The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 03/23/2021 Item # 2B (Draft Minutes 2/23/2021 Meeting)03/23/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 03/23/2021 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 03/09/2021 7:54 AM Submitted by: Title: Deputy Department Head – County Manager's Office Name: Dan Rodriguez 03/09/2021 7:54 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez County Manager Review Completed 03/10/2021 5:15 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 03/23/2021 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 14 February 23, 2021 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 23, 2021 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: Penny Taylor William L. McDaniel, Jr. Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Derek Johnnsen, Clerk of Court's Office Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations February 23, 2021 Page 2 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. It's a pleasure that everybody is here today. We do have a special visitor who I will ask, Commissioner Fiala, if you would lead us in the Pledge at the appropriate time, please. And so, County Manager, we have the invocation by Pastor Rick Hausler of the Christ the King Presbyterian Church, and he's also Chaplain of the jail. And I'm not sure -- MR. OCHS: Is he here? MR. MILLER: I don't know. MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I'll do the prayer, if you don't mind. Item #1A INVOCATION GIVEN BY COUNTY MANAGER LEO OCHS CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. All rise, please. MR. OCHS: Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask this, a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the days to come. Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and its citizens; that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens and be acceptable in your sight. These things we pray in your name, amen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Amen. Commissioner Fiala, will you come up to the podium. MS. FIALA: And I'll ask you, if you would please, put your hands over your heart and say with me... (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you so much. MS. FIALA: I have to say hi to Rick. Thank you. February 23, 2021 Page 3 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Yes, good morning, Madam Chair. Commissioners, these are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners meeting of February 23rd, 2021. The first proposed change is to move Item 17B from your summary judgment. It will become Item 9A on your -- the advertised public hearings portion of your agenda. This is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the Collier County Land Development Code to create the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District, and that move is made at Commissioner Saunders' request. The next proposed change is to add Item 10B under Board of County Commissioners. This is a recommendation to adopt a resolution in opposition to the Big Cypress Basin boundary expansion bill. That move is -- or that add is made at Commissioner Taylor's request. I have a time-certain request from both Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Solis in reference to Item 11C. That will be heard no sooner than 11:00 a.m. this morning. That is the agenda item having to do with the decision on where to site the mental health receiving facility. One agenda note for the record. Item 16B1 on your agenda February 23, 2021 Page 4 would ask that we strike the phrase, quote, "and to authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement." That change order has no separate agreement. It's just done by a work order, and that's a staff request. And those are all the changes that I have so far, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, and let's do some ex parte, Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing to disclose on the consent or summary judgment and no changes to the agenda. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same here. Nothing to disclose; no changes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I will echo that. No changes; nothing to disclose. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no disclosure and no changes as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The same with me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. Thank you. MR. OCHS: So we need a motion to approve today's regular, consent, and summary judgment as amended. MR. MILLER: Excuse me, Mr. Ochs. I'm sorry. I've got two people online registered for Item 17. I believe it's for 17B. I haven't been able to confirm that with them. Madam Chair, it's your -- if you're willing, I'd like to ask them right now online if they're wanting to speak to 17B. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. MILLER: I would hate to go past their item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course. MR. MILLER: Let me come up on the first one here. February 23, 2021 Page 5 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 17B is now 9A. MR. MILLER: 9A, yes. I just want to make sure that's what they want to speak about. I don't want to pass them by and not give them a chance to speak. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. MR. MILLER: Let's start with Nora Alvarez. Ms. Alvarez, if you'll unmute. We're trying to make sure you want to speak on 17B, the Golden Gate Overlay. Ms. Alvarez, are you there, ma'am? (No response.) MR. MILLER: All right. Lisa, we'll check with Stephanie Lucarelli. Stephanie Lucarelli, if you'll unmute. We're trying to identify which item under 17 you want to speak under, ma'am. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, she spoke previously under 17A, which was the Palm River sidewalk MSTU formation, and she -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct. MR. OCHS: -- spoke in favor of that. MS. LUCARELLI: Correct. Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. MS. LUCARELLI: Sorry. Yes, not 17B. It was -- I was just calling to speak in favor of the Palm River MSTU again. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Very good. All right. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am. MS. LUCARELLI: Thank you. MR. MILLER: And we have one other online under 17, Nanette Rivera -- Rivera. Nanette Rivera. Ms. Rivera, can you unmute yourself, please, and tell us what item under 17 you want to speak on. Ms. Rivera, are you with us? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think she would be speaking about probably the basin. MR. MILLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: She was signed up for 17. February 23, 2021 Page 6 MR. MILLER: She registered for 17, yes. All right. We'll try to work with them off-line, ma'am. I'm sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. So at this point, we've had a motion. No, we haven't. We have a motion and a second. We haven't voted. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. February 23, 2021 Page 7 Item #2B BCC MEETING MINUTES FROM JANUARY 26, 2021 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 2B is Board of County Commissioners meeting minutes of the January 26th, 2021, board meeting. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Item #4A PROCLAMATIONS READ INTO THE RECORD FOR ITEMS #16H1 AND #16H2 MR. OCHS: That moves us to proclamations this morning. We have two that were approved on your consent agenda that we will read into the record. First proclamation is Item 16H1 on this morning's agenda. This is a proclamation recognizing Sunshine Ace Hardware of Golden February 23, 2021 Page 8 Gate as recipient of the Waste Reduction Rewards Program award for contributing to the greater good of Collier County by advocating the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" message thereby helping to prolong the usable life of the Collier County Landfill. This proclamation and plaque will be presented and conducted by county staff at the Sunshine Ace Hardware location in Golden Gate. And Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating February 26th, 2021, as the 20th anniversary celebration day of Collier Area Transit. This proclamation will be delivered to Michelle Arnold, the Director of our Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement Division, and I think we know where to locate her. And those are the only proclamations that we have, Madam Chair. Item #5A ACCEPT THE COVID-19 STATUS REPORT – PRESENTED MR. OCHS: And that moves us into Item 5A, which is your presentations today. You'll hear a presentation from your Health Department on the COVID-19 status report. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. ABBASI: Good morning, Commissioners. I am Muhammad Abbasi with the Florida Department of Health in Collier County. MR. OCHS: Muhammad, get a little closer to that microphone. Thank you. MR. ABBASI: I'll present the COVID-19 surveillance data, and then I'll hand it over to our administrator, Kimberly Kossler, and she will discuss our vaccination and testing activities. So starting with the emergency department visits for February 23, 2021 Page 9 influenza-like illness syndrome, you can see over the last two weeks, on the left-hand side, the trend is downward, and on the right-hand side you can see the number of visits over time from July of last year to date. Moving on to COVID-like syndrome visits to the emergency department, the trend is also downward for that, and on the right-hand side you can see the long-term trend. You can see the numbers increasing from October onwards, gradually, and the peak around middle of January, and then we see a state of decline onward from that point. Positivity rate for the last two weeks, we see a slight decline, but if you look in the right-hand side, we can see a steady decline in the positivity rate from mid January. Around January 16th we had a positivity rate of about 11.2 percent, and over the past five weeks it has declined, like, 42 percent. Our current two-week positivity rate is 6.25 percent. These are the positivity rates across different areas in the county, and they range from 5 percent in Immokalee to 7.4 percent in Golden Gate, and overall positivity rate for the whole county is 6.5 percent for the last two weeks. Moving on to hospital capacity, even though we see the overall occupancy is slightly increasing over the past 14 days, but you can see the number of COVID-filled beds is decreasing over the last two weeks. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's good. MR. ABBASI: Looking at the hospitalization trends over time, the 14-day average, similar to positivity rate, we peak. We see a peak around the third week of January, and then we see a steady decline after that. It's about 36, 37 percent decline over the last five weeks. Number of deaths, we had a total of 422 deaths since the start of February 23, 2021 Page 10 the pandemic, 379 of those in 2020, and we had 48 deaths this -- from the start of the year, from January 1. And these are the comparison leading causes of death comparing it to 2019, because we do not have the 2020 data yet. It takes about six or seven months. So we'll probably have it around June, July. We'll see what the update looks like. And I'll hand it over to Kimberly. MS. KOSSLER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. MS. KOSSLER: I want to start off by saying thank you to all of you for helping with the COVID vaccination rollout. The communication is key. Education is key. So we can't do that without your help as well. So as of yesterday, total people vaccinated is 99,229. That's a completed series of 27,669 people. And the percent for -- it's not on the screen, but percentage for people who are 65 and older for our county is 50 percent. So we're steadily getting there and monitoring that. It's a little bit of a competition, too, with all the other counties to kind of see where we're at. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. Would you repeat that? 50 percent of the people over 65 have been vaccinated in Collier County; is that correct? MS. KOSSLER: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With one shot. Is that with just the first shot? MS. KOSSLER: Correct, yes. So we have vaccination clinics. This just kind of gives you a picture of, you know, vaccination clinics are going on daily, of course through the Department of Health and our other partners and other agencies that we're working with to make sure that we're providing it. As the supply comes and we know the demand is higher, we're trying February 23, 2021 Page 11 to make it available within seven days from receiving the vaccine. For information on a list of additional vaccination sites, people can go to the FloridaHealthCOVID19.gov, and there they're posting the additional sites that are popping up throughout the county as well. One thing that we are monitoring closely with the state and, of course, CDC is the variants or COVID mutations and how that might impact this pandemic as well as the vaccine efficacy. Some things that we're considering, and that's being monitored closely, is how that impacts the spread of the disease. Is it transmitted easier or harder? How it impacts testing, treatment therapies, as well as immune response, whether that's natural from disease or vaccination. So this just highlights, again, the partnerships that we're developing as well as have already established and continue to develop more on ways to help expand our vaccination efforts throughout the county. Just a reminder as far as the public health advisory that's in place on the vaccination residency requirement; however, these requirements do not apply to healthcare providers or individuals that are coming for their second dose. And not to forget testing is still one of our priorities as well as contact tracing and outbreak investigations along with our vaccination rollout. Between the Health Department and other partners that have come on board with testing as well, it's probably around 10,000 tests that are being conducted weekly, and to date, or as of yesterday, over 163,000 tests conducted. That concludes our presentation. We'll open it up for questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, first I wanted to commend Kristine Hollingsworth, your public information officer. I mean, her sense of urgency getting back with us is -- we all get about a thousand emails a day from people -- at least for me, has been February 23, 2021 Page 12 impressive. One of the things I would just suggest, a trend I see a lot in questions I get from constituents, they see a church or a retired community or some sort of location selected for a large amount of doses and sort of a one-day, you know, vaccination, and then I'm sure we all get bombarded by the same emails. Oh, I guess if you live there and you're rich, or one of the commissioners here pulled some strings or something. So anything you-all can do to inform the public as to why these locations were either selected by the state or by you or both and really to separate rumor from fact. And sometimes we don't know. You know, I'll hear after the fact that a certain retirement community was selected, hundreds of people, even how the Naples Senior Center's been very helpful to identify high-risk, high-age, you know, citizens and have helped funnel them, you know, to get them more ahead of the line of somebody that maybe doesn't have the same things. But that's all I would ask, any little bit of extra information to separate rumor from fact, because there's a lot of rumor out there that there's all this underhanded stuff or these different communities are popping up, you know, with no rhyme or reason and, you know, it would help us all to sort of sing from the same sheet of music. But she's been great, and I'm sure, you know, a big help to you as well, and congratulations on your position. MS. KOSSLER: Thank you. And note taken. We're trying to be as fair and equitable as possible, and we'll take the help, you know, that's offered to us. So we'll try to get more clarification and communication. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you. MS. KOSSLER: Any other questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. February 23, 2021 Page 13 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And on that line, I know we've been successful in peeling out some of -- first off, reaffirm what Commissioner LoCastro said in that we -- none of us have anything to do with who gets what with regard to the vaccinations. That's an important fact to be shared, number one. Number two, you and I spoke last week, and if it is at all possible to -- because our wonderful partner is Healthcare Network of Collier County, and they serve a lot of underserved communities throughout Collier County, not just Immokalee, but a lot of residents in our community. So anything we can -- and they, unlike you, have a capacity for a little bit of discretion as to who gets the vaccination and who does not. So anything we can do to move vaccinations over to that organization to allow for more community-specific vaccinations, helping especially those underserved communities the better, so... MS. KOSSLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MS. KOSSLER: Thank you. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 7 on this morning's agenda, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have three registered speakers here in the room. I have one signed up online for this item who has not joined us yet. Our first speaker is Daija Hinojosa. February 23, 2021 Page 14 MS. HINOJOSA: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hey, good job. MR. MILLER: She'll be followed by Jacqueline Keay, and then Michelle Gorge. MS. HINOJOSA: I love it. See, a good practice run in the morning is all we need. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm here to follow up on my last appearance two weeks ago before you. Last time I was here, I had asked some questions that you were, unfortunately, unable to answer due to being in litigation. Instead, you told me two things. One, Commissioner Taylor, you told me that the magistrate ruling was inconclusive and, Commissioner Solis, you said to consult with my attorney. So I did, in fact, consult with a couple of attorneys, and in that magistrate hearing I just wanted to reiterate to people in the county who don't watch these types of things, but in that magistrate hearing back in November, Steve Bracci cited Code Enforcement Ordinance 2007-44, which this ordinance establishes the Code Enforcement Board and how they're able to collect fines. Article II of this ordinance states that the enforcement board shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide cases in which violations are alleged of any provision of Collier County codes or ordinances. The mask mandate that you enacted is, in fact, an order. So per the 2020 Florida Statute, violating an ordinance is a criminal punishment with a misdemeanor. This means that ordinances are law and, therefore, should be punishable by law. The Order 2020-07 states that not following the enforcement of masks comes with the fine of 250 to $500, but as Article II of Code Enforcement Ordinance 2007-44 does not state any punishment for orders. So, therefore, the mask mandate has no teeth, and that is why the magistrate ruled to dismiss the pre-hearing. February 23, 2021 Page 15 I've also called the Code Enforcement Board a couple of times, and I've asked them, how do you exactly -- are you going to enforce this mandate? And all they tell me is that they're looking for voluntary compliance, but when you go out to stores in the public and people say, I just got written a fine for $250 for not enforcing masks, that's a lie. I've called Code Enforcement. They've told me they've not imposed any fines on people. So as of yet, there are no additional hearings to hear the Seed to Table matter. I did verify that information. So I'm basically just here to say to the residents of Collier County, if you are sick, wear a mask, that is your choice, but do not be afraid to be punished because this order is not an ordinance nor code. So thank you very much. Have a great day. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqueline Keay. She'll be followed by Michelle Gorge. MS. KEAY: Good morning. MR. MILLER: Ma'am, can you pull the mic down closer to you. MS. KEAY: Good morning. The pandemic was the great equalizer that forced us to do some soul searching about what was going on in our homes, communities, as well as the world. This is the reason I am here today. This is Us by Heather McGee is a book that everyone should read. The research finding in this book substantiates the fact that racism harms people of color, whites, the poor, middle class, and the wealthy. It is predicted that the wealth gap will drain over $1 trillion annually out of the U.S. economy starting over the next decade. Racism leads to a lack of diversity and equity which is detrimental to the sustainability of every community. I grew up in Naples, and I experienced racism more times than I care to remember. Those of us with low income and brown skin February 23, 2021 Page 16 were housed in projects: Gordon River and Naples Manor. We were not welcome and were told not to go to white communities or establishments unless we were employees. There was a clear message of us versus them. As a child, I just could not comprehend why someone would hate me or not want to be around me because of the color of my skin. I just thought if they just got to know me and saw what a nice person I was, that they would like me. Well, I learned the hard way that that was not the case. I learned to keep my head down and to not look at or smile at white people while in public, as looking at the indifference and disdain in their eyes was damaging and just unbearable. We were always aware of the racial and economic divides. One can donate money to impoverished groups and still be prejudice against them. It is the mentality that you do not want to see them or have them in your community. It is the action one takes to keep them out of your backyard and communities as you fear they are criminals and will bring down the value of your homes. I am a "them," and I never committed a crime in my life, and I am one of the most intelligent, generous, and loving persons you could ever meet. As we look at the issues facing our community, including lack of attainable housing for working-class professionals, and low-income families, the subject of diversity, equity, and inclusion must be brought to this discussion. We are not exempt from the impacts of systemic racism. Although such discussions may be uncomfortable, we must approach them with truth, transparency, and a desire to work collaboratively together. In conclusion, hate and racism are the greatest threats to our country, and we must address them starting at the community level. Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. February 23, 2021 Page 17 MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michelle Gorge. She'll be followed by, online, Dennis DiDonna. MS. GORGE: County stormwater and city sewer relating to my property specifically. I'm not the only one. Asked to leave my home many times so vibration can happen and driveway replaced. Thousands of hotel dollars spent. Requests for reimbursement. No reply except no accommodations from all. You said you'd make us whole. Some trusted. Broken driveway, land on both sides of the driveway unsafe to walk on for the normal person, let alone someone handicapped. Aware of several injuries. No resolution, not even a single path to come and go from said property. Deep swales on county property with requirements of residents to mow in front of homes. Refusing safe depth for aging community and handicapped. Continuous refusal of ADA accommodations. After hundreds of emails sent, including by professionals, one response from the promised returned phone call from City Council Penny Taylor yesterday after years. Advanced notice of vibration requested. Accommodations requested when forced to leave my home. Protocol of all matters. Charged $1,800. Other residents charged nothing. Still no driveway. Promises of a double driveway replacement per permit once sewer hookup happens. Please tell me a time-certain to finish repairs of damages to my property. Second we have -- why have you all refused ADA accommodations? All of you are aware of this per Penny Taylor. City. County. Sorry. Why has not one leader asked clarifying questions? Isn't that what leaders do? Provide safe walkway to and from my home. Why are you not respecting stress damages caused by this project? None. No response whatsoever. No accommodations repeatedly. City. County. All of you. February 23, 2021 Page 18 We trusted you. You said we would be made whole. The burden has been placed on the residents. Why did you not advise residents to video their foundations, the corners of their houses, the seams in their walls and every room, driveways, land, and seek legal advice? I'm finished. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have one online speaker for this item, Dennis DiDonna. I hope I'm saying your name right. Sir, you will have to unmute your microphone on your end. Are you with us, Dennis? (No response.) MR. MILLER: Mr. DiDonna, are you with us? Dennis DiDonna? (No response.) MR. MILLER: Well, I -- hold on a minute. I think I have a problem here on my end. Dennis, one more time. Are you with us, Dennis? MR. DiDONNA: Yes. Can you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Please begin. You have three minutes. MR. DiDONNA: Yes. I would just like to bring to the County Commissioners just one thing. I am also on the CDC board advisory committee, and the question has come up about buying the railroad rights from Collier County to northward. We are never going to have a high-speed rail system in Collier County. It's too expensive. It's not effective for the money. And I respectfully ask the County Commission to move forward with whatever it costs to buy the railroad rights from Collier County northward to Lee County and further all the way up to Orange County in hopes that -- which is coming fast, the autonomous February 23, 2021 Page 19 vehicles will have a transportation system that is reasonable, and it would be effective. And this is coming fast. I would imagine that the way things are moving along, in three to four years it's going to be available to communities for transportation systems to move people other than just relying on 75 or putting another four lanes on 75 and we become another Fort Lauderdale or Miami. So I just wanted to bring that up to you and -- so you're aware of it, and maybe you can speak to your people in the Transportation Department to move that forward. Thank you very much, sir. MR. MILLER: That was your final registered speaker for public comment, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel, did you -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are you going to address that previous speaker? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I am. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was the reason -- I wanted a little detail on that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. I asked Ms. Patterson, who our office has been working with very closely when we get complaints -- as you know, the area between 41 and Goodlette Road north of Creech Road suffered unbelievable flooding after Irma. And from that, there's been a concentration of changing what is the infrastructure there, and part of the -- or the plan is -- besides stormwater is to work with the city because the city is the service for water and sewer up there -- to put folks from septic to sewer. And this project has -- I'm not quite clear, but a couple years. We're coming into the homestretch. But I think the allegations that were brought forward this morning are serious enough that I think Ms. Patterson will respond to them. February 23, 2021 Page 20 Please, yeah, thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the Director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. As Commissioner Taylor referenced, this is what we call the West Goodlette-Frank project, and the first phase is about 300-plus -- is 300-plus septic-to-sewer conversions as well as the associated stormwater work. And this has been a difficult process. So first I want to say that we're not minimizing, by my comments, the concerns of any resident in the area. This type of work is extremely difficult. It's intense. The installation of sanitary sewer is extremely disruptive. Entire roads taken up and having to dig, replace the roads. There's -- as Ms. Gorge noted, there's vibration when we're putting the road base back in, and it's everything you can imagine and more; however, as Commissioner Taylor did say, there's catastrophic flooding that occurred during the summer of 2017, even pre-Hurricane Irma. So this project had been conceptualized prior but became quite urgent after. It's also kicked off a series of other improvements in the basin to be able to ensure that we can adequately protect the residents as well as the environment, as we know that septic in that type of dense environment is not conducive to being able to protect our water bodies. But in acknowledgment of this, there have been numerous things done to try to ease some of the day-to-day burdens on the residents as well as issues that come up in construction. While we try to think of everything, there are just things that happen that we didn't anticipate in trying to find ways to give people access to be sure they can get to their home or, if they're having to park off site, that they're not unduly burdened, or at least we try to lighten those loads. So I did make a list of some of the things that have been going February 23, 2021 Page 21 on in the neighborhood, and various residents needed various levels of help. And the frustration level is high, frankly. We're getting to the end of this construction, but people are ready. They're ready to be hooked up to sewer. They're ready for this all to be over. The other news is is there's another phase of this that's going to happen. Another 900 septic-to-sewer conversions as we move north towards Pine Ridge Road. We've learned a lot of lessons, but let me just talk to you a little about some of the things that have gone on. We've had staff -- and this is -- this is both our design engineer as well as the contractor and our own stormwater staff as well as City of Naples staff that have been out in the field helping people get things to their homes, carrying groceries and other goods to their homes, taking garbage cans in and out when the area was disrupted, have offered to mow grass and complete other odd jobs on their own time, by the way, not on county or city time, provided extra access accommodations when there's heavy construction that was occurring directly in front of residences. We've provided additional base rock and compaction to make difficult areas passible and provide access during heavy construction, particularly where we have had junctions and things where the construction was really intense. Carried items to and from vehicles when the parking was disrupted by construction. We actually have moved mailboxes back further from the street and provided different types of mailboxes so people can access them from the back of the box if they're not comfortable with getting their mail at the street side. We have actually gone out and raked yards to remove roots and try to level ground, and this is, you know, work in process. Have helped when we've damaged things, like sprinklers, to be sure that we're putting things back as we found them or, you know, as close as possible. I, myself, went out with my staff and collected rocks out in yards. February 23, 2021 Page 22 We've caution-taped areas where there have been concerns about trip and fall, and we have held numerous meetings in the field in residents' yards to talk to them about things so that we could see what was going on and hear their concerns. We can't always give them the answer they're looking for, which is can this just be done? But we're trying to accommodate. And there are more things that we're working on now. It's difficult because of the septic-to-sewer conversions. Some of the things that need to be done on residents' property can't be done until the sewer connection is made, and then we can put things in place, because damaging people's drainfields right now is absolutely positively not acceptable. We have failing drainfields all around the area where we're helping people limp along and be able to get to that sewer connection point. And we are prioritizing people for connection, but we can't go in and do driveway repairs, driveway replacements on top of septic systems. It's just not how it can happen. We cannot compromise the septic systems. So with that, we'll continue to work with the residents. If we have additional access questions or need to provide accommodations -- ADA on private property is a little bit different than, say, ADA for infrastructure of public buildings. We are not trying to put people in the position where they feel unsafe, and so if there's additional things that we need to do to get to that April-ish time frame where we start to make the connections for sewer and we can do some additional activities, we're fully prepared and willing to do that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let me give you a little background. Please stay there, Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The issue is -- right now is they are almost in the homestretch, but because of the problems that they've February 23, 2021 Page 23 had in terms of -- at the beginning of the year with the contractor, there's been some delay. But when they start paving over the roads, which is -- it's much better. But in the meantime, about six weeks ago, the City of Naples sent them a bill for this, for the sewer. So this has kind of added to the mix. And this is a complicated area. These voters are county voters, but they get served by the city. And the city is the lead agency in this. We have had meetings. This is not easy, but let me give you some background. When I took this office, I was going through some emails from my predecessor, Mr. Coyle, Commissioner Coyle, and one of the letters was a woman who had two children and said, I just don't understand it. When it rains, the tub floods. And -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The what? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The tub, her tub. And my children and I have to go over to Publix and use the sink in Publix, because I don't understand what's happening with the water backing up. And then I get another letter early on in 2014/2015 saying, you know, there's this smell that happens when it rains, and I don't know where it's coming from. This is critical. The Gordon River has traces of sweetener in it. We know where that's coming from. And this has been a terrible project for the neighbors. I mean, no one would ever want to go through this, but there's improvement in stormwater. They're never going to see that kind of flooding again, ever. I don't know if anybody drove through there two weeks before -- I guess it was two weeks before Irma. I mean, it looked like a bomb had hit in some parts because the flooding was so bad, and people were ripping [sic] their furniture and everything on the street. This is extremely necessary but terribly disruptive. And the reason that I asked Ms. Gorge to speak this morning February 23, 2021 Page 24 and for Ms. Patterson to respond is that there's just so much we can do legally. Ms. Gorge's been told that by the City of Naples, and we have also told her that here. Now, it doesn't mean that we ignore it. It doesn't mean that we aren't empathetic, but at some point our hands are tied. And I think we all are concerned enough to keep a watchful eye on everything, and hopefully we'll get -- we will get through this. As I said to Ms. Gorge yesterday, it's six Sundays and six Mondays and six Tuesdays away, and Ms. Gorge is priority. She's number one. In the whole neighborhood for this hookup, she's number one. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I had a statement I wanted to make, because one of the representations that Ms. Gorge made was issues revolving around vibration. And I've -- as you all know, I'm -- I, in another life, did vibration studies and managed all that. I would suggest, so that we don't have allegations of impropriety that comes from the construction, you can do -- we used to do pre-blast surveys. Whenever I was permitting a mining operation, we would actually go and survey the residences that were in a certain area, and you could go through that. It's a couple hundred dollars a house. It's really insignificant from an expense standpoint to be able to look at the resident who started off with a six-inch crack up in the corner, and then after we were done, it was nine. And you have -- you have a discussion with them with regard to the impacts of that and whether or not it transpired. So that was my comment, Commissioner Taylor -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- mostly just as a -- she said -- Ms. Amy said that we're looking at another 900 houses. I think we have an agenda item coming on here for Golden Gate City February 23, 2021 Page 25 one of these days with -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- some large utility installations as well. So this is the beginning of the process for all of us. And so if you can add that into your repertoire, I think it will help. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Patterson, first, you're one of the most citizen-focused, you know, employees we have here in the county. I mean, I just -- in the short time I've been here, I'm just so impressed with how you get things done and how you've laundry listed all the ways that you and the staff have gone above and beyond. Alls I would say is we have a citizen that took the time to come here to speak for three minutes who obviously has some very specific issues and has had, you know, what she's saying is a lot of unanswered emails, a lot of frustration and whatnot. We want to be citizen-focused just as, you know, Commissioner Taylor has echoed and we all feel up here. She doesn't feel citizen focus. Do not let this young lady walk out of this room without you meeting with her, talking to her, and let's -- and even if, like you said, it's not lost on any of us that, you know, even if she's first, that we separate rumor from fact. Hey, we know your driveway's cracked, but if we redid your driveway today, that would be a mistake because we're still not done. So you're first, and this is the window. Just so there's more specificity because, obviously, you can feel the frustration. And maybe she's sort of talking to lots of different people. You're the -- you're the main nucleus of this whole operation and so, you know, I have no doubt you're going to, you know, follow her out in February 23, 2021 Page 26 the hall and everything. And, ma'am, we will make sure you get, you know, your answers and issues addressed. It doesn't mean that tomorrow everything happens, because it is a huge project, but it sounds like there's a lot of unknowns and maybe a little bit of runaround. You're the person that's an expert at knocking that kind of stuff out. So I'd appreciate it. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely, no problem. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just again, just to wrap this up, those -- Ms. Gorge's concerns have been addressed numerous times, the same concerns again and again. That's why I thought it was very important to put this on the record so that we're all aware that these have been addressed and continue to be addressed as -- and the emails have always been answered except when we get 10 from her in the same day. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. Item #9A FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING ATLAS, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CREATE THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT (GGPOD) AND ELIMINATE THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY (GGPPOCO) AND THE GOLDEN GATE DOWNTOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT (GGDCCO), AND ESTABLISH USES, February 23, 2021 Page 27 BOUNDARIES AND DESIGN STANDARDS, 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 ONE - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES; CHAPTER 4 - SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS; AND CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. – APPROVED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move now to Item 9A, which was previously Item 17B. It was moved by Commissioner Saunders. This item was continued from the January 12th, 2021, and the January 26th, 2021, board meeting. It is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the Collier County Land Development Code and our zoning atlas to create the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. And Mr. Eric Johnson from your zoning and Planning Department will make the presentation. MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Eric Johnson, principal planner in the zoning division. Today I have the privilege of presenting a very short presentation regarding the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. It's eight slides. Because of the scope of changes that are proposed to the Land Development Code, this would require two hearings. February 23, 2021 Page 28 This is the first of two hearings. If all goes as it's anticipated, the second hearing would be March 9th. So as part of the restudy efforts that went underway in the different areas of the county, including Golden Gate City, there were a vision statement that was created, and I'd like to just read this to you and for the edification of the audience. Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to education, parks, shopping, and services within a vibrant walkable community. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which is what drives this whole Land Development Code effort, was adopted in 2019, and its aim was to create a consistent land-use designation along Golden Gate Parkway. On your overhead you'll see along Golden Gate Parkway, there's a blue area -- two blue areas and a red area. The blue areas represent the downtown center commercial subdistrict. The red area in the center represents the mixed-use activity center subdistrict. And to the left of all this is the Santa Barbara Boulevard, and to the right, which is east, is Collier Boulevard. So this is what we're dealing with. This is Golden Gate City. Golden Gate Parkway is where the scope of this overlay Land Development Code amendment is focused. In your packet in your narrative, I included four different policies that are implemented by the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. You can see here on the overhead there's two specific policies that are pertinent. And so the reason why I'm here today is to present the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District which implements the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Golden Gate City is a remarkable area, and the reason for that is there's a lot of opportunity for redevelopment. Literally, there's opportunity. There's a federal opportunity zone. There's five in the county, and one of which is in Golden Gate City. The geographic February 23, 2021 Page 29 area is based on census track. And the idea behind an opportunity zone -- a federal opportunity zone is to defer or reduce taxes that would be owed on federal capital gains by moving them into an opportunity fund. Golden Gate City is in an innovation zone. There's three of them in the county; one of them is here. This Golden Gate City -- or the Golden Gate City Economic Development Zone was approved or adopted in 2018 through the Ordinance 2018-56. The idea is here it promotes economic development through the use of Tax Increment Financing, TIF, in the Golden Gate City Economic Trust Fund and the maximum trust fund corpus, I believe, is two million, and so that could be used for infrastructure improvements or for targeted industries. Here is the proposed boundary of the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District as it will appear in the Land Development Code. It follows the path that was outlined in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. In the center is the mixed-use activity center subdistrict. We denote that as GGPOD AC, and then on the ends are the downtown center commercial subdistrict, the GGPOD DT. So there's going to be different levels of commercial intensity that is earmarked for these different subdistricts. The activity center, the GGPOD AC would be more intense than the DT. In summary, the Land Development Code amendment that's before you today would continue to permit the uses that are currently allowed and enjoyed from the underlying zoning districts. We're not taking away or proposing to take away any uses from the underlying zoning district. It would expand the list of allowable uses per the GGAMP, including multifamily residential and economic development uses. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the activity center highlights advanced manufacturing. That's kind of an ambiguous February 23, 2021 Page 30 term. We call it economic development uses. They're proposed -- a list of them are proposed for the activity center, and we would have development standards that address those economic development uses. We're proposing new development standards that would be consistent throughout the entire overlay. That includes, but it's not limited to, setbacks, architectural standards, landscaping standards, open space, signage, and off-street parking, et cetera. One main facet or hallmark of the overlay is that we're going to control auto-oriented uses throughout the entire overlay and provide appropriate compatibility standards for economic development uses. I mentioned that before. Pedestrian friendly is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. What is -- is auto-oriented, you don't mean self -- MR. JOHNSON: No, no. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You mean based on the automobile? MR. JOHNSON: Sorry to interrupt. It would be uses that are in our SIC, you know, in the zoning code that we have determined that don't really meet the purpose and intent of this overlay, like a gas station or a car wash or, you know, things that are auto-intensive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: We're really focusing away from automobiles and more towards pedestrians, and hopefully you agree. As I mentioned, the new rights-of-way, if a landowner were so to choose to dedicate or provide area for a new right-of-way, that would be a pedestrian-friendly design with on-street parking, street trees, and wider sidewalks, and finally, it would -- the overlay incentivizes redevelopment with a new deviation process, a relief process. And so there are other things. These are the main points I just wanted to bring to your attention. I'll be happy to answer any February 23, 2021 Page 31 questions. Ultimately, again, first of two meetings. Staff is hoping that you will recommend and adopt the Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. MR. OCHS: Eric, Planning Commission hearing? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Question about the Planning Commission. This went through the normal process. We went through the Development Services Advisory Committee, the subcommittee, the DSAC, regular committee, went through the CCPC at a nighttime hearing. This commission waived the nighttime hearing in favor of having two daytime hearings. So we've brought this code amendment through the normal process. In addition, it had two outreach meetings. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, in your remarks, if you would just briefly outline -- because you brought this to the fore. Before you were elected, this was something that I remember you talking about. If you could just briefly outline how this all came about, please. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, pardon me. Sorry. First of all, I want to thank the County Commission for really taking some steps over the last four years that I think will have a long-term positive impact on the Golden Gate City community. As you all know, it's about four square miles. There are estimates of 21,000 up to 25,000 people living there. So it's a very densely populated community. I don't believe the Commission, in the distant past, has paid a whole lot of attention to it. So over the last four years, this commission saw the benefit of acquiring the water and sewer system so we could provide good-quality county water and sewer services to this community. We started a process that is underway right now to reimagine and reconfigure Golden Gate Parkway to make it a much more pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly thoroughfare so people February 23, 2021 Page 32 will feel very comfortable walking there and enjoying that Golden Gate City community. We also -- the Boards saw the -- had the insight to establish the economic zone there where the Tax Increment Financing can be used within that four-square-mile area but prominently will be focused on that corridor between Santa Barbara and 951. The Board saw fit to establish that Tax Increment Financing formula using the 2014 tax base, and we can collect up to $2 million in that zone that can be used only for projects and things within that development zone. So the Commission has really seen fit to focus on this. The overlay that's in front of you today is just another step in that process. There is a lot of restrictive zoning along that corridor, and the idea is that over the next 10, 15, 20 years there will be redevelopment, and this zoning overlay will help encourage good-quality redevelopment within that corridor. So that's kind of the genesis of all of this. I will make one other comment. Many of the residences in that four-square-mile area are on septic systems and well systems for potable water. That's a bad combination because the lots are very small. A lot of those water treatment facilities they have in their homes, a lot of the sewage -- the septic systems are failing, and so you have water wells close -- drinking water wells close to failing septic systems. That's just a bad combination. So we're going to take care of that. It's going to take many, many years to convert all that to county water and sewer, but I know we're on that way. The zoning overlay in front of you, I think, will have major impact, again, over the next 10, 15, 20 years. I do have a question and a concern. We received a letter from the Golden Gate Civic Association indicating that they were opposed to the changes in the area where the office complex is, and I believe that's the GGPOD DT section, the Downtown Center Commercial February 23, 2021 Page 33 Subdistrict. I'd like to suggest that we delete from this proposal the changes to that subdistrict. So when we come back for our second hearing we have the rest of the district as laid out, but we delete any changes. We don't incorporate that office subdistrict. Down the road the next 10, 15 years if it looks like we need to make some changes there, that will be something for a future board to consider. But I pose that as a comment and a question: Can we accomplish that goal in terms of eliminating the changes to that subdistrict? MR. JOHNSON: Sure, Mr. Commissioner, I'll be happy to answer that. The reason why we were proposing what we were proposing was because of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The level of commercial intensity for the DT is supposed to be up to C-3 uses. It is your discretion to take away any of the uses that you so choose. I would recommend retaining the office uses that are in that area. If it is the will of the commission to take away retail or commercial uses, then so be it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What I'm suggesting is maintaining the status quo in that subdistrict; not permitting -- not expanding the potential uses in that subdistrict. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Could we see that -- MR. OCHS: Put it on the map. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where this is; what you're discussing. MR. OCHS: He's going to put it on the map, ma'am. MR. JOHNSON: The area in question is here. Can you all see that? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: On both sides? MR. JOHNSON: Well, the DT is on both sides, but on both sides of the Golden Gate Parkway, I would need clarification. Is that February 23, 2021 Page 34 the intent to -- these future -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, if you wouldn't mind, Ms. Tuff is here, and she can explain precisely what their objection is, but what I was looking at is just the area where that commercial office center is currently. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Tuff, you can come over to the podium. MR. OCHS: I believe she's a registered speaker, Madam Chair. MR. MILLER: Yes, she is a registered speaker for this item. Actually, she had a -- she had a -- you had a video and something else that's loaded on to the computer over there. MS. TUFF: Well, the map will be maybe a little more clear for them. MR. MILLER: Okay. MS. TUFF: It's the same one, but I've highlighted the area. So if you could use that. Do I need to do it? MR. MILLER: Let me see if I can bring that up for you real quick. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just a point of order. Do we need to be in a public hearing or something? Or maybe that's a question for the County Attorney. I just don't want to have to back up and restart if we need to do something like that. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think we're okay going -- proceeding this way. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: That's the map you wanted, right, Kaydee? MS. TUFF: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Better safe than sorry. February 23, 2021 Page 35 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, absolutely. MR. MILLER: You'll have to stay on the microphone. I'm sorry. MS. TUFF: There is an existing PUD for the portion in yellow. The long strip is comprised of nine buildings each with three units each, so for 27 units, and that's that very narrow strip of the yellow portion. The larger square area for the east is where we did have retail uses and -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where you don't have? MS. TUFF: We do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You do. MS. TUFF: This PUD was created, let's see, in 2002, and our intent at that time, and it's still our intent now, that that narrow strip is not appropriate for retail uses. The parking would not be adequate there. The 27 units of what -- we already have existing with retail uses, signage, litter, increased crime because you've got an exchange of services and exchange of money; we didn't want to see that in those 27 units. And so at the time we worked with the developer, with the county, and with our civic association to come up with a PUD that was acceptable to everybody. And the long strip ended up being commercial office. And I do have some photos that show it's a very nice-looking facility. I'm sure Commissioner Saunders could -- you know, will agree with that. It's beautiful, and it's been beautiful because it's basically mortgage companies, insurance companies, office uses that there's no exchange of money, so to speak, you know, where you would have somebody walking out the door with a candy bar and throw the wrapper on the ground, that sort of thing, that we have a problem with the retail uses in our community currently. So when this overlay came forward, it would allow the same uses, which are C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning into that area that currently February 23, 2021 Page 36 is not zoned for that. It is -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So the only area you're concerned about is what's highlighted in yellow on that map? MS. TUFF: Well, I'm concerned about the whole thing but, in particular, if you could see -- I do have a slide show if we need it -- what we do not want to have happen there hasn't happened over the last 16 years because of the existing zoning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could you leave that map up. MR. MILLER: This is the slide show she wanted to show, Commissioner. I'll go back to the map. MS. TUFF: It shows -- but here you can see, there's a lot of units. And their existing signage is all spelled out in that PUD. This is the problem that we have in our community right now with our retail. You can't even see in the windows because they're completely covered with signage. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've asked Code Enforcement to take a look at those, in particular, and they are in the process of evaluating whether those are code violations and will be taking -- making efforts to correct those violations if they are code enforcement violations. But if you could go back to the picture that had the little yellow square on it for just a quick minute. What I'd like to do is, in this zoning overlay -- and, Mr. Johnson, this is kind of directed to you. In that overlay I'd like to exclude that PUD area from the proposed changes in the overall plan here. Is that something that can be accomplished? I guess that's a question for the County Attorney and for Mr. Johnson. MR. KLATZKOW: It absolutely can be accomplished. If you're saying that the area that's currently within the PUD will be excluded from this change? February 23, 2021 Page 37 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, may I have a little bit of dialogue? If I interpret Ms. Tuff's comments correctly, I think she's concerned about introducing new uses there that aren't there, allowed right now; retail is messy, kind of thing. I think that's the way she characterized it. The overlay deals with not just uses but also development standards. I'd like to retain these properties within the overlay so that way they can take advantage of the development standards that we're proposing, but I certainly understand maybe removing the uses that Ms. Tuff is suggesting be removed. I have no issue with that whatsoever. And I think the uses are the commercial uses. MR. KLATZKOW: This is coming from the Golden Gate Civic. I mean, do you want to simply exclude the PUD from all these requirements, or would you like the new development standards? MS. TUFF: I would like the PUD excluded from the -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So what I would -- MS. TUFF: It has -- I guess because it has a proven track record. For 16 years, if you were to look, you know, what's happened with other areas, it's not good. But this area, because of what is in that PUD, what they're limited to, what they're willing to abide by, keeps it really nice looking. I would like to see it all along, but we do need retail uses in our community, just not right here where it's already proven to be -- I believe the office space is filled. Maybe not 100 percent. But it's got a wonderful track record that -- why would we open it up to problems when there are no problems right now? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So what I'm February 23, 2021 Page 38 going to suggest is that this zoning overlay is for the long-term future. Nothing's going to happen on that little yellow strip immediately anyway. So let's exclude that PUD from this overlay completely. The property owners there can always come back to us in the future and say, hey, we're not part of the overlay that you adopted a few years ago, we'd like to be, and then we can reconsider it. There's nothing that's going to happen here over the next several years anyway. MR. KLATZKOW: And this is the first of two readings. So, you know, staff can get with the community, and if that's the community's wish, absolutely. But maybe there's are some benefits here that the community's not realizing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So that would be my suggestion as we assume that we'll adopt this on first reading and be prepared to proceed with it at the second hearing. At the second hearing, I'd like to see that excluded, if that's acceptable to the Commission. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, thank you. Commissioner Saunders -- Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, just for a little historical perspective, when did the Golden Gate development plan start? You know, all the -- all the architectural drawings and whatnot to -- you know, to take a look at that area? It's been -- I mean, it's been a while, right? MR. JOHNSON: Well, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has been in effect since 1991. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. JOHNSON: In 2015, the Board directed staff to do a restudy, and one of the areas that were to be restudied was the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It was trifurcated into three distinct sub-elements. February 23, 2021 Page 39 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I want to say, that's a real word, by the way, trifurcation. MR. JOHNSON: It certainly is, at least I think it is. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is. MR. JOHNSON: As part of the attempt to implement what is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, we're moving forward with these development standards, which includes architectural standards. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So I say that as a little bit of setting the table here for something in District 1. And it's perfect that Commissioner Fiala is here. So she did a lot of work to put together the East Naples Development Plan which this is years ahead. You know, we're in the genesis of the East Naples Development Plan. But what we're going to do is make sure that we did the same thing on the East Naples Development Plan, because this is extremely important, very valuable, and in East Naples we don't want it to be 20 years later. And, like you said, we can't tear down businesses because of the rezoning and whatnot, but it gives us a better framework to make that area more pedestrian friendly and bicycle friendly. So anybody that's watching in District 1 -- and I've had 20 town hall meetings in 68 days, and I get asked a lot about the East Naples Development Plan. This is exactly what we're going to do in East Naples. And it takes time. So tomorrow we don't put a shovel in the ground. And just like Commissioner Saunders said, nothing changes immediately, but you have to start somewhere. And we'll be able to learn some lessons learned of some things. You know, I can tell you myself, I'm going to be reaching out to you and your team so that we do it correctly and, you know, as good as humanly possible, and we learn from your successes and maybe some things you would do over. But that's what this is -- you do an East Naples Development Plan, and then you don't just stick it on the February 23, 2021 Page 40 shelf. Then you do rezoning. So this is a big success. It will lead to things down the road, very slowly, but you have to start somewhere. So make sure I get your phone number after this, because we've got -- we have to do something very similar. But thank you for all the work. It does take years, but you've got to start somewhere, and we're going to be doing this in District 1. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a matter of process. Usually you go through the County Manager for that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, Leo, then you get me all the details, but we've got work to do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just -- I want to clarify a point. There was discussion about a taking at some stage. We're not taking away any existing property rights with any of these overlays. We're just not allowing the expanded right within this particular PUD. MR. JOHNSON: What I would say is that any use -- if your property has a zoning, which it does, whatever that zoning allows is going to stay. We're not going to take away any of those uses that are allowed by the current zoning. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, yes, except for this particular PUD, we are allowing for these expanded uses within these overlays? MR. JOHNSON: I'd have to look at that PUD and see exactly what it says. It seems reasonable. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I just -- you know, I just don't want to put us in a position where there's a -- where there's an inferred taking of any form or format. MR. JOHNSON: That wasn't the intent of -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. If that -- I would come to the Board February 23, 2021 Page 41 of County Commissioners if that ever happened. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: The intent here is to grandfather the existing uses, correct? MR. OCHS: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders, you talked before. You're on the list. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, I guess to kind of wrap up then. I think for the long-term future this overlay is going to be very important. If the owners of that office complex, that PUD, want to participate in the -- in this overlay at some time in the future, they can certainly come in and request that. That's not going to be something that would be prohibited. But I've not heard from them. And so I told the Golden Gate Civic Association that I wasn't looking to cram down anything as we went forward, and that included everything that we've done, and I don't have any intention of forcing something on that community that their representatives do not want. And so let's take that little yellow area out, that PUD out. Let's pass this for the rest of the community, and they can come back down the road if they want to be included. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't know if you need a motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, let's hear from Commissioner Solis, and then you can make the motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: First, Commissioner Saunders, this has all been driven by your vision for the area, and it's a great one. And I'm glad you just mentioned the owners of the PUD, because suddenly we're changing the plan, and I was going to ask is the owner February 23, 2021 Page 42 here? I mean, I had -- years ago I believe I might have represented the owner of this particular PUD; many years ago. But I was wondering if they're here. I mean, they might have some expectations -- or if you'd heard from them. I mean, I certainly haven't heard from them. But I was concerned that we're suddenly going to take them out of something that maybe they have some expectation they were going to be involved in. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The interesting thing is I have not heard from a single property owner through this entire process. The only contact that's been made to my office is through the Golden Gate Civic Association. That property owner certainly can come to us in two weeks when this comes back, but I've not heard a word from -- it's been kind of strange when you think that we're trying to improve an area and enhance the redevelopment opportunities that there's been no real contact from that community. Staff has done a tremendous effort in outreach. There have been numerous public meetings and that sort of thing. I just haven't had any responses from them. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Commissioner, if I could, staff would be more than happy to reach out to that property owner prior -- before next hearing. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I just think that would be fair, and they might have just been in favor of it all. But, anyway, I think we owe it to them to at least let them know. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you like to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then if we need a motion, I'll make a motion to approve this zoning overlay, our first hearing with the exception of that PUD that we've discussed. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second -- second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. February 23, 2021 Page 43 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: Commissioners, thank you, and I'll see you again, hopefully, on March 9th. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Ms. Tuff. MS. TUFF: I will say it's a little disappointing, though. If, indeed, they were -- I mean, they had the same notice that all of the community had, and if they had concerns, they would be here today or they would have voiced them to our commissioner or to the county staff during those meetings, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MS. TUFF: Thank you very much for your time. Item #10A RESOLUTION 2021-44: DISCUSS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION TO ACCEPT MR. BROUGHAM’S RESCINDING HIS RESIGNATION – APPROVED; MOTION APPOINTING KRISTINA HEUSER AND PAUL DEMARCO W/TERMS EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31, 2021 – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we move to Item 10A. This is a recommendation to discuss recent developments regarding the Parks February 23, 2021 Page 44 and Recreation Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. As we know, we all received a letter of resignation from the chairman of the board -- of the PARAB board. You're chairman; is that right? MR. BROUGHAM: Vice Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Vice Chair, excuse me, and the name struck -- I was very surprised and talked to Mr. Brougham that day, and he subsequently rescinded his resignation, which we're here to address. Because I understand, just as a matter of process, we need to accept the fact that you have rescinded your resignation, as you have sent a letter of resignation out. But also the issue of appointing the board, because Ms. Curatolo called me yesterday, and she has now decided that she would like to step aside for this board at this time. And so we have the task of deciding who we would like on this board. But I would like Mr. Brougham to come up just for a moment and just to explain in his words the process that -- why you did it and the process that you'd like to be seen followed. MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. Thank you for your time, and I'll be brief. But I think it is important that everyone here and everyone that has ever attended the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and watched appointments being made to various advisory boards understand what the process and the history and the procedures are, at least to my understanding. In 2010, I first applied to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I went to the meeting. I was interviewed, and I was not recommended for appointment to the Board of County Commissioners, so I was not appointed. 2011, I again applied for a vacancy on the parks board, went to February 23, 2021 Page 45 the meeting, was interviewed, was not recommended, but the Board of County Commissioners saw fit to appoint me at that time. That's been the history. That's been the process. That's been the procedures all along, to my knowledge. In my opinion, the responsibility of at least the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is to receive applications from the interested public, to invite them to come to the meeting, to share with us why they're interested in serving. We then take anonymous votes, and we make recommendations to this board. It's your job, in my opinion, to make the final decision as to who sits on what advisory board. We advertised the parks board vacancies at a public meeting on January 20th. There were six applicants for, at that time, two vacancies. Three of the applicants appeared in person, and three did not. After we went through the process and discussion, the board voted -- or the board ranked all six candidates anonymously. The votes were tabulated and resulted in a recommendation which you saw at your last meeting. On 2/9, the Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Solis, you requested that it be sent back for reconsideration by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. From my personal point of view -- and I do not represent the opinions of the parks board whatsoever. In my opinion, that bothered me a great deal. I felt, what were we supposed to do as an advisory board? What was the redo supposed to accomplish? Call all these people back; ask them the same questions; perhaps, get different answers? I don't know. I didn't feel it was right at the time, and I felt it was a break with process, a break with procedures. And I, therefore, resigned by email. Just another moment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can have it. MR. BROUGHAM: Subsequently, I did get a phone call from February 23, 2021 Page 46 Chairman Taylor, and we had a very in-depth and long conversation about the whole deal. I value my time on that board, and I value the contributions that we all made, but I don't think it's the proper place for our parks board -- advisory board or any advisory board to do a complete background check on every applicant. We only see what we're presented with. I personally had never met any of these applicants, never knew any of these applicants. I cast my ranking based upon what was said and what was written. I would like to make a recommendation to you folks today because, ultimately, this comes back to you in any case, put the appointment to fill these either two or three vacancies on your next board meeting and make your decisions, and we'll work with whomever you decide to appoint. And I apologize to the Board for any disruptions, and hopefully you will accept my rescind. I was going to say re-signation (phonetic). But, no. Okay. Thank you very much. And I'll answer any questions you might have. But thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel, do you have questions for Mr. Brougham? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Other than, you don't want to resign? MR. BROUGHAM: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You want to rescind your resignation? MR. BROUGHAM: I respectfully request that procedures be followed in the future. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We have been following the procedures, but I just wanted to make sure you don't want to leave us. MR. BROUGHAM: No. February 23, 2021 Page 47 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And I would like to -- if we want to start with that, I'd like to make a motion that we not accept his resignation and that we keep him on the board or we accept his -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- rescission of his resignation. Whichever way that goes, I don't want Phil to leave. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I second that. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) MR. BROUGHAM: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then, secondarily -- and I think the door is open. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But we did receive recommendations for appointments to this advisory board. I acquiesced -- we all love Kathy. And Commissioner Solis asked to continue that to go back for a reinterview process, but I think we can just accept those appointments that was recommended by the previous interviews and committee and move those people on to the parks and rec board. I'd like to make that as a motion, if we can. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion fails with the lack of a second. February 23, 2021 Page 48 Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would just -- Mr. Brougham's resignation has been rescinded, and we accepted that, and I voted for that, but I think there's a point here that needs some clarification, because this board followed the procedures. I mean, we have the ability to refer things back to our advisory boards which we do all the time. We do that to the Planning Commission. We do that in a lot of different ways, and that's the prerogative of the Commission. And it -- you know, frankly, we now have an applicant who is no longer interested in serving on the board because of what's happened -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and that bothers me; that does. Because she has been, you know, a very active person in the community, and I think, you know, in the future, if a chair or vice chair of a committee takes issues with something that the County Commission has done, I would hope that they would maybe contact the commissioners and have a discussion to avoid this kind of a situation. MR. BROUGHAM: I respect that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. MR. BROUGHAM: May I respond? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you'd like. MR. BROUGHAM: I believe that I did contact the Commission in my email that I sent on Saturday. I did not call any commissioners, obviously. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I meant before the resignation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: After the fact, yeah. MR. BROUGHAM: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. We're not talking about your -- MR. BROUGHAM: Okay. February 23, 2021 Page 49 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're definitely vice -- you're on the PARAB. We just voted on it, so thank you. MR. BROUGHAM: That's fine. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we have a motion that failed. We do have two vacancies on the PARAB. I'm open to -- Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I -- what's your pleasure? I mean, we acquiesced to your request, Commissioner Solis, to send these applicants back to the PARAB to reinterview and go through the process. We've already gotten two recommendations from them from the six applicants. Ms. Curatolo was in those six; she just didn't happen to make the interview. What's your -- what's your thought process? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: May I speak? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I was asking him. He's -- we were moving this along just to -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My thought process was that we were going to redo this whole process because of what happened, and now we get, this morning, an email from Ms. Curatolo that she's not interested. And I spoke to her this morning because of what's happened. She's not interested in serving on a board under these circumstances. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Which I totally understand. You know, I feel like the whole process has been turned upside down. I would say we've got to still do what we had talked about before, and that is, let's just redo the whole process and go through the process, and then we'll get some recommendations. It might be the same recommendations, but we've followed the process, and no harm, no foul. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, and in that light, with February 23, 2021 Page 50 regard to Phil's resignation -- and I concur with you; we didn't deviate from the process. He's within his rights to do as he felt, as he did. And I had a similar circumstance on the CCLAC with two applicants that applied late or weren't in a timely manner and saw the discourse that was going on amongst us and withdrew. So we just stayed the course and took the committee's recommendations, and I didn't push the button to go back and ask that the CCLAC reinterview all of the applicants because a couple were late, and that's where I'm thinking; the committee's already met. We've already received applications. We've got two recommendations from them to fill that board up. Why don't we just go ahead and do it and get on with -- get on with our world. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So we have two openings now, and we have a recommendation from the Board to fill those two spots with two individuals. That's already been done. If I was sitting on that board, and the Commission sent it back for reconsideration, I would send you the same two names. I don't know why there would be a change. And so I didn't second the motion when it was first made because I wasn't clear -- completely clear on all of the facts, and it wasn't something that was on our agenda, and I didn't feel that, perhaps, it was appropriate to add this, but at the same time now, I think that we should go ahead and appoint those two. I don't see any reason to send this back to an advisory board. They are volunteers. It takes a lot of time, and I can't see why they would make a change, unless there's something about the applicant that we find unacceptable, and that's our prerogative. But unless there's a problem with the two applicants, I would second the motion to make that appointment and save some time here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So the motion is February 23, 2021 Page 51 to accept the applicants for the PARAB, and that would be Kristina Heuser and Paul DeMarco. I'm reading from the executive summary. They received the most votes from the committee for recommendation to fill the currently vacant seats on the PARAB. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So you want me to reinstate my motion that failed due to lack of a second? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. No. No, no. He just -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I thought you made -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did make it, but she failed it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He made it again, I thought. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I thought you did, too. And I was -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unan -- it carries 4-1. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Four-1. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I just make a statement? It has nothing to do with the vote. It's more of just follow-up. No? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Quick one. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, one of the things that you said, sir, that concerned me -- and it wasn't -- it's not really directed at you. It's more of just a generic statement, but anything the boards can do to really do a deeper dive into these candidates -- I mean, I know that you said, hey, I never even met these people; I just February 23, 2021 Page 52 looked at the resumés. I've always felt the resumé gets you the interview; the interview gets you the job. And when we're counting on the boards to give us recommendations, I mean, my expectation is that a little bit of a deeper dive is done, not just somebody's padded a resumé, sent it, everybody's read it, and pick the two thickest resumés. So I don't direct this just to you, but to any board, you know, presidents, chairman, whatever the official title is, you know, our expectation is that you have met the people, or at least that's mine. And so any little bit that can be done, even if it's a Zoom phone call, so that when you make a recommendation to us it passes unanimously because we feel like you-all have done the interviews or you've vetted the candidates, not just sort of looked at -- anybody can put together a resumé. But that's the only thing I just wanted to mention. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. County Manager. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's got her eyes crossed. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, do you want -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Item #10B – Discussion continued to later in the meeting. RESOLUTION 2021-46: ADOPT A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PASSAGE AND ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 406 AND HOUSE BILL 209, RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN - ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Item 10B is a recommendation to adopt a resolution in opposition to passage and enactment of Senate Bill 406 February 23, 2021 Page 53 and House Bill 209 relating to the expansion of the Big Cypress Basin. Commissioner Taylor added this item onto this morning's agenda. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I am going to address Commissioner Saunders, especially on this one. And if it feels like we've been here before, we have. But they're -- in the conversation -- and I think we all reviewed the letter that Mr. Mullins wrote that was sent to Senator Passidomo and Senator Rodriguez. And in the course of the conversation with Senator Passidomo, we were discussing the amendments, and she indicated to me, she said, don't you realize what this is going to do for Collier County? And this was a phone call. And there was this pregnant pause. I said, no, I don't understand how this is going to benefit Collier County. And her response was, then get me a resolution. Take a position on this, and this won't go forward. And so I'd like to read what Mr. Mullins wrote, which basically is my concern, because for me it's always been we've had other things to do besides meet with neighbors when we have the COVID pandemic, when we had the stay at home. It's been a very stressful time and a very demanding time in our -- in what we do, and also just the difficulty of meeting with neighbors has been -- has been extraordinary. We're not on the state level. I understand commissioner -- or Senator Passidomo told me I've been doing Zoom since March. Unfortunately, I don't think we've been really moving into that until we got through stay at home. We didn't even have meetings. And as we all remember, when we met with the representatives from Estero and also from Bonita, we were to have those workshops. We were to communicate with our neighbors here but also our neighbors in Lee County to understand the whole issue so that we February 23, 2021 Page 54 could all work on this together and, unfortunately, this hasn't happened. So, basically, this is what this resolution says. But I would like to read a couple of things that basically says that the study on the scientific boundary of the Big Cypress Basin was first publicly presented to the Big Cypress Basin board on November the 18th, 2020, and at that time comprised of a sole member and chair, Charlette Roman, and then the first bill was filed at the Florida Legislature seeking to use the scientific boundary to significantly expand the administrative boundary for the basin, and that was filed on the 30th of December, which was barely six weeks later. And then on the 9th of February, this year, we did vote unanimously to adopt a formal position opposing the language of the Senate Bill 406 and House Bill 209, and we stated that this opposition would continue until technical deficiencies in the bill are addressed, issues of policy and practical application of the initiative are better defined and discussed and the public is informed and educated on how this will impact our water quality and quality management in both Lee and Collier Counties. Had this boundary study and proposed legislation been available earlier in 2020, public outreach and education on the boundary expansion proposal would have been logistically impractical and at the risk of health and safety of our citizens due to the pandemic and its impact on public gatherings and government procedures. And so what I would like to request is that we formally oppose this in this resolution and send it certainly to Senator Rodriguez and Senator Passidomo, and proceed from there. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I'm going to oppose the resolution, and there are a couple reasons. When this issue first came up -- and this is not the first year this issue has been February 23, 2021 Page 55 up. It's been talked about in the legislature now for about four years, I believe. And during some of the earlier stages of the discussion, the question -- and I posed the question to our county staff whether or not expansion of the boundary would have a benefit to Collier County. And the response was that it would for a couple of reasons. One: That there are times and there are places in Collier County that need more water, and this could help us facilitate accomplishing that. And, secondly, this would help the entire region through more coordinated water management projects and things that would benefit Lee County without taking away any dollars or any authority from Collier County. So it seemed to me, going back two or three years ago, that this would have been a win-win for Collier County and for Lee County. As long as Collier County was able to make the decisions affecting Collier County and the funds raised in Collier County, as long as it had no impact on that, how could this be harmful? So we -- you know, the bill's drafted. And it has really -- kind of for the first time has legs, if you will, in that there's a House Bill, there's a Senate Bill, and there's a lot of push behind this in Lee County. We are in a position where we can be at the table, and we can talk to the legislators, and we can make recommendations. We've not made recommendations on how to fix this. We've simply said we don't like this language; we will oppose this if it's not fixed. Now we're taking the position we're out of the discussion; we're opposed to the passage of this bill. And I think that that's the wrong position to be in. I think we can take that position down the road if we don't get the changes we would like to see. This is the type of bill that probably would not make it through the legislature until the very end and most likely would probably be February 23, 2021 Page 56 added as an amendment to some other bill. But the likelihood of this language passing would be probably not until the very last week or two of the session. So there's some time to try to work out language. Now, the Board may not want to take that position; that's fine. I will vote against this because I think it puts us in the wrong posture for this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I will agree with Commissioner Saunders. We took a more aggressive stance at Commissioner LoCastro's suggestion. Took a position of opposition for and until certain things were met. There is an enormous amount of good that can come from the combination and the add-in of these communities. Mr. Barber called me before our last meeting, talked about maybe crawl before you walk, bring in Bonita first, see how that fits, so on and so forth. And I think a direct opposition of this is counterproductive for our community. If nothing else, I've said it -- I've said it on a regular basis. We all live downstream, and communication with our neighbors to the north where the water comes -- we know we have an enhancement for hydric periods and the CREWs. I actually took -- when Commissioner Fiala resigned, I got anointed as the new trustee on the CREW's trust, and I know there's a huge opportunity for us for rehydration and water-quality circumstances as long as we're all talking. And I think I agree with Commissioner Saunders that it's counterproductive for us to go past where we're at right now. We can take a more defensive position or a negative position if we need to as we go forward, but I believe that this -- we've done enough for what we need to do right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. I'm sorry. Commissioner LoCastro. February 23, 2021 Page 57 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I disagree with that. I don't like dealing in likelihoods and approving things and then saying, "however but, comma." This is actually written stronger than what we talked about at the last meeting. So I actually wouldn't vote for this. I would vote for amending this slightly. I like the strong language, but the "however but, comma" is in the paragraph saying we oppose this, unless I missed it. And if it's in there, then I want to take a closer look at it. But, you know, I stand by what we said and what we voted on unanimously that it's a much stronger strategic position. We're not saying that we -- that there aren't positives with the Big Cypress Basin changes and whatnot, but that in order to be assured that Collier County can have a seat at the table, will have a seat at the table, will make these changes, I still think the strongest position is we say, we don't oppose the spirit of it, as we said, but we oppose it as it's written unless A, B, C, D, and E happens, or whatever the list was. So I didn't catch that those you were in there. This one was sort of more just a flat-out no, which I wouldn't agree with, but I still think we're in a much stronger position. Rather than saying, you know, let's just approve it and then we've got plenty of time and the likelihood is it might not pass. The likelihood is we could mention one or two things. You know, I just don't think that's a great -- a strong position for Collier County. That's a lot of hypotheticals that I wouldn't vote for, especially when it's affecting, you know, taxpayers and citizens. But I agree there's some positive in there. Let's make sure we get all the positives for Collier County before we say yes to the whole thing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I'm -- I guess maybe now I'm in Commissioner LoCastro's former position because we -- this is the third time we've revisited this. And the first time it was a very, very February 23, 2021 Page 58 kind of very nice, you know, that we're not really happy with this kind of a letter. That didn't really result in anything. And in my opinion, I felt like this was moving forward without really our input at all. And then we took a more forceful position saying that we're -- you know, we're against it as it's written. I think we need to say we are against this, and we'll work with the communities. I mean, we -- since I've been in office, I've been touching base with Bonita Springs on the water and the Logan Canal and all these things that are going to directly affect District 2. I mean, we are working on those issues because we have to all the time anyway. I think we just need to -- at least this is my understanding from my conversations with Senator Passidomo, if we're against it, we need to tell her we're against it -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- and not create any ambiguities that, you know, we're against it. But -- and the problem is, the "buts" right now, we don't really know what they are. I mean, the A, B, C, and D that we have to develop, we have to develop in conversation with the City of Bonita Springs and Lee County and the Village of Estero, you know, if they're involved in this as well. I mean, that's -- it's the development of those things that are the most concerning, because then we're dealing in hypotheticals. And we hope that it will work out well, but, I mean, this is too big of an issue, I think. At least for District 2, this is -- you know, yes, does it change the hydrology? No, but at least my constituents feel that this is something that directly affects the safety of their properties, and I don't feel comfortable leaving it up to "we'll work it out as the bill moves through the legislature." It's just -- I can't -- I can't do it that way, so... COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, just added to that, I February 23, 2021 Page 59 like what you said. We might not know the A, B, Cs, and Ds, but there could be something in there that says we still have a few unknowns, and that's -- I mean, Senator Passidomo's point is, if you're going to say no, tell me why, I think. And like you said, we're saying no, but I think the "why" is important, and I think we know some of the whys. They might not be solidified yet, but we have some underlying questions that we think aren't fully answered, and that's why we're opposing it as is. And I think that's an important piece. So it doesn't look like we're just fully negative, but we want some things flushed out for our constituents in writing so that the likelihood in Tallahassee doesn't go against us and we guessed wrong, and then it's too late, would be my point. So that's strongly written, but it might need a little bit of polish on how we really feel, is my point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe what we could do is put this on the visualizer, or at least get copies for everyone if you haven't seen it. I think you have, but this is entirely up to you. The issue that I have is I think they call it sausage-making, and that's pretty much under the session. You know, the bill as presented was, you know, we said okay, but maybe don't forget this and don't forget that and don't do this and remember this and why haven't you addressed this, and we did it directly and very specific. Now we're leaving it up to Tallahassee to make it right, and I'm just not comfortable doing that right now. It doesn't mean we can't do it next year, it doesn't mean we can't have meetings. Maybe now we can have these workshops. Now we can meet with the neighbors, our neighbors in Lee County. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I know we're jumping around. I've got my light on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know that, but I'd like to February 23, 2021 Page 60 recognize -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just want to say, if we start doing this as a free-for-all where commissioners just jump in, then I'm going to start jumping in as well. So I'd ask you, I'll -- I don't need to go next -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- but if we don't follow that, then we're going to get into this where everybody's going to be jumping. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not to worry; not to worry. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I wanted to respond to what Commissioner LoCastro said and that is that the second letter I thought was doing the second part, and that was setting out the issues that we had with the ambiguities in the legislation. We did that, and it didn't have the desired effect, so -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- that was my only point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: One thing that we have not done and we should have from the very beginning, but we haven't. When we first heard this issue, the Chairman, Commissioner Taylor, you were going to meet with Ray Rodriguez. That meeting didn't take place. I know that there was some conversations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so we have a lobbyist. Lee County has a lobbyist. We should direct our County Attorney and our lobbying person, Mr. Mullins, to work with our lobbyist to work out language that we can live with. If we don't submit something, if we don't take a proactive effort to fix this, we can't rely on somebody else to do it for us. And so I would suggest that the February 23, 2021 Page 61 County Attorney, Mr. Mullins, contact our lobbyist, have them contact the lobbyist for Lee County, and let's try to work out the language. We've got plenty of time to do that. It's a bit of a complex issue but not one that can't be solved. And so I think we should stay the course where we have -- where we are but direct our staff to be proactive in developing the language that's going to fix this bill, or at least go in that direction. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I just wanted to clarify a point, Commissioner LoCastro. You said you disagreed with me, then you turned around and said -- what I understood you said you agreed with me. We went along with your more affirmation stance in a negative position: If these things weren't attainable, we're not in favor of this process. From what I understood Commissioner Taylor's proposing, it's a no, period. The end. Take it off. We're in opposition of it. And so we've already said no, because we understand and know the benefits of the potential of the expansion of the boundary and the additional tax base. Agree, disagree. I don't disagree that there are not intricacies that need to be attained, but we've already said no unless these circumstances are, in fact, taken care of. So what were you actually saying? Because you -- we've already said no minus the circumstances, and then you -- I mean, you said you disagree with me, but then you turn around and said the same thing again, it sounded like. Are you in favor of killing this bill in its entirety? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First of all, my understanding is we haven't said no. We have a draft in front of us that we're going to vote on, and my position is that that draft does not represent what we talked about at the last meeting because, unless I read it wrong or February 23, 2021 Page 62 we need to, you know, take another look at it, to me it's missing the paragraph that has all the "however, but," missing pieces, so... COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's my point. We've already done, at the last meeting, an opposition letter, unless he circum -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Where is it? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We did that -- we did that at our last meeting at your suggestion. Because we had a softer approach -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So what's this? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is a kill the bill. Don't talk about it anymore. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, that's not true. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's not true. I'll turn it over to Commissioner Taylor. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's not true. This is not about don't talk about it anymore. This is give us some time. Let's take a break -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What I read in that -- forgive me, Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- this year. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- but what I read in there is -- well, what I read in there was we're not interested in this process at all. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. What you read is, we have been preoccupied with a pandemic that has shut down our county for, what, two months at least. We didn't have meetings for -- at the height of the season we didn't have meetings from what, March, April? I don't know when we started our meetings again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't think we ever missed a meeting. February 23, 2021 Page 63 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, no, we didn't have meetings. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, we did. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, we did. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we didn't. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We missed a meeting, did we not? Am I incorrect? Sir, am I dreaming? MR. OCHS: Which meeting are you referring to? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right after. I believe that we did not have meetings. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not for long, but I believe one or two meetings. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We actually had extra meetings to -- MR. OCHS: We may have missed one right at the beginning of the COVID period. I'll double-check. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you. But the issue is, I remember specifically we were to have workshops. We were to meet with our taxpayers, the people who pay taxes in our county about their concerns. We were to meet with the staffs. Not just one-on-one in a conference room for 20 minutes one after the other, but an in-depth meeting to talk about this, and it never happened. And I think we owe it to our citizens to have that kind of -- that kind of hearing, that kind of exposure. Thank you very much. I think it's -- I think it's important that we do this. And, again, the resolution -- it didn't really work. There was -- the letter was there, but it was the request of Senator Passidomo: Put -- get me a resolution and let me know whether you support this or whether you don't. February 23, 2021 Page 64 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That says it right there. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I might. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: It seems like one of the primary concerns by many of the board members had been that this is somewhat rushed, and we haven't had a chance for enough public input, but I also hear concerns about killing the bill altogether. That may not be the most prudent way to proceed. A compromise or an option you might want to consider is offering, in addition to the amendments you already discussed, another amendment that would delay the implementation of the bill. It would still get passed, but the effective date would be later than July 1. That may allow for some public input through rule-making, which is part of the legislative process and some other public input. It gives you some time to do some more outreach and dialogue with, you know, the people in both Collier and Lee County. It keeps the process alive, but it does delay the effective date, perhaps, to the following July and give some time in the meantime to discuss specific administrative concerns that wouldn't otherwise be part of the bill itself. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And that's true, and I think that's one thing that we spoke about, but in conversation with Senator Passidomo, she's -- I mean, she said, send me the amendments or give me the wording, but there's no guarantee that that wording is going to stay. There's no guarantee that the legislature's even going to follow that wording. I think we have to present a unified front. And I don't mean unified Collier. I mean unified Estero and Bonita and Collier. This is a good thing for us. This is what we should do. We support this going forward, and have that. That's not what this is. This is a -- this is a process that has been damaged because of the worldwide February 23, 2021 Page 65 emergency of the pandemic and has affected our -- our work as legislators representing the people that are in our districts, and that's my concern. It is 10:52. We have -- oh, we have lots of people. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I'm -- I've already spoken. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And you put the language up. It's perfectly clear what this resolution says. Oppose passage and enactment of Senate Bill 406 and House Bill 209. That's what the resolution says. I think it's a mistake to do that. I will reiterate what I said before. And I was in the legislature for 14 years, and it's always very helpful if a constituent, whether it be a county, a city, or a corporation, an individual, if they've got a problem with language, it's always helpful to get language and some suggestions from that entity, especially if it's a county that has a lobbyist and a lobbying arm. We have that capacity; we just haven't done that. And I want to ask our chairman a question, because I'm a little bit concerned. If we pass this resolution, are you suggesting that Senator Passidomo has said that she will kill this bill based on our resolution? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know that -- I don't -- Senator Passidomo is one of many up there. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I understand that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: She just wants -- she just wants Collier County -- when I said, I'm not -- I don't know the benefits. I haven't been educated on it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. The reason that I'm asking that questions is you've said -- and I think you've said it twice now. But at the beginning -- and I wrote it down -- Senator February 23, 2021 Page 66 Passidomo said if we take a position in opposition of this bill, it will not go forward. Those were your words. And I just don't believe that -- I mean, I don't doubt that you heard that. It just seems awfully strange to me that a senator would be in a position of killing a bill based on this resolution. I just -- I would think she would want to understand what our problems are and have us try to help fix it. But maybe that's correct, and if that is correct, then we pass the resolution, the bill goes away. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I don't think this issue's going to go away. As you've said, sir, three, four years this has been -- I look forward to -- I look forward to it being aired in a public arena. I look forward to the workshops and discussing this and understanding what the motivation is behind this and how it will benefit Collier County. Because I, again, don't understand it the way I need to understand it to say this is a great idea, this is what Collier County needs. I don't know that that's the case. I can't say that that's the case right now. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well -- and, again, I occur with Commissioner Saunders. We've already said that "but for these particular things," and I suggest we move forward with what we've already done, say "no except for" until our concerns are, in fact, addressed, utilize our internal liaison and our lobbyist, both Lee County's lobbyist and ours, to effectuate those requests that we've already made per Commissioner LoCastro's motion at our last -- I think it was at our last meeting. It might have been in the first meeting in January. I can't remember. Bottom line, we basically already said that. But allow this to move forward "but for these." CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Solis, and then we're going to go to public comment. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I appreciate that the -- we'll work February 23, 2021 Page 67 through this moving forward. But my question is, how do we do what would need to be done as a group to come up with the agreed-upon revisions to it prior to the committee meetings happening and all of this? I just don't see that there is enough time for us to have another meeting on this and have meetings collectively with the municipalities in Lee County. I mean, I spoke to somebody from Lee County yesterday for over an hour. And, you know, I think this requires a process that we're not going to get if we -- if we do it the other way, and that is we don't oppose it and then we try to work through it -- through the process. It's just -- I just don't see that it's doable. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Commissioner McDaniel, I'm going to hold on, because we have public comment, and I'm going to ask if -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did have one question, if I may. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, and that's, has our staff sent anything to Senator Rodriguez with regard to our concerns on this proposed language, adjustments, concerns that have been raised? That's something -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He received the letter. He received the letter we wrote. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The second letter? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I asked our staff. Did we do that? MR. OCHS: John? MR. MULLINS: For the record, John Mullins, Government Affairs Manager. He did receive the letter, and it was acknowledged by his office. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you. February 23, 2021 Page 68 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How many do we have? MR. MILLER: We have two speakers, madam. Your first speaker is Meredith Budd, and she will be followed by Ellin Goetz. MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of the Florida Wildlife Federation. I spoke two weeks ago on this item really to elevate the concern that the Federation has regarding the potential fiscal impacts of this proposed expansion, particularly as it pertains to Everglades restoration efforts. So Everglades dollars would be redirected from the Okeechobee basin to the Big Cypress Basin, and that would certainly have an impact on the funding going towards Everglades restoration, which is a concern. There has been a strong focus on Everglades restoration, especially from the state, and we're very appreciative of that. So there's a chance that that gap could be -- could be met, could be fixed, but that may come at the expense of other really important environmental programs like Florida Forever, Rollin family lands, Springs restoration. These are programs that are consistently underfunded. So the concern that I have is this potential fiscal impact that we see outside of these counties that we're talking about, Collier and Lee Counties, but then also have effects here in Collier and Lee County as well, but across the state. And, again, those programs have all been consistently underfunded over the years. I understand the sentiment of being a good neighbor, and if I understand it correctly, there was a -- there's a cooperative agreement that the district has with Lee County to help maintain waterways. And so, you know, I wonder if there's other ways to collaboratively work with Lee County, look at that agreement again, modify that agreement in some way in order address those concerns. I understand that sentiment. And, of course, water coming from Lee February 23, 2021 Page 69 County has an impact on Collier County, but if it's truly about the benefits of Collier County, and the basin is here within the boundary of Collier County, then that affects -- the basin dollars will greatly benefit Collier County whether or not it's coming from Lee County or not. So we can work cooperatively, I think, without going forward with this expansion. So I am here supporting the resolution to oppose the legislation. And so I appreciate, Commissioner Taylor, you bringing it forward, and we support the resolution that is before you today. Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker on this item is Ellin Goetz. MS. GOETZ: Good morning. I'm Ellin Goetz. I've been a resident of Collier County since 1984. I've been a small business owner for the last 20 years, and I'm here speaking in support of this recommendation to adopt a resolution to oppose SB406 and SB209. As you know, the BCB was established to protect Collier County's water management over 40 years ago, a very unique situation. As a past board member of the Big Cypress Basin, I had the privilege of understanding how unique the district is and of some of the amazing benefits it provides to our residents. As vice chair of the Everglades Foundation, which works on science and policy advocating for the restoration of America's Everglades, I want to ensure that any change in district boundaries and monies does not have a detrimental effect on that vital process focused on flowing clean water south. We understand the impacts toxicology and red tide have had on our shores and our economy and how Everglades restoration is critical to that process preventing that, and I'd like to have -- we have a wonderful South Florida Water Management District board and February 23, 2021 Page 70 staff that has only been in that role for less than two years. We also now have a Big Cypress Basin board, and I think that we can work through those existing structures to solve these mutual problems that we have. So that's what I'd like to say, and thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. I already spoke. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I -- it's my understanding that we have a proposed specific language addressing the concerns that was addressed in our last letter of opposition. We just sent the letter of opposition but didn't propose any language. And I would suggest that maybe we continue this item for two weeks till our next meeting and actually get the language that we sent or that we proposed to overcome our concerns with regard to this -- to this Senate Bill and House Bill and physically get that language to them. We can't rely upon Lee County or their lobbyist. It's -- these are the concerns that our staff has raised with the basin, and we actually get that language to them. It's my understanding that we just sent a letter with objection but no specific language adjustments, and I'd suggest that we do that before we send an opposition to the entire premise. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I would say that this resolution here is 95 percent complete, and if Mr. Mullins or some other expert is the one to add the other 5 percent, which is the detail as to why we oppose and if that takes two weeks then I make the motion that we do that. I think this is the right way to go. And if people think we're spending an excessive amount of time on this, we always say water is the most important thing in our area here. Well, this does a whole February 23, 2021 Page 71 bunch of things, a lot of things that some people don't understand it will do. It does some good things, but we don't want the likelihood -- if something happened in Tallahassee and then we get the repercussions because we weren't, you know, specific, we weren't decisive, and we didn't lead from the front of Collier County. So I like everything in here except for the missing 5 percent piece, which is why we disagree. So we're not being good stewards. We're just saying we disagree as written. Here's the things we would need to hear before we would send you another letter. And if that gentleman is the expert to help us with the verbiage, then I say we sic him on this thing, and, you know, we come back in two weeks with a letter that's 100 percent meeting our intention. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So is that your motion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That is my motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion fails for lack of a second. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair? Okay. What I would suggest is that this issue be delayed, as Commissioner McDaniel said, for -- until our next meeting; that we direct Mr. Mullins and Mr. Klatzkow to get with our lobbyist and get language drafted that fixes or addresses the issues that we raised. The primary issue that concerns us, quite frankly, is purely governance. We want to make sure, in the bill as it's written, dollars raised in Collier County stay in Collier County. Now, there's a problem with part of the bill that deals with maintenance. That needs to be addressed, because we want to be able to use those dollars for maintenance. There's a part of the bill dealing with governance. The governance structure in that bill is not acceptable; probably not acceptable to Lee County or to anybody. It February 23, 2021 Page 72 needs to be redrafted. And so I would make a motion -- I guess we have a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. There's opportunity. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm asking the makers of the motion to add to that that we have our staff work with our lobbyist to address the critical issues that are important to us. Governance being the primary one. Use of those dollars for maintenance is the other one. And get some language to Senator Passidomo and to Senator Rodriguez and to the House members that have drafted this bill. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's -- both motions failed. So have you made that as a motion, sir? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'll make that as a motion, if that's necessary; that we continue this issue with that direction to our staff. Now, I would ask our staff to share with us the language that is put together. But we don't have to have a meeting to approve language for discussion purposes with the senators and the house members. It's a process that -- you describe it as making sausage. This is not really that difficult. And so over the next couple of days, we should -- or next week or two, we should be able to generate language that would be acceptable to us. But we pay a lobbyist a lot of money. They don't think we pay them a lot of money, but we pay a lot of money to them. Lee County does the same thing; Bonita Springs, same thing. So let's try to get some language together and get it to those members for consideration. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Since that's exactly what I said except it was a lot more verbose, I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If that's exactly what you said, I'm not so sure that I want to make that motion. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Then you have that option. February 23, 2021 Page 73 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, we're pretty clear on it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the motion is that we do not need to see these amendments to the bill before it is sent to the Senate and House? That's the motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's what I heard. So let's try it again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to repeat what I said? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. Or do you want to say what you said? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. Senator Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, okay. So we're going to start from scratch here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The motion is to delay consideration of this until our next meeting. In the interim, our staff, Mr. Mullins, Mr. Klatzkow will work with our lobbyist to draft language to fix the critical issues that are important to us. Now, I believe that there are two critical issues: Governance and the use of those funds for maintenance. But there may be some other issues we've addressed in our letter that should be addressed as well -- and have them work directly with our lobbyist and with the senators' office and with the house speaker -- house representative's office that filed the bill to see if we can fix this. If we can't fix it, then we should take a position in opposition to it. But I would be shocked if there wasn't, on the part of Senator Rodriguez and Senator Passidomo, receptivity to taking this language and working with it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I can tell you on the part of Senator Passidomo, yes, there's absolutely a willingness to do it. So we have a motion. February 23, 2021 Page 74 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that your second? Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner McDaniel, do you have anything to add to this? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, that was -- I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. And that is that if we oppose this bill, that doesn't -- it shows our intent, but it doesn't do anything in terms of the bill that's pending in Tallahassee. And, you know, my conversation with Senator Passidomo, she wants a clear -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- message as to what our position is on this legislation. She might have even used the word, you know, "schizophrenic," okay, and that we're doing this, and she needs a clear message. I think to send the clear message that we're opposed to it -- and, you know, if things can continue, that's fine, but she's asked me for a clear position from this board, and we're not going to give it to her if we go down the road of pushing it another two weeks and coming up with language. We already identified that, and it didn't go in the right direction, so I can't support it. And so there's a motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would echo your comments, sir, because that's -- in my conversations with Senator Passidomo, it's the same way. Make a decision. And, you know, there's no guaranteeing that any amendments that we decide to go forward, even if we do it with lobbyists, lobbyists, it's done on the fly. It's done in a very constrained time period. This is -- this is difficult, difficult stuff, and the unforeseen consequences of decision-making up in Tallahassee, if this bill passes, you know, it's something that we February 23, 2021 Page 75 need to take some time with. This is -- I don't believe that we can move this together like this. Commissioner McDaniel and then Commissioner LoCastro, and then we're going to call for a vote. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: First of all, I just want to -- I've got a phone call from Senator Rodriguez that's proposing this bill -- or I've got a voicemail right now, so I'd like for -- before we vote, maybe I give him -- step aside and give him a quick call just to see if he's got anything. It has been represented to me that his office did receive a letter from us but didn't have specific language and suggestions -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- with what our, in fact, concerns were. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we are doing that. So if you'll indulge and let Commissioner LoCastro go. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Take a break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I was just going to say, I appreciate what Commissioner Solis is saying, but, you know, my priority is accuracy, not speed. This one's a big moving piece of legislation, and I think it's important that our five voices be heard. And if this document doesn't do it properly, then I don't think we should just say, well, this is as good as it's going to get, and Senator Passidomo's screaming for something. So I think she'd appreciate something that was more accurate rather than something that -- and I realize we have to have a sense of urgency, and maybe we have sort of kicked it around and wasted some time. But as we're sitting here today, I still echo that I think this is 95 percent close. One of the smartest guys in the room is sitting over there. So I agree with February 23, 2021 Page 76 Commissioner Saunders' motion to give it to the smart folks to capture what we've been saying and then bring it back to us so the signatures on here actually mean something, and it means what we say, not that it was just, you know, haphazardly quickly put together. And I'm not saying it was, but it certainly needs to be a much better product, and I think it's very close. So if we tell Senator Passidomo that, that, you know, we want -- words matter, and the words on here, we have some that are missing. So I think we've got a motion on the floor, and I second it, and I think we're ready for a vote. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. McDaniel -- Commissioner McDaniel, I'm going to say -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I just share? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just, like, thirty seconds, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I just called Senator Rodriguez and asked him if he would be okay with the suggestion of coming with specific language to address our concerns, and he said absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. There's a motion on the floor and a second. But I would also like to see if the motion maker would amend his motion by saying we would all like to see the language before it's sent off. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not going to amend the motion to do that. This language is going to be going back and forth. Share it with us, but -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is -- and I respect that, but this is Collier County, and this is going to affect us, not legislators in Tallahassee. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Let me ask and make sure I understand what you're asking for, then. If you're asking that we simply be provided the language, there's no issue with that. They February 23, 2021 Page 77 should provide that to us. If you're asking that we have a vote on whether the language is acceptable before it's submitted for discussion, then I can't support that. So clarify what you want to have happen. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That we are able to oppose it based on A, B, C, D, if that's the vote here; that the specific amendments are going to be added to this resolution, and that it is either going to be voted affirmative or it is -- it's going to be denied by this board. That's my understanding of what we're doing. We're not -- we're not putting lobbyists together to see the best product that they can create because of the push-pull. If we have to do that, to me that's done. We say no to this bill, and we do that, you know, starting in January -- May or June. That's when we start that, when we start negotiating with our friends and neighbors in Lee County face-to-face, or Zoom-to-Zoom. Also, we bring our taxpayers involved in this conversation, because the taxpayers are the ones that are being left out of this, and that really concerns me, have been left out of it from the beginning. So... COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So you want me to -- for me to make an amendment to the motion and have the person that seconded it agree with that. I'm not exactly sure what that amendment would be. I think we've got a pretty clear motion. Staff, if you -- when you do put some language together, share it with the commissioners as you're doing it so we know what the dialogue is and we can participate in that conversation. But that language doesn't have to come back and forth to us for approval, if that's what you're asking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was assuming that I wasn't pushing it as far ahead as you. I was assuming that this language would come back to us at the next meeting with this resolution and at that point we would vote up or down on it. February 23, 2021 Page 78 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I don't want to amend the motion. I think we've got a pretty clear language -- a pretty clear motion. Staff's going to work with us with the lobbyists to try to address those issues to try to come up with some language. They're going to share it with us, and if we have individual comments, we can make that, and we're going to be back in front of this -- on this issue in two weeks anyway. So -- but I think that we need to get the process started today on drafting that language. We can't wait two weeks for this board to approve it. We certainly have the ability to disapprove of anything that's put together by staff, but they need to start working on this. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: My only comment is that whatever the language is that is ultimately drafted, I'm not going to support the motion if it doesn't come back to us for approval before it goes to Tallahassee. I mean, this is an -- it's an important piece of legislation, and I think we have to have a vote on what that language is going to be. We can't -- I don't feel comfortable leaving it up to the lobbyist or to staff without our final review of it and approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I mean, isn't that what Commissioner Saunders is saying? Or he's not saying that? Because when he said, well, obviously it comes back to us, and if there's something we don't like, then we can converse with staff. But if it needs to be in this forum right here, then I guess we have to wait two weeks. If between now and the next meeting we can see the verbiage and if we find a typo or a line that's ambiguous, do we have the ability to voice that, or do we have to wait for this exact meeting? I mean, I don't want to see anything go to Tallahassee -- Tallahassee with these three signatures on it that I February 23, 2021 Page 79 haven't even gotten a chance to see, because this represents not only all of the commissioners, but we're speaking on behalf of all of Collier County. But I think we're all saying the same thing. I really think we're sort of going round and round. I don't want anything to go to Senator Passidomo, you know, blind from what we have seen. So I have a feeling we're all saying the same thing. Let the staff work on it. Let us see it. Let us give the thumbs up. If that has to be at a meeting here, then we have to wait two weeks. If it's something we can do between now and then and go, yep, I think the verbiage is fine, then I think we do that. But I don't want anything to go forward that we haven't seen. That's what you're saying, but I think that's what Commissioner Saunders is saying, that, you know, we're not going to just leave it to the lobbyists, have them, you know, forge these three signatures and send it forward. I mean, that's not what we're saying, so... MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. OCHS: Would the Board be willing to table this item till later in the day? We have some language that we've already been working on. If we could consult with Mr. Klatzkow over the lunch hour and confirm with our lobbyist, you could -- you would view that later today, sir and ma'am, and see if that's something that works for you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I think that -- that would work. I think -- well, I'm one person. So -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I'm going to continue this item until later in the day, at which point staff will bring back proposed language to be added to this resolution. This has been tough on you, excuse me, Ms. Terri. I think we February 23, 2021 Page 80 are definitely going to take a break right now. Let's come back at -- all right. Help me, gentlemen. 11:30. (A brief recess was had from 11:19 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Item #11C SELECT A SITE TO LOCATE THE COLLIER COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY – MOTION TO SELECT THE 5- ACRE SITE NEAR THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER – APPROVED MR. OCHS: We are moving to your 11:00 a.m., which is Item 11C. This is an item that was continued from your January 26th meeting, and it's a recommendation for the Board to select the site to locate the Collier County mental health receiving facility. Mr. Callahan will make a brief presentation. MR. CALLAHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations. So today we're here to make a site selection for an infrastructure sales tax item that has been part of a long timeline and process to get to this point. So I won't belabor the point, but we did go through several years of workshops and develop a five-year strategic plan that was adopted by the Board in December of 2019. Along the way, the infrastructure sales surtax did pass and include $25 million for a mental health facility to be built here in Collier County. In that plan, that was the top priority of the committee, to build February 23, 2021 Page 81 and operate a central receiving facility or system to serve persons experiencing acute mental health or substance abuse crises. Again, just recapping what I said, that's the goal is to build a CRF for those under both Baker and Marchman Acts; $25 million. We engaged Jacobs Engineering in 2020 to do a study on potential locations for the facility. They evaluated five sites. Two were at the existing location of the David Lawrence Center, which is where our public designated crisis stabilization unit is currently. And then three sites were here at the government center. Just a brief recap. Site 1 was a vacant parcel adjacent to the David Lawrence Center. It's vacant, uncleared land. Order of magnitudes costs was slightly over $30 million. That is a site rendering that the David Lawrence Center has since worked with their architect to put together. And staff had initial concerns regarding legal proceedings to the site and then the issue of using infrastructure surtax funds on private property. So we asked DLC if they could outline a plan by which those legal proceedings could be cleared up in some type of proposal where it might be permissible for use of those surtax funds. So since we last discussed this in December, a few things have happened. One, in November, the Court ruled in favor of the David Lawrence Center against the foundation to impose a constructive trust for use of those assets, which included that five-acre parcel. In January 28th, shortly after this item was continued, DLC acquired a quitclaim deed to that parcel. And then on February 9th, there was a voluntary dismissal of the appeal to that constructive trust that the Court ruled in favor of. So since then, that has cleared the way for this site to be used, if that's the policy decision that the Board would like to make today. DLC has proposed a conveyance of the land to the county at essentially no cost and then a leaseback for operation of the facility. February 23, 2021 Page 82 So if this site's selected today, staff would negotiate a lease and operating agreement with the David Lawrence Center, and the Board would be welcome to include any points of direction that you'd like to see included in such agreements, if that's the decision of the Board. Site 2, we exist -- has an existing church parcel. So given the developments that happened with Site 1 and that being cleared up, the David Lawrence Center wants to focus on that parcel in Site 1. And this could still be incorporated somehow in planning efforts if that was utilized or some agreement was reached with the church. Site 3, as we explained during your December workshop, staff's not recommending pursuing this site just due to the enormity of the costs that would be associated with the retrofit of that building. Site 4 was the lowest-cost site. It was here. It still exceeds what we have in the infrastructure sales tax; that was Building W here on the Collier County campus, as well as Site 5, which was a parking lot that's adjacent to the juvenile detention center and the county jail; slightly increased costs there. So all five sites actually exceed what we have outlined in the infrastructure surtax currently. General considerations, to recap some of those, mental health experts have voiced concerns over locating central facilities and other mental health services near a jail or judiciary complex. I think the Board needs to discuss whether they're comfortable locating a government facility with a private entity, and then there's existing zoning entitlement processes that would need to take place regardless of what site it's at, and then the ability for future expansion of services. In financial considerations, all the sites' costs, as I outlined, exceed that 25 million, although there were differentials in how that was and would amount by. Operations of the central receiving facility each year will cost 2 to $3 million annually and, as we outlined in that strategic plan and then since, you know, there's going February 23, 2021 Page 83 to be a comprehensive strategy to leverage federal, state, and local funding. I'd point out that local funding throughout every statute that's related to the operation of a mental health facility includes more than just county funding. There's private; there's philanthropic dollars that can be used for that. So I'm not telling you that we're going to figure out how to fund it, but to take advantage of federal, state appropriations and those type of programs, you have to have a project in the works, a site to be able to apply for some of those different grants, state, federal levels. And then cost avoidance. We've talked about this. There's examples through and through where the construction of a central receiving facility and a system actually decreased costs, right? It takes an initial investment, but those types of diversion programs that are put in place, that type of tracking and affiliation with the correct services overall usually leads to a reduction in law enforcement costs and some of the hard and soft costs that are associated with judiciary processes and law enforcement. So the next steps in timeline, just to briefly recap. This is still a long way to go. So, again, depending on any selection of a site that the Board makes today, we'd have to negotiate terms for different agreements to be able to make that work, regardless of what site it was at. We'd then have to go to the next meeting of the Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Oversight Committee to validate the expenditure for the project. A solicitation for design would go out in the spring. You'd look at a design process that was concluding winter, early spring 2022. The solicitation for construction would then take place. It's a 12- to 18-month timeline for construction of the facility. So if we were able to get started on it today, you're looking at the fall of 2023. Maybe some slightly curtailed timelines to actually construct and have this in place. February 23, 2021 Page 84 So with that, I believe that we're going to offer Mr. Burgess from the David Lawrence Center a few minutes to address the Board with any comments he may have, and staff will be available for questions. MR. BURGESS: Thank you, Sean. For the record, Scott Burgess, President and CEO of David Lawrence Center for Behavioral Health. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me an opportunity to speak here today on this most important subject matter, a matter that we've been working in partnership with the county for a long while. And I'm excited. This is a really positive day for our community. We know that this is the number-one priority that's been outlined in the strategic plan that has been adopted, and this is a really important moment for us to move that forward. We had provided you-all about a month ago a position paper related to why we believe siting this over by the current David Lawrence Center operations is the best choice. We outlined the top 14 elements as to why we believe that's so. I don't have all the time to go into all those in full detail, so I'm just going to hit a few of the highlights. First being that that location is more central to our community and more central to the clients and those that we are going to be serving, and with the community continuing to grow north and to the east, that location certainly is more accessible and more advantageous to our community at large. That parlays into how it's more accessible and convenient for our Sheriff's Office deputies. We know that the vast majority, over 90 percent of the clients that they're bringing us, are coming from the community. They're not coming from the jail. So as it's more central to the community, that will be more efficient for them to be able to bring people to us that are in need of these services. It's obviously going to be more operationally efficient for us to February 23, 2021 Page 85 provide these services having close proximity to these campuses rather than trying to figure out if there's a way that we can share staff when we're at two different locations. There's certainly very clear evidence from a clinical effectiveness standpoint that having outpatient and in-patient in close proximity to each other is very advantageous to the consumer, those that we're treating. Additionally, we probably and, most importantly, the consumers, the clients that will potentially be using this facility and those that are involved in that community, have been polled and surveyed, and they would strongly prefer, by great margins, more of a community-based setting versus a setting that's closer to the jail and more of a governmental campus. And NAMI will be speaking to that maybe a little bit more in depth here in a moment. And then, lastly, another important point is we believe that a community-based setting that addresses some of the issues that we're concerned about, if it's close -- if it's placed close to a jail, around stigma and criminalizing mental illness is going to become problematic from trying to secure additional resources. We're going to be going for external resources from federal and state governments, and we believe -- and philanthropic donations. We think that that will be compromised if we put it in a location that is certainly not ideal from a standpoint of treatment and the therapeutic standpoint. That certainly goes to potential re-traumatization, the stigma that's associated and, of course, we're dealing with a lot of folks that have struggles with paranoia and addiction and may have had -- may have strong reservations to come for treatment at a campus that's located close to those locations. So as Sean indicated, we do have the five-acre parcel that we are willing to gift to this project in order for it to take place. And we think that it's the best location for all those reasons and more. As February 23, 2021 Page 86 Sean also mentioned, all of the locations came in at over $25 million. What we have done is worked really hard to try to figure out how to bring that building on that location in at $25 million, and we believe that we can do that by carving out the children's support, keeping the children's support on our current campus. If we do that, we can actually increase the bed capacity even more than what was originally projected. Our current children's unit is 11. The proposal for the new building was to go to 20. If we keep the children on our current campus, we can actually go to 30 or even higher than that across time. So we believe that we've come up with reasonable solutions and tried to address every potential problem, issue, or concern that might be with that location. And for those reasons, I'll just conclude very quickly with my concluding comment in the position paper that I provided, which is: Having served the community for over 50 years, David Lawrence Center has demonstrated commitment, expertise, partnership, and leadership in a very complex field. Our recommendations are consistent with evidence, informed care, current practices across the state of Florida deemed best practice and, most importantly, what consumer, family, and clinical data demonstrates is desired. We respectfully ask you, Commissioners, for your support to locate the central receiving facility by the David Lawrence Center's main campus. In doing so, we strongly believe this facility and plan will best serve the needs of Collier County now and into the future. And I'm happy to answer any questions now or later. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you, Scott and Sean, and thanks to everybody that's spent the last three -- going on four years, I think, working on this for the February 23, 2021 Page 87 community. And this is a big day, and it's a big decision. You know, from my perspective, there's really -- there's really not that much of an -- there's not really an issue as to whether or not, in my mind, that it would be better to be located -- for the people that need the services, that it would be better to locate it next to the existing mental health facility. I mean, that's -- the data's there. I think that, you know, it makes sense -- being next to the jail, while maybe more convenient for the Sheriff -- I did talk to him yesterday, and in fact his data shows that actually very few of the people that end up at the David Lawrence Center go there from the jail. They're taken directly there. So the cost saving that we had discussed at the beginning really didn't -- wouldn't be there, because it's not really an issue. They don't come to the jail necessarily first before they end up at the David Lawrence Center. So there is an added cost but, from what I understand from the David Lawrence Center, they're willing, I mean, to build it on the five acres that's going to be donated. I think that's an issue that we'll have to work through. I think if there's some ideas on how they could assist with that, the issue with the additional beds for the children's unit makes a lot of sense to me. But I think that there are some very significant issues that have to be worked out in these agreements in order for it to be located at the David Lawrence. So I'm going to support -- and I'll make the motion to move forward and direct staff to look at the -- you know, the David Lawrence five-acre site. But I want to be clear that -- because we need to be clear that this is going to be a county constructed and owned facility. I don't want there to be any confusion out there that there this is a facility that's being built just for the David Lawrence Center, because this is being built with tax revenue, and it has to be February 23, 2021 Page 88 built on county-owned land, and it has to be a county-owned building. We cannot use that money to improve a nongovernmental property. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thank you. And so -- but part of my motion, I really want to make sure that we're clear and we give staff some direction on the issues that, in my mind, have to be fleshed out in terms of, you know, ownership in these things. And, number one, right, it's got to be county built. And I understand that David Lawrence has provided some renderings and things. But, again, there's -- I think there's some confusion out there as to who's going to build the facility, and my understanding is, County Manager, this -- we will be building the facility. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'm not confused about that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. I just want to make sure that everybody understands how this is going to go forward. There is some -- the leaseback to the David Lawrence Center, I think we have to work on that very clearly. What I had heard was a proposal that there be -- that the property be deeded to the county but then with a long-term 99-year leaseback. My concern is -- and I'm going to defer to the County Attorney -- that that really doesn't accomplish what we have to accomplish in terms of using the surtax money to improve the property. So those details have to be worked out. And there are long-term issues for both the county and the David Lawrence Center that I think have to be worked out in the operating agreement, you know, if things change. So the operating agreement's going to be key. The David Lawrence Center has provided our community February 23, 2021 Page 89 mental health, in conjunction with NAMI, and all the other organizations have been keeping our community, you know, what it is, and they're certainly the natural organizations to continue this process on this now-improved scale. So I'm just -- I want to make sure that these issues that we have to flesh out in terms of the agreements on the land and the operating agreement are fleshed out in detail. But as I understand it today, all we're doing is we're directing staff what property to look at pursuing in terms of building this facility, which is a game changer for Collier County. We're going to -- we're going to go from using our jail as our main mental health facility to something different, and it's -- I think Collier County has a very bright future in terms of how we help our residents with addiction in mental health facilities. So thank you, Scott, thank you everyone that was involved, Pam Baker, all of the members of the ad hoc committee that spent a year of their time working to develop the strategic plan. Thank you to the commissioners for all of your support, and this is a big day. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Well, I'm a belt-and-suspenders kind of girl, and I think we need to go out for an RFP. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And RFP for? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: To manage the site, to manage the facility. I think -- I think we can't shortchange that. I think it's part of our process. I have no doubt who will be responding, but I think we owe it to the taxpayers to go out for an RFP. I'm looking 10, 20 years down -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Understood. Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And thank you for saying that. I mean, again, it's -- you and I have had conversations ongoing February 23, 2021 Page 90 since we became commissioners, and we all agree there's no rehabilitation or little rehabilitation that comes with incarceration, but there are other mental health facilities and treatment programs around our community, and I think that, as you've correctly stated, that we need to be careful as -- I think you've said it before, the devil's in the details with how we're moving forward. And by moving over, a government facility, are we locking ourselves into an arrangement that we can't necessarily get out of? So I haven't been -- wasn't in favor of this particular site simply because of the litigation that was transpiring and the circumstances that were revolving around it. Those seem to have been overcome. It doesn't take away my concerns with the addressing of the specifics in this particular transaction. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I fear -- and I concur with Commissioner Taylor, not from a fear base. But I fear that by moving down this path, we end up with an assumption or a presumption by the community that David Lawrence Center's going to be the primary operator, and that's not the case specifically today. I have issues regarding that, and I want to see -- as you have correctly stated, I want to see those specifics before I hit the button and go. I mean, I like your idea. I like your motion and your second, but I have to see the detail. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a -- I do have a quick question, if I might. I just want to clarify for the record, the obligation of the county is to build the building. I'm going to ask you, if David Lawrence Center is the selected operator, I assume that David Lawrence Center's going to assume the responsibilities of operation and maintenance of that facility. MR. BURGESS: Yeah. We have provided some draft February 23, 2021 Page 91 language on an agreement already to the county to look at, and we have -- we are absorbing what we believe are standard maintenance obligations for the building. We would be operating that building, and we believe that we would be -- it would be incumbent upon us as standard practice to absorb that cost. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Perfect. And then one other -- just, I guess, a bit of a question. I understand the desire to do a competitive selection to manage the building, but they're giving us five acres of land to put the building on. So that may complicate things if they're not the selected provider. So I'd just point that out as a little bit of a stumbling block to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've actually had that conversation with Mr. Burgess, not specifically about that, but the fact that they are changing the configuration within the existing buildings that David Lawrence owns and manages and incorporating their -- and putting their arms around this building. And he indicated, yes, it would be problematic. So that's why I think we need to go out for an RFP and get it right from the beginning. I'm -- I'm concerned about this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But the -- what we're deciding today is that we're going to build this building, but we're going to do it on that five-acre parcel. So I understand what your concern is, but it's just going to be very complicated. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I think that -- I'm sorry. Did I jump in front of anybody? Yeah, the devil's in the details. There's going to be a lot of details. How do we, for both the county's sake, the taxpayers' sake -- and I'm sure David Lawrence has its own concerns. And putting my litigator or worst-case scenario hat on, which I'm trying not to do, but I have to, how do we unravel this if, you know, things change in the future? February 23, 2021 Page 92 I think that currently David Lawrence Center is our provider, you know, and I think it would be an extension of those services. As it is right now -- and they have been that. I don't know that we've ever gone out to bid on those things. I'm not against that. Unless the County Attorney or County Manager feels that that is a requirement by law, I think it -- I would just -- and I think that's one of those details that we just have to flesh out. MR. KLATZKOW: It's your purchasing ordinance that would govern. You are, in the purchasing ordinance, authorized to waive any procedures on it. So it's not a state requirement that you go out to bid on this, so you can waive it. I would echo Commissioner Saunders that if you're choosing this site now, I don't know how you do an RFP for anybody else to operate it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, especially if they're going to make changes to their operations currently to -- you know, to make it better. I understand the concern. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think at this point we're just going to have to keep the big picture in mind and to -- I shouldn't say keep our fingers crossed, but I think -- I think where there's a will, there's a way. We've gotten this far, and I think we can -- our staff can work out the details and bring it back and hopefully, you know, there aren't any that would be insurmountable that we would have to come back again. But I think, ultimately, the consideration has to be what's the best for the community; what's the best for the people that need this; what's best for Collier County as a whole. And while I think the operational issues for the county might be easier to have it here, I just -- I really don't think that that's probably the best for the people that need this. The data's there. I've seen it. And it makes sense. It might be a little bit more inconvenient, but I think it is what's best. February 23, 2021 Page 93 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. If you could back up two slides just on the operations of the CFR, right there. Operationally, the estimated cost is two to three million annually. Is that our expense, or is that going to be borne by a proposed operator? MR. CALLAHAN: Well, I'll see if Scott has anything additional. But that's -- currently mental health services are funded by a state contract that's based on services, a local match to that state contract, and then any private remittances, and philanthropic dollars that flow in. That's how our current operator, David Lawrence, is funded. Anybody that we bring in to fund that facility is going to have that same mix of operations. There are ways that counties can operate these themselves if they'd like to as far as state statute goes. And I would agree with the comments that were made earlier that if we site this at the David Lawrence Center, we're, in effect, marrying the David Lawrence Center, because there's that proposed conveyance of land. The operating agreement that David Lawrence sent over to the county so far, I will say they've indicated that they're more than willing to work with us. I think having a government facility collocated here is definitely a policy consideration of the Board. And I'll quote a conversation I had with somebody when we were going through this process without attribution. But he said, in a sense, if you're marrying David Lawrence Center, you need to have a really good prenup. And that's what we're proposing that we work on with staff and the County Attorney and the David Lawrence Center if this site's ultimately selected so that those terms are very -- very set in stone how this thing's going to be operated when we bring it back. February 23, 2021 Page 94 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And do we not already contribute to the operations? Because you are our designated mental health facility, we already contribute close to three million a year. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, a little over two million. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: State designated. MR. BURGESS: Yeah, and -- right. And that's part of the state's, kind of, financing plan, if you will, that there's a local match kind of requirement to state dollars, and the anticipation that that comes from the local government is a big part of that. So I guess what I would say as far as the operations are concerned, it's going to cost two to three million dollars more to provide care to more people in our community across time, and whether the building is built here or the building is built over by DLC, there are -- we have one of the highest uninsured populations in our region and in the state. So we have people that are going to require these services. It's growing exponentially. We're sending residents out of county right now, hundreds of them, because we don't have capacity. And we need to have more capacity no matter where it's at. We obviously have a very strong opinion on where it should be at. But it's going to cost money with more bed. You need more doctors and nurses and behavioral health technicians. So no matter what happens or where it's located, these are costs that are just going to naturally increase. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think the homework assignment here is just to pick the most favorable site. I mean, it's important conversation, I think, strategically down the road, but I think, like they say in real estate, it's location, location, location. I think when it comes to cohesion, you know, that's a word I sort of think here a lot in having it next to the David Lawrence Center. I February 23, 2021 Page 95 also think we've got to get that verbiage right. We're not building it at the David Lawrence Center. We're building it on a piece of property that's next to it, so we've got to make sure that we're, you know, eloquent in how we say this, because words matter. But when it comes to -- one of the things that Mr. Burgess said that is very important, especially, I can tell you as a former healthcare administrator, when it come to grants, future grants, philanthropic type of possibilities that are going to come down the road and especially just efficiency of operations, having it, you know, next to the David Lawrence Center is going to be a real strength for this community showing that we have a major footprint that is totally focused on mental health and not fragmented in lots of different places. So I think when it comes to the site, it's a no-brainer, and I think we've got a lot of smart people that can definitely work out the words, and we won't let that fall through the crack. But I think the site is -- you know, regardless of the scoring, a lot of this was from a construction standpoint or whatnot, but from a cohesion of operations and all the other things, you know, Site 1 to me is the winner by far. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just going to respond to Commissioner McDaniel's valid question about the operating costs. And one of the things that the Board had authorized me to do, which I didn't do -- wasn't able to do because COVID started and everything shut down, was I was going to go visit our municipalities and say to them -- Sean and I were going to go to the City of Naples and say to them, you know, this is not only the county's facility. This is everybody's facility, and invite them to participate in terms of funding the same percentage that we are funding from our surtax money as a percentage of what they're receiving from the surtax and participate in this and also discuss the possibility that maybe they use February 23, 2021 Page 96 their surtax money for bricks and mortar things, and we fund it in a way that we could put some of those towards operating expenses. And I have spoken to a few of the council members, and I think it will be well received. I've gotten some positive feedback. So that would be the next step in terms of developing the funding. There's also -- funding has been available in the past for central receiving facilities from the legislature, but that's definitely the next big hurdle is we will have to work on all of those aspects, federal, state, philanthropic, to come up with a process for funding the ongoing operations. But I think that's -- again, where there's a will, there's a way. The community -- one of the things that our consultant that helped us through this process kept saying, he was amazed at how cohesive the group really was and how nonterritorial everybody was that was involved in this process; that everybody had the big picture in mind moving forward and doing what's best for the community. So I feel like that's -- we'll figure that out, and I'm hoping that our municipalities will see the wisdom in joining us in this effort, since it will be their facility as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So let's go to public comment. How many speakers do we have? MR. MILLER: We have six registered speakers, ma'am. Your first speak is Polly Keller. She will be followed by Pamela Baker, and then Donna Fiala. Am I saying that right? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's hilarious. MR. MILLER: Ms. Keller; Polly Keller. MS. KELLER: Good morning, Commissioners. I think it's -- MR. MILLER: You're going to have to pull the mic down towards your mouth a little bit there. Thank you, ma'am. MS. KELLER: That's okay, yeah, good. Good morning, Commissioners. I think it's still morning. I am Polly Keller, and I come to you today as a mental health advocate for literally almost my February 23, 2021 Page 97 whole life. Born and raised in one of the state hospitals that finally were protested strongly in the '50s and '60s with books such as The Shame of the States. I grew up on that campus and came to know from a young age that crusading for the needs of those struggling with mental health challenges was in my blood and, indeed, has become my life's passion. I've been privileged to play a role in seeing community mental health services start here in Collier County and now, across over 50 years, flourish into an expansive system of care at David Lawrence Center. I'm thrilled with the quality of care delivered at DLC and care that is available to all in need in our community. I've seen treatment in medication advancement in the development of an impressive array of evidence-based services that truly are life-saving and life-changing. But equally as important as the interventions and medications provided is the care that is offered. Care that reinforces the dignity of the person; care that is integrated in the community in a residential-style architecture versus institutional settings. Care that encourages and engages those in need of help; care that reduces long-held societal stigmas regarding these challenging healthcare conditions. We've made great strides in this nation following the deinstitutionalization mandates of the 1960s, yet we have a long way to go in reducing stigma and ensuring this care is accessible to all in need in a dignified fashion. I stand here today as a lifelong advocate for those struggling with these conditions and implore you to site the new central receiving mental health facility next to the David Lawrence Center. I simply wish to encourage you to envision an individual, a child, or a family needing mental health treatment support. They're scared, distraught, deeply worried. Do you think that they would be more comfortable, more supported, and feel a greater sense of care by February 23, 2021 Page 98 David Lawrence Center or by the jail? We've come so far in our county, we've come so far in Collier County, and I believe in my very core that placing this facility on the jail campus would move us backwards by decades. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important matter. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Pamela Baker. She'll be followed by Donna Fiala and then online, Linda McKinnon. MS. BAKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Pamela Baker, CEO of NAMI Collier County. That stands for National Alliance on Mental Illness. As you consider the options for the location of the centralized receiving facility, I urge you take into consideration one important often overlooked factor, and that is citizen input; specifically, citizens with mental illnesses and addictions. In the mental health and addiction fields, we operate on principles of recovery. In part, that means we ensure to the extent possible that individuals who use the services have meaningful input into the system of care from planning and design all the way through operations and evaluation. So when it became clear that this was not occurring, apparently, with regards to the planning of the location of the facility, NAMI conducted a small online survey, as Scott alluded to earlier, of people with serious and disabling mental illnesses. They live -- who live in our community to get an idea whether they even had a preference of where this facility may be located and, if they did, what were their preferences, specifically. So there were two main questions. One, if given a choice, I would prefer to have my emergency mental health or substance abuse condition cared for within a complex specifically dedicated to the treatment of mental health and substance abuse disorders where I February 23, 2021 Page 99 may also be able to see my primary healthcare provider and obtain medications from a pharmacy. 64 percent agreed with that. Or the alternative was in a county complex close to law enforcement, Clerk of Court, the Health Department; 14 percent preferred that option. 11 percent said whatever's closer to home. There were zero people who had no opinion. Then a second question was: How important is it for you to have your mental health and physical care provided at the same site? Between all of those options, between somewhat, very, extremely, and not important, 86 percent said that it was extremely -- that it was important to some extent, and 45 percent said it was extremely important. One additional point, and this has been alluded to as well, and that is that a location which is directly associated with the jail may perpetuate incorrect negative stereotypes that people with mental illnesses are inherently dangerous or are criminals, which could encourage discrimination, which we were fighting against for years. We've been working to diminish those impacts over the past few decades only to potentially take a big leap backward if the facility was to be located here. I appreciate your support of the centralized receiving facility which will have a huge impact on improving the overall well-being of our community for decades to come. Please consider the input of users of this facility, acknowledging and validating that their opinions and best interests really matter. Thank you. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Donna Fiala. She'll be followed by Linda McKinnon and then Melanie Brown Woofter. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, I remind you you only have three minutes. MS. FIALA: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Take all the time you need, February 23, 2021 Page 100 ma'am. MS. FIALA: Well, thank you very much. My name is Donna Fiala, and I'm here on behalf of the mental health -- well, not association, because I don't represent anything there. I just want to say that if I were a mental health patient, I would have a real tough time coming over to the government center. First of all, to find a parking space. Second of all, when you find one, how do you get there? Because it's a long walk. The third thing is, there's nothing private about the government center. I would want to get into a place where I feel more private, and I don't think we would have that at all. And so I just wanted to say that just thinking about the patients themselves, I think it's the kindest thing you can do. And then to be -- you know, everybody knows where the David Lawrence Center is or at least knows about the David Lawrence Center. Why would they then want to come to the government center? They might be going to the wrong places. We've got a tried-and-true thing, and I think stick with it. Thank you. Oh, is that less -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The lady makes a lot of sense. MR. MILLER: Next, Madam Chair, we move to our online speakers. I'll remind our online speakers you will need to unmute when you are prompted. Next is Linda McKinnon, followed by Melanie Brown Woofter, and then Nanette Rivera. Ms. McKinnon, are you with us? MS. McKINNON: I am. Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Please proceed. MS. McKINNON: Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm Linda McKinnon, the President and CEO of Central Florida Behavioral Health Network. And I first want to thank the County Commission February 23, 2021 Page 101 and the voters for putting in and voting for this critical, really-needed infrastructure for our community. It's just a wonderful thing. Central Florida Behavioral Health Network is responsible for assuring the safety net of mental health and substance abuse treatment services for the Department of Children and Families. We contract with the David Lawrence Center to provide crisis stabilization, detox, residential, all levels of outpatient and care coordination for people with severe emotional crisis. DLC has been an excellent provider for us, and you're very lucky. They run a state-of-the-art campus available for your community that we wish that we had in our other 14 counties. Our network subcontracts require that our providers and our services meet all the guidelines of recovery-oriented systems of care, meaning that they have to be welcoming, trauma-informed, and provided in a manner that reduces the stigma of reaching out to mental health care. Because our systems of care have to meet these requirements, I can't support placing the centralized receiving facility on government property adjacent to the jail complex as it will increase the perception that mental illness means criminal illness. And I would respectfully request that the facility be located on or adjacent to the current David Lawrence Center campus. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to speak to you today. MR. MILLER: Our next online speaker is Melanie Brown Woofter, and she will be followed by Nanette Rivera. Ms. Brown, you will need to unmute -- or Ms. Brown Woofter, you will need to unmute your microphone. Are you with us, ma'am? MS. BROWN WOOFTER: Yes, I am. Thank you. MR. MILLER: You have three minutes. Please begin. MS. BROWN WOOFTER: Okay, great. Thank you so much. And thank you, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioners, for February 23, 2021 Page 102 the opportunity to share some information with you. Again, my name is Melanie Brown Woofter. I'm the president and CEO of the Florida Behavioral Health Association. We represent over 65 community mental health and substance use treatments providers across our state from Pensacola to Key West, including Collier County and the David Lawrence Center. I just want to share with you some background on central receiving systems. They were developed in 2016 via state statute. Currently we have nine central receiving systems that are in place across our state. We've seen wonderful outcomes with them. Each one is tailored to the individual needs of their community, but there's one component that is consistent across all nine, and that is that the community mental health system is the foundation or the hub of the model. In order to create a single point of entry and no-wrong-door approach, it is very -- the success of that is really guaranteed when there is a single location and the community mental health center is part of that or is the hub that's there. Just to share with you some outcomes that we've seen, when there is a single location, it creates a single consistent and effective process for law enforcement. Out of the nine central receiving systems, when law enforcement drops off for Baker Act or Marchman Act, that drop-off is accomplished in less than five minutes and, in fact, one central receiving system has 100 percent of drop-offs in less than three minutes, which means the law enforcement officer can come, bring the individual inside, and then leave and be able to return to their original duties. It cuts down on transportation costs, and it's definitely efficient for law enforcement. At the same time, the individual that presents is able to have immediate access to professional expertise and begin the triage and assessment and potentially be diverted from a more intense service to February 23, 2021 Page 103 a less intense service, immediately be able to connected to county services. And we've seen that central receiving systems result in decreased recidivism, meaning that we avoid readmissions to emergency rooms, and we avoid admissions to central receiving all at a cost savings to the payer and to the funders of the central receiving. I just wanted to share with you, again, that that model with the community health center as the hub is a best practice and is an industry standard and has really contributed to the success of central receiving across our state. I want to commend you for your commitment to the people of Collier County and to ensuring that mental health and addiction services are available and to your foresight, again, in developing the central receiving system. Thank you so much. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is Nanette Rivera, and she'll be followed Nora Alvarez. Ms. Rivera, are you with us? And you may need to unmute yourself. Ms. Rivera, are you joining us? You will need to unmute yourself. (No response.) MR. MILLER: She does not seem to be responding. Let's try Nora Alvarez. Ms. Alvarez, are you with us? If you are, you'll need to unmute your microphone if you wish to speak. (No response.) MR. MILLER: Neither one of those folks are responding, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you. All right. So at this point we have a motion on the floor and a second. So I think we should vote. Unless there's any more discussion? (No response.) February 23, 2021 Page 104 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Motion on the floor to site the mental [sic] receiving area building at the -- at the David Lawrence site and to work out the details and to bring them back understanding this isn't -- there's not a shovel in the ground. There is a working out the details so that we can understand this relationship and have it a long and productive relationship going forward. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I wanted to clarify, because it's been quite some time. Commissioner Solis expressed some concerns that I shared with regard to moving forward with this particular site along, similarly, with what you brought forward. I mentioned that there are other caregivers in our community, and we're -- love David Lawrence, by the way. But we haven't heard from any other caregivers along the way. And I'm okay with going forward with this as it stands right now, but having more -- when are we actually going to have back and review the details that we were discussing? Have we got a time-certain on that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager, perhaps we could just get some idea, given the fact that this isn't -- this isn't signed, sealed, and delivered at this point. This is a recommendation based on the details of what you can come back with the agreement; how's that? MR. OCHS: No, that's fine, ma'am. We know we have to work out an operating agreement and a lease agreement and sales and purchase or conveyance instrument. So I would plan to work with Mr. Klatzkow and the folks from David Lawrence to put all those details together in a document for you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we comfortable, Board? All right. So let's vote. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. February 23, 2021 Page 105 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. I think we're going to break for lunch. We'll be back at -- gentlemen, what do you think? Are we okay coming back at 1:00, or do you want a little bit longer? MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could. And I'm sorry for the delay. I just wanted to indicate Mr. Hunden is here for the Great Wolf project. He's our consultant. You've all heard from him. But I got my wires crossed with him. He has to leave at about 1:30. So we can proceed without him, but if you want him here for any particular reason, we may have to do that before his travel break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We're going to make sausage in public, Board. Are we all staying for lunch? Are we going out for lunch? MR. OCHS: Commissioner, again, we're happy -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You would rather -- MR. OCHS: No. We're happy to present this, Sean and I. I'm just giving you the option if you absolutely need him here, we can continue it to another meeting or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, Mr. Hunden came down from Chicago, I think. I would like to have him here for this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we go ahead and do it now? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Let's do it now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Go to lunch after. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Terri, are you okay? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.) February 23, 2021 Page 106 MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. I appreciate your indulgence on this. Item #11B A MARKET AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY FROM HUNDEN STRATEGIC PARTNERS, INC. ON A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INVOLVING GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., AT THE CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK ADJACENT TO THE PARADISE COAST SPORTS COMPLEX, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT BOARD CONSIDERATION - MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT AND ALLOW STAFF TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT AND BRING BACK FOR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL – APPROVED MR. OCHS: This is Item 10B, and it's a recommendation to accept a Market and Financial Feasibility Study from Hunden Strategic Partners, Incorporated, on a proposed development project involving Great Wolf Resorts at the City Gate Commerce Park adjacent to the Paradise Coast Sports Complex and to authorize staff to negotiate a development agreement for subsequent Board consideration. Mr. Callahan will kick this off. MR. CALLAHAN: Given the fact -- for the record, Sean Callahan, executive director of corporate business operations. I'll be very brief and introduce Rob. We've been working with Great Wolf Lodge since last summer in 2020 when they approached us about a possible development project adjacent to the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. We came to the Board in October and asked for your authorization to hire Hunden February 23, 2021 Page 107 Strategic Partners to perform a market feasibility and economic analysis, which was approved. We've been working with both parties since. Rob is our third party and will cover what the outcome of that study was. MR. HUNDEN: Thank you, Commissioners, and thanks for adjusting the schedule. I wish I could adjust the flights, but I certainly don't have that power. And it's been a pleasure to work on this on your behalf over the last few months. And we've been making great progress. Today is a very short summary of a much longer study that we completed to move through this analysis of this project. So very briefly, our key focus for the study was what is the value of a Great Wolf Lodge being developed in Collier County specifically at the site next to the sports complex. How does -- how does the key factors in Collier County affect a Great Wolf Lodge development? Essentially, what does the project rationalize in terms of incentives? They have requested some incentives, relatively minor relative to the cost of the entire thing. So the question is, does this deserve it, and what will it bring to the table? What will it bring to the local economy? So, briefly, I think most of you are pretty familiar now. If you haven't stayed at one, you've been apprised of the business plan concept. There are 18 Great Wolf Lodges around the country, and they are definitely regional developments. They attract from a six-hour drive time typically, and they feature very large rooms where you can sleep between six and 12 people. They're very family oriented for either vacations or staycations. They also have a major indoor water park, so it's 365 days a year. It's not weather-dependent. It's not heat-dependent. And so it's a -- it's a fully operated sort of cruise ship model where there's a lot of things happening inside the entire development, including meeting space, February 23, 2021 Page 108 restaurants and, of course, the water park, which is included in your price for the room. When you see the average daily rate for this kind of a project, you think, wow, that's a Ritz-Carlton price, but when you realize you're sleeping up to 12 people per room and it includes access to the water park, then it ends up being very much of a value play for families, so it definitely synergizes well with where it's proposed to be located. So I will show you the site plan now. On 20 acres, 500 guestrooms. Obviously, it's a fairly large behemoth there. $234 million is the total estimated cost at this time, including about eight to 10 million for land costs, and it includes all the things that I mentioned to you. It will be located next to the sports complex, which is, of course, already under -- has been built Phase 1 and has scheduled games and tournaments already, which is exciting, and so that synergy will continue as we move on. I think for us, especially because it's not a beach location and it doesn't need a beach location, being right next door to a youth sports complex that's designed to pull from, you know, anywhere from two to 12 hours' drive away, the synergy's there to keep the families busy and keep their money spending and have an itinerary for the rest of the family while the other kids are playing. It's just -- to us, it's one of the highest and best uses you could have for that particular parcel simply because of the Paradise Coast Sports Complex. And here's -- of course, you know all about this, and this is when you saw us last time. Commissioner Taylor and I have been talking about this and many others of you for many years. I think it's been five or six years now, and it's just so great to see it happening. And, again, we believe this is a good complement. One of the things that you should be proud of is the fact that you February 23, 2021 Page 109 have great demographics here. So even though we would say you're sort of at the geographic cul-de-sac of the country, your drive time, you can't drive into the ocean, right, and you can't really live there, so the fact that you have, within two hours' drive time, 7.2 million people, and that doesn't include, of course, all the ocean around you, that's really compelling for Great Wolf Lodge. They like to go in markets that have these really robust, highly populated drive times. They get most of their people from the first two hours, believe it or not, but they actually go to six hours, and I'll show you that. But these demographics, the number of people -- and, of course, Florida is growing very rapidly -- you get to 17 million people in a four-hour drive time, and then the northern part of the state, not as populated, but it's very compelling for them. Now, one of the most compelling items for them is the household income that's here. Now, again, this doesn't -- they're not playing to a high-end market. They're playing to a middle market, which is also great. It serves all people. It's a value play. But we compared them to Garden Grove, California, which is Orange County; very high demographics there, as you know. Grapevine, Texas, which is basically right in the heart of the DFW Metro Plex; they've safely thawed out as of Saturday, so they're enjoying spring weather now. And then Centralia, Washington, which is the Seattle Metro. If you look at the total household income, even though you have to deal with ocean, so you're only -- you only have people north, right? You have $51 billion of additional household income in your four-hour drive time compared to those very robust markets. So you are attractive to them. But, at the same time, you know, if it didn't work out here, they're looking at all of the South Florida markets, so it wouldn't surprise me if they ended up somewhere else if, for some reason, it didn't work out here. February 23, 2021 Page 110 Key factors, obviously, one of the things about your market now is you, obviously, are doing so great because of the beach and all the other things that you have here; the climate. This doesn't need the beach. So this diversifies your tourism product with 500 additional rooms. And in our study you'll see that this is not a direct competitor to anything else that you have. It is an indirect, at best, competitor. All the other sort of water-parkish type things that exist in the other beach resorts are not as robust. They're not as indoors -- they're not indoors at all, for the most part -- and even the resorts in Orlando are outside, not inside. We talked about the synergies with the sports complex, so that's very positive. In your industry, just as a broad overview, you went down about 15 percent in TDT collections last year compared to the country that went down 50 percent in hotel revenues, and many markets went down 60, 70 percent. So, you know, this certainly is going to be another great boost. But you're already doing relatively better than the rest of the country, so we can count our blessings. In terms of family entertainment options, I mention that this is something that is not just for the tourist. This is for the local, too. A lot of people decide to take staycations here. And so that's not just inducing economic impact; it's recapturing it from going away. So if you have people that might go north in the summer, well, maybe they'll spend a long weekend or regular weekend at Great Wolf Lodge instead. We talked about the supply; that there's no real direct competition close. The closest one of these is in Georgia, which I'll show you. And, of course, the destination development appeal of having sort of everything on site is really appealing, especially for families but then, of course, they are going to go off site and spend money in all of your retail and restaurants and other things like that. Here's our SWOT analysis. I've pretty much gone over it. February 23, 2021 Page 111 They do have an outstanding reputation. They have been doing very well during the pandemic. They've managed to get through it. They were shut down in most of theirs for about two, three months, but then they've been pretty well cooking with gas since then. You've got the great demographics. They want to be here. It's a highest and best use from our perspective on that particular site. Lack of local competition is the opportunity. You've got the Paradise Sports Complex and, of course, your growing demographics. The threats, of course, would be if for some reason things went south on this conversation and they went to Lee County or Miami, Fort Lauderdale, something like that. Then that would not be to your benefit. So comparable situations. So we looked at the -- one of the nearest -- the nearest one in LaGrange, Georgia, which, as you'll see from the map, is kind of a little bit in the middle of nowhere. There are no major cities there and, yet, they were strategic in where they located. Sometimes they do that to get a lower cost of labor. But speaking of what they spend on their staff, they actually -- so going in, they want the construction costs to be as low as possible, but on an ongoing basis, they actually tend to raise the average wage of the hourly workers in the market because imagine if you're a room attendant and you have to clean a room that had six or 12 people and a bunch of bunk beds in it. You're going to have to have some pretty resilient folks. So they pay higher wages for their staff, and they're paying lifeguards which is -- which are not inexpensive. And so they tend to raise the wage, which is good for the hourly workers. So blue is two hours, red is two to four hours, and green is four to six hours. And you can see there about two-thirds come from two hours. Of course, Atlanta's within that two-hour zone. But it's not right in Atlanta. It's a little ways away. And then about one out of February 23, 2021 Page 112 seven or so, one out of six or seven are from over 250 miles away. And we look at the demographics here on the bottom. I'm not sure if you can read that, but most of the people here are household income of 50- to $100,000. So it's a -- it's pretty middle market. And, as a matter of fact, once you go over that 100,000, it drops off rapidly; whereas, if you go under that to the 50-, 40-, 30,000, those are actually very well penetrated or indexed market segments for them. They're busiest, of course, during times that school is out, so weekends, holidays, and summer, but they still try to stay pretty full during the week if they can, and that's one of the reasons they have the function space. They have -- I was very confused, why would you have this function space? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. They like to do a lot of corporate outings and things for local community where they can keep people coming in the door and being familiarized. It's also goodwill for them. It's good word of mouth. But they've built the place. They've got to keep it running, so they just want to find ways to keep people coming in the door during Monday through Thursday. Case study implication. Most of these deals, they are major regional inductors of economic impact, so they do receive public sector support, and they're expensive to build, as you can imagine. It is a regional destination. They do have on-site critical mass, and here, unlike some of their other places, you have the synergy with the sports complex. I won't say that again, because I've said it a lot. I know. Having worked on both projects, I'm like, wow, this is -- this is going to be good for you. So we did a comparison of several of the other deals that have been done not just for Great Wolf Lodge, but Kalahari, which is sort of a bigger version of a Great Wolf Lodge. They have just, like, February 23, 2021 Page 113 three in the country, as well as -- and the rest are Great Wolf. So what we see here, I think the compelling thing for you to know is you got a really -- or you're, I think, negotiating a really good deal, because they're not asking for a sizable portion of their investment as an incentive. Basically, 7 to 9 percent of the total; whereas, the average amongst the others ranges from 11 to 40 percent, and average is 23 percent or about $55 million. So here we're talking around the $15 million mark relative to a $235 million project, so -- and that's thanks to your demographics. You know, the reasons that they're able to be profitable enough here to keep that incentive low is because with a higher household income, they have a direct -- they have a pretty high beta or a direct correlation between the on-site spend and the local -- and the two-hour demographics. So they're projecting -- we did another similar study at the same time for another community that doesn't have your demographics. They offered them up to $65 million, and Great Wolf Lodge turned them down because they just didn't have the market that you have, so -- and this was a totally different part of the country. So it just -- I think it's important to know that you've got some real great strengths. So in our study we have many more charts and graphs and details. We tried to keep it fairly legible here and simplified. So big picture, 80-plus million dollars in annual revenue top line, so it's a significant impact. What was supportable is about 215 million out of 234- which, to us, suggests that you could rationalize as much as $19-and-a-half million of incentives. It sounds like what staff is working with is a lower number than that, so Sean can speak to that. And in terms of the 30-year fiscal impact, of course, we have the net new spending, new earnings, new jobs. Serious numbers of jobs, obviously. These are full-time equivalents, so as many as 1,500 almost. February 23, 2021 Page 114 About $150 million over 30 years. So that averages about five million a year. That does not assume that the Collier County sales tax is extended. So if that were to get extended, that would add even another $30 million in impact or about a million dollars a year just from that development. So the payback period for a $15 million incentive is about three-and-a-half years. So I don't have to tell you that a lot of these economic development deals out there that we all work on, collectively, sometimes take 15 to 20 years to sort of pay back. So this is pretty robust and pays back pretty quickly. So we believe it's a valuable development worth negotiating for on a reasonable incentive package. I won't talk about the third bullet again. And we don't believe it will compete with your existing products. It's not asking for TDT. And they are definitely interested in you, and I have a feeling they're watching me speak right now, so -- and, again, appreciate you making time for this conversation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Hunden. Nice to see you there again. MR. HUNDEN: Good to see you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just briefly, just -- please, just briefly, you or Sean can do this, perhaps you, just give us just a -- you know, a two-minute who you are and why you came to us before and what we were facing and your recommendation. MR. HUNDEN: Sure. So my name is Rob Hunden. I'm the owner and CEO of Hunden Strategic Partners. We're based in Chicago. We -- in my career I've worked on over 800 studies and about $6 billion in built transformative community development projects in most states, about 47 states. So we focus on sort of that destination development, economic development, real estate development. Sort of that intersection. February 23, 2021 Page 115 Several years ago we were hired I think through an RFP process. We won the RFP process to work with the team and assess the proposed youth sports complex project, indoor and outdoor. Ended up primarily being mostly outdoor. There was fun discussion about the site. A lot of people interested in selling their land for it, I remember that. But that has then led to, you know, thanks to, I think, very strong leadership here at the county level. This thing is, you know, built partially already and rocking and rolling. So it's really exciting to see that success, and you dealt with a lot of obstacles along the way. So to me, if you are able to negotiate a fair deal for yourself, this would be quite the capstone for that area and for the county. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel, and then Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the report and give direction to staff to negotiate an agreement with Great Wolf to bring back to us at a future date. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to support the motion, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? (No response.) February 23, 2021 Page 116 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Congratulations. MR. HUNDEN: Enjoy your lunch. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thank you very much, Commissioners. MR. HUNDEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 1:30 everyone; is that good? Come back? That gives us about 45 minutes. Are you comfortable with that? All right. 1:30. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:40 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic. Item #11H AWARD AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7807, “GOODLAND DRIVE REHABILITATION PROJECT,” TO THOMAS MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,899,055.48 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED – APPROVED MR. OCHS: WE'RE going to move quickly to Item 11H. We have one speaker that's been waiting to speak on this today. So that is a recommendation to award an agreement for the Goodland Drive rehabilitation project to Thomas Marina Construction in the amount of $2,899,055.48; authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreements. Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation Engineering, is available to make a brief presentation or respond to questions from the Board. Jay. February 23, 2021 Page 117 MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Madam Chair. Jay Ahmad, for the record. This is a project that's been well overdue for a long time. It's Goodland Drive. And I have a presentation, if you wish, I can start, or if you have any questions, I could answer them. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: This was the low bid? MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. MR. OCHS: You have a speaker, ma'am. MR. MILLER: Yeah, I do have one registered public comment. Mike Barbush. I hope I'm saying that right. MR. BARBUSH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Patiently waiting. MR. BARBUSH: Well, it's been 11 years, so another couple hours doesn't matter. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mike Barbush representing the Goodland Civic Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you-all today. I'm a 41-year resident of Collier County. Goodland Drive is the only road in and out of our community, and for nearly a decade the Goodland Civic Association has been negotiating first with the City of Marco and now with the county to improve the road. Tidal flooding has always been a problem for us, and it affects our safety and welfare of our community. Today we have an opportunity to remedy that situation. I want to thank Jay Ahmad and his staff for holding town meetings to address all of our concerns. We are all on board. I would also like to thank Nick Casalanguida and Leo Ochs for February 23, 2021 Page 118 their perseverance and meetings with the City of Marco Island. Also, Goodland Civic Association President, Greg Bellow, and Member Steve Thomas worked with your staff to get us to where we are today. And last, but not least, Donna Fiala, who I spoke with here earlier, for her leadership and love for Goodland. It was outstanding. Thank you, Donna. I urge you to approve the contract for the road improvements, and thank you from all of us in Goodland. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Well, you're here to see it. We have a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Madam, I'd like to make a statement. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, Mr. Ahmad, you and I have been out to Goodland, briefed all the business owners and made lots of promises and everything. The only thing I want to just say here on the record here is approving is the easy part. Building it is the hard part. One of the major projects that I inherited as the District 1 County Commissioner is the Marco Executive Airport. All projects are different, so I'm not saying it's apples to apples, but, you know, that one's a year and a half behind schedule, and maybe it's not affecting, you know, a dozen business owners and, you know, the hundreds and, you know, a thousand people and customers that are on Goodland, but there's only one way in and one way out. So let's pledge that we're going to stay on top of this one tight, you know, we're going to work together. If the contractor starts slowing down, disappearing, not showing up, we don't just sort of throw up our hands and say, it stinks to be us. This is an important project that's going to have a very positive outcome. But if it starts to slip, run February 23, 2021 Page 119 late and whatnot, it's going to affect thousands of people, and we can't have that happen due to negligence. So, you know, I know that you stood in front of those same business owners as I did at the Goodland Civic Association meeting. And, you know, this approval's going to be great, but let's not pat ourselves on the back until we cut the ribbon and do all the right things. And I know you've pledged to do that, so let's make sure that we can live up to that pledge to the citizens of Goodland and all the people who enjoy, you know, that paradise village. MR. AHMAD: Yes. Will do, sir. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, sir. MR. AHMAD: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. And congratulations. MR. BARBUSH: Thank you very much, you-all. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11A RESOLUTION 2021-45: ADOPT THE FY2022 BUDGET POLICY – ADOPTED February 23, 2021 Page 120 MR. OCHS: That moves us to Item 11A. This is a recommendation to adopt the Fiscal Year 2022 budget policy. Mr. Isackson will make the presentation. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, County Manager Ochs. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Mark Isackson with the Office of Management and Budget. Annually we appear before you to adopt the budget policy in this particular for the Fiscal Year FY2022 -- For housekeeping purposes, the items begin on your Packet Page 66 and run through Packet Page 125, the executive summary starts on Page 66, the policy document itself is 69 through 124, and the resolution is on 125. This, essentially, becomes the bible when we begin to prepare the budget, and all of your department financial professionals will gravitate to this document when they start preparing their FY '22 budget. So it is with careful consideration that the document's prepared. It's three-and-a-half months long in preparation. And if you'd like, I'll go through and just touch on the highlights of the document. I'm sure you read most of the pages that were prepared; however, I think it's worth noting some of the things that are actually contained in the document that will be developed as part of the FY '22 budget. So the highlights, essentially, we covered in some of the housekeeping, but you have key annual policies for consideration and board direction, continuing policies to be endorsed by the Board and, generally, a three-year snapshot of the General Fund and Unincorporated General Fund. The meat of this is the first part, which are your key annual policies for consideration and Board direction. The suggested guidance is, essentially, an exception base. If there are any issues with any one of the policies that are being February 23, 2021 Page 121 presented, we will call them out, if you would, Commissioners, and we'll deal with those on an exception basis only. Otherwise, a motion to approve the policy document would be appreciated. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think what we'll do is if, with your indulgence, Mr. Isackson, is that if you have a question, ask it at the time. This is a long document and carefully constructed, I think, and a lot of layers. So I think what we'll do is interrupt you, sir, if you're in agreement with that. MR. ISACKSON: That's fine, Madam Chair. Your millage rate policy is probably the most important item that you actually consider when it comes to your budget policy. For the 10th year -- since 2010, I should say, and for the 12th year in a row, we're suggesting that your millage rate be held at 3.5645 per $1,000 of taxable value. There are a litany of reasons why. I won't go into the detail on all of them, but there are a number of initiatives that are ongoing on the general governmental side that will require sufficient funding for FY '22 and, frankly, beyond. And we'll get into a little bit of those as we get into the document itself. Same with 110, our Unincorporated Area General Fund, which has had a millage rate of .8069 since 2017. And you can see the Unincorporated Area General Fund essentially acts as a fund similar to an incorporated Municipalities Fund. Why? We maintain budget flexibility; public health, safety, and welfare; our continuing capital investment, et cetera. MSTUs, we've got a few of them in Collier County. Soon to add another one with the Palm River sidewalk program. So they're -- the recommendation there is, essentially, rolled-back rate or some other rate. If they have an advisory board recommendation that's different than rollback rate, we'll bring that to you during our public hearing process and in June when we present February 23, 2021 Page 122 the document itself in workshop setting. These next two slides give you a somewhat accurate depiction of what you might -- what the typical property owner might expect if they're homestead and non-homestead. This is the homestead slide based on taxable values. You have a 3 percent cap on the assessed value, not the property taxes itself. And you can see at varying taxable values what they might expect, at least from the county's perspective from the General Fund and Unincorporated Area General Fund. Same with non-homestead. Their cap is 10 percent. Here is an illustration of some of the general governmental new and recurring initiatives that are ongoing. You've seen a lot of these in the past, but it's a continuing ongoing challenge when you start looking at competing resources. The emphasis this year, last year, the year before has and continues to be on capital maintenance. And you can see that from the initiatives that are contained on this slide. Here's some other initiatives that are not funded from the local option infrastructure sales tax, but you can see some of them are covered through some debt issuances we had recently. Some of them are going to be covered on future debt issuances that we will present to the Board on a case-by-case basis. Two highlights, one on the transportation side. You've got some substantial infrastructure specifically in the eastern quadrant that require attention. Your gas taxes right now, that debt is set to expire in 2025. So there are a couple options there. We talked about it a little bit in the policy document. We'll be briefing you further as we go along over the next year or so on either re-upping the gas taxes early or waiting until the debt -- gas tax debt actually expires and then re-upping. So there's some strategies there that we'll present to the Board at a specific time down the road. You've got an item on your agenda coming up on the eastern February 23, 2021 Page 123 lands expansion. You've got some future debt service there on the enterprise side. Here's your gross topped [sic] budgeted. For '21, it's $2.2 billion, and you can see all the integral pieces of that $2.2 billion budget that makes up that component. You see a little sliver there, it says "permanent trust funds." Those are things like the Caracara Preserve, the Pepper Ranch where you have set-asides for land maintenance and things of that nature. On the General Fund expense side, the General Fund is your largest fund. It's $502 million. And we've tried to break this out by things that might be discretionary in nature versus those that are mandates, payment of debt service, and what we might consider health, safety, and welfare. Just some general observations regarding our cash planning. We need somewhere in the neighborhood of 95 to $105 million at the beginning of the FY to make sure that the General Fund is positioned to pick up the costs of transfers, obligations to the constitutional officers to cover our expenditures for that first period of time before property taxes are received. So that's the number that I shoot for, and I manage the budget around that in the General Fund and the Unincorporated General Fund. One of the ways we do that is to grow our reserves because, essentially, if you spent everything that you took in -- which never happens, by the way. But if you spend everything that you took in, your reserves would, essentially, be your cash balance at the beginning of the year. And right now we're projecting for '22 your General Fund reserves to grow to almost $63 million. Agency allocations. Well, one of the commissioners asked, well, what happens if you don't meet your threshold? We're planning around a 2 percent increase in the tax base. What if you don't meet that threshold? Well, number one, in the years that I've February 23, 2021 Page 124 been doing this, I've never -- we've never actually gone below the planning number. We're always generally above it. Number 2 is, if it ever goes below, then any cuts that are made, technically, are done on a proportionate basis based on a percentage of the budget in the General Fund. We'll skip by revenue centric. Talk about positions a little bit. We're going to be real stingy, obviously. There have been Board-approved capital projects that are ongoing that will require to be staffed. Those will be given consideration. Other than that, probably not going to have consideration to expanded requests. Compensation, a couple notes on this particular slide. The first is the Board's going to be asked to consider -- and this is going to be built into the budget as you consider it in June at your workshop. But we're going to put together a cost-of-living package which is equivalent to a thousand dollar across all pay ranges, and what that does is -- the average salary in the organization's roughly $53,000. So anything below 53- is going to get a higher increase than something above that amount. That equivalent value is about $2.5 million for the County Manager's agency, and then we have what we call these pay plan adjustments where we try to strengthen certain lower and strategic classification pay grades where we think a market imbalance exists. The value of this particular pay plan, all in, is about $3.25 million, which is about $1.3 million less than what we enacted for this particular fiscal year. Cost of living is 1.1 percent, although I will tell you that that's a lagging indicator, and you'll see inflation ratcheting up, I think, over the next year or two. And the other -- the other important component of this is we haven't done a pay plan maintenance and a managed industry February 23, 2021 Page 125 overhaul of our compensation plan in 20 years. We need to initiate that. And that's being recommended, again, as part of the '21 budget, leading into '22. Healthcare, you know, Leo -- Leo, when he first came here, what 30 -- how many years ago? I can't count that high. MR. OCHS: Thirty-five, buddy. MR. ISACKSON: Thirty-five years. One of his -- one of his signature initiatives that he put in place was a program that, essentially, self-funds your health insurance. And over the last, what, nine or 10 years, we haven't had any increases in our health insurance premiums. So that initiative is paying dividends in a large way in the organization. So, once again, we're suggesting no increase in your health insurance premiums again for Fiscal Year '22. Retirement rates are generally published by the state, and our guidance for those will be contained in our budget instructions when they go out to the departments. Stormwater funding, it's getting a lot of attention. Last year we budgeted 15.5 million. This year 15.4 million. This year we're introducing a component of debt into that equation, because we just issued $60 million in bonds to help what might be termed a sagging infrastructure within our stormwater program, so that's -- that's ongoing. And I think what the goal always is with your stormwater program is to make sure that we're achieving industry standards when it comes to maintenance of our stormwater system and we attempt to get our funding levels to that particular point. Use of gas taxes. Gas taxes are an interesting phenomena. We actually haven't seen much of a decline in gas tax revenue. I know that's counterintuitive with all the electrical vehicles that are on the road. But those dollars are used to support a specific pledge of taxes -- gas taxes to pay debt, as I mentioned earlier. We use the February 23, 2021 Page 126 difference between what we pay in debt service annually, which is $13 million, and what we get in in gas taxes annually to help support the general transportation network. And you can see some of the additional considerations in that slide. We allocate a portion of our General Fund and Unincorporated General Fund each year for capital purposes. Here is our reserve policies, which we've -- which we've detailed. The reserves in the General Fund and in the Unincorporated General Fund are right smack dab in the middle of your policy parameters. The Finance Committee meets on a periodic basis, and we continue to review the portfolio; is there any opportunities for refunding or not? We'll consider new debt issuances as they come along, and then we certainly report that information to the Board as necessary. We've got Conservation Collier, which was approved this year with the 76-and-a-half percent majority. In '22, a .25 levy will generate roughly $25.3 million. The Board will recall that we are committed to repaying the Conservation Collier Trust Fund in the amount of $3.7 million with the balance of those receipts used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands after we make the required deposit for the, quote, perpetual maintenance of Conservation lands. School resource officer funding, once again spotlighted. It's the final year of a four-year program where we were committing $3 million a year to the effort. You can see that the Sheriff will be having 40 new sworn deputies at the end of this '22 year. I'm told that their hiring is ongoing and is keeping up with the demand in the schools. We have a new charter school coming on board in Immokalee, so that program is coming along nicely and consistent with state statute. February 23, 2021 Page 127 Finally, Commissioners, the schedule. The resolution that you have before you, essentially, sets the budget submittals for the Sheriff, Supervisor of Elections, and Clerk of Courts on May 1; the budget workshops in June on the 17th and, if necessary, on the 18th; the adopted tentative millage rates, which are your maximum rates, on Tuesday, the 13th of July; the Board receives their tentative budget document after the workshops on July 16th, which is a Friday; and, finally, your public hearings on the 9th and the 23rd of September. Questions. Conversation? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Two questions: Number 1, you mentioned earlier about a -- in the pie chart there was -- you talked about the Pepper Ranch being in a trust of some sort. I thought it was included in the overall holdings of Conservation Collier. MR. ISACKSON: It is, but there's a breakout because the land is specifically dedicated and can't be spent for other reasons other than Pepper Ranch. That's the nomenclature from an accounting standpoint, which is why we classify it as a trust fund. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then, Number 2, I didn't see -- I got it. I mean, you can go back there if you want. It was either -- I didn't see it in this presentation. I may have read it here. I thought there was some directive from staff with regard to departmental cost increases, cost controls for the upcoming budget cycle. I didn't hear you say that out loud. I thought I read it somewhere like -- MR. ISACKSON: Good point, Commissioner. When we set -- when we say a 2 percent increase in the tax base, now we divvy that up in a half a percent increase in the operating side and a 1.5 percent in the capital side, which is a real skinny number right February 23, 2021 Page 128 now. So we're squeezing a little bit there, especially if you consider the cost of living's going up 1.1 percent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So on the departmental basis, I thought I read that the expense allowance or the recommendation for expense allowance is -- MR. ISACKSON: One half of 1 percent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One half -- MR. ISACKSON: One half of 1 percent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner -- MR. ISACKSON: I'm sure I'll get some nasty emails, but that's part of the job. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Under cost of living, explain to me again, why was it a flat rate of $1,000? Why wouldn't it be a percentage, or did I misunderstand what you said? MR. ISACKSON: Well, for the last couple years, Commissioner, what we've done is we've tried to gentrify the lower pay ranges so that they would actually receive the benefit of a cost-of-living adjustment that's probably higher than what, let's say, I would get or a department head would get. When we do the straight thousand dollars, that's what this tries to accomplish, as opposed to saying 1.1 percent to everybody or 2 percent to everybody. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if I make $30,000 and you give me -- unless I'm misunderstanding this. But if I make a -- if I have a $30,000 salary and you give me a $1,000 bonus and I have an $80,000 salary and you gave me $1,000 bonus, that's not apples to apples. MR. ISACKSON: Well, that's right, and what we're trying to do is -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What am I missing? February 23, 2021 Page 129 MR. ISACKSON: What we're trying to do is reward those lower pay-grade salaries with some additional money. That's what that's intended to do. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel again. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I made a motion to approve before he did his presentation, but I'd like to do it now formally. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A motion on the floor and a second to approve the budget policy as presented today. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have one speaker for this item. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: Meredith Budd. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Troy. MS. BUDD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Meredith Budd on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation. I am just here to express support for the Conservation Collier item that's a part of this budget. I want to express gratitude to this commission for placing it on the ballot and for educating voters about what this program does for them and for the county as a whole. And so I'm just here expressing gratitude and support. So thank you very much for getting Conservation Collier on the ballot, and it was a great 77 percent of that -- of the electorate that supported it, so I appreciate that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Nice to hear. Thank you very much for taking the time. All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. February 23, 2021 Page 130 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Isackson. Item #11D ENDORSE THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT’S UTILITY PLANS FOR CONTINUED EXPANSION IN THE NORTHEAST SERVICE AREA, EXPANSION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN GOLDEN GATE CITY AND TO DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXPLORE FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES TO FUND THE EXPANSION - MOTION TO APPROVE #1, #2 AND #3 AS WRITTEN IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11D is a recommendation to endorse the Collier County Water/Sewer District's utility plans for continued expansion in both the northeast service area and expansion of water and wastewater utility infrastructure in Golden Gate City and to direct staff to explore financing opportunities to fund these future expansions. And Mr. Joe Bellone, your Public Utilities Finance Operations Director, will make the presentation. Joe. MR. BELLONE: Thank you, Leo. February 23, 2021 Page 131 Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Bellone, Utilities Finance Director. Thanks for this opportunity to have this discussion with you today. Just for those who just need -- who are brand new, just a few reminders before we get going. The special act of the Florida Legislature, right in -- right at the beginning in Section 1, determines that extensive growth poses public health and water supply concerns. There's a need to eliminate the proliferation of package treatment plants and grants you, the Board of County Commissioners, as ex officio of the governing board of the water/sewer district, the responsibility to provide water and sewer services. Now, with that in mind, we'll move first to look at plans for the former FGUA, Golden Gate utility service area, and then following that I'll give an update on what's in progress on the northeast service area. Some of you have been lucky enough to be up there recently, including construction on the northeast regional utility site and then what we're planning to do next. First, we'll begin with the Golden Gate City utility service area. And let me just move that down. Okay. As you can see from this chart, Commissioners, the water/sewer district is proceeding in accordance with the guiding principles that we established at the acquisition of this utility, and that is public health, public safety, and environmental concerns. First, we'll start with four potable water transmission mains that will provide sufficient capacity to deliver drinking water, which enables the utility to expand the distribution system into the currently unserved areas. And as just a note, we can strategically place fire hydrants on those transmission mains. So we are getting to Points 1 and 2 at the beginning. Point 3, environmental. The existing wastewater treatment plant located in Golden Gate City is at 86 percent capacity today. So February 23, 2021 Page 132 any current and planned construction in the adjacent areas which might include any housing or veteran services or anything that we're considering on the golf course, and especially what's going on in Activity Center 9, which now includes the sports complex, will soon include the Sheriff's evidence facility at the Government Operations Business Park, and potentially, perhaps, other agency operations relocating there eventually. I'll mention Uline. You had a discussion about Great Wolf Park, et cetera, et cetera, so that is urgently needed. So the next steps this year and next fiscal year on the potable water side, our engineers are working to complete the design work for the potable water transmission mains that I mentioned, as well as the capacity expansion for the wastewater treatment of four million gallons a day of wastewater treatment, and that new facility will actually be capable of producing irrigation quality water. So sort of a double bonus on that one. But to move forward, Commissioners, to the actual construction after design is completed, a funding of approximately $88 million will be necessary, and there will be a little bit more information, and we can have a discussion on that when we get a little bit further in the presentation. Okay. We'll move on to the northeast. Just a reminder, it goes way, way back, but, Commissioners, the water/sewer district anticipated a regional expansion way back. We purchased that site in the northeast back in September of 2003. It's 216 acres. We then anticipated the need, et cetera. Just a reminder, the Board approved expansion of the water/sewer district service boundary in September of 2018 with the understanding that growth was coming and, again, predicated on the provision of the special act that says we really want to prevent the proliferation of package treatment plants. February 23, 2021 Page 133 Thus far, in these particular -- in this particular area, Hyde Park and Rivergrass have been approved. The water/sewer district has been requested to provide water and wastewater services to coming villages, Longwater, Bellmar, Immokalee Road Rural Village, all located in the eastern -- northeastern part of the county, and we anticipate to provide service to Hogan Island Village as well, through -- have not received a formal request. But just as a reminder, what we're building, we're building infrastructure now for a regional utility. We can provide services to any development that's occurring as far east as Heritage Bay. The Heritage Bay master pump station can move wastewater from there all the way to the northeast site. So please don't think this is just for these villages. It's much wider than that. It's an interconnected regional system that we're building. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why do you need that? MR. BELLONE: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What do you need that? MR. BELLONE: I think that's important to note, because there may be a perception that we're building this in the northeast and on the northeast utility site to provide service to just a small area of the county, and it's not. It's a regional system. They're all interconnected. And I think it's important to note that one -- that as one utility, where everyone gets the same level of service and everyone pays the same rates, anyone that pays an impact fee or a user fee, wherever it is, can be used anywhere in the system. So I think it's important that we kind of keep that in mind as we move forward with this discussion and expansion. MR. OCHS: Joe, I think what the commissioner might be inferring is that if there's a break in a main that shuts down service where we normally provide that resource, we have, through an interconnected system, the ability to move those flows in a different February 23, 2021 Page 134 direction. MR. BELLONE: It does provide reliability, Commissioner. Madam Chair, you're absolutely correct. And down the road, if you look at a long-range plan for the utility out, perhaps, 20 more years depending on demand, we will build additional transmission mains for both collection of wastewater and potable water. So there's more than one or two ways to get water to a particular area. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. BELLONE: We have a wide network right here in the urban area, and we'll be building that in the northeast area as well. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. BELLONE: Thank you, Commissioner. Quick update on the status of work today. You'll remember, Commissioners, that in 2019 we bonded this work that's being done today and, luckily, Fitch and Moody's rating agency rewarded the water/sewer district with a AAA rating, and in their report they cited a strong financial profile for the water/sewer district, a healthy debt profile and, more importantly, a continuation of residential and commercial development at its current vigorous pace. It's important as a utility -- as a utility ages in the western parts of the county, that continued revenue stream that you'll see from new customers will help us do the capital rehabilitation in the older areas of the utility. And some of you have had an opportunity to go up there. If you haven't been, it's -- I was up there last week. It's quite an amazing place. So the next steps in the northeast. We're preparing for future operation of the regional utility plants on that site. The elements of the infrastructure that we're intending to start to build now will be the raw water wells that, if you will, provide the raw materials for the potable water treatment process. Deep injection wells serve two purposes. One is they provide for disposal of the concentrate from February 23, 2021 Page 135 the reverse osmosis water treatment process, and it's one method of disposal for effluent that may not meet irrigation quality water standards. So they're really critical to the operation of those plants. And then transmission mains, Commissioners, we want to bury under Phase 2 of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park prior to the start of the park. We don't want a beautiful park built and then rip it up in a year or two to bury some pipes. And the total estimated funding cost for that, Commissioners, right now, is about $48 million. So let's move on to the funding needs. Commissioners, I've included this slide in the presentation to let you know that this is an ongoing process. The current needs today, the 88 million for Golden Gate City area are critical to do today, and so what the Finance Committee decided back in December when we met was if we go to bond this money, if you approve these plans and you approve us to move forward, we'll put together a plan that says the 88 million, which can be spent within the first three years, can be nontaxable. Get much better -- get much better rates. And then that portion, the 48 million for the northeast, that really will depend on demand and market demands. It might be a taxable portion. We'll come back with more information about that, but that will allow us to sort of flex with market demand. So how do we -- what are the next steps? So I will ask Mr. Isackson to convene a Finance Committee meeting. The members include himself; his OMB staff; Clerk of Courts; her finance director who's here today. Jeff sits in on those meetings; the GMD finance director, myself; and we invite the general public as well. On the phone, generally bond counsel for Nabors Giblin as well as our incredible county financial advisors, PFM. Once they come up with a preliminary plan of finance, I'll then ask Ralph Tellis, who's our financial advisor, does our rate studies for the water/sewer district, I'll request a bond feasibility report as we did February 23, 2021 Page 136 in 2019. That will include both a financial and an engineering component. Once that's complete, we'll then go to the market, accept bids, and hopefully anticipate a closing sometime this summer, and our goal is to have that bond resolution in front of you at the July meeting. I've included this slide, Commissioners, these other financial considerations for informational purposes, but just so that you know that it's a risk to build utility infrastructure in advance of demands, but it's the job of a utility is to have water and sewer services available the minute someone moves into their house and turns the tap or flushes the toilet. So that risk is always there. But what we've done is we've asked those newer developments in the area to provide impact fee payments in advance, and Hyde Park has already made their payment. We collected that in last fiscal year. Rivergrass, you approved that agreement, and that's, obviously, pending litigation. And we're moving forward with similar agreements with the other -- with the other developments and landowners in that area. But we've also ensured we'd have our continued revenue stream so that when they come to the utility with their certificate of occupancy, when they normally would pay their impact fees, they only get a 50 percent credit. So if you come to me with two ERCs, you'll only get credit for one at that point. And you'll remember, Commissioners, that impact fee rate studies are done once every three years. These costs were included in that last rate study, and you approved a rate increase -- an impact fee rate increase of just over 27 percent on average anticipating these costs. So, Commissioners, we'd ask you to endorse these plans, direct County Manager to direct staff to explore a plan of finance, and then to bring a bond approval to you later this fiscal year. February 23, 2021 Page 137 But one critical piece of good news I think you would like to hear is that Fitch just recently completed a surveillance. Derek -- you'd be very happy. Derek was very helpful in doing that. February 11th they issued a report, and that included the anticipation of approval of this $136 million offering, and the result was it reaffirmed its Triple A rating with a stable outlook for the water/sewer district, citing robust liquidity position, disciplined rate setting, and their repeated growth expected to support a sustained low leverage liquidity position. With that, Commissioners, we can have a discussion or answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And it may be going along the lines of what you were actually asking before. You mentioned, was it our south plant or the Golden Gate plant that's at 86, 87 percent? MR. BELLONE: Golden Gate right now. The Golden Gate plant is at 86 percent. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eighty-six. With the expansion of the northeast utility, will that alleviate some of the pressure on that particular plant, or is that interconnected with the overall system yet? MR. BELLONE: That eventually will be but, Commissioners, we're really trying to relieve pressure on the north wastewater treatment plant. So as I said, we've got the capability, when we built the master pump station at Heritage Bay, that can pump two ways. So right now, as an example, Twin Eagles, it used to be serviced at the little Orangetree treatment plant. Put in a small piece of a force main, and we pump that to Heritage Bay, and then we pump that to the north wastewater treatment plant. If we want to take one of those treatment trains down for February 23, 2021 Page 138 maintenance, it's really difficult now because it's got all of that flow. We can turn the valves and send the wastewater to the northeast area and have it treated there. Benefit of an interconnected system, as you mentioned. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, overall, the expansion of the northeast plant is just an overall increasing capacity for the entire community. MR. BELLONE: Exactly, Commissioner. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What would you say -- oh, wait. Oh, no. Commissioner McDaniel spoke. Okay. So what would you say if -- to someone who basically said, why are we not following the Ave Maria model? Why are we -- why are we, taxpayers in the west, spending our tax dollars for them in the east? What would you say? MR. BELLONE: Well, essentially, the first thing I'd say is there's no General Fund. There are no tax dollars involved in a utility. It's either impact fees that fund expansion-related projects, and they are limited to do that and that only, and then user fees run -- or operate and maintain the system. And as I said in the beginning of the presentation, it's great to have one utility system. You can recall way back when, Commissioner Saunders, you may remember, Goodland was a separate subdistrict. Their rates were twice as high as anyone else's, and we had no capital program for them. We did away with that. We have one district, one set of rates, one set of service levels. Everyone gets treated the same. And so any impact fee that gets paid -- Minto pays me an impact fee to build a home in the Isles of Collier Preserve, I can use that to pay for the expansion in the northeast. It's the beauty of an interconnected regional utility system. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And as I recall, at least February 23, 2021 Page 139 on my tenure, we've assumed the liability and the poor working of the Orangetree Utility, and then with Commissioner Saunders, it was the Golden Gate Utility. MR. BELLONE: I understand Ave Maria is a well-run utility but, again, it's -- it's not built to our Collier County utility standards. Ten years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now, I don't know where that will be. Will it be under the auspices? Will that eventually end up with the water/sewer district, and then what do we do with that? But you're well aware of the condition of the Orangetree Utility that we acquired. It didn't work out that well. So this really is a plan to prevent that from happening again. And, again, in line with the special act that said no more of that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you'll recall, a couple years ago, shortly after we acquired FGUA, we expanded the service boundary for the northeast area, and the rationale behind that was to have control over our subsurface infrastructure. Not that Ave Maria is a bad utility, but that model allows for deficiencies in the subsurface infrastructure capital expenses that the county ultimately ends up taking similarly to what we did with Orangetree and FGUA. And so by expanding our bounds, we protected our subsurface infrastructure so that when the county ultimately has possession of those assets, they are to our standards, and that's the quick answer -- long answer to your earlier question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Well done. MR. BELLONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And congratulations on the rating. That's just -- MR. BELLONE: We've been holding the Triple A from Fitch since 2016, and with that bond issuance in 2019, Moody's went from February 23, 2021 Page 140 AA1 to Triple A. So we've been lucky in that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Ready to make a motion. That's what my light is -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to make a motion to approve both 1 and 2 as recommended in the executive summary -- 1, 2, and 3, forgive me. All of them all at once. I don't need to read it unless you want me to repeat it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we have a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. BELLONE: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11E ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE IMMOKALEE RD./RANDALL BLVD. PLANNING STUDY AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN CREATING A NEW MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT IN THE RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB- ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN - February 23, 2021 Page 141 MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND MOVE FORWARD – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11E is a recommendation to accept the findings of the Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard Planning Study and direct staff to proceed with an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It would create a new mixed-use subdistrict in the Rural Golden Gate Estates sub-element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And Mr. Jeremy Frantz from your Planning and Zoning Division will present. MR. FRANTZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jeremy Frantz, Land Development Code Manager in the Zoning Division. We're here again today talking about the implementation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I'm going to really briefly just introduce before I turn it over to Kelly with Kimley-Horn & Associates. As I said, we're implementing the Golden Gate Area Master Plan which directed this planning study in the Rural Golden Gate Estates sub-element. This is really just the first step in kind of a longer planning process, as you'll see in our recommendation, to ultimately look to creating a GMP subdistrict. But because we're early on in that process, we do still have room for flexibility. And our point today is not only to discuss the findings of this planning study but also to get your input on how to move forward into the next steps. So with that, I'll turn it over to Kelly, and be here for questions afterward. MR. KLEPPER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Kelly Klepper with Kimley-Horn & Associates. As Jeremy said -- and this is a very critical thing to keep in the back of your mind. This was a planning study that sets the stage for February 23, 2021 Page 142 what the county wants to do in this area moving forward. We're not asking for adoption of specific goals, objectives, or policies, and we're definitely not asking for adoption or approval of Land Development Code components. This is to start the process, as Jeremy said, because we understand that there's some work that needs to be done out here. Jeremy -- MR. OCHS: Arrow down on the keyboard. MR. KLEPPER: So I know you all have had a long day, you've got a long agenda. So at any point if you're, like, just kind of keep going, Mr. Klepper, absolutely. By all means, if you've got a specific question, let's go ahead and stop and talk about that at that point. So what we want to do today is just kind of walk through a few of the things, including the overview of the studies, the existing conditions review, the future conditions, and I have some brief recommendations moving forward. So where are we in the world? Of course, this is -- oops, too quick. We are north and east of I-75. It's -- the study area is approximately 277 acres comprising of approximately 55 parcels. As Jeremy said, this has kind of been directed or guided by some of your studies as we've been kind of working through this. I will say that there's been some questions about why this configuration and all that. This is the boundary that was kind of laid out early on in the process and even before the staff started looking at this area. So what was our task? Ultimately, there were four key components of the analysis, and what this kind of led to was this discussion we're having today, which is that long-range policy guidance in identifying those opportunities that the county may or may not want to consider moving forward. And, there again, this is just kind of a land use and a planning February 23, 2021 Page 143 approach. Typically, the first phase before you ever get into your Comprehensive Plan or, in this case, your GMP updates. So you start looking at what's going on in this portion of the county. And you've heard a lot of information. I'm actually going to compliment the gentleman who was up here earlier talking about your wastewater facilities, because that's some of the information we were looking at as well. But, in summary, the majority of the study area's currently vacant as it's defined by the Property Appraiser. So they're looking at what's on the ground as of a snapshot of a specific date. This does not take into consideration any other or, say, pending approval or projects that are in process at this point. The majority of the study area is the Estates designation, and it's also -- the majority of it is at the Estates zoning. So when you start looking at 93, 94 percent numbers and you start thinking about 277 acres, you're talking about that vast majority of this area that is set up for Estates. And what we're seeing, based on the county's integrated growth model and some of your other studies, including a market study, it's saying that this area's going to continue to see growth and development. Do we want to continue to keep kind of going down the path that we are based off of this and these land-use designations and these analyses, or do we want to think about moving something in a little different direction? So what we determine as part of this analysis -- and this is something that's very critical in this process is to say, do we have enough infrastructure to support what's proposed and, more importantly, what is adopted per your Growth Management Plan? The resounding answer was, yes, your public infrastructure, whether it's water, wastewater, transportation all is actually acting and working at or above your adopted levels of service. So, basically, what we say is everything's working better than February 23, 2021 Page 144 you're currently anticipating or projecting and planning for out in this area. That's always a good thing. What we end up seeing a lot of times is where there is infrastructure that is incomplete, insufficient, or we're trying to play catch-up, whether or not it's from a water or wastewater component or, more importantly, a lot of times from a transportation standpoint. So what did we do as far as a future conditions review? Well, in working with staff, we had two community workshops. We also had an online survey. During that time we had over 57 responses that came in. Now, one of the things I want to make sure and point out is that we did get comments specific to this study area, but we also got a lot of comments they were outside of the specific area and started looking at a little bit of a broader regional aspect, which is actually really good, because a lot of the analysis and a lot of the information that the county has gets into a broader spectrum. So a couple of the things to kind of, I'll say, take away from the community workshops that we have, some of the concerns that were expressed to us were that there -- you know, the residents and those businesses that are out there, they're having to address or deal with extended drive times to get to basic services, whether or not it's the civic and governmental uses as well as shopping. So we started looking at what are the drive times for some of these. And the other thing that we started hearing, kind of a resounding theme, was we want to protect our open spaces and our native habitats, but we also want to see more options for nonresidential development. Now, when you start thinking about what's going on out there, especially when you start looking at the market study that was done, the study itself kind of corroborates what we were seeing from an independent perspective, that there is more growth that's anticipated, and based off the current land uses that you have within these study areas, and we start looking at what we call a five- and a February 23, 2021 Page 145 15-minute drive time, you're being -- you're going to be underserved at some point in the future. So now's kind of the time to start thinking about what do we want to do with respect to our current land use and also our current zoning perspectives. Now, I know it's a little difficult to see on this slide, but right in the center of that map it looks like a very dark or navy blue reverse L. That's the study area. The lighter blue is a five-minute drive time. And we're actually looking at five minutes actual physical drive time, not just the standard radius. And then the blue is, of course, a 15-minute drive time. Now, some people will start to ask, why didn't you just do a radius? Well, what we start to realize -- and you-all know better than anybody else -- canals, incomplete street networks. So we start looking at where are those physical connections that we can go from Point A to Point B. So when we started looking at what's on the ground today, what's allowed per the current land use as well as the zoning, you're only allowed to do about 23 more dwelling units and upwards of about 700,000 square feet of commercial. When you start factoring that in not only the market study that was done but also the residential analysis, and start looking at what's going on in this area between now and 2040, it starts to paint the picture of we need to start thinking additional development options. Is it going to be the standard model, or is it going to be more a context-sensitive approach to mixed-use development? And that kind of leads us to this overarching thought that we have. Now, we just identified a couple of the projects that are currently on the board right now. We're not saying that that property along Randall Boulevard should be mixed use, but where it makes sense right now, I'll say that low-hanging fruit or the opportunity is to February 23, 2021 Page 146 say they have commercial -- the ability to do some commercial there right now. Let's incentivize. Let's expand that. Let's build on what the current entitlements are. Of course, we're not talking about taking away development rights. To the contrary. What we're saying is let's incentivize and do something that's a little bit more of a form to what we and especially the county want to see out in this area. So there again, we're talking about building off of what's there now, incentivizing development, and having a little bit better use of the infrastructure. When you look in the report, there's three basic scenarios as far as recommendations. We look at the land use and the place-making, public spaces and green space, and the multimodal network. And we'll kind of go through a few of these here briefly, but the report actually starts to lay out kind of what those policy decisions could be, those things that are there for your consideration moving forward. And it's very simple when you start looking at some of the portions of that study with that matrix we did to go, yes, no, let's expand on this one a little bit. But we wanted to give you kind of that buffet list of things to consider moving forward. So what could this be? Well, we're not talking about a mixed-use district that you would see in downtown Naples. We're talking about something that is more context sensitive; something that fits the character and the feel of this portion of the county. Now, granted, you're probably not going to see this type of, let's say, level of urbanism out there, but the concepts are there. It's, you know, looking at the building design, looking at the features where people can interact. We start talking about pedestrianism. We start looking at bicycle and multi-modal components. We look at buildings and, you know, those integrated uses. And there, again, trying to get some of that shared infrastructure. February 23, 2021 Page 147 And, more importantly, one of the things that we also identified here and also was in the study was the ability for some civic or some public uses. Government uses are definitely needed out in this portion of the county. So why not provide that at this hub if that's the case? What are some additional things that we talked about? And you kind of see this on the screen here. But one of the things we're also kind of putting out there is by doing this type of development, you're also reducing trips on the adjacent roadway network because you're concentrating these within the area. So instead of having to drive eight, nine, 10 miles to go for retail or for government use or whatever else, we can concentrate it within that five- or even that 10-minute or 15-minute drive time within this intersection. Now, you've got a lot of pieces of the puzzle already in play, and we've got that identified as number one on your Growth Management Plan. But what we're saying is, there again, this is the first step. In order to make this reality, depending on what this board wants to do, there are some additional steps that the county should consider moving forward, and whether that's the identification of new or a mix of uses, looking at the density and intensity, all the way through to what are those development standards for an incentivized type of project. And with that, we'll be happy to answer any questions and/or take any comments. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. During one of the public hearings, I was in attendance, and there -- we were doing a study on the Golden Gate Master Plan, and I asked the question about the known commercial-zoned properties that are across the street in Orangetree. Did anybody factor that in to any of these calculations yet? February 23, 2021 Page 148 MR. KLEPPER: We did, and actually on one of the slides you saw those projects were identified as trying to get -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I saw your line went across Immokalee Road, but I didn't know if it absolutely grabbed -- I'm talking about the ones that are directly east of the highlighted areas that you've got that are actually in Orangetree and outside of the Golden Gate. MR. KLEPPER: Okay. So one of the things that we did talk about with staff was, do we want to expand the area of the study at this point? What we were discussing with staff was based off of the initial guidance and direction was maintain this boundary; however, if this body wanted to say, okay, let's expand, let's go into Phase 1A of this and start looking at some of these properties, then absolutely we could. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right. Well, I'm not proposing that we expand the study area at the moment; just for purposes of discussion. But I want it to be known that there is a lot of it already zoned commercial property that is in close proximity to this particular area. MR. KLEPPER: Yes, sir. And for -- we did look at that as long as -- as well as the market study that was provided to the county, and that's where we start seeing some of those items as far as by 2030 I think the ratios actually drop below what the county has identified as accessible from a market demand versus a population. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Unless anybody has any questions, I'd like to make a motion to accept the report and move it forward to -- because we really have to see what is actually being proposed in the GMP amendments and the allowable uses and whether or not there's a requisite for conditional use and so on and so forth. So I'm ready to have a look at all that. MR. KLEPPER: Yes, sir. February 23, 2021 Page 149 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion and a second. No discussion. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. KLEPPER: Thank you very much. Have a great rest of your day. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Item #11F AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 20-7722 IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,738,890 TO THE HASKELL COMPANY FOR "DESIGN BUILD SERVICES FOR NCWRF HEADWORKS," IN SUPPORT OF THE NCWRF NEW HEADWORKS PROJECT NO. 70149, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO ACCEPT AND AWARD AGREEMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11F was continued from your February 9th board meeting. This is a recommendation to award a contract in the amount of $28,738,890 to the Haskell Company for design/build services for the North County Water Reclamation Facility headworks replacement and to authorize necessary budget amendments for the February 23, 2021 Page 150 project. Mr. Tom Chmelik, your Director of Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management, is available to make a presentation or respond to questions from the Board. This one was continued at the request of the Clerk to help us put together a few other budget elements for this, and we've gone ahead and done that. So we've got concurrence with the Clerk moving forward on this project. That was the reason it was delayed and continued. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want -- I'll make -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had a question. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Tom, what's Haskell done for us before? What's their track record? MR. CHMELIK: They have not worked with us before, but they're a national firm -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Out of where? MR. CHMELIK: I don't recall, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jacksonville, Florida. MR. CHMELIK: Jacksonville. Thank you. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Are they the lowest? MR. CHMELIK: It was a design/build solicitation. They were not the lowest bidder. They were second, but the lowest bidder was approximately $5 million less and did not meet the requirements of the bid, so they were thrown out, and then the highest bidder was $5 million higher. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we have a motion on the floor -- Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what I'm -- my motion is to accept this and award the agreement. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? February 23, 2021 Page 151 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second to accept the agreement as presented. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. CHMELIK: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #11G AWARD INVITATION TO BID #20-7808 NEW TAMIAMI WELL #40 TO FLORIDA DESIGN DRILLING CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,134,000, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11G is a recommendation to award contract from the new Tamiami Well No. 40 to the Florida Design Drilling Corporation in the amount of $1,134,000, authorize the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. Again, Mr. Chmelik is available to present or respond to questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Florida Design Drilling ever do anything for us before? MR. CHMELIK: Yes, they have, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Good track record? MR. CHMELIK: Good track record, yes. February 23, 2021 Page 152 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Where are they from? MR. CHMELIK: They're from Florida. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd move for approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second. MR. CHMELIK: Yeah, they're out of West Palm Beach. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. CHMELIK: Thank you. Item #11I AWARD AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7820, “TRIANGLE BLVD TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS,” TO COUGAR CONTRACTING, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,395,000, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT AND APPROVE ALL REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11I is a recommendation to award an agreement to the Triangle Boulevard -- for the Triangle Boulevard transportation operational improvements to Cougar Contracting, LLC, in the amount of $3,395,000, authorize the Chair to sign the February 23, 2021 Page 153 agreements, and approve the required budget amendments. Mr. Ahmad is available to present or respond to questions from the Board. This is an infrastructure sales tax project -- MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: -- I believe. Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any questions. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that. No discussion. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. MR. AHMAD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Item #11J AWARD SOLICITATION NO. 20-7791 VANDERBILT DRIVE UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONVERSION PHASE IV, TO MASTEC NORTH AMERICA, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,765,869.40, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11J is a recommendation to award the contract for the Vanderbilt Drive underground utility conversion February 23, 2021 Page 154 Phase 4 and final phase to MasTec North American, Incorporated, in the amount of $1,765,869.40. And Mr. French is coming to the podium to either present or respond to questions from the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is -- this is part of the stretching eastward of the Vanderbilt Drive. MR. FRENCH: This is the final phase, ma'am. For the record, Jamie French. I'm your Department Head for Public Services. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's actually western portion of Vanderbilt. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I know, but it's stretching eastward. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course, yes. I'll move for approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. Item #10B - Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting. February 23, 2021 Page 155 RESOLUTION 2021-46; ADOPT A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO PASSAGE AND ENACTMENT OF SENATE BILL 406 AND HOUSE BILL 209, RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN - ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think that would move us back to our discussion under Item 10B, which is the resolution that you brought forward on the Big Cypress Basin expansion. Mr. Mullins is here to share some more specific language for Board's consideration. MR. MULLINS: Thank you. For the record, John Mullins, Government Affairs Manager. And not the smartest guy in the room but definitely, at 2:30 p.m., maybe the hungriest. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Did you say you didn't eat lunch because of this? MR. MULLINS: And what you have been handed are two documents. One is a set of amendments directed towards the committee substitute for Senate Bill 406 which is the furthest along in the process right now. The House Bill has not been taken up in committee, but the Senate Bill has emerged from its first committee with some amendments. So you have amendments before you that are applied to that committee substitute. And then behind it you also have a revised resolution from what you considered this morning, the highlighted areas being the new language that would be included. The first amendment deals with governance, so if you look at the top of the one sheet, it says, starting on Line 30 it strikes Lines 30 through 35 and inserts, "In lieu thereof, the Governor shall appoint four persons from Collier County and one person from Lee County who reside within the Big Cypress Basin to serve as members of the February 23, 2021 Page 156 governing board of the basin subject to confirmation by the Senate as provided in Subsection (4)." And it would replace the language that is highlighted on the visualizer right here. Now, this was kind of a hurried amendment. We're striking the entire paragraphs when we go in and make a change. There may be stylistic change to this should a committee council get it, because every committee council has their own style. So -- but the gist of the amendment remains. The second amendment deals with ad valorem and cleaning up that language and begins on Line 75 by striking Lines 75 through 78 and inserts, "The basin ad valorem taxes levied within the counties that comprise the Big Cypress Basin shall be utilized as specified in Section 373.0695, Florida Statutes, within the counties in which they were collected including for regional and local projects, improving flood protection, water quality, or natural systems." And by making that reference to 373.0695, they're making reference to another section of statute that is not included in the bill but allows for basin monies to be utilized for engineering studies of works of the basin, payment for the preparation of final plans and specifications for construction of basin works, payment of costs of construction of works of the basin executed by the district, payments for maintenance and operation of basin works, administrative and regulatory activities of the basin, payment for real property interests for works of the basin, and payment of costs of road, bridge, railroad, and utility modifications and changes resulting from basin works. So it's basically applying the ad valorem to things that they currently spend it on now. So it's making sure it's not tying their hands. And then the last change -- the last change is on Line 117 and basically just changes the effective date delaying it by one year. And those are the amendments to the bill. February 23, 2021 Page 157 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Mr. Mullins, I have the letter that we wrote. How -- how do we address the water quality, the impact of the water quality? Why isn't that here? MR. MULLINS: Water quality was not in the contents and is not in the content of the committee substitute of Senate Bill 406. The amendments that we offered are addressing things that are in the current language of the bills. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we don't -- it doesn't consider water quality? MR. MULLINS: The bill, as written, pertains to governance and ad valorem use of that tax for projects and maintenance, O&M and other things, but, no, it does not address water quality directly. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So why not? It's just the way it's written? MR. MULLINS: That's just the way it's written. It's a very short bill, as you can tell. I believe the committee substitute, which expanded the language, is a five-page bill. It does not go in-depth into water-quality issues. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So this letter and this go together? MR. MULLINS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I'm trying to understand what we're sending forward. MR. MULLINS: The letter was -- and I -- earlier today when you were discussing that, the difference between the letter and the resolution, the letter was pointing out the deficiencies of the bill but then also the lack of public input. The resolution was based upon pretty much solely the lack of the public input over the last year, and that's the difference between the resolution and the letter. And then when that resolution was not up to par for the entirety of the Board here, it's been revised to include what amendment staff would February 23, 2021 Page 158 recommend that you make in order to perfect the bill in its current form, admitting that it does not contain any references to water quality. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we make it? Can we put water quality in there? I mean, red tide is a -- it's not a figment of our imagination. MR. MULLINS: Absolutely. It couldn't be done during lunch today for sure but, yes, it probably could be amended in there, but you would have to bring in applicable sections of Florida Statute and make changes to those sections to apply to the basin at that point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So this is -- these are amendments that follow the bill. They don't necessarily follow the letter that we wrote to -- MR. MULLINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Senator Rodriguez and -- MR. MULLINS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Senator Passidomo. MR. MULLINS: The objections in the letter were more comprehensive than what the bill is covering in its entirety right now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The items in yellow get added? MR. MULLINS: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: The reso? MR. MULLINS: In the resolution, yes. And the language in the last whereas is left a little bit general. It does not specify, like, the number of seats being proposed for Collier County on the Board for the simple fact that the amendment itself will specify that, and there is a chance -- because if you actually add up the number of board members now, the bill says, in its current proposal, current proposed form, five seats being appointed by the Governor. There's already one seat that comes over from the water February 23, 2021 Page 159 management district, and that is the chair. So there are a total of six seats at that point. Why you would have a board with an even number is beyond me. There is a chance -- and we've heard rumblings that that could be expanded to where it is six seats being appointed, then the Chair comes over from the Board, and that becomes a seventh seat. So by being a little bit reasonable in the resolution itself, should that circumstance arise, it's not locking us in to just four seats that we requested in the amendment. It allows us to say, at that point, perhaps we ask for five of the six. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of the six. MR. MULLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so let's say this passes. When are -- the issues in the letter that we sent to Senator Rodriguez, when is this addressed? MR. MULLINS: Assuming they're not already covered in some other section of Florida Statute, it would be addressed in whatever rule-making process that may follow the bill. But that's not a guarantee. I can't tell you what all would be addressed under rule-making right now. That's part of the unknown. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Like, how would joint operations of shared stormwater infrastructure work? MR. MULLINS: Those are questions that would have to be addressed by the basin administration once they've been given a directive by the legislature as to how they're supposed to set up shop. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think this is different, not necessarily better. I mean, maybe that's not the best choice of words. But, I mean -- and I don't know we can mess around with this thing and change "small dog" to "puppy" and "happy" to "glad," but this is important, and words on what we're going to send forward February 23, 2021 Page 160 are going to be a big deal, you know, as far as, like, how we really feel. I'm sure we all feel that way. I don't know that this fully represents what we've sort of debating back and forth here. And, I mean, like I said, we can, you know, slice this a million times, but I would like to see something in there about water quality and maybe a few other -- so maybe we're close. You know, sorry you missed lunch, you know, to put the things together, but I don't know. I'd like to hear what my colleagues think. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well, I think we actually get to where it is we're going. I mean, the water quality -- the water-quality circumstances, in my personal opinion, aren't necessarily -- don't need to be part of this bill. This bill is a directive to include other geographic areas into the Big Cypress Basin. And there are already directives by the Big Cypress Basin with regard to water-quality circumstances. So I think, you know, our letter that we sent before was an accumulation of everyone's concerns, staff's organizational processes, how we were going to manage those circumstances, and I think the majority of that will all -- once the decision is made, if the bill moves through, the majority of those things will be done in a very open public process during the rule-making portion and then -- and our request to delay this, effectively for a year from when the bill's actually set up to take effect, certainly allows for enough input from the public to go through and address the express concerns. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So just to make sure that I understand the reference to 373.0695, that's the statute that sets out what the basin can do or what it can spend money on? MR. MULLINS: It's the duties of the basin boards and the February 23, 2021 Page 161 authorized expenditures. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that's going to cover the concerns about what we can use the money on. Can we continue to use -- or can money continue to be used for water management -- stormwater management and all that? MR. OCHS: Agency operations. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, I mean, I don't like doing it this way, but I would support moving this forward if the resolution at the end of the last sentence says, unless and until amendments recommended -- the amendments recommended by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County are incorporated as attached in Exhibit A, and it's this, be attached to this bill so that we know what we're talking about and they don't change. I'd support it if we did that. I don't like it, but I think we need to send a message, a clear one. I think that's about as clear as we're going to get in a muddy pond at this point. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think that's a good way to handle it. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's a good improvement, yeah. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just, procedurally, we do have a motion and second. I'll -- if the maker of the second -- the commissioner that made the second, if he'll withdraw the second, then I'll withdraw the motion, because it looks like we're going to need a different motion since we have language now, because my motion contemplated developing language and having staff work on that. So, Commissioner LoCastro, I think you made the second to my motion. If you'll withdraw that, I'll withdraw the motion. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely. I withdraw that February 23, 2021 Page 162 motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So then I guess this is kind of a question. If you're going to have an effective date a full year-and-a-half from now, why not just delay this until the next session? Spend the next year working on the language, and then present it next year. So I don't really understand having an effective date a year later. It seems to me that you're better off just not having a bill at all and then working on it, if that's the goal. And I guess the only other point I would make is that there has to be some flexibility when we send this up there. If we send this up and say, this is our language, take it or leave it, which is basically what you're suggesting, and they come back and they say, well, you know, we'd like to have seven members on this board and two from Lee County, that's not what our language says. So I'd like to see some flexibility built into that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'd like to speak. I like your first suggestion that we actually -- we don't say never, never, but that we say we don't support it this year. We need time -- it's clear we need time to work on this. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That wasn't my suggestion. I'm just saying that that would be my question as to why you would do that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I think that's a very good -- that's a very good question to ask, and I think that's the crux of it. Why are we rushing through this? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Can I sort of answer that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I hope so. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're rushing through this because there's a House Bill and a Senate Bill that are moving through the legislature. So we can say whatever we want, that we don't want this bill that year. That doesn't mean it isn't going to February 23, 2021 Page 163 happen. So we need to do this in, essentially, two different ways. One is, we need to try to fix this, and if we can't fix it, then we need to fight against it. But to just simply say at this point we want to wait a year, that's not going to carry the day. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't understand why. Right now I understand that Lee County or, I guess, the Cities of Bonita and Estero are receiving money from South Florida Water Management. I think this coming up would be their fourth year; that there is an MOU about cleaning out their canals in addition to that. So why -- you know, I guess my question is, what is the problem of asking for a stay right now and that we can bring in the taxpayers of Collier County? We have a full Big Cypress Basin board. There's -- we've just got so much going for us now. Why rush this when we have these deep, deep concerns that don't seem to be able to be addressed right now? But I bet you if we sit down and talk to Lee County or not -- well, Lee would be part of it, certainly, and Estero and Bonita, I bet we could solve these. I just think the public has been cut out of this, and not intentionally. Yes, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I take -- I don't take exception. I don't concur with your analogous statement regarding rushing. This isn't a new subject matter. We've been talking about -- this has been talked about for quite some time. I don't disagree with Commissioner Solis. I think we can get to where we're wanting to go with that addition that Commissioner Solis has added. And if the legislature comes back and says we're going to have seven on there, we can amend this language. We're going to have time to look at these things as we're -- I mean, we're not absolutely going to deny the statute if they come back and say we're going to put -- we'd like to have seven members and we'll give Collier County five. We're not going to -- we're not going to say no February 23, 2021 Page 164 to that. Because the goal here is to accomplish and ensure a majority of Collier County on this governance board. And so if the language changes in regard to semantics and it still effectuates what we're ultimately -- what the end goal is with regard to the governance, we're not -- we're not going to -- I wouldn't assume, then, that we would oppose -- that we would oppose the statute. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But when it leaves here without that, we have left ourselves vulnerable, because it is, literally, out of our control. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It is literally out of our control now, as Commissioner Saunders stated. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not from the conversations I've had with our Senator Passidomo who said that her district -- her representation in Collier is the largest area that she represents in her whole district. Collier is the dominant area. And if Collier doesn't want it, we need to speak out instead of trying -- I feel like we're making -- we're making -- this is kind of -- it's not done on the fly, but it seems so much like it's done on the fly. It's not done with deliberation to really wrestle with these very important issues that, frankly, our public is very concerned about, too. I mean, I heard Dr. Hill talk about the capacity of the Cocohatchee. We don't know what the capacity is. You know, red tide is out there. It was out there last week. We just -- we really have to be very careful. It doesn't mean we say no for -- never, never, but it just means we just take a deep breath and say, at this point we cannot support this until we have further public -- public input and also meeting, workshops, with all of us together sitting at a table, or Zoom. There is a letter I'd like to read for your consideration also from Meredith Babb who is sitting there -- Budd, excuse me. And this is February 23, 2021 Page 165 regarding whether she -- if I may read this, or would you like to read this? She's asking if we would consider adding a whereas clause that speaks to the existing cooperative agreement between the district and Lee County that was enacted after Irma. Perhaps for that -- for the resolution, opposition for the bill would be maintained unless a collaborative effort is made to review that agreement, revise it, if necessary, and work collegially -- and I like that word -- with, perhaps, a task force of some kind made up of elected officials from each county, city, village, and other stakeholders and experts to address Lee County's concerns outside of this legislative initiative. There is an existing agreement in place. Collier County doesn't need to expand the boundary to be a good neighbor and address the concerns brought up by Lee County. We can simply do it through the existing agreement or a modification to it. We haven't had those conversations, Commissioner LoCastro. We didn't have those conversations with the brief meetings that we had with the officials over a year and a half ago. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thoughts? Anecdotes? Questions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is tough stuff. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Really, to me, the most important paragraph in here is the last one, right, where it says, now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners to oppose passage of the next Senate bill, blah, blah, blah, blah, unless and until amendments rec -- so that right there is our answer. If we want to add a little bit more to there and say, and such time until we can have proper citizen input or something. I mean, I'm not sitting here drafting this thing, but I think, you know, this is the paragraph we're looking to add to. That was very eloquent what you read. Maybe it didn't even need to be that long, but I think I understood the February 23, 2021 Page 166 gist of what you put in, which I think -- you know, I'm not a big fan of increasing the boundary, you know, so -- I mean, I've been on record saying that many times, and also making sure we do our due diligence, but it just seems like this is the paragraph we need to focus on. It's our closing paragraph. It needs to be inclusive of how we feel. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Instead of saying "no, no," it's saying "no until." COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And we've talked about more things than what's just in here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So -- MR. MULLINS: Respectfully, though, I think you're being a little bit subjective if you say "adequate public input" without defining what adequate -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I agree. Yeah. I'm not saying those are the words. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're not wordsmithing it. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: See, you are the smartest person in the room. MR. MULLINS: Hungriest. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The hungriest. Give the man a brownie. So, Commission, we can probably sit here -- I mean, what we could probably do -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You can call on our names there, and we could talk about it some more. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I just saw them come up. I'm sorry. I was thinking about Terri, and about her needing a break, but let's -- let's hear from Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So we took a break to wordsmith February 23, 2021 Page 167 this so we could come back with some specific language. That was the whole purpose of taking a break. So we have the language. You know, I think that we took a break. We came up with the language. It confirms that the governance -- that the control would still be in Collier County, you know, resident -- members of the Board. It confirms that -- what the funds can be used for and the expenditures, what they're authorized for is what they are there for now, and gives us some time to work through any other issues that come up. I mean, I think this is what we were talking about we were going to do. If this is what we were talking about, then let's just add it to the resolution, say, these are the changes that we will -- we will agree to, and we're not going to support it unless they're part of it, and just call it a day, I mean, yeah, this is -- this is outside of our control, which is why I think we need to be very clear since it's a train that's moving forward, and we've been trying to have -- you know, be polite and have it both ways. I think we've just got to say what we want. And whether or not we get it, we'll see, and that will be up to our legislative delegation. But, you know, I think -- the issue for the day is, we need to be clear in terms of what we want. We've minced words a little bit, I think, back and forth in our first two letters, and we've been told that we've got to quit doing that. We've got to be clear. So let's just be clear and add those revisions, and that's it. I'm not going to support anything other than that, so I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. -- Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well -- and that was what you said at the beginning, and I'd be fine with it as per the attached amendments that staff's proposed. I'd be okay with that. You know, again, it's obvious this is going to come back to us, February 23, 2021 Page 168 and so once they -- once they -- as Commissioner Taylor likes to say, once they make the sausage and go through the process, we're going to have a look and see what their propositions are. Maybe the July 1st, '22, date is an okay date with the effective date to allow for addressing some of the concerns that are being brought forth; maybe it's not. And then we have that choice at some stage to accept, reject, or manage through it. So if you want to make -- I'll second your motion for attaching these proposed amendments and the writing at the end of that sentence there in the last therefore, as per attached, so -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You could say, unless and until the amendments attached hereto as Exhibit A recommended by the Board of County Commissioners are incorporated. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: However you -- that sounds very pretty. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. This is kind of where I wanted us to get to early this morning when I was suggesting that we needed to draft language. And I think this does two things. One, it proves that it's not that difficult to draft language if you apply yourself to it. I'm not speaking about you. I'm just saying in general. I'll support the resolution with the attachment, but I can almost guarantee you that this exact language is not going to be accepted. There'll be changes to it. That's just the way it's going to work. But I'll support the resolution because at least it gets us moving in the right direction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And -- excuse me. I didn't mean to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So why are we doing this? If we know and I believe -- I believe Commissioner/Senator Saunders, he February 23, 2021 Page 169 knows -- he's been up there for 15 years -- 15 years, 13 years? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just -- we're doing this because this is a process. I mean, the legislature is going to take a look at this. They're going to -- Ray Rodriguez may file these. Somebody on the committee may make a change to it. It's just the process, and there will be some wording changes to this. There may not be any substantive changes, but we're not going to get this exact language. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And it's out of our control; whereas, if we say no, then we know that we have Senator Passidomo that can report that to the legislative delegation; that this is not supported by Collier County. And I think that is -- that is -- what is it? It's a bird in hand. That's -- that's where we have the opportunity to really work with everyone and work on it. And I -- and I do like "unless and until." I like that because it leaves it open. I like that, but maybe it should be unless and until we have public input and a series of workshops that may stretch over the next year. We just give -- we give our power away with this, and if that's the will of this commission, then that's the will of the commission. But the idea that you think that we can direct these hardworking folks in Tallahassee and how they should write this bill, it's clear we can't. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's clear that you don't concur with the processes that are going on, but I've got to take exception to the fact that we're not willfully giving away our power. We are willfully acknowledging the benefit of the increase of the boundaries of the Big Cypress Basin. We are willfully acknowledging that there are ultimate benefits that can come from expanding that boundary and having better local control with regard to the expenditure of the generated tax money. There's a lot of February 23, 2021 Page 170 positives that come along with this as well. So I -- it's -- I think we've covered it as best as we possibly can now. We'll ultimately have another look at this once or 10 times, and we'll be able to move accordingly. But, as Commissioner Solis has already stated, this train's heading down the track with a Senate Bill and a House Bill, and our participation is to, as best as we possibly can, protect the interests of the residents of Collier County. This is a good path for us to go. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I'd like to make -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Just a quick comment, then call for the question. One of the speakers earlier today was talking about how wonderful this basin has been for the residents of Collier County, how we have benefited from flood control, and it's just been something that's been really spectacular for Collier County. I don't think we should be in a position to try to deny those same benefits to Lee County. So I support moving this resolution along. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I don't think we're -- sir, I beg to disagree with you. There is an agreement between South Florida Water Management and the county that didn't exist prior to four years ago, and that -- that, indeed, takes care of that, and it could be expanded. I think we preclude the opportunity for -- which Ms. Budd remarked in her letter, for the parties to get together to make it better for Lee County. Make it better for Bonita. There -- at face value right now there is absolutely, in my opinion -- I mean, if my taxpayers want me to take the concerns of Lee County into consideration, then they need to tell me, but right now it's the concerns of Collier County that they want me to take into February 23, 2021 Page 171 consideration, not how Lee County or Estero or Bonita are faring. But we're neighbors, and so we have to look at the bigger picture. But we don't have to rush into it. We can look at the bigger picture with the input from our taxpayers, from our voters. But we do have a motion on the floor. And I think if we could restate that motion, please. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So the motion is to approve this resolution that's been provided by Mr. Mullins with the following change: That the last paragraph be amended to read "Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to oppose passage and enactment of Senate Bill 406 and House Bill 209 relating to the expansion of the Big Cypress Basin unless and until the amendments attached hereto as Exhibit A and recommended by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County are incorporated." COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And we have a second. And just one point of discussion. Mr. Mullins, you did mention something about the four persons, if they decide to expand the basin board until 10 [sic]. So are we going to amend this to talk about having a supermajority, or how are we going to amend this? MR. MULLINS: That would be a policy decision for you to decide if you want to make it a simple majority or a simple majority to supermajority, however you want to try to base it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we going to weave those words into this? MR. MULLINS: Well, it would just be done based upon what the change would be. Right now they're appointing, in the bill, five; the Governor's appointing five members. If they change that to six, February 23, 2021 Page 172 then we would probably go from asking for four persons from Collier County to five persons from Collier County knowing that the sixth person appointed would be from Lee and that the chair coming over from the Water Management District feasibly also be a Lee County resident. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're comfortable with the way it's written that it gives us that flexibility? MR. MULLINS: I think the spirit and intent of the Board here is pretty clear on how you're wanting that to go. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. All right. There's a motion -- Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I just wanted to add one thing. I mean, we have two experienced attorneys up here, so I wanted to just ask, sometimes a couple of words can really change the flavor of it. When we say County Commissioner -- and recommended by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County are incorporated and, really, I'm asking, well, all of you-all, should it say something like are incorporated to their satisfaction, or -- and I know that that's weak and light and that's not, you know, legalese, but they could come back and say, oh, we incorporated it, and then we can say, well, yeah, but you didn't really incorporate it exactly as -- you know, I mean, it leaves it a little bit ambiguous. So I wonder if something more solid, are incorporated to their -- up to their approval or something like that. I'm just throwing it out there. It just seems like when we leave it like that, you know, if they take some poetic license, and then that's where the disagreement would be. What would you say? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I'm trying to be as specific as possible, and so what I'm trying to say is, we're going to oppose this unless and until this is incorporated. This (indicating). February 23, 2021 Page 173 And if this isn't, then we're not going to support it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And so if they want to change the numbers, you know -- and I've spoken with the person that was calling me from Lee County about this. Apparently, they don't care to have a supermajority. We can have whatever control voting interests we want. They don't really care about that. But -- and I'd be fine if it went from five to seven, but if it went four to four, I'd have a problem with that. So, you know, again, this is pretty clear. This is what we can agree to, or at least I can agree to. And if it's anything other than that, then we don't support it. I think to open it up to our future approval, I think -- I think that's where we get into trouble. So I don't know. I think it makes it more ambiguous to leave it up to a future approval. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? Aye. It passes 4-1. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to Item 15 this afternoon, staff and commission general communications. Other February 23, 2021 Page 174 than the reminder of your CRA workshop on April 6th, which is already on your calendar, I have nothing else today, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Klatzkow. No? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: With the Board's indulgence, I do want to follow up and follow through on what I said I was going to be doing with the TDC. I've got a handout -- do you want to take one and pass them down -- just to give everyone an update on, I think, the good work that the TDC has done. And there's a couple of videos I wanted to go through as well. But just to show you that the TDC's work in pivoting to a different kind of emergency marketing plan has made a difference. In the handout you'll see that the graph is very interesting, because the gray area is visitors from out of state in 2019. And you can see that the visitors from out of state were the vast majority. Also, at the beginning of the year, the green vertical lines, visitors from out of state were the majority of the visitors that came to Collier County. COVID hit March of 2020, and then you can see what happened. The marketing campaign switched to -- from marketing to out-of-state visitors to in-state driving-distance visitors or nearby, Georgia, Alabama, and the adjoining states. So the marketing plan was spot on, in my opinion, and I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. The second page shows you in January, this January, you can see the visitors from Florida haven't gone up in 2021. That continues to be the bulk of where the visitors are coming from, so that campaign was really successful. The third page shows who's coming here by -- who's flying here. In 2020 it was 69 percent of the visitors were flying here, and in 2021 so far in January it was only 36 percent. So, again, it's just more February 23, 2021 Page 175 evidence that the marketing -- the marketing plan and the emergency dollars, which is really the point of this, was spot on. The last page just -- is a graph that shows who's ready to travel, what percentage of the people that have been surveyed were ready to travel. And under the green light, they're ready to travel, you can see that it's gone up from 23 percent to 28 percent in about a month. So good news all the way around, I think, from the TDC in a bad situation. But I think that the emergency funds -- and I believe it was a million dollars that was transferred from the Emergency Advertising Fund to spend on the Q1, Q2 additional advertising has been paying off. There is some CARES Act monies that are coming back to help us offset that. And then the whole media plan's going to be reconsidered at the March 22nd TDC meeting to see if, with things changing, with the vaccine being distributed, are people more ready to travel? Do we need to amend the marketing plan in some way? And just to give you a flavor of what -- how the marketing was targeted and how it's targeted now to those people that are ready to travel here, I thought I'd just play a couple of them, because I think they're really outstanding. So, Troy, if you can. (A video was played.) "After months of playing in place, after countless meals cooked by yourself, after endless adventures in your own backyard, it's time to make up for lost time. So when you're ready to travel again, reward yourself with stunning beaches, endless natural beauty, and impeccable hospitality because, let's face it, after everything you've been through, only paradise will do. Naples, Marco Island, and the Everglades." "After months of playing in place, after countless meals" -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But you get the sense of -- yeah, February 23, 2021 Page 176 that last one. Just play the last one. MR. MILLER: Maybe I will. (A video was played.) "It's time to make up for everything you've been missing, the laughs and the splashes, the excitement and the adventure, the incredible meals prepared by chefs who can't wait to cook for you again, and the unforgettable moments you'll have enjoying it. So when you're ready to travel and want a getaway that's part reset button and part reward and all wide-open spaces, remember, only paradise will do. Naples, Marco Island, and the Everglades. Florida's Paradise Coast." COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's my TDC update. I think the staff has done a great job tailoring the marketing to, you know, where we are. When you're ready to travel, come here, you know. It's a safe place to be. That has been very, very effective, and the data shows that, so I thought I would just share that. And other than that, thank you for all the support on the central receiving facility, and we have turned a corner in Collier County. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's nice to hear. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just wanted to inform everyone last night was the first time ever that the District 1 County Commissioner called a special meeting with the Marco City Council. So I met with them for 30 minutes in an open forum. We're going to do that quite regularly to attack issues on Marco of mutual interest. So our first one's going to be Tigertail. You know, we've kicked the can. And regardless of what districts we're all in, we all traverse each other's areas. You know, we're all Collier County. So I'm sure everybody up here goes to Marco. And Tigertail is a county asset, right -- maybe Commissioner McDaniel doesn't. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a big hill to get over. February 23, 2021 Page 177 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: A big one. But Tigertail needs a lot of attention, and the can's been kicked a lot. So the big -- part of the 30-minute meeting last night was an aggressive action plan going forward. So we're going to have a meeting in mid March on Marco and invite all the main stakeholders, Friends of Marco, Army Corps of Engineers, several environmental agencies, and not just talk about everybody's great ideas for Tigertail, some which are possible and some which aren't, but people talk like they're possible, and really make some headway there. And we discussed some other issues but, you know, I was proud to, you know, sit down and get 30 minutes of time to converse with the City Council, many of them who are new. And it's a big part of District 1. It's not the biggest part. But it was, you know, a good start last night, and we're going to attack some other issues at Caxambas. And we even talked about red tide and how we can partner together. The county did a great job, and I really take my hat off to the parks and recs folks, Jamie French and Barry Williams. They got out to Caxambas and Tigertail and really cleaned up the dead fish aggressively. City of Marco admitted last night they were a bit behind the power curve, and they're not going to let that happen again for the canals and some other areas. So it's just working together aggressively and being focused on the right things, and last night was a good start. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I've started receiving some correspondence concerning litter along some of our main highways. I don't know if we have a program for that. There's one specific area that was mentioned in an email along Davis Boulevard from Radio Road to Collier Boulevard. So do we have any kind of a routine February 23, 2021 Page 178 process for collecting trash along the roadways? I've noticed some of that -- a lot of that on Interstate 75, but obviously that's not our jurisdiction. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we do, and we'll make sure we follow up. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That's one area maybe for our folks to take a look at. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just on that note, we had a very successful arrangement with the Sheriff and our Weekend Warriors at the stockade in Immokalee. They have a mowing team, a trash pickup team, and they go to hot spot areas the community communicates with us and does those on a weekly basis, so... And I have nothing -- I have nothing else to add. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I have a couple of things. One Naples is Monday. It's Monday. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right here in these chambers. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so I think we've all received a letter from our County Attorney, you know, outlining the procedure that is normally followed, and I really appreciate that, with timelines. There's a couple of issues I'd like to discuss with you. First of all, I have received a letter from the opponents, the leadership of the opponents, and they would like speakers -- there are five of them -- to be considered experts, and the time that they would like to speak is 90 minutes. So there would be two hours for the petitioner, there would be an hour and a half for these experts, and then the -- then the public would weigh in. And we have talked extensively about perhaps rather than saying the same thing again and again and how they oppose it is that perhaps they could talk about how many people are in their neighborhoods that have opposed it so that we can move this February 23, 2021 Page 179 along and be done with it in one day. That's my ambition to do this. It took four days at the Planning Commission. I do not want to repeat that time frame. So I want to discuss it now with you, because I -- you know, we have to have concurrence on this. So are we in agreement that you would accept these -- there's a planner, there's a traffic engineer, and there's an attorney, another attorney, and then there's Mr. Victor, who's leading it up. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What -- just the question I would have is, how do we know that we're not going to have the 90 minutes for that group and then still have two days worth of testimony? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't know that but, specifically, this group will come first, and I think -- I think Mr. Victor is going to speak to the groups that are opposed. We do not know that, sir; we don't. But I will do my best. And, frankly, one of the classic remarks that I learned from a predecessor of mine, "if you want to talk us out of it, speak, but if you agree with the speaker, just say yes." COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question, and that's the -- I have an issue just designating an opponent an expert without knowing their qualifications, who they are, what they are, and what they're about to say. And so that's one of my concerns with your statement that you brought forward is they're -- what I perceived you to be asking is they're going to ask us to make these people experts. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. They called them experts. I don't -- I don't -- I am not using that word. That will be a legal issue that will be decided. I've heard that conversation with -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- you know, with Attorney Yovanovich. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So necessarily, if I can February 23, 2021 Page 180 paraphrase then, the opposition to the project is asking for 90 minutes for their presentation with their people that they're bringing forward as purported experts. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Got it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Whether they're deemed experts for the record will be a decision of the attorneys. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the applicant has how long to go? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Two hours. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They have two hours. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If it goes over, it goes over. But I actually have 15 minutes -- I have 15, 15, 15, I have it exactly. They've timed it in this letter. And I'll be glad to give this to you. The other thing is we have a model. If you paid attention or were involved in the Planning Commission meeting, there was a model that was brought in a table and sat right there. There was a lot of discussion about that. I don't think we need to have that discussion. I can say it's going to be accepted or not, but I think we need to. It's the opponents to One Naples, and they have built a model, and they have asked for it to be presented as it was in the Planning Commission on a table right there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A picture says a thousand words. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: For the entire proceedings. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, they -- I don't see why they wouldn't be able to bring whatever they want, frankly. I mean, the applicant is going to have their exhibits. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I don't know -- it doesn't make any difference to me. February 23, 2021 Page 181 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We're all right. Okay. And then, finally, I'd like to see if we could start at 8:30 in the morning, not 9:00. If that's a problem -- I know that you get up early, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Saunders does. I don't. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If that's okay, I'd like to see if we can't move this ahead a little bit. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Your only problem with that is I think we advertised it for 9:00. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ah. Then that's a problem. Then we can't. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Get to sleep in. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So then ixnay that. All right. So that takes care of One Naples. And I will be sure that all of you -- there was some questions about the process, and I answered it, but I'll make sure that everybody gets this and so you can see the names of the people. And then on a happier note, there is a remarkable event in the arts community taking place in March, and that is with the Naples Players and Opera Naples performing in Baker Park, and Naples Players will have -- and I've got it here somewhere. I think the number of performances they have are nine, and they have 250 tickets sold for each performance. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nice. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And Opera Naples has three days, including a concert by a world-renowned tenor who flew in from Malta. His name is Joseph Calleja. He performs at the Metropolitan. He wouldn't be here except the Metropolitan has closed their doors. I want to cheer this incredible collaboration between these performing arts groups. And in conversation with both of February 23, 2021 Page 182 them -- oh, and, by the way, they expect 600 people for the three days at the Opera Naples. Again, this is all outside. I think this is incredible courage to do this. This hasn't been done like this. They're sharing the cost of the staging. It really says how they've come together to bring the performing arts to our community. And given -- given that, they have sent me a letter, or Naples Players did, and I've spoken to the County Manager about it, and they would like to see if they could -- we could help them with the transportation of buses. I believe the Players -- they have to get people to the park, and with that amount of people -- plus they've got their own staging folks. I think it's 150 and 200 with the actors and whatnot. There's a lot of transportation and moving parts, and they've asked the county to assist, but they've also gone to the city to ask them to assist also, and Baker Park with Opera Naples has also gone to them. In fact, they're meeting tomorrow. So I see this -- if you agree, this is definitely an opportunity to come together as a county and city and support this, and this is -- the plan is that this become a signature event on an annual basis and that next year it will be at the sports park, because we've got the amphitheater. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's just a discussion. Do we have any flexible, fungible TDT money to be able to assist with the transportation? And maybe we make a commitment of monetary value out of that, if it's plausible, and then -- as opposed to a commitment actually on transportation. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, yeah. I think -- your point's well made. This is beginning to happen on Thursday of this week, I February 23, 2021 Page 183 believe. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: (Nods head.) MR. OCHS: So my suggestion would be, if the Board wants to get engaged in this, that, you know, we provide those transportation services and then come to the TDC with an after-the-fact application for a TDC reimbursement to the transit system. It's -- our estimate is about $3,500 for the entire event to cover that transportation cost, and if the Board would like, per your suggestion, we could bring an after-the-fact application in front of the TDC and ask for some TDC funding to reimburse the transit system. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Great. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just thinking of the usual analysis is hotel rooms, room nights. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know that, but this is -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How's that going to work? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This is not a -- you know, when we move our strategic plan forward, there will be a way to compute this, because other communities do this, but when you think that both these organizations have always been inside. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I'm not -- don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we shouldn't support it. I'm totally for supporting it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just bringing up that at the TDC, that there has to be a finding that it promotes tourism, and that's usually done by an analysis of how many room nights it's going to generate. And that's -- so I just want to bring that up because I don't know how we would do that. MR. OCHS: No, I understand that, sir, and we're going to have to -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have all the performers February 23, 2021 Page 184 coming into town. They're staying someplace. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we could work on that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I just -- I'm so glad -- I was a little worried about it, because I don't know we don't like art here. I'm looking at you, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, you looked right at me when you said that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm teasing. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I love art. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But what I'm saying is that we should be very proud as a community that we have this kind of creativity and this kind of courage and this kind of talent in Collier County. And thank you very much, and with that, we are adjourned. ***** **** Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner Solis and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $103,660 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.080-10, PL20160001203 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 9. Item #16A2 February 23, 2021 Page 185 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $615,157.20, WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 59.375-7, PL20160003050, FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH OYSTER HARBOR AT FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 3. Item #16A3 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR WARM SPRINGS PHASE 1, PL20160002883 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR WARM SPRINGS PHASE A1, PL20160002008 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES February 23, 2021 Page 186 FOR WARM SPRINGS PHASE 2, PL20180001930 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. Item #16A6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPTING CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES – WATER MAIN EXTENSION, PL20180002174 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,789.58 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 2021-35: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE AT AVE MARIA, PHASE 4, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001919, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY. Item #16A8 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF MOTOR CONDOS AT NAPLES BOULEVARD, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200001958. February 23, 2021 Page 187 Item #16A9 A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE TO CONTINUE MAINTAINING A PERMANENT GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) BASE STATION AT THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE HEADQUARTERS. Item #16A10 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7819 FOR “VERIFICATION TESTING SERVICES FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE & MARBELLA LAKES DRIVE EXTENSION,” PROJECT NO. 60219, AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, HIGHSPANS ENGINEERING, INC., SO STAFF CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. Item #16A11 AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND (PARCEL 1211FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60168). Item #16A12 AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) FOR LOT 8, SANTORINI VILLAS AT OLDE CYPRESS, ACCORDING TO February 23, 2021 Page 188 THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 34, PAGE 47 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY. Item #16A13 AGREEMENT NO. 21-7865-WV FOR LEGAL AND NON-LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS AS EXEMPTED PROCUREMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT WITH DESK SPINCO, INC. D/B/A SCRIPPS NP OPERATING, LLC D/B/A NAPLES DAILY NEWS. Item #16A14 AFTER THE FACT, THE ACCEPTANCE OF FOUR FLORIDA BEAUTIFICATION GRANT AWARDS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (F.D.O.T.) FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM U.S. 41 TO AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM AIRPORT PULLING ROAD TO COUNTY BARN ROAD; A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) FROM JUDGE S.S. JOLLEY BRIDGE TO CAPRI BOULEVARD; AND A PORTION OF STATE ROAD 951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) FROM CAPRI BOULEVARD TO SHELL ISLAND ROAD, EACH AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION. Item #16A15 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST February 23, 2021 Page 189 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (RPS) #21-7828 “DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING SERVICES FOR BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECTS,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP- RANKED FIRM, COASTAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING LLC, SO THAT STAFF CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. Item #16A16 RESOLUTION 2021-36: AMENDING EXHIBIT “A” TO RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, AS AMENDED, THE LIST OF ‘SPEED LIMITS ON COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS’, TO ADD ALLEYWAYS AND NON-LISTED ROADWAYS THAT FOLLOW STATUTORY SPEED LIMITS TO THE LIST. Item #16A17 AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 19-7599, "ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR LAP FUNDED PROJECTS," TO CAPITAL CONSULTING SOLUTIONS LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $499,082.04, FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (“LAP”) FUNDED PROJECTS, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. Item #16B1 February 23, 2021 Page 190 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NUMBER 18-7466 WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TIME FOR CEI (CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING INSPECTION) SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE THOMASSON DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. (PER AGENDA CHANGE SHEET) Item #16C1 A $243,969 WORK ORDER ON A REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ”) UNDER AGREEMENT #15-6469, “WELL DRILLING, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE” TO LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY, FOR THE REHABILITATION OF DEEP INJECTION WELL IW-1 AT NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (PROJECT NUMBER 70148). Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REALLOCATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN ALONG THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK ACCESS ROAD THAT PROVIDES CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN BCIPR PHASE 1, BCIPR PHASE 2 AND OIL WELL ROAD. Item #16C3 RESOLUTION 2021-37: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRPERSON TO EXECUTE DEED CERTIFICATES FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2021 CALENDAR YEAR, ON February 23, 2021 Page 191 BEHALF OF THE COUNTY MANAGER. Item #16C4 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500189453, ISSUED UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 18-7288, “COLLIER COUNTY JAIL MOBILE KITCHEN TRAILERS,” TO S.R. HOLDING CO. OF MIAMI, INC., D/B/A S.R. HOLDINGS INC., TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT BY SIXTY (60) DAYS AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $38,000. Item#16C5 AWARDING REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. 2012-008, “SNF ACTIVITY POOL RESTORATION UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525, ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES, TO CHRIS-TEL COMPANY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A CHRIS-TEL CONSTRUCTION, AND AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF A PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $543,356.99, TO RESTORE THE ACTIVITY POOL AT SUN-N-FUN LAGOON WATER PARK. Item #16D1 A SERVICES FOR SENIORS, “AFTER-THE-FACT”, STANDARD CONTRACT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS, FOR THE FY21 OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III IN THE AMOUNT OF $-37,832.58. February 23, 2021 Page 192 Item #16D2 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD INTEREST EARNED FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2020 ON ADVANCED LIBRARY FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO SUPPORT LIBRARY SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE USE OF COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS. Item #16D3 AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AMENDMENT, ATTESTATION STATEMENT, AND BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION, REVISE ATTACHMENT II AND ATTACHMENT IX AND THE SUPPORTING BUDGET AMENDMENT. (FISCAL IMPACT $24,815.42) Item #16D4 A CONSERVATION COLLIER SD CORP PRESERVE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM AND TO NAME THE PROPERTY RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK PRESERVE. Item #16D5 February 23, 2021 Page 193 THE ELECTRONIC AWARD ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS ADULT DRUG COURT DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM, FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000, AND $16,666 IN MATCH, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. Item #16D6 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THREE (3) MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,000 AND THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT. Item #16D7 DE-OBLIGATING FUNDS AWARDED BY THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TO AVOID A DUPLICATION OF BENEFITS, RECOGNIZE INSURANCE PROCEEDS AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT THROUGH THE FTA TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS), AS WELL AS, ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS (NET FISCAL IMPACT: $189,942). Item #16D8 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE THIRD February 23, 2021 Page 194 AMENDMENT WITH QUEST CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., FOR MARKETING AND OUTREACH FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. Item #16D9 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN, INC. ($546,415.20) AND COLLIER COUNTY AND NAMI COLLIER COUNTY, INC. ($90,000) PROVIDING FOR $636,415.20 OF FY2019 EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT FUNDS-CARES ACT FUNDING ROUND 1. Item#16D10 ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF A 2020 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 5339 BUS AND BUS FACILITIES GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,020,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF SIX (6) 30' FIXED-ROUTE BUSES AND THE RENOVATION OF THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY ON RADIO ROAD; ACCEPT THE AWARD, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. Item #16E1 RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT February 23, 2021 Page 195 DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 21. Item #16E2 RENEWING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR CLASS 2 ALS NON-EMERGENCY INTER-FACILITY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS TO JUST LIKE FAMILY CONCIERGE MEDICAL TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC (D.B.A. BREWSTER AMBULANCE SERVICE) TO ALLOW POST-HOSPITAL INTER-FACILITY MEDICAL AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICES. Item #16E3 AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS, DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO AMAYA SOLUTIONS, INC., UNDER AGREEMENT #17-7091, “COUNTYWIDE CHEMICALS.” Item #16E4 THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS ASSETS PER RESOLUTION NO. 2013-095 VIA PUBLIC AUCTION APRIL 10, 2021; APPROVE THE ADDITION OF SURPLUS ITEMS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF THIS AGENDA ITEM FOR SALE IN THE AUCTION; AND AUTHORIZE THE PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR, AS DESIGNEE FOR COUNTY MANAGER, TO SIGN FOR THE TRANSFER OF VEHICLE TITLES. February 23, 2021 Page 196 Item #16E5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL. Item #16F1 RESOLUTION 2021-38: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET. Item #16H1 A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE OF GOLDEN GATE AS RECIPIENT OF THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS PROGRAM (WRAP) AWARD, FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THE GREATER GOOD OF COLLIER COUNTY BY ADVOCATING THE "REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE" MESSAGE, THEREBY HELPING TO PROLONG THE USABLE LIFE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL. PRESENTATION OF THE PROCLAMATION AND A PLAQUE WILL BE CONDUCTED BY COUNTY STAFF AT THE STORE. Item #16H2 A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 26, 2021 AS THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION DAY OF COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT). THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE February 23, 2021 Page 197 DELIVERED TO MICHELLE ARNOLD, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC TRANSIT & NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT DIVISION. Item #16H3 DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2001-55, AS AMENDED (THE ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE), TO ENCOURAGE APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BOARDS THAT BETTER REFLECT THE DEMOGRAPHIC AND GEOGRAPHIC POPULATION OF THE COUNTY. Item #16J1 RECORDING IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN JANUARY 28, 2021 AND FEBRUARY 10, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06. Item #16J2 REQUESTING THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021. Item #16K1 February 23, 2021 Page 198 THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATING TO CONTRACT NO. 06-4047, EMINENT DOMAIN LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF FIXEL & WILLIS, EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO APRIL 22, 2023. THERE IS NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AMENDMENT. Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2021-39: REAPPOINTING JAMES BIXLER, GEORGE DOUGLAS AND ROBERT MESSMER TO THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING ON MARCH 3, 2025. Item #16K3 RESOLUTION 2021-40: REAPPOINTING KATHLEEN SAMBLANET AND APPOINTING WILLIAM ROBBINS TO THE HALDEMAN CREEK DREDGING MAINTENANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 3, 2025. Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2021-41: APPOINTING CHRISTINA MARTINEZ- GUERRERO AND DAVID TURRUBIARTEZ, JR. TO THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO FOUR-YEAR TERMS EXPIRING FEBRUARY 23, 2025. Item #16K5 February 23, 2021 Page 199 RESOLUTION 2021-42: SETTING THE PLACE AND TIME FOR THE CLERK, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, TO OPEN AND COUNT THE MAIL BALLOTS OF THE NOMINEES TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD. (DISTRICT 2) – WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE CLERK OF COURTS CONFERENCE ROOM, 2ND FLOOR COURTHOUSE ANNEX ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021 @10:00AM. Item #17A ORDINANCE 2021-07: AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE PALM RIVER SIDEWALK MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS IN THE PALM RIVER ESTATES COMMUNITY. Item #17B – Moved to Item #9A (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #17C RESOLUTION 2021-43: APPROVING AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET. February 23, 2021 Page 200 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, 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.