD, and then to amend the Courthouse Shadows PUD to allow for an apartment complex to be constructed on the property. With me today are several people who can answer questions you may have. I'll do a brief overview, and Wayne Arnold will go through the site plan in a little bit greater detail. But I have with me Doug Kirby with Kite Reality, who is the property owner of the property; Jared Wilson, who is the director of the East Region for Johnson Development, who is the purchaser of the property and will be developing the apartment complex; Wayne Arnold, the professional planner; Kristina Johnson is the civil engineer with JR Evans Engineering; Jim Banks is our transportation consultant and can answer any transportation-related questions; and Tim Hall is our environmental consultant. On the visualizer is the 20.35 acres that is the Courthouse Shadows PUD. I'm sure you're all very familiar with the site and the current condition of that site. KRG Realty owns 18.8 acres of the parcels that is in front of you. Essentially, they own everything but a few of the outparcels that front U.S. 41 where you have the restaurant, the gas station, Dunkin Donuts, and the former Burger King site. The 18.8 acres that KRG is selling to Johnson Development will be redeveloped for an apartment complex. The Starbucks will be staying; it's not going anywhere. So Starbucks will stay as well as the other outparcels fronting U.S. 41. The property is within Activity Center No. 16. As you're all familiar, most of your activity centers except for two permit a density of 16 units per acre. This activity center was originally adopted at four units per acre because it was within the coastal high hazard area November 12, 2019 Page 23 which capped the density at four units per acre. State regulations and statutes have changed over the years allowing for local governments to increase the density within activity centers provided that proper hurricane mitigation is obtained for the increase in the density. Under your current Growth Management Plan, the density allowed on this site would be 172 units. So, basically, we're asking for an increase of 128 units through the Growth Management Plan amendment. And we worked with Dan Summers to provide the appropriate mitigation related to the state statutes and hurricane evacuation by providing both general and special-needs cots for your hurricane shelters for these people. Our people will basically be sheltering in place because it's new construction. So we're not going to create an impact on your overall hurricane evacuation. I will briefly go over the history of this PUD because, as you're aware, this PUD has -- I'm sorry -- this shopping center has languished and has seen many of its tenants go away. The original PUD was approved in 1992 and was developed with a 147'-square-foot (sic) shopping center that has had several grocery stores serve as the anchor of that shopping center. KRG acquired the shopping center in 2006, and in 2008 Publix purchased Albertson's, which used to be there, and Publix went to this shopping center. In 2013, after Publix, you know, expanded the Kings Lakes shopping center, Publix decided not renew the lease, and since that time the shopping center has struggled to find good -quality tenants. In roughly two thousand -- and they've tried to market to Winn-Dixie, Sweet Bay, Wholefoods, Lucky's, and none of those grocery stores have decided to re-establish themselves in that shopping center. In fact, they had a contract with Lucky's, but that fell through, and they relocated nearby and chose not to go to this November 12, 2019 Page 24 center. As many of you will recall, in 2014 Sam's Club became very interested in this site. Everybody was excited about Sam's Club coming to this site, including Kite. We started the PUD amendment process for Sam's Club to increase the square footage from 147,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet, and right as we approached the finish line of the zoning, Sam's Club decided they were not doing any more expansions, and they basically put -- not just this project, but many, many projects on hold, and they decided not to move forward on this site. Since that time, KRG has tried to find national retailers such as HomeGoods, T.J. Maxx, Ross, Five Below, and others to come to this site. None of them wanted to come here. As you can see, it's an odd configuration. They're older buildings, and it would be very expensive for them to come here. There was another developer who was interested in doing a ground lease for a multifamily project. That fell through. And then in 2018, Johnson Development Associates identified this site, liked this site, and has had this site under contract, and it has been moving forward with doing another apartment complex. You may be aware that not too long ago we did an amendment to the Briarwood PUD to add an apartment complex to that property at the corner of Livingston Road and Radio Road. Johnson Development is the developer of that apartment complex, likes the Collier County market, and sees this as a great opportunity to redevelop this shopping center into another high-quality apartment complex. And they've worked long and hard with the outparcels tenants -- or owners to help them with their parking issues and help them become better parcels for development and higher use, and hopefully the restaurants will stay and not keep coming and going from the outparcels. Wayne will take you through some of those changes. November 12, 2019 Page 25 We've met with the CRA advisory board multiple -- on multiple occasions. The CRA Advisory Board likes the project and has voted unanimously to endorse the project. One of the comments that we hear, and we hear on just about every project now, is traffic. Traffic's bad in Collier County; we don't want to do anything to make traffic worse. This site is a little bit different. Because it's an already established shopping center, it's already vested for its traffic impacts for the 147,000 square feet of shopping center. And what does that mean? It's already vested for 582 peak -hour trips for the 147,000 square feet. It's actually approved for 662 p.m. peak-hour trips for the 165,000 square feet that's been approved. With the multifamily development that would occur on the site, the trips from this project would be reduced to 453 p.m. peak-hour trips. So depending on whether you want to use the approved 662 or the already vested 582, worst-case scenario, you're reducing the trips on the road by 129 p.m. peak-hour trips if you use the already vested number of trips. Overall, there would be almost 1,900 fewer daily trips coming from this site if you go to multifamily versus the approved 165,000 square feet. According to staff's annual AUIR report, Tamiami Trail is currently operating at 77 percent of its maximum capacity. We will be reducing the number of trips on that road. KRG has tried on multiple occasions to market this for a retail center. It's just not in the cards. Retail has changed so differently over the years as well as the configuration of that site. It's just not an optimum retail site. As I said, we've gone to the CRA advisory board on multiple occasions and showed them the architectural renderings of what we propose to do on this site, and we believe that this site is an excellent November 12, 2019 Page 26 site to continue the success of the CRA redevelopment that's occurring in Bayshore, hopefully will occur in the mini-triangle, and hopefully spur further redevelopment along the East Tamiami Trail as we go further east on U.S. 41. One of the other important factors that we believe relating to this site is the tremendous tax value to the CRA that will result from the redevelopment of this site. Currently, KRG pays about $80,000 a year in ad valorem taxes. That was their 2018 taxes. I've looked at comps for other apartment complexes that are similar to this proposed project. Inspira's recent 2019 tax bill -- and that's 304 units -- is for $463,466.22. So you will see in that that's a tremendous increase in value for the CRA and for the community by redeveloping this center. And Orchid Run, which we've all been using for years as the comparable for, you know, high-end apartment complexes, Orchid Run's tax bill this year is $425,879.39. So you could see that apartment complexes that are market -rate apartment complexes where there's a significant investment in the property are -- pay significant amount of money in ad valorem taxes, and in the CRA would be a great benefit. We've agreed to be included in the MSTU. Only part of the property is currently in the Henderson Creek -- it's Henderson Creek, right -- Haldeman? -- Haldeman Creek MSTU. We'll put the remainder of the property in there, and the courthouse multifamily project will generate about a million six in additional impact fees. The Planning Commission recommended approval of both the amendment and the PUD amendment. Staff's recommending approval of both the PUD amendment and the Growth Management Plan amendment. That's a general overview of what we're asking. Wayne will take you through the specifics. We've spent a lot of time working with our neighbors to address buffering and other November 12, 2019 Page 27 issues related to the project, and Wayne will take you through those changes, and then we can answer any questions you may have or be happy to answer questions now. Up to you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we're okay. I have no lights lit up. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Wayne Arnold, certified planner; pleased to represent Kite Reality on this petition. Rich did a good overview. And one thing he didn't touch on were the specifics of the site plan that we have. And there's not a lot of detail on the plan, but we do have superimposed on a site plan that some of you have probably seen in your meetings with Rich. One of the things, what I just put on the visualizer, Rich mentioned, we are in Activity Center No. 16. That represents all of the properties in the activity center. It includes the government center and the buildings we're in today. It includes Courthouse Shadows, obviously, south of U.S. 41 and portions of the properties over at Bayshore and Airport and -- excuse me, Shadowlawn and Bayshore Drive. So the property is a large activity center. Most of your activity centers already allow the 16 units an acre. These are considered mixed-use activity centers and, unfortunately, there aren't that many examples we have where we actually have mixed-use activity centers, and what this proposes to do is to allow the multifamily to essentially replace the defunct shopping center building, the Buffalo Wild Wings building, the former office supply building, and then we would have the residential structures constructed and leaving the outparcels remaining along U.S. 41. So we're going to have a natural buffer being behind those on U.S. 41. And as Rich mentioned, at the Planning Commission hearing we November 12, 2019 Page 28 heard from neighbors, and there's a commitment that's in your PUD document before you that talks about leaving the existing vegetation along Peters Avenue that provides a natural good buffer to the neighbors, and we're happy to do that. So this is considered the official PUD master plan. It's pretty basic, as you can see. But the area that's shaded in dark gray is labeled C/R. That would allow commercial to remain. If for some reason Johnson doesn't close on this and build the residential, it also allows the residential. So the area highlighted as C and R are the only places the residential would be allowed on this PUD. One of the things that Rich mentioned, too, the outparcels have remained. And I'll show you a little bit more detailed site plan. And as Rich mentioned, the applicants have been working with the existing property owners of Dunkin' Donuts and the defunct Burger King and the Chevron station and the restaurant, and they will continue to own the Starbucks building. So it's really a nonissue for them. But you can see there are additional parking that's been provided all along the perimeter road, and that will serve as additional parking for those outparcels. There's also a parking lot that's being added in this location that I'm pointing to, and there's another parking lot that will be adjacent to U.S. 41 that will serve all of those remaining outparcels. And as Rich mentioned, one of the things that occurs with this is that if we go forward with the residential option, we forego 100,000 square feet of future commercial. So the tradeoff is, for the 300 units, this project gives up 100,000 square feet of commercial. That leaves 65,000 square feet on the table, which is more than adequate to satisfy the existing commercial that's there. It's probably in the order of 20,000 square feet for those outparcels. But in working with the County Attorney's Office, you know, we need to make sure that November 12, 2019 Page 29 there's ample room for those people to expand. So the number was an easy tradeoff at 100,000 square feet. So on that plan, too, a couple features I wanted to point out. The residential component is planned to be gated. There will be two access locations that are going to be gated. One here where I'm pointing; another will be in this location. So that will be secured. One of the issues that came up at the CRA meeting, as well as the Planning Commission, was not wanting a wall. There's a recent project that's under construction on Bayshore Drive, and the community said, we don't want you to build a solid masonry wall along this project. So one of the commitments that you'll find in the PUD is that there are a commitment to build decorative fencing around the project and no solid wall, with one exception. And after at the Planning Commission meeting, we met with some of neighbors that are on Collie Court, which is the property south near the Haldeman Creek. And they said that they understood the commitment not to want a solid wall, but for their purposes behind their homes, they would prefer a solid wall, at least in part. So what I've done on this that I'm putting on the visualizer would show you the one exception area where we would put in a solid wall at the request of those neighbors. You can see that's not really adjacent to the road. It's not going to be highly visible to the traveling public. You won't see it from U.S. 41. And I think the concern with the CRA was, it doesn't seem as welcoming or friendly to have that solid wall as your door. So we would put in probably decorative aluminum fencing of some sort in the other areas surrounding the residential project. There are some language, I'll go through in just a moment, we need to modify to deal with that. One of the other things that we have dealt with were the renderings, and I'm sure some of you have seen these, but these were November 12, 2019 Page 30 presented to the CRA and the Planning Commission. And these present four-story buildings, four-story apartments. The thought is that they would have integral amenity centers, so they would have a leasing office, obviously, for the apartment, but they would also have integral one or more amenities for each building so that you don't have a large outdoor active area. You might have an outdoor pool, but a lot of the others things, like exercise equipment and space. And there's a reference to some what was loosely called "we work space," which would be areas where, if you were a resident or a guest of a resident, you would have some space in the lobby area of the apartment where you would have area to share computer space, have WiFi access, et cetera, so you could Skype from your cubicle or whatever so you didn't necessarily have to be at the office to do work, which is obviously, as Rich mentioned, not only is retail changing the way they do business, but the way we all work seems to be changing. So that was an important aspect of what we were doing. And I think those were well received by the community. Obviously, the CRA and the Planning Commission. But for the project, I just, if I could, highlight a couple of the changes we do need to make, a couple of commitments that we made. One was there was a line on the master plan, and I'll trace that. It's 120-foot offset line from the south property line adjacent to Collee and Peters. And we made a commitment at the Planning Commission that in that area light fixtures would be limited to 15 feet in height with fitted cutoff shielding on them to make sure that there was no intrusion into the neighborhood. So there is a condition that needs to be modified. And the way it's written, it would imply that we can't have something taller than 15 feet anywhere on the site, but we, in fact, do need to have taller lighting at our main entrances on U.S. 41, for instance, and in front of the buildings on U.S. 41 we may need that November 12, 2019 Page 31 taller lighting. So in the PUD document you have there's a Condition I that says, for residential buildings abutting Collee and Peters, the lighting maximum height shall be 15 feet and shielded from off property with no excess bleeding of light greater than .2 foot candles. And I just wanted to reference that that's within 120 feet of Collee Court, and I can work with Mr. Klatzkow or Heidi to come up with the appropriate phraseology, but I wanted to make sure that that was the limitation only within the 120 feet as shown on that master plan. There was also another condition written similarly that talked about the parking lot lighting, and it says essentially the same thing, and it references the 120 feet, and that's on Page 15 of 16. But I wanted to add a reference that says, taller fixtures will be no closer than 120 feet, and I think that would clarify that the intent is to have something taller than 15 feet farther than 120 feet away. And the other change that we wanted to make was in reference to the fence that I mentioned on the highlight area. Where it says that we would have the decorative fencing, I want to write some language that would say except that a solid wall could be located in the area adjacent to Collee Court and Peters as shown on the ma ster plan. And I think -- I talked briefly with Heidi in your County Attorney's Office about those changes, and I don't think they have issues with those. I think those are clarifications that address the neighbor concerns even better than we addressed at the Planning Commission. With that, I just wanted to summarize that, again, as Rich mentioned, we think this is a good project for many reasons. I mean, this is in your CRA, and having a new energetic project that plays off a lot of the positive things that are happening on Bayshore hopefully can bring some of the life to the corridor on U.S. 41. It is redevelopment. Your redevelopment agency exists for a reason, and I think this is one of those perfect examples where it works. November 12, 2019 Page 32 Mixed-use seems to work here. I mean, we're sitting in the government center that employs how many thousands of people at this location and can provide easy work opportunity and live opportunities that it's a short walk away. You have transit across the street from here, and you have busy U.S. 41 and, clearly, this model has not worked for retail as it's evolving in the world we live in. So I hope that you can support it. We're here to answer any additional questions that you have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have no lights. So you've done an admirable job explaining. Do you want to do our public speakers? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you've got David coming up. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, you have two registered -- MR. OCHS: Hold on, Troy. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We've got to do -- we've got staff, I'm sorry. Forgive me, David. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'll be very brief. For the record, I am David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. We are recommending approval for the reasons stated in your executive summary. I specifically wanted to make one correction on the record, and that is the executive summary incorrectly states that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote 6 -0. It was actually 5-1. One commissioner did not support the project and preferred to see commercial rather than residential. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, David, just as a point of clarification, the language changes between transmittal and adoption will all be reviewed? MR. WEEKS: This is an adoption hearing, because this is what's called a small-scale amendment. So if you approve it today it's -- we're done. November 12, 2019 Page 33 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers. Your first speaker is Robert Smith. He will be followed by Al Schantzen. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. MR. SMITH: My name is Robert Smith, and I reside at 3312 Collee Court, which is directly behind the Courthouse Shadows shopping center project. I'm here representing the six homeowners who have lived -- who live on Collee Court directly behind the project. And I'm here to tell you that we have no objections to the project. We have worked with Kite Realty and Johnson Development, and they've been most accommodating in how they've tried to resolve any problems that we have. We are concerned primarily with buffering from the project, and they have agreed to construct the wall at least eight feet high. Six feet high on a 2-foot berm or five feet high on a 3-foot berm or whatever it might take to give us that visual protection. They've also agreed not to site any waste containers within 100 feet of our homeowners. They are attempting to save two heritage oak trees that are in excess of 200 years old that are on Collee Court and that one of the trees is on their property, and one, the property line splits the tree. So they said they would make an effort to save those two trees. They have agreed to -- I heard a -- someone mentioned retention of the vegetation as a buffer. And if you look at the vegetation that exists today, it certainly isn't sufficient to provide a buffer. It is overgrown. It was put in there when Collier Development developed the site in 1992. So it's been there a long time. It's all overgrown, and it should be removed and replaced with adequate landscaping. So that's the only thing I'd like to -- the only issues that we have November 12, 2019 Page 34 have been resolved. They have agreed to shade the lights to prevent intrusion on our property. And they've been a good -- two good companies to deal with in resolving our questions. That's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away. Number one, I like your shirt. Are you a marine? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir; six years. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you for your service. MR. SMITH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Appreciate that. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't go away. I'm not done with you. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders has a question, I believe. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is really a question for Mr. Yovanovich in response to what was just stated concerning the two trees. I appreciate the indication that the developer will make an effort to preserve those trees. I'd like to make that as a condition of approval that those trees be preserved. I notice that the developer is shaking his head in the affirmative. Would that be acceptable? I'm not even sure we can legally do that, but I'm going to ask you if you would accept that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds good to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the answer is yes. I can't foresee that the -- if we have a problem for some reason, we'll come back, but yes. MR. KLATZKOW: I can't enforce that. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's okay. We do things November 12, 2019 Page 35 that are unenforceable from time to time. I think it sets the record, and I'm going to -- in the motion, whoever makes it, I'm going to ask that that be a condition, and hopefully -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have our commitment, if something unforeseen happens, we'll come back. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let us know. I appreciate that. I hate to see a 200-year-old -- a couple 200-year-old trees -- MR. SMITH: They shouldn't be taken down. They're a beautiful tree -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Two of them. MR. SMITH: -- and we should retain them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two of them. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Al Schantzen. He will be followed by Mary Waller. MR. SCHANTZEN: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman. Al Schantzen, for the record. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. MR. SCHANTZEN: I, too, support those trees. One of my concerns here before he got in on that was those trees, because they do -- the canopy of the older trees shelter the view from my area over on Canal Street, which is across the Haldeman Creek, and they mak e a very big, beautiful place where the birds go to rest and move from tree to tree up and down the Canal Street, so -- up and down the canal system, so they're really sensitive to the environment, these older 100-, 200-year-old trees. And on the Planning Commission recommendation, Stipulation No. 2 was that only non-watercraft are permitted on Haldeman Creek from this area, and that's a good stipulation that's carried through, to my understanding, in this agreement. But it does bring in a couple other questions, and one was answered, is that the Haldeman Creek MSTU will now encompass the whole thing. That's a good November 12, 2019 Page 36 development. That's great. And the only other part I have on the Haldeman Creek issue was the area where the launch is and how the county determines whether it's an active activity or a passive activity as far as parking. You've got two different sets of regulations for parking in that particular area if they consider it passive or activity -- or active area. So some clarification in that area would be nice to know how many parking spots they're going to put down by the canal. And another point of clarification for the record, in the minutes that are attached of the CRA meeting of August, the vote shows to be 6-1. I was the dissenting vote on that, so it wasn't a 7-0. And I dissented on the basis of the density. They've got a 75 -- they're asking for a 74 percent increase in the original -- the required density. And I don't have anything against the development or against increasing the density. I just think that that amount of increase of density is a little much for Activity Center No. 16 and the way the pedestrian and bicycle traffic of those residents are going to get around on the busy 41. We have access across the street problems. And one of the other concerns I have is the infrastructure along the Collee Court/Peters Avenue back properties. Peters Street, as it is now, is just a road and a culvert. It would be nice if as this development goes on -- I know it's the county's responsibility to put in the infrastructure for pedestrians in that area, if they do that simultaneously, it would be a great benefit to those people in that residential area. I see I'm out of time. I thank you. I support it, just not the density, and maybe some pedestrian -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Schantzen, I think we're going to get some clarification on exactly who's going to be using that canoe launch, and it's my understanding it's the residents only. November 12, 2019 Page 37 This isn't open to the public -- MR. SCHANTZEN: Correct. But my concern was -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- so there won't -- MR. SCHANTZEN: -- is the parking, amount of parking that the overall -- the facility, the overall compound has. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh. MR. SCHANTZEN: And if there's not enough -- I mean, the residents will be taking the parking for the canal bank and everything else. So what is the requirement for parking in that particular area? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think -- at Courthouse Shadows the whole PUD or specifically for the canoe launch? MR. SCHANTZEN: Well, I ran out of time. The -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When she asks you a question, you can go. MR. SCHANTZEN: The activity center -- the four or five buildings -- excuse me. I forget how many buildings you're putting up total. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're putting up a total of five buildings. MR. SCHANTZEN: Five buildings. And to my understanding, during the Planning Commissioning (sic) that there was a commitment not to put activity centers in a couple of buildings, and it was going to be only restricted to three of the buildings? MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a commitment activity center -- the amenities -- MR. SCHANTZEN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- are going to be within the buildings themselves. Most apartment complexes have a separate amenity building. This one will have the amenities within the residential buildings themselves. And it's a compact site. We don't anticipate November 12, 2019 Page 38 providing any additional parking anywhere near the -- it's going to be for paddle-boarding, kayaking, and maybe canoeing, and those will all be provided by the apartment complex itself, so it will be for use of the residents. So there's no need for additional parking related to that. I would think it's a passive use, because there's no motorized vessels or anything like that. It's just simply going out and hopefully going in the creek and doing paddle-boarding and kayaking, and a really nice amenity for the residents. MR. SCHANTZEN: Oh, no. I agree with you. I just didn't know whether the definition would be active or passive, which have different code parking requirements. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it would be passive. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it meets the definition of passive. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. And on the other issue of those five buildings, to my understanding, if you refer to the notes of the Planning Commission, they did indicate, I thought, in there that they would not be putting activity centers in all five buildings. That they -- there was a plan to put it in only maybe three of the buildings, and two of the outlying buildings wouldn't have those centers, which, when you do that, if you put activity centers in all five, you're into the parking question again. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you meaning fitness centers? MR. SCHANTZEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. Not activity centers. Activity center spins off a whole new development process. And they did specify they were going to be individually within the buildings themselves. MR. SCHANTZEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's what somebody said. I can't November 12, 2019 Page 39 remember if it was Wayne or Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can see that we have three buildings that are 55 feet zoned height. That's where the amenity centers would be, and the other two buildings we committed there would be no centers -- or amenities within those buildings. So you're correct. You're correct. MR. SCHANTZEN: That's the way I understood it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I see. MR. SCHANTZEN: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for this item is Mary Waller. MS. WALLER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mary Waller. And I, too, like the trees. I think they're beautiful. I like the development. I think the buildings are lovely. I think they've done a very nice job with the design and the thought -- they've thought it out. What I do object to is that I really don't think they've thought it out that it's going to be across the street from the government center. At the government center, we have a center that is supplied by essential-use personnel. You're going to have 300 units across from the government center that will not allow for any of the essential -use personnel to lease there because it's going to be out of their price range. I think they should consider doing something similar to the Allura project where they offer it to essential-use personnel for rental as first applicants, and then if they don't apply, a certain number of units -- they did -- I think at Allura they did 18 percent of the units went -- and that was only 55, 51 units out of 303. You're not giving up the entire project. You're not losing on your costs. You're assisting people that really need somewhere to stay. They will be across the street from where they are. You've got a courthouse. You have government offices here. Think about that. Don't just think about the dollar value of what November 12, 2019 Page 40 you're going to get out of everything. Thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner, do you have a question for her? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Mary. Any other questions? Discussions? Commissioner Taylor, you get to go first. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do. Okay. That's it? Are we closing? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're done with the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have to close it? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do I have to close it? It is now closed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to follow up on Ms. Waller's comments. I, too, agree that this development needs to address the issue of affordable housing. Now, we, as a commission, made a decision over -- well, there was two years of meetings, and then when this came to us we pretty much moved an affordable housing program to a point where having affordable housing related to increased density was the key to making it happen. And right now we're talking about increasing the density by 12.8 units in an area that's never seen this before. First of all, I don't think we have the infrastructure to do that. But, more importantly, I think we could allow this density if the developer would follow what the agreement was by Stock Communities for the Allura. And I have that agreement right here, and I can put it up on the visualizer. Now, this was for ESP units and, yes, there was an availability for -- I believe it is for 60 units, 20 percent for rent. November 12, 2019 Page 41 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Specify -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Essential service personnel, that would be our -- the folks -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We know what it is. I just wanted you to say it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Essential service personnel. That's what I'm talking about. And this would be inclusionary zoning. And I've had a conversation with our attorney -- Mr. Yovanovich, with the developer's attorney about this, and he indicated that he wasn't sure that this would even fly with another developer. But I can assure him I got a call this morning, and someone else will pick this up. So Kite should be very happy about that. They think they could make this work. So if you look at this, this -- 30 of the 60 ESP units, 32, I think it is, are kind of held for a specific number of days, and then if it's not picked up by essential service personnel, then it goes to the open market. But then there are 10 percent income restricted to households earning no more than 80 percent of Collier County's median income. I think, given the position of this facility and the fact that the only -- the only carrot we can offer folks who are willing to build affordable housing in this community is increased density, I don't think we should give it away right now. And I think that this commission would agree that you didn't agree -- you agreed to that because you made it a condition of kind of a carrot to give folks who wanted to -- reward to folks who wanted to build affordable housing. So we're talking about essential service personnel. It means families or a person whose annual -- total annual household income is at or below 120 percent of Collier County's median income. And so at this point I'd like to see if the developer would consider doing -- building inclusionary zoning at this spot for November 12, 2019 Page 42 essential service personnel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I appreciate getting to see this for the first time -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You worked on this -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- right now. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- two weeks ago. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything with Courthouse Shadows a few weeks ago. You're comparing apples to oranges. I'm assuming you're referring to the Allura project. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So I don't think the Allura project was a redevelopment of a failed shopping center and the additional costs and expenses that go along with having to demolish the existing structures, redo the existing utilities and all the expenses that go along with that process to redevelop a failed shopping center. I don't know where your percentages come from, and so I cannot -- and, frankly, I've discussed with my client the concept of income restriction. There's no problems with offering up ESP units, you know -- you know, to target that market first. There's no problem with that. In fact, that's what they're doing at Briarwood. They committed to that. But to income restrict the project with what you're proposing, the buyer, frankly, is not willing to do that. And I don't know who you spoke to about taking over the contract purchaser's position, but I'm not going to do anything to interfere with an existing contract -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that exists today. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You indicated to me that if this didn't go through, it would fail, and you didn't know what would happen with Kite Realty because this whole project -- November 12, 2019 Page 43 (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'm telling you right now I have an obligation to protect my client from people interfering with existing contractual relationships. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're changing the subject, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. You went out and solicited another potential buyer, not me. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir. No, I didn't. MR. YOVANOVICH: You said earlier on the record that there would be someone to step into the shoes -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't solicit it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you shouldn't be involved in it is what I'm suggesting. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was communicated to me this morning. I did not solicit it, sir. You're changing the subject. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not changing the subject. I'm addressing a comment. And we ar e not -- and I've told you this. My client is not in a position and is not willing to income restrict any of the units. Providing first-come first-serve to ESP has never been an issue, and we've told you that. And, frankly, there are a lot of costs and expenses that go along with a redevelopment project that didn't exist in a project that had vacant land that was being developed for the first time, like Allura. It's not -- Allura was not a redevelopment project. The benefits for the community for this redevelopment, I think, far outweigh -- I think the community would much rather have you vote yes for this redevelopment project than let it die, the redevelopment project, let it die over the provision of more affordable housing in this area of Naples. So with that being said, affordable housing -- income-restricted housing is not on the table for us, but providing a first -come November 12, 2019 Page 44 first-serve for essential service personnel, happy to do that, and this developer is committed to doing that in another project, an d we think that that provides a benefit. And there are government employees, there are nurses, there are other medical professionals and other essential service personnel that can, in fact, afford to live here and would love to live here. It's a great location for working here. It's easy to walk across that street to get to -- to get to Starbucks. Even I can do it, so -- I can. I've done it three or four times without even getting hit. So my point is is this is a great project, and we would hope that the project won't die on a requirement that we provide income-restricted housing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just for the record, being on the MPO board and understanding the concern that the FDOT has on this stretch of highway, especially right in front of the Courthouse Shadows and going into Naples -- going to the bridge, it's of high concern because of the traffic fatalities on that road. So it's not a safe road. MR. YOVANOVICH: I already have -- my client already has 582 vested trips on that road. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no. I'm just saying, you may be able to cross it, but it's not a safe road. The FDOT has recognized this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: What she's saying is be careful when you're crossing that road. MR. YOVANOVICH: You go to the pedestrian crosswalk, and you cross when -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Crosswalk. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- it tells you to cross. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, again, just to summarize what I said, I think we're really poking a serious blow into our November 12, 2019 Page 45 affordable housing program. I believe that the ability to put 10 percent of the total units -- and that 10 percent, by the way, is a -- it's not a standard, but it is -- it is across the nation, when they talk about inclusionary zoning, 10 percent is that percentage that comes up again and again. So that's why it was used with Allura, and I would like to see it being used here. And thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was pleased to see that the Planning Commission all supported it. And I had some concerns myself with all the extra traffic. I want to tell you I talked with everybody I could talk with. I love the fact that the CRA was behind it, because if the CRA wasn't behind it, I would not be behind it, and they were behind it. And the community coming out there, that was wonderful of you to be here so we hear the community as well. It sounds like a great project and, yes, it's a little bit dense, but I think it's better than what could have been if we would have had commercial there. It would have not worked. So I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. I have a bit of a comment. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We'll go to -- it's been moved and seconded that we approve the project. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's for Items 9A and 9B. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, that's for 9A and B. We're going to do them both at the same time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes, sir, we are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And then we're in discussion now. So, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, just a couple things. One is, I agree with Commissioner Fiala. This is the way I think November 12, 2019 Page 46 redevelopment should work, the involvement of the neighbors resolving the issues and the concerns that the neighbors have. I think there's a benefit to including it within the entire Haldeman Creek MSTU. I mean, that's a benefit to the community. The reducing the traffic counts is obviously, in the long run, a good thing because what could be there could be very, very intense. With regard to the essential personnel -- and you're saying that the developer would agree to just holding -- you know, holding the units out for essential personnel at the beginning. I just want to make sure I understand for how long and how many units are we talking about, and is it -- is it within the certain -- I mean, is it what Allura originally agreed to? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Rich, that's Paragraph 1 of that agreement that's on the screen. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, is it going to be that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. Paragraph 1 is not an issue where we will market first to essential service personnel, and if nobody wants to be there as an essential service personnel or qualifies, then we can go to nonessential service personnel. So Paragraph 1 is not an issue for us. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Paragraph 1 of 1. That's what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Within the -- my question is, within the income category? Right, okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, you just did Part 2. MR. YOVANOVICH: I went on too far. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, you did. Stay in the lines. Somebody give him another crayon. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You want one of those magic markers, the black magic markers? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. There's a reason I should use November 12, 2019 Page 47 pencil. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including that, I think given that it's a redevelopment, I'm going to support it. I think this is -- this is a good step for the community. Would it have been better to have some, you know, income -- some voluntary inclusionary zoning? Sure. But it is a different situation, and the numbers for redevelopment are significantly different than -- so... CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we need a stipulation for the 15-year hold? MR. YOVANOVICH: What I imagine is we'll put this in the PUD. I'm looking to confirm that the 15-year period -- MR. KLATZKOW: We'll make sure it's in the PUD. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Same language, okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I assume the -- my motion or my second was with the intent of having that in there, and I assume that the motion maker would amend the motion to reflect that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I agree with Commissioner Solis. This is a little different than the Allura project. The Allura project we had vacant land, and the developer was looking for some density that, quite frankly, we didn't have to approve it at that density. We felt that the project was better for that community with the increase in density, and the developer agreed to have this inclusionary type of program. With a redevelopment in an existing activity center, I think trying to force that type of commitment would be a mistake at this point, so that was my rationale for seconding the motion. MR. KLATZKOW: And are we including the tree issue in the November 12, 2019 Page 48 motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, yes, I'm sorry. Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just going to ask. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're going to get to everything that's included in the motion here, so... That's all I have. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you for reminding me. I forgot. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I wanted to ask about the buffer redo that was suggested by Mr. Smith. Is that a condition that we're okay with? MR. YOVANOVICH: What we had agreed to, Commissioner, is along Peters Avenue to keep the nice native trees, get rid of whatever exotics, and then we would supplement if there were any holes in the Peters. They were very concerned about keeping the nice bigger trees along Peters. So, yes, we would -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was Mr. Smith mentioned there was a buffer that was dilapidated and needed to be torn down and rebuilt. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I can't remember specifically where. Are we okay -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we're not tearing down Peters, because Peters is -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no. There was a specific buffer that Mr. Smith mentioned that needs to -- that needs some -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, we will do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- addressing. Okay. And we are going to protect the 200 -- you got something else? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. I was just going to say, I November 12, 2019 Page 49 think we need to get maybe a new motion that includes all of that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. I have a couple questions. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I'll withdraw my second so we can make a new motion -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Then you can make your motion, and we'll formally do it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- that includes all of those elements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get all the notes ready, because I'm going to have trouble with all of them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm keeping notes. I got it -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, oh. I'm watching you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- pretty much, except for the inclusionary zoning. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I thought that was included. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. So we've got the buffer redo, the 200-year-old tree -- the two 200-year-old trees, the inclusion. Are we going to include the -- there was a letter here with regard to the MSTU boundary -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We had -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- any inclusion into that? MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that as part of what we committed to. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That is there. The Collier County Planning Commission recommendations, there were -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Those are already in there except for the little tinkering that Wayne mentioned about clarifying the light fixtures and those issues. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Little tinkering, yes. Okay. And then the last is the paragraph with regard to the ESP first-come first-serve. November 12, 2019 Page 50 MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, the language on the screen. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Those are my notes that I had. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So can I say I make a motion to approve all the notes that he had? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we approve both 9A and B with the stipulations that we've put in there. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's take our court reporter break now. And then we're going to take a short 10-minute break. What time are we coming back? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We are coming back at 10:44. Oh, wait. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 10:34. We'll be back at 10:34. (A brief recess was had from 10:24 a.m. to 10:35 a.m.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Item #9D November 12, 2019 Page 51 RESOLUTION 2019-232: RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE 2019 COMBINED ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECTION 163.3177(3)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT UPDATES THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULES – ADOPTED (AUIR PLUS STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS) Commissioners, we're moving on to Item 9D. This is a recommendation to review and approve the 2019 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and the schedule of capital improvements as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code, and to adopt a resolution that updates the five-year capital improvement schedules. Mr. Corby Schmidt from your planning staff will begin the presentation. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good morning. MR. SCHMIDT: With me today to talk about the Annual Update and Inventory Report are a number of your staff and others who represent sections inside the report for roads and bridges, stormwater management, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, your parks and recreation, jails and correctional facilities, libraries, emergency medical services, government buildings, and coastal zone management. What do we take a look at each year? Well, the Annual Update and Inventory Report is your once-a-year snapshot at five years worth of improvements based on your projected population increases November 12, 2019 Page 52 against your levels of service, and it's also noted here that these change, along with the demand, equations evolve. The full AUIR document as part of your packet includes the details, but the summary here is meant to give you an overview of the categories of those improvements, and those are broken up into your Category A facilities. Those are your roads, your drainage or stormwater management facilities, your potable water, your wastewater, your solid waste, your parks and recreation, schools, and these are your concurrency facilities tied to the Capital Improvement Element. Category B, or non-concurrency facilities, are your jails and correctional facilities, law enforcement, libraries, emergency medical services, and government buildings. And, of course, Category C, for your coastal management areas. Concurrency tells us when we should be doing things. It tells us, have these facilities in place and have them available when the impacts of the development occur. And these requirements are contained in the Capital Improvement Element and in your Land Development Code. This year there are no recommendations to change levels of service from staff or from your Planning Commission. Most of your improvements, your capital improvements and your facilities are based on population projections. How do we project population solely? Now -- but the basis is on the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research medium-range projections. You've often heard us use the term BEBR figures. We take those BEBR figures and adjust them for your fiscal year October 1 numbers and then again increase them by 20 percent for your peak season for some of those users. As an example in its simplest form -- we use libraries here for an November 12, 2019 Page 53 example. Take a population, it's level -of-service standard, and determine when a capital improvement is needed. In this example a population is given, projected for your five-year planning period. In this case the level of service is .33 square feet per person necessary for library buildings. Take that population times that needed square footage for library buildings or facilities, and by the end of the five-year period in this example, an additional square footage would be required. But not all facilities use population, or not all facilities use only population. Here you see examples of facilities in your AUIR that use population in combination with other measures or not populations at all. Roads and bridges, for instance, use traffic counts or reserve capacity found in their trip bank. Potable water and wastewater also look at historic demand usage along with their additional reserve capacity and others, incl uding stormwater, solid waste, and your Coastal Zone Management, who is based on no population figures but sustainable standards in their master plans. Well, I know a quick overview that was, and your recommendation is in front of you. There are four poi nts to it: To recommend the -- to approve the overall 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report; approve all those portions of Category A, B, and C facilities relative to projects and revenue sources; approve the Category A facilities in the schedule of cap ital improvements update for the CIE by resolution; and find there are no inconsistencies for the public schools capital improvement plan and their facilities work program. And that's my overview. Thank you for your time. If there are questions, I've got a roomful of people to help answer them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Anybody have any questions for Corby? November 12, 2019 Page 54 (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have one. And that has to do with our population estimations and the utilization of the BEBR numbers. We have another tool, the CIGM. Have we done any comparison with regard to those population estimations? The CIGM, the Collier Interactive Growth Model, it allows for a little, I believe, more accurate spatial differential for our population, down to a TAZ area, Traffic Area Zone, that would allow for the dispersal of the population. So the simple question is, Corby, have we utilized the CIGM's population estimations in comparison to the BEBR numbers? Yes or no? MR. SCHMIDT: I see Mr. Weeks is here to answer the details on that, and I'll allow him to do so. MR. WEEKS: Again, for the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, for the AUIR exercise, we look at the BEBR figures only. I would concur with you, Commission -- Mr. Chairman, that the CIGM is a more accurate tool looking at the micro level, but if we compare the population outputs from the CIGM versus the BEBR figures, they are not significantly different. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well -- and I concur with that thought process. The rationale was because there's a dispersal of population, and we're implementing the AUIR along with the CIE, we would have -- the Capital Improvement Element, I would think we would get a little more accurate estimation as to where we need to do those capital improvements in order to take care of the dispersal of the population. And maybe we can just -- for now. We don't have to really address it today. It's just maybe we could have a look at that in the future as we're going forward. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, let me get one thing -- I think it's November 12, 2019 Page 55 important to get on the record. We are constrained, we are bound to use the BEBR medium-range figure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I understand what we're bound by, yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Okay. We have to amend the Comprehensive Plan -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's part of our GMP. We're handcuffed with regard to that. And I'm not suggesting that we come away from that. It just as a -- when we adopted the utilization of the CIGM as an additional tool to put in our toolbox to better make recommendations as to what we're doing, so I just want to make sure we're not leaving it sit on his shelf. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, the head of the MPO is working with our staff to populate the TAZs with the CIGM. There's email traffic going back and forth, so that's a good place for it because it gives you good visibility 25 years out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it would also would have -- with our CIE as well, because we're seeing where population trends are, in fact, transpiring on a closer -- on a closer level. So that was my only question, Corby. Thank you. It wasn't really a question. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, if we take population trends, we heard it when went to the M-CORES meeting. Nine hundred people a day. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thousand, yes. Yeah, 900 to a thousand, yes. That's in the whole state, not just in Collier County, just so nobody hits the panic button. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, yeah, but we did put 80,000 people in the last 10 years in Collier County. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Ish, yes. Very good. Any other discussion? November 12, 2019 Page 56 (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have any public comment? MR. MILLER: We do not, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, then I'll make a comment, and I'll say I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I will -- and that includes all four of the elements, and I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And it -- I'm assuming your motion includes the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- recommendations of staff and those -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right there. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- four elements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right there on the screen. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. All right. It's been moved and seconded as -- that we approve the AUIR and -- along with these recommendations. Any other discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Now you can all go back to work. November 12, 2019 Page 57 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They were all here dutifully ready to answer questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The room is going to empty out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just make a suggestion? This presentation every year, I think, is really helpful for me to understand how all of this fits together and how the county plans its capital improvements and all of this. I would really suggest that maybe we should come up with a public presentation that we're always making available, because I think a lot of times there's this impression that, you know, we're just putting out fires, that we're not planning five years down the road, and that how we plan these things isn't a very methodical process that we go through; the level of service, the population, you know. And I think it's really helpful, and I think it would be very helpful for the public to understand this. And if there's any way that we can have a dedicated communication effort about this particular thing, I think it would help people understand a lot better why Collier County is such a great place to live. MR. OCHS: We'll do it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know, I wish the newspapers would write that, too, just exactly what you said. I'm supposed to say that into a microphone. I wish the newspapers would write exactly what you said. And I'm going to have Mike take that off the TV, and I'm going to write it in my newsletter to people. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's really fantastic. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I ask Troy? Troy, did you design the graphics? MR. MILLER: I did not, ma'am. No, that was all -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The graphics were fabulous. November 12, 2019 Page 58 MR. MILLER: I was going to send a note to Mr. French how impressed I was with the PowerPoint. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Really, really well done. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Outstanding. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not the words. It was the photograph or the pictures behind it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, and maybe -- and, County Manager, maybe just going off of what Commissioner Solis was saying is as we're coming through with projects, we can relate them back to the AUIR and the CIE just as a fortification of that document just -- because the more we talk about it, the more aware folks are. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, you know, you brought it up again, so I'm going to have to just -- I have to say this: The AUIR works when you adhere to the densities that the code and the land is zoned for. It's when you increase densities that you throw it off. And at least in the last two meetings, I've seen major increases of densities from my colleagues, so that's where the public comes in and says, what the heck are you doing here? Why is this happening? You have a plan. Why are you deviating from it? And I need to be quiet now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. I'm going to let that one go. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: I'll move on, sir. Item #9F ORDINANCE 2019-41: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BAN AGAINST CAST NET November 12, 2019 Page 59 FISHING AT ANN OLESKY PARK ON LAKE TRAFFORD – ADOPTED That takes you to 9F. This was previously Item 17B on your summary agenda moved at Commissioner Taylor's request. It's a second reading of an ordinance establishing a ban against cast -net fishing at Ann Olesky Park on Lake Trafford. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes. And thank you very much. I did do some research between the time that we moved this forward for advertising, and I don't think we have jurisdiction to -- over the lake. I don't think we have jurisdiction over any kind of freshwater in the state of Florida, but I'm not sure about that, and we are -- I think it's Florida Fish and Wildlife that has that jurisdiction; is that correct, sir? MR. KLATZKOW: No. We have jurisdiction to enact this ordinance. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And then the second question I would have is, there is a problem we have, because if we're really worried about the alligators on the lake, we're not banning people fishing from the shore. We're banning the net fishing, which I'm understanding from the interviews I've done of some folks up there that these people use that fishing -- that fish, and they sell them, so it's a business for them. So we're not banning the pole fishing, and pole fishing can pull fish up, and the people can leave them on the shore also. So I guess what I'm asking my colleagues to do is maybe we could kind of do a -- before we ban something, maybe we could do an intermediator -- I can't even say it -- a step in the middle where we maybe post it that if -- don't leave your fish here because it attracts gators, and see what we can do. November 12, 2019 Page 60 I did speak to the Chamber of Commerce. They didn't know anything that this was happening. I did speak with the chair of the Chamber, and he said his paramount concern is the safety, and he is concerned about the safety. So if we could post this and see how that works. But clearly just banning the net fishing isn't going to do the trick because of the pole fishing that occurs from the side. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion? I make a motion for approval as it's printed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I mean -- and my thought processes are, I mean, I've been asked to do this by the community leaders. The Chamber is well aware of it. There is a health, safety, and -- well, you can -- there is a health, safety, and welfare issue. We do have letters of recommendation from the CRA and the community out there at large, so -- and there's an ongoing issue with the cast netting. And the people that are doing that are selling those fish as a general rule. They leave the discarded -- the ones that they're not using, they leave those on the bank, and it's attracting the alligators in. So -- and that's -- and Mr. Olesky, who runs the marina and is there all of the time, is the driver of this bus, so... Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to support the motion because, obviously, you have firsthand knowledge as to why this is here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I, quite frankly, do not know why it's here or how it got here, but I'm going to rely on what you just November 12, 2019 Page 61 said to support the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's why I seconded it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. Opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For reasons stated. Item #11A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONSERVATION COLLIER FUTURE ACQUISITION STRATEGIES DOCUMENT – MOTION TO APPROVE THE ACQUISITION DOCUMENT WITHOUT PRIORITIES 1 & 2 – APPROVED; MOTION NOT TO INCLUDE THE RFLPP AND STAFF TO BRING BACK – APPROVED; MOTION TO BRING BACK THE BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR REVIEW AT THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 11A. This is a recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Future Acquisition Strategies document. November 12, 2019 Page 62 MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three registered speakers for this item. MR. OCHS: Summer, please. MS. ARAQUE: Hi. Summer Araque, Conservation Collier Program coordinator. During your May 28th meeting, the Board requested staff to bring an acquisition plan in advance of your review of the Conservation Collier reestablishment ballot language, which is planned for you to hear on December 10th. I don't want to go too much into the process, because I did talk with you about that on May 28th, but I'll give you a recap on that. In the past, acquisition planning has been done on a cycle-by-cycle basis starting with Cycle 1 in 2003, and the CCLAC proposed target areas, and the Board approved, by resolution, areas to target for acquisition. Letters were sent to willing sellers. In addition to that, any properties could be nominated, and also properties outside of those letters sent could also apply. This process will continue for future cycles independent of the acquisition plan. This is the existing target protection areas map which has existed since 2003. The potential lands acquisition map, which you are reviewing today, is not as broad as the target protection areas map that you see in front of you but not as specific as a cycle list. Moving forward, as stated earlier, the existing cycle process will continue to be the same -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Did you have any questions? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Hold on one second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Could you just back up and repeat what you just said about the map. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. November 12, 2019 Page 63 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I was -- MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So this map is the map that was created based on the Conservation Collier ordinance, and this map was created in 2003. So this is what cycles have been based off. So if you look at this map -- and I don't know if you can see, you know, for example, it shows the urban areas in the yellow, it shows north Golden Gate Estates. Those are target areas. Rural Fringe Sending and Rural Lands Habitat Stewardship Areas and the Rural Lands Flowway. All of those areas you see over here, except for conservation, I think, are all target -- target areas. So you can see how broad that is. It's quite a bit of the county. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Per the existing ordinance, you can just color the whole county. Per the existing ordinance, the language that's in the ordinance allows you -- now, I understand on a targeted basis these are the priorities, but the entire county is -- MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So you can see that there are some white areas, especially in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, but it shows you that if we were to base, say, an inventory of property that may be available for acquisition off of this map, it's not going to be specific enough for you. But this was a tool that was used f or those -- for those cycles. And so the CCLAC would decide what areas do we want to focus on in a specific cycle, and that's what could be done in a potential future cycle. In one cycle the Board could say, we want only urban areas, and that's what we focus on, or we could say let's pick one or two from each area. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That flexibility is built in right now? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. And that will not change. The acquisition plan is a planning document. It doesn't change the November 12, 2019 Page 64 ordinance. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, because what you repeated is we could vary the cycles, but because it's guaranteed in the ordinance, that Collier County is open -- MS. ARAQUE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- with willing sellers. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. ARAQUE: And we'll state it here, and it is in a document that I've put some language in there that it's very specific. So you'll see that in a few slides. So the process will continue to be the same. Like I just said, the document -- the future strategies document does not change the existing process. And given -- if the November 2020 referendum passes, then we'll go back to -- we'll have a Cycle 10, actually. The maps that you are reviewing provide an estimate of the remaining undeveloped lands potentially available for acquisition. So it's -- that's -- in a nutshell, that's what the document is, is an inventory, and it will help you to inform your decisions about the ballot language that you will be reviewing in December. Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As a matter of fact, under Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, it says here it was requested to consider moving towards an acquisition of development rights and not fee-simple purchases. Could you please explain that to me so I understand better what it just says. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Did you want me to wait till I get to November 12, 2019 Page 65 that, or do you want to do it now? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We thought you were done. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I thought you were done, yeah. MS. ARAQUE: No, I do have more slides, and I have a slide specifically for that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: So we have the acquisition document that y ou have in front of you; however, secondary to that we also have this option to potentially do a conservation easement program. So I'll go into that. I just have a few more slides. So these are the items in the acquisition document that I wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of. The Conservation Collier is a willing seller program. Priorities for acquisition shall be based on the Conservation Collier implementation ordinance. Any lands that are not specifically identified on the maps are not excluded from consideration. So just because they're not shown on these maps doesn't mean they're excluded, and the same is also included; just because they are shown on a map doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to be included in a cycle. Again, the document -- the maps are essentially an inventory for you-all to be able to make an informed decision on the ballot language. And here is the Conservation Collier potential acquisition lands map. You will see in dark green the Conservation Collier preserves, and the red are the potential acquisition areas. Did you want me to go ahead and talk about the Rural Family Lands Protection Program, or did you have any questions about the map? (No response.) MS. ARAQUE: Nope, okay. So in addition to the red areas, which you can see we do have a lot of red in the Golden Gate Estates area, in the rural fringe, we have November 12, 2019 Page 66 some remaining in the urban area, and definitely quite a bit in the urban Immokalee area, and we've broken that out for you in the acquisition document how much acreage is within each area. In addition to the map, we also have another map, which is Figure C2, which circles contiguous areas and prioritizes them. Like I said, the main criteria was just contiguous areas, and then the criteria for Priority 1 areas is all urban areas and areas adjacent to existing Conservation Collier preserves, and then the criteria for Priority 2 areas are all other priority areas. And, again, just because you're in a priority area doesn't mean that you're included or excluded. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You could just make this all real simple and say, all of Collier County's included, not excluded. MS. ARAQUE: Correct. I mean, essentially what it comes down to is the acreage that's noted in the document, because that's what you-all need to make your -- to make your decision. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: On the individual basis there, yes. And I don't want to get out of line. I mean, I made a comment outside of the thing. Commissioner Saunders, was your statement related to what I said or to general -- I mean, because Commissioner Fiala -- we've got a list up here, so we'll -- I'll get to you in a second, then. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. And, again, these maps that are in your document, these are what we call zoom-in maps. They just -- we've got several maps that zoom into areas so it's easier to see. Okay. Commissioner Fiala, to your question on the conservation easement program. So the main task, like I said, was the acquisition document. How much land is out there that's potentially available for acquisition? The other task was the Rural Family -- Rural and Family Lands November 12, 2019 Page 67 Protection Program is a State of Florida Agricultural Land Preservation Program. I was asked to look if we could do something similar in Collier County; however, before I go further, I would like further direction from you-all if -- I would like a vote from you today -- actually, that's part of my staff recommendation -- if you want me to move forward on looking into this further, because it does require an amendment to our ordinance to include such a program in the Conservation Collier program. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I noticed that, and I also noticed that the CCLAC feels that we shouldn't go through in that direction, and CCLAC has been there for a long time. And look at Bill Poteet; he's -- anytime we're going to talk about Conservation Collier, he's in the audience. He's there. He knows everything that's going on. He's a land-use guy, too. I mean, he's a realtor. And so he knows what's happening, and I have to put a lot of faith in he and that committee, so I probably would not recommend doing that. MS. ARAQUE: Does anybody need any -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had another question, too, if I may. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, that was another one. Wait a minute. There was a third one. Hold on just a minute. However, if -- well, never mind. I was just emphasizing something for myself as far as if we voted for it, but -- I have it all circled in orange, but I'll skip that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You got to raise your hand, Leo. You don't have a light up here, so you have to flag me down. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, it might be -- it might be instructive if Summer elaborates a little bit on the relationship between this potential program and the RLSA lands, particularly the ag lands. November 12, 2019 Page 68 MS. ARAQUE: Yes. So does everybody understand what the concept of this is? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, of course. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I think we don't. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Could you go through a little more detail? MS. ARAQUE: Yes, definitely. So -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Which one are you going to explain; the conservation easement program or the Conservation Collier program? MS. ARAQUE: So in regard to a -- MR. OCHS: This program. MS. ARAQUE: -- potential conservation easement program that would be similar to the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program, I'm going to tell you what the State does. So they protect agricultural lands through a conservation easement, so they compensate the landowner and give them money to keep their property, not put it into development. So if you have a ranch, you can still have your cattle, and maybe you have some natural areas. Their focus is not specifically natural areas. But on a ranch you probably do have some natural areas, and those remain. So it's basically just you're not going to sell your land and put it into housing development or commercial. You're going to keep it as a ranch. They're paid to do that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask just a quick question? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. November 12, 2019 Page 69 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So right now that's a program that's available from the State for any landowner in Collier County? MR. OCHS: Yes. And there's some ag areas in Collier County that are part of this program. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. And that information was provided in your packet. We've had one property owner that has taken advantage of that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And my assumption is, then, that you're competing on a statewide basis for those funds. MR. OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So it's a competitive process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the reason. So there wouldn't be any double dipping. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. I'm sorry. MS. ARAQUE: So staff's -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They couldn't get it from -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What I'm saying is the State would do the research assuming that Conservation Collier decided to implement this program and acquired this land under these parameters, there'd be no opportunity for that landowner to then go to the State and say, give me the same, because it would be recorded. It would be -- it would follow the land, so to speak? MS. ARAQUE: So we are not to that level of detail, but that is a very good point, because that could potentially happen. There would have to be something that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we did -- MS. ARAQUE: Probably we have to work with State to make sure that they're not compensating, because I don't know that they would know if we compensated them. November 12, 2019 Page 70 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. MS. ARAQUE: So on the other hand, I did -- did you have a question, Commissioner McDaniel? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, well, I've got a lot. I've got a lot of comments. This is -- but please go on. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So the program does not provide public access. And like I said, we're requesting further direction on whether you would want us to pursue this program, because it would take a lot of work to take that through subcommittee and also to amend the ordinance. So we want to make sure that you-all are on board before we start implementing something like this. MR. OCHS: Summer, speak to that last bullet, if you would, please, so the Board understands. MS. ARAQUE: So if such a program were recommended by the Board, the staff's recommendation would be that Stewardship Sending Areas are not considered in the program as these areas are being utilized for generation of stewardship credits. So in Collier County you have approximately 148,000 acres of land in agriculture, and 102,000 of those are within the RLSA. So, granted, not everybody does participate in the RLSA. So if you're not participating in that program, then we would -- then that's something that we would recommend be allowed within the program. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Another numbers question. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders is ahead of you. We're going to go to questions here at the end. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I was going to -- quite frankly, I was going to ask a question dealing with the Priority 1 and Priority 2, so I'll hold off. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So there's 148,000 acres in agriculture, 102-, you said, was in the RLSA. Is -- that 102-, are November 12, 2019 Page 71 those all sending lands? MS. ARAQUE: I'd have to pull up my numbers, but -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There's a pool of 200-some-odd thousand in the RLSA, so I would say it's -- they're going to end -- depending on what we end up doing, there's going to end up being about -- right now there's 39,000. Well, it's limitless as to what can be entitled within the RLSA, so -- but currently it's about 39,000 acres of SRAs; 150-some-odd thousand of -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of receiving areas? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Of sending. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: SSAs? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. And as a point of clarification. And maybe I can clear some of this up if you'll come -- it was I who brought this up. It was I who suggested -- because I'm not happy with the fee-simple acquisition and the enormous amount of expense that Collier County bears to continue on with the maintenance of these properties. My thought process was, who better to manage their lands than the farmers? They already care for them now. And there is an enormous amount of environmental protection that comes from a ranch and/or a farming operation. Their collaborative efforts are ongoing. I think a simple way to actually ascertain whether or not we want to -- we want to pursue this is a cost-benefit analysis with regard to the acquisition of development rights in lieu of fee -simple acquisition. We paid Nion (phonetic) 12,000 plus-or-minus dollars an acre for Pepper Ranch. And if I read -- if I'm not mistaken, you know, the development rights are going to vary based upon the availability of those development rights, and we could make -- we could make a rational -- a rational -- have a rational discussion as to whether the November 12, 2019 Page 72 cost warrants the stripping of the development rights and leaving the land ownership with the farmer and ongoing maintenance and such, or the fee-simple acquisition is there. And to address your comments, Commissioner Taylor, there is no double dipping considered in this process. We will -- we will protect against that. There is no overlap with the RLSA in the SSAs and/or in the sending areas within the RFMUD, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. So just my thought process was we can still preserve and protect, but we don't have to take on the perpetual maintenance aspect that we know goes on -- well, it goes on forever. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I've heard Liesa Purdy (sic) speak on this on more than one occasion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Lisa. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, Liesa Priddy. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I've heard her speak of this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so I'd like to -- I'm one commissioner, but I'd like to explore this anyway. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When we get to a vote, we'll do that. I -- again, I'm the one that stirred the pot with regard to this. And I concur with you with regard to our CCLAC Board and our staff, because it is a pretty big deviation from what they've always done. But I think it certainly would be worthwhile for us to maximum the available dollars that we do spend and garner the greatest benefit from an environmental protection as well as the development rights, so... That's just -- that's -- but we'll get to that in a second. Commissioner Solis, did you have any other comments? November 12, 2019 Page 73 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This particular topic or on -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. We're wide open. So you can go -- you wanted to go on to the priorities. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can you pull up the slide that had Priority 1 and Priority 2 on it. MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're still lit up. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You had a slide that just had two lines on it, Priority 1 and Priority 2. MS. ARAQUE: This here? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There we go. Is this something new that's being added here, or is this an existing statement of the existing program? MS. ARAQUE: So as far as the acquisition plan goes? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. ARAQUE: I mean, the document itself was created just in the last few months, so... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So this is not in the existing program, this language of Priority 1 and Priority 2. MS. ARAQUE: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm looking forward to hearing some comments from the audience, because under the current program, we are free to purchase property in the urban area. So this doesn't really change anything from the existing program. But what it does do is I think maybe send the message to the world that our priority is going to be acquisition in the urban area, and I think that creates confusion. So I want to hear from the audience concerning that particular issue and may ask that we not have this type o f language, and the basis, again, for that would be twofold. One, you November 12, 2019 Page 74 can already purchase in the urban area, so it doesn't really add anything and, secondly, it does create some confusion, I believe. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I would agree with that. I mean, literally, if you read the existing ordinance -- and I'm sure you have. I think you probably wrote it, or you were participatory in writing it. I mean, there is an allowance in that language of the existing ordinance that doesn't really -- there are certain areas that are delineated as priorities, but we have the right to buy anything, so... I agree with you as far as confusion process goes, so... Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that was my concern, too. I'm not sure we should prioritize anything. If it's all open for acquisition, then let it be, and let the best rise to the top. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. We're going to go through as we go, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Just a question related to that. I mean, what is -- the recommendation is that we adopt this prioritization system, right, that's being proposed that we would adopt some type of priority system in the acquisition process? MS. ARAQUE: No. We would use the existing Conservation Collier implementation ordinance. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then why are we discussing it? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. Then why -- I'm confused then. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Don't be confused. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because this creates a Priority 1 area, which is in the urban areas. Is Priority 1 and 2, is that priority in the sense of importance, or -- I guess I'm confused. I'm sorry. MS. ARAQUE: So we identified larger contiguous areas so that November 12, 2019 Page 75 it was clear where those contiguous areas existed within the plan, but staff has no issue with removing the priority areas. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. You just said you have no problem deleting that, taking that out? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Taking it out. MS. ARAQUE: Correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you say deleting? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. ARAQUE: I just wanted to let you know, we do have Community Planning section staff here if you have any other questions about the RLSA that we were talking about earlier. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I would just make one comment in reference to easements and that sort of thing. I think the Board has emphasized that if we can acquire easements to protect land, whether it be farmland or just natural habitat, doing that's a whole lot cheaper than buying fee simple, so I just wanted to agree with you in terms of if we have farmland that can be preserved as farmland with simply acquiring something less than fee simple, I think we should pursue those. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Good. I agree. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And then I also would like to say that there's nothing like -- to me, when I read the emphasis on urban, which I would agree with. I'm not sure it's going to confuse the people so much because, frankly, everyone -- if you had open spaces as you drive down your crowded roads in between developments, it would define this county, and it would set it apart from the rest of Florida. November 12, 2019 Page 76 So I see this as a plus-plus. Not to say it's solely urban, but to understand the acquisition of urban land as open space fulfills the Conservation Collier, because everyone, everyone is worried about growth. And we're talking about building a turnpike because of growth, for gosh sakes, billions and billions and billions of dollars, so -- throughout Florida. So I think that making sure that the voter understands that urban is part of the picture, I'm not sure it's going to confuse them. But it's the balance, okay. It's the way we have to -- and I believe it's also ordained in the ordinance. I believe it's also inclusive in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. And I think Commissioner Taylor was just going towards the question that I really have, and I don't think I expressed it as well as I could have, and that is, the program right now evaluates properties that a willing seller will sell based upon the environmental, I want to say, value, sensitive value, whatever each property is, regardless of where it is in the county, the environmental value that it has for us to preserve. To prioritize something because we want -- we need open space, I don't see that as part of the Conservation Collier mandate in that we have an open-space requirement in the Land Development Code. If we're talking about open space, then that's a different thing rather than evaluating a property based upon the need to preserve it from an environmental standpoint. I see those as two completely different things that my concern is we're going to start confusing those things. If we start making these priorities that we want to start buying lands in certain areas for open space or green space or whatever, we're going to start confusing that, and I think that's a road that we don't want to go down, because November 12, 2019 Page 77 Conservation Collier's had a very specific purpose that the voters have been very, very happy with in the past. And I, for one, would n't want to see that issue becoming clouded. I remember this coming up -- I can't remember. Maybe I was on the Planning Commission or something. This started coming up in a couple of places, and it was a concern of mine then, and I'm still concerned about it now, because they're two different issues. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think we covered that. By eliminating those priorities, we're pretty well there. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, did you have a statement? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I was just going to say, the mere fact that we're spending 20 minutes talking about it, I think, is evidence that it is a bit confusing and controversial. I know a lot of people support the Conservation Collier acquisition of lands in the rural area, and if we have a slide up or document that shows urban as priority, some of those folks are going to be turned off to the program. And we don't have to do that to encourage the acquisition of properties in the urban areas. So I'm going to -- just to settle the issue, I'm going to make a motion that, as we go forward -- this is just on part of the program -- that we do not have a Priority 1 and Priority 2 as listed on that slide as part of the program. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I agree. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll make a note on that, because I think there will be more on the motion when we get there. Do you want to do it -- do you have an individual -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I was just -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that November 12, 2019 Page 78 we eliminate the priority aspect that was suggested today. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I do have three speakers. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we're not -- MR. MILLER: Okay. Well, I thought you were going to vote. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No. We're not going to vote right now. Well, we can -- we should wait till we hear the public speakers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because I think a couple of speakers are probably going to talk on that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala, you're up now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Regarding urban versus rural we've heard complaints in the past where we've bought up big patches of land, rural, and nobody can ever see them. They can't get on them. They can't even drive to them, but there are large swaths of land, and people keep saying, you know, we're taking all of the land away from the animals and everything. They're talking in the urban areas rather than the rural areas, right? You're taking all the land. So I think -- maybe I said -- I hope I said that in the beginning, right. I think it's important for us to buy some lands that are urban and, of course, also rural, because you've got to protect your water resources and so forth. There's a combination of both. And each one makes a lot of sense. But I don't think we should turn our heads on the fact that people are going to judge what they can see as they are driving by. And if they see no land that's preserved of any type that we're not letting birds and chickens walk on or whatever, you know, I think we need to do that, too. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think we are. I think Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm just making sure that I November 12, 2019 Page 79 said that right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You did. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner, you did. It was perfect. Commissioner Taylor actually said it best, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sure she did. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And all of us have said the same thing: We're going to let the best -- the cream of the crop rise to the top as we go through the process. And we're not excluding from a prioritization anything within Collier County, urban or not, and allow for -- allow for those to come to the Board from a decision -- because we don't want to discourage people that are not in the urban area by setting a priority of buying within the urban area for people that are outside that might be of important conservation to us. Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, no. I have nothing else. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The issue that we all know, because we're -- you know, we sit up here, and it's -- every day we see it, there's no way -- if someone has property, they want to have the return on their investment, and that's right and that's fair and that's the way we do things. And the only way that we can take that property out of the development is to buy it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Or buy the development rights. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Or, yes, buy the development rights. And that's, I think, the issue. And I think that -- I think that when we discussed, it was for the sales tax initiative, and when I brought forward some literature that Conservation Collier used in their marketing for the last campaign, it was clear it was about overdevelopment. It was about showing traffic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't mean to -- I'm going to November 12, 2019 Page 80 interrupt you. Forgive me, but it was -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, you are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was not Conservation Collier that promoted that. It was the -- there were support groups for Conservation Collier that promoted those things. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Conservation Collier gave it to me. They had it in their literature. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The literature was put out by other organizations, not by Conservation Collier. That's the clarity. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not by us. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Well, when I think of Conservation Collier, I think of the major environmental groups tha t were the huge supporters who put out this literature, and it was about too much traffic, too much development, you know, trying to plan for the future, and that's part of the reason that I'm delighted to see the urban concept being brought into the mix. And I don't think it's going to confuse anyone that wants this program, but I'm one person up here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We've got our -- we've got our -- I've got a list on this thing here. I think we're all set. Commissioner Saunders, you lit up again. Was that just to -- or was that to try to take you away from before? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I didn't do that. Somebody else must have done that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Somebody else hit his button. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It wasn't me. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do -- let's have our public speakers now. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers. Your first speaker is Gladys Delgadillo. She will be followed by Meredith November 12, 2019 Page 81 Budd. MS. DELGADILLO: Hi, Commissioners. My name is Gladys Delgadillo. I'm here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I appreciate today's discussion. And I just wanted to clarify, certainly not all of Collier County properties are eligible for purchase under the Conservation Collier Program. The ordinance specifies a number of criteria in terms of, you know, value to the public in terms of value to our water resources, wildlife habitat, buffering from storm surge, all kinds of stuff. So the reason why this isn't further specific is just because it would take a lot of analysis to determine what areas of Collier County are worthy of purchase or protection under this program. And so, accordingly, I support Commissioner Saunders' motion. We don't support ranking parcels Priority 1 and Priority 2 before these parcels have been analyzed against criteria in the ordinance. Under this strategy, all urban parcels, regardless of their value to the program, would be ranked as Priority 1 over values that are contiguous to conservation land and parcels that have been identified for hydrologic restoration, et cetera. The additional emphasis on urban parcels, as has been mentioned today, is unnecessary, as urban parcels are already a target protection area under the ordinance, and CCLAC continues to bring forward a plethora of urban acquisitions, including the SD Corp proposal on today's agenda, which I'll be speaking to support later. So we ask that the BCC move forward and support Commissioner Saunders' motion, simply state that the parcels in Appendix C are priority parcels without dividing them into Priority 1 and 2, and allow CCLAC to analyze and prioritize parcels as they come forward. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Meredith Budd. She will November 12, 2019 Page 82 be followed by William Poteet. MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I just want to commend staff for the extensive work I know went into this acquisition strategy. It was a big undertaking to go through all the parcels throughout Collier County. I, too, support the motion that Commissioner Saunders made. The ordinance -- the Conservation Collier ordinance, it does set forth the criteria to prioritize acquisitions in general for the county, and as a part of those prioritizations, both urban areas and those that were contiguous to other parcels are included in those criteria so that Priority 1 and Priority 2 ranking is not really necessary. And so I agree with Gladys that perhaps just taking out the delineation between Priority 1 and Priority 2 and just saying that those areas are generalized, a priority, and can come through the pipeline through the program and come up based on their -- as they meet the criteria set forth in the ordinance. So a big example just to point out as to why the Priority 1 v ersus Priority 2 seems a bit off. If you take a look at the map that has North Belle Meade on there, you'll see North Belle Meade is delineated as Priority 2. North Belle Meade is a natural resource protection area. It has consistently been a priority for preservation for natural resource value, water resources, wildlife resources, and it's -- because it's not urban or contiguous to another parcel, it's already just set back as Priority 2. So I think that kind of shows how the Priority 1 versus Priority 2 doesn't really speak to all of the values that the program will bring, and I think the parcels can speak for themselves as they come before you. I do want to speak to the easement program that's being proposed. I want to point out that the point of Conservation Collier, November 12, 2019 Page 83 the mission, is to acquire, preserve, restore, and maintain vital and significant threatened natural lands, forest, upland, and wetland communities. And if you look at the Rural and Family Lands Program, that -- and that easement program, and if it's being modeled off of that, that's to protect -- to protect agricultural lands, and it's to work together with agricultural production to ensure sustainable agricultural practices, and it's also to protect natural resources, but it specifically states not as the primary purpose. So the Federation is very supportive of the easement program. It is a great tool to preserve landscapes. We are super supportive of the Rural Land/Family Lands Program as well as the Florida Forever Program at the state level, and we have existing easement programs here in Collier County through the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program as well as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. So we are very supportive of easement programs in general, but as part of Conservation Collier, I really don't see it being consistent with the goals and mission of the program. It's very distinct. These -- to protect agricultural lands is a very distinct program, and also it brings the issue of access. So I just wanted to point that out to you as well. So thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Meredith. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is William Poteet. MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here to answer any questions on behalf of the CCLAC. But on the easement issue, we predominantly looked at that from a cost standpoint first. And we're going to have limited funds each year -- each cycle to purchase land. And the examples that were used of other properties that had been purchased through this were large acreage. And so the ultimate November 12, 2019 Page 84 price was $2 million, $2 million for a lot of these purchases, which would take away from our limited funds that we could use for acquisition of conservation lands. It doesn't mean we can't do it, but it just, it -- we've been doing something really well for a long time, and so we just wanted to continue what we're doing and do it well. The idea of not having public access on these lands that you would purchase -- that use for easement concerned a number of our members, because that's really the difference between our program and any the state or federal programs is you buy a property through Conservation Collier. We go out of our way to make sure that the public has the ability to go out there and enjoy these natural resources. So thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: William, don't go away. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We mainly hear from -- all of us get letters from people around the community saying something about overdevelopment, too much development. We're not saving any space for the wildlife and so forth and so on. The problem with buying all the huge swaths of land is they don't ever see that we're buying that for future water sources or whatever. And I personally, just me, feel that it's important that we also intersperse that with some things that people can see so that we know that we're not overdeveloping anything. We're just -- you know, we've left space for other things as well. And do you agree with that? MR. POTEET: Well, absolutely. The issue of water -- the water issues are within the criteria that we look at. You know, what is the recharge for that particular property? Does it have any advantage on stormwater drainage, et cetera? We look at all those things when we consider a piece of property. When we talked about making the -- reducing the size of the November 12, 2019 Page 85 areas that were on the map that you saw, part of that was because of Golden Gate Estates. The entire Golden Gate Estates was put on the map. And we have no intent to purchase the entire Golden Gate Estates area; however -- and we didn't want people in the general public to misconceive that that was there. But we do know there's natural flow-ways in there that need to be protected, and those properties we would want to go and take a look at, depending upon -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you're working with CREW, aren't you? I mean, because CREW's buying those things, too, right? MR. POTEET: CREW's buying some of the lands out there, yes. And, you know, like we have one preserve that we partner with CREW on on the management end of it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And South Florida Water Management? MR. POTEET: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, William. MR. POTEET: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. My comments or suggestions are -- and I want to address what Meredith said. The closest easement program that I could come up with at the time was the Rural Florida Lands Program. It doesn't mean there aren't other compatible easements similar to what we do with the RLSA or Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, that we couldn't blend something in to do that. I just -- I wanted to -- I think what I heard William say is, I wanted to -- I want to best manage the available dollars that we have for the maximum benefit, and without a cost-benefit analysis, it's difficult to do that, so -- and one of my -- I actually have in my notes here just -- you know, I was okay with No. 1, to direct the CCLAC and related to look at those adjustments in the ordinance; No. 2, a cost -- we've already got -- the Scofield ranch, we've got a -- it's been November 12, 2019 Page 86 studied forever. We know it really, really well. We have a cost. We have a price. We could do -- once the RLSA third-party transaction is consummated for Hyde Park, we'll actually have two independent bodies. Somebody who owns credits and somebody who's buying credits to develop will actually be able to put a value on those credits within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. We could do a cost-benefit analysis and show what we can preserve and protect, what we get with the purchase of those development rights, what our offset costs are for the ongoing maintenance that travels along with that and allow the land to stay in the -- in the rancher's hands for agricultural purposes and so on and so forth. There are going to -- and I want to be very clear. There are going to be areas similar in the -- in the North Belle Meade area, in the watershed protection area in the Eastern Golden Gate Estates, there are small tracts of land that the easement won't work because there's no -- there's no -- there's not a property owner there that can continue on with the maintenance and so on. There are going to have to be -- and we have that allowance within the existing ordinance to do fee -simple acquisition. I'm not suggesting that we roll to that in its entirety. Certain times, certain places, aggregation of lands contiguous to already held Conservation Collier lands, those may need to be -- probably will have to be fee-simple acquisitions. I just want -- I wanted to -- I wanted to have the discussion, and the premise is to maximize -- as has been stated, we have a limited resource of money with regard to this program, and I want to be able to maximize that. So that's what I have to say. Commissioner Taylor? November 12, 2019 Page 87 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, just -- could you just refresh me. Talk to me about what average -- the amount of money that would come into Conservation Collier from the past. Do we have any of those figures? MS. ARAQUE: How much would come in on an annual basis when the millage -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, just an average. MS. ARAQUE: When the millage was being collected? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Twenty-two million. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A year? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Twenty-two million a year. MS. ARAQUE: That sounds about right, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That was at the millage rate set -- MS. ARAQUE: For acquisition. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- by the prior board of .25, yes. Plus or minus 22-. MS. ARAQUE: And then 25 percent of that was for management -- set aside for management. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's now -- that's the way it's established now. Originally it was 15 -- MS. ARAQUE: Correct. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- in the original ordinance. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The only thing I wanted to add was one of the reasons I was talking about some of -- some urban lands is people are going to have to vote for this, and if they can't see it, and they can't see what's happening, will they vote for it? I'll just November 12, 2019 Page 88 leave it at that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I have an idea there. You keep -- yes, you are. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, you just X'ed me off, so that's okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders, you're up next. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Let me restate my motion. Staff has two recommendations. First is the acquisition document. And maybe if we do this in two pieces, we can get through it. So on the acquisition document piece, I make a motion to approve the acquisition document piece with the exclusion of the listing of those two priorities, Priority 1 and Priority 2, and the basis for that, Commissioner Fiala, is that we can already buy urban property in the current program. We don't need to say it's a priority. And the reason I think it's a problem to say it's a priority is a lot of supporters of this program are looking for us to acquire larger tracts of land and will support that. If they're told, well, the number -one priority is urban, then I think we're going to turn off some voters. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wasn't putting priorities, I'm sorry. I don't think I even mentioned priorities. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that's the reason for the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I was just hearing that there was no emphasis on urban, and I was just -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'll renew my second to the motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And can I just -- I'll turn my light off if I can just add one thing, and that is, the referendum's coming November 12, 2019 Page 89 up. Everybody knows the program. If we start changing it, I think -- I think it's going to really upset the apple cart in terms of the referendum, because then it's not the same old program that we said we're bringing back. And -- anyway, that's my final comment. So I have seconded it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. And I guess I'm going to ask the motion maker, you want to include -- are we only going to do the acquisition -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- document first? Okay. It's been moved and seconded. We'll adopt the acquisition document without the listed priorities. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are we including the Rural Land Family? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no. We're not going there yet. We're doing the acquisition document. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just the acquisition document -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- exclusive of this finding? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know what, you're lit up. Did you have anything else you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I want to deal with the RFLPP -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The rural lands. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the acquisition document without that prioritization specified. Any other discussion? (No response.) November 12, 2019 Page 90 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: Okay. So I'd like to hear from the Conservancy, please, on their position. We heard from Florida Wildlife, but I'd like to hear from the Conservancy about the RFLPP, please. MS. DELGADILLO: Hi. Gladys Delgadillo, again. We have kind of a nuance position, so -- the Conservancy supports the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program and advocates for funding for the program statewide. Conservation easements may be a good option for Conservation Collier, but many questions would need to be answered before pursuing this path. One question looming over the Conservation Collier Program as a whole is how it interacts with the RLSA and the pending HCP. Most of the agricultural lands in Collier County are within this program area, and as staff has pointed out, the program contains existing protections and incentives for development. So if CCLAC moves forward to ask -- with this program, the question of interaction with the RLSA should be decided by the Board. The Conservancy wouldn't support any type of acquisition of a parcel already protected by the RLSA or HCP and being used as mitigation for development. And then similar to what Meredith said, the Rural and Family Lands Protection Program is far from the only conservation easement November 12, 2019 Page 91 program active in Florida. So, for example, the Florida Forever Program also provides conservation easements as does Alachua County's Land Acquisition Program, and these easements, too, can be compatible with activities like cattle ranching. The type of easement and the terms of an easement can vary. So if Conservation Collier pursues conservation easements, we would encourage the county to adopt an easement program with more protections for natural resources than a typical Rural and Family Lands easement that might do things like provide explicit protections for panthers on the property. So there is certainly a cost benefit in terms of -- in an easement program, you wouldn't have to pay management costs. You can typically buy an easement for 50 percent of the appraised value; however, as Mr. Poteet mentioned, there's no public access. We also concur with his statement that a lot of times easement programs are used for larger parcels. Over 500 acres of, if possible, is what makes these things make most sense, as it can be a complicated relationship with the county and the easement holder, and the landowner. There's a lot of monitoring and oversight. And, finally, in order to support a conservation easement program, the Conservancy would encourage the county to includ e a third-party enforcer to easements. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you slow down, please? MS. DELGADILLO: Sorry. We would encourage there to be a third-party enforcer to conservation easements, preferably an environmental NGO just to make sure that if an easement is placed on a property, it's protected in perpetuity. So, again, generally we're supportive of conservation easements, there's value, but there's just a number of things that would have to be worked out where we could support. And, thank you. November 12, 2019 Page 92 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, if I can -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Don't muddy up the -- don't muddy up a successful program at this point. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I just want to -- as a point of clarification, it's -- you know, staff went down a path here with, I think, far too much specificity for us to make a decision on at this particular stage. It's not a requisite for us in advance of the referendum question. I think that we develop an easement program. There seems to be consensus that an easement program can be implemented into the Conservation Collier Program from an acquisition standpoint if there is benefit to the community and we adjust the easements not specifically based upon the Rural Family Lands Protection Program but on the criterium (sic) established for Conservation Collier for environmental value. Their discussion with regard to how much we spend really isn't relevant. I mean, that's a discussion on the value associated with the expenditure of tax dollars, so we really don't -- that doesn't have to be determined today -- and identify what types of -- we're not going to identify specifically any type of property within the Conservation Collier's bounds, just the exploration of the easement program in some form or fashion and an engagement of those that are involved with it on a regular basis. I do want to say this -- and I can't remember. I think it was Meredith that mentioned this. There is a concern with some -- or not a concern. There's been a statement made that third-party management NGO coming in to enforce or oversee those easements, those get changed over time. So I would caution -- just as a statement, as we're exploring this November 12, 2019 Page 93 further, caution having -- if, in fact, the easement program is something that we decide to go forward with, that we would be careful about what nongovernment organization we put in charge of the oversight process. So that's just a -- that's -- it was represented -- Kate English, the -- Kate English, the land-use lawyer up in Fort Myers, she shared that with me. She saw this program coming through when we were talking about it a couple of months ago, and she shared that there were concerns that those agencies that get listed in the oversight of these easements change, the nongovernment organizations, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think -- at least I'm fairly convinced that this is -- this might have value, but at this point this is not something that we should be including when we're looking at an election in barely a year. And it just seems to me we're going to muddy up the water, and that's my concern. So -- not that it doesn't have merit, but I think that's -- perhaps once this program is established, and we all hope it will be, if it's the voter's will, then we can start talking about maybe including this. But at this point, I think this is probably not what we need to do because of the -- because of the issues raised. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I think it's -- you know, certainly, it becomes a questionable point no matter what we do, depending on what -- after we get through the referenda from an additional funding standpoint. So I don't personally see a harm in exploring it, as has been outlined. But if you don't want to do that -- I don't see the necessity of having it done before the referenda vote, certainly. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I don't think we talk about it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I think that, there again, the resolution for Conservation Collier -- November 12, 2019 Page 94 MR. OCHS: Commissioner, my only concern -- and I'd have to work with Jeff, I guess, and the Board on this, is if eventually you're going to use the referendum proceeds for this conservation program, does that have to be referenced in some way in the ballot language that you're not only buying land, you're going to purchase, you know, easements for land that's not in conservation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's not correct, Leo, and I'm just correcting you, specifically. I said that we could pur chase development rights on the established basis of Conservation Collier's ordinance, which is predominantly for ecological purposes. There are items within the ordinance that provide for public access. But does anybody know here how many -- of the Conservation Collier lands, how many are not accessible right now, plus or minus? MS. ARAQUE: Approximately four. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Because there are some that we have owned for quite some time that still are not accessible. So I just wanted to clarify, County Manager. MR. OCHS: Sure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're, you know -- and, again, I don't want to beat this up. I'm not -- I'm just trying to enhance an already successful program and maximize the available tax dollars that we have for the purposes of environmental protection. That was -- that was it. The public access is an important issue to me, obviously, but there are tens of thousands of acres that are preserved and protected in perpetuity through the RLSA, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program, that don't provide public access without a private recreational lease. So, in comparison, I'm just -- I think the public access is a component of Conservation Collier, but it isn't necessarily a requisite of the acquisition. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And my final statement is that, you November 12, 2019 Page 95 know, as the Board had mentioned several times, we were planning as a staff to come back at your December meeting with some proposed ballot language for your consideration. That's already been vetted with the CCLAC. I don't know if the CCLAC would want a second opportunity to consider that recommended ballot language to be more inclusive or more specific as it relates to this program. And, you know, we have time; you don't have to do it -- you don't have to do it on December 10th. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I am the light. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: His light's always on. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'm with you. What I was trying -- and, Commissioner Saunders, forgive me. I just wanted to finish this point, and that is, it's not necessarily a priority in advance of the referenda language. We made adjustments and have made, regularly, adjustments to the Conservation Collier ordinance in the past that haven't been part of an original ballot language. MR. OCHS: Yeah. I just don't want you challenged down the road for buying something that someone thinks wasn't authorized under the -- MR. KLATZKOW: Look, there are two issues with the ballot, okay. It's a straw ballot in some respect, which means it's nonbinding. But the portion of it that's binding would be if you wanted to bond it. So if you wanted to bond these funds, you should be specific about bonding those funds for easements or whatever. But other than that bonding issue, it's just a straw ballot. You can always change the ordinance afterwards. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Didn't know if you had anything else on that one. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I probably do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Attorney, under the November 12, 2019 Page 96 current ballot language that was adopted in the curre nt program, would it be illegal for the county to acquire an easement with those funds? MR. KLATZKOW: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So if we can already do it with the existing program, and presumably the future program is going to be the same because it's met the test of referenda in the past, then I would say let's not muck up the language here with anything dealing with easements since we can already do it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Just do it as we go. And that's kind of what -- I'm okay with that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then one last comment on this. If we sell a program with certain ballot language, I don't want to be going back and trying to interpret what that ballot language means. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, we can do this under the existing program, and it's worked, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Again, you have two issues. If you bonded it and then used those proceeds, you might be challenged if it wasn't within the four corners of the ballot. However, other than the bonding, this is a straw ballot. The Board of County Commissioners, either this one or one year from now, can change the program. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if you would entertain a motion, then, I will move that we do not include the Rural Family Lands Protection Program language at this point, direct staff to come back at a future date with some information on how we might acquire easements and what kinds of protections there may be, but not to include that in this document. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Did you have something you wanted to say? November 12, 2019 Page 97 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do. Just that in light of the motion that was made, if -- when this comes back, if and when it comes back, that staff would include an analysis of how much of the 102,000 acres that's in an SSA that's agricultural land that this would apply to, how much agricultural land is in the RLSA that is not in an SSA that this would apply to. Because if it's a lot, then this is really important. If it's 10 acres or something, some small amount, then we've probably spent too much time on it. But that's the kind of analysis I would need to understand to make this decision as to whether or not we should make a program. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's where I was going with the cost-benefit analysis. I actually had it in my notes that, you know, we already have an identified piece of property as a priority, the Scofield ranch. It's been studied from an environmental perspective under the criterium (sic) of the Conservation Collier, and a simple cost-benefit analysis on that would be a beginning. We don't have to do it today. I don't concur with staff's direction to try to jam it in before the ballot language and have questions and so on and so forth. So it's been moved and seconded that we don't include the RFLPP in the language as of right now but we do go through some kind of an exercise to explore the easement processes in the future. Is that close enough to your motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perfect. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. November 12, 2019 Page 98 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed same sign, same sound. (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question for the County Manager, if I could. County Manager Ochs, what comes next, please? MR. OCHS: Well, at your December meeting, staff was planning to bring some sample ballot language that was vetted with the CCLAC. That's our next step. That kind of infers that through that action you're going to make your policy decision as a board about whether or not you want to re-establish the program. Obviously, you wouldn't vote in favor of ballot language if you didn't intend to re-establish the program. I mean, your other option is to bifurcate that in some way. First make the policy decision. If, then, the policy decision is yes, then look at ballot language. But those are your options. You can do it all in one action, or you can bifurcate it at the same meeting, or you can deal with the policy issue at one meeting and options for ballot language at a next. We're prepared to do it any way the Board would like. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Let's do it as per -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to see if we can't bifurcate it and maybe actually develop the language in January. It's my understanding there are interested stakeholders that want to do a little bit more work, maybe even poll the public. This is not unprecedented. We did it for the sales tax; the Chamber of Commerce did it. It was very informative of them. They were unsure whether they were going to go forward, and they decided to go forward at that time. So I think it's important that we allow the interested stakeholders November 12, 2019 Page 99 that leeway and, frankly, if we agree to the program, it's my experience, anyway, in developing ballot language for a referendum that it's usually not done in the same meeting, so -- but I'd like to see if there's support to move it to January, the first or second meeting in January. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're talking about the specific language? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You okay with that? I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we develop the language for the ballot maybe the second meeting in January, or -- are we okay with that? MR. OCHS: Yes, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm all right with that, too. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a motion? Can I make a motion on that? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do we have -- do you want to make a motion on that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved that we do the specific ballot language at the second meeting in January. Second? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do I have a second? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'll second it for crying out loud. It's been moved and seconded -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- to do the language -- come on. Any other discussion? (No response.) November 12, 2019 Page 100 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. You okay with that? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And then in December we'll just bring a very simple item forward saying does the Board want to re-establish the conservation program. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. So that will keep December's meeting to a low roar. MR. OCHS: At least that item should be a little short, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no, no, we could discuss a lot of things on that one. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah, we won't go that route. Mr. Barton, do you -- are you going to be able to come back shortly at 1:00? MR. BARTON: I'm at your pleasure. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, then we are adjourned. And be back at 1:01. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:01 p.m. to 1:01 p.m.) MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. I hope you had a good lunch. Item #10A November 12, 2019 Page 101 RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE THE 37 ACRE SD CORPORATION/CYPRESS LANDINGS II PARCELS UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN THE CYCLE 9 ACQUISITION A LIST IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,580,000, WHICH THE OWNERS HAVE INDICATED THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT – MOTION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 10A was scheduled this morning to be heard immediately after Item 11A. So if you'd like to take this one, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's when we scheduled it. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And this is a recommendation to purchase the 37-acre SD Corporation/Cypress Landing II parcels under the Conservation Collier Program, which were previously included in the Cycle 9 acquisition A list, in the amount of $1,580,000. And, Summer? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is somebody coming to speak to us? MR. OCHS: Well, it is Commissioner Fiala's item. Go ahead, Commissioner, you put it on the agenda. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you, yes. I put it on the agenda. I spoke with the parties that are interested in it, and then I spoke with Leo afterwards about the price and so forth, and it was -- the parties who want to sell it to us really have been easy to work with. And so here it is in front of you. That's about it. Maybe -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Bill could get up -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: When I was reading the backup, it November 12, 2019 Page 102 is a contiguous piece of property to an already owned Conservation Collier holding. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm glad you said that, yes, because that's exactly what it is, which makes it more valuable. MR. OCHS: Stand up. Summer, if you could fill in any of the details, please. MR. MILLER: And, Mr. Chairman, we do have three registered speakers for this item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three? MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Not one, two, and three. There we go. MR. MILLER: I think you got them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have any other comments, Ms. Summer, or we'll go to our public speakers. MR. OCHS: Just go ahead, Summer. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. Well, I know that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I'm just needling him. It's my very poor sense of humor shining through. MS. ARAQUE: So I know that this item was brought to Commissioner Fiala, and she sponsored this item. But if you would like to see where the property is located, I do have the property summary here, which I know it was in your backup. My understanding is that this is not adjacent to an existing Conservation Collier property, and I think that was just sa id somewhere. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It was represented that it was. MS. ARAQUE: This is not adjacent to an existing Conservation Collier property, and I did just confirm that with some other folks here. November 12, 2019 Page 103 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: My mistake. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Well, I thought it was, too. MS. ARAQUE: You may be thinking of Serenity Park. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I know where Serenity Park is. Maybe Bill could talk to us about that. MS. ARAQUE: So, otherwise, I have the property summary here, and then I'll let the owner speak. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill, would you tell us about that. I thought it was right next door to Conservation Collier. Sorry for my misunderstanding. MR. BARTON: Good afternoon, Chairman McDaniel, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill Barton, and I am here today representing the interest of the owners of this property. To the subject that was brought up, probably the confusion comes because this property is immediately adjacent to another property that was on the list of Conservation Collier to be acquired. It was not on the A list. That property was on the B list. And it is -- in the map you'll notice that it's slightly to the north and east of the property that is the subject of this agenda item. First let me say that I think that your staff's executive summary was complete and accurate, and I would only take a few moments of your time to highlight a couple of things. Firstly, the fact that this is before you today stems from the fact that the property owners are desirous of selling this property to Conservation Collier at the appraised value. And the -- I think it's interesting to note that the Conservation Collier Selection Committee, prior to the time that the independent appraisal was made, had estimated the value of this property at $2,266,000, and it's also interesting that the Collier County Tax Assessor's Office in 2018 assessed these properties at $2,601,000. November 12, 2019 Page 104 So you can see that the price that's shown before you of 1 million 850 would appear to this person to be a pretty good price compared to other possible estimates. The other thing I would mention, that the property is certainly squarely in the urban area. And we had some interesting conversations on 11A today on that subject. And I understood -- I well understood the Commission's desire not to prioritize the urban area but, by the same token, I think it's safe to say that the Commission is in favor of acquiring the good properties, good -value properties within that urban area, and we certainly consider this to be one of those. Another issue I think is important for properties that are acquired is access. And this property does have public access. Polly Avenue touches the property, is contiguous with property in its northwest corner. So the access to the property is guaranteed by virtue of that right-of-way. With that -- we brought this to Commissioner Fiala because it lies within her district, and that seemed the appropriate place for us to start. I've spoken to each of the Commissioners on this subject, and that was one of -- my charges prior to going forward with it was to get a feeling whether or not this was a piece of property that the Commissioners appeared to think was appropriate for Conservation Collier. And having done that, we deemed it appropriate to go forward. So with that, I would simply say that we would urge the Commission to approve your staff's recommendation, and I'll be pleased to try to answer any other Commissioners' questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I apologize. I just walked back in, and I had forgotten everything I read, and I wasn't -- my mind wasn't cleared yet. Thank you for filling us in. It's a beautiful piece of property. There's a lot of horses and animals in that area, a November 12, 2019 Page 105 lot of them, and there's a lot of agricultural things going in that area, too. I think it would be a prize piece of property for us -- and at this price, for us to preserve. MR. BARTON: And the property currently is vegetated with natural Florida vegetation. I don't know this personally because I haven't walked the property. I'm getting too old to do those kinds of things. But my understanding from the Conservation Collier Selection Committee, that 75 percent of this piece of property is free of exotics. So I think that's worthwhile putting into your consideration as well. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Absolutely. Thank you, William. I don't have anybody else lit up, so let's go -- MR. MILLER: Mr. Barton was your first registered speaker -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He was? MR. MILLER: -- unless he has anything else. Gladys Delgadillo will be followed by Meredith Budd. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now you have to talk slower. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She's got her three minutes. MS. DELGADILLO: Gladys Delgadillo, again, on behalf of the Conservancy. The Conservancy supports acquisition of this parcel that contains 82 percent wetland cover, and it's within the urban area. We thank Commissioner Fiala for bringing it back to the Commission for consideration today. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker is Meredith Budd. MS. BUDD: Good afternoon this time. Meredith Budd on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation. I, too, do support acquisition of the parcels. Now, back when it was first presented to the Conservation Collier Program, there were November 12, 2019 Page 106 three parcels. That top parcel you see labeled as Parcel 1, now that parcel does have direct contact with Serenity Park. So I believe the CCLAC put that parcel on the B list because it had some Melaleuca and so that it wasn't deemed Priority A or on the A list. But at the time, after it was ranked, I believe the landowner did offer some sort of endowment. I don't remember the amount of that endowment to help get rid of that Melaleuca. And then also I know that there are state grants available that could be received for getting rid of Melaleuca. And I see a lot of value in definitely the two parcels that are being presented to you here, and I do urge you and support tha t you move forward with acquiring them, but I also would just like to consider, if the landowner is still willing, that Parcel 1 that does have that continuity to Serenity Park, I think it adds a lot more value to the purchase and a lot more value to the program as a whole. I'm not sure of the status of that. I don't think that an appraisal went forward because it was on priority -- excuse me -- on the B list. But I think that there's a lot of value in that Parcel 1 piece despite it having Melaleuca. I think there's opportunities to clear it. Perhaps if the landowner is still willing to provide that endowment, state grants that can be available, and then that adds that connectivity not only to the other two parcels, but also to Serenity Park. So I wanted to bring that to your attention but just to also highlight that I am supportive of moving forward. This is a great parcel to show that Conservation Collier does and is able to purchase land in that urban area, and we have it here before you today. So thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The neat thing is, it's right here in the heart of the area. Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet you have the wilderness November 12, 2019 Page 107 right there at your back door. That's all. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Bill, I was going to ask her a question, but I do want -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Well, Commissioner Taylor had a question for Meredith. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. You're going to ask Meredith a question? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Just to -- it seems to me that it would make great good sense with the other parcel, too, because if there's Melaleuca on one, chances are there's going to be Melaleuca on two. MS. BUDD: I agree. I don't know the percentage cover on the other two parcels, but there are some exotics on the other two; much more highly vegetated by native Florida plants in the other parcels here before you. But, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's important to control the source. MS. BUDD: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There is no controlling the source. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Poteet is willing to jump up to the microphone for just a minute, I want to get his view on this acquisition as chairman of the committee, and then I have a couple other questions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Please. You have the floor. MR. POTEET: Thank you, Commissioner. The CCLAC has already ranked all the properties. We ranked two of the properties A properties and one of them B property. The one B property was -- it had 100 percent, or close to it, of exotics on the property. And so we supplied you the rankings, and after that we November 12, 2019 Page 108 kind of didn't do anything left -- we just left the properties as-is. Subsequently, the owner came to us and said -- or the owner's representative -- and said, hey, if you put the property that's on the B list back on the A list, we will give you a quarter of a million dollars towards removing all the exotics. And I told him at the time, we do not have a meeting between now and when the Commission meet; however, if you want to make that offer to the Commission, please do so, because it's a very valid offer. We probably would have entertained it, but I can't speak for all nine members of the CCLAC. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Sure. MR. POTEET: Only myself. But it would have been something of great interest, because all three properties will tie into Serenity Park, and we thought that was a very, very good proposition for Collier County. The two properties that are remaining now, they're good properties, but it would be much better if they add the third. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. And then just a couple questions for our staff. Just for the record, it says that the recommendation is that the Board of County Commissioners purchase the property. I'm assuming that's a staff recommendation. MR. OCHS: That's Commissioner Fiala's recommendation. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then let me rephrase the question. And I'm assuming that staff concurs with that recommendation; and, if not, why not? MR. OCHS: Well, we don't oppose it, but -- you know, it's on the list, but the last time the Board looked at this list, they stopped the acquisitions after the fourth ranked project on the list. Again, sir, it's all about money. This is money that's coming out of the Maintenance Fund. So as long as the Board replenishes it in some form or fashion, then, certainly, it's on the list, and we would support it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. The next question is, November 12, 2019 Page 109 the fiscal impact statement was a little bit confusing, which gets back to the source of funds. It says, funds for this acquisition would come from the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund, period. Then it goes on, if Conservation Collier land acquisitions proceed, it is assumed that funding will be provided by a voter-approved funding referendum. So it sounds like, from the executive summary, that the anticipation is that funds would be used to pay for this coming from a future referendum, and I'm not sure if that was what was intended. MR. OCHS: What's intended, Commissioner, is that if the future referendum passes, we would look for that money to restore the maintenance funding that would be used to acquire this property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the funding for this will come out of the $17 million we put aside -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- we put aside -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- out of the Maintenance Fund. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala first. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just a little side note, I know this is not anything for it or against, but we already bought this little piece of land called Serenity Park. It's just a little strip of the land. It's right next door to Naples Lakes Country Club. But I want to tell you, that place is busy all the time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it surprised us so much. There's a lot of wildlife in there and so forth. So I think this is good that it's contiguous with that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. It's a small parking lot, but it's always full. November 12, 2019 Page 110 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So if we were to -- what is the total amount of money, what we're talking about for what's been presented, and if we included the other parcels, what are we looking at, all three parcels, please? MS. ARAQUE: We would need to obtain an appraisal on what's called Parcel 1. MR. OCHS: It's up on your -- it's on your screens, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In front of me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's another $4 million. MR. OCHS: Well, yes, that's the estimate. We don't have an appraisal on that yet for that Parcel 1 on the B list. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I think it probably best that we stay on task with -- if it is the pleasure of the Board to make this acquisition, we do what's in front of us, and go ahead with the next if, in fact, it's warranted. That would be my suggestion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even know if it's for sale -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we'll find -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that other piece of property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's down on the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- not approved for acquisition yet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just get one thing at a time. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I just have to say it again, just because I have to. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Say it again. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Using the maintenance money to purchase property is a bad idea, and I'm not going to support it. It's November 12, 2019 Page 111 just a bad idea. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: He shut his own light off. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He doesn't want to say anything more. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And that's all I've got to say about that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I don't -- well, there you are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion to purchase this property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we purchase this -- do you have a question, Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I was just trying -- just the first property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, just the one that's on the agenda for today. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two and three. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1. There you are. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a great piece of property. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: How you doing? MR. BARTON: Thank you, Commissioners. November 12, 2019 Page 112 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's Mr. Quinby. I haven't seen him in forever. Good to see you, Mr. Quinby. Item #9E RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE 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 ADOPT THE DECREASES IN THE IMPACT FEES AND CONTINUE THE REMAINDER OF THE ITEM UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, on your agenda that you set earlier November 12, 2019 Page 113 this morning, you had Item 9E to be heard no sooner than 1 p.m. Would you like to hear that now? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It might be -- yes. MR. OCHS: Okay. 9E is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Laws and Ordinances, which is the consolidated impact fee ordinance providing for adjustments in two impact fees: Your Road Impact Fee Rate schedule and your Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rate schedule. Ms. Amy Patterson will make the presentation. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning -- whoop. Good afternoon. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. We're going to break this presentation up into a couple pieces. I'm going to walk you through an overview, and then we're going to turn it over to Joe Bellone from Public Utilities to talk to you about the Public Utilities rate study -- Impact Fee Rate Study, and then we have the consultants here that will make specific presentations, or we can go to answer -- question-and-answer at that point. I do need to put one thing on the record. The Development Services Advisory Committee did review the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study after this agenda went to print, and they unanimously recommended to accept the methodology and made no recommendation on the implementation of the rates. So with that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So they approved it? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, they approved the methodology. With that, I'm going to move on to just a quick presentation and overview. Just an overview of the history of impact fees in Collier County. We have had impact fees in Collier County since 1978 starting with November 12, 2019 Page 114 water and wastewater and up to our most recent adoption of the Law Enforcement Impact Fee in 2005. The reason we're here today is our impact fees are updated at least -- they're required to be updated at least every three years. Per statute, they must utilize the most recent and localized data available. And something different than a lot of other places, Collier County also requires indexing between full studies. That was implemented around 2002 to smooth the changes between the formal updates. During that time period we were -- it was nothing to see increases in the impact fee rates of over 100 percent. The indexing is a way that costs are captured. I'm going to get to that in actually just a second here. But costs are captured, not just increases but decreases as well, which is something that we experienced during the recession when we aggressively reduced our impact fee rates based on those cost decreases and other demand changes. Actually, briefly on the indexing, we had a localized index that was developed in 2007 that used a 10-year regression analysis model with localizing factors. In 2009, again, because of the downturn, the methodology was changed to a more sensitive model. So when costs change, we're able to pick them up more quickly. Just talking about what happened with your impact fee program during the Great Recession, we had major decreases in land -use applications and permitting which drove modifications to your impact fee program and the DCA terms because we had a lot of developments that were paid at 100 percent plus. We suspended our affordable housing programs for lack of use. We had significant reductions to infrastructure costs. The foreclosure issue stressed the county resources, but it also lessened demand for new infrastructure. We aggressively adjusted our impact fee rates based on reduced costs and other demand changes, and we had to shift to an even more November 12, 2019 Page 115 pro-business or job environment. We developed incentives programs to develop -- or to mitigate impact fees for existing commercial development, and we restructured our economic development programs to incentivize jobs. Now, as you all know, around the state other Florida counties did a lot of other things. They suspended and reduced impact fees by policy. They implemented different type of fee structures to move away from the stigma of impact fees. They created programs to incentivize certain types of businesses or industry. They developed programs to reduce impact fees for job creation. And in Collier, besides everything I listed before, with the exception of the school impact fees, fees were reduced only through technical studies. No policy reductions. And this is kind of a wordy slide, so I'm not going to take you through all of it, but basically the question is, what ha ppened? Did it work anywhere? There is no conclusive data to support the reduction or elimination of impact fees, increases permitting activity, because market factors, such as demand, financial issues, et cetera, control activity. The decreases that we experienced with our impact fees had no increase in permitting or construction in Collier County during this time period. We had no evidence of job creation tied to the impact fee increases either. In fact, our board at the time challenged businesses to bring forward job creation and, in exchange, would look to further give impact fee concessions; however, we did not have any participants. Not all counties have impact fees, and yet the downturn affected all counties, not just impact fee related counties or impact fee -- pro impact fee counties. And Collier County, with some of the highest impact fees in the state, even after the reductions, recovered faster than many of the November 12, 2019 Page 116 moratorium counties. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: One quick second, before you jump. MS. PATTERSON: Sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala, you were here during the downturn, but you were -- you were elected in 2000, weren't you? And that's when it was catch-up time. The roads -- wasn't that when they found out that if you didn't build it, they still came? COMMISSIONER FIALA: In Sarasota, you mean? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here as well, yes. And we were -- we were really accused of a lot of things, although we had just gotten in, and the people were very, very angry with the way the roads had gotten so far behind. And we promised them not only road, but we had the landfill that was a stinkin' landfill at the time -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- amongst other things. And we promised everybody in our campaign slogans, we're going to fix that, and we meticulously went about doing that, and we did. And people didn't complain at all. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do you think that -- because I think it's striking what you just brought out, the fact that other counties in the downturn reduced impact fees. You -- Collier never did it. And I wasn't here -- you were here -- never did it without a study. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we never did it, and not only that, but then when -- during the Great Recession, that's when Lee County dumped theirs way, way, way down. We did not. Although, I have to say that we probably lowered them a little bit, but not much of anything. Lee County went way behind, and then they had to start November 12, 2019 Page 117 taxing people on their property taxes because they got so far behind. We did not have to do that. We were -- we were religiously trying to keep our taxes as low as they could be and still cover all of our costs. And impact fees helped a lot. When you've got your impact fees, don't forget, it's the people who are just moving in that are paying those impact fees. The homeowners right now don't have to pay for the impact they make on their road. They're already living on it. It's done. So th ere's a great deal of good about that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good, thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. MS. PATTERSON: No problem. Now moving on, where do we go from here with the impact fee program in 2019? You're seeing the first of two impact fee upda te studies with several more to follow. So what's going on out there? We have a high volume of land-use petitions and permitting activity. Affordable housing discussions are back on the radar. As we saw, there's a need for infrastructure improvements that's increasing so much so that the taxpayers got behind the one-cent sales tax to fund a portion of infrastructure. Cost escalations are beginning to outpace funding driving calculated increases to the impact fees, yet we have a demand to maintain level of service because our constituents view level of service equal to quality of place and quality of life. We do run a number of benefit programs in Collier County. All of these programs currently have capacity for new applications. Those include the Countywide Impact Fee Deferral Program, the Multifamily Impact Fee Deferral Program, the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program, the Impact Fee Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment, otherwise known as the Change of Use Program, the Immokalee Impact Fee Installment November 12, 2019 Page 118 Payment Pilot Program, and then a number of economic development programs, including those that help to fund impact fees for qualifying businesses. Just a quick view of the impact fee revenue over the years from the high in 2007 to the low from 2011. So that's a $115 million program dropped to $22 million in Fiscal Year 2011 in the bottom of the recession, recovered here to -- we're bouncing around just under $90 million a year. That's all 12 of the county's impact fees, or those that we collect for other governmental agencies like the school board and the fire districts. So, in conclusion, what are our options? We stay with the policy that's been in place that growth pays for growth to the largest extent possible and implement the impact fees in full to the maximum legal limit, which is what's being presented to you even though these -- the transportation study does include calculated decreases. Second option is a phased-in -- phase in the impact fee increases over a specified time period. We have done this a couple of times in the past where you implement those fees over a two-year or three-year time period to get to the maximum fee. Implement partial fee increases. This is popular in other places where, by policy, board of county commissioners may elect to only increase the fees by a certain percentage. Adopt the study and implement only the decreases. We don't have a choice about that with the calculated decreases on the transportation side of the house. Those decreases must go into effect. Do nothing is not an option for any studies with decreases. As I just said, we are compelled to adopt those decreases; otherwise, we would be overcharging. However, any option other than number one, which is staying with the full maximum legal limit fees, shifts a portion of the growth demand to taxpayers or to other funding sources or will require reductions in level of service. November 12, 2019 Page 119 So with that overview, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Bellone from Public Utilities. He's going to talk to you a little bit about the update to the water and sewer impact fees, and then we'll move on to the presentations or to your questions. MR. BELLONE: Thanks, Amy, for your help with administering this entire impact fee program. And I want to start also by thanking Rob Ori, who's a consultant with Raftelis who spent quite a bit of time on the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee rate study. For the record, Joe Bellone, director of Financial and Operations Support for Public Utilities. Commissioners, in your packet on Pages 242 to 268 is this presentation. I won't take you through all 27 slides. You, obviously, have all that information. What I do want to talk about just for a second is the water/sewer district in particular. It is an enterprise fund, and it's two primary sources of revenue. It's user fees, and we use user fees to operate and maintain the utility, and thanks to your support, the budgets have been able to fund all of our operating costs. We also fund critical aging infrastructure projects which replace and rehabilitate the older utilities, and then we also use user fees to meet all of our user fee debt obligations and fund statutory reserves. On the other hand, impact fees are used to pay for the expansion-related infrastructure only. It is a separate -- there are separate funds for water and separate funds for wastewater impact fee funds. They are pledged to the bondholders to meet the debt service, and they also fund all of the reserves that are required by the bond covenants. As I said, they fund growth. They fund capital projects that are expansion-related only. And per the bond resolution that you approved many times, but most recently in March, those impact fees November 12, 2019 Page 120 are pledged revenue. So the buyers of the bond will say, how are you going to pay this debt service, and we say, we have a dedicated funding source, and that is impact fees for these growth-related projects. Now, the result of that is it actually reduces your borrowing costs. Because of that, we have this dedicated source. You have a utility that has Triple A bonding rating from both rating agencies, which helps you on either side. If you're borrowing for capital projects for rehabilitation or you're borrowing for expansion-related projects, that Triple A rating actually helps you with your rates. I think you know a little bit about impact fee legislation. Another important thing to note, Commissioners, is that this impact fee rate study was reviewed by Nabors Giblin, our outside counsel, and it was reviewed by DSAC subcommittee. And Amy and I met with them for probably about two or three hours during their review, and luckily the DSAC meetings notes from the last meeting were available for us. And the subcommittee reviewed the proposed increase and, again, they recommended the study be endorsed but did not opine on the proposed rates because they said setting rates is policy, and that really is up to the board, the governing board. It is a 27 percent increase in user fees. And I'll get to a slide that shows you sort of a history of the water/sewer impact fees since prior to the Great Recession, during the recession, and since then. And I also opine that water and wastewater is an important component of development in the county, and it really needs to be adequately funded. And those were quotes from the chair of the subcommittee. Methodology can get rather complex, but there are only several -- several components that are included in impact fees. That's the capital investment that is related to growth only, it's the capacity November 12, 2019 Page 121 that we need to build, and the multiplier is the level of service. And by level of service we mean how much water are people using, both historically and going forward. So, Commissioners, impact fee calculations only utilize system costs, and those are treatment plants, so a water treatment plant and a wastewater -- the treatment plant or reclamation facility, and the primary transmission mains; those large pipes that carry water to the locations where they need to be used. All the other appurtenances that are on a utility system, like hydrants and meters and manholes and lift stations, are not included in impact fee. Those benefit everyone. And any infrastructure that's conveyed to the county by developers, obviously, is not included in impact fee calculation. Commissioners, there's an existing -- there are existing costs in the utility infrastructure that are worth about $1.4 billion per the CAFR at the end of the last fiscal year. We've excluded from that anything that benefits all customers that are non-backbone distribution or non-plant-related. And then we look -- that's backward looking. Then we look forward to the Capital Improvement Program. And over the next 10 years, the utility plans to spend about a billion dollars in water and wastewater infrastructure; however, we're going to exclude from that almost $670 million, again, because they're not growth-related projects, only the incremental costs to install or construct the growth-related assets. That's just pictorially what I just said. There are currently assets in service, about -- a little over $1.4 billion. Some of those serve all customers. They have to be excluded from the calculation, meaning what's left are just the treatment and the transmission assets. But we know that a portion of those assets are being utilized currently by users of the system. And on the water side, a little over November 12, 2019 Page 122 62 percent of that capacity is already utilized, and a little over half of the wastewater is already utilized, leaving less -- leaving the balance available for new growth, and those are recognized in the impact fee calculation. So out of the $1.4 billion in assets that the utility has in service, about -- almost 350 million is included in the asset calculation. Again, those are assets in service. Now let's look forward to the capital expenditures over the next 10 years. As I said, we're going to spend about a billion dollars between water and wastewater; over $600,000 of that is to serve all customers. But we also know that as we build these over time they're not worth what they were when we first built them, so we actually take a depreciation deduction off of that. And then the amount recognized in the impact fee is about a little over 300 million or about a third -- 33 percent of the total investment going forward is included in this impact fee calculation. For water and sewer, when we talk about level of service, we're really talking about how much water does a normal household use in a day, okay. So it's gallons per day. Back in March, when I brought you the bond resolution, in order to get that done, we had to have both a financial and an engineering rate study done. And A Com prepared that engineering rate study and recommended a reduction in the level of service, that is what we've seen historically over the last few years, whether it be new houses are going green, more efficient appliances, maybe less irrigation, maybe it's our inverted rate structure that's driving a conservation behavior. But we've noticed that there's a lower level of service per equivalent residential unit than historically. So we've proposed, based on that engineering study that was done for the bond resolution, be consistent with that and lower the proposed level of service for water to 300 and to wastewater for 200. November 12, 2019 Page 123 That's consistent with the trends that we're seeing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When you say "lower the level of service," what you're talking about is lower the consumption. MR. BELLONE: Consumption, yes. The service -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Level of service -- MR. BELLONE: You get the same pressure, the same quality, et cetera. It's just the number of gallons that's used per day is being -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- the conservation effect. MR. BELLONE: Yeah, conservation. It's a combination of factors, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good, good. MR. BELLONE: Okay. So we've used localized data. Our rate consultant's taken prior years' history of consumption and noted that, but then we've also looked forward and used the metro forecasting model to suggest for us, does that trend continue in the future, and it certainly does. Okay. And, again, just, pictorially, you can see that we're proposing 300 gallons a day for water and 200 gallons a day for wastewater. And if you look at the comparisons of county, Hillsborough County's utility is very similar to ours in terms of size, number of customers, types of service, and we're being very consistent with that one. One of the other elements is capacity -- existing capacity. I said we have to look at what structure -- what capacity is already built and how much is being used. We look at our constructed capacity and our reliable capacity for both water and wastewater. Okay. Those are the three components. And what those lead you to is an existing water fee of $2,562 increasing to $3,382. That's a 32 percent increase. November 12, 2019 Page 124 Wastewater is currently $2,701. The proposal is to raise it to $3,314; 22.7 percent. Total, water and wastewater combined, is an increase of $1,433 or 27 percent. Now, Commissioners, as I said, the multiplier factor in that is the level of service. And so we're looking at the bottom half of this chart actually shows you how we arrived at the impact fee from the current fees, the infrastructure investment. Both looking backwards and looking forwards is a component. But, yet, that multiplier is now lower, so we've actually included in that a lower amount due to the level of service decrease leading to our proposed fees. Just a brief history for water and sewer over time. Amy alluded to this. Prior to the Great Recession in the early 2000s when everyone was moving here and we needed to create the capacity to meet the demand, impact fees -- water and sewer impact fees increased to a high of $7,339 in 2007. You'll see at the bottom of that chart I tried to highlight for you that that was sort of during the time when the northeast facilities were in design, and that was approved by the Board back in 2004 in December, Item 10A. Then, of course, came the Great Recession. And in 2011, we started taking out those costs -- those future-looking costs. They were pushed out beyond the 10-year horizon. We didn't need the capacity then. And those rate studies brought those rates down. And, in fact, you agreed to put those northeast facilities design into hibernation in 2010, and then just recently we brought those back to you, and that was reactivated. And, Commissioners, we also could talk about impact fees. You can talk about comparisons of impact fees to other utilities. And there are lots of reasons why those might vary, and I won't read them all to you, but -- depending on source of supply, treatment process, et cetera. November 12, 2019 Page 125 You'll see that Collier County today is pretty close to average in terms of water/sewer. I don't know where with transportation and others. But in terms of water/sewer, they're pretty close, but we are proposing to increase them, and you'll see to the right of that chart that they're above the average. And I don't know if it's easy to see or not on this chart, but lots of those counties and municipalities have little asterisks next to them, and those are utilities that currently have a fee study in process or plan to implement one. So while this is a static view on where we are today, those could change. They could be different tomorrow. They could be different next month. So our recommendations, Commissioners, are to accept the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Rate Study, which is considered to be reasonable, meets all of the criteria, and to adopt -- there's a resolution in your packet to adopt the advertised water and sewer rate resolution. And with that, I'll take your questions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Having none... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done. MR. BELLONE: Thank you. Thank you. Amy, I'll turn it over to you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'm sorry, Amy. I thought we were done, but go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: Well -- MR. BELLONE: We'd like to be. MS. PATTERSON: We're going to move on now to the Transportation Impact Fee Update Study. I have members from our consultant firm, Tindale Oliver, here available to make a brief presentation and walk you through the study components. This one is a little bit more complicated, again because it has both increases and decreases in the calculated fee schedule. It also has over 60 land uses November 12, 2019 Page 126 that we'll be looking at and the effects of the changes on those. I should mention that we have over 26 land uses on the schedule that are going down with this study. And of those land uses, there are many of them that are the most commonly permitted land uses, things like office, retirement community, some of the multifamily rates, ultimately, will be going down that are going to be affected by this change in a positive way, if you were to be a person building an office or a retail establishment. So I just want to provide that information to you. We do have some comparisons that we can throw on the visualizer. If you'd like to have the Tindale Oliver team come on up and walk you through this a little bit and then we can go to your questions or, at your pleasure, we can go straight to your questions. The presentation was included as backup. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only one that kind of jumped out at me was the fast-food fee of $104,000 or whatever that number was. I'm not sure how anybody can build the fast-food restaurant with that type of an impact fee. I know ours have traditionally been, what, 96,000, and it's going up. It just seemed like a huge number for some reason. Where does that come from? MS. PATTERSON: It is a high traffic generator. And the interesting thing about the fast-food restaurant with drive-thru rate category is for at least the last five, maybe longer, years, we've been looking for a partner willing to do an alternative study with the county so that we could get a localized look at fast-food restaurant, a McDonald's or a Burger King or one of those, the one that has, you know, the three meals a day and the maybe 24-hour service, the ones that are really high traffic generators, and we have yet -- even though we've dealt with McDonald's and met with them even back to when Mr. Casalanguida was our department head, sat down with the November 12, 2019 Page 127 McDonald's folks, extended the offer to partner with us to try to have another look at this, potentially, to look at fast-food restaurants that are part of a shopping center, they're outparcels, and partner for even a different rate structure that way. To date we've had no takers. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It's interesting, if you look at the Indian River County fees for fast food, it's $20,000, and in Collier County it's 104,000. It's five times as much. I just didn't know how we would come up with a number like that. Have you looked at some of the other counties to see how they're doing their calculations, or are these fees that are just greatly reduced in those counties? MS. PATTERSON: Generally speaking, there are different fee policies in other counties either that their fees are reduced, not at their maximum legal limit, or the other thing that's a factor is that they have other revenue sources that are used for the same purpose as the impact fees. So we recently have the infrastructure sales tax, which did go as a credit against our impact fees. But places that have tolls, places that use property taxes to a greater extent than we do for their growth-related efforts, those all are a way that the impact fees can be reduced as well as the choice to reduce them by policy. There are counties that just elect to do that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What is the one that's so famous out now in Golden Gate? MS. PATTERSON: Popeye's. Popeye's did -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They lined up to 951. MS. PATTERSON: They did. They backed all the way up onto 951, and you probably could have driven to the Popeye's in Immokalee and gotten your food and gotten back faster than you could get through that line. And the funny part was, is that Popeye's November 12, 2019 Page 128 actually received the benefit of the lower tiered transportation impact fees because they don't serve breakfast. And we had somebody do an alternative study several years back for fast-food without breakfast being about 13 percent lower than fast food with breakfast. So it's an interesting delineation, but they still created a bunch of havoc. They're really popular. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I have an interesting question to ask. We pushed through -- not me, I have to say, but we pushed through the sales tax to build the roads. We were already, of course, collecting an impact fee on the roads, but we pushed through a sales tax to help us along and to meet some of those needs and bridges and all of the stuff that we were mentioning. So we already know we've got that, and we already know we've got the impact fees. We already know that we get grants, and we already know that we have -- well, that's it. I'm sure there are other things that we get in as well. Why do we need to go this extra step? MS. PATTERSON: Understood. I'll give you a two-pronged answer: One, the infrastructure sales-tax projects that were on the list, some of which are, you're correct, growth-related projects, but the only part of those that are being funded by the sales tax is actually the funding shortfall. So we went through our capital program to look at all of the things that needed to be done and all of the types of ways that we were able to fund them at that time, impact fees, maybe some grants, maybe some other -- some other revenue sources, we were still left with a shortfall. And in order to bring those projects forward, that was the intent of the sales tax. So if we had -- I'll give you an example. If we had $80 million towards a road that cost $100 million, the sales tax would go to fill that other portion so that we were able to bring the projects November 12, 2019 Page 129 in sooner rather than having to wait or to take debt or other strategies. The other piece of this is, is as you mentioned, all of those other revenue sources that are used for the same purpose as the impact fee go as a credit against the impact fee. It's always been that way. So we have to give the developers a credit for everything that we're using that's used for the same purpose as the impact fees. And so in this case, newly introduced into this study was a credit for those sales-tax dollars that will be used for those growth components, and that brought the fee down from where it would have been without that credit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've always been a supporter for impact fees, not only a supporter, but a staunch fighter for it, because I felt it was necessary and it was good for our community and for our taxpayers because it keeps their taxes low. I'm afraid you hit a -- you hit my capacity, and I'm having trouble with this. I'll just say that right now. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, I heard what you said earlier, and you said the reason that you have supported impact fees is that growth -- it helps -- it doesn't help -- it relieves our taxpayers of the cost of this infrastructure, and it puts it on the backs of the people moving in and, certainly, the developments that are bringing in. And right now before us is a development where they're -- I hate to say it -- kind of refusing to pay for any of the roads, especially the big road. I was lobbied personally at an MPO meeting at a break to make sure that a certain road was put on a map. And it's my understanding now that the same developer who will be before us in not too short a period of time doesn't want to pay for these roads. So that means it's put on the back of you and me and the taxpayers that we represent. November 12, 2019 Page 130 So I think -- I think it's important that we -- I was very pleased to hear about the credit system, and I think that the impact fees are a way to make sure that growth continues to pay for growth. And at least I'm fairly satisfied that there's no double dipping on the part of the county on this; that there is a credit system; that sales tax -- the impact fees reflect that. So I would be -- I don't want to ask you, but it must be quite an increase in impact fees if we didn't have that sales tax. MR. PATTERSON: The differential is about 10 percent or maybe a little bit more across the land-use categories. The other thing I need to put on the record is that we also -- in respect to fairness, we did scrub these costs to ensure that everything that's included equally represents both sides, bot h our costs, as well as the cost to the developer, to ensure that the costs truly represent the costs to the county for providing those -- that road infrastructure. And so that meant that we reduced some components, because the way that we did things in the past for a period of time has changed a little bit, and that also reduced things within these road impact fee categories. We were facing, and you probably heard around, some increases in these fee schedules that were much greater than what we've brought forward as the final fees. And that, again, is that balance to keep the fairness equation, which is a requirement of impact fees. It's what makes them a fee and not a tax is that you have to have that benefit relationship, and they have to be fair. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So with that, now we'll go to public comment. MR. MILLER: We have two registered speakers today, Mr. Chairman: Danielle Hudson will be followed by Cathy Curatolo. MS. HUDSON: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is November 12, 2019 Page 131 Danielle Brazil Hudson, and I am the vice president of public policy at the Naples Area Board of Realtors. I'm here today on behalf of our board and membership to share our opposition to the levy of additional impact fees, specifically residential impact fees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Particularly what? MS. HUDSON: Ultimately, ours is a principled and philosophical opposition borne out of the idea of realtors being a conduit for prospective buyers to share in the dream of homeownership. In fact, it is a core belief of realtors that homeownership is not a privilege that should be attained by only a few but rather the cornerstone of the American Dream. To be clear, we are not suggesting that it is the role of government to ensure that all individuals be able to afford a home in our county. Quite the opposite. We understand that a strong market economy unencumbered by government is beneficial to our membership; however, we are suggesting that it is the role of government to first provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in deciding where to allocate existing funds, like those highlighted in these documents, before asking prospective and existing homeowners for more. Understanding the complexity of the situation before us and the efficiency of impact fees to pay for public amenities and growth, we felt we could not underestimate the importance of fiscal responsibility on the part of the county when dealing with the topic that could limit homeownership for many. So we ask that careful consideration be given to the studies and assessments before you and that you err on the side of fiscal responsibility and consider existing and prospective homeowners in making your final decision. Thank you. November 12, 2019 Page 132 MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker on this item is Cathy Curatolo. MS. CURATOLO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. It is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. First and foremost, let me say that I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. We are, as you all know, opposed to impact fees. That having been said, there's a couple of comments -- quick comments I'd like to make. First of all, I want to share my appreciation for Amy Patterson and her staff. We've had pretty extensive discussion on the methodology for these two particular studies, and I appreciate her educating me as a very naive person when it comes to these formulas, because I'm not so sure anybody could understand them. That having been said, as I reviewed the documents, we're using a deductive rather than an inductive approach. We deduce that there's going to be a need for particular entities, and we move down from that point to what, in fact, the fee is going to be. In my humble opinion, that is an incorrect approach to take. I think we need to look at revenues within the community, within our county, determine what our priorities are, and then move forward. Because, again, in my humble opinion, a 27 percent increase in water and wastewater? If it wasn't such a serious issue, it would be laughable to me that we're talking about affordable housing and looking at a 27 percent increase. It doesn't balance. It doesn't match for me. The other thing about the studies is there are too many ifs. If a plant is needed. Really? If? Is it or is it not needed? And if so, if needed, then you spend the money. But an if, again, doesn't go very far for me, personally. As Commissioner Fiala mentioned -- and there are grave November 12, 2019 Page 133 concerns over this -- what are the implications of the sales tax in terms of road impact fees? Come on. Let's consider these issues. Again, if you're going to do anything, my preference is nothing; however, if you're going to do anything, perhaps a phase-in approach might be more applicable because, unlike what Commissioner Taylor said, it does affect each one of us working in this community. Thanks very much. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We just heard the AUIR this morning, and so this is a quiz. What's the cost per lane mile to build a lane mile of road in Collier County? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Six million dollars. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Depends on who's building it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Five. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Five million dollars for us, 10 for the State, one for the private sector. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One lane. Last time I looked, we have two-lane roads and we have four-lane roads and we have six-lane roads. But we don't usually build six-lane roads. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So what's your point? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Got to build the roads for the projected growth. It's an if. What if they don't come? That's kind of the attitude that they had back in 1998/'99. But their attitude back there was, you know, they may not come, so we're not going to build it. And I think Commissioner Fiala can clearly remember what happened. I remember what happened because I was on the -- I was on the City Council at the time, and the sewage was spilling in the streets, and they came to the city and said, please, please, please let us pipe into your sewer line because we don't have the capacity, and I was the swing vote that said, yes, you can do that. November 12, 2019 Page 134 So I remember that. It affected the whole county, and that's the other side of the effect of lack of funding which comes from not planning. And I don't think anybody knows for sure something is going to happen until it happens. But in planning, you've got to project. I think that's the "if" that you heard from our planners today. We've got to plan for it. The land is not public ownership that's being already zoned and the development is -- lots of permits being issued right now. We've got to plan for it. And I particularly liked the staff's report that every time rates are examined, it's done with studies, it's done carefully and methodically. It's not done on a whim because you don't like it or you feel, you know, the political pressure or it's a great way to spur growth. You've done it methodically. And so I think the "ifs" are pretty much more certain in Collier County maybe than in other places. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. When we give our consultant a challenge, we hire them and we tell them what we're talking about. Do we tell them we want you to figure on the highest rate? The middle rate? The lowest rate? The Cadillac rate? Or the Chevy rate? Or how do they do that? MS. PATTERSON: So what we do is we ask them to calculate the actual cost to the extent that it can be borne by the impact fee. And what they have to do is consider both , now, the Florida Statutes and the guidance given there on how the rates are calculated, as well as over 30 years in case law of what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. And so what their job is is to come up with that legally defensible fee, the actual cost for us to provide that infrastructure minus the credits that we talked about in those types of things, and November 12, 2019 Page 135 from them, it's handed off to outside counsel who's completely separate from the consultants, who works for the county, who then looks at that study independently and verifies the same. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now say, for instance, we told them, we want you to give us a rate but something that is more acceptable that we -- you know, won't hold us up or anything, but -- oh, and, by the way, we get gas tax also. I forgot to mention that before. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get a lot of money coming in to build these roads. And, by the way -- and I say this with a happy heart, we build a Cadillac of roads. We build the very best. Same with our water and sewer, we build the very best. And why? Because they don't run down. They don't -- you know, they stand up for a long period of time. I think it's a great thing. That is not a complaint at all. And I realize that you must have to take that into consideration. I just -- I just have a real problem thinking that we pushed that sales tax through -- see, that still -- that still bothers me. We pushed that sales tax through, and -- because we needed the roads never saying that, and then we're going to come back and ask you for an impact fee increase, too. MS. PATTERSON: Well, again, my take -- let me answer your questions -- is when there's a cost that may be different or extraordinary due to -- there could be a number of reasons why -- something extremely expensive or something that's not so expensive, the consultants also take steps to validate those costs to be sure that we're not including an anomaly into the calculation. So they verify that information by way of datasets so that -- and if there's an anomaly, it can be explained. But, otherwise, there's a -- there's a way that they check those numbers and recheck them and November 12, 2019 Page 136 check them again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want to hold us up any at all. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really don't. It's just that I think -- I'm trying to get my head out of the -- out of the water. I'm trying to breathe again, and it's feeling like it's -- you've asked too much. MS. PATTERSON: In reference to the sales tax, though, again, as I think I should restate, is that when that list of projects came forward, the sales-tax portion of the funding was never intended to lower, limit, or replace the impact fees. It was only intended to fund the shortfall, therefore making the assumption that your impact fee program would remain intact and that we assumed a reasonable rate of growth going forward into the capital plan. It was never ever the intention that that become a substitute revenue source. And you're right, we do give credits for all of those things into the impact which, in my opinion, makes it all the more fair. All those things that you listed, gas tax, grants, property taxes to some extent and now the sales tax, have, in fact, had the effect that you're looking for, to lower those impact fees a little bit and in some cases a lot when you're looking at that rate schedule. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These impact fees, if they're approved today, would remain in effect for three years, and then there would be another study; is that what I understood you to say? MS. PATTERSON: Correct. So we go through a formal impact fee update process every three years. We do index in the midyears, but the Board does have discretion to accept those indexings or not, and the other thing I did want to mention is that I know there's the concern about the need and what's going to happen in the future. The Board can always send staff out to update the fees sooner. November 12, 2019 Page 137 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Ms. Curatolo suggested that if we do something with the fees as opposed to doing nothing, that she would prefer to see us phase these in. So the question is, can we adopt the reductions in full today and then advise you to implement the increases over a three-year period in equal amounts? MS. PATTERSON: Can you do that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the question. MS. PATTERSON: By policy, yes, you can do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But? MS. PATTERSON: We'll have ramifications on our capital project funding for those three-year period -- for that three-year lag. We will have to rebalance the programs, and we will have to look at whether or not we have sufficient revenue to cover the projects that were intended to be -- to be constructed during that time period. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Including the ones that we said we were going to build with the sales -- the surtax money? MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. We would have to look at the entire picture and then figure out how to recalibrate it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I make one comment in reference to that? Because I'm not questioning the validity of what you've just said. It just strikes me as a bit odd. When we adopted that sales tax, we knew what the roads were that we were funding the shortfalls for, but we didn't know that we were going to have an increase in impact fees because we hadn't done the study. So it just seems to me that that's a little bit hard to understand why we would have that major of an impact by phasing in an increase when that increase wasn't even known at the time. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. But even since the passing of the sales tax, you've have changes in costs, and that is likely to continue to happen. So as long as your costs continue to escalate, November 12, 2019 Page 138 that gap will continue to widen. The other thing that has gone on is the legislature has made a change in the way that we collect our impact fees, so we are already anticipating -- we already know that there's going to be a short-term issue with the fees that we used to get up front, that for a period of time, while the system recalibrates, that we are going to have a shortfall due to that. That used to be sort of a balancing act. We would have money paid in up front, and they were drawing their balances down that they'd prepaid, and they balanced each other out. When that upfront payment goes away, you're still going to have developers pulling their balances down, which means no new money , so you're going to watch that revenue dip. And I explained that in the executive summary, but that's another reality of the situation that was not anticipated, obviously, when the sales tax passed. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all set? Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, Commissioner Fiala, just to bring this, again, to your attention, because we discussed it at the M-CORES, gas taxes are down, and they're going to continue to slide. They know that, and that's one of the reasons why the district has moved on the back burner some projects they wanted -- we had a schedule, and we had planned for it. They've even -- are moving these back, because the revenues are not coming in, so it's a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The good thing is we have a great tourism industry, and we're bringing in more and more people all the time, so that should help to make up that deficit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the most extraordinary part of this is is one of the comments, and I still haven't asked Secretary Nadam (phonetic) about it. They project -- they've said this at the November 12, 2019 Page 139 M-CORES meeting, that rental cars -- the rental-car industry is going to -- is experiencing and will continue to experience a decrease in customers. It doesn't make sense, but that's -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, it certainly does. It's the advent of AV and AI and Uber and Lyft and those other companies that aren't requisite for people to rent a car anymore. You can just hit your button on the phone; somebody comes and picks you up. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't know. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I do. So, Commissioner Solis, I'm sorry. He had to clear his voice for me to get him. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. He's very deep in his chest. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, he is. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I hate to ask this question, but is there any impending time consideration here that we have to do this today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The reductions. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The reductions need to be done right away. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The reductions have to be done right away. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And forgive me for interrupting, but I thought it wasn't with choice; that the reductions happen automatically whether we vote for it or against it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But, I mean, then the increase -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- because, obviously, I don't think anybody has any problem with the reductions. MR. KLATZKOW: You need to vote for the reduction. The November 12, 2019 Page 140 impact fees are part of your ordinance. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: They're not going to automatically go down by itself. You need, today, to vote for the reduction. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: For the reductions today. MR. KLATZKOW: Everything else can be deferred. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're being asked to vote for it all in aggregate, including the reductions and the increases. MR. KLATZKOW: You need to vote for the reduction. You can defer anything else. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Gotcha. MS. PATTERSON: The only other sensitivity, obviously, is the age of the studies. And so we wouldn't want so much time to pass that we would need to bring in -- basically, redo the work we've done. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm not talking about deferring this six months or anything. I'm talking about deferring this until the next meeting or something just to have more time to have gotten my arms around this a little better than I'll admit that I have, you know. And maybe I should have known that this was going to be on the agenda before the agenda was finalized. But this is a big decision. It's a big increase. And I, frankly -- I'll just admit that I don't think I have my arms around -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, there you go. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- the issue like I should. And if there's any way that we could just defer this one meeting to have some more time to look at the data and what the alternatives -- if there are any other alternatives, I would appreciate that, just because I want to make sure that whatever decision -- whatever vote I cast is going to be as informed as it can be. And this is a big increase, and I just don't feel comfortable doing it. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. November 12, 2019 Page 141 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who was that? MR. OCHS: I just wanted to ask Amy quickly to go over some of these calculations on these fees, because percentages are large, the dollar amounts may be a little different, and add some perspective, several going down. Amy. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. So what we've done is pulled a lot of the common land uses, and I actually ran a schedule on the commercial side of the house that we can also talk about the permitting activity over the last five years and how many of the uses that are going down actually are the most common uses that we permit. But this is just to give you an idea, because it's daunting to hear 32 percent or 22.7 percent; however, when you layer that in over all of the impact fees currently assessed and those proposed changes -- so for a single-family home on county water and sewer, you're looking at an overall change of just over $2,000 or 7.33 percent. Moving over to multifamily -- and I need to say about multifamily, is there's some changes due to demand that have changed these categories, which I actually think are going to provide the users a lot better choices in the use of the multifamily category, including some options for multifamily over commercial with lower fees. But even in this case, worst-case scenario, the combined increases on county water and sewer and with the road increase is a 16.8 percent increase, or $2,800 per unit. But when you go over to the commercial side of the house, it gets really interesting because if you look at a 10,000-square-foot office, the magnitude of the decrease to the transportation impact fees actually not only wipes out the increase to water and sewer but actually still takes the overall fees to a 10 -- almost 11 percent reduction. November 12, 2019 Page 142 When you go to retail, a larger size retail, it's just under 1 percent total. Again, general industrial, a very common use -- we use this all the time through our permits -- is an 11 -- almost an 11.5 percent total decrease. And then small retail is only going up 4.31 percent. So when we're concentrating on these 22 percent to 32 percent increases, you have to look at the picture in totality, not only in the dollar amount of the change but also in combination with those fees that are going down. And so our fee schedule, like I said, contains 26 uses, many of which are most common uses that we apply to building permits that are actually going to be reductions. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You all set? I don't feel any -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not really. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I mean -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm all set to -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You're as comfortable as you're going to be for now. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I think that, you know, one of the things I learned over the years being up here and in other political bodies is how to count to three, if three is the majority, and I think that -- I feel uncomfortable going forward with this until Commissioner Solis is comfortable because, quite frankly, I think that there may not be three votes to do this without that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I'll vote for the decrease. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I understand that. So I was going to suggest that you entertain a motion to adopt the decreases today, continue the increases until the next meeting, but at the next meeting we will vote. November 12, 2019 Page 143 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't think we need to bring all the consultants down. I think we've gone through all of this stuff a couple times. Put this back on the agenda, we'll get comfortable with it, and we'll vote. But I think if we force the vote today, I believe we may have a problem. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Fail. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I'll second that. And, for discussion purposes, does anybody else have anything to say? I mean, you were counting correctly, and I want to -- I want to say this: I mean, at the end of the day, this all boils down to a tax -- taxation and management of our revenue. I believe there are other ways that we can get to where we need to be to support the growth, to support the inevitable necessities of infrastructure that we have for the inevitable growth. And so -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, this gives us an opportunity over the next month -- because our next meeting is in December. It gives us an opportunity to hear what those other alternatives are because, if there are some, I'd certainly like to entertain those. I have always been a proponent of maximizing our impact fees, going back to when I was on the County Commission the first time, and I still am, because I think that's the fairest way to deal with this, but I'd like to see a fairly unified board when we do that. And if you've got some other alternatives, let's have them on the table so we can consider those. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, I mean, there is. I've suggested them before. We implemented a little plan over in Immokalee that hasn't been all that successful. We're having some discussions on some other plans. November 12, 2019 Page 144 I think at the end of the day it also -- and it has to do with how we're conducting business as a community, where we're spending our money, where we're prioritizing the expenditure of our available dollars. We, this year, for the first time in Collier County's history, have a line item on our budget for capital asset replacement and maintenance funding. We've never had that before. And so when we're -- when -- and forgive me for the vernacular, but when we're squirreling away money for ongoing maintenance and ultimately replacement of these capital assets, that's a beginning of a shift in how we're conducting business to be able to appropriate for these funds. But we'll certainly have more discussion in December. It's been moved and seconded -- you got more? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got one more thing. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You going to talk me out of it? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. No, no. I just -- one of the things that I've -- this is really more a question for staff. One of the things that I'd really like to understand better, because I am concerned that on the one hand we do talk about housing affordability and then on the other hand we're -- you know, we're increasing what it's going to cost to create new housing. And I know in the executive summary there are -- we do have programs to foster housing affordability and the like. But this would have an impact of some kind on the affordability of housing. And if there's any way to quantify that, I'd like to understand that a little bit better. If there's a way to quantify what this impact would be -- would have on the affordability, the creation of housing that's affordable so that I can try to balance that in my unbalanced head. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I agree. A lot of times we wonder. We always absorb the impact fees when -- you know, November 12, 2019 Page 145 they've been a great renter or homeowner and so forth after 15 years or something like that, but where does that go? And when we pay for it, what is that paying -- paying back to us? Because they can't. Where do we get that money from? So that would be a good thing. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's a rather complex system. Sometimes she'll wear you out for hours explaining -- explaining that, so... All right. It's -- MS. PATTERSON: At the pleasure of the Board, I'll make myself available to answer these questions between now and next month. We can walk through affordable housing, economic development, commercial development versus residential. We've got a really clear picture on this after 19 years of collecting data, so... COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That would be helpful. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, and -- you know, just -- the cautionary statement that I have is, is just because it's the way we've always done it doesn't mean there isn't a different way to get to where we need to be. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the reduction in the fees. Any other discussion? And we defer the increase in the fees until the next meeting. That was all part of the motion, correct? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: 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. November 12, 2019 Page 146 MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you. Is it time for you to have a break there, Terri? Yes, 10 minutes. We'll be back at 3:33 -- 2:33. (A brief recess was had from 2:22 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There we go. I want to apologize. I misspoke the time when we went to break and said we'll be back at 3:30. I hope nobody else left town or anything. And I did give you an extra three minutes just because we were -- I was off on the clock. I tried to make Commissioner Taylor do it on the last break, and she didn't do it well either. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't. No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All right. Let's go. I'm on the wrong screen here, Leo, so... Item #11B RECOMMENDATION TO EVALUATE TWO (2) OPTIONS FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA), FOR NEW LANDSCAPING ON US 41 EAST (COLLIER BOULEVARD TO GREENWAY ROAD), AND COLLIER BOULEVARD SOUTH (US 41 EAST TO SHELL ISLAND ROAD) – MOTION TO ACCEPT OPTION #1 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: We're moving to 11B, Commissioners. This is a recommendation to evaluate two options for the Florida Department of Transportation Joint Participation Agreement for new landscaping on U.S. 41 East and Collier Boulevard South. Joe Delate, our project manager with your Transportation Department, will present. November 12, 2019 Page 147 MR. DELATE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have on the visualizer a map of the subject area, which is Collier Boulevard from U.S. 41 down to Fiddler's Creek and then from U.S. 41 -- from Collier Boulevard down to approximately Greenway Road. These are areas subject to a pending joint participation agreement with the DOT, and today we're asking you for your direction. We have two options in front of you for this potential JPA, and we wanted to see where you wanted to go with this project -- these projects. Option 1 is for you to decline the landscape JPA, and Option 2 is to explore the creation of an MSTU on the benefiting properties to fund the project maintenance after completion. Essentially, we have currently -- this is a construction joint participation agreement which would pay for construction. We have the ability to do the design under our current budget; however, as you're aware, I was in front of you in February, and because of the rising costs in maintenance, we basically pushed the money that we had for capital projects into our maintenance budget, and we're facing that same thing, which is we do not have the funding to maintain these miles if they were built, and the only possible scenario we're proposing is that an MSTU would be established to the benefiting properties to fund the maintenance. And today I'm here to answer any questions and to go over this with you and move forward with a path forward. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Any questions? Commissioner Saunders, did you -- are you lit up on this one or from the last? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the anticipated November 12, 2019 Page 148 maintenance costs would be almost 600,000 a year; is that -- MR. DELATE: That's correct. That's an approximate number using our average cost per mile, plus some incidentals. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And we may -- as you've noted, we've addressed this issue. We made a policy decision not to do any more median -- new programs until we got a handle on how we were going to handle maintenance. MR. DELATE: That is correct. However, I'd like to point out one thing, if I could, Commissioner. At the time, in February, we also talked about potentially pursuing grants, which this would essentially be. It's a JPA. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But this would be a grant for construction. MR. DELATE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But we still have the 600,000 in maintenance. MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. DELATE: That's right. You're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I'm reluctant to move forward with any additional landscaping until we have some better idea of how we're going to handle what we already have. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have talked to the State in terms of how long before we'd have to have a decision from the Board on this grant offer, and I think we have to make a final decision sometime before the end of January, mid-January. MR. DELATE: It's either next meeting or in the January meetings. MR. OCHS: Okay. So if you had any interest in us going out and talking to the homeowners associations or property owners about whether or not they have an interest in an MSTU, we would have that time frame to do it; otherwise, Option 1 is on the table as well. November 12, 2019 Page 149 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's what I was going to suggest. I would support -- clearly, that's a huge figure per year for maintenance, and so I would support seeing if the homeowners -- bring the facts to them and the data to them and seeing if they were willing to form an MSTU. And do we have enough time before the end of January? That gives you enough time to go over to the homeowners associations; does it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. And we talked about doing some outreach to them and finding out where they stand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I would support that. Commissioner Fiala? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Who's running this show? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. I was just -- I just was looking here. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: This is my thing. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. I was just looking at her. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wash his mouth out with soap. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wash his mouth out with soap. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I only got one more meeting to go. You better let me go. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, he's creating trouble. Then you've got to get him away from that box. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is the section of road that DOT just widened on U.S. 41 past 951, and it goes all the way to Greenway Road. So from two lanes it became six lanes. Everything else already is done up to that road, and then this is beyond. The important thing to note is on that particular road -- now, I'm happy to go and interview people or send letters out or whatever. We've got a couple communities there like -- come on, Donna, say them. There's a few mobile home parks there. One of them is November 12, 2019 Page 150 Imperial -- Imperial Wilderness, and they do want it. I don't know about the other mobile home park. And then there's some others that are not financially doing very well, you know, Westwinds and so forth. Then you have quite a few Habitat villages along there, too. I'm sure that they would love it, but I don't know that they could afford to pay anything because they're in a Habitat village, but it would make them feel -- it would make them feel like the rest of the community. Reflection Lakes is in there. Naples Reserve is in there, so I know they will vote for it, because they've been asking for it. Okay. So that covers that area. You've got down there Auto Ranch Road. I'm sure you all know Auto Ranch Road. That's -- that's very, very, very low-income area as well. I think it's -- of course, to me, I want to -- I want people to feel proud of where they live, and I think that that helps them. And then you turn onto 951, and you've got the big shopping center, Walmart and so forth, and then the Fire Department, and the ambulance. Then you've got some more Habitat villages going in along the water there. And then -- but then you've got a couple mobile home parks, but on the other side there's nothing, so there's nobody to even tax because that's all environmentally sensitive land. So it's going to be a difficult area, especially with criteria saying you don't want any -- want to do any of that. But I know it would mean a lot to the people. And I'm happy to call a town hall meeting or whatever. You all can be there; can call it right here in our government center if people can get off work. I'd love to try it because I know with us, when we first got landscaping, we were very late in the game with the landscaping game, and -- very late, and when we finally got it, the people said that they -- everybody was saying to them, oh, you guys November 12, 2019 Page 151 are really improving, and all we did was put in landscaping. But it makes such a difference in the lives of people, such a difference. Anyway, I will make that speech. I would be happy to try and take a survey with everyone and see what they can do. I don't know that that will go through. I don't know if there are grants available for communities who can afford it. I just don't know what is available, but I would like to investigate or have you guys help me investigate. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You know, I'm relying on you with -- because it's your district, and there's -- the people here predominantly, you know, are living within your district. You communicate with them the most. I am inclined -- was inclined, before we started this discussion, to go with Option 1, just not pursue the joint venture with the DOT. I think, if I'm not mistaken, we're still in the process of adjusting our RFPs to solicit more landscape companies to come do work for us, to bring down that average cost of 75,000 per mile. We haven't gotten there yet, and so I was inclined just to stop. I personally believe that there are human issues that require attention far in advance of landscaping. I believe that the folks that live in Reflection Lakes and some of these other less affluent communities would care more about decent sidewalks and transportation to be able to get to and from work and so on and so forth in advance of landscaping. Not that landscaping's not important. Not that there isn't a sense of community, but there are human issues that are -- I believe, from a prioritization standpoint, we should be addressing in advance of $600,000 a year and going out and asking them if they want to raise their taxes to support that maintenance. So I don't think it's a bad idea to involve the public, Commissioner Taylor. I think that was a valid point. My question is, as I'm down the path a minute, what are we November 12, 2019 Page 152 going to do when it's kind of a split -- we're going to have to decide sooner or later whether we tax these people in an MSTU. Because I won't support doing the joint venture with the DOT and forcing an MSTU. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. That's why I asked if there's enough time, but it's 50-plus-one, right? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. But we're not going to do a poll. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're not doing a formal poll, ma'am. You're going to do an informal meet with the communit ies and find out where they stand, have the HOA presidents represent what the community feels. And it's a Catch 22 in the sense that if you said no today, the communities didn't get a chance to weigh in, they would have said, well, we had no say in this. So we would -- that would be our goal is to reach out to some of these HOAs and talk to them and see where they stand. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And would you have figures per household? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be more informal from the presidents, approximations, just, you know, come back. And, certainly, Commissioner McDaniel's correct, you're going to have some people that are dead against it, but we're trying to get a feel for -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is it a supermajority that's for it, or where do we stand with this. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yep. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the joint participation agreement, the total cost of construction is 2.8 million. Would the State pay that entire amount, and then we would just pay the -- MR. DELATE: Yes. That's the construction amount. They November 12, 2019 Page 153 would pay whatever the bids came in as. So if it came in less than that, that's an estimate. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. So we would pay for the design costs, 220 million (sic), and then 600,000 -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred twenty thousand. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What did I say? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Two hundred twenty million. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, 220 million. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I'd sign up for that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why would we do that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: My design company -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. $220,000, plus 600-, so our first-year expense would be approaching $800,000. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're not going to be able to get any legally binding response from any of the homeowners between now and January. You might get some response that, yes, we'd like the county to do this and we're interested in having an MSTU, and then we're going to be put in a position of voting to tax them. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm just saying, just for the record here, I'm not going to be willing to do that, I don't believe. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Even if -- even if -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You can come back with that and see what you have, but I'm just not ready to make that kind of a financial commitment for a beautification. That road is actually very nice. There's a lot of landscaping or greenery on both sides. It's not like it's an urban stretch of road that is barren and ugly or anything. It's actually a nice road, and so I don't know that we need to do that. That's kind of my view. November 12, 2019 Page 154 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: On 951, it's already landscaped down to near the end now. That -- the State has paid for all of that, and there's just only one section left. Just in case you think it's the whole thing on 951, there isn't. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's not. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I didn't understand that it's not going to -- even if you go out to them and they say, yeah, yeah, it's not legally binding, but we have to make a commitment in January. I'm not willing to risk that. MR. OCHS: I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's good to know now. That's why we brought the item up. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So I'll make a motion for Option 1. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that. And I'll just say, I agree with what Commissioner McDaniel is saying. So many times we consider these things in a vacuum and not in relation to something else that's also very important. So while I -- yeah, it's nothing against landscaping. It does make the community beautiful, but I think Commissioner McDaniel's correct that there may be some other things that might be of more interest. So I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wish our reporter wouldn't have stepped out of the room. I would have liked him to hear this, too. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Here's hearing it somewhere. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that Option 1 be the path we pursue. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Aye. November 12, 2019 Page 155 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: 4-1. MR. DELATE: Thank you, Commissioner -- Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew you guys wouldn't vote for it. Item #11C RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7611, U.S. 41 NORTH WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 2, TO PWC JOINT VENTURE, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,488,340, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11C is a recommendation to award a contract for the North Water Main Replacement Phase 2, to PWC Joint Venture, LLC, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in the amount of $2,488,340, authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement, and authorize the necessary budget amendments. Mr. Chmelik is available to present or respond to questions from the Board or accept a motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Second. Is there any questions or further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's an amazing report. All in November 12, 2019 Page 156 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, Tom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one more question -- MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- back on the last subject, if I may. I'm going to write up the Tidbits tonight, but it goes out to all of those people. And say, for instance, they all decide that they -- somehow their communities, or whatever, want to do an MSTU, can we bring it back if people want to pay for it? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. You want to hear that yes from them? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But not with a grant. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: But there's a procedure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you want us to hold off and just tell DOT, let the communities get together and talk about it, we can certainly do that. We have until January, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just maybe DOT has some money to help out. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They usually have capital dollars, ma'am. They're usually pretty bad about operating dollars. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They build it, but you take care of it. November 12, 2019 Page 157 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You get to sweep it after they build the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. Item #11D RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7655 TO FLORIDA DREDGE AND DOCK, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,351,000 FOR THE DREDGING OF WATER TURKEY BAY, WIGGINS PASS AND CAXAMBAS PASS FOR THE MARCO SOUTH BEACH RENOURISHMENT, AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to award a contract to Florida Dredge and Dock LLC in the amount of $2,351,000 for dredging of Water Turkey Bay, Wiggins Pass, and Caxambas Pass for the Marco South Beach renourishment, authorize the necessary budget amendments, authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. Mr. McAlpin is available to present or respond to questions or accept a motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Wait. We've got lights up. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second that, but I'll also say that -- I wanted to commend staff, Gary McAlpin, for a great job on this, because he really was able to parlay this with some other November 12, 2019 Page 158 dredging work, right, and bring the costs way down for this particular project. So I -- this was presented at the TDC, was it last month or this month, I can't remember. But, I mean, it was a really well -done, well-thought-out plan, which is going to ultimately save us a lot of money. So great job. Thanks. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a question. I didn't quite understand how they -- Marco or the Caxambas Pass could affect the Marco South Beach renourishment. MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am. So what we do -- for the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management. So what we do is we need to renourish the Marco South Beach with about 80,000 cubic yards of material. So our source for that material is Caxambas Pass. So we dredge Caxambas Pass, improve the navigation in that channel, and use that sand to put on the beach at Marco South. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. I knew it needed to be done, but I just didn't know how they correlated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's been moved and seconded that we accept 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.) November 12, 2019 Page 159 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So moved. And just -- thank you, Gary. I have a -- done with you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, you're not. Gary, I'm sorry. Gary, Commissioner Taylor's not done with you, so... COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So now the cameras are rolling, and we know that the entire public of Collier County is listening to this meeting -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Are you going on a subject not on today's agenda? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- tell us about the beach renourishment. What's going on? Give us the latest status. MR. McALPIN: Well, the beach renourishment that we're undergoing right now is about 75 percent complete. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations. MR. McALPIN: We have -- we have -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wow. MR. McALPIN: -- about 40,000 cubic yards left to put on to the beach of -- excuse me -- 140 -- we have 40,000 tons left to put on the beach at this point in time from 165,000. We are making good progress, and we should be able to make our projections for the first of the year being complete, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So -- okay. So it's 75 percent of the amount of sand is on the beach, but you -- MR. McALPIN: Has been placed. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- still have to spread it. So there's a little bit time -- MR. McALPIN: Well, we do that continuously as we put sand on the beach. We spread it. So that's almost a continuous operation. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I won't ask you to commit to any November 12, 2019 Page 160 more, but congratulations. MR. OCHS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One burning question: There was a dump truck that hit a sinkhole in Fort Myers. Obviously, it wasn't ours. In fact, Mary, our wonderful security guard, passed it this morning as it was tipped over into the sinkhole along the road. That wasn't one of ours, was it? MR. McALPIN: No, ma'am, it wasn't. We have enough problems of our own. We don't accept other people's problems. So, no, that was not one of our trucks. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you very much. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Congratulations. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Do you have a question for him? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No question. I was just going to say, while he's still up there, though, I wanted to just, again, give him a pat on the back in case nobody heard it before. When he was out at the Marco beach doing his renourishment, and Marco Beach all of a sudden had a burrowing owl build a nest on the beach. Burrowing owls don't build nests on beaches. And somebody in that great big van or great big tractor saw it, stopped all of the work, cordoned that thing all off to protect that bird, and I thought it was the coolest thing. It was but two days later, and they found a tortoise -- a tortoise hole. All he saw was the tortoise hole, and he saved that. And so just kudos to you and your great group of guys. Thank you. MR. McALPIN: We do have a great group of guys. Thank you. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Thank you, Gary. And, County Manager, before we go, I'm not sure we sufficiently -- I know a little bit about the creation of an MSTU. Commissioner Fiala asked -- this is two subjects ago back on our -- November 12, 2019 Page 161 on your MSTU area. There is a procedure for creation should the voters want to create an MSTU and bring it to us, if I'm not mistaken. MR. KLATZKOW: MSTU is your creation. You can do it voluntary or involuntary. A voluntary MSTU is generally you'll get a petition from the community asking the Board to set up an MSTU and tax themselves. Those are relatively rare. Then you've got the -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Involuntary. MR. KLATZKOW: -- involuntary where the Board will put an MSTU on a community, such as the latest ones we've been doing have been the private roads that need the upgrades. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Well, we were -- I ran into that issue when we were talking about the MSTU for the private roads in Collier County. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And to get that many conflicting viewpoints all heading in the right direction to get your 50 percent plus one, you almost have to go with the involuntary thing, but there is a process for it, so -- and I wasn't sure that it was explained well, so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you so much. And there are some shopping centers there that would want that pretty badly, because that would be an addition to them all along that corridor, just maybe, you know -- who knows, maybe they would like to help fund it. I don't know. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Time will tell. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 15, staff and November 12, 2019 Page 162 commission general communications. I have just one follow-up item. At last Friday's MPO, I know that the MPO asked the Chair to pen a letter to the FDOT secretary urging them to, if not maintain, actually accelerate the I -75/Collier Boulevard interchange project on the work program instead of deferring that. So I believe we may also want to send a similar letter from the chair of the County Commission. And I think there was some discussion about trying to arrange a meeting with the secretary or perhaps the governor or both and members of our commission to try to lobby to accelerate that project. So my question is, would you like us to prepare a letter for signature of the Chair to the governor and the secretary to kind of mimic what the MPO board had done? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: We're okay with that, yes. MR. OCHS: Okay. If you'd like me to try to arrange for those meetings, I'd be happy to do that as well. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. And it's my understanding that they are in the process. They're -- the SIS funding is the challenge right now, and that they are trying to develop their budget so that those meetings need to be not in January; they need to be now. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Other than that, I just want to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, that's right. Happy Thanksgiving. Here we are. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Happy Thanksgiving, yep. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Goodness. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: County Attorney? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir. November 12, 2019 Page 163 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And, Madam Clerk? THE CLERK: Nothing, thank you. Happy Thanksgiving, too. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: To you as well. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes, I have a -- I have a piece of good news for a change. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I got an email from a constituent that lives in Naples Park. As part of some of that utilities work in Naples Park, there's a couple of lift stations that have been moved around and relocated. And this one constituent, Ms. Kane, wrote and said that I'm contacting you as a follow-up to my previous contact regarding the new pump station at 512 103rd Avenue North as well as specifically the efforts of John Arteaga of the Wastewater Division. We live nearby, are no longer experiencing the odor from the station, have several calls from Johnny Arteaga who explained the procedure thoroughly and ongoing efforts the department is making to control the odor. I appreciate John Arteaga's updates as well as his professionalism, knowledge support, and continuing efforts to stay on top of the problem. I have a sense of confidence that this problem -- that should this problem recur at any time, I now have someone to contact who quickly responds and alleviates the problem. Johnny Arteaga and I have agreed to call one another if either of us becomes aware of a concerning situation at the station. So kudos to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- staff -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Solid waste. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- Dr. George. Great customer November 12, 2019 Page 164 service, yeah. And, thank you, Johnny Arteaga out there somewhere for doing such a great job. MR. OCHS: We'll make sure he knows. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it when the buck stops here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was great. Yeah, congratulations. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. We're going to have a big turkey dinner at my house, and a lot of my kids are going to be here, at least four of them, with all the grandkids -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What time shall we show up? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 7:30 in the evening. Actually, it's 1:00 in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: She didn't miss a beat, did she? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: She made a funny. That was perfect. We're eating at 1:00, but you show up -- okay. Commissioner Saunders, we're going to let you go now. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody and to our staff. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: You as well. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We'll probably see all of you next Wednesday -- is it next Wednesday that we have the Farm-City? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, Farm-City. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, just one thing. I'd like to see if there's support among my commission to bring the question of the census and taking the organizing position for the census count. It's -- I received a call from Superintendent Patton, who after our last meeting, when we said, okay, the school's going to do it, let them do it, and she called me and said, uh-uh. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: School's not going to do it? November 12, 2019 Page 165 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They're not going to do it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're not going to do it. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think it's critical to our bottom line. And I don't know how to do it or a way to do it, but I think that Mr. Mullins -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders needs to hear this, and I don't know what they're talking about. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I missed an item. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes, you did. Commissioner Taylor was -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He agreed. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So he's just going to vote -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's a vote, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's going to go out and take the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to go out and go -- if you go along with what I'm getting ready to say, I'll go along with whatever you just said. I don't know what it was, but -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, basically, the census issue. You know, we need to understand what the role of the county would be. The school board is unwilling -- the school system, according to Superintendent Patton, is not going to take the lead on it. I've been reassured by the NAACP, Mr. Keyes, sitting in the back -- and I actually got that confirmed yesterday again, that he is -- he has contacted church leaders. He is setting up a network, but somehow the county has to be the big brother in this. Now, I don't know what that means, but I sure would like a discussion at our next meeting, and maybe Mr. Mullins can do the research. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: I would like to do that. Because we had a discussion about it. We all kind of agreed -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Said the school -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: -- that the school district was going November 12, 2019 Page 166 to do it, and now they're saying no. So maybe we could have a discussion with the school district, joint venture; do something. I think the county does need to take the lead. It's imperative for us to have an accurate count. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's how we -- it determines the demographics of the community. It's grant money. It's -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so I would -- you know, I think Superintendent Patton is willing to send someone here to talk about what -- their role in it. I know that Mr. Keyes is going to talk about what his role would be in it, and that kind of leaves Mr. Mullins to explain what our role is based on his research. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say, for instance, none of this works. Where do the -- where does the government go -- if we don't have a solution, where do they go to get this done? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They're doing it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So, period? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: It's being done, but then this is a coordination effort between the federal government and us on a local basis, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To encourage and actually make sure our numbers are as accurate as they possibly can. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that, and I know it means a lot to us, but if we don't have the resources and, say, NAACP doesn't have them -- everybody has a little bit of resources but nothing else, who is going to be in charge to make sure it's all coordinated and volunteer coordination and so forth? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just asking it because -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's the point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're going to have to figure it November 12, 2019 Page 167 out. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's the point. That's the point that she's making. MR. OCHS: You know, the Census Bureau has their own outreach efforts. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do they? MR. OCHS: Yes. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: They do. Yeah. They're all over -- they're all over in my communities where I've been traveling, so -- but I think we could bring it up at our next meeting and maybe have a cost analysis with regard to a lead person, joint venture with the school district and -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Of what it entails. I don't even know what it entails except when I got the call, they said, nope, it's not us. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we'll bring back the same report we did last time. We took you through three options. And you didn't want the county to do it primarily because Sunshine requirements and the appointments, and they're going to be out taking the census here in a few months. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep, we've got -- MR. OCHS: So by the time we go through the application process and get it back on a board agenda for appointment and get them their Sunshine Law orientation, you know, it's March. But if that's what you want to do, we'll bring it back. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I guess my question is, do we have to go that way, and do we have -- MR. OCHS: No. That's -- we gave you two other options, and we'll bring those back again in December. COMMISSIONER FIALA: January or December? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: December, at our next meeting in November 12, 2019 Page 168 December. And we've got head nods on all that, so good. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. That's it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I think that there's one issue that I think staff needs a little bit of direction on. At our last -- I believe it was our last meeting, we directed staff to prepare an invitation to negotiate to see whether there was an operator of a golf course that could come into Golden Gate City, take a look at that golf course, provide some family entertainment and restaurant golf course operations, something that -- CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: There was something on today's agenda with regard to that in the consent or summary. One had to do with the release of the limitations of hours of operation and parking and so on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. We directed staff to eliminate the cap on the number of seats in a restaurant from 150 to a higher number and also the hours of operation. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, this is -- we directed staff to prepare the ITE, and I think staff just needs direction to issue it. Is that what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. This is for the affordable housing component we talked about, Commissioner. So there was -- the Community Foundation has a $10 million grant that's on the table, and I think they want a little bit of comfort that the Board's going to partner with somebody, so we're going to put an ITN on for that. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So you have direction on the other ITN? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's moving forward, yes, sir. November 12, 2019 Page 169 CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So this is on housing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We were going to bring back the ITN, if the Board gave us three nods, in December. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's a not-for-profit that's offered up a very substantial amount of money to help subsidize what they describe as essential services personnel. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: ESP. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: ESP: Firefighters, police officers, schoolteachers, nurses, that sort of thing. They want to know that the County Commission is serious about considering that. And what we've suggested is that there's property at this Golden Gate Golf Course that would satisfy that need. It would be a great location. It would not prevent us from doing another 12-hole type of a golf course on that property. So the issue is giving staff direction to see what kind of interest there is from developers to do that. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: And I don't mean to interrupt you, but from a procedural standpoint, do you need to have that direction now to go forward with the IT (sic) for them, or should we bring it up as an actual agenda item for public discussion? Because there are people that might not think that housing on that golf course is such a great idea. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the ITN drafted, and with the concurrence of the Board today, we'll put it on the December agenda. And then if you have any comments or the public has any comments after that, we would advertise it. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: While we're talking about that subject, you've been mentioning a 150-seat restaurant on that property, too? What is that? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right now under the current November 12, 2019 Page 170 zoning, because it's golf course zoning, a restaurant operation typically goes with a golf course. So in that particular zoning, golf course zoning classification, that particular PUD, you can only have 150 seats. And so at our last meeting, the Commission agreed to direct staff to do a rezone petition to eliminate that cap so that if there is an operator that can come in and take over the golf course and provide that type of an amenity, they're going to want more than 150 seats. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a restaurant in Collier County that seats more than 150 people? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have very few that seat less than that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Not in my area. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's not a big number. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, it's kind of a magic number. If you have more than 150 seats, you can get a full liquor-type license as a matter of right. If you have less than 150, you have to get a -- you have to purchase a liquor license. So most restaurants are substantially higher than 150. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: So you've got head nods to go forward on the IT, and then we'll have a -- for the housing component, and then we'll have an actual discussion where the public can weigh in whenever that proposal comes back. MR. CASALANGUIDA: December, sir. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: That's my -- in December, okay. And I -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just -- I wish everyone a blessed and food-filled Thanksgiving. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Same to you. I am not going to be joining you while you're serving the public of Collier County at November 12, 2019 Page 171 Farm-City. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going to be hunting the turkeys? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: No, no, no. I'll be having Thanksgiving with my -- well, I'll be having Thanksgiving with my mother. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On Wednesday? CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: The Wednesday before Thanksgiving, yes. So I'm always gone in Pennsylvania then. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it goes to Pennsylvania. CHAIRMAN McDANIEL: Yes. My mother lives in Pennsylvania. And she's watching, so say hello. All right. With that, we are adjourned. See you in December. ***** **** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried by consensus that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 2019-208: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES PHASE III, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-6935, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 2019-209: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE November 12, 2019 Page 172 PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF AVILA UNIT SIX, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20120001662, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 2019-210: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MADISON ESTATES, APPLICATION NUMBER 99-16, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 2019-11: PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF PEBBLEBROOKE COMMERCIAL PHASE IV, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-5145, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 2019-212: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF SOUTHEAST IMMOKALEE, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-3410, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A6 November 12, 2019 Page 173 RESOLUTION 2019-213: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF EDEN ON THE BAY, APPLICATION NUMBER 99-02, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 2019-214: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF TORINO AND MIRAMONTE, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-6320, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 2019-215: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT, APPLICATION NUMBER AR-13078, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 2019-216: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BAREFOOT BAY, APPLICATION NUMBER 00-36, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item#16A10 November 12, 2019 Page 174 ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPES AT ORANGETREE (WATER MAIN EXTENSION), PL20180001641 – LOCATED OFF OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND RANDALL BLVD. Item #16A11 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES – LEARNING CENTER, PL20180002553 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,750.16 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY Item #16A12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR RICHMOND PARK (FIRE HYDRANT), PL20170002337 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,839.16 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S November 12, 2019 Page 175 DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD JUST EAST OF COLLIER BLVD. Item #16A13 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR HIWASSE – LOCK-UP STORAGE, PL20180002067, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $13,593.27 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY Item #16A14 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 7C, PL20180001299 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 – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY Item #16A15 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND November 12, 2019 Page 176 SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE CLUB AT PELICAN BAY, PL20180002468, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $13,260.49 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AND FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY Item #16A16 WORK ORDER TO PREFERRED MATERIALS, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE “OIL WELL ROAD SHOULDER IMPROVEMENTS – SEGMENT I” PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $596,370.44 (PROJECT #60231.2) AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED WORK ORDER Item #16A17 WORK ORDER TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FL, LLC, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE “EVERGLADES BOULEVARD NORTH SHOULDER IMPROVEMENTS – SEGMENT I” PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $620,373.28 (PROJECT #60237.1) Item #16A18 AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE ROADWAY SEGMENT OF WILSON BOULEVARD (FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD SOUTH FOR 1.5 MILES) WITH TWO (2) November 12, 2019 Page 177 RECOGNITION SIGNS AND TWO (2) ADOPT-A-ROAD LOGO SIGNS FOR A TOTAL COST OF $200 WITH THE VOLUNTEER GROUP, COLLIER COUNTY CASH COWS INC. Item #16A19 THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A VALUE OF $220,980.21 FOR PAYMENT OF $730.21 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JANICE RIVES AND ARTURO RIVES, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM20160008025 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5378 BROWARD ST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA – VIOLATION CONSISTED OF THE BOARDING OF AN UNOCCUPIED HOME WITHOUT OBTAINING A BOARDING CERTIFICATE Item #16A20 RESOLUTION 2019-217: AMENDING RESOLUTION 12-234, TO REMOVE THE TRI-ANNUAL AMENDMENT CYCLES AND ALLOW FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO BE PROCESSED, REVIEWED AND SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AS SUBMITTED, AS ALIGNED WITH THE FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3184 Item #16A21 AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO CONTRACT NO. 18-7245 WITH TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC., TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL November 12, 2019 Page 178 TASKS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN - INCREASING AGENCY/STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION AND PRE- APPLICATION MEETINGS BY $14,688. ADDED SUB-TASK ADDITIONAL COORDINATION - PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS; GMP/LDC CODE REVISIONS BY $19,460. DECREASED CONTINGENCY BY $34,148 Item #16A22 TWO DONATION AGREEMENTS FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (PARCELS 445DE AND 446DE) REQUIRED FOR GULFVIEW DRIVE. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $1,000 – FOLIO #48171800007 AND #48171840009 Item #16A23 THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $18,927.18 FOR PAYMENT OF $1,827.18 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. RANDOLPH CODNER AND VAN B. RHONE, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4343 22ND AVE SE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - THE LIEN WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY DUE TO AN ABANDONED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKED ON AN UNIMPROVED ESTATES ZONED PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON APRIL 3, 2014 Item #16A24 UTILIZING $199,674 FROM THE GOLDEN GATE CITY November 12, 2019 Page 179 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE TRUST FUND FOR A GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY COMPLETE STREET STUDY AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16A25 EXTENDING THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT’S (RFMUD) “EARLY ENTRY” BONUS TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENTS RIGHTS (TDR) CREDIT, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) AND IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A26 ENTERING INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES, INC., DBA TINDALE OLIVER, RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NO. 19-7563, “EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.” – TO STUDY THE LAND USES ALONG THE EAST US41 CORRIDOR Item #16A27 RESOLUTION 2019-218: ESTABLISHING A STANDARD TEMPLATE FOR CONSTRUCTION BONDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COLLOCATION OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES ON COUNTY UTILITY POLES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS November 12, 2019 Page 180 Item #16A28 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,580 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20160000314) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ANTHEM PARKWAY EXTENSION – LOCATED WITHIN AVE MARIA Item #16A29 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,300 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.079, PL20120001414 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TWIN EAGLES PHASE 2B – BLOCK 106 - THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY Item #16A30 THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBERS 60.100, PL20120002540; 60.100-1, PL20130002717; 60.100-2, PL20140000342; 60.100-3, PL20150000128 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH NAPLES RESERVE PHASE ONE - THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY November 12, 2019 Page 181 Item #16A31 EXTENDING THE EXISTING CONTRACTS WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL & INFRASTRUCTURE, LLC, AND HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS, P.A. UNDER AGREEMENT #15-6382, “GRANT FUNDED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE,” FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO 180 DAYS TO ALLOW STAFF TO COMPLETE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT AND TO PREVENT A LAPSE IN THIS SERVICE Item #16A32 HEARING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AT TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED DAYTIME HEARINGS AND WAIVING THE NIGHTTIME HEARING REQUIREMENT – SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD DECEMBER 10, 2019 AND JANUARY 14, 2020 Item #16C1 SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 19-7634, “HERITAGE BAY GOVERNMENT CENTER DESIGN,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED COMPANY, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC., SO THAT STAFF CAN BRING A CONTRACT BACK TO THE BOARD AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING - THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON 6.33 ACRES OF COLLIER COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED November 12, 2019 Page 182 APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF 951 AND IMMOKALEE ROAD AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (NCH) NORTHEAST FACILITY AND WEST OF HERITAGE BAY VISTAS Item #16C2 AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7531, “PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES,” TO PALM BEACH PLUMBING PARTS INC., AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR, AND JAMESON CURRIE CORPORATION INC. D/B/A JAMESON SUPPLY INC., AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR, FOR COUNTY-WIDE PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES Item #16C3 AWARD AGREEMENTS FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION NO. 19-7539, “ROOFING REPLACEMENT CONTRACTORS,” FOR COUNTY-WIDE ROOFING REPLACEMENT SERVICES TO: ADVANCED ROOFING, INC., F.A. REMODELING AND REPAIRS INC., CROWTHER ROOFING AND SHEET METAL OF FLORIDA, INC., ABOVE ALL ROOFING CONTRACTOR, LLC, AND TARGET ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC. Item #16C4 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO TAKE ANY AND ALL LEGAL ACTION NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 249 BROCKINGTON DRIVE, WHICH ESCHEATED TO THE COUNTY DUE TO THE PRIOR November 12, 2019 Page 183 OWNER’S FAILURE TO PAY TAXES, IS VACATED OF ANY OCCUPANTS AND THE DILAPIDATED TRAILER ON THE PROPERTY IS REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED, IF IT REMAINS Item #16C5 A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,869,000 TO FUND THE JAIL’S KITCHEN REPLACEMENT AND SAFETY UPGRADES PROJECT (#53007) FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX Item #16C6 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 19-7593, “PALM RIVER UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Item #16C7 AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7625, U.S. 41 EAST WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, TO DBE MANAGEMENT INC., D/B/A DBE UTILITY SERVICES, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $660,591, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT (PROJECT NUMBER 70248) Item #16C8 November 12, 2019 Page 184 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKINGS AND AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONTRACT RELATED TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (RPS) NUMBER 19-7621, "GOLDEN GATE WASTEWATER ENGINEER OF RECORD (EOR) AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS." Item #16C9 BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $911,912.93 FOR THE VANDERBILT DRIVE CUL-DE-SACS PUBLIC UTILITIES RENEWAL, PROJECT NUMBER 70122 – BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACTOR FIXED COSTS AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY QUANTITIES Item #16C10 EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BRADSTROM VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR- PROFIT CORPORATION, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,553 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NUMBER 70043 – LOCATED AT 338 BRADSTROM CIRCLE Item #16D1 AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 19-7630 TO INFINITE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, FOR THE “BAREFOOT BEACH BOARDWALK AND PAVILION REPLACEMENT,” IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,343.28, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO November 12, 2019 Page 185 EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16D2 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO ADMINISTER THE ALLOCATION OF THE STATE-MANDATED MATCH FOR FY20 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,335,934 - THE AGREEMENT REQUIRES THAT DLC PROVIDE ADULT AND CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH AND ADULT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES Item #16D3 A TEMPORARY RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH FISCHER BROTHERS INDUSTRIES, INC., TO ALLOW A PORTION OF THE RICH KING GREENWAY BE UTILIZED AS AN ACCESS AND STAGING AREA FOR A MOON LAKE DEVELOPMENT LAKE BANK REMEDIATION PROJECT, AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY – FOLIO(S) #6065000102, #60605500042, #60606000059 AND #25891000647 Item #16D4 AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AND AN ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE EMERGENCY HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS November 12, 2019 Page 186 FUNDING FOR FY19/20. (NET FISCAL IMPACT $73,218.87) Item #16D5 ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHERE THE TERM OF THE OBLIGATION HAS BEEN MET – LOCATED AT 1049 SUMMERFIELD DRIVE Item #16D6 TWO (2) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $33,458 AND APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT – LOCATED AT 3525 12TH AVE NE AND 661 WINDSOR SQUARE #101 Item #16D7 ONE (1) RELEASE OF LIEN FOR AN OWNER WHO HAS MET THE 15-YEAR AFFORDABILITY TERM OF A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP GRANT AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING, PROVIDE A REFUND – LOCATED AT 14581 APALACHEE STREET Item #16D8 A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,981.24 TO FUND LOBBY AND OFFICE IMPROVEMENTS AT COLLIER November 12, 2019 Page 187 MUSEUM AT GOVERNMENT CENTER – IN PREPARATIONS FOR THE TEMPORARY LOAN OF THE KEY MARCO ARTIFACTS FROM THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Item #16D9 RESOLUTION 2019-219: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT AN INITIAL DISTRIBUTION FROM THE HARVEY M. SHREVE JR. IRREVOCABLE TRUST OF 1997 (TRUST), IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,600,000 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT DISTRIBUTIONS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16D10 RESOLUTION 2019-220: A FY2019/2020 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 RURAL GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $484,276 TO PROVIDE TRANSIT SERVICE TO THE RURAL AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY; APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS. TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT IS $968,552 WITH A FEDERAL SHARE OF $484,276 AND LOCAL MATCH OF $484,276 Item #16D11 RESOLUTION 2019-221: THE FY20-21 PUBLIC November 12, 2019 Page 188 TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT (PTGA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,965,584 PROVIDING FOR STATE FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE COLLIER COUNTY FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $982,792, APPROVE A LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $982,792, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16D12 RESOLUTION 2019-222: ESTABLISHING A “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING” ZONE AT THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FACILITY LOCATED AT 8300 RADIO ROAD Item #16D13 DONATED SERVICES FROM NAPLES VELO CYCLING ALLIANCE, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, FOR THE PURPOSES OF UPGRADING THE STARTING GATE AT THE NAPLES BMX SPORTS PARK AND APPROVE THE TEMPORARY RIGHT OF ENTRY WITH BONNESS, INC., TO PERFORM EXCAVATION/SITE WORK REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE NEW STARTING – LOCATED AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Item #16D14 RESOLUTION 2019-223: HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) AGREEMENT #H0311 FROM THE November 12, 2019 Page 189 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (FDEM) IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,000 FOR HARDENING OF THE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICES’ (UES) INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SERVICES (IFAS) BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS WHICH INCLUDE A LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION OF $75,000, AND A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO REVISE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR AND/OR RECEIVE THE HMGP Item #16E1 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-ME, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP FIVE RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING – TOP FIVE FIRMS: (1) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., (2) MCKIM & CREED, INC., (3) WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., (4) JENKINS MAAG ASSOCIATES, LLC, AND (5) STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. Item #16E2 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-CE, November 12, 2019 Page 190 “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – CIVIL ENGINEERING CATEGORY,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL THIRTY-SIX RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E3 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-AR, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY - ARCHITECTURAL STUDY, PLANNING AND DESIGN CATEGORY,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP NINE RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING – TOP NINE FIRMS: (1) VICTOR J. LATAVISH, ARCHITECT, P.A., (2) WOOD ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS, INC., (3) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., (4) HARVARD JOLLY, INC., (5) BSSW ARCHITECTS, INC., (6) ADG ARCHITECTURE, LLC, (7) STUDIOPLUS, LLC, (8) PK STUDIOS, INC., AND (9) RG ARCHITECTS, P.A. Item #16E4 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING OF REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-TR, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY – TRANSIT PLANNING, DESIGN AND/OR STUDY CATEGORY,” AND November 12, 2019 Page 191 AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL FOUR RANKED FIRMS, SO THAT PROPOSED AGREEMENTS MAY BE BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING – THE FOUR FIRMS: (1) JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., (2) ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., (3) JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., AND (4) CAPITAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS LLC. Item #16E5 AWARD REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 18-7432-AH, “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY - ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION, STUDY, PLANNING AND DESIGN CATEGORY,” TO PARKER/MUDGETT/SMITH ARCHITECTS, INC., BENDER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, P.A., MLD ARCHITECTS, LLC, AND RENKER, EICH, PARKS ARCHITECTS, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS Item #16E6 RESOLUTION 2019-224: ANNUAL STATEWIDE MUTUAL AIDE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND OTHER COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT Item #16E7 November 12, 2019 Page 192 RENEWAL OF THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) FOR COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE CLASS 1 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT (ALS) FOR ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE Item #16E8 RECOGNIZING CARRY-FORWARD FROM ACCRUED INTEREST EARNED FROM THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 BY EMS COUNTY GRANT REVENUE AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $864.26 Item #16E9 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT - FOR ON-LINE SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,076.49 AND NET BOOK TOTAL FOR ONE VEHICLE OF $33,081.20 Item #16E10 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL – FOR TWO CHANGE ORDERS THAT MODIFY CONTRACTS BY $37,520.06 AND TWO AFTER-THE- November 12, 2019 Page 193 FACT MEMOS WITH A FISCAL IMPACT OF $28,663.33 Item #16E11 AN AWARD OF $63,560 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR SUPPLIES AND TRAINING AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16F1 A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY – BUDGET #20-090 FOR SERVICES UNDER FUND 123 FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS Item #16F2 RESOLUTION 2019-225: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY2019-20 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16F3 USING TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING DECEMBER 2019 SPORTS TOURISM EVENTS THE GATORADE COLLEGE SOCCER SHOWCASE DECEMBER 7TH-8TH, 2019 UP TO $9,100 AND THE KELLEHER FIRM HOLIDAY HOOPFEST DECEMBER November 12, 2019 Page 194 27TH-30TH, 2019 UP TO $5,625 FOR A TOTAL UP TO $14,725 AND FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM Item #16F4 APPROVING SUMMIT ORTHOPEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., (“SUMMIT”) AS A QUALIFIED APPLICANT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BASIC INDUSTRY JOB GROWTH PROMOTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT “PEAK.” Item #16F5 AUTHORIZING AN $146,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRYFORWARD FOR TWO PURCHASE ORDERS THAT DID NOT ROLL FROM FY 2019 TO FY 2020 Item #16F6 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT #19-7509 BETWEEN CULTURAL PLANNING GROUP, LLC AND COLLIER COUNTY TO INCREASE REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,326 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES TOURISM TO COLLIER COUNTY - FOR A TOTAL TRAVEL EXPENSE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $16,106.52 TO COMPLETE STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT Item #16F7 November 12, 2019 Page 195 A WORK ORDER UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 14-6213, “UTILITY CONTRACTORS,” FOR PELICAN BAY LAKE 2-9 RESTORATION TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $682,722.70 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16G1 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 16-6561, “DESIGN SERVICES FOR MARCO EXECUTIVE TERMINAL,” WITH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,450 FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH BID ALTERNATES 1 AND 2 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT, AND TO APPROVE INCLUDING THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF BID ALTERNATES 1 AND 2 IN QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA INC. CONTRACT NO. 18-7366 - MARCO AIRPORT APRON & ASSOCIATED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD BY $621,365 FROM $3,689,425 TO $4,310,790 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER FOR THE INCREASE TO CONTRACT NO. 18-7366 Item #16G2 AGREEMENT NO. 19-7558, “DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT RUNWAY 18/36 PROJECT,” AND THE “TAXIWAY C EXTENSION PROJECT” IN THE LUMP SUM NOT-TO-EXCEED November 12, 2019 Page 196 AMOUNT OF $680,344 WITH HOLE MONTES, INC. Item #16H1 THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (FAC) WATER POLICY COMMITTEE’S 2019-20 PROPOSED GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION AT THE 2020 LEGISLATIVE SESSION - REVIEW OF SIXTEEN (16) PROPOSED POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Item #16J1 REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 Item #16J2 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 OCTOBER 10, 2019 AND OCTOBER 30, 2019 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16J3 AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL OF THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR THE SHERIFF’S OFFICE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE November 12, 2019 Page 197 TREATMENT Item #16J4 EXECUTION OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $635,000 FOR COMMUNICATIONS VESTA HARDWARE REPLACEMENT (9-1-1) Item #16J5 BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 6, 2019 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2019-226: APPOINTING HANNAH RINALDI TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 11, 2022 Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2019-227: APPOINTING JENNIFER MITCHELL TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 1, 2022 Item #16K3 RESOLUTION 2019-228: RE-APPOINTING BRUCE R. FORMAN AND GABRIELLA R. MIYAMOTO TO THE VANDERBILT November 12, 2019 Page 198 BEACH BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO TERMS EXPIRING NOVEMBER 13, 2023 Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2019-229: RE-APPOINTING AUSTIN BELL AND ELIZABETH PERDICHIZZI TO THE HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD TO THREE-YEAR TERMS Item #16K5 RESOLUTION 2019-230: RE-APPOINTING EDWARD MORTON TO THE HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO A TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 9, 2023 Item #16K6 A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN JEFFREY AND BRENDA LANE AND COLLIER COUNTY, RELATED TO DISPUTE OVER OWNERSHIP OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6915 OAKMONT PARKWAY, NAPLES, FLORIDA, WITH THE COUNTY ACCEPTING OWNERSHIP OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THE DRAINAGE LINE AND BOTH PARTIES WAIVING COSTS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE FAILURE AND REPLACEMENT OF THE PRIOR DRAINAGE LINE Item #16K7 November 12, 2019 Page 199 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND BRING BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2018- 21, IN ORDER TO CODIFY THE BOARD’S APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Item #17A ORDINANCE 2019-37: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 17- 45, AS AMENDED, THE LOGAN/IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A DRY CLEANING PLANT FROM 1,500 SQUARE FEET TO 2,500 SQUARE FEET; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND LOGAN BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 18.6+/- ACRES Item #17B – Moved to Item #9F (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #17C ORDINANCE 2019-38: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-12, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) A BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS) PROVISION WITHIN THE CLASS 2 INTER- FACILITY TRANSPORT SERVICES PROVISION November 12, 2019 Page 200 Item #17D RESOLUTION 2019-231: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ADOPTED BUDGET ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:12 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.