Agenda 12/08/2020 Item # 2D (BCC 11/10/2020 Regular Meeting Minutes)12/08/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 2.D
Item Summary: November 10, 2020 BCC Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: 12/08/2020
Prepared by:
Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: MaryJo Brock
11/30/2020 8:12 AM
Submitted by:
Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office
Name: Leo E. Ochs
11/30/2020 8:12 AM
Approved By:
Review:
County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 11/30/2020 8:13 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/08/2020 9:00 AM
2.D
Packet Pg. 24
November 10, 2020
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 10, 2020
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: Burt L. Saunders
Andy Solis
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Donna Fiala
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
Geoff Willig, Senior Operations Analyst
November 10, 2020
Page 2
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ladies and gentlemen, the
meeting of the County Commission will please come to order.
We have with us this morning Reverend Beverly Duncan, member of
the Naples United Church of Christ, to lead us in an invocation, and
at the conclusion of the invocation, if you would please remain
standing and, Commissioner Fiala, if you would lead us in the pledge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would love to do that. Thank
you.
Item #1
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE –
INVOCATION GIVEN
REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning. Spirit of life and
love, to you we lift the deliberations of this day and in this place.
The stewardship of Collier County needs the helping wisdom
that only you can instill. We ask that your spirit surround the
commissioners and all participants as the democratic process unfolds
today.
Being a commissioner is an awesome calling and responsibility.
We are grateful for the citizens who take it on. Shape their words
and values this morning and always. Keep them and all of us strong
in unsettled times and inspire us to combine all of the pieces of our
fondest dreams to make a better, kinder world.
And when this meeting is done, may all go in peace. Shalom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you place your hand
over your heart and say with me...
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The last time.
November 10, 2020
Page 3
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I want to introduce the
November/December artists. And if you'll turn and look behind you,
you'll see some incredible art displays. We've been very blessed to
have artists in our community provide these for us over the years.
Let me tell you a little bit about the artist. The featured Artist
of the Month is Collier County resident Roberta Robb Walker.
Roberta's array of creative art and photography are products of her
travels throughout Florida.
Her photography primarily focuses on nature, landscapes,
sunsets, and capturing unique moments in time. She uses mediums
encompassing collage, watercolor, and oil to acrylic while using
various forms of tones, color enhancements, overlays, and other
special effects. Roberta is honored to share with us her series of
photos named "Tree Series."
I want to thank her for sharing this beautiful art with us.
Mr. Manager, we do have one proclamation I believe Commissioner
McDaniel wants to read this morning.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And perhaps we can -- we'll take
that off of the consent agenda. It's a proclamation dealing with the
Farm-City Barbecue, so we'll get to that once we complete the rest of
the consent agenda.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EXX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER FOR
CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
November 10, 2020
Page 4
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These
are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of November 10th, 2020.
The first proposed change is to add Item 10A to this morning's
agenda. It's a recommendation to consider a waiver of a requirement
barring amplified sound after 7:00 p.m. for an event at the Collier
County Fairgrounds. It's scheduled for Sunday, December 6th.
Commissioner McDaniel has moved that onto the agenda this
morning.
The next proposed change is to add Item 16D11 under your
public services consent agenda. This was an add -on item that you
received last week. It's a contract award for preconstruction services
related to renovation work ongoing at our Sun-N-Fun water park.
That was added at the staff's request.
And the one agenda note I have this morning, Commissioners,
Item 16K4 on your County Attorney consent agenda, there was an
inadvertent omission of a portion of the executive summary title on
your index. It was included in the executive summary itself, but I
just wanted to note that, and it's underscored on your change sheet.
And those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any
registered speakers on the consent-agenda items?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we'll go through
with each commissioner in terms of changes to the agenda and ex
parte disclosures. We'll start -- we'll give Commissioner McDaniel a
break this time. We'll start at the other end. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was all ready this time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes to the agenda on the
consent and summary. I just have disclosures on 17B for the Temple
Shalom facility Planned Unit Development. I had discussions with
November 10, 2020
Page 5
Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no changes, no
corrections, and only one declaration, and that is for 17B as well, and
I've had meetings with the applicants.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, good morning.
I have one change request I'd like to -- hey, good morning,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. Good
morning.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to ask if we could
move 16C4. That's that vacant tract of land on the Golden Gate Golf
Course. I'd like to move it out of consent and up to 11 -- whatever
11 we're doing the golf course on. I can't remember right off the top.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 11B.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The Golden Gate Golf
Course. If that request meets with your approval, I'd like to hear that
and have a little discussion about it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Ochs, in terms
of -- I guess you'll just put that as part of that agenda item.
MR. OCHS: Well, sir, I suggest just -- we make that 11H but
hear it at the same time. That way if there's different votes for each
item, we can record them separately.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Taylor,
do you have any changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have one more.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a formal. I, as well,
had communication on 17B. Just phone calls.
November 10, 2020
Page 6
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes, no additions to the
agenda, and I have a Zoom meeting on July the 9th, 2020, with Rich
Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold on 17B. I also spoke with Rich
Yovanovich about this last week in a conversation. Nothing -- no
meeting. And then on 17D, I met with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Rosenthal at 10 -- on 10/24, October 24th --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- nineteen.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I have no changes to
the agenda, and I also have the same ex parte communications in
reference to 17B. No other.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I understand we do have an online
summary agenda --
MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: -- speaker.
MR. WILLIG: Mark Saperstein.
MR. OCHS: Which item?
MR. WILLIG: I don't know. I just received it. One second.
MR. OCHS: Call his name, please.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich, if you'll identify
yourself for the record.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich. Mr. Saperstein was only going to speak if we got
pulled off the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Apologize.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need a motion in reference to
the regular, consent, and summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve them.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second.
November 10, 2020
Page 7
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
November 10, 2020
Page 8
Item #2B
OCTOBER 13, 2020 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES –
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
Item 2B, the October 13 minutes. Anybody have any questions
or comments concerning the minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If not, we need a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved -- second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
We do have one Employee of the Month issue to deal with, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
Item #3D – Consent Agenda Item #16F1
RECOGNIZING JENNIFER SMITH, PUBLIC UTILITIES AS THE
OCTOBER 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – RECOGNIZED
November 10, 2020
Page 9
That's Item 16F1 on your agenda this morning. This is a
recommendation to recognize Jennifer Smith, Senior Program
Analyst with our Public Utilities Department, as the October 2020
Employee of the Month.
Jennifer has been a member of the county staff since 2018. She
recently stepped up to the plate accepting the day-to-day
responsibilities left by a vacant managerial position while that
position was being filled. As a dedicated team member committed
to the success of our enterprise asset management and geographic
information system sections, she did not let anything fall through the
cracks. Even with the added complications during the early
coronavirus work-from-home transitions, she diligently met the
demands required to keep the division moving forward.
Jennifer maintained continuity for the division over several
months and was relied on as the point person for key initiatives, all of
which were successfully completed. Of particular note, she ushered
in the ability for the Public Utility Department's inventory team to
automatically track inventory with a new bar code scanning system.
Jennifer is a true professional devoted to accomplishing the
mission of the agency wherever her talents can serve, and it's for
these reasons that we're honored to present Jennifer Smith, your
October 2020 Employee of the Month.
Congratulations, Jennifer.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have one proclamation that
we've pulled off the consent agenda. Commissioner McDaniel,
you're recognized.
Item #4A
November 10, 2020
Page 10
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18 - 25, 2020 BE
DESIGNATED AS FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO CYNDEE
WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. – ADOPTED; READ INTO RECORD
BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you, sir.
Whereas, November 18th through the 25th, 2020, is National
Farm-City Week, a time set aside to recognize and honor the
contributions of the country's agriculturalists and to strengthen the
bond between urban and rural citizens; and,
Whereas, in Collier County, the high point of Farm-City Week
is the Annual Farm-City Barbecue presented by Farm-City Barbecue
of Collier County, Inc., local business and agricultural leaders; and,
Whereas, the 65th Farm-City Barbecue has been postponed due
to COVID-19 pandemic, the organization is continuing with annual
raffle with proceeds benefiting local youth leadership development
programs through Collier County 4H Association, Youth Leadership
Collier, Collier Junior Deputies League, and the Collier County Key
Club;
Whereas, the agricultural and natural resources industry of
Southwest Florida has an impact of in excess of 8.1 billion -- that's B,
with a B -- annually; and,
Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for agriculture
providing vital ecological benefits, including habitat for wildlife and
recharge area for our aquifer; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners -- Collier County
Commissioners supports local agriculture through programs,
including cooperation with the University of Florida, IFAS extension
center; and,
November 10, 2020
Page 11
Whereas, we courage all citizens to pause to recognize the
contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our economy, our
food supply, and our society.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, great appreciation and honor is owed to
the Collier County's agriculturalists, and that November 28th [sic]
through the 25th, 2020, be designated as Farm-City Week in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. We do need a motion, I
think, to approve that proclamation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So -- oh -- second your motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. Commissioner McDaniel's
made the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Taylor.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
That takes us to Agenda Item No. 7. Do we have any speakers?
MR. WILLIG: You do, sir.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Again, just in keeping with our past practice, we
do have three more proclamations that normally would have
November 10, 2020
Page 12
presented. We typically just read those titles to acknowledge the
groups, if you'd like me to do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes, please.
MR. OCHS: Item 16H1 is a proclamation this morning
designating November 2020 as National Hospice and Palliative Care
Month in Collier County. That proclamation has been mailed to
Mark Beland, Community Liaison at Avow Hospice in Naples.
Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating December 1st through the
7th, 2020, as Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Week in Collier County.
That proclamation has been mailed to Yvette Stafford Jones of the
Crohn's Charity Service Foundation. And, finally, Item 16H4 is a
proclamation designating November 2020 as National Native
American Heritage Month in Collier County. The proclamation has
been mailed to Marianne Billie of Clewiston, Florida.
So those are this morning's proclamations, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we've already approved
those.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. That will take us to
Agenda Item No. 7. I understand we have a couple registered
speakers.
MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. Your first registered speaker is Laurie
Harris. She will be followed by Kristina Heuser.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. And we provide
opportunity to speak for three minutes on these types of items.
November 10, 2020
Page 13
MS. HARRIS: Good morning, Commissioners.
You know, I find no joy coming here repeatedly, but since my emails
go completely unanswered, I feel the need to be here in per son. I
assume you-all get my emails? I assume you get email. Yeah?
Because it ends with countycommissioner.gov or something like that.
So you-all get the emails? Do you get emails?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. HARRIS: Yes?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're --
MS. HARRIS: Why do you not answer them?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're using up your time, ma'am.
MS. HARRIS: I know. I want to know -- I want to know why
you don't answer your emails, because my emails are saying that --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You can send me an email and ask
me why I don't respond to certain emails. You have a little less than
two minutes to go.
MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir.
If these masks, these face coverings, are so important that they
must be worn all the time, they are clearly infected with medical
waste, and I want them treated as a biohazard and disposed of
properly. I have asked repeatedly now why this plan has not been
implemented. Where is the plan to pick them up in all of the parking
lots? They're the new cigarette butts. They're everywhere. Who's
going to touch them? They're medically infested with bio -waste. I
would like to know what your plan is to dispose of them properly.
Is this not a conversation? I just speak for three minutes, and
you ignore me?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is not a conversation, that is
correct.
MS. HARRIS: So you ignore me? So while I'm not a member
of --
November 10, 2020
Page 14
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm listening. I'm not ignoring
you. I'm listening.
MS. HARRIS: -- your district, I am a citizen of Collier County,
and I am subjected to what you impose on your citizens.
If this face covering is so infected with biohazard waste, why
isn't it be [sic] treated as -- properly as medical waste and disposed of
properly?
And God bless the janitorial services. They come up here and
wipe everything down. This microphone hasn't been wiped down
once, and I'm speaking into it. Do you see the hypocrisy here?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I do see some hypocrisy, but I
think it's coming from the podium there, ma'am.
MS. HARRIS: Exactly what is my hypocrisy?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're speaking into that
microphone complaining about it not being wiped --
MS. HARRIS: I didn't complain about it. I stated a fact. I
did not complain it wasn't wiped down. I stated it was not wiped
down.
I don't care. I don't have a mask on. It's a virus that's
99.9 percent curable for my age group; 99.8 percent if you're over 70.
What are we doing here?
So when is this microphone going to get wiped down? I got 28
seconds. When's this microphone going to get wiped down, replaced
after each speaker? If we're going to do this, let's do this. These
ladies over here are doing it right. They've got their masks on with a
face shield. They want to make sure the virus doesn't get in their
eyes. God bless them. They're fearful of the virus. They are
protecting themselves. I am not fearful. I am responsible for
myself.
No comment, sir?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Next speaker.
November 10, 2020
Page 15
MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. The next registered speaker is
Kristina Heuser.
MR. OCHS: Hold on. Go ahead and clean it, please.
MS. HARRIS: Get that microphone.
MR. OCHS: If you want to use the other one --
MS. HEUSER: I don't mind waiting, and I don't mind using it
not being infected [sic]. Whatever you guys want to do.
Good morning.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning.
MS. HEUSER: Like Ms. Harris, I don't enjoy coming here
repeatedly. I don't enjoy public speaking particularly, and I don't
enjoy being redundant, but I just feel that this issue is too important
to let die.
I'm sure that when you purportedly extended your mask mandate
for six months, you had hoped that all of us would go away, and you
wouldn't have to hear about this anymore. But to me it's important
because it represents something larger. It represents an erosion of
individual liberties.
And I know from looking around the room and, unfortunately,
around the county, a lot of people have come to a point of
acceptance, but I will never do that because I know, as Ms. Harris
stated, that I'm in the best position to make decisions for my health
and the health of my family, and I'm not going to accept some
irrational mandate from government.
Commissioner Saunders, you, yourself, have stated that the
efficacy of masks is questionable at best, but if it's just a minor
inconvenience, what's the harm?
And I think it is harmful on two fronts. It is harmful to your
health. It's actually counterproductive if the objective is slowing the
spread of the virus, because we need to interact with germs and with
viruses in order to develop natural immunity, which is the best
November 10, 2020
Page 16
defense against the virus.
So while you did quote articles from people like Chris Christie
and even our own Health Department director, I wouldn't take health
recommendations from people who are morbidly obese because that,
in and of itself, is a chronic health condition and is a risk factor for
developing severe complications from the virus. So those are the
things that really need to be addressed if we're talking about health.
Secondly, to me, liberty is far more important. What is the
point -- and many of our Founding Fathers made this statement.
What's the point of living if you cannot live freely?
So if, in fact, this virus is deadly, which is belied by the
data -- we know that it has a 99.97 percent survival rate. But if, in
fact, it were deadly, I would choose to accept that risk if it meant that
I could live my life the way that I choose; to interact with people, hug
people, see people's faces, smile at people. And I think that by
requiring people to cover their faces you're really fundamentally
eliminating an important part of their humanity.
And I would ask you to reconsider this. I don't believe that
there is actually a mandate in place. It expired on October 22nd
since you never publicly noticed the prior order. But in spite of that,
I want to continue to speak about this issue and hope that others will
join me in taking off your masks and breathing the air freely because
there is no risk to you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I want to thank all of you in the
audience that are wearing your mask. We imposed that rule in our
county government buildings to protect our county employees.
Now, some of us on this dais have chosen not to do that. I think
that's selfish, quite frankly.
But I want to thank all of you that are wearing your mask
because I think that sends a message that we are concerned about our
neighbors. We are concerned about our county staff. And we'll go
November 10, 2020
Page 17
through a very minor inconvenience to protect others. And I think
that's certainly admirable, so I want to thank you for that.
We have --
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- over 100,000 new cases of
coronavirus every day in this country. We have, I believe, 53,000
people in this country in the hospital today with coronavirus. We
have increasing numbers of hospitalizations in Collier County.
And I think the fact that you are wearing your mask is a n
indication that you care about our healthcare workers and you care
about our community. So I want to thank you for that.
Commissioner Solis, did you want to, or --
MR. WILLIG: I've got an additional registered speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
MR. WILLIG: Dan Cook.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Go to the next speaker. We'll
come back to Dan Cook.
MR. WILLIG: All right. That's all the registered speakers
for --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. If --
MR. WILLIG: -- the public.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- Mr. Cook surfaces during any
part of the meeting, we'll permit him to make his comments.
MR. WILLIG: Sure.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Manager, where does that
take us?
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2020-211: AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL
LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE COLLIER
November 10, 2020
Page 18
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (DEO) AND OTHER AGENCIES
FOR REVIEW – MOTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSMITTAL –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
That takes us to Item 9A, advertised public hearings. This is a
recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Rural
Lands Stewardship Area overlay of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity and other agencies for review.
Mr. Cohen will make the presentation.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning.
MR. COHEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Thaddeus
Cohen, Department Head, for the record.
Today, it's been a long time coming. We believe that we're
closer to moving the Rural Land Stewardship overlay
recommendations forward.
As you know, we've gone through a very long process. I've
been here -- I was in the elevator. Someone asked me how long I've
been here, and I said three years. This has been here for quite some
time.
We had a consensus back in 2002, you can see, in which we had
an opportunity to value the Rural Lands Stewardship area by being
able to protect the flow-ways, retention of agricultural land, and
planning for growth and diversification of Collier County economy,
and I think we're continuing to move that process forward.
What I'd like to do first is to congratulate the Collier County
review team. This can't be done by any one individual, and the folks
that you see here have spent an enormous amount of time trying to
November 10, 2020
Page 19
gain consensus across the various stakeholders to be able to bring us
to the recommendations that we have today.
What you're going to have is a few things. One is an overview
as to where we've been and what we're going to propose. Sir?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask you to do one thing.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Take your time on this. Don't
feel like there is a time limit. Don't feel like you're rushed. This is
probably the most important decision for the future of this county that
we're making, and I don't want anybody to feel that we're moving
through this too quickly.
So as you're going through the slides, if you need to leave them
up for a little longer, don't hesitate to do that. Just make sure that we
get all the information that you want to provide. And that goes for
anybody that's presenting on this topic.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, sir. We appreciate that.
What you're going to hear from us today is a few things: One is
an overview of where we are currently and what it is that we're
proposing. And then Anita will talk about the substantive policy
amendments that we're asking you to consider today. Some
questions have come up as to how we pay for growth, so Amy
Patterson will be addressing that issue, and then the actual draft
amendments that have been modified. What you'll see is that there
was a draft document out there. And we'll talk to you about how i t is
that we've arrived at the final recommendations that we're presenting
to you today.
As an overview, as we've indicated, it's been quite some time.
Back in 1999 to 2000 a final order was developed to adopt an RLSA,
and as you all know, that's been an award-winning program. That's
been in place for almost 20 years.
Between 2007 and 2009, some stakeholders were able to get
November 10, 2020
Page 20
together to review that program and see how it is that they could
make some improvements, and the committee made some
recommendations. But, unfortunately, those were not adopted or
moved forward at that moment in time. So then we go forward 10
more years, and we've had an opportunity, since I've been here, to
develop a white paper, additional public workshops to see if we are
able to bring the various stakeholders together around not only that
five-year plan, but also the white paper that added a little bit more
embellishments to how it is that we could think about how we move
forward in Eastern Collier County.
And so that brings us to where we are today in which we have
the final recommendations from our perspective as a consensus that
we've gotten across the board as to how it is that we can improve a
program that's already working.
So the results of what we've been able to do over the last 20
years is 55,000 acres of sending areas protected at no cost to the
public. We think that's been a very important aspect of this program.
We've got a town, Ave Maria, that has made some adjustments to
their plan over time that was able to inc orporate Arthrex
manufacturing expansion. We think that's an important component
as far as meeting that criteria, diversification of our economy,
particularly in Eastern Collier County.
And we've had two villages come forward; Hyde Park and
Rivergrass, which we think is, again, part of the overall program in
which we're trying to create towns, incentivize those, and to be able
to have villages and being able to incentivize those as well.
All that within a context of a program that was established as a
voluntary program between the landowners, environmentalists,
developers, and other stakeholders. And so we're proud of where we
are and what we've accomplished today.
So what does the future hold for us? What we'll be able to talk
November 10, 2020
Page 21
to you about today is that future, we believe, is being able to protect
another 134,000 acres. Camp Keais Strand, the OK Slough,
expansion of the natural habitats, incorporating agricultural lands,
which was not done when it was first thought of, additional panther
corridors, and then direct development to 45,000 acres which we
think is the most appropriate area in order to have development
occur. So you can see that there's a balance between establishing
134,000 acres of -- excuse me -- of protected land and then 45,000
acres of development opportunity. Again, moving forward to
diversify our economy.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to Anita who will take you
through the substantive policies and then be able to move forward
with the other components of this presentation.
Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Good morning Commissioners. Anita
Jenkins, your Interim Zoning Director.
I'm going to highlight the substantive changes that have been
recommended to you today for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
And to put it in full context, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Overlay is a Future Land Use Plan unlike any other that you have in
Collier County or in the state of Florida. It's a vision to protect
134,000 acres of natural resources, flow-ways, and agriculture, and
direct growth to 45,000 acres in towns and villages.
Some of the improvements that we have made to accomplish
this vision is to incentivize agriculture land protection. And it's nice
to hear that we're recognizing the Farm-City Barbecue and the
relationship between agriculture and the urban area today, because
today we get to bring forward to you a recommendation to protect
agriculture lands in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area and to
incentivize that through the credit system of two credits per acre for
protection of agriculture lands.
November 10, 2020
Page 22
Those agriculture lands would be within the open area, not
within one of the sending areas but actually protecting agriculture
lands and agriculture production rather than creating development in
that particular area in the future.
Another one of the substantive amendments is to adjust the
restoration system. Previously, we were providing four credits per
acre for dedicating restoration. We heard in the five -year review
that we wanted to cut that in half, so that was a recommendation.
And then additionally, through the recent public workshops, we heard
that we wanted to further reduce that. So we are proposing one
credit for dedicating land for restoration, and then you would be
rewarded the restoration after it goes through the process of
permitting and creating success criteria. And when we can deem
that that restoration is successful, we'll reward the credits at the back
end. So that's an important and substantive recommendation for
these.
We are also adding additional panther corridors. So we
continue to hear that the panther is very important in this area, and we
are addressing that by creating panther corridors and incentivizes for
those, and those, again, are within that open area where development
would occur, but there's an opportunity to reduce that footprint with
these panther corridors.
We're also adding wildlife and human interaction plans, and that
would be required with both the Stewardship Receiving Areas and
then also any development that would come in under the baseline
would have to address the human and wildlife interaction plans.
The Board had directed staff to bring back the five-year review
recommendations, and a previous board at that time had directed staff
to cap the Stewardship Receiving Areas at 45,000 acres and the
credits at 404,000, and we have honored that and brought that back
for your consideration in a recommendation to cap the SRAs at
November 10, 2020
Page 23
45,000 and the stewardship credits at 404,000.
We went through an analysis of the credit system to determine
that that would be balanced and found that it is balanced, and we
could recommend that to you.
Another important change is an adjustment to the commercial
areas. We have increased the commercial area for a town by over
150 percent, and we have increased the commercial for a village by
over 100 percent on those as well. So, again, supporting the
opportunity for economic diversification and creating more job and
manufacturing and light manufacturing uses in these towns that will
help to support those goals.
One of the other policies is mobility. And we have
strengthened the policy on mobility in the RLSA, providing for
interconnections both within the RLSAs and the Stewardship
Receiving Areas and connecting those internally and externally to the
open and other future SRAs. The intent there is to create a
transportation system that doesn't have the same impacts to Collier
County's primary transportation system. So there is a mobility plan
that we are recommending for you in these changes.
And, finally, a substantive change is on housing affordability.
We were able to make a recommendation to you that the new policies
would require Stewardship Receiving Areas to include 2.5 percent of
the gross area of their land to be set aside for future affordable
housing. So those affordable housing acreages can be in one
location in an SRA or disbursed through the SRA. The locations
would be approved by Collier County staff during the review process.
So those are the major and substantive changes that we were
making to this.
You can also see that on -- in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
we have what we refer to as Attachment C. These are the
characteristics of a town or a village or a CRD, remembering that this
November 10, 2020
Page 24
is a future land use, so we're guiding where land use is going to
occur, and then the density and intensity and size of that. This is not
the plan that says what the specific form of that development would
be or how staff reviews that with different methodologies. That is
included in your Land Development Code. But the purpose of the
land-use plan is to set the vision of how we want to grow and how we
want to direct that growth.
So Attachment C, we did remove the hamlets. That was a very
small size opportunity for residential development. We found in the
five-year review that that was not achieving the initial purpose of
growth in that area. So the hamlet is no longer an option, but we did
modify the towns and village sizes to accommodate that future
growth closer to the goods and services that would be necessary to
support the population.
Another important change that we've made on this attachment is
to add the necessity for transfer stations or park-and-ride. So,
initially, we had just addressed transit access, but we became a little
more specific to saying we need transit stations or park-and-rides for
these towns and villages. This is also where you see the change in
the modification to the commercial goods and services.
So how we did that comparison of the commercial goods and
services and came to the recommendation for you is going back,
again, to that Collier Interactive Growth Model that we have and to
drill down into that. And how we came to those recommendations
was Mr. Farmer, who prepared the Collier Interactive Growth Model,
did the research regionally on how we accommodate commercial, and
then he also looked at different factors within Collier County to
understand what we will need in the coastal area where we support a
lot of tourism versus what we might need in the rural area where
we're trying to support a more permanent population and grow in
economic diversification with more permanent jobs for that. So we
November 10, 2020
Page 25
discounted the goods and services that you would relate to tourism in
the coastal area to come to a more realistic square footage for the
towns and villages in the rural area.
So this is the adjustment that you can see from the town. We
increased that from 65 square feet per dwelling unit to 170 square
feet per dwelling unit, and in the village we increased that from 26
square feet to 53 square feet per dwelling unit.
During the preparation of the recommendations and the policies,
we went through the credit analysis. And staff went back through
the whole model of the RLSA and the policies that also create credits
for you to understand if the model and the policies are still balancing
the program for you. And so this shows you the adjustment to those
credits.
The pie chart on the right -- or the left, I'm sorry, shows you
what it is today. So we're generating credits out of restoration. The
base credit is simply what we refer to when you are protecting a
Habitat Stewardship Area or a flow-way or a water retention area.
That's the base credit. If you restore those areas, you also generate
credits. The original program also had an early-entry bonus. Those
credits were not all consumed, so there were still some left on the
table. But that early-entry bonus is no longer available.
So how we rebalance that on the pie chart on the right side of the
screen is through adding in the incentives to protect agriculture, also
the incentives for the panther corridors.
So this is a simple view to show you that we're rebalancing from
just protecting natural resources and restoring those to also
recognizing the importance of agriculture and agriculture production
in the rural areas. That is a value that we wanted to accept.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask a quick question, or
do you want to wait until the end of the presentation?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That will be up to you. I have a
November 10, 2020
Page 26
few questions as well. I was just going to go ahead and wait.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can wait.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's wait until she
finishes up her presentation. We've got several questions then.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
MS. JENKINS: So we're going to talk a little bit about how we
pay for growth, and I'm going to ask Ms. Patterson to go through that
for us. So, if you'd like to ask que stions now, I'm happy to address
those, or we can wait until the end.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's get some questions to you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to go first?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Be happy to.
I've been trying to kind of get my arms around the problems that the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida has with this going forward, and I
think you've addressed a lot of those. So, for example, there was
concern about restoration credits, getting restoration credits for
simply designating an area for restoration without there being any
restoration.
So from what I understand you're doing, there's four credits, but
you only get one credit for the designation, and then you get the other
three credits once the restoration is completed and successful; is that
correct?
MS. JENKINS: In part, it's correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: The three that you would get at the end is now
based on the restoration itself. So the program that you have
adopted now is just restoration. The program going forward has a
tiered system based on caracara restoration, flow-+way restoration.
So we broke the restoration -- the types of restoration apart, and we
are rewarding credits based on the difficulty and the cost and the
November 10, 2020
Page 27
value of that particular restoration.
So restoration for habitat restoration, which is more expensive,
more difficult, will be more rewarding than, say, caracara restoration,
which is not as difficult.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. But the credits will
actually be awarded upon completion of the restoration except for the
first credit?
MS. JENKINS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then -- so that answers, I think, a
big question that they had.
Second question, there are 404,000 credits. What does that
translate into units, or can you make that translation?
MS. JENKINS: It doesn't translate into units in the RLSA.
We have a calibration that it's credits to acreage. So the acreage is
set to 5,000 for a town, you know, and so those are set. The number
of units can be up to four units per acre. So depending on the
program brought forward in any town or village, it will be a basis of
that. But we have projected population out there just on a g ross
basis of 2.5 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So one of the other big
issues that the Conservancy has is what about landowners that are not
involved in this process? We have the major landowners involved.
What happens to landowners that are not involved in this process?
Do they lose out? Do they have an opportunity to get some of these
credits? How does that work?
MS. JENKINS: Sure. All the landowners within the program,
this is available to them by simply submitting either a stewardship
sending application or a stewardship receiving application. So it's
just a first come, first serve on this program. So if any landowners
would want to come in with a receiving area or a stewardship sending
area, that application would be processed eq ually.
November 10, 2020
Page 28
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So if a landowner does not apply,
all the credits ultimately get used up, that landowner still has certain
development rights on their property. It's one unit per five acres.
They just aren't part of the program, but they have an opportunity to
participate on an equal basis with everybody else.
MS. JENKINS: That's correct. And, Commissioner, the
program is intended to be balanced to achieve 45,000 acres of
Stewardship Receiving Area. It's balanced to protect 134,000.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. And I think that answers a
couple of the major questions from the Conservancy. The other
question they have is some sort of a credit analysis. And I'm not
even sure what that means. But they're going to suggest that there be
some credit analysis done. Can you kind of explain what that would
be and why that is not something that we need to do or something
that we would need to do.
MS. JENKINS: So the Conservancy has been concerned about
the credit analysis, and the credit model is av ailable to the public
now. Staff went through and published the credit analysis and put it
out with the draft recommendations for review. We did not receive
any comments back on that credit analysis that anything looked
incorrect on that credit analysis.
Also on the credits, each time you come in with a new
application for a sending area, that data is updated by the applicant
and validated by staff. So it's a continual audit and evaluation of
new data that comes in with each application.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So back to the credit analysis, and
then I'll turn this over to Commissioner McDaniel. In terms of the
credit analysis, what would that actually be? Is that a determination
of the number of credits for different portions of the program, or what
would a credit analysis even involve?
MS. JENKINS: So the credit analysis involves running the
November 10, 2020
Page 29
stewardship Natural Resource Index which includes different
provisions for every acre of land there. That's what's updated each
time you receive a Stewardship Sending Area. So the applicant has
to verify listed species and FLUCFCS codes on that property.
So it involves the Natural Resource Index, which is available to
the public. And the other part of credits are in policy. So you have
policy that says we're going to reward two credits per acre for
agriculture protection. So you have a model that creates credits, and
you have policy that create credits. So looking at that together we
have done that analysis, and it is open to the public. Anyone can do
that analysis as well.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: My understanding is that Kris Van
Lengen had suggested some additional analysis be done. What's the
staff's position in reference to that and why?
MS. JENKINS: So Kris was fortunate enough to retire but the
credit analysis was done. So after Kris retired and after the white
paper, we actually did the credit analysis based on his
recommendations in the white paper. We went through that exercise
to do that credit analysis.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I think that addresses
all of the issues that were raised by the Conservancy to me in some
lengthy phone calls and in some meetings prior to the COVID
situation preventing a lot of those in-person meetings, so thank you
for that.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you could pop up the pie
chart. I did have a quick question there. And while we're l ooking at
that, that's -- if I recall in the five-year review process, we
recommended an increase in the requisite of credits to actually
develop an acre of land.
MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir, and that did change, and based on the
November 10, 2020
Page 30
Board's previous direction, we brought that back with 45,000 acres of
development, 404- cap on credits, and then recalibrating the balance
to increase it from eight credits per acre to 10 credits per acre. That
is in there, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that is actually required,
additional 10 credits, as opposed to the plan that we have right now,
to entitle an acre only requires eight credits. So that's one of the
compensating factors.
I just wanted to -- have you applied any numbers? These
pictures are pretty, but the graph on the left talks about the early
bonus, I think the availability of, and then didn't get consumed, and
then over here on a percentage basis it looks like it's down by
30 percent or so. Is there actual numbers somewhere?
MS. JENKINS: Yes. That's all in the credit analysis.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MS. JENKINS: And if you have a specific question, I can look
that up for you right now, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I just wanted to make
sure that folks understood that the -- there are credits generated for
those who took advantage of the early-entry bonus program. They
are there. They're locked in. And that portion of the RLSA is no
longer availed.
If you could hop over to the commercial designation
on -- between a village and a town. That one right there.
I would -- I just -- a little more explanation. What's the
differentiation between a requisite of a person that lives in a town and
that of a person who lives in a village? And why is there -- it's a
fairly substantive decrease in the requisite of -- or requirement of
commercial in a village over a town.
MS. JENKINS: So villages are promoted in the RLSA at a
smaller scale than a town. So you would expect a town to be serving
November 10, 2020
Page 31
villages similar to how our activity cent ers in the coastal areas serve
different neighborhoods. So that's the relationship, Commissioner.
It's -- a village would then need to be supported by the hospital in a
town that you wouldn't have in a village.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And that resonates.
I wasn't -- I wasn't thinking about the aggregation of everything of
the entire 200,000 some odd acres of the RLSA, so now that
balances. Now I see that.
And the last question, and it's, do you have an estimate -- and I
understand this is a voluntary program. Have you got any feel or
inkling -- you know, one of the things that I was really, really happy
about was the incentivization to protect agriculture, as we talked
about. It's an important industry for our community. And by
awarding credits for that perpetual protection of agriculture, have you
got any kind of a feel -- because as was earlier stated, those
agricultural lands could be designated as an SRA or a receiving area,
and we're actually setting those aside and protecting them for all of
the benefits that we have of the protection of habitat and water
quality and so on. Have you got a feel for the actual acreage that
potentially could be --
MS. JENKINS: Sure. So we have assumed in our calculations
4,000 acres of agriculture protection in the RLSA.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Additional.
MS. JENKINS: Yes. Because remembering that the natural
resources, as you had alluded to earlier, provide for agriculture as
well. They're symbiotic. But this would be 40,000 acres in the
open area which would be eligible for receiving. That's where the
agriculture credits would apply.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Can
November 10, 2020
Page 32
you hear me, ma'am? Can you hear me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. I'd take my mask
off if you couldn't, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much, but I can
hear you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So let's talk a little bit
about the credit system. And you made a statement that if the -- the
credit system is balanced. And I guess my question would be to you,
Ms. Jenkins, and also to our attorney. What if the credit system isn't
balanced?
MS. JENKINS: You have a cap of 404,000 credits, and
that's -- that was the cap to balance the number of SRA -- SRA acres
that you would be eligible for.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I ask our County Attorney,
what if the credit system isn't balanced? Ten years, 15 years from
now someone comes along and says, this was done all wrong. This
is -- this is a problem. I'm being cheated out of things. I'm going to
sue the county because I should be able to build this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, nobody's going to be cheated out of
anything. People have the right right now t o develop the property at
one unit for every five acres. This is an incentive-based program.
People who choose to get into the incentives will develop.
If at the end of the day the door is shut because all the credits are
used or whatever, there's still that ability to develop your property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. So there's
no -- I mean, anyone can sue anybody for anything, I get that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It happens all the time, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's business.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it's business. Okay.
November 10, 2020
Page 33
County business. Okay. Very good.
So I guess my concern -- and I, too, have talked to the
Conservancy -- is that Mr. Van Lengen didn't say that he wanted a
review of the credit system. He wanted an independent third party.
He wanted someone outside of the government to do this. And I
guess my -- I started thinking, well, that's kind of crazy, but then I
realized the credit system is the currency of the RLSA. This
is -- this is how they make it work. It's a voluntary program, but it's
the currency that has been established and how they use it.
If we have an audit of our government, why would we not have
an outside -- outside audit of our credit system here? And I'm sure it
will come out just perfectly. But what we're doing is keeping so
much in-house, and it's caused, I think, a little bit of concern with the
public.
What do we do in government? Well, every year we have an
audit, and we have standards. We have procedures we follow, and
that audit confirms that it's been followed correctly or it hasn't been
followed correctly.
And I'm just questioning -- and just something for everyone to
think about. Maybe this is something that we could do just to review
the credit system because that's -- that's where -- that's the heart of
this program.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to respond to that issue first,
before I forget what came up for me, I mean, this -- these five-year
revisions is kind of -- was kind of that process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No more after this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, but, I mean -- I mean, there
was -- the original five-year revision was to look at how the credits
were allocated and see if anything needed to be changed. I mean,
this isn't going to be something that's forever set in stone either. I
November 10, 2020
Page 34
mean, if there -- if in the future there need to be changes -- I see
Mr. Casalanguida over there making a face at me.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- I told the Manager, I said,
Commissioner Saunders and McDaniel and Commissioner Taylor all
brought up really good points.
When you talk about an audit, of our annual audit, our books are
finite, whatever pennies in whatever account. Because this is a
credit and voluntary system, it's like your Long-Range Transportation
Plan that gets reviewed every five years. You can do a snapshot of
what's been developed today, and then you monitor it for five years.
And you may have people participate and not participate. And t hat's
why it's important, whether it's five year or 10 years, that you do an
annual review to see if the program is functioning the way it's
supposed to.
You're asking to audit something assuming a finite decision has
been made, and it's not. It's a voluntary program. That's what we
talked about yesterday on the phone. And that's your challenge.
You can only do a snapshot in time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's way more eloquently said
than what I was trying to say.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do this. Now we're getting
into argument about the program itself. Let's finish the presentation,
the speakers, and keep that thought in mind in terms of as we get to
the point of where we're making some decision.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is this --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is a good time to ask
questions and get --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just -- I'll drop that, but I do have
a question about the affordable housing issue. And just to make it
November 10, 2020
Page 35
clear, so affordable housing -- the affordable housing component's
not going to be based upon the number of units or the uses or
anything. Essentially, the landowners have agreed to setting aside in
advance a certain percentage of whatever land is entitled will be
set -- and that was 2 point -- what was it? Affordable housing as a
percentage of the area. What was the percentage that would be set
aside?
MS. JENKINS: It's 2.5 percent.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 2.5 percent --
MS. JENKINS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- of whatever area is ultimately
going to be developed will have to be developed as affordable
housing. I mean, this is, I think, for Collier County a huge step
forward that I just want to bring some attention to, because it's not the
after-the-fact battle of affordable housing. Where is it going to be?
We're going to let the developers figure out how it works best for
them, but they have to provide it, right?
MS. JENKINS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, am I paraphra sing that
properly?
MS. JENKINS: That's correct, Commissioner. And I do have
a couple of slides in the background to show you how that changed if
you're interested in seeing that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I'd like to see that.
MS. JENKINS: So when we initially created the draft
recommendations, after we received direction to prepare the
recommendations based on the five-year review and some of the
white paper considerations, we drafted the amendments, and then we
posted the draft document to our website and sent the email to all the
stakeholders to review the draft amendments, and this happened back
in March.
November 10, 2020
Page 36
So what we started with, Commissioner, was an affordable
housing policy that you see here that is very specific to a lot of the
things that you would hear in a zoning action. We want very
specific AMIs listed for affordable housing, and the comments that
we received back is that's too specific for Growth Management Plan
policy. You know, everyone wants to work together to come to an
agreement, and working through that issue -- working through that
issue, we were able to come to this idea that we would set aside land
rather than being specific in policy. Where you want that specificity
is in your Land Development Code.
So we brought that back up to a higher level, Commissioner, to
say 2.5 percent of the gross area would be set aside. And I
understand Cormac's behind me if you'd like to speak to Cormac as
well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I just wanted to
bring some attention to that because I think that this is a huge step
forward in tackling this issue that we've been trying to wrestle with as
long as I've been in Collier County since '93, and that it will also, in
my view, kind of let the market work itself out.
I mean, there's a certain amount that's going to have to be set
aside for that purpose when a town or a village comes through, and
then the developer or the landowner's going to have to figure out
what works best for them in terms of the plan, the business plan to
make that happen. It's a requirement.
So I just -- I mean, I want to congratulate the staff, the
stakeholders, and everyone involved in reaching an agreement on this
that is really significant for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. We'll -- hit your button.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hit my button.
November 10, 2020
Page 37
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I had read
someplace, and I'm afraid I can't find it right this minute, but they
said it's not really affordable housing, someplace they said, but it will
meet certain criteria, and I'm wondering, tell me what all the range is.
I mean, will you be -- you have to have entry-level workers, but
maybe they have no accommodations for them to live there. Can
you tell me what that is?
MS. JENKINS: So, Commissioner, at this level, this is your
Future Land Use Element where we're setting policy. The details of
specifically what it's going to be in that 2.5 acres will be implemented
through your Land Development Code, and we'll be bringing those
details back to you first quarter of next year or so to implement these
policies.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Just -- if I may just to go
back to the credit system just briefly.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll just give you just a little
snapshot of a history. In 2002 it was a memorable summer because
somehow a lot of restoration credits were added to a program th at had
yet to be approved by the BCC, and in that -- in that time frame, it did
go before the Planning Commission. And at the time Mark Strain
said, you know, I think this changes dynamically what this program
is about. And he was admonished, and I think it was accurate, that
there was a time frame, and that clock was ticking and that they had
to get this passed or all the hard, hard work of two years would be out
the window.
And so it was passed. And all of a sudden the 16,000 acres of
development mushroomed, I believe, into 45-, I think I'm correct. It
might have even been 48-, and that was announced in 2008, five
November 10, 2020
Page 38
years later. That's why an analysis -- an analysis of this credit
system is so critical, because it i s germane to the success of this
program. Now -- but it has to be an outside analysis.
And I'll remind everyone that last year there was -- there was bit
of a dilemma because how this credit system was established was not
in the purview of the county, unfortunately, because of the change of
an organization that -- or a company that morphed into another
company. They had a hard time finding the basis for this credit
system, the analysis of how it worked. They found that, and now it's
in-house.
And so that's why I'm thinking it's timely and probably the only
time we would need to do it, but to have an outside third -party entity
analyze this credit system.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's try to get through the
presentations and the comment. Let's kind of deal with questions
and information. And then in terms -- in terms of arguments for
changes and all, why don't we reserve that until we get to a point
where we're making a decision.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
Are you --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One more thing. CRDs.
They're two -- it wasn't established at the five-year review. It said it
needed to be established. So it's two acres per dwelling unit; is that
correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So -- and it's
considered -- so if I decide I'm going to go out there and I can buy a
piece of property, a two-acre piece of property, I can put my little
dwelling unit on it, and -- but that would not be considered a CRD.
It's actually a grouping?
November 10, 2020
Page 39
MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, it is a grouping, and we have
revised the policy for the compact rural development to relate it to
one of the economic drivers in that area. So it's going to be related
to agriculture, related to research, and if you have housing to support
that, then you're coming in with the housing to support that. But the
policy change for the CRD is to relate it back to the agriculture and
research that we're trying to promote in the rural areas.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So you don't envision
someone, for instance -- and I just need -- because this is difficult for
me. Compare a house on two -- compare a house on two acres.
Give me a neighborhood that has houses on two acres.
MS. JENKINS: Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that Quail West?
MS. JENKINS: Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just the Estates?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So are we -- and this,
again, comes from just a couple of things, and I'll just throw this out
to everyone to think about it.
Without requiring piped water and sewer in any area out there
that we're developing, are we promoting sprawl by not requiring that?
Now, is that expensive? Uh-huh; yes, it is. But what are we
doing? This is land -- is land that we're changing, and maybe it is
something that we might want to consider, the importance of making
sure that the water and the waste is on a community or county basis,
not septic and wells.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to say
something?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. It has to be. In other words, to
develop these towns at these densities, you can't be on well and
November 10, 2020
Page 40
septic. That's why --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the CRDs can.
MS. JENKINS: No. The policy, Commissioner -- if we look
at Policy 4.16, central or decentralized community water and
wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated, maintained
by private utility services, the developer, or a CDD, the Immokalee
Water and Service District. So it is intended that the CRDs would
also be supported by central water.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Because I read it
about -- so let's just make sure --
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- that that development, that
it's tied --
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- together. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's actually an
incentivization. CRD is concentric residential development.
MS. JENKINS: Compact rural development.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Compact. Compact rural
development.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not residential.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's actually -- it actually
promotes the compact rural development away from that that is
designated as sprawl.
And, Commissioner Solis, I just wanted to share with you -- and
thank you for recognizing the affordable housing aspect. I served on
the five-year review committee. There was an enormous amount of
resistance to that subject matter during that five-year review process.
And I applaud the landowners in coming forward and actually
designating that need for our community.
November 10, 2020
Page 41
And, Commissioner Fiala, you brought up an important aspect.
One of the things I really like about what our staff has done and
transpired here is moving to a more global perspective with regard to
the GMP amendments and allowing for the specifics to be in the
LDC. You've been around for a minute, and you can recall that the
housing affordability need in the '80s was different than the '90s and
so on and so forth. This prospect allows for that flexibility going
forward, so...
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's try to get the
questions answered from our staff and from the public, public
comments so we can then get into our discussion.
Are you finished with your presentation?
MS. JENKINS: For the moment.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
MS. JENKINS: I'll ask Amy to go through the next part.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I appreciate you disinfecting that
microphone. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I bet Amy does, too.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the
record. I'm the Director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees,
and Program Management.
I'm going to briefly speak to you today about how we pay for
growth and how this fits into the RLSA concept. So we'll start at a
high level, and then we're going to zoom into an example.
The Board of County Commissioners established
level-of-service standards, millage rates, and the impact fee rates with
the caveat that it's up to the maximum legal limit established by
study. So for impact fee purposes, that threshold is the amount that
could be charged. No more. The Board can make a policy decision
to charge less impact fees, but you cannot unduly burden a developer
because we want them to take a greater share of the cost of paying for
November 10, 2020
Page 42
growth.
Population projections affect components of infrastructure
differently based on the adopted level-of-service standard. And
we're going to talk about that a little bit when we go into the AUIR
later. But remember that the population projections, how they fit in
depends on that level-of-service standard. Some are purely
population driven. Others have different things that come in for trip
counts or studies that affect how we project the needs.
So diving right down into an example, there's been a lot of
discussion about how we review the fiscal neutrality elements and the
economic assessments that are integral to this program. Discussions
about the appropriate persons per household versus persons per
housing unit, how many people are actually going to live in this area,
and what does that mean.
So for -- an example for discussion, we've utilized a future
population of the RLSA of 300,000 residents, and that came
from -- actually 310,000 residents came from the Smart Growth
America study in 2018. Many of you have heard that referenced a
lot. That was a study commissioned by the Conservancy and has
been central to some of the discussions that we've had about how
does this fiscal neutrality work.
If we use a population projection of 2.55 persons per
household -- and this is a specific number that was referenced at the
Planning Commission relative to how many people do we really think
are going to be living in these homes. So we take, for discussion,
this number, and we do a calculation: 300,000 people divided by the
2.55 persons per household is 117,647 units out in this area. So
what does that mean? We're going to take that number, those units,
and we're going to make some assumptions about they're multifamily
units, they're single-family units, they're condominiums. So we
developed a blended multifamily and single-family rate, a certain
November 10, 2020
Page 43
proportion being multifamily and a certain amount being
single-family.
Why that's important is that single-family homes pay a lot more
impact fees than multifamily, so we wanted to make sure that we
were noting fairly that not everything is going to be a single-family
home.
When you calculate out that rate, that's $3.23 billion in impact
fee revenue generated by those units. Now, some may recall that
there's been a number thrown around or talked about about a shortfall
in funding of about $3.8 billion. That's a huge number. But that
number did not include one of the primary funding sources for
growth, and that is the impact fees and developer contribution
agreements.
So you can see by way of this example now using a very high
population rate as well as a higher than estimated persons per
household, that we've generated over $3 billion in impact fee revenue
just on the residential side of the house. Why we feel this is
conservative is this was a blended rate to account for probably more
multifamily units than are actually going to be constructed in that
area. It's residential only and does not include commercial uses that
will pay impact fees, including the new ratio of commercial square
footage that's being proposed. And it uses a static rate and does not
attempt to capture future increases to infrastructure costs which then
build into future increases of impact fees.
And I do have to note just quickly that the persons per
household does not capture the full housing inventory as it puts
people only -- only into the occupied units and excludes vacant units,
changeovers in apartment complexes, things like that. So that's
where this discussion happens. It's a little bit confusing on the
difference between persons per household and persons per housing
unit.
November 10, 2020
Page 44
And we're going to dial down even deeper to the 2040 Highway
Needs Assessment. This is $2.3 billion in the 2040 LRTP that was
growth-related improvements needed but, of that, zero is coming
from General Fund ad valorem funding. And it's projected in the
2045 LRTP that's being worked on now that the same will carry
through. So the concept that the taxpayers are being unduly
burdened, particularly on the transportation side of the house, is
not -- is not coming forward through our analysis.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Are there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That's a very incredible analysis,
so thank you for that.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
MS. JENKINS: Commissioners, I'm going to finish this up.
We jumped forward to the affordable housing policy, and we
showed -- showed you how that changed.
One other change I wanted to make you aware of, that changed
from the draft, that was March 9th, was a policy that we refer to as
aggregation. And what we found in that is that going through this,
that we can address the idea of looking at separate SRAs. We can
look at that holistically using the tools that we have through our
review process.
And this was the policy here that basically says to the County
Commission, if you have two or more villages come in, you shall
aggregate that.
So that locks the Board into a decision before the project is
reviewed to aggregate those. You may have a situation where you're
creating adverse impacts or environmental concerns through
aggregation that you may not want to go forward with.
So it was the team's recommendation not to include this policy
going forward as we know that we can look at these different policies
November 10, 2020
Page 45
that are new here. We have the mobility policy that we can look at
how the SRAs are transferring and commuting between SRAs into
the open area. We also can address economic development and
diversification that we had put in this policy. There's a new policy
that provides for that diversification and job creation in the towns and
villages.
We also have the review tools. And this goes, again, from the
high-level vision that we're trying to establish today back into the
Land Development Code which directs how we use our
methodologies to review projects and what the process is to get the
applications through that.
So we can use, now, as you heard at our last meeting how we're
using the Collier Interactive Growth Model and also new
transportation methodologies that are being developed as well.
We were also concerned in reviewing this polic y as a whole.
When you put a draft policy in there and then you draw back and you
look at the whole Growth Management Plan as a whole, your policies
need to be consistent. And what we're finding is with a shall -- a
"shall aggregate these," we're concerned about creating
inconsistencies with a policy that you already have adopted that is not
recommended to be changed. But I have underlined it here to show
you that you had created a relationship between the towns and
between the villages and recognizing here that some of your goods
and services, and particularly those higher ones, hospitals and
manufacturing, those are going to be located in towns or potentially
Immokalee, and the villages can be served in those towns in
Immokalee.
So you have an established relationship and a pattern of
development that is supported in both villages and towns. So that
recommendation did not move forward, from the staff's perspective,
from the draft to what we are proposing today. And we just wanted
November 10, 2020
Page 46
to make sure that you understand why we did not include that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, your
light is lit up. Do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to talk about, just for a
second, it was mentioned sprawl, and I just have a comment on that
and that is, we're going to see a lot of people coming to our area real
soon, and we better be preparing for them. And I think that this is
the vehicle by which we can prepare. It was just a positive note
on -- I'm glad you've done such a thorough job for all of us, and I
think this will be what we're looking for.
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. And we can -- we can recognize
the underlying land use of one unit per five acres. That's sprawl, and
that's what we don't want, and that's why we want to incentivize
landowners to plan better for the future of Eastern Collier County.
And rather than developing it one-to-five, we like to see towns,
villages, and compact rural development which addresses the
condition of sprawl.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I see that Mr. Cook is here. For
your planning purposes, we're going to finish this staff presentation,
and we'll be taking a break, but before we get to the break, we'll have
your comments.
MR. COOK: Okay. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I think staff knows
that this is the one issue that I really am having a great deal of angst
about.
We have had an up-close and personal experience on this
commission of a developer that decided it was too expensive to build
a town and split it into three villages. You know, I don't blame him.
This is -- it's all about money. It's all about money.
We have different concerns. We have concerns about
November 10, 2020
Page 47
taxpayers' money. We have concerns about planning vacant land in
a -- the most effective way for the future, for the people who live
there, and certainly for the county as large. And I have a
great -- this, for me, is the wrong way to go. We have to leave
Policy 4.7.5 in the -- in this plan going forward. We have to
understand that and plan for the future and plan for the bigger picture,
not for a developer's bank account.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. Anything
else in terms of the staff presentation?
MS. JENKINS: Just our final recommendation.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have a -- Commissioner
Fiala does have some additional.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can wait if you'd like, or I would
just comment on what was just said, so it's up to you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Go ahead. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
I think that we're talking about benefits and so forth. I have this all
written out. On this one, everyone benefits. We're going to be
providing the water preservation that we desperately need in that
area. We're going to be protecting the animals, which is an
important thing in many aspects of our community. We have
strategic land preservation that we must do, and all of these are going
to be taken care of.
I think we're covering all of the important things in this -- for
this area but in a planned way so that when we end up, we're going to
have a wonderful area, yet we can accommodate all these people that
are starting to move down here. Let's face it. It's -- they're really
coming down now. And I just am happy. I think they're providing
for our future growth, which will still protect us and protect
everything that is there.
November 10, 2020
Page 48
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's go ahead and wrap
up the staff presentation. Anything else you want to --
MS. JENKINS: No, just our final recommendation, Mr. Chair,
is recommending approval that these five-year review amendments
are a positive improvement to the program and it furthers the
objectives of the community of protecting natural resources, adding
in the protection of agriculture and directing growth into towns and
villages.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. How many registered
speakers do we have both in the room and on.
MR. WILLIG: For 9A we have 15 registered speakers. We
have four online.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Why don't we go ahead
and start with that. We'll go through part of the public comment on
this. And before we adjourn, we'll get to Mr. Cook's comments on
public comment.
MR. WILLIG: All right. Mr. Chairman, your first registered
speaker is Loralee LeBoeuf. She is being ceded time by Charlotte
Nycklemoe. Is Charlotte in the room?
MS. LeBOEUF: She's in the audience upstairs or downstairs.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll take your word
for that.
MS. LeBOEUF: Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to use
the overhead, and I also have a handout for each of you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs can help you with the
overhead.
MS. LeBOEUF: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you'll -- if you'll hand those to
Mr. Casalanguida, we'll distribute those.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. LeBOEUF: There you go.
November 10, 2020
Page 49
MR. OCHS: And we have six minutes. Is that --
MS. LeBOEUF: Yeah. I think I'm actually going to be about
five-and-a-half, so we should be good.
Thank you, first of all, for allowing me to speak today. And my
name is Loralee LeBoeuf, and I'm a resident of Naples, Florida. I
am a member of the League of Women Voters Environmental
Committee, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Audubon
Corkscrew.
The RLSA program is complex, and my intention is to provide
some clarity. This is -- there is a big difference between what we,
the public, are being told and what the amendments are actually
providing. I have prepared two charts that provide an overview of
179 acres of private lands in the RLSA. Please look at Chart 1.
You'll see, how many times have we heard over the last few years
that we -- the phrase, 45,000 acres of development and 134,000 of
preservation with 100 percent participation? This looks pretty
amazing.
Landowners have the right to increase density in exchange for
acres and acres of preservation. It conjures up images of 145,000
acres of Corkscrew's sanctuaries. Teeming with native wildlife and
dense foliage. Looks like the RLS program -- RLSA program is on
track, right? Well, not so fast.
Please look at this chart, what we're actually getting. The
promise of 134,000 acres of preservation is a false promise because
there are thousands of additional acres of development outside the
45,000 acres of SRA's towns and villages. In other words,
preservation is not the same as conservation.
Eighty-nine thousand acres of -- 89,000 acres of important
natural resource areas have been identified for the Stewardship
Sending Areas, the total of the top two boxes. You can see the
54,000 and the 34,000. Fifty-five thousand have been approved, and
November 10, 2020
Page 50
34,000 are remaining. These in sensitive areas.
Please note that in the approved SSA acreage, just 1 percent or
570 acres is actual conservation; 99 percent are agricultural
operations and ranches. While farms and ranches are valuable and
should be preserved, it is not conservation. It is business as usual for
the landowners. They continue to ranch and farm as they did prior
to the RLSA program. There is a promise of conservation, but little
is happening on the private lands.
This box, the one for 46,000 acres of open lands -- the phrase
"open lands" can be misleading. It is not fields for frolicking and
recreation but land available for future development. It is what
remains after the 45,000 acres of SRA towns and villages. Mostly
agriculture, ranches, mining, and low-density development of one
unit per five acres.
This last box, the 20,000 -- approximately 20,000 acres are
needed to support the infrastructure for the 45,000 acres of SRAs.
That's an approximate number. Note: Most of the infrastructure
acreage is being taken from outside the SRA. Not only does the
county pay for the infrastructure, but it has to pay for the land to put
it on. This means the Collier County taxpayers are carrying the
burden for infrastructure.
Contrast this to Ave Maria when, in 2004, they formed a
stewardship district that paid for their infrastructure. It was financed
by revenue bonds issued by the stewardship district, not the Collier
County taxpayers.
In addition, developers previously donated lands to the county
for roads that services the new developments. Now the county has
to pay for those roads.
So what is actually happening with the amendments as presented
before you today? Number one, there's a lot more development in
the eastern lands than we have been led to believe; number two,
November 10, 2020
Page 51
taxpayers are shouldering the burden of infrastructure costs; and,
three, very important, landowners are meant to choose if they are in
the program or out of the program; however, landowners appear only
to be in the program when it comes to density but out when it comes
to upholding conservation protection.
The word "require" has mysteriously disappeared from all
documents. Landowners conveniently put -- pull the volunteer
program trump card to suit their needs, scaring the county away from
enforcing requirements. There are no requirements when it comes to
a lot of the conservation areas to be preserved or protected or
maintained, including Water Retention Areas, Habitat Stewardship
Areas, and flow-way areas are not required. So don't be misled.
The tail is wagging the dog here, folks, and it doesn't have to be that
way.
What you see and hear on Chart 1 is not what you get, which is
in Chart 2, because you know the devil is in the details. There will
be other speakers and you've received documents related to the word
"require," and when it comes to environmental protection, those
things have been removed from an awful lot of the documents.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. As we get to the next
speaker, I want to ask our staff to be prepared to address the issues
that were just raised, because they're quite significant.
Let's go to the next speaker.
MR. WILLIG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We'll go to our
online -- one of our online speakers, April Olson. She'll be followed
by Susan Collins -- Calkins.
MR. OCHS: Ms. Olson, are you on the line?
MR. WILLIG: It says that she's talking. One moment. Make
sure that the computer's not muted.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go to Susan Calkins, and
November 10, 2020
Page 52
then we'll come back to Ms. Olson.
Good morning.
MS. CALKINS: Good morning. I'm Susan Calkins, and I'm
giving -- it's probably better if I do this, right? I am presenting the
League of Women Voters' statement today.
The League's committed at its local, state, and national level,
and -- to, among other things, wise land-use planning and the
management of natural resources in the public interest, and that's why
we're here today, and that's why we've been here before. Countless
times, as a matter of fact.
The League has provided comments regarding the Rural Lands
Stewardship Program. You recently received, I think, 19 pages from
us. So we've been at this for some time, and some of us have been at
it for over 10 years, and our concerns persist, and I think the concerns
of the citizens of Collier County persist as well, citizens who want to
see their water and their wildlife and their pocketbooks protected.
Essentially, their quality of life protected. I think we're all
stakeholders here.
So what you're being asked to approve are the 2009 five-year
review recommended amendments, and you've been told there's a
consensus. Yes, in 2002 there was a consensus, but by 2009, when
this came before the Board of County Commission for its five-year
review, as some of you may remember, there was a very contentious
BCC meeting which ended in a 3-2 vote with a myriad of speakers
and the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory
Commission opposing. And today I think there's still a lack of
consensus, which is shown by the fact that you had 63 pages of
comments from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and 24 pages
of comments from the League of Women Voters that went to the
Planning Commission. Unfortunately, you didn't see those
comments in your agenda packet. You only got 174 pages. The
November 10, 2020
Page 53
Planning Commission received almost 800 pages in the agenda
packet on this issue.
So why the controversy? I'd say that because we feel that many
of the amendments take the program farther away from the original
1999 administrative order to protect wetlands, to protect listed
species habitat, and to avoid sprawl.
It, you know, is a highly complex program. And, in fact, the
Department of Community Affairs some years ago -- excuse me. I
just have three minutes from someone.
MR. WILLIG: Yes, I just saw that slip. I have three more
additional minutes.
MS. LeBOEUF: I hear the voice.
MR. WILLIG: From Patricia Forkan.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. There's someone in the
back that's waving.
MS. FORKAN: I'm here.
MS. LeBOEUF: She's giving me the extra minutes. Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You've got her name?
MR. WILLIG: Yes.
MS. LeBOEUF: Anyway. So it's a highly complex program, I
think we know that. The Department of Community Affairs called it
extremely complex when they looked at it, and the devil is in the
details of this complicated program, and a program, I think, as you've
mentioned, that was created by consultants to landowners and
developers and who also was involved in the preparation of these
amendments.
And it's the impact of the details in these policies that's a grave
concern. I can only mention a few. I think water being one of
them. The Rural Land Stewardship program requires development
to be directed away from Water Resource Areas, yet Amendment 4.9
November 10, 2020
Page 54
eliminates the protection with no rationale.
We agree with Audubon and Florida Wildlife Federation. At
the Planning Commission, they argued that the revision to 4.9, this
one revision, should be rejected. And Policy 4.9 also
includes -- should include. It doesn't, but it should include staff's
RLSA white paper recommendation to require Flowway
Management Plans as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area, thus
you ensure costs of downstream stormwater management don't fall
solely on the taxpayer.
Sprawl is another concern. Amended Policies 4.71 and 4.72
seem to us to run counter to the purpose of the RLSA overlay to
avoid sprawl and create walkable communities. Instead, they
increase the size of towns and villages. Now, you want to create
commercial -- increase commercial space there, which has been the
argument, then increase some of the density for the town. But why
increase the footprint of the town?
Additionally, Policy 4.72 allows a thousand-acre village in the
Big Cypress area of critical concern. Now, this is completely
contrary to protecting the significant wetland system, and I think this
is something we feel you should reject.
And the CRDs have also increased in size. I mean, that's an
issue we don't have time for now, but I think that you should look
carefully at that.
Landowners and restoration, landowners should not be given
R-1 credits for simply designating lands for restoration. It may even
be one credit now. Still, credits should be given for completed
restoration not just saying I designate this land. I think it's worth
knowing that half of the total credits earned under the RLSA program
to date originated from R-1 credits. So that's less -- am I -- you're
resetting me, right?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need you to wrap up. Your
November 10, 2020
Page 55
time's up. Just take a quick second to wrap up.
MS. LeBOEUF: Okay. So I will wrap up by simply saying
that the -- we've talked a lot about smart growth, and we do feel there
should be an amendment that says that we follow smart growth
principles, and that can be worked out in the Land Development
Code, but it should be there. And I think you had a comment from
the Planning Commission in the minority report to that effect.
And as -- concluding in this, we hope you will direct staff to
address some of the specific concerns that we provided in written
comments --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need you to wrap up.
MS. LeBOEUF: -- and if we don't -- as you know, if we don't
act now, it will be too late.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Let's do this. Let's
have Mr. Cook make his comments under public comment, and then
we'll take a break until --
MR. WILLIG: All right. And he's being ceded time as well
from Dajia Hinojosa.
MR. OCHS: Is that person here?
MR. COOK: She's not here.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. You'll have three
minutes then, and then we'll take a break until 11:00.
And for planning purposes I'd like to get through the RLSA
issue before we break for lunch; is that all right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Cook, you have
three minutes.
MR. COOK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, let me quote Klaus Schwab of the World Economic
Forum. In his book he says that epidemics are, by nature, divisive
and traumatizing. We are fighting against as invisible -- or what
November 10, 2020
Page 56
we're fighting against is invisible. Our family, friends, and
neighbors maybe all become sources of infection. Those everyday
rituals that we cherish, like meeting a friend in a public place, may
become a vehicle for transmission, and the authorities that try to keep
us safe by enforcing confinement measures are often perceived as
agents of oppression. Does that sound accurate?
So allow me to acknowledge that this new order, 2020-7,
seemingly gives more wiggle room than the previous order, 2020-6.
The way it is written from my understanding, is very much is up to
the people, how we deal with this mask thing. If people are okay
with me participating in society without a mask, then they won't
complain to Code Enforcement; however, if Code Enforcement does
receive a complaint from people, then the named business may come
to the Code Enforcement hearing with the full support of the patriot
community to object to that fine.
Furthermore, Section 2, Clause 2 of the 2020-7 states that places
of worship and schools under the age of 18 are not included, so I
think that's a good thing. Section 3, clause 1, of 2020-7, states that
the masks are required where social distancing is not possible. So
based on this, everyone in this room, who is social distancing, if they
feel comfortable, could remove their mask, if I understand that
correctly.
Section 3, Clause 2(c) refers to salons where wearing a face
covering would reasonably interfere with the receiving of services.
Well, for me, when I'm getting my hair cut, I'd like to have my hair
cut by someone with a face, with a smile, with an identity, so I
wonder if that fits the definition of reasonable.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I do still have several issues with the
mandate and I oppose it with every fiber of my body, I do want to
acknowledge these changes and additions to the order, and it is my
hope that businesses in the county are educated on these clauses.
November 10, 2020
Page 57
And I see that my time is running low, so I do want to just make
a public records request, which you may have expected I would do.
I would like to ask for the formal public notices as required by
Florida Statute Title 11, Chapter 125.66, Section 2(A) for each of the
following county executive orders, which would be 2020-5, -6,
and -7.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Duly noted that that's a
public records request. Mr. Klatzkow will make sure that that public
records request is honored.
MR. COOK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll take a recess until 11:00.
(A brief recess was had from 10:43 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll
please take your seats, the meeting will come back to order.
We were in the middle of the public comment on the RLSA.
Would you call the next speaker. We were looking for April Olson.
I don't know if she's --
MR. WILLIG: Yes. I have the computer unmuted, so it
should be working fine. April Olson is the next registered speaker.
Followed by Gaylene Vasaturo.
MS. OLSON: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. Speak up a little bit louder,
if you could. We can hear you, but not very well.
MS. OLSON: Okay. I'll try to speak up louder.
Good morning, Commissioners. April Olson here on behalf of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The RLSA is an issue with such great consequence for Collier
County that I rushed home early from my yearly vacation to be able
to speak today. I got in very late last night; otherwise, I would be
there.
I actually had some prepared comments, but I'm just -- I was a
November 10, 2020
Page 58
little shocked and dismayed at some of the comments that I heard
provided during staff's presentation today.
It was very -- I was very disheartened to hear that staff said they
did not receive comments from the Conservancy. We did provide a
38-page comments including comments regarding the credit issues.
And I did receive confirmation from Ms. Jenkins that she did receive
our comments. We did ask for a little bit extra time, and she did
assure me that that was fine. So I just -- it's just very disheartening
that none of our concerns have been addressed regarding the
amendments and the credit issue.
And, furthermore, a third-party analysis was never done. Kris
Van Lengen asked for a third-party analysis. This was never done.
We provided you-all with an email regarding our concerns with the
credit analysis and basically some omissions that were not included
in the credit analysis. And I realize it's very technical, but none of
these issues have been addressed. I'll give you an example. Staff
assumed in the analysis that only 29 percent of the SSA acreage will
qualify for restoration credits, but staff's white paper, Mr. Van
Lengen's white paper, said that 34 percent of SSA acreage will
qualify for restoration credits, and the trend is increasing. It's now
46 percent. Restoration potential indice has not bee n considered in
the credit analysis. There's several other issues with the credit
analysis, and our concern is that history's going to repeat itself.
Like Commissioner Taylor had mentioned, back during the
five-year review, people were shocked and dismayed when they
found out that the development potential for the RLSA increased by
250 percent, and the whole reason was because a proper credit
analysis was not done prior to the RLSA program being adopted.
And we're really afraid that history's going to repeat itself here.
So we ask that you please conduct a third-party independent
review of the credit analysis.
November 10, 2020
Page 59
And, by the way, I'm happy to provide you with the comments that
we sent staff on the amendments and the credit analysis and
verification that staff did receive these comments.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Olson. If
you would send that, that would be appreciated.
MS. OLSON: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Next speaker.
MR. WILLIG: Yes. Your next registered speaker. I'm not
sure if she's in person or online. Gaylene Vasaturo. She'll be
followed by Tom Jones.
MS. VASATURO: I'm online. Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay.
MS. VASATURO: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm
Gaylene Vasaturo, a resident of Collier County and a member of
League of Women Voters. My comments today focus on protection
of our water and wildlife.
First, continue to protect the Water Retention Areas.
Amendment 4.9 removes all existing protections for Water Retention
Areas. Currently, Policy 4.9 requires development to be directed
away from Water Retention Areas. Amended Policy 4.9 removes
this protection, allowing development on WRAs; that's water
retention area. These areas protect water quality and quantity.
They are shallow wetlands important for recharging our aquifers and
supporting listed species.
About -- almost 75 percent of the WRAs have a high natural
resource value. Please continue to require development to be
directed away from these Water Retention Areas.
Second, continue to protect the area of critical state concern.
Amendment 4.7.2 increases the size of a village allowed within this
area to 1,000 acres. This is contrary to the current RLSA program
that limits development in this area of critical state concern to protect
November 10, 2020
Page 60
the critically important surface water and wetland system there.
County staff explains that this revision just retains what the program
currently allows. This is incorrect.
There is no current provision allowing a thousand-acre village in
the area of critical state concern. Currently, Policy 4.21 only allows,
quote, two villages of not more than 500 acres each to be built along
State Road 29 on land that's been cleared by Ag 1 or mining prior to
June 30th, 2002.
Allowing a thousand-acre village in this area is contrary to the
purpose of Policy 4.21 to limit development here to protect the
natural resources and rural character of the area.
Third, revise the RLSA to protect habitat connectivity. One of
the RLSA's stated goals is, quote, to protect and restore habitat
connectivity, yet the current RLSA program fails to do this. Even if
a flow-way, a habitat Stewardship Area, or a Water Retention Area is
protected by a Stewardship Sending Area, there is nothing in the
RLSA program to prevent fragmentation of these natural resource
areas by development. Fragmentation negatively impacts the value
of these areas for listed species as well as impacting regional water
flow.
Species cannot survive when isolated from adjoining habitat.
You can amend the RLSA program to protect habitat connectivity by,
among other things, requiring SRAs to show that they will not
adversely impact habitat connectivity in flow-ways, Habitat
Stewardship Areas, and WRAs.
And, finally, just -- whatever I have left, I want to just respond
to the discussion on restoration credits.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, if you could wrap up,
because your time is up. Wrap up real quickly if you could.
MS. VASATURO: Just 30 seconds. The amendments will
create more than 404,000 credits. Even the staff and WilsonMiller's
November 10, 2020
Page 61
credit analysis show this. With excess credits, several things can
happen: Landowners with excess credit will claim to development.
The credit cap could be reached before panther corridors are
established or restoration work is done. Either way, there will be
pressure to open up a cap, which then results in more devel opment.
Mr. Van Lengen recognized this, and that's why he
recommended a third party to determine the restoration work that was
needed so that restoration credits could be reasonably estimated and
structured to avoid excess credits. This work has not been done.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We do need you to
wrap up. Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
Tom Jones. He will be followed by Lynn Martin.
MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is Tom Jones, and I'm
with the Barron Collier Companies. And Barron Collier has been
involved in the development of the Rural Lands Stewardship program
since the very beginning in 1999. We are also the only landowner to
date that's proceeded with development under the RLSA -- RLSA
program, and that's the Town of Ave Maria.
I think it's important to recognize that to entitle Ave Maria, we
set aside over 17,000 acres of land. Most of those properties were in
the Camp Keais Strand, which provide connectivity to Corkscrew
Swamp Marsh in the National Panther refuge. We also put credits
together in the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is a major connective
throughway between the Big Cypress National Preserve and the
Okaloacoochee State Forest.
In addition to the 17,000 acres, it's also good to note that these
SSA areas, the sending areas themselves, areas that could be
designated for sending and developing credits, was established under
the 2002 program. And in those areas that were established and
November 10, 2020
Page 62
agreed upon by everybody that these need to be Stewardship Sending
Areas, they included working landscapes that include farms, they
include ranches, and other agricultural activities that take place in
these.
And to take a step further back, they were identified as
important sending areas because of the multitude of listed species that
were present on those properties. So to cast aspersions or doubts
that these sending areas shouldn't include working landscapes, they
were designated in 2002 simply because they were such -- of high
important value not only to agriculture but to environmental creatures
as well.
And I think it's -- I think county staff did a very good job. No
taxpayer monies have been spent on Ave Maria. If they have, we
certainly haven't seen them in our receipts. Taxpayers do not pay for
growth in Eastern Collier County.
And back on one other item, in addition to the 17,000 acres,
we've completed work on over 2,000 acres of restoration. All of that
restoration work was completed within the Camp Keais Strand. It
included converting farms to habitat areas. It included removing
farm dikes. It included putting in new culverts to enhance water
flow to the south.
So today what's before you -- what's before you is an important
decision. And if you support agricultural preservation to the tune of
potentially 40,000 acres, which is it's over 62 square miles --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think your time is up, but I think
Commissioner Solis may have a question.
MR. JONES: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I just -- one, I wanted to
thank Barron Collier Companies for -- specifically for working on
this affordable housing issue. I know that was a very difficult
negotiation.
November 10, 2020
Page 63
But just to give some context, 17,000 acres, a section of land
is -- and I know -- I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but a section
of land has how many acres in it?
MR. JONES: Six hundred forty.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Six hundred forty. And that's
essentially a square mile.
MR. JONES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think Pelican Bay is
2,000 acres, so that will give you some sort of a --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So at 640 acres, which is a
section of land that's 26, almost 27 by my math, sections of land,
20 -- almost 27 square miles.
MR. JONES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just trying to give, you know,
people listening some context to how much land we're actually
talking about. It's almost 27 square miles of --
MR. JONES: These are massive areas of lands that we're
talking about. And I don't know if people appreciate the sc ale that
we're at.
Commissioner Saunders makes a good point. Pelican Bay is
2,000 acres. We've completed over 2,000 acres of restoration work
in Camp Keais Strand to date.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go on to the next speaker.
MR. WILLIG: Yes, Commissioner. Your next registered
speaker is Lynn Martin. She'll be followed by Mitch Hutchcraft.
MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a
chart that one of my colleagues is going to put up on the overhead.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. She is doing that now.
MS. MARTIN: Yes. Do you see it?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes.
MS. MARTIN: Great. Thank you.
November 10, 2020
Page 64
Good afternoon. I'm a member of the League of Women
Voters, and I recommend that you include an amendment which
requires the aggregation of contiguous villages into a town.
This was an important recommendation of the 2019 white paper,
a request by certain commissioners at the Rivergrass hearing, and
was included in the March 2020 draft amendments.
That amendment said, for purposes of coordinating
infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within
Eastern Collier County, two or more villages under common or
related ownership that are physically proximate and share
infrastructure shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the c ounty
shall review the application by the SRA standards applicable to the
total size of the aggregated development.
However, in the August 2010 draft, the aggregation requirement
was eliminated. Why? Because it cost the developers more to
provide the public requirements for a town. Look at the chart on the
visualizer. It shows an example of the gap between the space
dedicated to public services in a town compared to the Villages of
Rivergrass and proposed Longwater and Bellmar combined. All
three villages are proximate and under common ownership, yet
developer will be providing significantly less space for commercial,
government, civic, and institutional service and less park and
recreation space as shown. The proposed increase in space for
goods and services creates an even larger gap, as shown.
Unless the developer is required to set aside space for
infrastructure such as fire, police, EMS, schools, libraries, and
utilities within a town, Collier County will be required to provide the
infrastructure elsewhere at great expense, and the economies
coordinated of infrastructure will be unavailable. Alternatively,
residents will have to travel long distances to fulfill basic needs.
In each case the burden will be placed on county taxpayers to
November 10, 2020
Page 65
foot the bill, a bill that rightly belongs to the developer. Fiscal
neutrality, a requirement of the RLSA, will be difficult to achieve
without aggregation. Aggregation must be required to protect the
taxpayers.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
Mitch Hutchcraft. He'll be followed by Nancy Zolidis.
MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch. We are one of the
landowners in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area.
First, I'd like to say I appreciate the hard work of staff and the
Planning Commission which results in the amendments that are being
presented to you today. It's important you know that us, as a
landowner, we support these amendments as we have since 2009 for
a number of reasons. The first one is, they build upon the Rural
Lands Stewardship program adopted in 2002 that provides for a
long-term voluntary approach to landscape scale planning which is
necessary for the landowners and for successful conservation
planning.
Also, that in its initial adoption, there was included a sprawl
study that was found by the Department of Community Affairs at the
time county staff and the Board of County Commission ers to be
consistent with Florida Statutes.
Also, these amendments are science based, and they provide for
robust panther corridors, permanent retention of agricultural lands,
which actually reduces the amount of development footprint. As
you all have mentioned, they do rebalance the credits and confirm
acreage caps, which provides assurances to all parties about the
amount of land that can ultimately be developed.
These amendments augment the most successful land protection
November 10, 2020
Page 66
and enhancement program that I'm certainly aware of, and it does it at
no cost to the public and does it without violating any private
property rights. They also facilitate the equitable treatment of all
landowners within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, which is
critical to organizations like King Ranch.
Secondly, I'm proud of the work that we've done. We have
developed meaningful partnerships and created real and lasting
legacies with real environmental organizations as well as state and
federal agencies. This has resulted in significant environmental
progress both inside and outside the Rural Lands Stewardship
context, including wildlife panther protection, wildlife underpasses,
protecting natural systems, regional connectivity, and restoring native
lands.
And we've done it by aligning private property rights and
resources with beneficial environmental outcomes. And short of this
alignment, the alternative is a public purchase and maintenance
program placed wholly at the feet of the Collier County taxpayers,
and our approach has proven far more successful.
All of those benefits are only going to be enhanced by the
recommendations that are before you today coming out of the
Five-Year Review Committee, which includes credits for agricultural
protection, creation of panther corridors, and a recalculation of credit
caps, which brings us to today.
As you know, in 2019 the Board directed staff to prepare these
amendments reflective of the Five-Year Review Committee, and the
package before you today is consistent with the Board's direction. It
is supported with relevant and appropriate data and analysis which
has been reviewed and affirmed by the staff and the Planning
Commission. It's consistent with Florida Statutes 163.3177. It's
supported by the landowners and reflective of a very long
collaborative process.
November 10, 2020
Page 67
And with that, I certainly encourage you to vote to support
transmittal of these amendments. Thank you.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
Nancy Zolidis. She will be followed by Meredith Budd.
MS. ZOLIDIS: Good morning. Commissioner Saunders,
thank you for allowing me to speak today.
My name is Nancy Zolidis. I am a required hydrogeologist
recently moved to Naples. After earning a master's and Ph.D. from
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, I worked for over 20 years
primarily in the private sector as a consultant on a variety of
water-related issues.
I am in support of the requirement that a Flow-way Management
Plan be developed as part of the approval process for Stewardship
Receiving Area. Although described by staff in the restudy white
paper, the flow-way water management plan requirement was not
included in the final recommended amendments brought to the
Planning Commission and recently approved.
The reasons that the plan should be required are as follows:
First, one of the goals of the Flow-way Management Plan would
ensure that the flow-ways operate efficiently and effectively
maintaining flows and, when necessary, attenuating discharge and
stabilizing water flows to reduce downstream impacts. To carry out
this objective, the staff report outlines several maintenance activities.
Second, the Flow-way Management Plan is one tool in the county's
toolbox to protect water quality in flow-ways systems, including
adjacent and dependent wetlands and downstream drainage areas.
This is accomplished, in part, by conducting predevelopment baseline
studies, analyzing results, and then continuing testing to track
changes over time. This concern is highlighted in a recent 2019
national study of urban stormwater conducted by scientists at the
USGS and EPA indicating that little is known about potential
November 10, 2020
Page 68
chemical exposures from organic and inorganic contaminants in
urban stormwater runoff or the potential effects on groundwater,
surface water quality, or the ecosystem health.
Third, it is imperative that the county be able to estimate and
analyze potential cumulative impacts of multiple flow-ways as future
developments that alter hydrology and water quality come online.
Fourth, the requirement will enable the county to coordinate
management activities and recordkeeping providing consistency in
how plans are developed and reviewed.
In conclusion, the consensus of the community is clear: Protect
our natural resources and our flow-ways. The goal is to maintain the
health, the structure, and functions of the flow-way as land
conversion occurs. Assessment of the changes in conditions
enhances our understanding of development impacts and leads to
improved management methods that protects our water resources.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
Meredith Budd. She will be followed by John Harney.
MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd
with Florida Wildlife Federation.
The RLSA was created to help meet both conservation and
landowner needs while limiting the potential for one to compromise
the other, and the program has been mostly successful over the years
and has protected over 55,000 acres at no cost to the taxpayer.
These lands are preserved from development and maintained
forever at the expense of the landowner, and some have restoration
potential as well, another cost that will be borne by the landowner
that would otherwise be unfunded.
Based on the average cost per acre to outright purchase land
here in Collier, if we wanted to preserve all the acres in the RLSA
November 10, 2020
Page 69
that would be eligible for preservation, it would cost over a billion
dollars.
The five-year review, however, did expose faults that prevent
the program from fully realizing the intent of the final order. Those
recommendations, along with additional recommendations from the
restudy, improve the program and include incentives to protect
ranches from conversion to sprawl, incentives to create panther
corridors, incentives to restore seasonal shallow wetlands, capping,
development acres development credits, recalibrating those credits,
and creating management plans for species.
We have gone far too long operating under a program that
everyone agrees can be improved, especially for the endangered
Florida panther. During the fiver-year review, panther scientists
concluded that the five-year review recommendations would
significantly benefit the panther, and this doesn't even include the
added benefits of the white paper recommendations, of which some
are included in the recommendations before you today.
Florida will continue growing by 300,000 people per year.
With current population projection under the current zoning,
extensive development will occur in eastern Collier with or without
the recommended amendment. The RLSA, inclusive of the
proposed amendments, isn't bringing increased population to Collier
County, as has been purported by some people. It's planning for
them.
And not moving forward with the proposed amendments does
not mean that nothing happens; rather, it means we will be at risk of
landowners deciding not to opt into the program and simply use the
underlying sprawl zoning, and it also means that landowners that do
opt in are operating under a program that, while successful, is also in
need of improvements.
Development applications are moving forward in the eastern
November 10, 2020
Page 70
lands, and so the county must not continue to delay in moving
forward with these improvements.
There are specific language needs that will be required in the
LDC to ensure effective implementation of the recommended policies
and clarity on Policy 4.9 that has already been flagged to staff and
drafted to be modified before adoption.
I am in discussions with both landowners and staff and plan to
continue those discussions and communications in order to make sure
the LDC language is effective and implementable. But Step 1 is
getting these policies transmitted today, and I urge you to do so.
Thank you so much for your time, and thank again staff for
presenting their presentation today. Thank you so much.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
John Harney. He will be followed by Liesa Priddy.
MR. HARNEY: I'm John Harney from Habitat from
Humanity, and I wish to speak to just one small part of this, which is
the set-aside for affordable housing.
We at Habitat are very happy to see this. This percentage that
is created will be used for apartments, which we don't build, condos,
and single-family homes. We may not build within this area, but we
very much are in favor of the idea of requiring a set-aside, a
percentage, 2 and-a-half percent or a greater percentage, of all new
developments in Collier County. This would be the first place where
you would see it in a very comprehensive way in an area, but we
think that it's very important for the county to do this.
We feel that this will create an ability to catch up. There's a lot
of catch-up to do in Collier County. We're very far behind on the
amount of affordable housing that we have available.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. HARNEY: Thank you.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
November 10, 2020
Page 71
Liesa Priddy. She will be followed by Alan Reynolds.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Liesa.
MR. WILLIG: Liesa, sorry.
MS. PRIDDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Liesa Priddy, and my family operates
J.B. Ranch, a beef cattle operation, in the eastern portion of the
county and have done so since the 1940s.
We are part of the Eastern Collier Property Owners group that
has an intense interest in the future of eastern Collier both financ ially
and as stewards of the land. We've been involved with the RLSA
program since the beginning.
I just returned from a week in Franklin, Tennessee, about
20 miles south of Nashville. Using recent census numbers, Franklin
is the 15th fastest growing city in the U.S. based on percent of
change. As I drove around, I noticed relatively small areas which
last year were probably a farm, because all the land around it was
being used for agriculture. It looked to me like a developer had been
able to buy the property and throw up some spec homes with buildout
at as few as maybe 15 homes. It made me wonder about the Growth
Management Plan for the city or what it might be. If what I saw was
Indication, they're going to have a hodgepodge on their hands in the
not too distant future.
Luckily Collier County had the foresight to develop and
implement the Rural Land Stewardship program 16 years ago to
address a type of urban sprawl and loss of agricultural lands Franklin
seems to be experiencing. Reality is that growth will continue, but it
is the responsibility of all of us that it be done responsibly.
Right now on our property we can build one house per fire
acres, just as Golden Gate has, and none of us want to replicate that.
So for us, and we believe the citizens of Collier County, the best
alternative is the RLSA program and the enhancements that the
November 10, 2020
Page 72
five-year review implementation would bring.
I would like to address the comments made by several speakers
about the volume of comments made to the Planning Commission
and county staff. I don't need to remind you that what's important is
the quality of comments, not the quantity and suggest that comments
not addressed by staff are, perhaps, without merit.
Ten years after the first five-year review was not implemented,
here we are finally moving through the approval process that should
have been done many years ago. I appeal to you to support your
professional staff's recommendations and the direction from the
Collier County Planning Commission to transmit these GMP
amendments for the RLSA overlay.
Thank you.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is
Alan Reynolds. He will be followed by Neale Montgomery.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Al Reynolds.
I work for Stantec. I'm a planner. I've been planning in Collier
County for 42 years, and I've had the privilege of working with the
Eastern Collier Property Owners for 21 years of that time, going back
to 1999.
Most of the things I was going to say have been already spoken
to. I'm just going to tell you that in my experience -- and I now
work all over the United States -- the program that we have here in
Collier County is an unprecedented program for incentive-driven
conservation and driving quality growth. There's really nothing like
the program that we have anyplace else that I've seen, and it's been
shown to be one of the most successful programs. And what we're
talking about today is taking a program that has already protected
50,000 acres, is going to protect 90,000 acres, and it's going to add
another 42,000 acres of protection to that program.
So what we're looking at here is a tremendous step forward in
November 10, 2020
Page 73
actually increasing the benefits of a program that is already doing
great things for Collier County.
And when you talk about the development side of the equation,
think about what we have. What we don't have is we don't have a
single acre in Eastern Collier County of sprawl development over the
last 20 years since this program was put in place. What we have is
we have a new community of Ave Maria that is self-sufficient, that is
generating high-wage jobs; that has been really extraordinarily
successful, and that is the model and the type of growth that your
Land Development Code and this program will drive.
The Eastern Collier Property Owners made a commitment in
2009 in this room to adhere to the recommendations, and those were
compromises. I mean, there are a lot of things that were worked
through in the five-year process, and at the end of the day,
Commissioner Fred Coyle brokered an agreement amongst all the
parties that says we're going to agree to a credit cap, an acreage cap,
we're going to put these new incentives in place, and here we are
honoring that commitment that we made 11 years ago now.
I would just simply urge you to move these amendments
forward to the DEO. This is not the last time you're going to hear it,
because after it goes up to the state, it comes back for a final
adoption. But I would just really encourage that -- love to see a
unanimous vote of support for a program that is really doing great
things for Collier County and is only going to do better things with
the changes that the staff has proposed, and they have done an
extraordinary job in guiding this process over the last three years.
So thank you very much for your time. I'm happy to answer
any questions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you, sir.
MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is
Neale Montgomery.
November 10, 2020
Page 74
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We saved the last for -- best for
the last.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Golly, I hope so.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Welcome to Naples.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you for having me.
Neale Montgomery, for the record, representing ECPO. I want to
echo what Al said and thank the staff for all of their efforts. One of
the issues that the staff addressed in depth before the Planning
Commission was the fiscal neutrality for the two land-use attorneys.
I know you remember the FIAM modeling that was done with DRIs.
The staff has actually improved upon that and has their fiscal analysis
so they can establish that fiscal neutrality.
There's also been concerns expressed today about the continuing
agricultural uses and rural activities, so I was glad Commissioner
McDaniel read that proclamation. If you look at 163.3248, it
requires you to encourage the protection of agricultural uses, and it
goes on to say, and traditional rural land uses. So for those who
object to that, there's not a basis under the statute because you're
required to protect those and encourage those.
There's also been some concern about aggregation. Again,
particularly for the two land-use attorneys, you remember that that
language comes from 9J2. And the purpose of aggregation wasn't to
make a bigger project. The purpose of aggregation was to make sure
a project didn't slip out and not go through the DRI process.
In this case, under the statute, anyone who want s to increase
their density or intensity has to go through this process. So the
purpose of the aggregation rule is already being fulfilled by your
regulations.
There's also been concern expressed about, you know, well, the
landowners, you know, want to make money. Under the statute,
you're required to maintain the economic value of the property and,
November 10, 2020
Page 75
in fact, increase it. And there's also provisions about the fact that
you're supposed to provide economic and regulatory incentives to the
landowners.
You heard Mr. Jones talk about how much land was set aside. I
know, Commissioner Solis, you worked on Estero by the River, so
you know how much Estero paid for that land, and several of you are
familiar with the Edison Farm purchase by Lee County. You ha ve
phenomenal more lands set aside without having to pay that
particular cost, and you don't have to provide the costs for
maintaining it, because oftentimes that cost of maintenance is a
significant ongoing factor that you don't have to address.
There was a reference today -- I think it was Susan -- to the final
order. Again, the RLSA statute provides that the legislator
specifically found that Collier County's program is consistent with
the statute, and they also found that it's consistent with Chapter 163.
So when you hear those concerns about urban sprawl and smart
growth, the legislature has already said that your program is
consistent with 136 and addresses those issues.
So I thank you for your time and ask you to transmit the
amendments.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. I think that
concludes the public comment?
MR. WILLIG: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we'll close the
hearing -- or close the public hearing comments section of this, and
now we're ready for a discussion and eventually a motion. The issue
today is the question of transmittal. I believe that requires a
three-vote majority. So I'll open it up.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you want to -- do you want
to do discussion first, or do you want to hear the motion and then
November 10, 2020
Page 76
we'll go to discussion?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're -- either way you want to do
it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to make a motion to
approve the transmittal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
second. Now we have an opportunity to discuss that motion. So
let's do that. Any discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I'd like to ask staff
about the -- what I heard the League of Women Voters saying
regarding the Flow-way Management Plan and that it's been
eliminated from this go-round.
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. The Flow-way Management
Plan, you'll remember when we came to get direction from the Board
to prepare the recommendations, there was a number of issues
regarding water management and flow-ways, and the approach to
dealing with that was to form a partnership between Collier County,
the stewardship districts, Big Cypress and Ave Maria, and the Water
Management District to address the regional water management
issues in that manner, and that's what was directed by the Board at
that time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So you're still
addressing it. You're not turning --
MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And t hen -- that
was -- that was the -- the -- what is the rationale for increasing the
size of towns?
MS. JENKINS: So we removed the hamlet from the SRA
opportunities. So by removing the hamlet and still creating for
November 10, 2020
Page 77
development in a manner of towns and villages, we re-dispersed that
development opportunity, removing the hamlet and then putting it
back to the town and village where you would have closer proximity
of those residents to goods and services that would be provided in a
town or a village.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't understand that at all,
because if I'm looking at it from the other side -- it does seem that the
footprint of the towns or villages, but it's a minimum footprint,
correct; that if you pass this threshold, it's a town, correct?
MS. JENKINS: Yeah. There are guidelines and a range of
acreages that you would be either a town or a village. The cap is
still the same of 45,000 acres, so whether it's 45,000 acres consumed
by a few towns and a few villages or CRDs, there's opportunity for
flexibility for all landowners that own a variety of different sizes of
properties out there to go forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it also triggers the increased
costs of building a town over a village. So if you expand the
footprint of a village, then, you know, you can kind of push on what
before, if this passes, would have been a town. So what you're doing
by doing that, that's the other side of this. You know, that's
the -- that's the flip side of this is your raising the bar for developer
contribution, allowing a village to be much larger than it was before,
where before it would have been considered a town. So you're
putting that off. Because it does seem to be, except for one, which is
Ave Maria, and my colleague to my left is very upset, and he's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no. My pen's loose.
I'm not upset at all. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So Ave Maria, you know, it's a
great example of the way it should be done, but we know that that's
not the way it's coming in. And so my question is, why not just,
you're done with hamlets, keep the sizes the way they are?
November 10, 2020
Page 78
MS. JENKINS: Well, again, it's to provide the opportunity to
have closer proximity to goods and services that were increased in
both the towns and the villages. And I think what one of the things
that Ave Maria has demonstrated over the years that it has been in
place, there's amendments that are going to come forward. These
towns and villages are going to grow and change to accommodate
economic diversification when we have those opportunities.
So you can see that even Ave Maria as a town did not anticipate
Arthrex moving out there at the time that it was originally planned so,
therefore, they had to amend it. They were able to fit it within the
acreage that they have, but there might be an opport unity in a future
for a smaller village to grow into a town by adding those additional
uses as it becomes available.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. For now, that's all
I have.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was only going to add that, you
know, these amendments, the five-year revisions and then the
additional ones -- this is a great program. It's voluntary. It
preserves land not at taxpayers' expense. Is it perfect, maybe not,
but it -- you know, we need to move the chains, right? It's time to
move the chains and move this forward. And as you were saying, as
things change, other revisions may be required, and we'll certainly,
you know, be open to that process. But we need to -- we need to
adopt these changes. I would hope that we would do this
unanimously. This is, as the Chairman said at the beginning,
probably the biggest decision -- one of the biggest decisions we'll
make as commissioners.
So -- and thank you to staff for all the hard work and years of
dedicated service on working on this, because it is -- it's amazing. I
mean, this is such a long process that -- but we're finally here, and so
November 10, 2020
Page 79
let's -- we're not at the goal line, but we need to move the chain.
So I'll -- if it hadn't been seconded -- or maybe Commissioner
Fiala seconded it -- I'll third it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. I have spent a lot of time
talking with the folks from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And I've been hopeful that all of the environmental groups would
come on board, but that hasn't happened.
And so I wanted to try to accommodate the concerns of the
Conservancy as best as possible, and that's why I asked those several
questions at the beginning. And I think a lot of the ir concerns have
been addressed. The one that, perhaps, hasn't been is the
independent credit analysis. I realize that there's been an analysis,
but they're looking for some independent analysis. I'm not
convinced that based on what I've heard today that that is -- that we
need any further review at this point prior to the transmittal. So I'm
going to support the motion.
Now, when it comes back, it takes four votes to ultimately
approve this. And so there may be issues that develop, and we'll
have an opportunity to massage this a little bit when this comes back,
if necessary. But I think for purposes of today, I'm convinced that
the right thing to do is to move this forward.
And, again, I agree with Commissioner Solis. I want to thank
our staff. This has been a very difficult, long process. The
Planning Commission, I think the vote was 4-1 to authorize
transmittal, and so that certainly is significant.
Commissioner Solis, I see your light is lit up. And,
Commissioner McDaniel, you -- Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis can go
first. I had a couple of questions for staff.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
November 10, 2020
Page 80
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. I just -- I'd be remiss
not to thank the landowners that have spent years in this process to
come up with a program that affects their land for the benefit of the
county. Again, is it perfect? Maybe not, but it is a huge step
forward. So a lot of thanks, I think, goes to the property owners a s
well for working for so many years with our staff.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I've seen two
drafts, and I don't know if you folks have, of the conversion of
Rivergrass and those other two Rural Villages into a town. Is that
moving through the process yet?
MS. JENKINS: I can address that. There are two villages
moving through the process, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know there are two villages,
but I've seen -- I got an email not too awfully long ago that talked
about converting those independent villages into, ultimately, a town.
MS. JENKINS: Well, the process would allow that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Thaddeus.
MR. COHEN: I think she answered that very well. The
process does allow that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. COHEN: We're having conversations as to what the
possibilities can be, and as we have two villages that are coming
through the process currently, they're not scheduled yet, we think
people of good will can continue to have conversations as to what the
ultimate results may be.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
a second. I'm sorry. Do you have something else?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And I just wanted -- I
wanted to suggest that, just as a point of discussion, this process isn't
November 10, 2020
Page 81
over. We've been involved with this since 2002 when the RLSA
was adopted; '09 when the five-year review was done; '20 when we're
moving forward with those five-year reviews. We're never going to
stop reviewing these programs. So I just wanted to share that out
loud. There seems to be concern that this is the end. It's not the
end. It's just part of the process.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
a second. Since I don't see anybody's light lit up, we'll call for the
vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Passes 4-1.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just closing remarks, you know,
I wish it could have been unanimous, but getting rid of the
aggregation rule is a huge, huge problem, and I feel that good will is
usually secondary to bank accounts and, therefore, I have to vote
against this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's see how much of
the agenda we can get through until 12:00, then we'll take a break for
lunch. We're on agenda Item No. 9B.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This item was continued from your
October 27th board meeting. It does require ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and participants need to be sworn
in. This is a recommendation to approve an amendment to the
Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development to increase the
maximum number of dwelling units from 1,600 to 1,950. And I'll
leave it at that.
November 10, 2020
Page 82
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll do the ex parte
and swearing in of the witnesses. Did we complete the public
hearing on this earlier on?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe you did.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we're really kind of
rehearing something that's already been presented. I don't know if
we need to do any additional ex parte. We've already done that.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've done ex parte. And I don't know
that there's going to be any witnesses. You last left it at board
discussion. I believe Commissioner McDaniel asked --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The witnesses that we swore in
before are still under oath from the prior swearing in, so let's move
forward with the discussion.
Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still good morning, for the record.
Where we left off, I believe, the president of -- the new president of
the HOA had raised some comments during the public comment.
We were asked to continue this item, meet with the president of the
HOA, and then come back.
We did meet with the president of the homeowner’s association,
Valerie. She had -- she and the residents on the south side of Oil
Well Road had asked for some modifications to the proposal. The
modifications that they requested is if we elected to go with a
townhome project on the south side of the road -- we basically have
two projects on the south side. We would have a townhome project,
and then we would have what they already have is single-family
product as well as duplex product, which is considered single-family
product.
So they had asked us to separate the two if we did go forward
with that type of a concept. We made modifications to the PUD
document to provide -- to address those issues.
November 10, 2020
Page 83
I want to go back to the master plan. I'm sorry about the little
bit of a disjointedness but, of course -- where is it, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: I think it's down below. You're going the
wrong way.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not there.
Anyway, what we created was a Tract A and a Tract B on the
south side of the road. Tract A is the only area that we'd be allowed
to have townhome product. Tract B -- Tract B is -- Tract B is where
the current single-family homes are.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The bottom line is that you met
with the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We did, and we made the changes that
they requested. If we do townhome product, they would be separate
projects with an emergency interconnect in case one of the gates at
Oil Well Road were blocked; we'd open up the emergency access for
both projects.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Now, was that the only issue that
was outstanding?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the primary -- yes, and then
we also agreed to separate the amenities if they were two different
types of products. And Mr. McDaniel -- or Commissioner McDaniel
was on that call, so we all coordinated as he had requested.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I thought I was
No. 2. I just wanted to say, Commissioner Solis, when we continued
this the last time, I did that on the premise of that new homeowner ’s
association, and the president was there.
We made amazing adjustments to this density increase. We
were able to segregate the existing homeowners from the
condominiums of the villas, I think they call them. We were able to
create a new access point, an entry point. We were able to wall off
November 10, 2020
Page 84
the residential -- the single-family residential from the
condominiums. We almost doubled the size of the amenity package
for the existing single-family homes, created a separate amenity
package with additional parking for the villas as well, and there's
going to be, in a minute, a discussion about signalization of that
new -- of the new road and entryway in.
I just -- and I wanted you -- you asked me about that a month or
so ago when we continued it. And I appreciate your indulgence for
allowing that, because we had very effective meetings with the
homeowners association, as is usually the case. Not everybody is
totally happy. There are a few people that would like to see nobody
else coming. But the majority of what was done here was very, very
productive and good for the existing homeowners, so...
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you so much.
In here they were talking about -- I got the affordable housing
mixed with the last one and this one, because they were both talking
about it. And in this one they say, it does not propose affordable
housing or workforce housing. They are proposing lower cost
options. Could you tell me what that really means?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll recall, last time we spoke, the
price points of the products here would be in the -- like 220- to mid
300s price points for what was anticipated.
So it doesn't quite qualify as affordable housing, but it -- I'll use
the word "moderately" priced housing. It probably fits the gap
category we've been talking about for many, many years. So the
price points allow for working-class people to purchase homes here,
be near schools that are already there, be near the Publix and other
amenities that are already there, and close to work. So that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They are higher priced -- it isn't
affordable housing.
November 10, 2020
Page 85
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not affordable housing, but it's also
not -- I don't know the right word, but it's moderately priced housing
for working-class people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yet the last speaker was
talking about the need for affordable housing. It's not talking about
low income. It's just talking about affordable housing. And I
wanted to mention that here. I don't think we're hitting the mark
right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, honestly, I think we are with
those price points, but that's because that's the price point for people
who are making right around 100 percent of the median income, and
that's the gap we don't have. And so I think we are meeting that
important gap.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, you had a
comment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I just briefly spoke with
Mr. Mulhere and Anita. There's going to be a minor change to the
PUD ordinance. Staff has not reviewed that. I think the easiest
thing we do, just table this, and then after lunch, after staff has had a
chance to review everything, we could vote on it. But at this point in
time, staff has not seen the amended ordinance.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll defer action on
this until we get back from a break.
Let's go ahead -- and I know Item 10A -- I think we can do a
couple items before we break for lunch.
Item 10A is at Commissioner McDaniel's request.
Item #10A
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT IN THE COLLIER COUNTY
FAIRGROUNDS LEASE, WHICH BARS AMPLIFIED SOUND
November 10, 2020
Page 86
OR MUSIC AFTER 7:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS THROUGH
THURSDAYS, TO ALLOW FOR A CONCERT TO BE HELD ON
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2020 TO END AT 9:00 P.M. –
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE-TIME EXTENSION OF END
TIME FOR THIS EVENT – FAILED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is to waive the requirements
or -- dealing with a special event. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I was approached by
the fair board, the Collier County Fair. They're suffering terribly.
As you know, we didn't have the fair this year because of the
outbreak of COVID, and they have a special event that they would
like to host, and it's a concert event. And the contracted artist won't
sign the agreement without an agreement to go until 9:00. They
can't -- apparently there was a revision to their lease that disallows
them to have noise activities after 7:00 on Sundays, and they've asked
for a special relief on this so that they can have this concert and go
two extra hours. So I'd like to make a motion to -- a one-time
exception for them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm going to make a comment,
because I want to make sure we're not doing something that is
inconsistent with the CDC guidelines and things of that nature.
I realize this is an outdoor event but, as I mentioned earlier
today, across the country we have over 100,000 new cases of COVID
a day now, and we're starting to experience an uptick in Florida, and
that's expected to increase as the weather changes and as more people
come down here. So I'm a little reluctant to get involved in
approving or authorizing large outdoor events.
I'll turn to our staff and just ask them if I'm being overly
November 10, 2020
Page 87
cautious, or is this something to be concerned about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, sir, just for -- this conversation
came up as these permits came forward, a lot of them. They're all
included stipulations that they do all the CDC guidelines, they notice,
extra cleaning, all the protocols are followed in all outdoor events.
That's part of the issuance of the permit. We're following those
guidelines and including them as conditions of the permit.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But who's going to be
monitoring that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Staff monitors them at our facilities.
I don't know that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At our facility.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: At our facilities.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did anybody watch the second
overtime end of the Clemson --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- Notre Dame game?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, I'm going
to -- I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but I think I'm not
going to vote to support this just because of that -- of that concern.
Any other comments? Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just -- can we get some
background on why this requirement is in there? I mean, there was a
revision to the lease that requires the music not to go past 7:00, and
I'm just wondering what -- because that was originally not in the
lease, right? It was a revision?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to address it, or
do you want me to?
It was an amendment to the lease, and it had to do with the
November 10, 2020
Page 88
residential development, Waterways and subdivisions and people in
the -- to the north with Golden Gate Estates that were being impacted
by extended hours of operation other than the fair. As you know, for
two-and-a-half weeks during the fair, they go sunrise to -- they don't
ever quit, hardly. So this provision was -- if I'm -- and correct me if
I'm wrong, Mr. Klatzkow, but that's -- that was my recollection on
why that amendment was put in there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you are correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So -- and this currently -- it
was to -- this is a -- this is a one-time thing. And we're not
approving or disapproving the event. We're -- I mean, they still can
have an event. They've just asked -- they have to stop at 7:00 under
the current terms of their lease, and they've asked for an additional
two hours. They have a musician that wants to come and won't sign
the contract without that two-hour extension, so...
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have a motion?
I think you made the motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did make the motion.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second.
Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'll call for the vote. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
November 10, 2020
Page 89
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's break until 1:00
for lunch.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting of the County
Commission will please come back to order.
We were going to go back to your item, Rich. It's Item No. 9B.
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2020-46: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04-74,
THE ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,600 TO 1,950; 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 –
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't know where
Commissioner Solis -- there he is.
Thank you for tabling us. We did have an opportunity to go
over the revised revisions to the PUD, and I believe Anita Jenkins
can confirm. I'm just going to put up real quick on the visualizer
what was added since the last hearing.
There was actually a typo. We had previously agreed that we
would have two access points both on the north and the south. So
what got transmitted only had one on the north, but we are
November 10, 2020
Page 90
committing to two on the south -- I mean on the north and two on the
south. The two -- one of them on the north will be up by where the
future county park is going to be, and that's going to be a primary
access till the county builds its permanent access point, and then we'll
come in and have a more permanent connection.
We had -- as I had mentioned, we had agreed to limit where the
townhome product could go, and I previously put the master plan on.
And Condition H relates to that condition where we would have a
separate -- they would be two separate projects, and we would have a
wall with --
MR. OCHS: Speak closely into that thing, if you don't mind.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it this way. I'm not very good at
performing. We would have two separate access points, and Tract A
and Tract B would be separated by an enhanced Type B buffer,
which is a wall and landscaping, but there would be emergency
interconnection between the two if either entrance was blocked off.
And we had -- that's the -- I is the wall. H is the two separate
development tracts if we do a townhome project on the south side of
Oil Well Road. And we had also committed to a separate amenity
package for Tract A and Tract B on the south side of the road if we
ended up doing a townhome product on the south side of the road.
Real quickly, this is the revised master plan where I had
explained the Tract A and Tract B concept that we're now
implementing on the south side of the road.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can you turn that -- if you
don't mind.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I had it that way before.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you go, because north
is up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, north is up. So those are the
changes that we made after discussions with the HOA president.
November 10, 2020
Page 91
She took it to her membership, and they are supporting the PUD as
being revised and being presented to you today. Correct,
Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: From what I understand, yes,
sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So with that, we're hopeful that
you can recommend approval -- or adopt this as presented.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a quick question. Is anybody
here from Orangetree?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not here, because I think they're
happy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I was going to
say --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, one person.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: There's one gentleman. Would
you want to come up? Are you supportive or --
MR. McARTHUR: No.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you're going to say anything,
you need to come up to the microphone.
MR. McARTHUR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just asking, because we
hadn't heard, and so it looked to me that everybody accepted.
MR. McARTHUR: Hi. Jim McArthur. I live at the Ranch at
Orange Blossom on the north side.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: North side.
MR. McARTHUR: And the last time -- well, this has been
pushed off and pushed off and pushed off. But we never get
notifications on this. We used to get them by mail. Occasionally,
they show up in the paper. But I do have some comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. I can't understand
November 10, 2020
Page 92
you. Excuse me.
MR. McARTHUR: Hi. Jim McArthur. I live in the Ranch at
Orange Blossom on the north side.
I wasn't aware of some of the changes here, but your previous
chairman had turned us down because of these issues that weren't
addressed, and I came to speak on some of those. But, really, it's a
matter of trust, and a lot of the residents don't trust Ronto, and you
probably shouldn't either, and I'll tell you why.
I've been there since 2010. And we've seen this develop. And
I have no problem with Ronto, and I understand why they -- they're
in business to build homes, and -- but they have no vested interest in
the property other than building homes. When we first moved in
there, it was supposed to be a gated community, and they have -- or
they had just the railroad type poles that came down that they had left
open. For years we tried to get them to close them, and their excuse
was we need them open for the construction trucks, even though there
is a construction road that's a half a mile west on Oil Well that
nobody ever used because it's inconvenient. You had to pull up at
the entrance and then go back half a mile and go in that way. W ell,
none of the trucks ever did that.
So when they started the new development for the new 1,600
homes that they're building, they built a small clubhouse, and they
built another pool. And we had a number of issues that were
ongoing that continued to worsen as the people from other
communities came, because the gates were open. They came to use
the facilities, messed up the place, and the number of issues
continued until it got to the point where firearms were drawn, the
police came in, and it hit the evening news. It took that incident for
them to finally put actual gates up and keep them closed.
The new pool is nice. It's not big enough for the residents.
They aren't anywhere close to doing the 1,600 homes yet, and there's
November 10, 2020
Page 93
no -- there's no parking there. We've complained for years about no
overflow parking. You can't have a commercial vehicle in your
driveway, but there's no place to put them. They finally relented and
said, well, you can park them at the pool. There's 40 parking spots
at the pool; 38 of which are usually taken up by people's cars. So
you can't even drive to the pool and park somewhere because there's
no place to park.
Do we just trust them to do the things that they're going to do?
No, we don't. They've proven in the past, the last 10 years, that
they're not responsible to do that.
So those are my complaints.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich, I think those
complaints have been addressed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They were.
MR. McARTHUR: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you could -- and thank you for
your comments.
If you could just take 30 seconds and explain real quickly.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will.
In the last presentation, if you remember, we agreed that before
we used -- we had a CO on any of the additional units that we're
asking for, we had to build additional parking. We identified that as
a requirement of the PUD. We have an exhibit in the PUD to show
you exactly where the 150 additional parking spaces will go, and we
agreed also to increase the size of the amenity on the south side of the
road to hopefully not prevent people from going to the north side to
enjoy the pool but to hopefully keep more of those people on the
south side because, they, too, will have a resort-style pool as well.
So -- and that was how we addressed the concerns that were
originally raised at the Planning Commission. And they are in the
PUD, so you don't have to trust us. They are -- they are legal
November 10, 2020
Page 94
binding commitments.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do any of my
colleagues -- are you concerned, because in Orangetree the density is
1.36 dwelling units per acre, the Estates is .44 dwelling units an acre,
and smack dab in the middle of this, the petitioner wants 3.4 dwelling
units an acre.
Now, yeah, it's nice to say that this is -- they're increasing
density because they want lower cost options for residential home
purchasers, but it's market rate. There's nothing that's going to keep
it at a certain thing. It's market rate. So it's market rate because it's
smaller. I just -- why are we -- why are we increasing the density?
I mean, it's just -- why are we doing this, considering it? I know
why we're considering it; they're before us. But the question is why?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other comments
from the Commission?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Certainly.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because if you recall, under the Growth
Management Plan, this is actually an urban designated area out in that
area, and the urban density in the urban area is four units per acre, so
we're still below what the Comprehensive Plan density provides. So
this is -- this is an area that was designated as an urban level density
in your Comprehensive Plan.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I'd like to talk about the
traffic light.
MR. YOVANOVICH: With me?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. You, our staff. If
you'll look -- if you look on the map, they're coming out of --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want to go back to the master
November 10, 2020
Page 95
plan?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. That map right there
shows it, I think. Yes. Right there with Leo -- whoever's pointing.
Yes, right there. That's the new entrance into the new Tract A which
lines up directly with the road that comes through the commercial
piece -- Brian Paul's commercial piece to the north and ultimately
goes up to our new Big Corkscrew Regional Park.
And so I'd like to hear today what our plans are -- there was a
large concern from our residents over at the Grove and at the Ranch
because their entrances to the east there line up with one another, and
there's a full median cut. And it's difficult for the people to get in
and out there without signalization and I'm -- and with this new
entrance, there will be a full median cut there, but the folks will
necessarily come out and go down to the main entrance to the Groves
and the Ranch to the north and exacerbate an already difficult traffic
circumstance.
And I'd like to ask the developer if they would consider -- and
what are our plans staff-wise and what kind of a commitment we
could get to offer some assistance with that signalization sooner than
later.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you from --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think he's talking to you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. From a traffic perspective,
they have to meet signal warrants, from a safety perspective. We
don't install traffic signals when the warrants aren't met. Most likely
one of those intersection points will trigger a warrant at buildout,
along with the park, and I would imagine Trinity, and, Rich, you can
confirm, all the PUDs have language that says, when they trigger a
signal warrant, they'll pay for and install a signal.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we can intuitively
assume that that entrance into the park, to the Big Corkscrew
November 10, 2020
Page 96
Regional Park is going to have an enormous amount of traffic. And
we know that that entrance is coming. We know that that -- you can
come on up, Trinity, if you wish. I guess my question is, what do we
have to do to do the warrant study to effectuate that, or do we got to
sit around and wait for --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got to wait.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- accidents to occur?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, not accidents, but you've got to
wait till the volumes get triggered, and that's a function of opening up
the access point.
MS. SCOTT: I'll just make this quick. Trinity Scott,
Transportation Planning Manager. I agree with Mr. Casalanguida.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Does he pay you to say that?
MS. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other questions or
comments from the Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, I think we're ready
for a motion.
Mr. Yovanovich, we're not even getting a motion on your --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no, no. I was --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion to
approve. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
a second. Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor of the
November 10, 2020
Page 97
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. It passes 4-1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2020-212: REVIEWING A RESOLUTION
RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE
ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, WITHIN THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BASED ON THE 2020
ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC
FACILITIES (AUIR), AND INCLUDING UPDATES TO THE 5-
YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED
WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2021 - 2025) AND THE SCHEDULE OF
CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT FOR THE FUTURE 5-YEAR
PERIOD (FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 - 2030), PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
– ADOPTED
November 10, 2020
Page 98
MR. OCHS: Item 9C is a recommendation to approve the 2020
Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. And
Ms. Jenkins will make the presentation along with Ms. Patterson.
MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Anita
Jenkins, Interim Director of the Zoning Division.
Today we're presenting to you the Annual Update and Inventory
Report. This is a high-level overview presentation. I'll cover a
portion of it, and Ms. Patterson will cover a portion of it, and then we
have the full staff, people much more interesting than me, to answer
questions for you on this one.
So first of all, we'll acknowledge the number of agencies and
divisions that participate in this update. You'll see that there are
over a dozen different participants to update your annual report for
you. We do have representation here to answer questions on these
things.
So this is the snapshot that we do annually for you and to look at
your projected capital improvements and also population projections
and then your level of service for your capital improvement.
So the Category A that are included here are the items that are
concurrency driven, and they're basically your infrastructure.
Category B are the non-concurrency items, and those are more your
government facilities such as la w enforcement and libraries and
EMS.
And then also the non-concurrency facilities that were added by
the County Manager back in 2013 of the beaches and inlets that we
consider as well.
So my last slide is on concurrency, and this year we are making
no recommendations to change the level of service for any of your
items.
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record, director of
Capital Project Planning. I'll pick it up from here.
November 10, 2020
Page 99
For the population requirements, as you're all familiar with, the
University of Florida's Bureau of Economic Business and Research,
BEBR, uses medium range projections, and then we factor in a
20 percent seasonal factor subject to much discussion often.
Here's an example of how the AUIR works. So for this one it's
library buildings. So we'll have a new population number, times
the -- over the five years times your level-of-service standard equals
the amount of the capital improvement that needs to be constructed.
So in this example, 40,000 people projected over the five year s times
your level of service for the buildings portion of library is .33 square
feet per person. Multiply those, and that tells you, you need an
additional 13,200 square feet required in the five-year period.
As we discussed in a prior item, they're not only
population-driven standards. Several of our other categories use
population as a metric but also include other types of measures. For
example, transportation uses traffic counts. Water and wastewater
use historic demand usage, plus population projections, plus the
capacity reserve. Stormwater uses basin studies for water -- in water
management plans. Solid waste, landfill, disposal capacity, and
coastal zone has adopted master plans and sustainability standards.
We're here with the 2020 AUIR, and these are the
recommendations: To approve the 2020 AUIR, approve the
Category A, B, and C facilities relative to projects and revenue
sources, approve the Category A facilities and the schedule of Capital
Improvements and update for the CIE by resolution, and find that
there are no inconsistencies for the Collier County Public Schools
Capital Improvement Program and facilities work program.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any
registered speakers?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
November 10, 2020
Page 100
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, previous slide. I have
an issue in -- I mean, I'm barely qualified to understand our own CIE
and level of service and A, B, and C and all that sort of thing, and
representing that there are no inconsistencies with the Collier County
Public Schools and their CIE, I find it difficult. I don't want to throw
the baby out with the bathwater, but I'm finding it interesting that I'm
being asked to represent that there are no inconsiste ncies there. How
would you feel if you were me?
MR. OCHS: Amy?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, don't let Leo answer that.
Or excuse me, Mr. Ochs. Please. Somebody. I just -- he can
speak if he wants to. I'm just joking.
MS. PATTERSON: We're all looking at each other.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, your staff is testifying. I
think we've done -- we've combined the CIP and the CIE in the past.
We're putting on the record that we reviewed it and found no
inconsistencies, and you're just --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're ratifying.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're ratifying that the staff has put
on the record --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MS. PATTERSON: We do work collaboratively with the
school district to prepare this document.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have no registered
speakers. I don't see anybody else's light lit up. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second to
approve the resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
November 10, 2020
Page 101
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I wondered if it would be possible
to take Item 11E since we have three or four speakers that have been
waiting patiently. They seem to be the only registered speakers.
Item #11E
AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE RIVIERA GOLF CLUB
PROPERTY AND FULFILL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS FILING AN INTENT TO
CONVERT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC
SECTION 5.05.15 C.2. – MOTION TO NOT PURCHASE –
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's move on to
Item 11E.
MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation to consider an offer to
purchase the Riviera Golf Club property and fulfill the Land
Development Code requirement for applicants filing an Intent to
Convert Application in accordance with the county's Land
Development Code.
Jeremy Frantz, from Zoning Division, will present.
November 10, 2020
Page 102
MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record. Good
afternoon. I do have a brief PowerPoint just for background on the
golf course, the history of what's gone on there. It doesn't look like
it's pulled up. Let me grab that real quick.
So back in 2018 this property was listed for sale. At that time
you-all reviewed some action related to the HOA board's proposal to
purchase the property. That purchase was not approved by the
HOA.
I was preparing this late at night last night, and it indicated the
lawsuit was filed in 2020. The lawsuit was filed in 2019, the end of
2019. And since that time, an Intent to Convert Application was
filed or, rather, a pre-application was held for an Intent to Convert
Application, and towards the end of October this offer to purchase
was sent to us.
So just a little bit about the intent-to-convert process. There's
three main elements. There's that Intent to Convert Application.
That's what gives us the opportunity to review these conversion
plans. There's also, as a part of that process, a set of developer's
alternative statements. So that's where -- I'll get into a little bit more
about what those consist of, but that's where we get to kind of have
some open communication with the developer, you know, early in
their planning process to really understand what the options are for
conversion of a golf course to some other use, non-golf uses.
The other element of the conversion process is the stakeholder
outreach meetings, so this is where we have some very early public
meetings with the surrounding property owners and, you know, get to
have, again, that discussion with the developers early on in the
planning process.
So that developer's alternative statement, that's really kind of
why we're here. Apart -- there's a few different things that they're
required to consider. Potentially the non-conversion of the golf
November 10, 2020
Page 103
course, the county purchase of the golf course, and then they also
demonstrate some conceptual development plans for the conversion
process.
And so as a part of that second element, the county purchase, the
applicant's required to coordinate with the county to even determine
whether there's any interest to donate, purchase, or maintain a portion
or all of the property for a public use. So that's really why you've
received this letter.
The intent-to-convert process is underway. Part of that process
requires coordination with you-all. The letter that you've received
kind of indicates the potential for the purchase of the entire property.
The LDC does contemplate other options. As we've seen throughout
the country, really, the conversion of golf courses has taken on quite
a lot of different options for public ownership or public maintenance
of portions of golf courses as well. Of course, any other commercial
option, that will all come out through this intent -to-convert process
and those stakeholders outreach meetings. We'll have many
opportunities, the county as well as the property owners, to work out
some sort of other option, if that's in the cards for this property.
With that, I think I can leave it there. And I know that there are
a couple of people from the Riviera Golf Club who -- Riviera Golf
Estates, rather, who would like to speak.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Why don't we get to the
public comment, then we'll get back to the Commission.
MR. WILLIG: Sure. Mr. Chairman, your first registered
speaker is Tricia Campbell. She's being ceded an additional three
minutes by Steve Campbell, who is in the audience.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good afternoon.
MS. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. Thank you for listening
to us. My name is Tricia Campbell. I'm a resident of Riviera Golf
Estates and also a board member. This is a request to Collier County
November 10, 2020
Page 104
Commissioners to not rezone Riviera Golf Course for residential use.
We request that the property remain zoned as a golf course as
per its duly recorded deed restriction as written on Riviera Golf
Course deed dated June 29th, 1973. I quote: The following
restrictions shall run with the land. The grantee covenants and
agrees that the demise premises will be used as a golf course and
directly related activities and no other purpose; that the premises will
be well maintained in an attractive state.
The Murda (phonetic) Act eradicated this restriction with a
stroke of pen. The 1973 owners placed the deed restriction to
protect the surrounding communities and the county's assets.
On Riviera Golf Estates map, the golf course is highlighted in
red -- I'm sorry -- yellow to indicate that the community was
constructed with an intention of the golf course becoming an integral
part of our 55-plus community.
This golf course is a gem, since it is one of three public
executive courses in Collier County. When well maintained and
properly marketed, it made a very healthy profit from 2000 to 2010.
A golf course is the best use for this land because of the lay of the
land, the communities which lie around it, and the major issues that
could arise from development of this land for housing.
In December 2018, Riviera Golf Estates voted to negotiate to
purchase the golf course property. Because of no firm price, the
conditions of the golf course in our covenant vote requirements, the
vote did not pass. We lost by 50 votes.
As a resident, I was involved in a small group in January 2019
of 12 people from Rivera Golf Estates called RGC408. We
attempted to purchase the golf course to prevent development within
our community. We contacted and received pledges for over a
million dollars from Riviera Golf Estates and 12 homeowners
associations surrounding our community.
November 10, 2020
Page 105
We met with one of the golf course owners, Mr. Ken Grunn,
numerous times, and at my home we made an offer to him for
$2.3 million. We were told by Mr. Grunn that he would not take
anything less than 2.5 million.
Our attorney, Greg Wetzel, wrote a formal offer to purchase the
golf course property at 2.5 million, as Mr. Grunn indicated.
At our attorney's office, in preparing to sign the documents,
Mr. Grunn proceeded to state he would not take anything less than
2.7 million.
We asked to meet in the middle at 2.6. At this point, he was to
talk to his partner, John Popel (phonetic), and his attorney. We
would then sign the agreement and give him a check for $10,000.
So July 2nd, 2019, an email was sent from our attorney from
Mr. Ken Grunn's attorney with a counteroffer of $3 million. Our
attorney was shocked, and we never responded.
In summary, Riviera Golf Estates homeowners association has
never been offered -- given a formal offer to purchase the golf course
property. Riviera Golf Estates should be given the opportunity to
purchase this golf course as a golf course worth much, much less than
6.5 million because of the neglected conditions. Collier County and
our community should not reward these investors for their "get richer
quicker" scheme because they overpaid for their investment.
The duly recorded deed restriction to keep this land operating a
golf course should be honored. Thank you.
A special thanks goes to Donna Fiala for all that she's done for
Rivera and our community. We wish you luck.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just have a question.
MS. CAMPBELL: Did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Thank you very much for
the kind words.
November 10, 2020
Page 106
You were talking about the price, and then the last I had heard
something about that now they wanted three million, but then you
said -- in following up you said, how can we afford six million. I
don't know --
MS. CAMPBELL: Well, you as the county have been given,
you know, an offer to purchase at 6.5 million. Supposedly, there is a
letter that was supposed to come to our president, Mr. Michael
Flaherty, that we have never received, and it was the exact same letter
that you-all received.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is the letter that I received
that prompted this executive summary, and they're asking for
$6.5 million to purchase the land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I didn't see this before.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. It's in your backup.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I meant before now. I'm sorry.
MS. CAMPBELL: This was apparently sent out October 29th,
and the same copy of the letter went to our president, Mike Flaherty,
and it said -- supposedly for Riviera Golf Estates, but nothing was
ever received.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they were willing to settle for
two point, what was it, six million or something with you guys, but
now they want six million from the county?
MS. CAMPBELL: When we went out for the vote in 2018 that
we lost, we were doing a vote to negotiate up to a price of $3 million.
We had heard that the county was offered the property before that at
3.5 million, so we thought we could negotiate between two, five, and
three. Then I started the private group to purchase separately from
the association since we wanted to protect this land. I mean, as you
can see on the map that I had out, we're really -- the golf course is in
the middle of our property. All that yellow area is the golf course.
The rest of the area is all our homes. There's only one entrance other
November 10, 2020
Page 107
than cart paths for this property.
The reason why I came with so much is because there's a
pre-application on file right now, and I would like to be -- we would
like to be given opportunity better than we have been.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So with our guys, has anybody
asked you -- pardon me?
MR. OCHS: They can't hear you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, probably. I'm not -- you
couldn't hear my little ting tones? Okay.
Do we -- are we hell bent for leather to buy this, or can we talk
with these people and see, you know, allowing them to still --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- hell bent for leather,
that's a new one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's from my dad.
Is there a way that we can step back and let them negotiate
between them? Do we -- so that possibly they can keep the property
that they live around?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. They could certainly reach out to
the owners or the owner's agent to try to continue to negotiate, you
know, a purchase, but for the purposes of this agenda item, your Land
Development Code and your intent-to-convert procedure requires the
owners to extend an offer to purchase the property first to the county
and/or the homeowners association. So this is a step in the process
that they're going through to convert this land from a golf course to
some form of residential development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, I mean, is there a way we
could talk with them a little bit more to may be -- I mean, so that they
can still keep the property that's surrounding them and between their
houses and everything? It seems like we're not really intent on
taking people's properties.
I realize you've got an opportunity here, but it seems that the
November 10, 2020
Page 108
seller -- of course, the seller only wants our money. They don't want
to waste any time. But, you know, what about that? Is there a way
that we can work with these people?
MS. CAMPBELL: Excuse me. Mr. Flaherty has tried to reach
out to the two owners and also one of the owners' sons and have not
gotten any phone calls or emails back from them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your LDC golf course conversion
ordinance requires that the developer speak with the HOA to see if
they can come up with some sort of purchase price. It's part of your
LDC. So, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who does it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, what I'm hearing is that they're
talking three million and the developer's talking six -and-a-half
million, which is quite the golf, but that is part of the process.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, in your opinion, has the
LDC been satisfied given the contact that these folks have had with
the seller of the property?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I think that additional
conversations would be warranted. But, again, there is -- there is
that golf. And I don't know that the HOA is even amenable to
purchasing this property since, from what I'm hearing, when they
took a vote, the vote failed.
MR. OCHS: Right.
MS. CAMPBELL: The property as it stands now is still zoned
as a golf course. The condition that it's in, it's probably
worth -- well, it's appraised for about one and a half at this point.
We would like to purchase it. If we can get a yes vote on our HOA,
we would like to purchase it as a golf course. Originally, when we
were going to negotiate, we were going to make a green space for our
community and the surrounding communities to use.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's really a two-part here for the
November 10, 2020
Page 109
Board. One is, under the LDC, the applicants come forward and ask
if there's any interest in the county purchasing it, and that's one part
of this decision. The second thing the Board could do is just ask the
applicant to follow the LDC and negotiate in good faith with the
homeowners association. But those are the two things, really, that
the Board could do.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go back to using the buttons
here. Commissioner McDaniel, you're lit up here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I am. Yes, sir.
Thank you.
I, per the County Attorney, have no interest in paying six and a half
million for this piece of property. I think, as what Commissioner
Fiala's shared and the County Attorney said, this is part of the process
for them to go through --
MS. CAMPBELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- in order to trigger their
right under our conversion to be able to convert to something other
than a golf course.
I would recommend that they -- I know they're listening. I
would recommend that they do reach out to the homeowners
association.
I would also at some stage -- you know, our Conservation
Collier initiative passed back here a couple of weeks ago, and I
remember that one of the -- one of the processes within that
ordinance is the acquisition of green space within the urban area.
And so it might be a little bit of a reach, Mr. Chairman, but it's
certainly something that you could -- we could have a look at and
utilize those monies in that manner.
So I -- just for what it's worth, I have no intention of an offer or
a purchase price along those numbers.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have any other registered
November 10, 2020
Page 110
speakers?
MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. We have one more registered
speaker.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I thought we had finished
those.
MR. WILLIG: Your next registered speaker is Michelle
Flaherty.
MS. FLAHERTY: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You'll need to come up to the
podium and identify yourself and then --
MS. FLAHERTY: Can I ask a question that's not on my time?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. Then I'll ask it --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, we may give you more time,
but --
MS. FLAHERTY: What I'm asking is, we were in this room
maybe two years ago and were successful at getting our setback at
100 feet. And as a matter of fact, Commissioner Taylor -- and I had
said, those regulations are written in invisible ink. And she said, that
will never happen, it will never change, 100 -foot setback. But if you
look at that map, it does not take into consideration the 100 -foot
setback, which then renders the property completely useless to a
developer, and yet they're talking 200-plus homes on that site.
So I just -- that was my question. I'm confused because I
believed we had a 100-foot setback, and there was never a hearing for
us to come before you and fight to keep that in place. If it's not in
place, I'd like to know why.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, can you address
that real quickly, and then we'll --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This is a multistage process. At
this point in the process, they've simple made an offer to the county.
November 10, 2020
Page 111
Whether or not you want to accept it or direct staff to negotiate,
Board decision. If the Board elects not to move forward with the
purchase or a negotiation, they're going to have to come forward with
a conceptual development plan, at which case and time, staff would
review it on the LDC requirements, and we start the process of the
rezone.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: There is -- do we have the
100-foot --
MR. KLATZKOW: It is, but every property's different, and the
Board can relax that based on the conceptual plan.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Go ahead and make
your presentation. You've got three minutes.
MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. Thank you very much.
My name is Michelle Flaherty, and I'm here representing the owners
and residents of Riviera Golf Estates. From now on I'm calling it
RGE.
But just as Trish said, RGE has never received an offer from the
Grunn -- Mr. Grunn. Nothing in writing. And as you've seen, he's
flip-flopped all over the place. And the letter that we referred to, we
never received, nor did any of the surrounding communities, because
they have to be notified. They did not receive a letter either.
Our community is a 55-and-over, although some people say it's
a 70-and-over. But we have no children and no school buses, et
cetera. And to place housing on the golf course that is not
compatible with the surrounding homes would be a tragedy, to say
the least, because Rivera, for us, the people that occupy it, are really
just middle-class people. We're not millionaires. This is -- the price
of these homes allow people who've worked all their lives to retire to
a piece of heaven that is affordable. So we want to try to preserve
our environment as much as we can.
And the things that we've heard that they want to do is really
November 10, 2020
Page 112
just -- we have a flooding problem, and if they put houses
there -- plus they're going to have to raise the land by four feet, so
we'll be looking at the garages that will be under these, this
development. And that water, that flooding issue is big. I mean, we
have a storm, and the sand trap becomes a pool. So if that tells you
anything.
And we have traffic issues. There is no access to this land, first
of all. And then secondly, for 200-plus homes, I don't know where
the access is, and they cannot buy the home of a resident to make
access because that's not allowed by our covenant.
So there are all kinds of problems with this, and we just can't get
a straight answer from the owners. And they keep flip-flopping on
the price. And for them to come to you, the county, and suddenly
it's 6.8 million, and what do they say they'd sell it to us for, 6.5?
MS. CAMPBELL: They never offered it to us. We never got
that -- the letter, but it was supposedly the same.
MS. FLAHERTY: So I don't know what's going there -- going
on -- well, I do know what's going on there, but they think you have
big pockets, and we just would like you to consider the pe ople that
live there and the impact it would have on the entire community,
even if you're not on the golf course, is massive. Trucks -- I know.
I'm done. Trucks, and --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people live in that
community?
MS. FLAHERTY: We have 692 homes. Some of them are
block homes and some of them are manufactured homes. So it's a
kind of a mix of housing, but it's affordable.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Do we have any
other registered speakers?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir. That was your last registered speaker
November 10, 2020
Page 113
for that item.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think we discussed it, but
just briefly. County Attorney Klatzkow, assuming this doesn't go
forward, the owner of the golf course has to come before us for a
zoning change; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This is just the initial step for a
zoning change.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it will take four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: It takes four votes to change your zoning
ordinance, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think we're ready for a motion on
this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to deny --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and talk with these people to see
if we can't work out an arrangement so they can stay in their
communities. And this is an affordable, as you've heard --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, let me --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do a motion in reference to
the agenda, which is either to buy it or not to buy it.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If we want to do some other
conversation, let's do that in a subsequent motion. So the motion is
to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to not buy.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- not to buy it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a second. All in favor
November 10, 2020
Page 114
of the motion not to proceed to the purchase of this property, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
So we're not going to move forward to the acquisition.
Commissioner Fiala, you had some direction for staff or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would love to have them,
because if the people won't respond to them, is there a way for our
attorney to get the guy to talk with our -- these people?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not required, because staff won't
process this application till the developer makes some sort of offer to
the community. Now, that offer could be, again, 6-and-a-half,
$7 million, but staff's not going to process the application without
that. It's sort of like a checkbox.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we're good for right
now, then.
MR. FRANTZ: And if I could, also, regardless of the
communication occurring right now, there is also the requirement
through the intent-to-convert process for stakeholder outreach
meetings. So they will -- they won't be able to get to you without
having spoken to the residents.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you.
MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just one thing. We've kind of
November 10, 2020
Page 115
gone through it at the Golden Gate Golf Course, but I heard that there
is a distinct lack of maintenance on the golf course, and if there's any
kind of height to do with the vegetation that's growing, this is
something that the county can address in code enforcement; isn't that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that would be correct. If they're in
violation of the code, the county can enforce that.
MS. CAMPBELL: The Maintenance Department -- they just
opened on November 2nd, and maintenance has been mowing, other
than the swales, and that's probably where we have most of our water
problems, and we have Southwest Water working with us to try to
solve this problem with the drainage.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. We're going to go
ahead and move on, then, to the next item.
Item #11A
A PROPOSAL TO SECURE THE REMAINING $36M+
ALLOCATION OF CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUNDS (CRF) TO
COLLIER COUNTY, DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE
IMPLEMENTING THE COLLIER CARES PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS –
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11A is a recommendation to approve a
proposal to secure the remaining 36-plus million dollars of
allocations of Coronavirus Relief Funds to Collier County, direct the
staff to continue implementing the CollierCARES program and
authorize necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Callahan will make the presentation.
November 10, 2020
Page 116
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What item?
MR. OCHS: This is 11A; I'm sorry, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You might have said that, but
I was thinking of something else. Imagine that.
MR. CALLAHAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business
Operations.
Today we're here to ask you to consider a proposal for our
ongoing administration of the Coronavirus Relief Fund and the
CollierCARES Program that we believe will allow us to
meet -- satisfy the ever-moving deadline requirements of our grantor,
as well as grant the Board the greatest flexibility to continue
administering the program moving forward.
So, just to circle back, earlier this year, the CARES Act passed,
and there was the allocation of Coronavirus Relief Funds to
individual counties under our Governor's plan. There were two
allocations, the second of which was approved at our last board
meeting totaling just over $30 million in the remaining balance of
about $37 million is administered through a request for
reimbursement. On the right side, again, is a reminder of the eligible
expenses that these funds can be used to cover.
Changes in federal and state guidance along the way. So
October 13th and October 30th staff was advised as to changes to the
deadline requirements for submission from the Florida Division of
Emergency Management. So expense documentation deadlines,
November 16th was for that first 45 percent or a bout $30.4 million
where we have to show how those funds are being spent and
reimbursed, and then December 3rd is the deadline to file any
requests for reimbursement to the State. So those documentation
deadlines are required to enter into Phase 3, which is the remainder of
the money that is allocated in the fund.
November 10, 2020
Page 117
Along the way, the Treasury has approved what they say is -- or
they call it an administrative order of convenience, to which they
have declared that all public-safety and public-health payroll and
officials that are performing duties are substantially dedicated to the
response from COVID-19, which means that 100 percent of their
payroll costs from March 1st of this year through the end of year are
eligible as expenses under the Coronavirus Relief Fund.
So to meet our deadlines, what we are proposing to do is to take
a conglomeration of the expenses that we've had so far in evaluating
what's been -- what can be paid into those health and services
initiatives by the 16th and then filling that with payroll from our
public-safety and health officials to meet that deadline.
And then in the Phase 3 request for reimbursements, to also
submit both the Sheriff's Office and Emergency Medical Services
payroll that total up to the remainder of the funds that are eligible for
reimbursement, so that we can direct those into a project fund and
continue to administer the Board-approved program as it's been
prescribed. We believe that that will grant us the maximum
flexibility, not require us to meet moving deadlines, and continue to
put as much money into the community as we've been directed by the
Board with that flexibility.
So today we are seeking Board direction to allow staff to use
those public-safety and health employee payroll costs and
governmental expenses to meet the requests for advanced validation
and both the requests for reimbursements in those requirements for
FDEM, direct any reimbursement that's recovered through this
methodology to be put into a grant project fund, and have staff
continue to implement the CollierCARES program as it's been
directed by the Board.
We believe that that will, again, absolve us to the different
deadlines that have been placed in progress by the grantor and grant
November 10, 2020
Page 118
the Board the maximum flexibility to continue paying out these funds
as they've been authorized so far.
And with that, I will take any questions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner
McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A couple of things I just
wanted to ask. Are other municipalities -- because there was a
division in the CARES disbursal money in the first place. Counties
with populations of a half a million or more were given monies
earlier on. And if -- it was my understanding they were plunked
with that money. I think Lee County got close to 130 million,
basically twice what we were allotted.
MR. CALLAHAN: That's correct. So counties and
municipalities as well that have populations over 500,000 were
directly paid from the Treasury. That was done, I believe, towards
the end of April, beginning of May; whereas, the remainder of that
money from the Coronavirus Relief Fund for smaller
governments -- smaller local government bodies, which were
considered under 500,000, went to the State, and the State didn't
make any allocations of that until I believe it was June 18th, off the
top of my head.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, necessarily, there's a
disparity with population and counties of size in regard to the
disbursal of funds, and these additional restrictions are being put
upon us. Are the other counties with larger populations having
similar restrictions put upon them?
MR. CALLAHAN: No, sir. The advanced deadlines to meet
these different requirements from FDEM don't apply to the larger
counties because they received their allocation from the Trea sury
directly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to say out loud I'm
November 10, 2020
Page 119
totally in favor of staff's move here to -- I don't want to call this a
move. I'm totally in favor of what's --
MR. OCHS: Strategy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- being recommended here
today. It's going to provide, as our board has said on a regular basis,
having these monies available for our community members is of
utmost importance to me.
I would also like to ask, if there's opportunity for us to solicit the
State or the federal government or somebody with regard to the -- the
disparity in population size of counties and regulations that are being
put upon communities that don't have the higher population.
So I'm -- I'll make a motion for approval, if that's what you're
looking for. I mean, do we have any public speakers on this?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to find out. Any --
MR. WILLIG: You do have one public speaker on this item.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hold back on my motion,
then.
MR. WILLIG: Your registered public speaker for this item is
Eric Brechnitz.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, he expressed his
gratitude. That's the chairman of the Marco City Council; just said
to say thank you to the Board, and he was very happy with staff's
support.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I don't think I
understand this. I'm pretty sure I don't. So let's -- can we go back.
By the way, this wasn't in our packet, this --
MR. CALLAHAN: Where would you like to go back to?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How we're deciding to divide
this up. We have 30 -- 36 million -- $37 million left, right?
MR. CALLAHAN: Well, we have $67 million total.
November 10, 2020
Page 120
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what we haven't -- what has
not been allocated, correct, is 37-?
MR. CALLAHAN: That's correct. And if I may,
Commissioner, we are not proposing any changes to what the Board
has already approved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, no, no.
MR. CALLAHAN: Again, you made some changes on the
27th. We are simply requesting that we're allowed to submit eligible
expenses to reimburse these and that when those reimbursements
come into the county, we will continue to administer the
CollierCARES Program under the allocations that the Board has
already approved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But just recently -- not recently,
but within this time frame, the state and federal government said that
payroll of health providers and public servants can be reimbursed
during this period, which was not one of the criteria at the beginning
of this; is that correct?
MR. CALLAHAN: It was always one of the criteria, but it was
always costs that were not budgeted. So the administrative order of
convenience has now said that public officials in safety and health are
now deemed, overall, substantially dedicated to the response of
COVID-19. Remember, these expenses could only be reimbursed if
the services or the employers were substantially dedicated to COVID
response. The Treasury and both -- and the State have both
concurred that public-safety officials, so EMS, our sheriffs, our fires,
they have been dedicated substantially to COVID, so they are eligible
for 100 percent reimbursement under those payroll costs.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which is very important, and
I'm not negating it. But what happens to the mom and pop business
whose application has been in there? There's 3,000 applications, I'm
understanding.
November 10, 2020
Page 121
MR. CALLAHAN: Ma'am, what we're suggesting is that by
seeking reimbursement this way, the funds that will come from these
reimbursements from the payroll expense will be set aside in a
project fund and will be continued to be paid out to process those
different applications for individual assistance, small business, our
nonprofits.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Got it.
MR. CALLAHAN: And it will allow a little bit more
flexibility with how to do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then we as a government,
from the General Fund or however we pay it, I want to make that
very clear that these folks are not going to be shortchanged; that
they're in line. They're going to get, you know, depending if they do
it correctly, and then it will be -- everyone will win at the end.
MR. CALLAHAN: The third part of the staff recommendation
that we're asking for today from the Board is to continue to
implement the CollierCARES Program as you've directed us
previously.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I believe we have a motion to
approve the staff recommendation; is that correct, Commissioner
McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That is correct. I'd like to
make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second.
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
November 10, 2020
Page 122
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you.
Item #11B
STAFF'S PROGRESS UPDATE FOR THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF
COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PROVIDE
DIRECTION, AS APPROPRIATE – MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH STAFF’S INPUT
AND ANALYSIS – CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: Item 11B is a recommendation to accept staff's
progress update for the Golden Gate Golf Course development
project and provide further direction as appropriate. Mr. Willig will
make the presentation, and then after this item, or in conjunction with
this item, we also, at Commissioner McDaniel's request, will hear
Item 11H, which was previously Item 16C4 on your agenda. I'll
read that after we deal with this one.
MR. WILLIG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Geoff Willig, Operations Analyst in the County Manager's
Office.
I'm not going to read this slide. It's just a series of dates and
just kind of a timeline of the action that's taken place so far with the
golf course.
November 10, 2020
Page 123
Obviously, the most recent action is ClubCorp/BigShots
withdrew from the project, so we'll talk through some of the options
that are available to you today regarding that piece of property that
we had identified on the fit plan as well as the next, Item 11C, is to
accept the developer agreement with Rural Neighborhoods. So
that's -- that will be up next.
But going through the fit plans here, I've got a couple of options
that we have developed in conjunction with o ur planning and
engineering firm. The first plan, Fit Plan 1, considers 110 acres
around the Pars community in the center, which was previously
identified for the BigShots facility and golf course development.
25.5 developable acres. It's about 30 acres total of land with the
water management for the Rural Neighborhoods development that
we'll talk about in a little bit; 8.3 acres for the veterans nursing home
up in the northern corner; 15 acres for a government building. We
had discussed putting -- potentially moving GMD services to that
area; as well as the corner lot that the county purchased at Golden
Gate Boulevard -- Golden Gate Parkway and 951 for future
development.
It can also be used -- as we extend the -- or expand the roadway
for Collier Boulevard, it can be used to include some of a turn lane
onto Collier Boulevard. With this plan and also of the fit plans, we
have identified the appropriate amount of right-of-way to assist with
the re -- widening of Collier Boulevard.
And, Commissioner McDaniel, as County Manager mentioned,
in the southern portion here where that cross I just put on the screen
is, is where -- the other item that you had asked to be pulled to the
regular agenda is the lot that the county is looking to purchase.
What that will be used for -- and I can get into more detail after this.
But what that will be used for is to route public utilities through to the
housing complex as well as provide some pedestrian access so that if
November 10, 2020
Page 124
there are kids that need to walk to the scho ols or people from the
neighborhood that want to access the trails in that southern portion of
the residential neighborhood, they would be able to access the trail
network that we're planning for the site from that spot as well.
The next fit plan that we've developed is similar except that it
provides a corridor along 951 or Collier Boulevard for potential
commercial development. At this point in time, we don't have any
specific commercial establishments that we would put into that area,
but we would make that available and look to have that, and we
would have to eventually come back with a Growth Management
Plan amendment in order to incorporate whatever uses would
be -- would be suggested.
This also shrinks down the golf course slash passive recreation
area to 79 -- or 77.9 acres. And you can see there that we've got a
roadway that we can connect to from the Parkway as well as to
Collier Boulevard, potentially providing access to that passive
recreation area.
And the final fit plan is a slight modification from the previous
one where it takes that corridor for commercial development and
shrinks that to about half the size, the 13 acres along 951, and then,
obviously, extends the amount of land that's available for passive
recreation or some golf course use.
As we'll get into in the next agenda item, but just to kind of give
you an overview of the essential services housing location, we're
looking at 30 acres with 25 -- about 25 acres of developable land.
We're going to provide a couple of -- we're planning a couple of
ingress/egress locations along Collier Boulevard for that property.
They would be right-in, right-out for the one, and then on the
southern portion I believe it's just a right-out, providing access to
Collier Boulevard.
As mentioned previously, using this vacant lot, if the county
November 10, 2020
Page 125
does go ahead and purchase that lot, we would plan to run utilities
through there as well as -- as pedestrian access.
Along the western edge, you can see there's about 100-foot
setback between the development and the residential neighborhood
that's existing, and then down here it shrinks to about 50 feet.
The veterans nursing home site location is on -- we've identified
a portion of the golf course on the northern portion of the golf course
right next to the hotel piece. And with that, we would be able to,
according to our planning and engineering firm, develop a 120 -bed
facility along with 48 spaces for parking for that facility as well as to
incorporate the 88 spaces that are required for the hotel, restaurant,
and condo parking deficiency that's currently -- currently exists.
On the western part there is another setback. It goes between
either 50- or 100-foot setback based on whichever fit plan we're
looking at, but providing a buffer between the currently existing
residential neighborhood.
And then probably the thing that we'll spend most of our time
talking about and what we're looking for your direction on, since
BigShots and ClubCorp have withdrawn from the project, we need to
figure out what we're going to do with this piece of the property.
So the options, as I outlined in the executive summary, are that
we can go out to the second-place vendor that responded to the
previous ITN and begin negotiations with them. I have not reached
out to them to find out if they're interested to continue or to start
negotiations, but that is an option for you. We could go out for
another solicitation and try to find another golf partner to work with
us on the property. We could reconsider potentially -- the First Tee
had approached the county to work with us to develop some sort of
golf on the property in the interim, and potentially we could
reconsider that option and see if they're interested in working with us
on that.
November 10, 2020
Page 126
We could develop a portion of the property or an entirety of the
property as a passive park -- passive park or recreation. With that
option, you could do several different things within that property, and
with the size of this area, the 110 acres of green that you see on your
screen there, there is a potential that you could provide space for
some sort of golf -- golf component as well as a passive park or
passive recreation or a mixing of the two.
And then, finally, as was shown on Fit Plans 2 and 3, you could
establish a corridor along Collier Boulevard for future commercial
development.
Now, one or all of these options are available to you to consider.
And for your fiscal impact, if the county does develop any part of the
central area, it will require some sort of capital improvement and
capital investment to improve the irrigation system. We'd have to
remove and replace the maintenance buildings, obviously, to hold
any kind of mowing equipment or maintenance equipment that's
required to maintain the site and also purchase equipment to maintain
the property.
In discussion with our Parks and Recs team, we've been kind of
spit-balling some ideas of what it would take to -- the operating costs
for maintaining the property. With some of those investments as
well as the operating, we felt that it was probably about a
million -- up to a million in the first year with $6,000 for equipment
being required.
So with that, I'll end there for questions, and I'm happy to
answer.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I'm going to jump in
first here real quick. Nobody's lit up their machine here yet.
Sometimes you just have to start all over again. So I would be
very much opposed to trying to go back to the other bidder and try to
work something out.
November 10, 2020
Page 127
The ClubCorp project would have been -- as initially proposed,
would have been a win-win, I think, for everybody. ClubCorp
apparently had some internal issues. Didn't really have anything to
do with the financial ability to do the project, but they had some other
financing issues that prompted them to withdraw.
So I think we need to take a step back. I believe that the
concept of a 12-hole golf course will still work. I believe that there
are vendors out there that will provide funding for -- if not all, for at
least a portion of it. We had that commercial site that would have
been a nice family-oriented recreational opportunity and a dining
opportunity that would have helped offset the cost of the golf course
and generated profit for the operator. I don't think that opportunity's
gone away just because ClubCorp has gone away.
So what I'm going to suggest is that we do not attempt to do
something quickly here; that we continue this item. Let's step back
and see; maybe at our next meeting, perhaps, consider doing a
request to negotiate another ITN to deal with the commercial site and
the golf course. Even if those have to ultimately be done separately,
I think that there is a good opportunity here.
I would be opposed to taking a large section of this property and
turning it into a commercial development. We purchased this
property because of its strategic location to help protect the
neighborhood and provide some community-oriented services. To
have a strip of commercial there, I think, would be a violation of that
commitment that we've made to use this property in the best interest
of the overall county as well as that community.
So I'm going to ask my colleagues not to look to some choice
here today. I would like an opportunity to work with
Mr. Casalanguida and our staff to see about developing another ITN
to do something that would preserve the opportunity to have golf. I
know that was very important to Commissioner Fiala, and I think that
November 10, 2020
Page 128
opportunity's still there. But if we start to chip away at this property
and do something which I think would be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction
at this point, then we'll lose that opportunity.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree with you,
Chairman. The original planning, your vision for this property, I
think, is solid. It makes sense. I've always been advised that you
never go to second place. If it doesn't work, you go out again. I
think we need to go out again. And I would certainly follow your
guidance and wait until the next meeting and make that decision by
the next meeting.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I agree as well. If I
had to -- if I had to pick a fit plan, I'd pick Fit Plan 2, because it
offers us a lot of flexibility with what our uses are. We know we've
got that residential property coming, assuming the next agenda item
goes forward, down in the -- down in the south end of the property.
And I see that there is an access road coming in off the Parkway and
through and out to 951, and we could potentially even add in an
access route to the residents that are down on the south end of the
property, so...
And that -- just because it's designated as a potential commercial
doesn't mean that it can't be changed. If we do choose to do a
12-hole instead of a nine-hole and so on and so forth, I would really
like to -- as far as what staff suggested today, I would like to
reengage with the folks at First Tee. They made a very nice
proposal to us when we first acquired this piece to continue to run it
as a golf course. Somebody who I could feel confident in doing
business with on a true-up basis as an offset against the greens fees
and things that at least maybe -- we're not going to -- I'm not
November 10, 2020
Page 129
suggesting we make a decision today, but we -- we initiate those
conversations just to get a cost comparison as to what it's going to
take to bring the course up to facility and have some kind of ongoing
operational facility there until we make our final decisions. It's
obvious -- I mean, the best laid plans of mice and men take a lot of
time, especially when decision-making by a committee comes along.
So that would be my like, if you would.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does this -- the property that we
now own, does it have any commercial on it whatsoever?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not without a rezone.
MR. OCHS: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just know there's
restaurants and hotels, but I was just --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We had made an effort to try to
acquire some of those other commercial sites, but it became way too
complicated and way too expensive. So there's some, you know,
easements and things like that that made that potential very, very
difficult. So, no, we don't own any of those commercial sites.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've -- you know, from the
beginning I have been opposed to the county getting into the golf
business. And when it looked like there was a possibility, although I
had my doubts of there being golf offered there at absolutely no cost
to the county, that, you know, I could go with that.
You know, I'd like to see -- if we're going to take a step back
and see what else we can do with this property, I'd like to do that and
including other uses other than possibly the golf. I mean, I think
when this whole thing came up, I had just come back from Oklahoma
November 10, 2020
Page 130
City, and in Oklahoma City, they had -- the city had purchased a golf
course that ran through a beautiful neighborhood and turned it into
some really spectacular linear parks and things. And I'm just -- I'm
very skeptical still about offering golf. It's just -- and in the age of
COVID, I just -- I'm really not in favor of that.
So if we're going to step back and have -- even if we're going to
have staff revisit the golf possibilities, I would like to also have staff
look at the other possibilities so that we have a full picture of, from A
to Z, what can we do with this property? What kind of ideas are
there out there? I don't think we ever got there when we went
around this the first time.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think it would be a good
exercise to let us know. And you've done a little bit of that in terms
of what it would cost to actually turn this into a passive park.
Obviously, it would require some infrastructure. I think the
irrigation system, from what I understand, would have to be replaced.
But a passive park, an irrigation system would be cheaper than the
irrigation system in a nice golf course. So there -- whatever way we
go, there's going to be expense, and it would be nice to see what
those expenses would be.
Commissioner Taylor, I think you were next.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nope.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. You've already gone.
Then, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I just had -- and I
wanted to follow -- I think we're all singing the same tune.
A cost-benefit analysis with regard to these choices for us
to -- by next month when we come back, to be able to look at and see
so we can do some comparison as to the expenses associated with all
these alternatives. I'm not opposed to a park, by the way. Green
space is important. I mean, our original goal in this acquisition was
November 10, 2020
Page 131
to help our residents that own the homes along the golf course and
then the folks in Par 1 along that way. So a park of some magnitude
would be fine as well.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I don't disagree with that. I
would disagree with a strip being commercial and that sort of thing.
But passive park and then some recreational opportunity on a part of
it, the restaurant operations. Something that would help brin g
people to that area. We've got the nursing home potentially going
there. We have the workforce housing that will go there; that's our
next item. All of that's going to make that area much more attractive
for improvement.
So then with that, we'll move on to the next item. Is
that -- Commissioner Solis?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One more thing, and that is -- and I
hear what you're saying about the possibility of any of that being
commercial and kind of offsetting the costs that we've got into it, but
could staff at least -- I'm not completely clear on all the commercial
that's right around this property, as to whether it would make sense.
Whether the area could benefit from some specific type of
commercial. Could we just get an explanation of what is in the
immediate area. I know there's some, but I'm just not clear on that.
And, yeah, I'm hesitant to say commercial would be okay, but I don't
want to just preclude that because maybe there is some innovative
thing that might be of benefit to that area. I don't know. It's your
area.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. And keep in mind, one of
the goals of all of this has been to begin the long -term process of
improving the quality of the commercial area all along Golden Gate
Parkway. And so we don't want to be in a position where we're
going to create an opportunity for commercial to be competitive with
that, because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get that area
November 10, 2020
Page 132
improved from a commercial standpoint. But it is something that I
would agree we should take a look at, but, again, there are issues that
are associated with it, and that's one of them.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we need any other
conversation in reference to that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we'll put that
onto our next agenda. I will work with Mr. Casalanguida in the
interim to see what some alternatives are.
All right. Let's move on to the housing project.
MR. OCHS: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, the Board did
agree to move Item 16C4 to be heard in conjunction with this item --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- from the consent agenda. That was a
recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with
Mr. Steven Bohnert for .27 acres of unimproved property located at
4061 32nd Avenue Southwest and adjacent to the future essential
services housing development for public access.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll take two separate votes, and we
have a -- already have an explanation as to what that parcel is for.
So let's move on to the housing project, and then we'll take up the
vote on the acquisition.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that.
Item #11C
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH RURAL
NEIGHBORHOODS, INC., FOR INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE
NO. 20-7698, TO DEVELOP HOUSING AT THE FORMER
GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE – APPROVED
November 10, 2020
Page 133
MR. OCHS: Okay. So that moves us to 11C. This is a
recommendation to approve a developer agreement with Rural
Neighborhoods, Incorporated, for an Invitation to Negotiate
No. 20-7698 to develop housing at the former Golden Gate golf
course. Mr. Willig will present.
MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. So I'll start this presentation off, and
then I'm going to turn it over to Cormac Giblin, since this is his
bailiwick.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask the Commission.
We're all very familiar with this. The issue in front of us is the
developer agreement. Why don't we focus on that. I think we
already know what the project is.
MR. WILLIG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have any registered
speakers?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not have any registered speakers
for this item.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So let's --
MR. OCHS: He's pretty self-contained on this.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's move into -- let's move into
the developer agreement and the actual -- unless you really need to
have a --
MR. OCHS: No. No, sir.
MR. WILLIG: So with that, I'll turn it over to Cormac.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And Cormac, again, we're looking
at the developer agreement.
MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing Grant and Development
Operations Manager.
The developer agreement will allow the development of 100
senior affordable units on this property and an additional 250
November 10, 2020
Page 134
essential service personnel workforce housing units. There's an
additional 5 percent of those dedicated to serve veterans.
Some of the time frames are that the Rural Neighborhoods will
be given 12 months from the effective date of the PUD to secure
funding, and then construction must commence within 12 months of
that.
For the essential service personnel criteria for the occupants,
there are two tiers. Tier 1 will be those involved in healthcare,
education, and emergency services, and Tier 2 will be government
employees to occupy those essential service personnel units.
Exhibit B in the agreement really has the meat of the details of
which units are going to be provided, how many, at what income
levels, and what rents will be charged. The top of the chart shows
the senior component where 10 percent of the units -- 10 percent of
the 100 units will be set aside to extremely low-income seniors
earning 30 percent or less of the county median income with
corresponding rent at that level, and then the balance of them will be
90 units at very low income level, 60 percent of median or less.
On the essential services piece, there's a stratification of units
that range from the 60 percent of the median income up to and
including the gap income of 140 percent of median income.
However, in our work with the developer, and the other interested
parties in this agreement, which are the Community Foundation and
with the Schulze Foundation, we have worked with them to keep the
rent limits at a more reasonable rate than would otherwise be
available if you were talking rentals at the gap or moderate income
levels.
So you can see the target rent levels there. Even though the
unit may be made available to someone at the 120 percent or
140 percent level, we're keeping those target rent levels at
100 percent of median or less. This will keep the property more
November 10, 2020
Page 135
affordable than similar market-rate communities in the area and
ensure that the county and our non-profit partners are really getting
our bang for the buck in doing this development.
We're not selling this land to Rural Neighborhoods. This will
be a long-term grant -- ground lease. The funding will come from
the Workforce Housing Land Trust that was approved by the voters
in the surtax. The revenue generated will cover the Rural
Neighborhood's capital construction operating fees and reserves, and
then any excess funds, that if the property does tend -- does happen to
turn a profit, will be split up between the cou nty and the Community
Foundation based on our level of investment in the property, and
those funds would be segregated into a workforce housing trust fund
to only be used for those uses in the future.
And in brief, that is the details of the development ag reement.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any
registered speakers?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not have any registered speakers
for this item.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This -- Commissioner McDaniel,
did you just push your button?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Because this hasn't been
cleared off. Commissioner McDaniel, you're recognized there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just -- would you go
back to the previous slide. And I think the Community Foundation,
they're coming in -- I thought they were -- they were investing -- this
says 10-. I thought they were coming in with 15-.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ten.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And then our
contribution is 5- that's coming out of the sales tax initiative.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh.
November 10, 2020
Page 136
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And are we -- and just so I
clarify it in my mind, we paid how much for the property?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty-nine million.
MR. OCHS: Twenty-nine.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Twenty-nine million. And
so the --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, the 29 million was for the
167 acres.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For the whole piece of
property.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, yeah. Not -- okay. I just
wanted to make sure that -- I was afraid the public might hear that we
just paid 29 million for that parcel that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, my goodness. No, no,
no, no. If I -- if that wasn't clear, then -- we paid 29 million for the
whole piece of property.
Are we reimbursing back 15 or five-and-a-half?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Five.
MR. OCHS: 5.5.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 5.5. And then the 10 million
from the Community Foundation is doing what?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Capital for the vertical construction.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's going to actually help
Rural --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- Rural Neighborhoods.
MR. OCHS: Neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me, Dottie.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Moorings Park is involved in
November 10, 2020
Page 137
this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the 10 million, five from the
Schulze, five from Moorings through the Community Foundation.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's all coming through the
Community Foundation. I'm sorry, Dottie. I skipped on the name.
So I just wanted to clarify that just to -- so we've got a start off
at 29 million for the whole piece, and five-and-a-half coming back to
us.
MR. GIBLIN: The initial development performance will lead
to about a 70, $72 million total project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's TPC for construction
and everything?
MR. GIBLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Fiala.
Or -- okay. I just had your name on here, so -- we're up to date now.
There's no -- there are no names on here.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I had one question.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just want to make sure I haven't
confused myself. So on this slide itself funding for the acquisition of
land will come from the workforce -- we're going to do a long-term
land lease with Rural Neighborhoods.
MR. GIBLIN: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then the funding for the
acquisition. We've already purchased the property. I'm --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You purchased it with General
Funds, sir, and we're -- a loan on short-term commercial paper. So
now that you've determined -- we didn't want to use this money until
the Board approved this agreement. Now you're going to reimburse
November 10, 2020
Page 138
yourself.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So it's not an acquisition.
We're just reimbursing --
MR. WILLIG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- one fund to another.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
I understood that right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then we need a motion to approve
the developer agreement. Do you need anything else in terms of
approvals to move forward with this?
MR. GIBLIN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And a second. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
I want to thank you for getting this moving so quickly. This is
a very important project, and I think, Commissioner Taylor, you've
championed workforce and affordable housing, and I know we all
November 10, 2020
Page 139
have. Commissioner McDaniel certainly has. We've all talked
about it. Commissioner Taylor has kind of championed this for
years, and I think this is a great step in solving part of the problem
that we have.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Public/private partnership with
the awareness of the community that this is a great investment.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. And if there are other
community-oriented charitable organizations that want to follow suit
and do something similarly, we're open for business in that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, Community
Foundation, thank you, Moorings Park, for recognizing the plight of
seniors.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the Schulze Foundation.
Item #11H
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MR.
STEVEN L. BOHNERT FOR 0.27 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4061 32ND AVE. SW AND
ADJACENT TO THE FUTURE ESSENTIAL SERVICES
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THE
TOTAL COST FOR THIS TRANSACTION WILL NOT EXCEED
$90,000 – APPROVED
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That takes us to a vote on the
quarter acre.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel, I think
you had asked that to be pulled.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did. And it was more
November 10, 2020
Page 140
along the lines of just ensuring that the residents of that area
were -- are aware of what we're doing. Have we talked to the folks
in there? And I wasn't quite sure when I was looking at the aerial
photo -- I didn't dig into the actual deed -- or, you know, the deed of
ownership, but is this a part of somebody else -- somebody -- one of
those houses there, or is this a vacant lot?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Vacant lot.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a vacant lot.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And is the
community aware that we're about to put a -- because I also read
there's something about public transit coming down there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're not aware yet, sir, because
we don't plan on putting anything on that lot other than running
utilities through it. And if -- as part of the advertising of the project,
if we wanted to do a pathway through that, they would get to weight
in.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it is strictly right now we've got
water/sewer punching through there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll move for approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
November 10, 2020
Page 141
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
Why don't we take a short -- I know we don't have a whole lot of
work to do, but this is Commissioner Fiala's last meeting, so when we
get to commission comments, I'm sure there are going to be a few.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't know. I don't have
much of anything to say.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We may have something --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me, and I don't have
anything to say.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No, I'm talking about the rest of us
may have something to say about you. That may make a while. So
why don't we break until, what, about quarter of? Would that be
sufficient? That's 13 minutes. So we'll come back at 2:45.
(A brief recess was had from 2:31 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting of the County
Commission will please come back to order.
Mr. Ochs, I think that takes us down to 11D, is that where
we're –
Item #11D
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 17-7198 FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK (“CMAR”)
CONTRACT PHASE 2.0 TAB 5 - GUARANTEED MAXIMUM
PRICE (“GMP”) NO. 4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING WORK
PACKAGE TO MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION (FLORIDA),
INC., FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX
AND EVENTS CENTER (“SCEC”) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,758,600 – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
November 10, 2020
Page 142
This is a recommendation to approve the fifth amendment to the
guaranteed maximum price for the construction management at-risk
contract to proceed with clearing and grubbing work for the next
phase of the sports complex and events center in the amount of
$1,758,600. Mr. Casalanguida will make the presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Commissioners, the graphic on the screen is 110 acres. It
encompasses all of the remaining parts of the sport complex as well
as the extension of City Gate Boulevard north in the footprint of
Wilson Benfield. We're just getting started earlier on -- as soon as
dry season hits just to meet our schedule, and it's setting up the
construction fence, the new construction trailer, and they will start to
take down the trees with this project.
Margaret and I will be back in December with a detailed breakout of
all those colors and how we've been working on, you know, slicing
up the project to get back within some sort of cost containment.
But right now we're just moving forward with clearing and
grubbing. Pretty straightforward. And with your blessing, we'll
start within three weeks.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any registered
speakers?
MR. WILLIG: No, sir. There are no registered speakers for
this item.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is this part of the Collier 305
and the second phase?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And are those remnants of
ball fields I see there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. I'll make a
November 10, 2020
Page 143
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Almost.
Item #11F
APPROVAL OF FUTURE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)
POSITIONS IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AT
TIME OF ASSET CONVEYANCE BASED ON CUMULATIVE
ASSET ACQUISITIONS, ADD 8 FTES, CONVERT 25 EXISTING
CONTRACTUAL LABOR RESOURCES TO FTES, AND
AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 11F is a recommendation to approve future
full-time equivalent positions in the Public Utilities Department at the
time of asset conveyance based on cumulative asset acquisitions, also
to add eight FTEs and convert 25 existing contractual labor resources
November 10, 2020
Page 144
to full-time equivalents, and authorize associated budget
amendments. Ms. Amia Curry, your finance operations manager in
the Public Utilities Department, will present or respond to questions
from the Board, at the pleasure of the Board.
This has been through your Productivity Committee. I know
Mr. -- excuse me -- Commissioner Solis sat in on that presentation.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I'll just jump in and
just say that I did sit through the Productivity Committee's review of
this. And the presentation was really outstanding, and the amount o f
detail that staff did in terms of the breaking down the cost to the
person to whatever exactly it is they would be working on, I mean,
the detail was -- I really commend you because it was a great
presentation, and I don't know how it could have been any more
thorough, frankly.
MS. CURRY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's attached. So unless -- I mean,
if anybody has any questions -- I would move for approval.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would second that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
second. Commissioner Taylor, we're on Item 11F.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. I do apologize.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, that's okay. Do you have
questions or any comments in reference to that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. I read it thoroughly,
and I'm supportive of it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and
second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
November 10, 2020
Page 145
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
MS. CURRY: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Good job, Amia.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Great presentation.
Item #11G
WAIVING COMPETITION AND APPROVE THE
PROCUREMENT OF THE ATTACHED SOFTWARE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH N. HARRIS COMPUTER
CORPORATION TO SUPPORT THE CITYVIEW SOFTWARE
APPLICATION FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,556,157.54
OVER FIVE YEARS AND TO AUTHORIZE FUTURE
ENHANCEMENTS TO THE SOFTWARE – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11G is a recommendation to waive competition
and approve the procurement of a software maintenance agreement
with N. Harris Computer Corporation to support the CityView
software applications for a total five-year cost of $1,556,157.54, and
to authorize future enhancements to the software as required.
Mr. French is available to make the presentation or respond to
questions from the Board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we have a choice?
MR. OCHS: Not a good choice. We'd have to start over with
our building permit software, which we really wouldn't want to do.
But, Jamie.
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Jamie French, your Deputy Department Head.
November 10, 2020
Page 146
Just to let you know, Commissioners, this was discussed at a
developer roundtable that we meet every quarter with the land-use
developers as well as with your Development Services Advisory
Committee. Both groups voted unanimously to keep the software.
They really did not want to go through the pa in of this type of
transition.
I do have a presentation if you'd like; otherwise, I'm happy to
answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just did.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other questions or
comments? Does anyone need a presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't see a show of hands for
that. So we'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Approval.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second for
approval. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
That will take us down to 14A.
November 10, 2020
Page 147
Item #14A
APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD
FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - TAXIWAY C
EXTENSION PROJECT (INVITATION TO BID NO. 20-7756) TO
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LLC, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,613,638.25, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is Item 14A1 under your Airport
Authority. It's a recommendation to approve the construction
contract award for the Immokalee Regional Airport Taxiway C
extension project to Ajax Paving Industries of Florida in the amount
of $1,613,638.25, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
construction agreement.
Mr. Lobb is here to make the presentation or respond to
questions from the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just sure I know the answer to
this, but we're not going to use that same construction company that's
been working years --
MR. LOBB: We are not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- longer than --
MR. LOBB: This is -- this contract -- for the record,
Commissioners, Justin Lobb, Executive Manager, Airport Authority.
This is the low-bid contractor, responsive contractors, Ajax Paving
Industries of Florida, and they do have a pretty good reputation of
performance with the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the other one finish yet over
November 10, 2020
Page 148
there?
MR. LOBB: We're at about 95 percent completion on that
project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry you had to suffer
through all of that.
MR. LOBB: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes that's what happens
when you have to go for the lowest price, and -- you get the -- you
don't get the quality that you hoped for. I hope we learn from that a
little bit. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We need a motion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve, please.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. Second by Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Or the other way; either way. All
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
November 10, 2020
Page 149
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we move on to staff and
commission general communications.
Just a reminder of your currently scheduled November 17th
BCC mental health workshop. I believe Commissioner Solis wants
to have a discussion with the Board during his communication about
that particular meeting date. But other than that, I'll wait till the end
of the comments.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then, Commissioner
Solis, you had something for the good of the order.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I would. It's scheduled for
November, however, as I understand it, we had retained, who was it,
Jacobs, I think, Engineering, to do an analysis of all of the options for
building this central receiving facility. As I understand it, that report
has just been completed.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We just received it this past Friday.
We have not yet had a chance to complete our review. I think there's
still some final amendments that need to be made, and then we would
also need to get it out to the stakeholders for some level of --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- review and comment before the workshop.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I recall, Commissioner
McDaniel, were you not going to be in town on when it's scheduled
now?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You recall correctly, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. My only concern is that
after all the work and all the time and energy that's been spent, I
really want to make sure that we do this methodically. So what I
was going to request was that we continue the workshop until the first
workshop available in December just to give us, one, more time to
review and finalize the report, speak with the stakeholders, also,
Commissioner McDaniel's been so supportive of it, will be there, and
November 10, 2020
Page 150
also, I hate to say it, but we'll have a new commissioner, and he can
be there as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. He'll enjoy that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So if you could make
arrangements to delay that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. My thought would be December 15th,
which is, you know, your second Tuesday -- I'm sorry -- your third
Tuesday, actually, in the month. So December 15th is the date that
we'll target and try to work with your staff to see if that works for
everyone.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And if it was pushed to January,
is there a problem, given the fact that it's 10 days before Christmas?
MR. OCHS: Not for us.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I wouldn't have any -- I
don't think it would make any difference if it was pushed to January,
but we've been on such a roll. I mean, is there a reason to do that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's just 10 days before
Christmas.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're all ready for the big
dude in the red suit. I'm good with the 15th.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's because you don't shop
like I do.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So are we going to do this
on December 15th? Is that okay, or do you want to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, no. That's fine. I'm
going to be here.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I know we're all going
to have a few things to say about Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you don't have to do that.
November 10, 2020
Page 151
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We have to do that, but let's
get through all of the other comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. I want to start.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or at least one. I just -- this
week, or this past week, I went on a recycling tour with some East
Naples people, and Kari took me. And I don't know if you've ever
been into the new recycling thing or seen this foam -- this foam
recycler.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Recycling machine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What fun this was. If you each
get a chance to do this, take some people out to see it. We went out
there -- first of all, these places, if you've ever been to a recycling
center that is owned by Collier County, it is as clean as a whistle.
You could eat off the floor. Everybody is so happy to see you.
They treat you like their brother, don't they? They're just wonderful.
And I wanted to see the new things. They have this thing for
fluorescent tubes. They put this in this long tu be, it goes
(indicating), and it's gone. And another one (indicating), and it's
gone. It's the funniest thing.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is it going out to Naples Bay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. It stays right in there,
yeah. And then they have this thing -- and there's a huge bin of all
of that Styrofoam that you can't ever get rid of, you can't put in your
recycle bin or anything.
They took this stuff and they shoved it all in this oven, I'm going
to call it, but it's much bigger than that. They put that in there, and
in minutes out it comes, this massive amount of Styrofoam, out it
comes in this lump thing. It looks like -- well, anyway, it's just like
circular, like this, and it's still hot, and it's so heavy. It's hard to
hold, you know. It's really heavy. And they did that just in
November 10, 2020
Page 152
minutes. That's something that would be filling our landfill and
never deteriorate, and now we've got this there. And I'm just so
proud of it, and I wanted to tell you all that we've got some great new
machinery.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And where is the recycling
facility that you visited?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, I went to two, but the
one that has the foam and the tubes, that's over on Goodlette Road.
Nice.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's a one of a -- that's a pilot
test program that we got a grant for right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, sir. First in the state.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, first in the state to recycle
Styrofoam. Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So thank you for letting me
say that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis, do you have
any closing --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than --
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's hold off on that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We'll hold off on those?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just for a minute. Just anything
else other than --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nothing for me, sir.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's really for you because I
got this letter.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, yes. I was going to read this
letter.
November 10, 2020
Page 153
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, that's the letter. Oh, you
got it.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. Do you have --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you may want to hand out
the mask designs.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. These are nice.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe we can get one on the
visualizer.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hand it down there.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it, no.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I do want to read a letter that we
received from Reinhold Schmieding, and I'm just going to go ahead
and read it. It's a short letter.
Dear Chairman Saunders, thank you for extending the mask
mandate order on October 22, 2020. Arthrex strongly supports the
CollierCARES campaign and is pleased to advise that we will donate
10,000 custom masks with the CollierCARES logo for local business
and restaurants participating in the CollierCARES program.
We are hopeful that members of the CollierCARES campaign
will organize the distribution of the masks to these local businesses.
The masks we are proposing, the quantity of, again, 10,000, has the
following features: Four layers of cotton cloth, interior pocket for a
filter, adjustable ear straps, sewn in metal nose crimp, washable
fabric to prevent microbial growth.
The image we are proposing is the iconic Naples Pier at sunset.
Not only is it one of the most recognizable landmarks in Collier
County, but the scene is beautiful and it allows for tasteful,
uninterrupted placement of the CollierCARES logo.
Production and delivery may take at least four weeks once final
artwork is approved with the vendor and the order placed. We look
November 10, 2020
Page 154
forward to working with you on this project and are proud to do our
part in helping the community stay safe during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Best regards, Reinhold Schmieding, president and founder of
Arthrex.
If you could also make sure that we each get one. Only three of
them will probably be used, but if you could make sure that each of
us get one of these as well, that would be appreciated.
MR. OCHS: Very good, sir. All right.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Ochs, do you have
anything else before we get to the --
MR. OCHS: No other business.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ms. Kinzel, I forgot to ask you
this morning if you had any issues to bring up. I know you would
have jumped if you did. But anything at this point?
MS. KINZEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, let's spend a few
minutes talking about --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a few.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It will be just a few, because it's
getting late.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, good.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: While the other commissioners are
talking, I want to ask you to think about something for the next few
minutes.
When I was on the County Commission a long, long, long time
ago, then County Manager Neil Dorrill asked me if there was
anything that I would like to see happen in the future that I expressed
an interest in, and I said, yes, I'd like to see the county acquire Lake
Avalon and turn that into a county park. That actually resulted in
kind of a nasty editorial in the Naples Daily News naming the lake
November 10, 2020
Page 155
Lake Burt and accusing me of having some financial interest in i t, so
it was really an interesting thing from the newspaper. I still have the
clipping.
But, ultimately, the county did acquire the lake and did turn it
into a very nice park. And so if there's something, while we're
discussing your service here, that you can think of that perhaps we
can work on. No guarantees, but give that a little bit of thought.
So I'll start. See if anybody on the Board has any comments,
and I know Mr. Ochs has a few.
Mr. McDaniel, anything that you'd like to say to our departing
commissioner?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're welcome. It's been a
pleasure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You and I have been friends
a long time, and I'm -- it's -- I'm honored to call you my friend.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm going to say what I said the
other day. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. But what
the world needs now is Donna Fiala. And she's lea ving our
commission, and she's taking her work into the world, the world of
our community. And I know you won't be forgotten, and I know
you will be present. And you speak to this community in so many
ways, and it's such a natural transition for you.
And so all the best. And I'm going to miss you sitting up there.
I can tell you that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Really? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll say what I said last time as well
and that is, you know, you've been a wonderful public servant for
November 10, 2020
Page 156
Collier County, and I think the legacy that you leave of public service
here is remarkable. I mean, you've done so much for your
community and your district but the county as a whole that you really
should feel proud because, I mean, it's been an honor for me to have
served on the Commission with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I'll say the same thing.
You've done this for 20 years, I believe, which is an incredible length
of time to serve on the County Commission. Your constituents
obviously love you and, quite frankly, if you had run again, you
would have gotten elected again.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: But everybody's time comes, and I
know you've got family and travel and other things that you really
want to pursue. But Collier County is still home, and East Naples is
still home for you. So as things come up, don't hesitate to give
Commissioner McDaniel a call, and let him know what you need.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we'll try to react to that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then you know it will get
done.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Yes. Commissioner Fiala and fellow
commissioners, if you could indulge me and come on down in front
of the dais, we could get a couple pictures, and we have a little brief
presentation also to make.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid I can't do that. My hair
looks terrible today.
MR. OCHS: Oh, that's okay, ma'am. We'll Photoshop it.
November 10, 2020
Page 157
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's going to need plenty.
I look like I'm standing next to a tree.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, real briefly. On behalf of the
staff, we want to congratulate you on 20 years of exemplary service
to the community.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: It's been a total honor and a privilege to serve
with you, and on behalf of the staff, we want to thank you for all of
the kindness that you've extended to the staff over the years, all the
respect that you've shown us, and it's hopefully been reciprocated,
and we look forward to seeing you on your next adventure. And in
that regard, the senior staff has taken up a little bit of a collection to
give you something that we think will help you visit one of your
favorite places in the world, a little spot up in Ohio that I think you
like to move up to every chance you get. So here's a small token of
our appreciation, help you get up there to Amish country every once
in a while, and a few flowers there, so...
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
MR. OCHS: Get a picture, if we can also jump in here with
you guys.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, it's -- can I say
it's --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You can say whatever you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been a hell of a ride. I loved
it. And it's been so much fun because I've served with the best
people in the whole world. You couldn't pick any better people than
these to work in this county.
So I want to thank everybody for everything you've done
because, yes, we've made a lot of changes, especially in my area, that
desperately needed them, but I couldn't have done it without
November 10, 2020
Page 158
everybody here doing it for me. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's all look at the
camera and get a picture.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He said, look at the camera
and get a good picture, but I'm still in it.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you don't mind, I know all the
staff that are in the room would like a chance to get a picture with
you, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'd like that. Come on down.
MR. OCHS: Come on, everybody. Come on, Jeff. Do you
want to jump in?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, everybody.
MR. OCHS: I think the commissioner had a last wish. You
gave her an opening, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm going to get to Ohio
real quickly as soon as the weather is warmer.
So Burt Saunders said, anything I want. Well, maybe he could
help me, and along with everybody else's help. We have -- the three
parks that we have in East Naples, we don't really have a place for the
kids to play in them. The one did have kind of a place, but it's been
torn down, and the other two don't even have a place for the kids to
play inside or anything. And I've been begging and begging and
begging.
Would you please mastermind that and get that through so that I
can have a place for the kids to play inside, especially to get out of
the heat in the summer and to get inside warmth in the winterti me
where they can actually sit down and have crafts and everything just
like everybody's park?
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have you thought about a
November 10, 2020
Page 159
size? You've mentioned this for quite some time. If you don't mind
me asking, Mr. Chair. Just -- you've talked about -- actually, when
we dedicated the park there, you mentioned it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have you thought about a
size component room-wise or shape or anything?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just -- I've just thought
about being inside so the kids can get out of inclement weather. And
whatever they can do. I've been told that there was no place, but I
think that they can find places there.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, there was a place in between the
two buildings at the Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Park that was
originally planned for the site of the aquatics center. But when we
moved the aquatics to a different location on the property, there is a
future opportunity to kind of fill in that space with some kind of a
gymnasium or community center, something that would provide
some more indoor space. So we can certainly begin that planning
process if that's something, as we move into next budget year, if the
Board has an interest in that.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do that, and I'll work with
staff on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's great. I want to tell you
how important -- our kids don't have a place to go that's safe to play
inside, and so they're on the street corners, and it's not safe for them.
And I've been begging for this for years and years and years and
years, and I would love to see it happen, and we could call it the Burt
Saunders Community Center.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We definitely -- we won't do
that, but we will take a look into it. And keep an eye on us. And I
know you'll remind us as we get into the budget cycle for that.
MR. OCHS: Yep.
November 10, 2020
Page 160
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Anything else for the
good of the order?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then we are adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner
McDaniel and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF OYSTER HARBOR AT
FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 2C, (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20200000012) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2020-199: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF PARKLANDS – PLAT ONE,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001253, AND AUTHORIZING
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
November 10, 2020
Page 161
RESOLUTION 2020-200: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF STONECREEK – PLAT TWO,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000810, AND AUTHORIZING
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR SEYCHELLES -
OFFSITE PHASE 1 WATER MAIN, [PL20190001644] AND
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $7,469.29 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – SITE LOCATED OFF
OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD., JUST SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2020-201: SUPPORTING THE COUNTY’S
APPLICATIONS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR LONG RANGE
BUDGET PLAN REQUESTS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022. THIS ACTION
MAINTAINS THE COUNTY'S ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE COST
SHARE FUNDING FOR FUTURE RENOURISHMENT
PROJECTS
Item #16A6
November 10, 2020
Page 162
RESOLUTION 2020-202: AMENDING EXHIBIT “A” TO
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON
COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO REFLECT THE
TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY
2.25 MILES EAST OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD AND
EXTENDING EAST APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET, FROM
FIFTY-FIVE (55) MILES PER HOUR TO FORTY (40) MILES
PER HOUR, DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
RELATING TO THE GATOR CANAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
[PROJECT #66066]
Item #16A7
A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., FOR A NOT TO EXCEED COST OF
$38,733.10 UNDER CONTRACT #18-7432-CZ TO SUPPORT
PHASE III OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HURRICANE AND
STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION (HSDR) FEASIBILITY STUDY
PERFORMED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM [PROJECT #80366]
Item #16A8
A WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS
FOR STATE REQUIRED ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLIER
COUNTY BEACHES AND INLETS FOR 2021 UNDER
CONTRACT NO. 18-7432-CZ, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED
November 10, 2020
Page 163
AMOUNT OF $167,223 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16A9
AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 20-7678 TO AGNOLI, BARBER &
BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES
FOR THE “SOLANA ROAD STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT” IN THE AMOUNT OF $505,761.55, AND TO
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16A10
A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH PULTE HOME COMPANY
LLC (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY) TO
RESERVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY SYSTEM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
DEVELOPER PREPAYING A PORTION OF THE ROAD
IMPACT FEES, DONATING LAND AND EASEMENTS TO THE
COUNTY AND RECEIVING STORMWATER FOR A FUTURE
IMPROVEMENT TO RANDALL BOULEVARD AND WORK
COOPERATIVELY TO CONSTRUCT A WATER MAIN AND
SEWER FORCE MAIN CONNECTION BETWEEN OIL WELL
ROAD AND RANDALL BOULEVARD
Item #16A11
A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH HACIENDA LAKES OF
NAPLES, LLC TO PROVIDE A FLOW-WAY EASEMENT IN
EXCHANGE FOR ONE (1) TDR CREDIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES
OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTY ON 18 PARCELS OF PROPERTY
November 10, 2020
Page 164
WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CWIP) PROJECT
BOUNDARY, CONTINGENT UPON FINAL BOARD
APPROVAL OF THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE RE-STUDY
AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND THE IMPLEMENTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDMENTS
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2020-203: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-
66, AS AMENDED, THAT CREATED AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING CHAPTER
THREE, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES WITH A PUBLIC
HEARING, MORE SPECIFICALLY TO AMEND SECTION G.6.,
ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER – PUD COMPARABLE USE
DETERMINATION, TO REMOVE THE COMPARABLE USE
DETERMINATION PROCESS FROM THE ZONING
VERIFICATION LETTER PROCESS AND TO CREATE THE
COMPARABLE USE DETERMINATION PROCESS,
INCLUDING EVALUATION CRITERIA, AS A MEANS OF
DETERMINING IF A NEW USE IS COMPARABLE,
COMPATIBLE, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LIST OF
IDENTIFIED PERMITTED USES IN A STANDARD ZONING
DISTRICT, OVERLAY, OR PUD ORDINANCE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION
TO AGENDA ITEM #17E)
Item #16B1
November 10, 2020
Page 165
ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE
CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2002-52, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SEATS FROM FIVE TO
SEVEN MEMBERS AND FURTHER DEFINE MEMBERSHIP
REQUIREMENTS
Item #16B2
AWARD SOLICITATION NO. 20-7787, BAYSHORE FIRE
SUPPRESSION PHASE 3 - GRANT FUNDED, TO ANDREW
SITEWORK, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $658,560, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16C1
THE CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY
DEED AND BILL OF SALE FOR POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE PROPOSED BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND
REGIONAL PARK SITE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $100 –
FOLIO #00209961005
Item #16C2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 19-7653RR,
“CRANE RENTAL SERVICES,” TO MAXIM CRANE WORKS,
November 10, 2020
Page 166
L.P., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT - FOR MAINTAINING ITS EQUIPMENT AT
VARIOUS COUNTY OWNED AND LEASED BUILDINGS
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HVAC UNITS, WELL
PUMPS, ETC.
Item #16C3
A WORK ORDER TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $241,718.00, UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 14-
6213, BID NO. 2008-011, RFQ FOR AIR RELEASE VALVE
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM-RADIO ROAD AIR RELEASE
VALVES [PROJECT #70240] - UPDATING THE ARVS TO MEET
CURRENT COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY STANDARDS IN A
COORDINATED MANNER THAT WILL NOT INTERRUPT
SEWER SERVICE, IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE AND
RELIABILITY OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IN THE
COMMUNITY AND PROVIDING A SAFER WORKING
ENVIRONMENT BY REMOVING THE ARVS FROM
UNDERGROUND CONFINED SPACES
Item #16C4 – Moved to Item #11H (Per Commissioner McDaniel
during Agenda Changes and to be heard with Item
#11B)
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MR.
STEVEN L. BOHNERT FOR 0.27 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4061 32ND AVE. SW AND
ADJACENT TO THE FUTURE ESSENTIAL SERVICES
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THE
November 10, 2020
Page 167
TOTAL COST FOR THIS TRANSACTION WILL NOT EXCEED
$90,000 – FOLIO #36512280007
Item #16D1
AUTHORIZING PURCHASES FROM ONLINE COMPUTER
LIBRARY CENTER, INC., ("OCLC") AS AN EXEMPTION FROM
THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS, TO OBTAIN AN ANNUAL
SUBSCRIPTION USING A COUNTY ISSUED PURCHASE
ORDER FOR LIBRARY CATALOGING AND INTERLIBRARY
LOAN SERVICES FOR LIBRARY PATRON USE, IN A NOT TO
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $120,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS
BUDGETED, THROUGH FY2025
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2020-204: THE REMOVAL OF UNCOLLECTIBLE
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,465.57
FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE LIBRARY
DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
252 AND AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
RESOLUTION
Item #16D3
AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. 20-9102, “SNF
SLIDE POOL & IWF LEAK REPAIRS & RESURFACING,”
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525, ANNUAL AGREEMENT
FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES, TO CAPITAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC., AND AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF
PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,730 TO REPAIR
November 10, 2020
Page 168
THE LEAKS IN THE INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE
RESERVOIR TANKS AND SLIDE POOL AND RESURFACE
THE SLIDE POOL AT SUN-N-FUN LAGOON WATER PARK
Item #16D4
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
COLLIER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER TO
PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND CONSULTATION
SERVICES TO CHILDREN WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF
ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN COLLIER COUNTY, AS REQUIRED
BY FLORIDA STATUTES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000
Item #16D5
AN EXTENSION TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION'S NATIONAL MUSEUM OF
NATURAL HISTORY ALLOWING THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUMS AND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL
SOCIETY TO BORROW THE KEY MARCO CAT FOR DISPLAY
AT THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM UNTIL 2026
Item #16D6
FEE WAIVERS GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2020
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-106
IN THE AMOUNT OF $975
Item #16D7
November 10, 2020
Page 169
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK OF COLLIER COUNTY
INC., TO PROVIDE MEDICAL REFERRAL SERVICES FOR
LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2020-205: (1) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS
TO COLLIER COUNTY'S U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FY2019- 2020 ANNUAL
ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND
ACTIVITIES RELATED TO COVID-19 THAT PROVIDES
$2,476,642 FOR ESG-CV ROUND 2 AND $2,671,095 CDBG-CV
ROUND 3 ACTIVITIES FOR THOSE IMPACTED BY THE
CORONAVIRUS; (2) ASSOCIATED ESG AND CDBG BUDGET
AMENDMENTS, AND (3) AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED SF424S, SF424DS,
CERTIFICATIONS, AND GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENTS
UPON ARRIVAL – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D9
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,327,889 AND NAMI COLLIER COUNTY,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,704 PURSUANT TO THE
STATE-MANDATED LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT FOR
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
November 10, 2020
Page 170
Item #16D10
AWARD AN AGREEMENT TO KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES (RPS) #20-7691RR, TO EVALUATE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT'S (“CAT”) FIXED-ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS FOR
SYSTEM EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS
IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,041
Item #16D11 (Added Per Agenda Change Sheet))
AWARD OF INVITATION FOR QUALIFICATION (“IFQ”) #20-
7801 TO A2 GROUP, INC. (“A2”), FOR PRECONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR THE SUN-N-FUN WATERPARK
RESTORATION AND RENOVATION PROJECT, TO BE
MEMORIALIZED UNDER A SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARED
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (“CMAR”)
AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, TO ENTER INTO THE
CMAR AGREEMENT FOR THOSE PRE-CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES WITH A2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,617, SUBJECT
TO FORMAL RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD AT ITS
DECEMBER 8, 2020 MEETING
Item #16E1
AN AWARD OF $63,731 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR EXPANDED
November 10, 2020
Page 171
TRAINING AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, AND TO APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16E2
RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS’
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES
SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT
DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
15 FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FY20
Item #16E3
RECOGNIZING ACCRUED INTEREST FROM THE PERIOD
JULY 1, 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 EARNED BY
EMS COUNTY GRANT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR A
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $356.05
Item #16E4
AUTHORIZING A $46,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE
800 MHZ INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM, FUND 188 TO ADDRESS
UNEXPECTED REPAIRS INCURRED AT A RADIO
EQUIPMENT SHELTER
Item #16E5
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
November 10, 2020
Page 172
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT
Item #16E6
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
Item #16F1
RECOGNIZING JENNIFER SMITH, PUBLIC UTILITIES,
TECHNICAL SUPPORT OPERATIONS AS THE OCTOBER 2020
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
Item #16F2
THE EARLY RETIREMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT), SERIES 2007, AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16F3
A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EARLY
LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., TO
November 10, 2020
Page 173
PROVIDE LOCAL MATCH FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$75,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2021
Item #16F4
THE USE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION
FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING DECEMBER 2020
SPORTS TOURISM EVENT UP TO $6,375 AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTE TOURISM
Item #16F5
AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL (“RFP”) #20-7785, “TOURISM VISITOR GUIDE” TO
MILES PARTNERSHIP, LLLP; AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ACTION PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F6
AWARD AN AGREEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(“RFP”) #20-7776, “LATIN AMERICAN TOURISM
REPRESENTATION” TO AVIAREPS AIRLINE MANAGEMENT,
INC., AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION
PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F7
ISSUANCE OF COUNTY-OWNED LAPTOPS AND/OR CELL
PHONES TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMBERS FOR USE DURING THEIR SERVICE
November 10, 2020
Page 174
Item #16F8
MAKE A FINDING THAT CONCERN OVER SPREADING OR
CONTRACTING COVID-19 CONSTITUTES AN EXTENUATING
CIRCUMSTANCE FOR PURPOSES OF REMOTE
PARTICIPATION IN A PUBLIC MEETING BY A MEMBER OF
A BOARD OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16F9
RESOLUTION 2020-206: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16H1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2020 AS
NATIONAL HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED
TO MARK BELAND, COMMUNITY LIAISON OF AVOW
HOSPICE, NAPLES, FLORIDA – ADOPTED
Item #16H2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1 - 7, 2020 AS
CROHN'S AND COLITIS AWARENESS WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO
YVETTE STAFFORD JONES OF THE CROHN'S CHARITY
SERVICE FOUNDATION – ADOPTED
Item #16H3
November 10, 2020
Page 175
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18 - 25, 2020 BE
DESIGNATED AS FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO CYNDEE
WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. – ADOPTED
Item #16H4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2020, AS
NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED
TO MARIANN BILLIE, 30290 JOSIE BILLIE HWY. #639,
CLEWISTON, FLORIDA 33440 – ADOPTED
Item #16J1
EXECUTION OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $117,300
FOR FY20 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT - NEEDED TO PAY FINAL CLAIM
Item #16J2
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2020
Item #16J3
RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
November 10, 2020
Page 176
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 15, 2020 AND
OCTOBER 28, 2020 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2020-207: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM
SJOSTROM AND WILLIAM HARRIS TO THE VANDERBILT
BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2020-208: APPOINTING CHRIS BYRNE TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS
Item #16K3
WAIVING ANY POTENTIAL ETHICS CONFLICT FOR A
MEMBER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR
LICENSING BOARD BASED ON CH. 112, FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #16K4 (Note per Agenda Change Sheet)
DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO
NEGOTIATE AND RESOLVE OUTSTANDING
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ISSUES WITH WEST
CONSTRUCTION, INC., CONCERNING WEST’S
PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTING THE NEW TERMINAL
FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT
THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT UNDER
November 10, 2020
Page 177
COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 18-7240 – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2020-40: AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE
URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT OF THE
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND MAP SERIES TO
ADD THE TEMPLE SHALOM COMMUNITY FACILITY
SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A CHURCH OF
UP TO 302 SEATS, A CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO 200
CHILDREN, AND ON TRACT 64 OF THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES UNIT 26 SUBDIVISION UP TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET
OF COMMUNITY FACILITY USES, AND FURTHERMORE
DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
CONSISTING OF 13.5± ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET
WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND
COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(ADOPTION HEARING) [PL20180003708] (THIS IS A
COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17B)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2020-41: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
November 10, 2020
Page 178
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMUNITY
FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS TEMPLE
SHALOM COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW UP 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF
CIVIC, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION (NON-
SANCTUARY USES) ON TRACT 64 AND A 302 SEAT
SANCTUARY, A CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO 200
CHILDREN AND RELATED USES ON TRACTS 65 AND 68, UP
TO AN AGGREGATE MAXIMUM OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET ON
TRACTS 65 AND 68. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT 4630 PINE RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 4000 FEET
WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND
COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 13.5± ACRES;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NOS. 89-213, 90-
418, AND 93-290, RELATING TO A TEMPLE/CHURCH AND
CHILD CARE USES, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. [PL20180003710] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA
ITEM #17A)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2020-42: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
November 10, 2020
Page 179
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CREATE THE
MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED- USE SUBDISTRICT BY
CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM
THE URBAN DESIGNATION, URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT,
RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN DESIGNATION,
URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED-
USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 50,000
SQUARE FEET OF LUXURY AUTO DEALERSHIP USES IN
ADDITION TO COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING
YOUTH CENTERS, CHURCHES, GROUP CARE, FAMILY
CARE, ADULT DAYCARE, AND SENIOR HOUSING. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
ESTEY AVENUE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 3.29± ACRES; FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20190002496] (ADOPTION HEARING)
(THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17D)
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2020-43: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 10-
28, AS AMENDED, THE MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED-USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO REDESIGNATE
PROPERTY FROM TRACT A, COMMUNITY FACILITY, TO
November 10, 2020
Page 180
TRACT C, COMMERCIAL; TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
50,000 SQUARE FEET OF LUXURY AUTO DEALERSHIP USES
IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING YOUTH
CENTERS, CHURCHES, GROUP CARE, FAMILY CARE,
ADULT DAY CARE, AND SENIOR HOUSING ON TRACT C.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND
ESTEY AVENUE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 11.68± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. [PL20190002494] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA
ITEM #17C)
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2020-44: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO EXTEND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EARLY ENTRY BONUS CREDIT
FOR SENDING LANDS IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE
DISTRICT OVERLAY, TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES AND
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMPARABLE USE
DETERMINATIONS, TO MODIFY THE TIMEFRAMES AND
PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS IN THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING
AREA, TO ESTABLISH AN APPROVAL PROCESS AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EVENTS WHICH TAKE
November 10, 2020
Page 181
PLACE IN COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF
FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING
DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.00
ZONING DISTRICTS; PERMITTED USES, ACCESSORY USES,
AND CONDITIONAL USES, SECTION 2.03.03 COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.05 CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING
DISTRICTS; CHAPTER FOUR - SITE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.08.07
SRA DESIGNATION; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.04.05 TEMPORARY
EVENTS, SECTION 5.04.06 TEMPORARY SIGNS; CHAPTER
TEN - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.02.06
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, SECTION 10.03.06 PUBLIC
NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND USE
PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS ITEM IS A
COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16A12)
Item #17F
RESOLUTION 2020-209: DESIGNATING THE CLOSE-OUT OF
THE ADOPTED BUCKLEY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) WHICH HAS FULLY COMPLETED
November 10, 2020
Page 182
DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT
ORDERS CONSTRUCTING UP TO THE AUTHORIZED
DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY
COUNTY STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR SPECIFIC
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS AND TO APPROVE THE
CLOSE OUT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAST REMAINING
TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENT
Item #17G
ORDINANCE 2020-45: AMENDING ORDINANCE 2006-57
EXPANDING THE USE OF GOLF CARTS TO ALL COUNTY
ROADS AND STREETS THROUGHOUT GOODLAND,
FLORIDA
Item #17H
RESOLUTION 2020-210: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 20-21 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.
November 10, 2020
Page 183
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
___________________________________
BURT SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as
presented ______________ or as corrected _____________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.