BCC Minutes 12/14/2021 RDecember 14, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 14, 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:
Mark Isackson, County Manager
Amy Patterson, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
December 14, 2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
December 14, 2021
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 - Chair – CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5 - Vice Chair - CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
December 14, 2021
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Invocation by Reverend Beverly Duncan
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
B. November 9, 2021 - BCC Meeting Minutes
C. November 12, 2021 - BCC Meeting Minutes
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
Page 3
December 14, 2021
1) Recommendation to recognize Angela Klein, in the Public Utilities
Department, Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Division as
the November 2021 Employee of the Month. (All Districts)
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing January 14, 2022, as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Prayer Breakfast Day. To be accepted by Tamika Seaton,
Wynn Watkins, and Bishop Ricneal.
B. Proclamation recognizing Santé Plus Medical Center for the grand
opening of a new medical clinic in Immokalee, Florida. The
proclamation will be accepted by Marjorie Williams, Board Certified
Family Nurse Practitioner, Chief Operating Officer/Risk Management
Director, Santé Plus Medical Center.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for December
2021 to the Guardian ad Litem Foundation - 20th Judicial Circuit. The award
will be accepted by Jessica Stanfield, Executive Director and Bruce
Greenberg, Board Chairman. Also present is Bethany Sawyer, Vice
President of Membership, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Items under 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
Page 4
December 14, 2021
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required be sworn in. Zoning Petition - CU-PL20190001326-Iglesia
Pentecostes Peniel Church CU, Recommendation to approve an Resolution
of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the
establishment of a conditional use to allow a 100-seat church within an
Estates (E) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier
County Land Development Code for a 5.15+/- acre property located on the
northwest corner of 8th Street NE and 22nd Avenue NE in Section 27,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
(PL20190001326) (This is a companion to Item #9B) (District 5)
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This Item to be heard at 10:00 am. A Resolution repealing all prior
County Commission District boundaries and establishing new County
Commission District boundaries in accordance with Chapter 124, Florida
Statutes and the Florida Constitution. (All Districts)
B. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida, specifically amending the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element
of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Rural Golden Gate
Estates Future Land Use Map and Map Series; by amending the Estates-
Mixed Use District to add the 8th Street NE-22nd Avenue NE Subdistrict to
allow a 100-seat church as a conditional use. The subject property consists
of 5.15± acres and is located on the northwest corner of 8th Street NE and
22nd Avenue NE in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted
amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing
for severability and providing for an effective date. [PL20190001333] (This
is a companion to Item #8A) (District 5)
C. Recommendation to approve a Resolution amending Ordinance No. 89-05,
as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the
Future Land Use Element to change the Mixed-Use District, Collier
Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict to the Mixed Use District; Collier
Boulevard Lord’s Way Mixed Use Subdistrict; to increase the maximum
dwelling units from 306 to 690 with some affordable housing; to remove
Page 5
December 14, 2021
childcare facilities as an allowed use and allow the church to continue as an
interim use for up to 5 years; and furthermore directing transmittal of the
amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The
subject property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway formerly known as Lord’s
Way, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69±
acres. [PL20200000115] (District 1)
D. Recommendation to adopt an amendment to Ordinance 2005-44, as
amended, known as the “Collier County Litter, Weed, and Exotics Control
Ordinance,” regulating the use, stockpiling or accumulation of construction
and demolition debris and other inert waste material. (All Districts)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21-7918, to
Andrew Sitework, LLC, in the amount of $1,546,350.00, approve the
necessary budget amendment, and authorize the Chair to sign the attached
Agreement for the Trail Boulevard Water Main Improvements Phases 2 & 3,
Project 70181. (Ben Bullert, P.E., Public Utilities Principal Project Manager)
(District 2)
B. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution repealing all previous resolutions
establishing and amending parts of the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Division Facilities and Outdoor Areas License and Fee Policy to update
parking fees, boat launch fees, boat launch permit fees, and establishing new
fees and requirements for both recreational and commercial users in order to
support management strategy implementation for Collier County Parks and
Recreation Facilities (Estimated Fiscal Impact $1,017,291, General Fund
001). (Kim Grant, Director, Operations and Veteran Support) (All Districts)
C. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21-7935, “Wiggins
Pass and Doctors Pass Dredge 2021-2022,” to Waterfront Property Services,
LLC d/b/a Gator Dredging, in the amount of $2,197,180.00, authorize the
Chair to sign the attached Agreement and approve the attached budget
amendments. (County-Wide Capital Projects Fund 301 / TDC Beach
Renourishment and Pass Maintenance Fund 195, Project No. 80288 &
90549) (Andrew Miller, P.E., Manager - Coastal Zone Management, GMD)
Page 6
December 14, 2021
(All Districts)
D. This Item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. Recommendation to direct staff to
evaluate and bring back a report on a potential animal services
collaboration between the County and the Humane Society of Naples.
(Dan Rodriguez, Public Services Department Head) (All Districts)
E. Recommendation to accept staff’s progress update and path moving forward
for the Golden Gate Golf Course project and anticipated timeline for golf
course construction and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (Geoff
Willig, County Manager's Office Operations Analyst) (All Districts)
F. Recommendation to approve payment to Paradise Advertising for $555,354
in expenses incurred in FY 2021, which provided incremental tourism
destination marketing and advertisement during the COVID Pandemic.
(Mark Isackson, County Manager) (All Districts)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
Page 7
December 14, 2021
sewer utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the
potable water and all of the sewer utility facilities for Allura,
PL20210000371. (District 2)
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Azure
at Hacienda Lakes - Phase 2A2, PL20190002079 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. (District 1)
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Azure
at Hacienda Lakes - Phase 2B1 & 2B2, PL20190002955 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. (District 1)
4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements, and acceptance of the
plat dedications, for the final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club
of Naples Dilillo Parcel, Application Number PL20160000536; and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 5)
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the sewer utility
facilities for Freedom Square, PL20210001815.) (District 1)
6) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Fronterra Phase 1, Application Number PL20150001982, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3)
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for final acceptance of the
private roadway and drainage improvements for the final plat of
Fronterra Phase 2, Application Number PL20170001195, and
authorize the release of the maintenance security. (District 3)
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for Milano Lakes, PL20180000385, accept the
Page 8
December 14, 2021
conveyance of a portion of the potable water facilities, and authorize
the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total
amount of $51,744.10 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s
designated agent. (District 1)
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the potable
water utility facilities for the Wyndemere Country Club Turf Center
Phase 2 PL20210001423. (District 4)
10) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Faerber Estates,
Application Number PL20200002564. (District 3)
11) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Isles of Collier Preserve Phase
17 (Application Number PL20210001454) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
performance security in the amount of $4,779,184.30. (District 4)
12) Recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida requesting an easement
from the State of Florida, Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), for the purpose of constructing,
operating and maintaining infrastructure associated with the Griffin
Road Area Stormwater Improvement Plan (GRASIP) Phase 2 project
in an amount less than $1,300. (District 4)
13) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a
Performance Bond in the amount of $522,700 which was posted as a
guaranty for Excavation Permit Number PL20180002419 for work
associated with Brentwood Lakes (f/k/a TwinEagles South – Phase 1).
(District 5)
14) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
Page 9
December 14, 2021
with a value of $35,323.50 for payment of $723.50 in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Peter
A. Atsales, relating to property located at 743 Provincetown Drive,
Collier County, Florida. (District 4)
15) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $141,034.74 for payment of $500 in the code
enforcement action titled Board of County Commissioners v. Terry
Dilozir, relating to property located at 4913 18th Ave SW, Collier
County, Florida. (District 3)
16) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $126,973.50 for payment of $3,000 in the
code enforcement action titled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Ullahs Properties, LLC, relating to property located at 1134 Trail
Terrace Dr, Collier County, Florida. (District 4)
17) Recommendation to approve the release of two code enforcement
liens, with an accrued value of $625,450 for payment of $13,080.07 in
the code enforcement actions titled, Board of County Commissioners
v. William M. Stonestreet, relating to property located at 43 Twin
Palms Drive, Collier County, Florida. (District 1)
18) Recommendation to approve a Resolution amending Resolution 2006-
160, as amended, the policies, and procedures for: 1) the closing and
vacation of road rights-of-way; 2) the vacation and annulment of plats
or portions of plats of subdivided land; 3) the extinguishment of
public easements conveyed by separate instrument recorded in the
public records (conveyances other than on a subdivision plat) on
platted or unplatted land except for public roads, or the exchange of
real property. (All Districts)
19) Recommendation to approve Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) Agreement No. LPA0154 to recognize grant funding in the
amount of up to $250,000 for the Collier County Lake Park Blvd.
Capital Improvements and Water Quality Flow Way, Project Number
60246, Grant Fund 711. (District 1)
20) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
FY21-22 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Grant
Page 10
December 14, 2021
award contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) system and the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program in the amount of $250,641
(Transit Grant Match Fund 429), authorize the necessary Budget
Amendment, and authorize the County Manager or designee to
execute any and all documents necessary to receive the award. (All
Districts)
21) Recommendation to approve the Second Amended and Restated
Bentley Village Redevelopment Agreement between the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and CC-Naples, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation (the “Owner”), for the partial redevelopment of
the Bentley Village, a continuing care retirement community
(“CCRC”) in the Retreat at Naples Planned Unit Development
(“Retreat PUD”), Ordinance Number 97-71. (District 2)
22) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21-7928
“Sod & Services” to Leo’s Sod, LLC., and authorize the Chair to sign
the attached agreement. The anticipated annual spend is estimated at
$650,000.00. Road Maintenance Division budgets for these
expenditures in funds 103, 111, and 112. (All Districts)
23) Recommendation to approve an extension for completion of required
subdivision improvements associated with Esplanade Golf and
Country Club of Naples (PL20120001261) subdivision pursuant to
Section 10.02.05 C.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC). (District 3)
24) Recommendation to approve the selection committee’s ranking for
Request for Proposal (“RFP”) # 20-7811, “Immokalee Area
Improvements - TIGER Grant,” and authorize staff to begin contract
negotiations with the top ranked firm, Quality Enterprises USA, Inc.,
so that staff can bring a proposed agreement back for the Board’s
consideration at a subsequent meeting. (District 5)
25) Recommendation to support the Florida Department of Transportation
application process for official designation of US Bicycle Route 15 in
Collier County and provide a letter of support for the bicycle route,
including a map and description of the proposed bicycle route
alignment. There is no fiscal impact associated with this application or
designation. (All Districts)
Page 11
December 14, 2021
26) Recommendation to award Request for Professional Services (“RPS”)
No. 21-7880 for “CEI Services for Golden Gate Parkway over Santa
Barbara Canal Bridge Replacement” to Hardesty & Hanover
Construction Services, LLC, for a total not to exceed amount of
$456,008.52 (Gas Tax) and authorize the Chair to sign the attached
agreement. (District 3)
27) Recommendation to approve the electronic submittal of grant
applications to the Florida Department of Transportation for the
Federal Transit Administration Programs 5311 and 5339 Rural for
FY2022/2023 and approve the associated Resolutions to support
transit system capital improvements in the amount of $1,364,815
(Local Commitment of $119,952 supported by General Fund (001)
Annual Transfer) (All Districts)
28) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Derelict Vessel
Removal grant application to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission for the removal of ten (10) derelict vessels from Collier
County waterways in the amount of $160,260.00 and authorize the
Chairman to execute the grant application. (All Districts)
29) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
City of Naples - Naples Municipal Dock Recreational Boat Slip
Rental License Agreement (“Agreement”) at the Naples City Dock for
Coastal Zone’s Vessel extending for five years in the amount of
$7,824.00 per year with sufficient budget appropriated within the
Unincorporated Area General Fund. (All Districts)
30) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for the submittal
of a Big Cypress Basin Regional Partnership Program grant
application for the Carson Road Stormwater Treatment Area facility
in the amount of $720,000 with a local match commitment of
$3,280,000. [Project No. 60143; Stormwater 2020 Debt Funding
(327); $3,280,000] (District 5)
31) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval of the first
amendment to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) Grant Agreement No. 21085 under the Bulk Derelict Vessel
Removal Program, extending the expiration date to February 4, 2022
(Project 33771). (All Districts)
Page 12
December 14, 2021
32) Recommendation to provide “After-the-Fact” approval of the grant
amendments for Agreement No. LPA0008 for the Plantation Island
Hurricane Irma Waterway Recovery Project (Project No. 60238),
between the Department of Environmental Protection, and Collier
County. There is no fiscal impact associated with this application or
designation. (All Districts)
33) Recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated Developer
Agreement with WPPI Naples TF LLC and TBC Tree Farm I, LLC
that will allow for the design, right-of-way and construction of
intersection improvements on Collier Boulevard Extension at the
future Government Center Complex/Tree Farm Planned Unit
Development entrance and cost sharing and reimbursement plan.
(Estimated Fiscal Impact: $443,582 Gas Tax Fund 313) (District 3)
34) Recommendation to approve, after the fact, the acceptance of a
Florida Beautification grant award from the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) for a median improvement project for a
portion of State Road 45, US 41 North (Lee/Collier County Line to
Vanderbilt Beach Road) for an award in the amount of $100,000 for
construction installation and approve associated budget amendments
(Landscape Fund 112). (District 2)
35) Recommendation to approve, after the fact, the acceptance of a
Florida Beautification grant award from the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) for an award of $100,000; and accept a
separate FDOT Beautification award for $865,000 for landscape and
irrigation improvements on portions of State Road 84 (Davis
Boulevard) from Santa Barbara Boulevard to Collier Boulevard and
approve all necessary budget amendments (Landscape Fund 112).
(District 3)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement
(Agreement) between the State of Florida, Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO) and Collier County specifying the
terms and conditions of the Immokalee community as a
participating member of the South Central Rural Area of
Page 13
December 14, 2021
Opportunity (RAO) through June 28, 2026, appoint designated
contacts for Collier County as identified in Exhibit A to the
Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement.
(District 5)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the proposed offer from the State of
Florida Department of Environmental Protection to resolve civil
penalties in the amount of $44,066.05 and $500 administrative fee, for
violations of Chapter 403 Florida Statutes and Rules 62-620 and 62-
604, Florida Administrative Code. (Water - Sewer District Operating
Fund 408) (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to award an agreement for Request for Professional
Services (“RPS”) No. 21-7904, “CEI Services for Hamilton Avenue,”
to Johnson Engineering, Inc., for a total not to exceed amount of
$390,539, authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement, and
approve a $400,000 budget amendment from General Fund reserves
or existing General Fund appropriations setting up an advance to
Boater Improvement Fund (303) which will provide sufficient cash
for the desired CEI services. (District 4)
3) Recommendation to approve the issuance of a Purchase Order in the
amount of $273,653.00 for Proposal #9609, under Agreement No. 19-
7592, Building Automation Energy Management Services, from Juice
Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Plug Smart, to replace the current proprietary
N2 Johnson Controls BMS with new BACnet Reliable Controls at the
Immokalee Jail. (Project No.50221) (District 5)
4) Authorize a budget amendment in the total amount of $75,000 to
Project Number 70185, “YMCA Road AC Water Main Replacement”
to reallocate funding within the Water User Fee Capital Project Fund
(412). (District 2)
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution removing uncollectible
accounts receivable and their respective balances from the financial
records of Collier County Public Utilities Department in the amount
of $6,483.37 within Water-Sewer District Operating Fund (408) and
Mandatory Collections Fund (473). (All Districts)
Page 14
December 14, 2021
6) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of a Utility Easement for potable water infrastructure on
County owned property located at the Collier County Sports Complex
and Events Center, 3920 City Gate Blvd N, to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to award Request for Quotation (“RFQ”) # 2109-
004 for “Clearing\Grubbing & Exotic Removal at the Resource
Recovery Business Park,” under Agreement No. 18-7459, to A+
Environmental, LLC for $300,970.70, authorize staff to open a Work
Order in that amount, and to approve the necessary budget
amendment. (Project 59007.1) (District 5)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to authorize the necessary Budget Amendments to
reflect the estimated funding for Calendar Year 2022 Older
Americans Act Programs in the amount of $1,257,041.36 and the
estimated cash match of $77,788.09. The vendors will also provide
the estimated match in the amount of $56,135.56. (Human Service
Grant Fund 707) (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve two (2) “After-the-Fact” amendments
and attestation statements with the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc., Older American Act grant program for the
Collier County Services for Seniors to increase the contract amount
for services for Title IIIB, revise Attachment II-Exhibit 2 Funding
Summary and Revise Attachment VIII Budget and Rate Summary and
supporting Budget Amendments. (Net Fiscal Impact $70,741.69,
Human Services Grant Fund 707) (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the removal of
uncollectible accounts receivables in the amount of $65,260.15 from
the financial records of the Library Division within General Fund
(001) in accordance with Resolution No. 2006-252 and authorizes the
Chairman to execute the attached Resolution. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to recognize
carry forward interest earned in the amount of $699.66 for the period
April through August 2021 on advanced library funding received from
Page 15
December 14, 2021
the Florida Department of State to support library services for the use
of Collier County residents. (Public Service Match Fund 710) (All
Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve the expenditures under an Exemption
from Competitive Process for Hardware and Software Maintenance
with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. for library system operations support in
an amount not to exceed $180,000 per Fiscal Year, as budgeted within
General Fund (001). (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to authorize an exemption from the competitive
process for a subscription to Hoopla streaming service from Midwest
Tape, LLC for Library patron use in an amount not to exceed
$200,000 per Fiscal Year, as budgeted within General Fund (001),
Library Donation-Project Fund (612) and Library Grants Fund (709),
through FY 2024. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign the
First Amendment between Collier County and Naples Senior Center
at JFCS, Inc. to modify the expenditure language and provide clarity
of the performance period for COVID-related activities under the
Collier County Assistance Program (CCAP). (Community & Human
Services Grant Support Fund 123) (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing approval of
substantial amendments to Collier County's U.S Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Action Plan for
FY2021-2022 to reallocate $500,000 in CDBG funds from Casa San
Juan Diego housing development to the City of Naples streetlight
activity, award $350,000 in HOME funds from Wounded Warriors to
rental acquisition Collier County Housing Authority to provide
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, and award ESG funding totaling
$101,461 to Youth Haven and CCHC HMIS. (Housing Grants Fund
705) (All Districts)
9) Recommendation to approve the Collier County Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report for U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency
Solutions Grants (ESG), Community Development Block Grant
Page 16
December 14, 2021
(CDBG) - CV, and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) - CV for
Fiscal Year 2021 as required; approve the Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report Resolution; and authorize the
Chairman to certify the Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) for submission to U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. (Housing Grant Fund 705) (All
Districts)
10) Recommendation to approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement #19-
7537, “Affordable Housing Marketing Outreach Campaign,” with
Quest Corporation of America, Inc., and authorize the Chair to sign
the attached amendment. (Estimated Fiscal Impact $171,528, Housing
Grant Fund 705) (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to approve and submit the 2021 State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Incentive Strategies Report to Florida Housing
Finance Corporation and Florida Housing Coalition as required by
Florida Statute Section 420.9076 (4). (All Districts)
12) Recommendation to authorize two (2) Budget Amendments for
additional FY 21/22 SHIP program allocation of $6,905, FY 21/22
Program Income of $23,362.47 and FY 20/21 Program Income of
$3,659.22. (SHIP Grant Fund 791) (All Districts)
13) Recommendation to approve and authorize the chairperson to sign
fifteen (15) mortgage satisfactions for the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership loan program in the amount of $94,750 and approve the
associated Budget Amendments to appropriate repayment amounts
totaling $47,294. (SHIP Grant Fund 791). (All Districts)
14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign
two (2) State Housing Initiative Partnership Sponsor Agreements, a
Rental Acquisition Agreement between Collier County and
Community Assisted and Supported Living, Inc. in the amount of
$600,000 and a Rental Rehabilitation Agreement between Collier
County and Oak Marsh, LLC in the amount of $450,000. (SHIP Grant
Fund 791) (All Districts)
15) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment recognizing
$320,000 of carry forward revenue for deposit to the Collier County
Page 17
December 14, 2021
Local Housing Trust Fund (116) received as a result of a payment
made pursuant to a development commitment. (All Districts)
16) Recommendation to approve and authorize the chairperson to sign
two (2) releases of lien for the Disaster Recovery Initiative Program
agreement for units no longer subject to the terms of the agreement.
(All Districts)
17) Recommendation to approve two “After-the-Fact” contract
Amendments and corresponding Attestation Statements with the Area
Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. for the Community Care
for the Elderly grant program for Services for Seniors to increase the
contract amount and supporting documentation with revision to the
Service Rate Report and the supporting Budget Amendment (Fiscal
Impact $70,000.00, Human Services Grant Fund 707). (All Districts)
18) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign a
Subrecipient Agreement between Collier County and Collier Health
Services, Inc. in the amount of $293,218.22, for the Community Health
Workers for COVID-19 Response for Resilient Communities Program.
(Housing Grant Fund 705) (All Districts)
19) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 20-7783,
“Mental Health Data Collaborative,” to 5 Point Solutions, LLC, and
authorize the Chair to sign the attached five-year agreement in the
amount of $200,679.52. (Community & Human Service Grant Support
Fund 123) (All Districts)
20) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairperson to sign a
subrecipient agreement with Collier County Sheriff’s Office in the
amount of $56,263.93, for the Building Bridges Between Jails and
Community-Based Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder Grant Award.
(Human Services Grant Fund 707) (All Districts)
21) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment, in the amount of
$87,598, to transfer personal services budget within General Fund (001)
from Public Services Operations Cost Center 155115 to Public Transit
and Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Operations Cost Center
163601 to reflect a position transfer from the Public Services
Department to the Growth Management Department. (All Districts)
Page 18
December 14, 2021
22) Recommendation to approve the necessary Budget Amendment for the
Parks and Recreation Division in the amount of $2,100,000 to establish
funding within Park Bond Fund (308) for the design and permitting of
three (3) projects and construction of two (2) projects at County aquatics
and park facilities. (All Districts)
23) Recommendation to direct staff to begin the process of acquiring two
additional Rosemary Cemetery Parcels (Plot W and Plot N), to perform
necessary improvements and annual maintenance to conform with
standards similar to the County-owned Rosemary Cemetery Parcel
(Unit B located on the Southeast corner of US41 and Pine Ridge Road)
in order to honor and remember our community's forebears. (Museum
Fund 198, Estimated Fiscal Impact: Improvements $27,543, Annual
Maintenance $3,024) (District 4)
24) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager or his designee to
accept the HOME Investment Partnerships - America Rescue Plan
(HOME-ARP) Program Grant Award in the amount of $2,729,078 for
qualifying activities that provide housing, services, and shelter to
individuals or households experiencing homelessness, or at risk of
homelessness and other vulnerable populations; and to authorize the
County Manager or his designee to approve the subsequent required
HOME-ARP allocation plan submission. (Housing Grant Fund 705)
(All Districts)
25) Recommendation to approve five (5) Collier County Tourist
Development Council (TDC) Category “A” Grant Applications for
Beach Park Facilities for Fiscal Year 2022 in the total amount of
$710,000 within TDC Beach Park Facilities Fund (183), authorize
necessary budget amendments and to make the finding that the
expenditures promote tourism. (District 1, District 2, District 4)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the sale and disposal of surplus assets
per Resolution 2013-095 via public auction on February 19, 2022 (All
Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve the administrative report prepared by the
Procurement Services Division for disposal of property and
Page 19
December 14, 2021
notification of revenue disbursement. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to renew the annual Collier County’s Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for Collier County
Emergency Medical Services to provide Class 1 Advanced Life
Support Transport (ALS) for one year and authorize the Chairman to
execute the Permit and Certificate. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement assigning all
rights, duties and benefits, and obligations to Trane U.S. Inc. for
Agreements #18-7235 “HVAC Preventative Maintenance and Repair
Services,” and #18-7464 “Chillers Preventative Maintenance and
Repair.” (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement assigning all
rights, duties and benefits, and obligations to Socotec Consulting Inc.
concerning Agreement #18-7432-CE, “Professional Services Library
Civil Engineering Category,” and Agreement #18-7432-TE,
“Professional Services Library Materials Testing and Field Conditions
Assessment Category.” (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve a $146,777.39 budget amendment for
Emergency Medical Services Project/Motor Pool Fund 491 for the
purchase and installation of Stryker Power Load locking cot systems
into the fleet of ambulances. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to award Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #20-7805,
“Property Casualty Brokerage Services,” to Risk Management
Associates, Inc. d/b/a Public Risk Insurance Advisors and authorize
the Chair to sign the attached Agreement. (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to accept an award of $66,374 in grant funds from
the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency
Medical Services, and to authorize necessary Budget Amendments to
appropriate grant funding within EMS Grant Fund (493). (All
Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve expenditures under an Exemption from
Page 20
December 14, 2021
the Competitive Process in an amount not to exceed $55,000 annually
through fiscal year 2025, for a subscription to the eCIVIS Grant
Network, proprietary software offered through Carahsoft Technology
Corp, for employee and Collier County nonprofit use. (General Fund
001) (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to renew the annual Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for non-emergency Class 2 – Basic Life
Support (BLS) inter-facility ambulance transports to Care Med
Transportation, LLC for the purpose of providing post-hospital and
inter-facility medical ambulance transfer services. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to authorize Sports Facilities Management, LLC
(“SFM”) to continue to operate under the County’s existing Paradise
Coast Sports Complex Operating Manual, until an agreed upon new
manual can be brought back for the Board’s consideration for
approval in January 2022. (Amateur Sports Complex Fund 759) (All
Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve the use of Tourist Development Tax
Promotion Funds to support the upcoming February 2022 Naples
Pickleball Center Championships up to $7,500 and make a finding
that this expenditure promote tourism. (TDC Tourism Promotions
Fund 184) (All Districts)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, authorize its Chairman to execute the T-hangar
Lease Agreement with Matecumbe Flying Service Inc. for
commercial aircraft maintenance activities at the Immokalee Regional
Airport. Monthly Rent Revenue in the amount of $314.72 will be
deposited in the Airport Authority Operating Fund (495). (District 5)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 21
December 14, 2021
1) Recommendation to appoint Tanya Williams, Collier County Library
Director, as a member to the Board of the Early Learning Coalition of
Southwest Florida (ELC of SWFL) with an effective term from
January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2025 to be the Boards
representative. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement assigning
all rights, duties and benefits, and obligations to Universal
Protection Service, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services
LLC. concerning Agreement #18-7429 “Security Services.” (All
Districts)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence (All Districts)
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
approval for the State of Florida E911 Board/E911 State Grant
Program. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
approval for the State of Florida E911 Board/E911 State Grant
Program grant application in the amount of $586,886. (All Districts)
3) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of
the quarter ended September 30, 2021. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to accept the Clerk’s report indicating no interest paid
pursuant to Florida Statute 218.78 for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2021. (All Districts)
5) Board ratification and 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 October 28, 2021 and November
10, 2021 pursuant to Florida Statute 136.06 that were approved by the
County Manager between the Boards November and December
Page 22
December 14, 2021
meetings. (All Districts)
6) Board ratification of the purchasing card transactions and invoices
payable approved and determined to have a valid public purpose by
the County Manager between the Boards November and December
meetings. (All Districts)
7) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between November 11, 2021 and December 1, 2021 pursuant
to Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
8) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of December
8, 2021. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to reappoint four members to the Development
Services Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
3) Recommendation to appoint three members to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Immokalee Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board. (District 5)
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a
Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit styled Steven Ritter v. Collier
County Board of Commissioners, (Case No. 20-CA-0249), now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, for the sum of $150,000. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise, and bring
back for a public hearing, an Ordinance establishing pedestrian safety
regulations in unincorporated Collier County, and to repeal portions of
Page 23
December 14, 2021
Ordinance 87-60, as amended. (All Districts)
7) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the total
amount of $812,200 plus $109,050 in statutory attorneys’ fees and
costs for the taking of Parcel 102POND, required for the Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension Project, Project No., 60168. (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount
of $694,600 plus $91,202.78 in statutory attorney and experts’ fees and
required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168.
(All Districts)
9) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $797,500 plus $99,125 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 155POND required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (All Districts)
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize payment of statutory
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 73.092, Fla. Stat.
incurred by attorney ad litem appointed by the Court to assist with
Collier County v. George A. Nestory, et. al., Case No. 16-CA-1347
regarding Collier County’s Eminent Domain project action for the
expansion of Golden Gate Blvd., Project No. 60145. (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $82,500 plus $26,214 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs, and amount not to exceed $3,000 for statutory
supplemental proceedings as necessary, for the taking of Parcel
1224FEE required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project
No. 60168. (All Districts)
12) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $125,000 plus $30,222 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 1132FEE required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (All Districts)
13) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the total
amount of $144,000 plus $39,587 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 110FEE, required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project, Project No., 60168, and
Page 24
December 14, 2021
delegate authority to the County Manager or his designee to process
payment of additional statutory attorney’s fees for supplemental
proceedings, if any, as authorized by Ch. 73, Fla. Stat. (All Districts)
14) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the total
amount of $115,000 plus $29,946 in statutory attorney and experts’
fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 115FEE, required for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project, Project No., 60168, and
delegate authority to the County Manager or his designee to process
payment of additional statutory attorney’s fees for supplemental
proceedings, if any, as authorized by Ch. 73, Fla. Stat. (All Districts)
15) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $145,000 plus $35,549 in statutory attorney fees including
experts’ fees and costs for the taking of Parcel 323RDUE required for
the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project No. 60168. (All
Districts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. This item has been continued from the October 12, 2021, October 26,
2021, and November 9, 2021 BCC Meeting Agendas. Recommendation to
adopt an ordinance creating the Collier County Public Art Committee to
advise the Board on all matters relating to the public art within the entire
unincorporated area of the County, including the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (All Districts)
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
Page 25
December 14, 2021
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20210001223, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the
public interest in the 10-foot utility easement located in the southern rear of
Lot 164 of Gulf Harbor, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 31 of the public
records of Collier County, Florida, located at 702 Pan Am Avenue, in
Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(District 2)
C. An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County
Florida, adopting a county-initiated amendment to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan to create the Private Property Rights Element as required by
state law; and furthermore directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability;
and providing for an effective date. [PL20210001793] (All Districts)
D. This item requires that ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as
amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, adopting a County-initiated
amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan to update and
clarify text, specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element to address sea level rise, and update nomenclature,
and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability;
and providing for an effective date. [PL20210001271]. (All Districts)
E. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by BZA
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Petition CU-PL20190002859-4111 Green Blvd
Tower CU, Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment
of a conditional use to allow a communications tower within the Estates (E)
Zoning District pursuant to sections 2.03.01.B.1.c.12 and 5.05.09 of the
Collier County Land Development Code for a 2.73± acre property located at
4111 Green Boulevard, also described as the east 180 feet of Tract 125 of
Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 26 subdivision, in Section 15, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (CU-PL20190002859)
[Coordinator: Ray Bellows, AICP, Zoning Manager] (This is a companion to
Page 26
December 14, 2021
VA-PL20200000721) (District 3)
F. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by BZA
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Petition VA-PL20200000721-4111 Green Blvd
Tower Variance, Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, for a variance from sections
5.05.09.G.7.b and 5.05.09.G.7.c of the Land Development Code to reduce
the minimum separation distance of a 147-foot tall monopine
communication tower from 73.5 feet to 41 feet for the eastern Sungate
Center CPUD property, and from 367.5 feet to 131 feet for the western
residential property, located at 4111 Green Boulevard, also described as the
east 180 feet of Tract 125, Golden Gate Estates, Unit No. 26 subdivision, in
Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(VA-PL20200000721) [Coordinator: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager] (This
is a companion to CU-PL20190002859) (District 3)
G. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20210000552, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in the 7.5-foot utility easement located along the east lines of Lots
11 & 50, Block 52 of Naples Park Unit No. 4, as recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 7 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located
approximately 100 feet west of Tamiami Trail North between 91st Avenue
North and 92nd Avenue North in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida. (District 2)
H. This item has been continued from the September 28, 2021, October 12,
2021, and October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting Agendas. A Resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier
County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the
Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to require
Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for
increased residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on
residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of
Development Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending
Page 27
December 14, 2021
the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land Use Element to
change development standards and requirements, to increase density on
Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on
Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of Development
Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use for
recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural
Villages; and create the Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and
furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] (District 1,
District 3, District 5)
I. Recommendation to establish the 42nd Avenue SE Municipal Service
Taxing Unit (MSTU) with a maximum of one (1) mill for the first two years
and a maximum of five (5) mills thereafter, for the repayment of funds in
the amount of $72,231.00 used to make emergency road repairs on 42nd
Avenue SE and approve a budget amendment to advance funding from
Special Assessment Fund 341 to the 42nd Avenue SE Fund 761. (District 5)
J. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
FY21-22 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
December 14, 2021
Page 2
MR. ISACKSON: Chair Taylor and Commissioners, you have
a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning on this beautiful
December morning. We have Reverend Duncan, Beverly Duncan,
to give us our invocation, and I would like if we could please have
Commissioner Saunders lead us in the Pledge. If you'd all stand.
REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
REVEREND DUNCAN: Spirit of life and love, the power that
is you calls us out of ourselves, out of our well-worn ruts and
opinions to nobler actions, greater loving, and a larger compassion.
May this same spirit help to soothe our heartbreak amidst the
violence of people against people, give us strength against the
violence of weather, calm us in the chaos of human events, fill us
with gratitude for the blessings we have and enjoy, and strengthen
our hands and hearts for the good we are able to do.
So in the newness of this day and this season of joy, be present
with our commissioners and guide them as they discern the way
ahead, inspire what they say and do, lift them into a wise place in
turbulent times and inspire us all to take our part so that none may be
overburdened.
And, finally, when this meeting is done, may the good feelings,
the hope, the glad tidings of this holy time enable us all to go in
peace.
Shalom and amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
December 14, 2021
Page 3
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Reverend Duncan.
Beautiful, beautiful prayer, thank you.
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
Item #2B and #2C
NOVEMBER 9, 2021 BCC MEETING MINUTES AND
NOVEMBER 12, 2021 BCC SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good morning. The
proposed agenda changes for your meeting of December 14th, 2021.
Commissioners, the first item is to move Item 17H to Item 9E. It's
been continued from the September 28th, October 12th, and
October 26th, 2021, meetings. It's a resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County
Growth Management Plan Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to
the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District restudy and specifically
amending the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict, and the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District of the Future
Land Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for
Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density;
amending the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential landfill and
December 14, 2021
Page 4
remove the requirements to use Transfer of Development Rights
within one mile of the urban boundary; and amending the Rural
Fringe Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change
development standards and requirements to increase density on
Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on
Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of
Development Rights credits, add uses in receiving areas, and add a
conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend
development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle
Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and, furthermore, directing
transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity.
This was moved by Commissioner Saunders, McDaniel, Taylor,
LoCastro, and Solis separately.
Move Item 17A to 9F. This is an item that's been continued
from the October 12th, October 26th, and November 9th board
meetings. It's a recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating the
Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all
matters related to public art within the entire unincorporated area of
Collier County, including the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area. This item was moved at
Commissioner Solis' request.
Commissioners, we're going to add on Item 11G, which was on
your dais this morning. It's a recommendation to approve the
administrative reports prepared by the Procurement Services Division
for change orders and other contract modifications requiring Board
approval. That's at staff's request.
And we're going to continue Item 16D10 to the January 25th,
2022, meeting. It's a recommendation to approve a fourth
amendment to Agreement No. 19-7537, Affordable Housing
Marketing Outreach Campaign with Quest Corporation of America,
December 14, 2021
Page 5
and authorize the Chair to sign the attached amendment. That's at
staff's request.
We're going to continue Item 17D indefinitely. This item
requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members, and should a hearing be held, all participants are required
to be sworn in. It's an ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, the
Collier County Growth Management Plan, of the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, adopting a county-initiated amendment to
the Collier County Growth Management Plan to update and clarify
text specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element to address sea level rise and update
nomenclature and, furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted
amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
This is at staff's request.
Commissioners, time-certain items: All advertised public
hearings under Items 8 and 9 are to be heard no sooner than 1:00
unless otherwise noted, and one of those notations is Item 9A to be
heard at 10:00. It's the county redistricting discussion regarding
commission districts. The other assigned time-certain item,
Commissioners, is 11D to be heard at 11:30 a.m., and it's a potential
animal shelter services collaboration between Collier County and the
Humane Society.
Commissioners, that's all the changes I have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
So we'll start with, Commissioner McDaniel, any changes to the
agenda, any ex parte to declare?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I say just beforehand
you look very pretty.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How do I look?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wait. Wait until -- talk to him at the
December 14, 2021
Page 6
end of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, true. We're going to
get to that a little later.
But for now, I have no changes to the agenda, and I also have no
ex parte on consent or summary.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, finally, Commissioner
McDaniel and I have something to agree on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, looky there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, my, my. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no ex parte, but I do
want to make one change to the consent agenda. I'd like to pull
16K3. That's the Park and Recreation Advisory Board.
Commissioner Fiala, I think, has applied, but she was late, and I'd
like to have some discussion about that. I think she could add a lot
to that committee, so I would like to pull that item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. ISACKSON: 16K3 would then become 12A on your
agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have no changes. I do
have ex parte, 17D. I had meetings and emails.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's been continued.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Then I guess you
don't need to hear it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes. Disclosures, I have
an email from the property owner on 17B. Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And I was going to pull
16K3, so I'm delighted that you did it. And I have no other
disclosures on any of the consent or regular agenda as well on the
December 14, 2021
Page 7
consent agenda. No disclosures for any of those items.
Thank you very much. Do I hear a motion?
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have some registered speakers
on the summary agenda; actually, two different items. Some here in
the room; some not.
First, Item 17E and F, Ana Aleman.
Madam Chair, I might also say that we do have representatives
from the petitioner here for that item if you need to hear from them as
well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, thank you.
MS. ALEMAN: Good morning --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. ALEMAN: -- Commissioners. I'm here --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you state your name for the
record.
MS. ALEMAN: My name is Ana Aleman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. ALEMAN: And the address that I'm speaking of is 4116
51st Avenue Southwest. Next to that home, which is mine, they're
wanting to put a 5G tower right next to my home, okay. I
have -- my daughter lives right next door. The 5G has always had
problems, and it's a danger to the health. Not only am I here because
of my daughter and that she lives right next door to where they want
to put the tower, but the whole block, okay.
I don't think that -- if you save the Everglades, I think human
life is a little bit more than the Everglades, all right. And to put a 5G
tower right next to residential homes is crazy. It's crazy.
I want to read you something. It says, 5G towers are more
dangerous than earlier cell tower generations because they expose us
to a wider variety of RF, radiation frequency. Not only do they emit
the 5G microwave frequencies, but they emit many of the tower 2G,
December 14, 2021
Page 8
3G, 4G frequencies as well. Also, the smaller millimeter 5G has
been shown to cause harm to skin, eyes, immune system bacterial
antibiotic resistance.
Certain G frequencies, such as the common 60 gigs, are known
to absorb oxygen and are believed to interfere with oxygen
absorbance within our lungs. And these are just a few of the items
and the cancers that come about because of the 5G towers that are
there.
I'm just saying, if you're going to put a tower, you have an
industrial park where the dump is that you can put it. You don't
have to put it next to residential homes where people are affected by
the health [sic] of the tower. And that's why I'm here. I don't -- I
am against that.
And I'm sure that if they would have put on that sign -- instead
of putting communication tower, if they would have put on that
variance a sign that it was a 5G, I'm sure that you would have
everybody here from that block, because I spoke to many, okay.
And I am against this tower. I really am. If they want to buy
my property, I am -- we'd be more than glad, and I will give it to
them, because not only is there a health problem with this but, also,
our property values go down when you put that tower up. And I
don't feel that I have to be subjected to these kind of radiation right
next door. And that's my whole -- you know, I just want to come -- I
don't want that tower next to my home. That's it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. County Attorney, would
you please speak to the authority or the lack of authority this board
has in placement of towers throughout Collier County.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And I don't diminish what the
petitioner has to say; however, you are preempted by the federal
government from considering health effects from cell towers in your
decision-making process.
December 14, 2021
Page 9
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you understand that?
MS. ALEMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We are preempted -- I'm not trying to
be -- I'm not trying to --
THE WITNESS: No, no, no, I understand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So our hands are tied, so to speak,
about --
MS. ALEMAN: But we're not talking about the health issues.
We're talking also -- we're talking also about our property values
going down because of this tower. You know, it's -- let's -- I
understand, because I understood when I came here that health issues
were not pertinent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no, no. But we are not -- we
are preempted from -- the federal government says that they have
control of where they want to place cell towers.
MS. ALEMAN: So they can place it anywhere, any -- near a
hospital. They can place it anywhere.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have some authority in the placement
of the cell towers; however, you cannot consider the potential health
effects the cell towers have on the community.
MS. ALEMAN: I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, that's not to say that you cannot
deny this petition on other reasons.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, can we move
these items to the regular agenda?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have the petitioners here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I think we need a much
more in-depth explanation from the County Attorney and our staff as
to what our authority really is. So I'd like to -- I'd like to have a
December 14, 2021
Page 10
more robust discussion about this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would agree; I would agree.
MS. ALEMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we're -- it's going to be moved to
the regular agenda.
MR. ISACKSON: That item will become 9G. 9G.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There were two items there,
I think.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so where are they on our agenda
right now?
MR. MILLER: 17E and F.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 17E and 17F will be moved to 9G.
Thank you very much.
MS. ALEMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair, before I forget,
because I already forgot once --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- I'd like to continue 16K2, which
is the appointment of the DSAC committee spots.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can we continue that? I mean, is
there a consensus that we continue that to the next meeting? I'd like
to have some discussions about that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear any --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 16 what?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 16K2. It's the DSAC
appointments.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I thought you said H, but
forgive me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So Commissioner Solis is
December 14, 2021
Page 11
proposing moving, continuing to another meeting --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 16K2 to our first meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think you have a consensus.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. MILLER: That's the petitioner for 17E and F.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, fine.
MS. JAHN: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. JAHN: I'm Mattaniah Jahn. And Seasons Greetings. I
just have a question for a point of order. Am I correct in
understanding that Item 9 will be heard at 1:00 p.m.? The reason I
ask -- that all the Item 9 items will be heard at 1:00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MS. JAHN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This specific item number, and it
could be that if we move along fairly quickly -- we have a
time-certain at 10 -- we might have time to hear this issue on
17 -- what is now 9G. We might have that opportunity.
MS. JAHN: Understood. The only reason I ask is because I
have multiple witnesses in the room, so.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we also have registered speakers
for Item 17I. I have one here in the room and two online. Nixon
Lopez.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 17I.
MR. MILLER: Come up to speak, sir, at this podium.
December 14, 2021
Page 12
MR. LOPEZ: Good morning. I just moved to the property.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you state your name for the
record, please.
MR. LOPEZ: Nixon Lopez.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Nixon.
MR. LOPEZ: Yes. That's the first name.
Okay. I just moved to that property about two months ago, and
I received a letter you're going to be paving the road. I don't have
anything to say. All I have to say is it's good for investment. And
it's good -- you know, I have to make -- I want to make my house
over there, okay, a big house, but with that kind of road, I'm not
really happy for that. So if you --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So you're supporting this?
MR. LOPEZ: Oh, yes, of course, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. LOPEZ: That's what I have to say.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for coming
in.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, our online speakers. First we'll
hear from Tom Sweeney, and then we'll hear from Brian Keenan.
Mr. Sweeney, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, if you'll do
so at this time. And there you are, Mr. Sweeney. You have three
minutes.
MR. SWEENEY: Yes. Hello. My name is Tom Sweeney.
In Book 1052, Page 500, in the Collier County property records,
Exhibit C shows 92A as part of 212 acres conveyed to Collier County
on or before December 31st, 1983, from Avatar as documented in
Book 1052, Page 492. Refer to Book 1052, Page 500, which shows
the exhibit that's Exhibit C.
Unfortunately, I was unable to provide these documents to you
as the public notice was issued December 1st of this year which states
December 14, 2021
Page 13
I must provide these documents three weeks prior to the meeting,
which is impossible.
When Pop Spencer and his son, who worked for Collier County,
lived on our road, which is 42nd Avenue Southeast, the road was
maintained by Collier County Road and Bridge on a regular schedule.
Speaking with some of the employees who were recently down there
to repair the road, they, in fact, were the very people who maintained
the road during this Spencer era.
Further said, Collier County employees that were down here
working stated Collier County would not put road signs on private
roads, only roads owned and maintained by Collier County.
Forty-second Avenue Southeast has two red triangles at the end
of the road which read "Collier County Traffic Operations." The
signs were maintained August 14th, 2016, and August 20th, 2019,
both affixed with Collier County Traffic Ops bar codes for inventory.
We have paid our taxes to Collier County, and we do not feel we
should be assessed a $72,000 additional tax for a job partially
completed by Collier County Road Department. Only two months
later there are already over 70 large potholes in the roadway, as Road
Department management pulled their workers from completing their
job.
According to a 2003 study by National Cooperative, highly
researched program, on the effect of truck weight on roadways, it was
concluded in that study that vehicle weights, not frequency of traffic,
had the deterious effect on road surface. Now, Collier County Road
Department water trucks routinely fill up their 4,000-gallon water
trucks from the 42nd Avenue Southeast canal. When filled, these
trucks weigh in excess of 62,860 pounds, causing damage to the road
in the form of large potholes.
I'd just like to say thank you for allowing me to speak but, let me
reiterate I do not feel we should be levied an additional tax for a road
December 14, 2021
Page 14
that belongs to Collier County and was maintained regularly by
Collier County in the past. I implore you, for the safety of the
residents, please fix the road so first responders can quickly and
faithfully respond to potential life and death emergencies or seconds
in response to save lives.
Thank you very much. Have a great Christmas and God bless
America.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't go away. If you
would, please, contact my office. Shoot me an email with your
contact information, and we'll further this discussion. And this is
Commissioner McDaniel.
MR. SWEENEY: Can I get your email address?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If we're going to do that, this Agenda
Item 17I talks about to establish --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know what -- I know what
the agenda item is. I just want him to be able to -- he hasn't
communicated with me yet. So I'm not changing my vote or my
support of what we're doing. I'm just going to share with him what's
going on, ask him to send me an email.
MR. SWEENEY: We tried to reach out.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. If we continued this to
the next meeting, could we get some answers? Number one, is
this -- is that canal a routinely -- is that traversed by big water trucks
on a regular basis to fill their tanks from the canal, number one?
And, number two, has it been maintained in the past by Road and
Bridge?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, if there's a support from the Board to
continue it, then we'll provide those answers at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I wasn't looking to continue
it.
December 14, 2021
Page 15
Sir, we're discussing what's going on.
But I'd be happy to continue it, if you wish, just to further
investigate. But today was the first I've heard these representations
myself.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm okay as long as we -- I'm
okay with the creation of the MSTU, because there are other things
that are in the works. But if you wish to continue it to investigate
what he's represented, I'm fine with that, too.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can create the MSTU. You don't
have to fund it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: They'll be -- you'll be making the decision
sometime during the budget season what millage you want to place
on this. So right now you're creating the MSTU. The actual taxing
of it is a decision you'll be making later.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Well, then I'm very
pleased just to leave it the way it is, and we'll move to create it and
then maybe do the research at our next meeting, if possible.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And please, sir, reach out to
my office and give me your contact information, and I'll share further
what's going on.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I just want to -- because the
caller has made the representation that the road is actually owned by
the county, but it's not, right, Mr. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a private road. Now, if the residents
would like to, in essence, vacate it to the county, that's a discussion
we can have. My experience on this is there's always one in the
bunch that will say no. It's just how it's -- that's just how it's worked
in the past.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I didn't actually -- I don't
December 14, 2021
Page 16
think he actually -- I didn't hear him say that it was a county road.
He just -- they're county taxpayers, and a lot of the folks that live on
private roads don't understand all of the innerworkings when you
reside on a private road. I didn't hear him say that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I thought he said that it was a
county-owned road.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is not a county-owned road. Once upon
a time, I believe it was within the right-of-way of FDOT, but they
abandoned that, and it doesn't make it ours.
MR. MILLER: All right. I do have one other speaker
registered for this item online.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager, no matter what we
do today in terms of this item, the repairs are going ahead on the
road; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They're already done.
MR. ISACKSON: Well, we've set up a mechanism, I think, to
claw back on the $70,000 cost for repairing the road. I'm not
sure -- I'm not sure if Trinity's in the room or not, but maybe she can
elaborate on what the status of that is.
Thank you, Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you. Good morning. Trinity Scott,
deputy department head.
Yes, the repairs were completed over the summer as per the
emergency establishment to move forward, and this is establishing
the MSTU to pay back for the work. And as we discussed during the
last BCC meeting, it was limiting it potentially to one mill for the
first two years, but certainly that will be something that you discuss
during your budget hearings.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker for 17I is Brian
December 14, 2021
Page 17
Keenan. Mr. Keenan, you should be being prompted to unmute
yourself, if you'll do so at this time. Mr. Keenan, you have three
minutes.
MR. KEENAN: Yes. I'm simply here to observe.
MR. MILLER: All right, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So that's all of public
comment on the agenda?
MR. MILLER: On summary agenda, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So now that we're very
clear on what's happening -- Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sorry, and I threw that request in
the middle of something else; I apologize. Right, my request would
be to continue 16K2, the appointment of the Development Services
Advisory Committee members, just to have some more conversation
about that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So are we crystal clear on
what we're approving here? I believe that we are continuing K2,
16K2.
MR. ISACKSON: I've made my notes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Could you repeat for all of us what
you're doing here; it would be helpful.
MR. ISACKSON: Hold on. Let me get to the --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know that you've made the
notes. I think I'm the one who's thinking, okay, what are we doing
here.
MR. ISACKSON: So we're on -- on 17E we're going to leave
the establishment of the MSTU, and we're going to hold off on
funding through the millage rate until we make some decisions on the
budget process, and we'll provide the Board with some information
on what the resident was making claims on, and we'll get that
information to the Board.
December 14, 2021
Page 18
We've got Commissioner Solis on 16K2. That's been moved to
the January 11th meeting.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 16K3.
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah. That's going to become -- that will
become 12A on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then 9F and 9G.
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah. And then on 17E and F, are
companion items, I'll move to Item 9G.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's the tower.
Okay. All right. So is there a motion to accept the agenda as
amended and today's minutes from -- not today's minutes --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- but the minutes on the agenda
today from November the 9th and November the 12th?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor by
Commission Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And second by Commissioner Solis.
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. ISACKSON: Did that include the minutes, too, ma'am?
December 14, 2021
Page 19
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, it did.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you.
*****
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
December 14, 2021
Move Item 17H to Item 9E: *** This item has been continued from the September 28, 2021, October 12,
2021, and October 26, 2021 BCC Meeting Agendas. *** A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended,
relating to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Restudy and specifically amending the Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the Future Land
Use Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased
residential density; amending the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to remove
the density bonus cap on residential in-fill and remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development
Rights within one mile of the Urban boundary; and amending the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District of the
Future Land Use Element to change development standards and requirements, to increase density on
Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on Receiving Lands for affordable
housing, add Transfer of Development Rights Credits, add uses in Receiving areas, and add a conditional use
for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend development standards for Rural Villages; and create the
Belle Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and furthermore directing transmittal of the amendments to
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [PL20200002234] (District 1, District 3, District 5)
(Commissioner Saunders’, Commissioner McDaniel’s, Commissioner Taylor’s, Commissioner LoCastro's, &
Commissioner Solis’ Separate Requests)
Move Item 17A to Item 9F: *** This item has been continued from the October 12, 2021, October 26, 2021,
and November 9, 2021 BCC Meeting Agendas. *** Recommendation to adopt an ordinance creating the
Collier County Public Art Committee to advise the Board on all matters relating to the public art within the
entire unincorporated area of the County, including the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area. (All Districts) (Commissioner Solis’ Request)
Add on Item 11G: Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by the Procurement
Services Division for change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All
Districts) (Staff’s Request)
Continue Item 16D10 to the January 25, 2022 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a Fourth
Amendment to Agreement #19-7537, “Affordable Housing Marketing Outreach Campaign,” with Quest
Corporation of America, Inc., and authorize the Chair to sign the attached amendment. (Estimated Fiscal
Impact $171,528, Housing Grant Fund 705) (All Districts) (Staff’s Request)
Continue Item 17D to the Indefinitely: This item requires that ex-parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, adopting a County-initiated amendment to the Collier
County Growth Management Plan to update and clarify text, specifically amending the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element to address sea level rise, and update nomenclature, and furthermore,
directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity;
providing for severability; and providing for an effective date. [PL20210001271]. (All Districts) (Staff’s
Request)
Note:
Items under 8 and 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A to be heard at 10:00 am: County Redistricting discussion regarding Commission Districts
Item 11D to be heard at 11:30 am: Potential animal services collaboration between Collier County and the
Humane Society of Naples.
1/12/2022 2:26 PM
December 14, 2021
Page 20
Item #3A1
RECOGNIZING ANGELA KLEIN, IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT, SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT DIVISION AS THE NOVEMBER 2021
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – PRESENTED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Item 3 on your agenda is
awards and recognitions, and we have Angela Klein from our Public
Utilities Department Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Division as your November 2021 Employee of the Month.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where is she?
MR. ISACKSON: I believe Angela is in attendance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Come, come. You have to come and
stand up and face everybody.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, if you don't mind, let me
read a little bit about Angela. Angela is a crew leader in the Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Division in our Public Utilities
Department and has been with the county since 2006.
Angela's assigned to the North Collier Recycling Center, the
county's busiest site with over 225,000 customers since its opening
10 years ago. The site looks as good as it did on the day it opened,
thanks to the efforts led by Angela and her crew. She has facilitated
the collection of recyclables from vendors not only from her site but
also from three other recycling locations in the county.
She goes above and beyond by taking on extra responsibilities,
creating resources, and sharing information to help with operations.
Collier County introduced its polystyrene foam recycling program 10
years ago, and despite being tasked with an unfamiliar project,
Angela made the program her own right away, being the first
municipality in the state of Florida to process foam. She has
December 14, 2021
Page 21
contributed to processing over 20,000 pounds of foam, diverting
these items from our landfill.
Angela's commitment to her job is evident through the customer
feedback, the positive relationships she has formed with her
customers, and the genuine, caring attitude she shows to everyone.
She is a pleasure to work around, leads by setting the positive
example and creating an enjoyable environment for all who come to
utilize the center's service. For these reasons, Angela was selected
as the November 2021 Employee of the Month. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Angela, you're going to
get -- congratulations.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JANUARY 14, 2022, AS REV.
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PRAYER BREAKFAST DAY.
ACCEPTED BY TAMIKA SEATON, WYNN WATKINS, AND
BISHOP RICNEAL – READ INTO THE RECORD
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Item 4 on your agenda are
proclamations. 4A is a proclamation recognizing January 14th,
2022, as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Junior Prayer
Breakfast Day. That's to be accepted by Tamika Seaton, Wynn
Watkins, and Bishop Ricneal. I believe they're in attendance also.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They are.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SANTÉ PLUS MEDICAL
December 14, 2021
Page 22
CENTER FOR THE GRAND OPENING OF A NEW MEDICAL
CLINIC IN IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA. THE PROCLAMATION
WILL BE ACCEPTED BY MARJORIE WILLIAMS, BOARD
CERTIFIED FAMILY NURSE PRACTITIONER, CHIEF
OPERATING OFFICER/RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR,
SANTÉ PLUS MEDICAL CENTER – READ INTO THE RECORD
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, your final proclamation is a
proclamation recognizing Santé Plus Medical Center for the grand
opening of a new medical clinic in Immokalee. The proclamation
will be accepted by Marjorie Williams, board certified family nurse
practitioner, chief operating officer, and risk management director of
Santé Plus Medical Center. I believe they're in the audience, too.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER 2021 TO THE GUARDIAN AD
LITEM FOUNDATION - 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT. THE
AWARD WILL BE ACCEPTED BY JESSICA STANFIELD,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND BRUCE GREENBERG, BOARD
CHAIRMAN. ALSO PRESENT IS BETHANY SAWYER, VICE
PRESIDENT OF MEMBERSHIP, GREATER NAPLES
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE – PRESENTED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Item 5A is a presentation of
the Collier County Business of the Month for December 2021 to the
Guardian ad Litem Foundation, 20th Judicial Circuit. The award
being accepted by Jessica Stanfield, the executive director, and Bruce
Greenberg, board chairman. Also in attendance is Bethany Sawyer,
December 14, 2021
Page 23
the vice president of membership for the Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Vertically challenged are in front.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Where's the lady that gave
out her business cards? Here, you take mine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just a word on the Guardian ad Litem
process. These people do the work of God. There's no question.
You are such an important part of children's lives in the worst time in
their life when they're either separated or getting reunion with their
families, and it's an unpaid position, and they're in great need of
them. So I'm going to turn it over to you.
MS. STANFIELD: Sure. I won't take up much time. I just
want to thank you all for time this morning. We're certainly honored
to be an organization that helps the most vulnerable children in
Collier County, as you said, navigate through the toughest time that
they will likely face in their lives.
Right outside of these doors, we have countless children that
need a fierce advocate and need the normalcy items that come along
with that, whether that be tutoring, a computer, or the first bed of
their own, even at age seven. We celebrate birthdays for kids that
have never been celebrated, and we make sure that we have a
constant and stable voice.
All of this is done through our incredible volunteers with the
heart for the job. We help train them on the rest, as well as the
generosity of residents, businesses, and funders within Collier County
who believe not only in our mission but also in the children that we
serve.
So we are incredibly humbled and honored by this award, and
we you thank you all for your support you give us today and
throughout the year. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
December 14, 2021
Page 24
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that moves you to Item 7,
your public comments on general topics not on the current or future
agenda.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have three registered
speakers for this item; two in person, one online. Your first speaker
is Elizabeth Radi. She will be followed by Julisa
Rodriguez -- Rodriguez, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Where'd that accent go?
MR. MILLER: I don't know what happened there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Andy's right there.
MS. RADI: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Radi. I
have been a Collier County resident since I was 11 years old. I'm 41
now. Don't mind saying that.
But I'm talking on the topic of affordable housing crisis. The
affordable housing crisis has been an issue for many years. I
remember about five years ago being interviewed for a story from the
Naples Daily News about my thoughts on the matter, and the situation
has only gotten worse. I am a single mom, and I've worked with
several single-parent ministries helping single parents in our
community. I was on the Collier County Section 8 Housing Board,
and they had 400 vouchers allotted in Collier County. I was also on
Section 8 for many, many years. But there were 440 people on those
vouchers, so Collier County housing Section 8 was always in a
deficit; always behind the line. Never enough. Seven-year waiting
December 14, 2021
Page 25
lists.
And Collier County was the only county at that time, according
to the Board, that did not give back into itself for housing programs.
There were waiting lists for low-income housing complexes. There
are waiting lists for low-income housing complexes, and the prices
have literally priced out anybody on Section 8 programming. Trying
to get housing outside of those designated apartment complexes is
impossible. And in some instances, companies are selling off these
affordable housing complexes and turning them into condos because
they can get more money. I live in one of those new apartment
complexes. This was supposed to be Collier County's answer to
affordable housing for teachers and public service workers.
When I got into my apartment, it was special for 1,582. Now
the apartment is being advertised for $5,099. They have gone up on
rent two times I've lived here. I stay there because my son is in high
school, and I cannot move. I don't know what my next year looks
like, and I can only imagine.
Collier County has ignored the housing crisis. Instead of
putting money into serious needs in the community, they dump
money into building parks and tourist beautification to make this
place prettier. The problem isn't to just look at these complexes or
Habitat for Humanity where most people can't even get into Habitat
for Humanity because they're not approved.
I just read about a post from somebody who was on Section 8
who's now living in her car because she can't get a house, an
apartment, anything. She can't get anything. Somebody told me
today that they -- or yesterday that they got onto someone's couch
now after living in their car for months.
This can no longer be ignored. We can no longer be tone deaf
to the needs of this community any longer, because this community is
more than just the deep pocket people that live here. We outnumber
December 14, 2021
Page 26
those people. I matter. The girl living in her car matters. There
are so many people in this community that matter that are being
ignored.
I have a list of apartment complexes that were supposed to be
the answer that are now charging between 3- and $6,000 for rent for
the same apartment I got into two years ago for 1,500. We can't live
like this. We can -- none of us. I can't work four jobs. I share a
bedroom with my son who's 17 years old so I can afford to live in the
apartment. My mother lives there. My daughter who's 21. Thank
God we can all, as generations, come together, but not everybody can
do that.
There are so many people that are hurting right now. And I
need you guys to not be tone deaf to the voices in Collier County any
longer. Because we can't move to another county. That's why you
have businesses that can't -- that don't have employees. That's why
you can't get enough employees because they're all having to leave.
That's not the answer.
There is way -- there's not enough affordable housing, and these
complexes have waiting lists. We need to fix this, and we need to
fix it now. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I make a comment?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, so I'm the newest
commissioner on the Affordable Housing Committee. I just asked
my assistant to come in here. I'd like a copy of that list, and then I'd
like you to meet with my assistant, Aixa, and either get on my
calendar, or I'll get on yours. I'd like to do a deeper dive into the
knowledge that you have. I will tell you, you know, your comments
about Habitat for Humanity, I've toured every single complex they
have in the community, and I'm actually impressed by what they
have. They're not the answer to everything, and they do have a
December 14, 2021
Page 27
waitlist for a specific reason. But that list right there is something
that I would like to see, because all of us up here -- I think it was a
meeting or two ago I produced a list of all the apartments that are
supposed to have affordable, you know, units and how many are
empty, what they currently charge, and some of that we're confirming
because it might say on a piece of paper they're charging 1,500 but
they might be charging 6,000.
MS. RADI: It's on their website.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: This is my assistant -- this is
my assistant, Aixa Capizzi. So if she could get a copy of that list,
and then she's going to get with you. I'd like to hear more from you,
because I think all of us share the issue. I don't believe we're
ignoring anything. But I agree with you, we could always do more.
And you're right, the people that are in need do outnumber the folks
that live in Port Royal, and they do matter.
MS. RADI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So we're going to talk more,
and that list is going to be very valuable to me and then to all of us up
here. So I appreciate you coming in today. Thank you.
MS. RADI: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your next speaker is Julisa
Rodriguez. She'll be followed by Sarah Charles.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm also here to talk about the rental crisis.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you state your name.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: During the summer -- oh, my name's
Julisa Rodriguez.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: This summer alone public record shows
that we have experienced a 30 to 50 percent rental increase. The
December 14, 2021
Page 28
current state of all complexes are due to the competitive market that
we have here in Collier. When the pandemic came, some workers
got a 5 percent increase, but our bills went up substantially, nearly
close to 50 percent.
Now we are faced with people selling their high-priced houses
up north and moving here willing to pay more than the asking price,
causing an inflation of rental -- of the rental property increase.
This is a reoccurrence of what happened 40 years ago and,
again, those on a fixed income are left out. The same thing will
happen again if we do not do something now.
I am not here today to talk about affordable housing, because it's
too late. There's nothing that it can do right now. I am proposing
that we form a tenant union. I've done research on tenant unions and
how they've been effective in other communities to prevent rental
price gouging. I have possible solutions should you ever afford me
the chance to present them to you.
One suggestion is to provide a sliding scale fee or for other
complexes just like Noah's Landing and Brittany Bay have for their
low-income community members -- but even they are struggling
now -- to mandate that complexes have a similar procedure in place
for your community workers and other sectors of the working class,
because loans do not change, and this issue we are facing is forged by
greed.
Our rents, as you know, are raised by hundreds, even thousands
of dollars, as my friend just said, to make a substantial profit off of
those coming from up north who can afford these rates, but those of
us who grew up here and contributed our efforts for decades towards
making this community the safe and desirable location that it is by
everybody outside, we are being forced to suffer.
I am a resilient single mother who relies solely on my own
income. Before this, I only worked two jobs. I am a teacher for
December 14, 2021
Page 29
your proud high-rating public school district. I have to work four
jobs in order to make ends meet. They're not seeing that what's
happening now is just a tip of the iceberg where we have businesses
who are suffering because there's not enough workers. Where did
those workers go? They went to Lee County, or they moved further
away, because the gas prices alone don't make -- doesn't give them
any reason to have to commute here every day in and out and then
work 12-hour shifts, including that rent.
We're asking that you do something and that you really hear us,
because I cannot do this. Many people cannot do this anymore. We
are being overworked, and we are overburdened, just like in the
prayer.
I need to be able to give my daughter a safe place, too. That's
what I grew up in. That's what my family and other generations
before us -- that's what they gave us. And our generations coming
up, they're going to suffer worse than what we're suffering now
because this is a chain of events. This is a domino effect. We have
to do something. If we can start by forming that tenant union to
make these procedures happen where our landlords' rental complexes
see, oh, wow, we have all these people coming in from out of town,
they can pay it -- and they can, and it's affordable for them, but
they're leaving us out, the working class, the community, the people
who make this community what it is.
Things are being taken away from our kids. They don't have
anything to do here. Years ago it was made into a bingo hall, the
rollerskating rink. And then years ago I spoke at Penny Taylor's
town hall meeting, and I was told by a man that I didn't have to live
here to work here. That seems to be the expectation, that we don't
have to live here, but those who are saying things like that are still
continuing to expect our services.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
December 14, 2021
Page 30
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, Ms. Rodriguez, same as I
said to the last speaker, so my assistant's going to meet you out in the
hall. I'd love to hear more about the tenant union. I haven't heard
that before. Like the idea, to explore that. And so maybe we all
meet together. I'll either come to you or you come to me. I'll have
some of our leadership from the affordable housing committee.
We've recently sort of revamped that committee as well, and we're
trying to separate rumor from fact and really see what's out there.
So what you're saying here is not falling on deaf ears. So Aixa
will meet you outside the door. And then I think if we can get some
like-minded people together that can help educate the Affordable
Housing Committee, which I'm a part of, we can make some progress
but, more importantly, we can be educated on what you know that we
need to know in order to take action. So I really appreciate you
coming here today. It's going to be very valuable to our discussion.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you so much. And just so that you
know, I have created a Facebook group about the rental crisis, and
there are over 100 members on that Facebook group where I can put
out a request for those who are like minded to be able to join us.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Invite me to that, because I'm
big on Facebook. So invite me to that, and then we can -- you know,
I can see some of the chatter and the conversation, and that is
valuable, you know.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I will. Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, ma'am. Yeah,
Aixa will meet you out there, and we're going to meet sooner than
later with the right folks. You're going to help me get the right
people together. I'm going to get the right county people together to
represent, you know, our position here, and we'll make some
headway here. We'll increase the acceleration. I promise you.
MS. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you so much.
December 14, 2021
Page 31
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks for coming. Very
valuable.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your final registered speaker for
Item 7 is online, Sarah Charles. Ms. Charles, you have three
minutes. Please begin.
MS. CHARLES: Good morning. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. CHARLES: Good morning. I am Sarah Charles. And
not to beat a dead horse, but today I am also addressing, like your
previous speakers, concern of rising rents in Collier County. I am a
wife and a mother of three boys that I've homeschooled for years and,
in addition, I run two businesses from home.
While I was a happy resident of Naples for 10-plus years, 2007
to 2017, I've now been a homeowner in Alva in Lee County for the
past four years. So I'm here to validate what your previous speaker
said, that we actually did leave Naples, and to share my concern that
this is a trend that Collier County needs to deal with.
In Naples, we had rented a home in Golden Gate Estates on
acreage and then subsequently rented a townhome in the Golden Gate
Berkshire area where our three sons were born, and that was their
first home. But in 2017, we sensed and saw that rental rates were
rising around us, and we anticipated a greater increase than we had
seen in the previous five to six years, which would be possibly 25 to
30 percent, and we saw our fellow residents had rate increases of
several hundred dollars.
So this would have been extremely stressful for our tight budget,
and at this point my husband and I realized we needed to consider
buying rather than continuing to rent, but then we also realized that
owning in Collier County would also be beyond our budget, and we
reluctantly considered looking in Lee County. So please realize that
we did not even want to leave family, friends, church, parks, and
December 14, 2021
Page 32
beaches that we loved, this was our home, but eventually we did find
a desirable home at a reasonable price in Alva. And my husband at
that point was committing to an hour's commute back to Naples five
to six days a week, which was an exhausting hardship on him and our
family.
But as we settled in Lee County, we did quickly grow happy
with our little neighborhood and, additionally, two years ago my
husband quit his job in Naples at a prominent auto dealership, and we
launched his own mobile business.
While our initial networks were primarily in Collier County, we
have grown to over 50 percent of our business now in Lee County,
and we see less and less need to spend the gas money and time to
travel back to Naples. So as the previous speakers mentioning, and
I'm just reiterating, Collier County has already lost families,
businesses, and diversity, and my family is proof of that. There has
already been a steady flow out of Collier County, and this will soon
become an exodus if it's not dealt with and addressed, as your
previous speaker suggested and mentioned.
People do actually desire to stay in Collier County, but they are
being displaced literally, and now, of course, this crisis even extends
to Lee County, as I'm well aware of people completely leaving
Southwest Florida and even considering moves out of the state. So
all the recommendations previously mentioned, I just implore you to
listen and take quite seriously. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That was our final speaker for Item 7.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Because she's a caller, do we
have all of her contact information? Can that be given to my
assistant?
MR. MILLER: Let me take a look real quick to see what I
have.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Get her email and phone
December 14, 2021
Page 33
number; that would be helpful.
MR. MILLER: Yes, I have a phone number for her, yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, Aixa, if you can get that.
I just want to say one thing, if I could, Madam Chair, and I
really think I'm speaking for all of us. We all get emails at times,
and I recently got a few, because people know that I'm on the
Affordable Housing Committee, and from some citizens who
recently -- more than a couple -- said, we don't need any affordable
housing in Collier County. It needs to be elsewhere. That's not the
kind of county this is.
If you go to Outback Steakhouse, the waiter or waitress that
serves you -- and these aren't just blue collar people. I met people
that live -- we all have -- in Habitat for Humanity houses that are
nurses at NCH, that are schoolteachers. So, you know, this isn't
Beverly Hills. And even in Beverly Hills, they need affordable
housing.
So we have to find balance. We have to also find quality. All
of us have said up here, affordable housing shouldn't look like the
projects either here or elsewhere. We should be proud of the quality
of housing.
And so it's not a matter of everybody here is a millionaire and all
the people in affordable housing should live outside of this county.
But a lot of them are moving.
So there are some things that we are taking a look at on the
affordable housing side. I think you've seen us all vote on things up
here where a new development might be being discussed here, and
we think an affordable housing piece should be possibly part of it.
It's not something that's lost on us. But anybody that sends me an
email and says, you know, anybody that needs affordable housing
should be in Lee County or further north, that's naive and ridiculous
and actually embarrassing.
December 14, 2021
Page 34
I was the chief operating officer of Physicians Regional for
many years, and many folks that worked in the hospital setting
weren't making six figures, the people that make that hospital run,
empty the garbage cans, set up IVs, work in the OR -- and so that's
not lost on us -- and teach our school kids as well.
So I'm glad that people have taken the time to come to the
podium. You're working folks. You could be elsewhere today. So
I know you're speaking for a much larger group. And, you know, I
represent all of the commissioners here on the Affordable Housing
Committee, and, you know, your comments are -- have not fallen on
deaf ears.
MS. RADI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, let me add
one thing, if I might, as well, because I've gotten a lot of the same
communications where people have said we don't need affordable
housing in Collier County because people can commute from Lee
County. As a matter of fact, I had one person say that -- I've had
several people say that they commuted to work when they were
younger, so why shouldn't people here commute to work? And I
agree with Commissioner LoCastro that that's not the answer at all.
Commissioner Taylor, you, over the years, have been heavily
involved in affordable housing, and I know that we've had these
reports, and I know there's different solutions, but maybe we need to
have the housing -- a joint meeting with the housing committee again.
We did this a couple of times --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would love to do that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and start coming up with
some real-time solutions. Things really changed with the pandemic
and the sudden exodus of people out of the northeast moving to
December 14, 2021
Page 35
Naples. I think all of us have seen just a tremendous uptick in
people moving here in the last several years. That's always been the
case, but last couple years it's been very significant. So I would ask
that we have some workshop with the Affordable Housing
Committee again. And, Commissioner LoCastro, you're on that
committee --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- so let's set something up.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll take that as a homework
assignment, and I'll also add that at our last Affordable Housing
Committee meeting, as part of our discussion, it was sort of
surprising that some people that have been on the committee for a
while, and even some new folks, in our open discussion had said, you
know, the minute we became part of this committee, we never really
had any formal training, so we brought in our resumés and our
experience and were part of discussion, but we haven't sat down with
the county, we haven't seen the spreadsheet of where all the
affordable housing is and isn't. We haven't had a presentation from
Habitat for Humanity that maybe could educate us some more. So
we actually have an education workshop on the books for the people
that are on the Affordable Housing Committee to sort of retrain us
and also educate us on maybe some things that we aren't as smart on.
I think on the heels of that, once we have that, which is coming
up very soon -- I don't have the exact date -- I'll take it as an
assignment, then, to bring a group together that has gone through that
training and can give us a much more eloquent presentation and help
us, so more to follow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I think it's significant that
finally, finally on the state level the Sadowski Fund cannot be swept
anymore for affordable housing. That is huge, because this costs
money. And the other thing that the county -- or that the state has
December 14, 2021
Page 36
done is required folks on these committees to get the proper training.
So there is a movement in the right direction after all these years.
But I do have the arrows in my back from when I championed
this several years ago. But I do think you're correct. I think things
have changed, and I think the reality of what we are is what we have
to face right now. Thank you.
MS. RADI: Some of the best people to train are the ones that
are walking through it now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to make one more comment on
one of the things that's changed, I think, which is, in my mind, really
significant -- and I've talked to some county staff people that are
going through this themselves -- and that is that it used to be that if
your rental rates were going up, you know, you could move to Bonita
Springs or Estero. And the rental rates there are almost identical.
So now the option of just living, you know, across the line in North
Naples and having a smaller commute, it's really disappearing as
well. And so we're -- right, I mean, if that's no longer an option,
then what's going to happen? Charlotte County? I mean, it's -- you
know, where's it going to end? So I think this is a timely thing, and
we have to get our arms around this sooner rather than later.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2021-257: A RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL
PRIOR COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND
ESTABLISHING NEW COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 124,
December 14, 2021
Page 37
FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION -
MOTION TO APPROVE REDISTRICTING MAP 2 - ADOPTED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings us to your
time-certain item at 10:00. It's a resolution repealing all County
Commission district boundaries and establishing new county
commission district boundaries in accordance with Chapter 124,
Florida Statutes, and the Florida Constitution.
Mr. David Weeks will make some introductory remarks.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. Maybe a little
bit more than introductory, Mr. Manager, but I'll be as quick as I can.
I am the BCC redistricting project manager. It's a title I held also in
2011 and 2001, and at that time I was an employee of Collier County.
Now I am under contract with your Growth Management
Department. I have 35 years of land-use planning experience in
Florida almost all of it right here in Collier County, and I am a
certified planner.
I like this project. I enjoy doing it. There's a lot to cover. I
feel kind of like that mosquito that flew into a nudist colony. I know
I'm -- that's not even the punchline.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Hey, just stick to the maps,
okay.
MR. WEEKS: I know I'm glad to be here. I just don't know
where to begin. Yes, I do. We'll start with the census data.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Retirement has become you, sir.
MR. WEEKS: So we must use the 2020 census data. It all
begins with population data, this redistricting exercise.
This is the redistricting team. I'm the project manager, but by
no means am I doing this alone. All of the entities listed here have
played an important role in this process. I want to recognize the
school district for their participation. It's -- they were significantly
December 14, 2021
Page 38
involved in the map-drawing process, attending the public meetings,
including provision of interpreters; Johnson Engineering just did a
fantastic job with the planning and execution of public outreach
program; the elections office provided technical support. They were
not involved in the map drawing. And the GIS staff within the
Growth Management Department played a significant role of the map
drawing and population data conversion from the census bureau.
Public outreach was significant. It's listed here on this slide. It
included the five public meetings that we held just last month, one in
each district. And for the 10 public-awareness meetings in October
where I appeared on someone else's agenda to talk about redistricting,
that included all three city councils.
Redistricting is simply the redrawing of district boundaries to
achieve population balance or close thereto. It is required by the
Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes. This slide shows the
population and balance that exists. The green bar is what we call the
ideal population. That is the countywide population divided evenly
amongst the five districts; whereas, the red bar reflects the actual
population. And we can see Districts 2 and 4 need to grow, and
Districts 3 and 5 need to contract. District 1 theoretically could
remain the same, and I'll explain why in a moment.
This, again, shows the population and balance. The red text on
the right-hand column shows the deviation from this ideal population
and then the amount of adjustment that would be needed to achieve
that ideal population in each of the districts. But we do not have to
redistrict to the ideal population. A deviation of up to 10 percent, a
range from the highest to the lowest district, is permissible.
And this, again, shows the population growth since the last
redistricting. Over 54,000 persons have increased in Collier County
over the past 10 years. The Hispanic is, by far, the largest minority
in Collier County, and District 5 has the largest concentration of that
December 14, 2021
Page 39
minority population, as we can see here.
These are the criteria that you approved in June of this year.
This is what staff was bound to use in drawing the map proposals. It
all begins with population; that is one of the absolutes. We must be
within that 10 percent deviation.
Another absolute is protecting incumbency. All five county
commissioners and all five school board members, because they've
agreed to have coterminous boundaries, cannot be redistricted out of
their current district. So that's an absolute criterion. And the other
one highlighted in blue is the retrogressive effect on minority voting
strength. This criteria says that, staff, after you have drawn the
proposed maps, then go and use the voting age population to see if
there's been a reduction in the minority voting strength. We applied
that to District 5 because it is the district, again, with the largest
concentration of minority population.
There's a tension between these criteria such that I believe it
would be impossible to equally satisfy each of those. I think we
could draw a map that comes darn close to achieving that ideal
population, but I believe it would be at the expense of having a
regular and compact shape and/or following major boundaries and/or
dividing neighborhoods.
This is just an example of compactness. The higher the
percentage, the greater the compactness. And it correlates with
shape; low compactness, odd shape.
This is the existing commission districts map, and it shows the
location of all 10 residences, county commissioners and school board
members. That goldish yellow color is Golden Gate Estates. That's
specifically noted here and on the other maps we'll be looking at,
because one of your criterion is try not to divide neighborhoods and
communities of interest, and you particularly identify Golden Gate
Estates, so we took that into account. And, here again, the
December 14, 2021
Page 40
retrogression analysis. What it shows is that all five maps, in fact,
result in an increase in the minority population in District 5.
One of the criteria necessary when we must draw a
minority/majority district or majority/minority district, a district in
which the majority of the population is a minority population group,
one of those preconditions, according to a Supreme Court case, is that
there must be a cohesion, political cohesion of the minority and,
based on party affiliation, that is not the case here in Collier County.
Here again, the existing districts map, just the coastal area, and
this shows the historical movement of redistricting efforts, moving
from the east -- west to the east, from the west to the east, and again,
District 1 theoretically could remain unchanged, but the other four
will have to be adjusted up or down.
This shows the challenges of the redistricting effort. This is the
census block map from the 2020 census. The red outline is Golden
Gate Estates. And you can see in the urban area, the Greater Naples
area, as well as in Immokalee, Marco Island, blocks are really tiny,
and the concentration of population is greater. You move east of
Collier Boulevard, and some of the blocks get much larger, and
dozens and sometimes even hundreds of square miles population
density is much lower. Fewer major features in which to follow in
drawing maps. This time as opposed to the last two times was a
significant -- significantly greater challenge in trying to adhere to the
criteria. Most particularly when we throw in the mix try not to
divide Golden Gate Estates. As you know and can see, it is a very
large subdivision.
This is the existing County Commission district map. Each
district is identified both by number and by distinct color. The
shaded striping pattern, again, is Golden Gate Estates. When staff
used the criterion to try not to divide Golden Gate Estates, we only
applied that east of Collier Boulevard. That is in District 5. The
December 14, 2021
Page 41
reason for that is I believe that was your intent. You knew that the
boundaries were going to have to move to the east and, furthermore,
Golden Gate Estates right now, if we consider that part that's in the
urban area, all five commission districts contain a portion of Golden
Gate Estates.
Here is Proposed Map 1. And, again, the existing districts
shown in number and the red lines are showing the existing
commission districts. The color shows the proposed district
boundaries.
I want to walk through as I show you each of these maps. And,
by the way, we're probably two-thirds of the way through my
presentation now. I want to walk through each of these maps and
point out some highlights based on the criteria that you adopted.
This map divides -- oh, let me go back for a second. We can
see it better here. The existing commission district map, and this,
again, is Map 1, but it's better to use here. It does show the existing
boundaries. If you look at the divider between Districts 4 and
District 1, is the red line running southwest from U.S. 41 east, that's
the Lely outfall canal. That's the existing boundary, and it presently
divides the Isles of Collier Preserve community, also known as the
Sabal Bay Planned Unit Development.
And then less noticeable is where Districts 4 and 3 are divided
where I-75 turns from north/south to east/west around that curve.
Both I-75 and Santa Barbara Boulevard are dividing the Berkshire
Lakes Planned Unit Development. So that's the second development
that is currently divided by district boundaries. That will be relevant
as I walk through the map highlights.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you have a cursor that you
can -- that's --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, thank you. So this is the Lely outfall
canal I referenced. This is the Isle -- excuse me -- the Berkshire
December 14, 2021
Page 42
Lakes Planned Unit Development that is divided both by I-75 and
Santa Barbara Boulevard. This area here that looks like a stair step
we call the stair step, and I'm going to be referencing that some.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just to the left of that stair
step, sort of that little square --
MR. WEEKS: Right here?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Where's your cursor? Move
it a little bit more. Just go a little bit to the left -- to the west of it.
Yeah, that little square. What neighborhoods are in that area? Is
that Riviera Golf Estates and a few other?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Looks like.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. That's also Lakewood --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Lakewood, yeah.
MR. WEEKS: -- the Glades, where we're sitting right now.
So highlights of Map 1. It does divide Golden Gate Estates east
of Collier Boulevard. It continues to divide the Isles of Collier
Preserve and Berkshire Lakes. It eliminates the stair step. Districts
2 and 4 existing boundaries are completely maintained. What that
means is the existing boundary is kept intact and then additional land
is added to it, and that's one of the objectives and one of the criteria is
to try to keep the existing boundaries intact to the extent possible, or
at least the core of the existing district. This map has the best
boundaries of all five maps in using well-defined, easily
recognizable, and major features.
Proposed Map 2. The highlights here, it has the highest
population deviation. That is the separation from the lowest
populated district to the highest is the greatest. It's the most compact
of all five of the maps. It also divides Golden Gate Estates east of
Collier Boulevard and continues to divide Isles of Collier Preserve
and Berkshire Lakes. It eliminates the stair step also, and Districts 2
and 4 existing boundaries are completely maintained.
December 14, 2021
Page 43
Map 3, the highlights. This is the least compact of all of the
five maps. It has the most boundaries of all the maps that are
ill-defined, less recognizable, and following minor features.
Districts 1 and 2 existing boundaries are completely maintained.
Continues to divide Berkshire Lakes, though less so than the existing
map, and continues to divide Isles of Collier Preserve, and the stair
step remains. It does not divide Golden Gate Estates east of -- east
of Collier Boulevard. This map shifts Everglades City, Plantation
Island, and Chokoloskee from District 5 into District 1.
Proposed Map 4 highlights. This has the lowest population
deviation of the five maps; that is, the population of the districts are
the closest to the ideal. Districts 1 and 2 existing boundaries are
completely maintained. And this is the only map that leaves District
1 boundaries unchanged. The stair step remains. This map divides
Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard and continues to
divide Berkshire Lakes and Isles of Collier. Excuse me. Divides
Isles of Collier Preserve but it eliminates the division of Berkshire
Lakes.
And, finally, Map 5, highlights here, this map completely
maintains just one existing district, and that is District 2, which is the
fewest of all five maps. District 1 moves east to the
Broward/Miami-Dade County lines thus shifting Everglades City,
Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, and Ochopee from District 5 to
District 1. And going along with that, it has the largest geographic
shift of any of the five maps.
The District 4 boundary moves all the way east to Henderson
Creek -- 951 and Henderson Creek. This map eliminates the stair
step and does not divide Golden Gate Estates east of Collier
Boulevard. And this map divides the fewest communities. Only
Berkshire Lakes, and even it is less divided than the existing map.
This is a quick evaluation compressed into one table of the
December 14, 2021
Page 44
criteria for each of the five maps. And as I walk through the
highlights, that's reflected here; just put it into a ranking in some
instances.
So the map preferences, well, staff has already very few
comments from the public, written comments. I don't know about
you commissioners if you've received more. This is it. Seven
individuals, and the NAACP Collier County branch and the League
of Women Voters of Collier County all support Map 2. And in the
correspondence, they either -- the individuals or entities either did not
state a reason or the reason stated was because if you combined the
minority population of Hispanic and black, this map results in a
majority/minority District 5.
I would respectfully point out that that fact is true for all five
maps. If you combined the black and Hispanic minorities for
District 5, all five maps would result in a majority/minority district.
But looking at minority populations individually, none of the maps
achieve a majority/minority district.
One individual preferred Map 4 because it eliminates the
division of Berkshire Lakes.
Now, we had one individual that said they would like to keep
the Isles of Collier Preserve -- in essence, keep it where it's at
district-wise. They want to keep it affiliated with Bayshore and City
of Naples areas, not moved into -- I'm -- I read into their comment
that they would not want the boundary shifted such that they are in
District 1, because that would remove it from the City of Naples and
Bayshore area.
And we also had a letter from the East Naples Civic Association
proposing a modification of Map No. 4. And, Commissioners, my
understanding that the president of that association has met with each
one of you individually to present that map adjustment. Because
that is not something -- a map created by the county, it's not been
December 14, 2021
Page 45
through public vetting, I'm not going to introduce it to you. My
understanding is that representative is here, would be prepared to
answer questions about that map if you have any.
And finally we get to the staff recommendation. Staff does not
recommend a map. We simply stand here and tell you they all meet
the criteria that you've adopted. You could adopt any one of these
five maps. You could adopt one of these maps with some minor
adjustments to it just as was done back in 2011.
If you want to make major changes, that may or may not be
possible depending upon what request you might make of staff. The
GIS staff are upstairs in this building anticipating the potential that
you might want to adopt a map with some minor modifications. If
that is the case, we would need to table this matter for a period of,
perhaps, an hour or two, allow me and that group of staff up there to
work to make whatever adjustments you might propose. If you
propose changes that either flat-out may not be possible or it may
take in the neighborhood of, perhaps, four hours or so, again,
depending on what, if any, direction you might give to staff for
making map adjustments.
There are two absolutes if you choose to tweak a map, and that
is that the population would have to stay within that acceptable
deviation range, and incumbency would have to be protected. But if
you're just tweaking a map, all of the other criteria should be
reasonably satisfied, including the retrogression. A major change
would necessitate staff, then, reviewing all of the criteria to see where
they fall in regards to the proposed map.
Also, staff inadvertently included in some of the map
descriptions that correspond to the maps, that is defined -- describing
what the boundaries are, inadvertently left some references to the
2010 census. So depending on which map you should go with or
modified version of, I would ask, as part of your recommendation,
December 14, 2021
Page 46
that you give staff the authority, the latitude to make those minor
adjustments. This is adjusting a description, not adjust a boundary.
It's just updating to reference the 2020 census and terminology block
numbers.
And, finally, you authorized an independent review to be
conducted of this redistricting process. And the firm of Bond,
Schoeneck & King was selected to do that. Their report is in your
backup information. I would respectfully ask your permission to
bring forward the author of that report at this time to just read to you
the conclusion of their independent review and be available for
questions and, likewise, of course, I'll be available for any questions
that you have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Yes, please. You can
use that podium.
MR. RECCHIA: Okay. Good morning. My name's Kevin
Recchia with Bond, Schoeneck & King, and we did perform an
independent review of the process.
As far as the public process goes, it went beyond what's required
by law. It was very professional, very clearly designed to obtain
public input, notify as many people as possible, keep the public
informed.
As far as the maps themselves, in our opinion, you know, none
of these maps presents a problem under the Voting Rights Act, which
was the main -- the main statute that we really look at to make sure
that everything is complied with. We did an independent review of
the numbers based on My District Builder, which is a website that the
state legislature has put together to check the numbers.
And the bottom line is our conclusion is that we think that each
of these maps -- you could adopt any one of these five maps without
reservations. We're not concerned about any legal infirmities with
any of the five alternative maps.
December 14, 2021
Page 47
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And this question is
for David, and it leads up to that. Because I kind of like any one of
the five maps after we get done tweaking it. And so I assume your
opinion may change with -- depending on what the Board decides to
do with the adjustments in the final map, if you will.
MR. RECCHIA: Well, sure. We'd want to look at what those
changes are, look at the map.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Of course.
MR. RECCHIA: And make sure that it fits with the criteria
established by law.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. And then,
David, Mr. Weeks, the 10 percent deviation, I think you called it, is
that from district to district, or is that in aggregate? Is it just between
mine and District 3, or is it -- how is the 10 percent calculated?
MR. WEEKS: We look at all five districts. So we would look
at the district with the lowest population and the district with the
highest, and that could be no more than a 10 percent range.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So it's not -- so it's in
total with the lowest to the highest. Round numbers, that's a 7,000
population spread, 7,500 plus-minus.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all my questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think we'll hear from
any public speakers we have, and then we're going to break for a very
important break for our hardworking court reporter.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we have two registered
speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Jacob Winge, to be
followed by Janet Hoffman.
MR. WINGE: All right. Good morning. Thank you,
December 14, 2021
Page 48
Commissioners. Jacob Winge, president of the East Naples Civic
Association.
As David mentioned, thank you all for your individual meetings
with myself in the last few weeks with this important issue,
something that the civic association had on our radar earlier this year,
as we knew it was coming up.
We looked at all the maps. We had representatives attend the
three commission district hearings that East Naples is currently in, 3,
4 and 1, and from that and some other community meetings and
meetings with our membership, we have suggested a small change to
Map 4. That small change is to move the northern boundary west
along Thomasson. That would accomplish the following three main
goals that we have: It puts the Isles of Collier all in one County
Commission district, that commission district being District 1; Map 4
already achieves, as David noted, uniting the community of Berkshire
all within County Commission District 4; and, at the end of the day, it
gives us a district where East Naples, unlike the last 30 or 40 years
where we've been carved up into three or four commission districts,
we have two County Commission districts that East Naples is
represented in, and those are our goals.
We do stand in opposition mostly to Map 5. We believe that
that change and shift along the East Trail -- and really, just me kind
of speaking personally -- is egregious to make any kind of major shift
in District 1 where, as David mentioned, District 1 at the end of the
day really doesn't need to change at all, which Map 4 does represent.
So if it's the will of this commission to pick a map outright, we
would support Map 4, but if there are tweaks to be made, we ask that
our tweak is at least given consideration and discussion.
Happy to answer any questions from the Board or staff in
relation to that and, again, thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Do you have the tweak to show us
December 14, 2021
Page 49
that you're requesting?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: David, do you have -- and we
sort of were calling it Map 4.1, just to give it some clarity, not that
we're creating a sixth map, but just to show the --
MR. WINGE: So it's a very small change. That was also
something that was important to us. We didn't want to make too big
of a shift in any of the maps. So the change that we are proposing is
a very small one. It does meet all the criteria. Staff confirmed that
with me on multiple occasions. That was also something that was
important. We weren't going to bring anything to your attention that
was, obviously, not going to meet standards. So it does meet all the
criteria, and what we're asking for is a very small shift but, I think,
very meaningful to the community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Janet
Hoffman.
MS. HOFFMAN: Hi, thank you very much. I am Janet
Hoffman, a copresident of the League of Women Voters of Collier
County.
The League recognizes that the redistricting process in Collier
County was very well done in following the traditional redistricting
principles of having compactness, being contiguous, and maintaining
the core of the original districts.
The League also believes it is appropriate to follow federal
guidance regarding redistricting. In the Voting Rights Act, minority
voting strength is to be considered. We think that our minority
population should have as great an opportunity to elect a
commissioner of their choice as those of us who are not in a minority
group.
We recommend that Map 2 be selected, as this will provide
Collier's minority population with a greater possibility in the electoral
December 14, 2021
Page 50
process.
The League is very appreciative of David Weeks, the
redistricting project manager, and his staff and team for providing
numerous very informative meetings for Collier County citizens to
learn about the maps, the procedures, and the criteria and also to have
much information on the website.
We thank all of the commissioners for your time, work, and
commitment to Collier County. We hope that our minority
population will be valued when you vote for the new district maps
and that Map 2 will be given a priority.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ma'am, I just have a question
for you. So --
MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- what on Map 2 are the
biggest changes that you think are advantageous? You know, I
mean, I can see the differences between what we currently have, but
educate me a little bit more on the areas that turn into a different
color that -- you know, as far as the colors on the map, that benefit
the minority population in the things that you've brought to the table
here. Can you just give me a quick education on what areas change,
get absorbed, alter, that you feel are advantageous.
MS. HOFFMAN: Well, one issue is the Hispanic voting age
population, and that is --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. But on the map --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Hang on. Let's get the map up.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You're more educated than I
am so -- maybe than all of us, and so I want to know specifically on
Map 2 what do you love? You know, what colors change that you
love? So, yeah, we need to put up Map 2 or something, so David
December 14, 2021
Page 51
should be able to help you. And I think it's just important that we,
sort of, dismiss any ambiguity as to what we're talking about.
MS. HOFFMAN: Oh. And so from what the county
determined, the Hispanic voting age population is much closer to the
non-Hispanic voting age population on Map 2, and I think there's the
potential for greater political cohesiveness among the Hispanic
population, even though it may not be there at this time, although I
personally don't think that political party registration necessarily tells
us how someone might vote.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But the big change between
the current map and Map 2 is it grows District 3 exponentially east,
and that absorbs part of the population of the minorities. Is
that -- am I -- is that correct, or -- that's what I'm really -- I'm trying
to get at is what change on Map 2 specifically accomplishes what,
you know, you feel isn't being accomplished now. And as I look at
the differences, it looks like the big muscle movement is Map 3 -- or
District 3 changes significantly. So I'm assuming the new District 3
on Map 2 absorbs those areas that you feel should be in one -- in
District 3. Am I -- and I bow to any of the other commissioners up
here to chime in, you know, with that answer, but I'm trying to get to
that.
MS. HOFFMAN: Well, it was looking at the difference
between the Hispanic voting age population --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MS. HOFFMAN: -- and the non-Hispanic.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And growing District 3 east
significantly is what does that; is that what you're saying?
MS. HOFFMAN: No, no, it's looking at District 5.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Five, okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, you had a
comment on this issue?
December 14, 2021
Page 52
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do. And I think -- I mean, we've
got two requests to do some tweaking, I guess. Well, we've
got -- no. I mean, we've got one request from East Naples Civic
Association to come up with a modified map. I mean, I'll just go
first because, you know, I'm in the corner. I've got -- District 2 has
the ocean and the Lee County line. Those aren't really changing.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Can I interrupt?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let's hear from everybody.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, she wants to take a
break before we -- we wanted to hear from our public speaker --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I'm quite capable of --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- take a break, and then we'll
come back and debate this amongst ourselves. Mr. LoCastro had a
question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you are getting ready to -- you
have some questions?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, I was getting to a question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Believe it or not, I was getting to a
question for Ms. Hoffman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Hoffman, if you'd come back to
the podium, please.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because Commissioner LoCastro's
point is well taken, and it's the question that I have. I mean, you
know, in any of these maps, District 2 doesn't change that much, so I
would like to understand. It seems to me that between -- that in
district -- on Map 2, the change is District 3 going east and north
from where it is now to Wilson Boulevard and maybe a little bit
beyond that north of Immokalee Road. I mean, that's the change that
you think gives more cohesion to the Hispanic community? That
was -- I think that was Commissioner LoCastro's question; is that
December 14, 2021
Page 53
what you --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Absolutely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So that expansion to
include that area into District 3 the League feels is what brings more
cohesion to the Hispanic community?
MS. HOFFMAN: Well, it was more looking at District 5.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. I mean, it's -- because
it's -- District 3 is taking that -- would take that part of District 5.
MS. HOFFMAN: But it is looking at what was done in terms
of combining populations.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, right.
MS. HOFFMAN: It would all give a greater possibility, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that -- and the league feels
that that's more true than the other maps, okay.
MS. HOFFMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I get it now. Thank you.
MS. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel has a
question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, I have no questions of
her.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So now we're going to
take a break. We'll break for 10 minutes. We'll come back at
10:45, and then we're going to make our comments and
recommendations. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 10:34 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
MR. ISACKSON: Chair Taylor and Commissioners, you have
a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: I received another speaker for this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And who's the speaker?
December 14, 2021
Page 54
MR. MILLER: Vincent Keeys.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we'll let him speak; thank you.
We normally don't do that, but in this case, it's the NAACP, so we'll
make that --
MR. KEEYS: Madam Chair, thank you so very much --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MR. KEEYS: -- and, County Commissioners. I just want to
reiterate what we sent to the County Commissioners' office with
regards to redistricting.
And so, yes, Mr. LoCastro and Mr. Solis, we definitely see the
Hispanic population in District 5 that we believe may need shifting a
bit, and so thus the reason why we have recommended Map 2 to the
County Commissioners' office. The NAACP has spent endless
hours on this, and we believe that County Commissioners will make
the right decision that Map 2 is the best map along with the League of
Women Voters.
So thank you for this time. I just wanted to say that before I
made my exit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MR. KEEYS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I guess right now we're
into discussion and making a decision. No other public comment.
Public comment is closed right now.
Commissioner McDaniel, Commissioner Saunders, and
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: David, do you want to come
up? And I want to say this: I am starting this discussion off
amongst us. This is a difficult time. People don't -- people are
adverse to change. I know many of you feel, as I do, that there are
no district bounds. Certainly, when we come up here in the dais we
represent all of the residents of Collier County, but a decision has to
December 14, 2021
Page 55
be made today. And I would like for you to hear from me how I
prioritized -- because I understood what our staff had shared with us
with the population estimations and divisions.
If you could bring up Map 4, please.
MR. WEEKS: I don't control the screen. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Troy -- does -- there we go.
I understand what was being represented by the League and the
NAACP with regard to the Hispanic population, but the one
consideration that I saw in Map 2 that troubled me was the division
of the previously subdivided Golden Gate Estates. If you all will
recall, when we approved the Golden Gate Master Plan, we
trifurcated that master plan into urban Golden Gate Estates, rural
Golden Gate Estates, and Golden Gate City, the four square miles of
Golden Gate City.
And so when I was looking -- when I was looking at these
things -- and my suggestion, just very quite simply, is a deviation on
Map 4 with moving District 3 up to the northern end of Golden Gate
Estates where it runs along clear out to -- I don't know what street
that is. It's very small on my screen, David.
MR. WEEKS: That will be Vanderbilt Road extension and the
canal that runs along it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. Move it up
to -- move the boundary up and culled Golden Gate Estates rural
intact, and then expand the boundary of District 3 similar to what was
done on District 5 -- or on Map 5. Forgive me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we're truing it up. So it's trued up
now?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Truing is an interesting
prospect.
What I'm trying to do is hold Golden Gate Estates rural in one
commission district, and then those more urban subdivisions that run
December 14, 2021
Page 56
along Immokalee Road both north and south in the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District into District 3, which is more of an urban type
setting. And then I assume that the balance of District 5 still has
Everglades City, Chokoloskee, and Plantation; is that true, David?
The balance of Map 4 there.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, no change to those three
communities.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I had a combination of Map 3
and Map -- and then a deviation, if you will, or a tweak, as David
likes to call them, on Map 5, and that Map 5, actually, if you could
flip over to that a second, please. There you go. That one -- this
map makes -- does similarly to what I just suggested. It moves the
boundary of District 3 in its entirety in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District, and then the tweak on Map 5 is the re-inclusion of what went
to District 1 back in for District 5 east of 29 and south clear down
through Everglades City and Chokoloskee, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think Collier County's had a little bit of a checkered past in
terms of dealing with election issues. I think we were one of those
few counties that was subject to preclearance from the Department of
Justice, I think, for decades because of some issues dealing with
minority representation. Now, we're no longer under any
preclearance, but that was, I think, primarily because there was a
change in the law.
And we're also -- I think the other comment I would make is
we're making redistricting -- it's not just for the current board, but this
is for the long-term future. And I think what we do today will, quite
frankly, set kind of a tone for the next redistricting, and that's why I'm
going to urge the Board to consider Map 2.
We have couple organizations that are very much concerned
December 14, 2021
Page 57
about minority representation and compliance with state and federal
law as it relates to fairness in terms of the elections. I don't think
that Map 2 has any significant negative impact on any particular
districts, but I think it sends a message that we are serious about
making sure that minorities in this county have the opportunity to
have representation. So I'd like to hear what everybody else has to
say, but I would suggest that we go with Map 2.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner
LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sometimes when you have
five options, the best thing to do, rather than -- and I'm just
spitballing here in offering this -- is not to sit here and try to zero in
on the map that we want to pick but to sort of discount ones that we
think are the worst of the five, and that may not be the best choice of
words. But I'm going to just show something out here. There's
some good things on Map 5, as Commissioner McDaniel said when it
comes to new shading in District 3 and making certain things blue, I
guess, because of some of the Hispanic population and whatnot. So
I definitely heard what he said he liked about Map 5.
The reason why Map 5 for me is -- I think it's just way -- and I'm
looking at it as -- in its entirety. So there's some good stuff in
District 3 and District 5 on Map 5. But it, as a whole, I just think is
way too big of a muscle movement. I mean, to take a huge chunk of
East Naples and all of a sudden make it District 4, and even though I
love the people of Everglades City -- and I'm not here to say yea or
nay on that side. I just think there's so many huge changes that we
can incorporate some of what we like on Map 5, but I think moving
those and zeroing in on a map that we can all sort of be on the same
page but also drop a map out of contention that we think just has so
many irregularities that even though they're all acceptable, it's the
least acceptable of all of them.
December 14, 2021
Page 58
And, to me, Map 5 just has so many huge muscle movements
that I don't even sort of look at that one. I take some of the positives,
but I'd like to transfer them over into a map that also has many more
positives so we can zero in on a map that I think is the most
acceptable and makes the most sense.
So I don't know if that resonates with anybody, but I just think
Map 5 has so many things that are so hugely different and change,
not just to District 1, but across the board, that it has the least amount
of positive things on it.
As I wrote in my notes here from Mr. Weeks, Map 5 has huge
changes. And to your comment on Map 2, the notes I made here, so
Mr. Weeks correct me if I'm wrong -- you know, if we're zeroing in
on Map 2, it has the highest population deviations and it divides the
most communities. Did I write those down correctly? Map 2.
And it doesn't mean Map 2 might not be our leader, but it might mean
that on our tweaks we make sure maybe it doesn't do that as poorly, I
guess. But is that true, Map 2, you had said, has the highest
population deviations -- which may or may not be a show
stopper -- and it also divides the most communities; is that true?
MR. WEEKS: It's true that it has the highest deviation. It
does not divide the most communities.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But does it divide significant
communities? You said something like that.
MR. WEEKS: It does divide Golden Gate Estates east of
Collier Boulevard, and both Isles of Collier Preserve and Berkshire
Lakes continue to be divided.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Anyway, so I mean, I
know we're going to go back and forth but, you know, I guess my
closing comment would be, Map 5 is, to me, the least advantageous if
we're zeroing in. We can take some positive off of it, but I'd love to
transfer them to a map that starts to build, you know, the final
December 14, 2021
Page 59
answer, and to me there's so many muscle movements on 5 that I
think, you know, it's the least one that I'm sort of staring at right now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I'm going to agree with
Commissioner Saunders. I think we've heard from the organizations
that are stakeholders. I think Map 2, one, it's -- they're the most
compact, though, right, David? I mean, they -- District -- Map 2
seems to make everything the most compact. We don't have -- we
don't have stair steps, and we don't have big jogs. Everything's more
compact.
MR. WEEKS: That is correct on both counts.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Bring up Map 2 for
us since it's the subject. Bring it up.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it's the closest -- while I'm
not against -- you know, maybe there are some ways to address the
civic associations' concerns a little bit, it seems to me to address, you
know, the cohesion issue, the compactness issue. And from a
District 2 perspective, I think, you know, District 2 is sometimes
called North Naples. I think traditionally north of Pine Ridge Road,
you know, has always been considered -- that's kind of, you know,
the North Naples area.
So it seems to me to make everything as compact as possible
and address what we heard from the League and the NAACP.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Commissioner McDaniel again.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Well, you know, I
said it at the beginning, and I certainly don't have any discussion with
regard to the -- I thought I heard David Weeks say that any one of
these maps we met the population criteria minority/majority, all of
the statutory requisites; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. All five maps meet the criteria
December 14, 2021
Page 60
you adopted.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My biggest concern with
Map 2 is the division of the divisions that are east of 951. It
doesn't -- and it also divides -- continues to divide Berkshire and Isles
of Collier. And I think Commissioner LoCastro came up with what
he called Map 4.1, which was including Isles of Collier in one or the
other of either District 4 and/or District 1.
But I have huge concerns with subdividing the rural Golden
Gate Estates. I have huge concerns with that. I don't think that's
appropriate. I think that that further divides one of the fastest
growing areas of our community, and by holding the -- similar
to -- and I think Map 4 actually has -- can you bring up Map 4,
please. There is Map 4. And then Commissioner LoCastro showed
something he was calling 4.1 that was a slide that Jacob put up. I
think with a couple of those adjustments, we can get close. I would
be happier with a deviation on Map 4 and not that subdivision that
Map 2 continues on with.
MR. WEEKS: Madam Chair, if I may, I do have some
population statistics with me anticipating some possible discussion
that you're having here.
Commissioner McDaniel, if I could, was it Map 4 that you had
asked that the boundary be moved east of 951 out of the Estates?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To Vanderbilt there, yes.
MR. WEEKS: Right. That would be too large. That would
make District 5 too large and District 3 too small.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, did you expand it east
out to Wilson Boulevard on the north side of Immokalee Road as
well?
MR. WEEKS: I didn't, but I can tell you that that is -- excuse
me. All the way to Wilson? So it would be dividing the Estates
north of Immokalee Road.
December 14, 2021
Page 61
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. To the Estates line there
that includes Twin Eagles and -- the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
is what I was trying to -- is what I was trying to accomplish there.
MR. WEEKS: There's not enough population there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. WEEKS: Twin Eagles, and it's -- you're talking about a
population shift by moving that boundary out of the Estates all the
way up to Vanderbilt Road extension of about 4,500 persons, and
you'd be offsetting that with I think it's either just under or just over a
thousand.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I'd like to make a comment,
because I haven't done that at this point. I am fairly persuaded by
the testimony of the League and their work that they've done and the
NAACP about the minority, important that we keep
majority/minority especially because of the increase in population of
the Hispanic, and that would make me tend to support Map 2. So I'd
like to see if there's a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I just -- can I make a
comment about Map 2?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's get a motion first.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then, Madam Chair, I've
listened to what everybody has had to say, and it seems to me that
there is some consensus here. I'm going to go ahead and make the
motion to approve Map 2 for the redistricting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'll second that.
Commissioner LoCastro, then Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I like a lot of Map 2. The
reservations that I would have with Map 2 -- and maybe it would be
like, David, you and I have talked about before. You squeeze the
balloon on one side, then it pops on the other side. But that
little -- that little square, Riviera Golf Estates and all those
December 14, 2021
Page 62
communities that are currently in District 1, it's not for personal
reasons or anything, but, you know, as we're trying to -- as
Mr. Winge said and even as Commissioner Fiala has said before, you
know, in this room, trying to keep East Naples as much as East
Naples as is -- at least as the commissioner now for District 1, is
important to me. So that little square that I talk about there, that
going to District 4 would be something that I'd prefer to keep in
District 1. And if it meant sort of squeezing the balloon on another
end to find the balance, you know, that would be the tweak.
And then the tweak from 4.1, which I will preface it by saying
the East Naples Civic Association brought a much more aggressive
map, but we had some good conversations over it to see what was
actually possible, so we sort of skinnied it down to 4.1. So I like 4.1
and I like Map 2, but I don't love losing that square there, and so I
didn't know if that could be -- if the balloon could be squeezed in
another area so that -- that's a big chunk of East Naples there. And
so I've gotten a lot of emails from residents in that area.
So much like we're giving a lot of thought to the League of
Women Voters and the NAACP, I also think community people that
have flooded our in-boxes saying, you know, for one reason or
another they like a certain district, so I just want to voice their
concerns or their desires.
So I don't know where you would squeeze the balloon, but if we
went with 4.1 on Map 2 and we also preserve that square, what
could be re-shaded in another district to find that balance of
population where maybe it would still meet all the criteria that it's
not -- you know, there's not 50,000 people in that area, so you
actually could do it that way?
Are you following what I'm saying? So it's basically taking
Map 2, adding 4.1, which is that little jog which we pretty much said
was, you know, a push, but then to preserve those communities and
December 14, 2021
Page 63
that square, as I call it -- and it's not really a square. It's sort of like
the shape of Arizona -- what would have to be re-shaded to find a
balance there? And then, of course, it would have to be acceptable
to the commissioner that was gaining or losing that shading. So I'm
not trying to force feed anything here, but that little -- that little box
is, I think, a big part of District 1, as is the 4.1 jog.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If we could put up Map 2 so that we
understand what we're talking about. Thank you.
One of the things that I did is when I had the meeting with
Mr. Winge, I did call Mr. Weeks afterwards to find out. It appears
that right now today two-thirds of Isle of Collier is my district.
Berkshire Lakes is going to maintain the way it is. But I would
assure everyone -- because I guess I've lived with this divided district
which seems to be what no one wants -- you represent the people.
And, really, you try to represent them fairly. And I did not hear
any -- I did not get any emails about wanting to stay in District 1. I
got the emails from the League of Women Voters and people
supporting it about the importance of the minority/majority issue and
why Map 2 is the preferred map without any jogs in it.
And I'm -- I think that going -- I think you spoke very
eloquently, Commissioner Saunders, going forward, that is what is
important. We're planning for the future. It's 10 years, 10 years of
growth, 10 years of folks coming to Collier County and wanting to
participate in government, and I don't think there's anything more
important than that.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With all due respect, a
division of the subdivisions that's included in Map 2 that's not in Map
4 or Map 4.1 is -- still meets the criteria, still meets the statutory
requisites, and allows for -- and allows for the eastern portion of
Golden Gate Estates, the rural Golden Gate Estates to not be
December 14, 2021
Page 64
subdivided up. I mean, we all know that -- we all know that the
urban service line exists east a mile of 951. That's amongst us. But
the visible line is, in fact, Collier Boulevard or 951 that, when we
trifurcated the Golden Gate Master Plan, that Map 2 still divides
Berkshire, still -- and per my understanding, still divides Isles of
Collier. And I've got -- I've got issues with that. Again, it's
not -- I'm not -- I'm not in support of Map 2, obviously, and
predominantly because of that subdivision of those subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. We do have a motion on the
floor and a second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. The motion is supporting
Map 2. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 3-2. It will be Map 2.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2021-258: PETITION CU-PL20190002859-4111
GREEN BLVD TOWER CU, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL
USE TO ALLOW A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER WITHIN THE
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
2.03.01.B.1.C.12 AND 5.05.09 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A 2.73± ACRE PROPERTY
December 14, 2021
Page 65
LOCATED AT 4111 GREEN BOULEVARD, ALSO DESCRIBED
AS THE EAST 180 FEET OF TRACT 125 OF GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT NO. 26 SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA – ADOPTED
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2021-259: PETITION VA-PL20200000721-4111
GREEN BLVD TOWER VARIANCE, A RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 5.05.09.G.7.B
AND 5.05.09.G.7.C OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
REDUCE THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE OF A 147-
FOOT TALL MONOPINE COMMUNICATION TOWER FROM
73.5 FEET TO 41 FEET FOR THE EASTERN SUNGATE
CENTER CPUD PROPERTY, AND FROM 367.5 FEET TO 131
FEET FOR THE WESTERN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY,
LOCATED AT 4111 GREEN BOULEVARD, ALSO DESCRIBED
AS THE EAST 180 FEET OF TRACT 125, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT NO. 26 SUBDIVISION, IN SECTION 15,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA – ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we have an item here with the
tower which was pulled from the summary agenda. We have 20
minutes or so that we can discuss this, but just so that you know,
Ms. Jahns [sic], we don't want to talk about health because we have
no control over it. So I know you said you had witnesses that had
wanted to testify to the health issues, but that is not our purview.
Our purview right now is a tower that is placed next to residential and
December 14, 2021
Page 66
the concerns that it will affect property values.
MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn. Madam Chair, I do have my RF
engineers with me, and they're actually here to discuss placement and
need, so that way I can better explain to you why we ended up with
the site that we did end up with.
The presentation's going to take -- would likely take longer than
20 minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. JAHN: If you would like to perhaps hear us after your
lunch break, and out of consideration --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It would be the end of the day,
ma'am, because we have two advertised hearings, yeah.
MS. JAHN: Got it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So when you say their presentations,
maybe what -- because this was on summary and now we've pulled it
to the regular agenda based on the comments of residents and their
concerns, can we address that without a full presentation and be very
specific?
MS. JAHN: Yes. I can -- I can chop that down. Let me get
the rest of my materials. Mr. Tom -- Mr. Miller, I do have a
PowerPoint presentation. I don't know if you have it or you need me
to give it to you via thumb drive. Okay. Let me give that, and I
will give a summary presentation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. JAHN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So while we're getting ready for that,
Mr. Klatzkow, let's talk about -- or, Mr. Bosi. What does this board
have control of with these towers? They've got one sited in -- I don't
know if it's in Corkscrew Swamp, but you can see it in Corkscrew
Swamp.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've two applications before you. One
December 14, 2021
Page 67
is for a variance, and one is for conditional use. Just treat this like
any other land-use issues.
The only consideration that I brought up is that you cannot
consider potential health effects to the community because you're just
preempted on that. But it's a typical land-use issue. Is this
compatible from a conditional-use standpoint? Is there enough
buffering from a variance standpoint? Have they demonstrated the
hardship and met the other requirements? And take it as that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
I just wanted to remind or make aware that back in the '40s and
the '50s and the '60s, the way that we treated utilities was we had
regulations that provided exemptions and treated them as -- in a little
different manner than most of your land-use petitions, because you
needed to have electricity, you needed to have gas, you needed to
have lights, you needed to have these things at your house.
Telecommunication towers in '96, the Federal Communication
Act was adopted, and it was decided that that 21st century utility was
going to be provided by private carriers. And so when you look at
this tower, don't just think about it as a tower. Every single carrier
on this tower is required by federal law to provide e911 service for
the surrounding areas. And one of the things that has been
established by the application that's been submitted by Ms. Jahns
[sic] is there has been a demonstrated need and lack of coverage
within this area. And so when you think about it, not only think
about what the tower represents but what it allows for. It allows for
e911 service to be provided within an area. And the way that our
society communicates, telecommunication towers are required.
Now, they're unique in a sense that they're provided by private
providers, but still you have to understand the functionality and the
role they play within today's society and the communication needs of
December 14, 2021
Page 68
the surrounding area. Staff has reviewed the petition with a full
recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission, and
staff is recommending approval as well. I just wanted to put that on
the record before.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. And the
County Manager wisely reminded me that we need to declare any ex
parte communication and do swearing in for anyone who wants to
speak to this. So forgive me on that because that was a mistake on
my part, but -- so let's start with Commissioner McDaniel.
On these two items, do you have any ex parte communication?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Remind me which one of
these two, where -- this was 17E and F?
MR. ISACKSON: 17E and F, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No disclosures for me.
Commissioner LoCastro?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No disclosures.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: None from me either.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So all those who are going to
give testimony, would you rise and raise your right hand, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
MS. JAHN: All right. Good morning. I'm Mattaniah Jahn,
935 Main Street, Suite D1, Safety Harbor, 34695.
I do come before you today with staff and
Planning -- unanimous Planning Commission recommendations of
approval for a 147-foot-tall monopine style communication tower at
4111 Green Boulevard.
Just to clarify a couple of things, we meet all the lot setback
requirements for the Estates zoning. This is one of your first towers
December 14, 2021
Page 69
that is being constructed in the Estates zoning. You recently opened
up the Estates from a code perspective because there were -- there
was a need to provide cellular service in the area. Otherwise, you
run afoul of a portion of federal law called Section 253 where you're
effectively prohibiting service from an entire swathe of county.
There's also a tower-based version of effective prohibition under
Section 332. But -- and part of that, if I understand correctly, with
the way the code was amended is that code amendment also came
from response from your citizens.
As I said, we meet all the code -- all the required setbacks. This
monopine is designed with a fall zone radius, so that way if there was
a structural failure, it would fold over upon itself and be completely
contained on the parent parcel. It's basically another version -- this
is basically the same as the tower that was constructed at the Wilson
Professional Center, just to orient you on what is proposed.
I have two carriers that are anchoring this tower. The first one
is T-Mobile. I have Patrick Keane with T-Mobile to discuss their
need.
The reason that these towers get sited where they are is because
of the network nature of cellular coverage. So because they cover a
very small area and they have to interact with neighboring towers, I
can't just leave the area, or I can't just go down to the landfill. I have
a very small envelope where they have to be, and they will -- and
they'll still be able to work with the other towers in the area and reach
the populations that they need to reach.
The other thing to keep in mind before I go into Mr. Keane's
presentation is that cell towers -- the cellular industry faces a
concurrency challenge, just like you do with roads. So existing
towers are upgraded to handle the ever-increasing traffic load that
comes upon them, but there comes a point where you just can't add
any more lanes to them or they just can't reach the area that needs to
December 14, 2021
Page 70
be served, and that necessitates the need for a new tower.
With those two things in mind, I am going to run very quickly
through it.
So, Mr. Keane, if you would, please, state your name and
address.
MR. KEANE: Good morning. Patrick Keane, 1368 Northwest
86th Way, Coral Springs. I have been sworn.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And what is your profession?
MR. KEANE: I'm a radio frequency engineer with T-Mobile.
MS. JAHN: What is your education?
MR. KEANE: I have a bachelor's of science degree in
electrical engineering.
MS. JAHN: And just real quickly, what are the skills and
methodologies and disciplines that you employee in your daily
analyses as an RF engineer?
MR. KEANE: The analysis we use is network measurements,
real-world measurements with cell phones and also with computer
models to model new installations and existing installations.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And are you familiar with the Naples 6
project? You refer -- it might show up in your records as Ring
6NC1081G.
MR. KEANE: Yes, I'm familiar with that application.
MS. JAHN: And are you familiar with the tower that SBA
applied for 4111 Green Boulevard, Naples, Florida?
MR. KEANE: Yes.
MS. JAHN: And how are you familiar with it?
MR. KEANE: We did the initial what we call search ring
identifying the area of need, supplied that to SBA, the tower
developer. And then once they came with a location that was
amenable, we came up with the equipment design for that tower. So
I'm familiar with the height of the tower, the structure of the tower,
December 14, 2021
Page 71
and the ability to support different types of equipment and antennas.
MS. JAHN: Thank you. And let's talk about the area that
you're trying to serve. First of all, I'm showing you a map that has
red, yellow, and green upon it along with a purple dot and some
green and yellow dots. Do you recognize this map?
MR. KEANE: Yes, I created that map.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And what does this area depict?
MR. KEANE: It's an overhead view of Golden Gate
neighborhoods and areas to the north, surrounding areas.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And how is the area to the north of the
tower developed?
MR. KEANE: It's mostly residential, as I recall, no
commercial, maybe some agricultural, and it's sparsely resided in.
It's not very dense residential areas.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And when you say "dense," you mean
compared to things like mid-rises and high-rises?
MR. KEANE: Maybe -- maybe even dense as -- less dense as
compared to Golden Gate itself.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And down to the south, what do we have
here?
MR. KEANE: That's mostly -- my understanding is mostly
residential and some commercial areas.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And for your purposes, the type of
use -- when people are using their cell phones in these areas, the less
dense residential to the north, which the county understands is the
Urban Estates, and then the area to the south, which the county
understands is Golden Gate City, how are people using these phones?
Where are they using them?
MR. KEANE: Well, I mean, everybody -- I'm assuming
everybody in the room has a cell phone, and we're all familiar with
basic uses. Over the past couple of years, there's been an incredible
December 14, 2021
Page 72
uptick in data, especially, and different devices. Now, people are
using tablets. Many people have multiple devices. And so the
phones are being used for just, I mean, everything. Everybody uses
their phones for making phone calls, texting, appointments, getting
directions, social media, data, you know, videos. So the network
is -- you know, it's being challenged with all the new technologies
that are coming out.
MS. JAHN: All right. And all of those connections, are
they -- they're all the same to the network; is that correct?
MR. KEANE: Everything's a data signal, but some things have
more -- take up more bandwidth. So a video from YouTube would
have much more demand on the network than, say, just someone
sending a text message, but it's all data.
MS. JAHN: What about a Zoom call?
MR. KEANE: Same thing. It's -- video calls are also data, but
it's a higher bandwidth, so it's a -- it's a bigger load on the network.
MS. JAHN: All right. And where are people actually using
their cell phones in these areas given how they're physically
developed? Indoor? Outdoors? In vehicle?
MR. KEANE: All of the above. And, unfortunately, in some
areas to the north where we have a low signal problem, people can't
use their phones in the house. They have to either step outside or,
you know, in the garage.
MS. JAHN: And, Commissioners, this is from the RF package
that is in your record, and this is showing outdoor signal levels. So
if you were to switch this to indoor signal levels, the red areas would
expand; the yellow and green areas would shrink when you look at
this.
Mr. Keane, what are the red areas on your map?
MR. KEANE: The red areas correspond to places where we
have a low signal condition meaning that the towers are too far from
December 14, 2021
Page 73
that spot, wherever you might be within that red area, to support cell
phone services, which includes not being able to use your phone for
voice or data or video calls.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And then the yellow and -- so is the red
area unreliable?
MR. KEANE: It's unreliable for the most part. Outdoors it's
probably okay, but as soon as you walk into a building, you're
probably going to have issues trying to use your phone.
MS. JAHN: And then the yellow area?
MR. KEANE: Yellow is an average area where
it's -- depending on where you are in that -- in those areas, your
phone may work well indoors. You may be able to -- you know, if
you have a good line of sight to the tower, as we call it, your phone
will be able to access advanced services, but maybe the downloaded
speeds might be not as good as if you're closer to a tower.
MS. JAHN: And then the green areas?
MR. KEANE: And the green area is where we would describe
our most reliable coverage; where you should be able to utilize all the
available services to the network.
MS. JAHN: One thing that's not shown on this map is capacity.
Would you please explain the concept of capacity congestion.
MR. KEANE: I think an analogy that was alluded to before
which I'd like to use is a highway where, if you have a lot of cars on a
highway, you start to congest, and the cars will slow down or even
stop. So a network works in a similar manner. If there's many users
on the network, the network's trying to serve all the different
customers under different applications, and it can't -- there's not
enough capacity or not enough lanes in the network for people to get
on.
And the symptoms of that are you may not be able to make a
phone call. You may not be able to download a video. You know,
December 14, 2021
Page 74
you sit there and you're waiting for your directions on your map, and
you get the spinning little hourglass. So it's similar -- in a low-signal
condition is that you can't use your phone effectively.
MS. JAHN: Okay. And, Commissioners, I'd like to draw your
attention to FCC Order 18-133 at Paragraphs 37 through 39. The
FCC actually spoke on this, on the concept that you could create
something that's called a significant gap in coverage. That's
something that's protected under federal law and you get to fix as a
carrier even if you have strong signal coverage, because you could
have strong signal coverage, but if the tower can't actually take your
call, you don't have a connection to the network. You have a gap in
service.
So what the FCC was saying is we don't just think about
coverage. We also think about capacity. And you have those two
things going on rather prominently here.
Mr. Keane, let's talk about neighboring towers, and specifically
let's talk about some of the neighboring towers down in Golden Gate
City, and we'll move on to the other neighboring towers to the north.
What are the four dots to the south here, the two green ones and
the two yellow ones?
MR. KEANE: The green dots represent existing T-Mobile
facilities or towers. They're both flagpoles. And the two yellow
dots are existing towers that are not part of the T-Mobile network that
we considered as an additional T-Mobile tower.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: With all due respect, and excuse me,
what do you mean by "flagpole"?
MS. JAHN: So I'll be happy to talk you through that. Back in
the early 2000s, an effective form of camouflage that we used was
called a flagpole-style communication tower. It's where you put all
the antennas inside radar or RF transparent fiber canasters at the top,
and then you would actually fly an American -- yes.
December 14, 2021
Page 75
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You've probably seen it. The
flagpole at Orange Blossom and Airport Road at the Italian American
Club is one.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Oh.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's all inside of the -- just
something -- it's kind of a landmark.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, it is.
MS. JAHN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Everybody's like, what a
great flag.
MS. JAHN: So that design, that's a form of camouflage that we
used to be able to use. Unfortunately --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We used to be able to?
MS. JAHN: Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Keane, would you please talk about your antennas and
whether you can make use of flagpole-style communication towers.
MR. KEANE: Since the introduction of 4G and 5G
technologies over the past couple of years, the equipment sizes are
getting large enough that they don't fit inside of these enclosures, you
know, canisters, as we call them. So in order for us to be able to
provide advanced services, we need a different type of profile for
these towers. And, in fact, throughout the South Florida market that
we do the engineering in, we're trying to get off of all these existing
sort of stealth towers because we can't fit our equipment on them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, then, so the burning question of
the moment is, what do these towers look like now? What are you
building there?
Unless I hear anything from my colleagues, I think we're fairly
convinced that it's needed.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A big pine tree.
MS. JAHN: Yes. It looks like the pine tree that you would see
December 14, 2021
Page 76
at Wilson Professional Center. So this is the elevation from the plan
set, Sheet Z-3. And so what happens is the tower is engineered to
support -- to support a canopy of branches. So it comes from the
factory designed to support these. They're not tacking something on
in the field. Those branches are also hurricane rated. They actually
sway in the breeze, and they have foliage on them.
That creates this canopy that extends from the existing tree line
up to the top of the monopole. The antennas themselves are placed
on mounts that are nestled within the canopy itself. Those antennas
are painted green and actually covered with socks that have the
foliage on them.
One thing that SBA committed to beyond just canopy density,
the starting height, and the width to make sure that the antennas
would be concealed within the canopy itself was that there would be
periodic renewals of the foliage. Your Planning Commission
wanted to make sure that would happen. It's really just stating the
obvious. The industry already does that, but they've committed to
that on the record as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. If you would like to speak,
you need to sign a -- okay.
Are there any other questions? Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you. You're
representing one carrier. Who else will be allowed to be on this
tower? There are multiple carriers of cell service in our community,
and T-Mobile's not one of the major ones per se.
MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn again. Commissioner McDaniel,
I'm actually representing two carriers today. I also have Maria
Jimenez with Verizon. They will be on the collocation immediately
below T-Mobile's. So they will both be on the monopine
immediately. Additionally, SBA has put in the record for the zoning
approval an affidavit that they will make the tower available to any
December 14, 2021
Page 77
other co-locators at market value.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that was where I was
going was, structurally, will the tower accommodate more than just
one carrier? How many carriers? Where do you tip over with
capacity? Because at some stage too many -- too many things
blowing in the wind will cause it to go over. So how many carriers?
Because if I understand correctly, one of the deficiencies in our code,
in our Land Development Code, is we never -- we never actually
thought about having an independent tower company with multiple
carriers. We all just assumed it was going to be the carrier
themselves that was -- that was going to be the owner and operator of
those towers.
MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn again. And, yes, when your code
was written, that's how the industry worked. T-Mobile would build
a tower for T-Mobile. Verizon would build one for Verizon. They
wouldn't actually share a tower. This tower will be -- this monopine
will be designed to collocate all four carriers if they need it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So it does have that capacity
for up to four carriers?
MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. And that's built into -- that's on the plans
that you would be approving.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if I recall, there were no
guy wires on this?
MS. JAHN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is a guy wireless.
MS. JAHN: My apologies. There will be no guy, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Do we want to hear any
more, or are we -- can we open for the public to speak, and then go
into discussion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I certainly would like to hear
December 14, 2021
Page 78
from the public, and then --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good. All right.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we just have the one speaker,
Ana Aleman.
MS. ALEMAN: Yes. My name is Ana Aleman.
And they're very deceiving, because they said it was going to go
on Green Street [sic]. It is not on Green Street. It is on 15th
Southwest. If it were Green Street, it would be directly -- it's right
behind, right where residential properties are. Not only that, did you
call the civil Corps of Engineers, because there is --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. Any questions you need to
direct them to the Chair.
MS. ALEMAN: They should call the civil Corps of Engineers,
because there is an owl nesting there. So that, they should consider
that, too. But they are very misleading as where they're going to
place that antenna or that one monster.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MS. ALEMAN: And that's all I have to say. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
All right. So the public part of this hearing is closed. I think
we need to address a location, please. Can we have a map?
Mr. Bosi, can you confirm it, please.
MS. JAHN: Madam Chair, as a point of order, will I be
afforded an opportunity to rebut?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. Yes, you will.
MS. JAHN: We have three aerials in our PowerPoint, so I can
take you from far to close. So this is the far aerial, and you can see
to the north is the Urban Estates, and to the south is Golden Gate
City. The yellow arrow points at the parcel that we are discussing.
That's the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and that is on the very edge of
December 14, 2021
Page 79
Estates-zoned land. It's actually up against a parcel that's used as a
post office. And the parcel immediately to the west of us, which I
believe is owned by the member of the public who spoke, is an
Estates-zoned mixed-use parcel with the southern portion -- the
southern at least half, if not two-thirds, being a business, and you'll
see that as we zoom in.
Again, this is the parcel in question. And one thing to keep in
mind is you'll see the northern portion of that parcel is wooded.
That's a preserve that, back in the day before you required
conservation easements, you actually required the Fraternal Order of
Eagles to preserve that back in -- I believe the code for provisional
use is '88, but don't quote me on that. But that northern portion's not
going to be disturbed.
And then here's the closest view. Again, you can see the arrow
pointing to the approximate location of the monopine, and then you
can also see that parcel to the west. It has vegetation on it as well,
and you can see that the southern portion is a nonresidential use.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. And as
you can see, the tower has been placed as close as we can possibly
get it to the adjoining eastern boundary, which is a commercial
property. And there is an FP&L substation that also sits to the north
as well. So we felt it was an appropriate location, and with the fall
zone that's provided for to make sure that it's going to collapse upon
itself, it doesn't present the safety hazards. And like I said, Planning
Commission and staff is recommending approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, where is the substation on
this, please?
MR. BOSI: Right in this area (indicating).
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And it's another commercial activity --
December 14, 2021
Page 80
MS. JAHN: It's part of the substation.
MR. BOSI: Part of the substation as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions -- so any other questions for the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Jahn, the floor is yours.
MS. JAHN: All right. I will bring you back -- one thing I
want to bring your attention to here is that if we were to shift any
further south, I would need to ask for a variance to the south. So the
way that it's positioned, we are only asking for two variances; one to
the west from that mixed -- that Estates-zoned mixed-developed
property, and one to the east from the post office, because they were
trying to shift further to the east to provide as much separation as
possible from the west.
You may have seen this came up in the news. It was on NBC-2
as well as your ABC station. One of the things that T-Mobile
estimates is that tower will reach out to 11,000 citizens and provide
coverage to that area.
This is just a simple box diagram just showing a square box
approximation. It's not a full map of the coverage area that would be
affected. It also doesn't account for the capacity strain. One of the
things that Mr. Keane was talking about was the fact that there's only
so much traffic, and if he had had more time to develop his
testimony, he would have discussed that the two towers to the south
are traffic constrained. So removing traffic stress from those towers
will make them perform better in Golden Gate City.
But this will serve -- this will reach out to a coverage area of
11 -- over 11,000 people according just to census data population.
Let's see. Army Corps of Engineers, so there's actually an
environmental study. The support research that's used to create
a -- what's called a National Environmental Policy Act Report in the
December 14, 2021
Page 81
file, and that showed that there would be no impact to environmental
resources. So I know that was brought up here, but there will not be
an impact to that.
I also offer Ms. Jimenez if you'd like to hear Verizon's RF need.
They're running into similar problems; lack of capacity and also just
lack of coverage.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think all of us who either has
T-Mobile or Verizon understand lack of capacity in our use. We
understand that.
MS. JAHN: Understood. Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. JAHN: And, of course, you know, that's critical today
when you just look up in Hillsborough County over 80 percent of 911
calls come from wireless phones. We've cut the cord, and we use
wireless connections as our replacement to our wired lines. And all
the connectivity we used to have that way we now are doing over the
air.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are we almost ready to wrap up
here?
MS. JAHN: I am done, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
MS. JAHN: I'm available for any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I just -- I mean, I think
it's fair to just address the citizen's, you know, questions about the
actual location. You know, there's obviously a discrepancy there.
Is there an owl that we need to be concerned about, you know, and
anything else that you heard from the citizen who's probably
representing, I would hope, the feedback from other neighbors. So,
you know, what -- do you care to comment on that?
MS. JAHN: Yes. So the NEPA report actually looks for
December 14, 2021
Page 82
endangered species. They actually send an environmental consultant
to the property to inspect it. So that research has already been done
and addressed.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What did the report say?
Was there any -- was there any environmental, you know, wildlife
discovered, or it says nothing of interest or significance? What was
the short version of that report?
MS. JAHN: The short answer is that it's not impacting any
habitats or endangered species. So you might have -- you might
have some type -- there's trees to the north. I'm sure birds make use
of them, but we're not impacting any of --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Do you have that report?
MS. JAHN: It's actually in the record, so you have it, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And then secondly,
and we'll all take a look at it at the break -- is the location. I mean,
you know, you've got a citizen that lives there that's saying you're
sort of cryptic as to where exactly it's going. So I mean, this isn't
rocket science. It's either going on a certain street or it's not. So
what's your rebuttal to that? Is she right or you're right? Or, Mike,
you know, you comment. Where are we putting it?
MR. BOSI: The documentation as to the location is well
documented within the application. There's no ambiguity at all.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So -- but, I mean,
more specifically, so the citizen's comment that it's not where we're
saying it is is incorrect? I mean -- and I'm not calling anybody a liar.
I'm just trying to make sure we know we're all on the same sheet of
music here.
MR. BOSI: Where that arrow was showing the closest in view,
that's where the tower is planned to be located.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And what street is that?
Because she mentioned a very specific street.
December 14, 2021
Page 83
MR. BOSI: She mentioned the street, 15th Street, which is
behind -- is behind the parcel. Green Boulevard is the frontage road.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. You know, this is not
a new subject for us, and we're going to have a lot of discussions.
I've already been on the phone. I did a zoom with the folks from
another carrier -- I won't say who they were --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's coming.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- recently, but it's coming.
And it's -- at the end of the day, it's a necessary evil. So I -- it's met
our Planning Commission. They have to do the permitting. They
have to do everything that they have to do, so I'm going to make a
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that motion.
All right. I guess I better say that the hearing is closed, and we
have a motion on the floor and a second to approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have a comment on my
own motion, if I may. If I may.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the comment is, I
actually -- when I was speaking with -- and it's for us to discuss at
some stage, but we have a lot of government-owned land, county
property, fire departments, school district, and such, and I think that
those ought to be explored in earnest first before we start doing these
things.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You know, that's a very good -- and
this won't be part of this discussion today, but it's something that I
think maybe we need some education in terms of is there a possibility
that a tower that's being planned can be discussed, if it is the will of
this board, that we look at publicly-owned land first. Could it be
December 14, 2021
Page 84
brought to planning to discuss before that location is actually set.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I actually -- when I -- in the
Zoom -- and, again, this is off subject for the actual vote. But when
I had the Zoom with the other carrier, I actually was supplying them
with a list of all of the county's own lands everywhere so that they
can be moved up on the radar to fit into their geographic -- because
they all know where their coverages lapse and where the lane and
bandwidth is not sufficient. So that's in the works, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, would that be possible?
Do you think that would be appropriate to do that?
MR. BOSI: I think it's appropriate, and just to let you know,
before the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was amended to expand
where these telecommunication towers can come, because the
citizens had said it is a true problem in the Estates, safety service
facilities, EMS stations, sheriff's station, fire stations were the only
locations that telecommunications towers could be developed within
Golden Gate Estates.
So our code actually promotes that type of activity, that synergy
of safety service government-owned facilities and telecommunication
towers, because it does help the sitting [sic] and some of these other
issues, because we can normally kind of contain it within our
properties.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Ms. Jahns [sic], in the process of
planning for a tower, would it be appropriate for your industry that
you represent to contact the county that it's being placed in ahead of
actually deciding where that place is?
MS. JAHN: So, Chair Taylor, I've been working on towers in
this county since 2015, and I have worked on at least one site that
was on county property. I've worked with your County Attorney
real estate staff, and I believe you -- while there is a leasing
mechanism for your staff, I do believe that they felt a touch
December 14, 2021
Page 85
hamstrung in their process. I don't know if you have -- over years
there has been efforts to look at county properties at different times,
and your county staff is pragmatic but also very zealous in protecting
the potential future use of your properties, and part of that just comes
from a lack of guidance of a site being useful for a
telecommunications site. So there is a mechanism there. It might
be able to be streamlined as your staff group continues to work hard
and do good work for you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a consensus up here that we
have staff take a look at that --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- going forward? And, basically,
no, just to really look at it to see if there's a way, a pathway. It's
coming. There's more coming, and maybe we need to streamline it a
little bit so that staff feels more empowered to look at it and come
back and say, you know, maybe this is a possibility; what do you
think? You know, that kind of discussion, which I think they feel
constrained doing right now. Am I --
MR. BOSI: No. I mean, I think it's clear guidance, and we
would, you know, work with the real estate professional -- or the real
estate team and try to identify if we do have government-owned
assets within the search ring from an individual carrier, then we can
direct it that way and see -- and try to create, you know, that better
relationship and, you know, take advantage of our own land, our own
inventory of land.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It just depends on whether it's in a
ring that you're looking for.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MS. JAHN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
December 14, 2021
Page 86
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely. It has to be
coordination. Forgive me. I didn't mean to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, but that's a good suggestion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It has to be in coordination
with the carriers and their service and their bandwidths. But, again,
there's a whole up, down, if you will, with regard to the allowances
by having a tower, and then the expansion of the bandwidth and the
other ones and so on, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's a good suggestion,
Commissioner.
All right. So do we have consensus for that here? Okay.
There's a nod. It's consensus. And so we have a motion on the
floor to accept the application 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. Thank you.
MS. JAHN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I want to thank Ms. Ana for
coming and spending the time with us today.
MS. ALEMAN: Thank you.
Item #11D
DIRECT STAFF TO EVALUATE AND BRING BACK A REPORT
ON A POTENTIAL ANIMAL SERVICES COLLABORATION
December 14, 2021
Page 87
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF
NAPLES - MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO COLLABORATE
WITH THE HUMANE SOCIETY – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings you to your
11:30 time-certain. It's 11D. It's a recommendation to direct staff
to evaluate and bring back a report on a potential animal services
collaboration between the county and the Humane Society of Naples.
Mr. Dan Rodriguez will start -- begin the presentation.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chair, County Manager. Thank you for the opportunity to bring
forth to you a request from the Humane Society to look at a potential
or possibility of a partnership. And as many of you know and many
of you have been involved in the past, this hasn't been a secret.
There's been an interest to see what can we do to partner and further
develop our relationship with the Humane Society.
So today we have Sarah Baeckler Davis, the executive director
of the Humane Society, who's going to give you just a short overview
of her proposal. In addition to that, we're going to have your interim
director, Marcy Perry, just give you a short presentation on the
current activities of DAS and kind of give you a situational report of
how we're doing, and at the end we'll get your recommendation to
look at that partnership.
So with that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- Sarah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, Mr. Miller, how many public
speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: I need to recount to make sure, but I think it's
nine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
December 14, 2021
Page 88
MS. DAVIS: Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman and Commissioners, for inviting me to be here today.
As everyone knows, I am Sarah Baeckler Davis. I have been
executive director of Humane Society Naples for the past four years
now.
Before I dive in, I just wanted to point out that I have our current
and incoming board chairs in the back of the room as well as
members of our senior leadership staff. So we have our director of
animal care, our medical director, our director of development and
marketing -- and who am I missing? -- our director of community
services here as well. So they're available to answer any questions
that I might not be able to answer.
Commissioners, what you have in front of you is our take on
what HSN might be able to offer the county in terms of animal
services. If the two agencies were to be combined in some way,
HSN could provide a higher standard of care to the animals in our
community, we could consolidate a host of services under one roof,
improve the quality of those services being offered, and allow the
county to provide a service without having to be an expert on it.
What you've got in front of you in the packet in our proposal is
20 or so pages of my thinking on this topic. I've had the opportunity
to meet with many of you personally either recently over the past
couple few years as well as many of your senior staff, current and
past.
What you have really represents what I believe is a consensus
amongst your staff and our leadership here in terms of what we might
be able to do in partnering between these two agencies.
I'll just make two quick points, and then I'd love to answer your
questions if you have any about what you've got in front of you.
The first is just a reminder that what you have in front of you is
simply a recommendation from staff to proceed with these
December 14, 2021
Page 89
conversations. Obviously, no one's asking you to vote today on
whether HSN formalizes its partnership with the county in any
specific way. What I gave you is our jumping-off point for further
conversations. None of it is a deal breaker. We're happy to discuss
other ideas.
But, again, what you have in front of you is a recommendation
from staff. I've worked with Mr. Rodriguez and many others, and I
believe that we do already have consensus here on the fact that it's a
good idea, there's some synergy here, and we should proceed in
talking about what that looks like big picture.
The second point that I really -- that it's important for me to
make is that this is not a vote or a competition between the two
agencies. I do not view us as competitors in this community. I
highly value the relationship that HSN has with DAS. I work with
Marcy and as our staff do day to day. We're constantly partnering
together.
The question here is, again, not a choice between the agencies
but what could we do if we formalized this partnership and how
much more impact we could add with a public/private partnership
and some private investment in the animal services work that's going
on here.
So with that, I would love to hear any questions or hear any
concerns you might have.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No questions. Thank you very
much. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Since this is just really for some
direction for staff and in the interest of time, I mean, I'll go ahead and
say I'm not convinced that this is necessarily all a good idea, because
I think there's some aspects of what animal services does that's
probably better a governmental function, but, I mean, just to ask staff
December 14, 2021
Page 90
to go ahead and look at what they're proposing is probably the right
thing to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, I mean, I would say let's just
go ahead and direct staff to do that unless there's burning questions.
I don't know that -- I'd want to hear from the staff after they've done
their analysis anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I would move that we direct
staff to go ahead and start this process.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would agree with that,
just -- it's just exploring whether there's anything there, and there may
not be.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have a big agenda today. I'm
just trying to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, we do. So for those who want
to speak, we want to hear from you, but know that this is exploratory,
only exploratory. So we have nine speakers, and we need to hear
from them.
MS. DAVIS: Some of them, excuse me, may be my staff who
can yield their time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I think they're
requesting that we move this forward. We're going to move it
forward. I mean, there's going to be plenty of opportunity to support
it or object to it once we get down to looking at what the staff has
prepared. So I'm just trying to avoid doing this twice.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I also think in the interest of
time, if some of your staff would yield their time, because they would
just echo what you'd say. I also know that the other citizens that are
December 14, 2021
Page 91
in the audience, I don't want to say I can speak for them, but I've met
with a lot of them, so I know what they're going to say at the podium.
So I'll just summarize a couple of things.
Your proposal, it was very complete, very aggressive in certain
areas as far as, you know, a combination. But just so you know what
I hope happens when we all vote, because nobody up here thinks it's
a bad idea that we're giving the staff direction to talk. But what I
would like to see is proposals that come back that are collaboration
and cooperation, not absorption.
I think the two organizations have similar and cohesive missions
but quite a bit different ones as well. So I think what the bulk of the
time that I'd be looking for isn't how we can make the organizations
into one. And that's not necessarily what you were saying, but
there's a lot of cooperation that can happen where there's, you know,
more efficiencies and whatnot, but also the county has a very specific
task when it comes to animal welfare and enforcing our ordinances
and things like that. The Humane Society has a bit of a different
mission.
So I hope what comes back out of the conversation is a very
comprehensive discussion, not so much about how we can make both
organizations into one thing and we sort of, you know, pass off DAS
to Humane Society -- and I'm not saying that's what you're saying,
but I know that the people in the audience that care about animal
welfare the same that I do, I think most of them, if not all of them in
here, feel that there are very specific missions between the two. And
I'll echo it by saying I couldn't be more proud at what Dan -- where's
Dan? Are you still here? -- Dan Rodriguez has done, what Marcy
has done, what our volunteers have done, and I'd like to see us
continue to make DAS strong and have some teeth in our ordinances
and whatnot. And if you can help us do that, great, but I'm not a fan
of delegating our responsibilities to DAS.
December 14, 2021
Page 92
I always used to say in the military, you can task the task, but
you don't delegate the responsibility, and we have very specific
responsibilities in the county that I would like to see improved by us
with your help.
So, I mean -- and I think that's what a lot of the folks in the
audience are going to say that care about animal welfare as well; that
DAS has a very specific mission, and they would like to see it, you
know, more balanced. And we could benefit from your help but not
necessarily your, for lack of a better term, takeover.
MS. DAVIS: Sure. And I appreciate that, and we can bring
back all kinds of models for you-all to consider after further
discussion. HSN is here to leverage its resources for the county, and
we want to be able to do that in a way that makes the best possible
impact on the animals. There's plenty of models, as I said, for
various type of partnership, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Just to clarify,
Commissioner LoCastro, I haven't heard the words, except for you,
multiple times about takeover. This is --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so I want to make it very
clear this is not an effort, not perceived, not discussed, and not part of
the discussion of a takeover whatsoever. This is --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I agree.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- a collaborative effort and
how can we become stronger by working together as opposed to
autonomously.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I agree.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I want that, along
with these discussions, to actually be promoted as we go, so...
December 14, 2021
Page 93
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so I think now we're going to
move to public comment, but I would like to say one comment to our
public speakers. We are not going to sit here and talk about -- no,
no. I hope that we don't get into personalities, because that's not
what we're talking about. We're talking about the concept of DAS
and the Humane Society. And as we go forward, I liked what you
said about tasks and delegation. And I think it's very important that
we keep this conversation as -- on that level. The past is the past.
We're going to go forward. The issue is how we go forward, and we
welcome your comments, and so --
Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we're going to ask the speakers
to use both podiums so that we can move a little quickly. Your first
speaker is Al Schantzen. He will be followed by Shanna Davies. If
you do want to waive your speaking, please let me know when I call
your name. Shanna Davies, if you'll queue up at the other podium.
Thank you.
Mr. Schantzen.
MR. SCHANTZEN: For the record, Al Schantzen. Thank you
for this opportunity, Madam Chair.
You started today with the invocation by Reverend Duncan.
Fantastic invocation. I just want to bring out Proverbs 21.5, the
plans of the diligent lead surely to that of the plenty, okay, and that's
for our critters.
I'd like to keep this matter constructive, noncritical, and for the
benefit of all the vertebrae. Your attention to this is a necessary
discussion. During the -- during this activity, the partnership
between the government and private or non-profit organizations is
essential and for the best interest of the citizens of our county and the
critters that we take care of.
December 14, 2021
Page 94
The points I'd like you to consider during this process of
discussion with staff and the exploratory options that you
have -- good options that you have in front of you are the logistics,
which include the facilities, the location, the equipment, paid,
nonpaid personnel, i.e., the volunteers, of which I am one. I'd like to
keep a close eye on the regulatory, the Florida Statutes, whether they
be -- and the county ordinance that goes with it, and the required
oversight that we as county government have over the control and the
Sunshine Laws and the decision-making process that goes in it with
nongovernment entities so that we have open -- and which keeps the
rumors and all this other stuff down, which is the transparency.
And I'd like to have the inclusiveness of those with skin in the
game, which is the volunteers, keeping them abreast and -- because
they're a workforce to be dealt with that their objective is only the
animals.
So with this involvement, you involve the DAS advisory board,
the DAS staff, the DAS volunteers, some of which of your volunteers
have in excess of 10 years’ time and grade doing this kind of
voluntary work, which amazes me. And the legal and regulatory
liaisons that go with it and other groups and organizations that have
interest in having the same subsidized opportunity, so you've got to
look at all the players in the game. And the best-management
practices to serve the constituents.
And in closing, I'd like to err on the side of caution before
subcontracting out departments because the task is deemed
challenging. We need to rise to the challenge of taking care of what
we are responsible for because in the end we don't want to dismantle
anything. That's been a great no kill shelter. Appreciate it. Thank
you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Shanna Davies. She'll be
followed by -- and forgive me, I'm having trouble with handwriting
December 14, 2021
Page 95
here -- Meredith Melon, Maloon.
MS. MALOON: Waive.
MR. MILLER: You're going to waive? Then Dave Freenan.
MR. FREENAN: I'll waive. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: All right. So Shanna Davies will be followed
by Maggie Kemp. Ms. Davies.
MS. DAVIES: Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair
and Commissioners. My name is Shanna Davies, and I'm the current
board president of Humane Society Naples.
I'm -- you know, I don't want to waste everyone's time and in
consideration of that, I just want to reiterate on behalf of the Board of
directors of Humane Society Naples our gratitude for this
opportunity. We really -- we have been discussing this for years
now, and we really look forward to a potential partnership with the
Domestic Animal Services. And, you know, our overall goal is
focused on the animals and raising the level and quality of animal
care in this community.
So I just wanted to thank you again for your consideration, and
that would be all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Maggie Kemp. She'll be
followed by Tom Kepp.
MS. KEMP: I guess when I read this business plan --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you state your name for the
record.
MS. KEMP: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Maggie Kemp.
I was just a little concerned. The first thing that really caught
my eye was the comparison with HSN talking about their very low
euthanasia rate. It is very low, and it should be very low because
they are not an open-admission facility. And in the past 10 years
since Darcy was here and now as we're continuing along with Marcy,
December 14, 2021
Page 96
it has basically turned into a no kill shelter with the exception of
animals that are coming in that are sick and injured and neglected and
abused.
And I'm not finding anything -- and I know this is just a
springboard for conversation, but I'm just finding that minimized, and
I think that the comparison between their very low rate and what
DAS accomplished is kind of laughable.
The vet care, I mean, right now the last two-week report I
looked at, DAS has 400 animals under their care both in their facility
and in foster care. We have one vet over there that's taking care of
all of them and, again, difficult cases: Wounds, mange, sickness,
you know, old, tiny. You know, I think he's doing a great job. I
would hope that the Humane Society can do better with their five
veterinarians.
I find it interesting that a number of volunteers have expressed
frustration to me that when the Humane Society does take cats to
adopt out through the transfer program, that they're requesting that
they're already being fixed and neutered. Okay. You've got five
vets. DAS has one. You say you want to partner, and you want to
do more. Well, why can't you start now? You're saying you have
23 million in assets, start now. I think it's a great discussion to have.
As far as them moving into the enforcement and control,
if -- and it does look to me -- I'm sorry, it looks like an absorption. It
looks like an acquisition. It does not look like a merger -- you'd
have a monopoly. HSN would have a monopoly. Who do they
answer to? Nobody. They're going to be enforcing people that are
running other very small nonprofits in this county that are doing the
really tough boots on the ground out there in the community getting
dirty, getting scratched, getting bitten, and they're just -- it's a conflict
of interest, in my opinion.
I think that's all I have to say other than I commend Darcy
December 14, 2021
Page 97
previously, and Marcy and what Dan are doing, and I hope it
continues going forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam chair, your final speaker is Tom Kepp.
Because he's been ceded additional time from three speakers, I need
to confirm their presence. Patricia Titus.
MS. TITUS: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Kathie Donzanti.
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: And Quenby Broistman.
MR. BROISTMAN: Here.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Kemp will have a total of 12 minutes.
MR. KEPP: Good to see you again.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: There's no way I want to hear
Tom speak for 12 minutes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, I want to
run the block.
MR. KEPP: Give me the right answers, and I won't.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Kepp, you are a legend in this
community, and I think we all know what you do.
MR. KEPP: That depends on what list you're looking on, but,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, we're moving it forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we are moving it forward. So,
you know what, and I'm going to cut in and I'm going to ask you, tell
us what we have to look for. Tell staff what they need to look out
for, because they're all coming together in the room.
MR. KEPP: You tell me as a commission and as the county,
when you create these positions at the Domestic Animal
Service -- like I'll give you an example. You're -- a long time ago
we used to have a position of -- and I've brought this up before to you
December 14, 2021
Page 98
guys, everybody else. We're starting to -- we have a -- back in
20 -- in 2008, we tried to get into the ordinances -- and we did it
again in 2012, and we did it again in 2017 -- a very simple ordinance
change. And I think it's coming to you in January. And, basically,
we have two types of breeders here. We have a commercial breeder
and a hobby breeder.
A hobby breeder can give their animals away, they can do
everything, and here's what -- because you know how much I spend
in the field. A week ago Saturday I was in Immokalee, and in one
morning I found 22 puppies in four different breeding situations. I
turned one of them in. We won't get far into that. The other two
I'm working with to spay and neuter their animals and the mother and
all the puppies. I've got two litter of puppies at Gulf Coast right
now, which they'll keep the puppies. We'll spay the moms and take
them back. You know about those programs. I've told you.
This is going to go in front of the -- you know, what this new
ordinance will say is even if you're a hobby breeder, you have to keep
these puppies eight weeks, because what happens is, as soon as they
start crawling, people give them away, and it's bad for their health,
everything.
Also they will have to have a certificate of health on each
puppy, which costs them about $150 each, and they're not going to be
able to sell them for 50 bucks or a 100 bucks if they're required to do
this. You know, they're going to -- so it's going to help with the
population.
And this is the problem for -- I'll preach forever. If we could
control that -- I believe in a new building, but if we could control
that, we're going to have a lot less animals in five or 10 years if we
start tomorrow and do this.
So here's my -- here's where I go with this. What is going to
happen to the 50 -- like, in 2020, we brought in 50 -- SNIP brought in
December 14, 2021
Page 99
50 strays from our rural areas. And what is -- who's going to take
those? Most of them are pit bulls, and so -- and everybody wants to
be no kill. I hate to tell you, you can't be no kill if you're going to
take the animals that I find off the street on a regular basis.
It's -- and not work on fixing the problem from the start.
So in other words, who's going to take those once -- and here's
where I was going. I jump around, as you know. So, anyway, we
used to have a position at DAS that -- it was an officer that did
nothing but inspect and work on the people with permits. If I'm not
mistaken, that position was never filled, and it went away. What's
going to happen if you give this to Domestic Animal Services? And
we have -- and if what we think will happen, which may not be --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You mean the Humane Society.
MR. KEPP: I'm sorry, the Humane Society. What's going to
happen in five years when all these positions are dissolved and
they're not doing their job or they come back for a new contract and
they say, oh, but we can't take in strays, you know, and we need
$2 million more? You have -- you have basically demolished -- or
broken down the whole system that you have in place, and it's not
coming back. You know it, and I know it. So once this is gone, the
county -- but you'll still be responsible, because this is happening in
Collier County, and SNIP will still be out there, unless I'm gone, and
hopefully we'll have the other people doing this. We're still going to
hold people responsible, and you know that I do. I mean -- and I
don't get personal about it. It's just this is the way it is. So, you
know, this is the county's responsibility.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Mr. Kepp, so what you're saying
is, when they go into the room together, if we don't address the issue
of hobby breeders as versus professional breeders, the game is lost.
MR. KEPP: Well, that's -- well, that's going to be addressed in
January to you. You're going to have -- you're going to be voting on
December 14, 2021
Page 100
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But then we need the staffing.
MR. KEPP: My point is, I'm trying to show that there's -- yeah,
these positions are going to be broken down. So once this is done
five years from now, it's not coming back. It's a done deal once it's
done. These positions are -- you're not coming back and rebuild
Domestic Animal Services.
And my point is, even regardless of that, who's going to take all
these animals that we find in the streets? Because that's what we do.
We're out there on a daily basis. I'm out in these rural areas, you
know, probably four days a week most of the time. Thursday is
another one of our bus days. We're taking -- I think I've got 20 dogs
that we're spaying or neutering, you know, in Immokalee. We're
bringing the bus to Immokalee to Winn-Dixie like we do every
month. We have our clinic over here.
But, again, it's still -- I'm trying to show by, like, a week ago
Saturday, there was 22 puppies that I found one morning. And I
know of three other litters besides that. This problem is just going to
continue to multiply. And if you give it to them, who's going to take
these stray animals? Because they're out there everywhere.
And so what happens to those animals? I mean --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's a good point. And I'm
organizing you, sir. So anything else? I mean, that's a very good
point.
MR. KEPP: I need somebody to organize me, ask me
questions. I like that.
Well, again, I'll make that offer again. Anybody in this room
that wants to come out to the field with me -- and I think Councilman
Taylor -- Council Lady Taylor, you -- the meeting that we had about
the pet store, you said, we all owe it to the community and Mr. Kepp
to come out in the field with him, and I sent an email to the
December 14, 2021
Page 101
county -- the County Manager, which was Mr. Ochs at the time,
County Attorney, Darcy at the time, and said -- and I copied
everybody on this commission, and I said, I invite you guys to come
out in the field with me, and then after that every week after that I
invite a separate commissioner to come out, and nobody ever did, and
I have those emails. So Mr. LoCastro, before he was elected, he
came out into the field with me, and Mr. McDaniel will meet with
me, and he's out there on a regular basis anyway, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't want to go until the
field with you. I'm just saying.
MR. KEPP: So my point is, is once you give this away, it's
gone, and they do not -- I'm sorry, but I was on the Humane Society
board for eight years, and then I was on the advisory board until it got
too contentious between me and Amanda Townsend, and they finally
asked me to get off of it.
But this is -- you know, I have a history with this, and I know
what I'm -- it sounds terrible, but I know what I'm talking about, and I
know the issues out there. And I know what the Humane Society
used to do. I know what they've done the last four years. And I just
find it kind of ironic that this is coming up when you started talking
about putting $6 million into a new building and on and on.
And I don't think that it's in the best interest of this commission
or this county to relinquish this control over this organization. And I
think it needs to be improved, and I think that your -- I think you are
making some improvements, and I'm very happy about that, but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First of all, thanks for your
work in the community. So, you know, we're maybe saying some
things tongue in cheek but, you know, you're out there in the mud.
And I got to ride around with you as a hopeful commissioner, and
December 14, 2021
Page 102
now that ride has proved to be very valuable, so I thank you for your
comments. But to get back to what Commissioner Solis said, we're
not voting on anything.
MR. KEPP: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If it's what should happen, it's
a matter of just voting on discussion.
But let me just close by saying this, so I can correct the record.
And not to -- I'm not sitting here and contradicting, you know,
Commissioner McDaniel, but I want to clarify what I said.
So, Sarah, I want you to listen closely. You sent us a 12-page
document with your timeline, your strategy, your plan, your
suggestions. And it was said here that nobody has said the word
"takeover" except for me, and it was repeated that I said it several
times. So I'm going to read a part of Page 5 for the record. This is
my concern.
So when you get into discussions with everyone, and you're a
part of the discussions, and other people, this is what concerns me,
okay. So I'm not wrong here, okay. I didn't misspeak, and I didn't
make up the word "takeover."
To be most expeditious -- your words -- in getting started, the
Humane Society of Naples could take over operation and
management of the current DAS facility at a reduced cost with DAS
staff remaining employed by the county for several months.
Humane Society of Naples director of animal care would lead
this effort personally. This would ensure a smooth transition -- that's
what a takeover is -- of animal services available to the community
and allow time for the complex -- for the complex assimilation of
county employees into a private enterprise. So that's on Page 5.
I realize it's just a proposal. You're not saying you want to do
this. This is the part -- the takeover piece that I want -- that I didn't
make up, that I just wanted to make sure isn't the bulk of the
December 14, 2021
Page 103
conversation, because I agree with Mr. Kemp that -- and others that
we're trying to collaborate and cooperate, not necessarily absorb and
take over and have the county staff under HSN's guidance for a
couple or several months, as what's in here. So that was my -- my
point.
So it's not a word I made up. It's on Page 5 of your 12-page
document. If anybody would have read it, they would know I
wouldn't have made up the word "takeover," because I just read what
you said. That's where I have some concern to make sure that the
conversation is valuable in looking at where we can combine medical
things, vets, other things that maybe we can benefit from.
But that whole paragraph there, I think, goes above and beyond
what this commissioner and what a lot of people in the audience
would be looking for. So that was my -- that was my clarification,
you know, of the point.
So I look forward to hearing the discussion that comes back,
because that's all we're voting on is to have a conversation. But that
paragraph on Page 5 is something that I think goes above and
beyond, and they're not words that I have made up, and it has been
said were before so -- but I appreciate the conversation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Kepp.
MR. KEPP: I wasn't really going to bring this up, but I think I
will. I had a conversation -- I used to be on the Humane Society
board for years. And I started going out in the field, and I would
find puppies with ringworm, and they would take my animals, a lot of
them. And this was when Michael was the director.
And one -- just -- not long before Michael left, I brought a little
chihuahua in that was in tremendously bad shape, was found in the
middle of the street in Immokalee, the person that found it had put
posters everywhere. And she finally -- they called me and said,
Tom, we found this dog. And so I went out there. They had posters
December 14, 2021
Page 104
everywhere, and I got it.
And at the time -- and I have a letter from the county, because I
got it in writing, saying that -- what they consider ownership. If you
feed it, you take care of it, you do this and this for X amount of time,
and it's yours.
So I told people, if you keep it and you feed it and you take care
of it and you want to sign a surrender form, that's fine with me, and
I'll take it to -- and then I can take it to the Humane Society.
I did that. And it ended up being adopted by Karen who used to
run their adoption bus. So I took off, and I went to the Bahamas for
about a month. So a month went by, give or take, and then I went to
the Bahamas for about a month fishing with some guys, and when I
got back, I had a text on my phone, and it said, I think you found my
dog. The lady would not answer me, would not give me her address,
would not tell me who she was, but I have a friend that took the
phone number, and we reversed it, and I found out where she lived in
Immokalee, and I went to her house. And I have a picture on me on
my phone outside with my car. In other words, I tried to reach her.
She went -- so I went into the Humane Society one day and I
said, hey, somebody contacted me about this little dog, and I got
a -- and said they owned it, but I couldn't find their -- you know, they
wouldn't answer the door, they wouldn't answer my phone calls. I
had a -- I kept the records of texts, which I don't have anymore, and
the next -- about a day later, I got a letter from Michael Simonik, a
text, and it said, I can't believe you're falsifying documents and
stealing dogs and blah, blah, blah.
Well, Michael was leaving. It was -- and it was just before
Sarah came on. And I have the letter at home -- I didn't bring
it -- and it's -- and it basically tells me that I'm stealing dogs. And he
took it to the board, and the board okayed him to write this. It was
from the board of directors. And it said, we don't want you or any of
December 14, 2021
Page 105
your associates on this property ever again.
So it wasn't long after -- I guess -- I don't know exact time, but I
had lunch -- Sarah called me and asked me if we wanted to have
lunch, and I said, sure, I'll talk. And so she asked me if -- we were
doing the bus in Immokalee, and she asked me, you know, why don't
you let us bring the bus out to Immokalee?
And I said, Sarah, you guys threw me out. The first thing you
have to do -- I said, I don't need an apology. I don't need anything.
I said, you just need to get a letter from the board of directors saying
that, Tom, we would like to work with you. And then I said -- and
as far as the bus going to Immokalee, that's a possibility. I said, but
here's what's going to happen, and I know this, I have the network. I
can go find the people to get on the bus. I'm on the -- in the field out
there. You have none of the capabilities of doing that, and they still
don't.
I said what you really want me to do is set it up so that you can
bring your bus to the Winn-Dixie, you can bring out Naples Daily
News and do a big publicity thing and go raise another million
dollars. So the first thing, if you even want to entertain this idea,
you need to get a letter from the board of directors saying, Tom, you
are -- we would like to work with you. Never got it.
So as far as working with other organizations, I didn't steal any
dog. And I've been doing this 15, 20 years now, and if you ever had
anybody come to you and said I stole a dog, no, because I don't. I
don't even -- I think that there's a certain -- you know, I've had people
say, why don't you buy these dogs from them? I don't buy a dog.
Absolutely, you know, I don't do that. I don't lure them off their
property. I don't do any of that. Everything I do is up, because I
know it will come back, and I don't want to have SNIP Collier be
answerable to that.
So my point is, you may say doesn't want to work with us,
December 14, 2021
Page 106
they're not going to work with us. I mean, I told them I wanted to.
I would love to. But all of a sudden now there's all this money, and I
just question it.
So that's -- you know, I wasn't really going to bring that up, and
it's not personal. It's just -- they're saying that they want to work
with other organizations. Well, it hasn't happened. And if you ask
Jim Rich about For the Love of Cats, I think he'll tell you the same
thing about he used to have a wonderful program with HS, but they
canceled it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. KEPP: Am I over 12 minutes?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That bell went off a long time
ago. I told you --
MR. KEPP: Bill McDaniel told me I could talk forever up
here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Kepp.
MR. KEPP: All right. Thank you so much.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Madam Chairman, if I could just take one
minute of your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The public comment is finished,
right? Okay. Thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.
First of all, just to -- I want to show you the individual behind
the scenes that's actually doing the work. There's great change at
DAS, and it has occurred over the last four to six months.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We don't need to do that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I want to introduce you to somebody.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, just introduce.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. Yeah, I wouldn't do that,
Commissioner. Thank you.
December 14, 2021
Page 107
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Marcy Perry -- stand up, Marcy -- she
comes with over 20 years of experience. She actually comes from
Broward County. She's been with Collier County for three years,
and she's worked in almost every position in DAS, but she also has
the experience of working at the Humane Society in several different
positions. She's worked as an animal care supervisor, a clinic
manager, both in operations and a field manager. And over the last
four months, she has made changes and bridged relationships not
only with the Humane Society but also with the private organizations
that are providing a great service to the county to help us with spay
and neuter as well as placing animals.
In addition to that, she's working with the volunteers which, by
the way, the two volunteers that were here, we applaud them coming
and speaking. They couldn't be more supportive. And we listened
to them, and we want to make some of the changes that they've been
interested in doing for quite some time.
In addition, to that Marcy and I met with the 70-plus
veterinarians in the community. I don't know if anybody knew that.
There's over 80 veterinarians in Collier County alone, and they have
a voice, they have expertise, and we want to look for relationships
that we can partner with as well with them for their services, too.
So kudos to Marcy and the team and the hard-working
individuals out at DAS. I will tell you, there's been a lot of -- some
turnover, by design. By the same token, there have been the
diamond in the rough that our County Manager speaks of. Marcy's
one of them, and we have lots of them in the field. So we are
working to a demand and looking to see that we get all the animals
out there, the ones -- every animal has an owner. Some of them just
don't know it.
And what's unique about DAS, as Maggie and Mr. Kepp stated,
December 14, 2021
Page 108
is that we take those Florida brown dogs that are missing an arm or a
leg or crooked tail, and they answer to the name of Lucky, and those
need a home as well. And we're excited about this, and we
appreciate your support and Commissioner LoCastro's involvement,
Commissioner McDaniel, and Saunders and the rest. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
All right. So we have a motion on the floor and a second, I
think, do we not? Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I made a motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You made the motion, right, to agree
that the staff will start a negotiation, a conversation with the Humane
Society, but not to take over, but to collaborate and to see if there is a
synergy between both organizations to help with the issue of animal
control in Collier County.
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
very much.
We will come back -- now is 45 -- first of all, Terri, 45 minutes,
is that too short for you?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Forty-five minutes. We'll be
back. Well, let's see what that would make this about -- this is hard
for me to figure out right now.
MR. ISACKSON: About 1:15, ma'am.
December 14, 2021
Page 109
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 1:15?
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's take till 1:15.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:23 p.m. to 1:18 p.m.)
MR. ISACKSON: Chair Taylor, Commissioners, you have a
live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Before we go into the advertised public hearing, I think what I'd
like to do is move to agenda item -- and please help me, County
Manager.
MR. ISACKSON: 9D, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What is it?
MR. ISACKSON: You're now into your advertised public
hearings.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. ISACKSON: To be heard no sooner than 1:00.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
MR. ISACKSON: If you wanted to take 9D first, that's your
prerogative.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, if there's -- if there is
consensus here, I'd like to just take 9D right away and then move to
the advertised public hearing.
MR. ISACKSON: It's part of your --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's part of --
MR. ISACKSON: Part of 8 and 9, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. County Manager,
9D.
Item #9D
ORDINANCE 2021-48: AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE
December 14, 2021
Page 110
2005-44, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS THE “COLLIER COUNTY
LITTER, WEED, AND EXOTICS CONTROL ORDINANCE,”
REGULATING THE USE, STOCKPILING OR ACCUMULATION
OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER
INERT WASTE MATERIAL – ADOPTED
MR. ISACKSON: 9D is a recommendation to adopt an
amendment to Ordinance No. 2005-44, as amended, known as the
Collier County Litter, Weed, and Exotics Control Ordinance
regulating the use, stockpiling, or accumulation of construction and
demolition debris and other inert waste material.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can present, if you'd like. The genesis
of this ordinance is the situation we have -- the unfortunate situation
we have adjacent to the Boys and Girls Club off of Davis and Santa
Barbara which, quite frankly, looks like a bombed out zone from
World War II the way there's just concrete piled all over it.
We've had representatives from the ownership group here make
promises to this board multiple times that it would be cleaned up.
Those promises went unfulfilled.
This ordinance would force the situation to be remedied. What
it does is it basically says that if you demolish a building on site, yes,
you can use the -- you can crush it and use that rubble for your
building purposes because it makes no sense to simply take a truck to
get it off and then take another truck to put it back on; however, if
you do not have that situation -- this is an industrial use, and unless
you're currently zoned to do this or the Board approves it, we're not
going to allow this type of situation to happen again.
The ordinance has a three-month grandfather clause. The
purpose of that is to allow the property owner to get into compliance.
The reason for the three months is because he came to this board and
said he could do it in three months, so there shouldn't be any
December 14, 2021
Page 111
argument to get it done.
Right now my understanding is the owner has an issue in that his
ERP was pulled, but that's on the owner to get that resolved at that
point in time.
It's a very specific ordinance for a very specific problem. It will
take care of the current issue and make sure that the issue does not
arise again in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a couple quick
questions. Number one, we do have a moratorium which, obviously,
will go away --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- once we adopt the
ordinance. But, number two, you got the plan of attack in terms of
this particular site being cleaned up. This new ordinance applies
to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Countywide.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and it does apply to that
property even though they had a permit from the county going back
prior to the adoption of this ordinance, which resulted in the material
being placed there. But going forward, this ordinance would apply
to them?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that means that no
additional material could be brought to that site.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that once there is,
whatever permission is needed for him to begin to -- or for them to
begin to crush this material, they'll have 90 days to finish it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is commercially reasonable from
what I've seen on the past construction sites in the county.
December 14, 2021
Page 112
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just wanted to ask
either you or Jamie with regard to the impacts of normal course of
business. A normal course of business, we have allowed for the
importation of construction debris, concrete and the like, to be used
to elevate sites.
Putting contractors in a conditional-use process, how's that
going to fit into our -- you're shaking your head no.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, not necessarily a conditional-use
process. Just any development order issued by the Board they could
do it. That could be as simple as taking a Site Development Plan to
the Board to approval allowing this to happen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With the provision, then, if
an SDP were to come in, then there -- and the provision for in-haul of
construction debris was allotted, we would have a say-so, then, on the
time, size, shape, and so on, and it's not -- because I thought I read in
here about it being a conditional use.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a development order of the Board. So
it gives you the opportunity on a case-by-case basis to say, yes, this
would be an appropriate activity for this particular site. But we do
have sites that would not impact any adjacent areas that it might be
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. French.
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Jamie French, deputy department head.
Commissioners, as earlier reported in previous meetings, this
item is also under review with your DSAC subcommittee in an LDC
update. So we'll be bringing you back language that will actually
provide better and more steered guidance to how this type of
December 14, 2021
Page 113
operation will exist going forward on all future construction sites.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Any public comment?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we do have one, Madam Chair. And I'm
going to have a hard time making out the writing on this. Bobby, is
this Cadenlead?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Cadenhead.
MR. MILLER: Cadenhead. Excuse me, sir.
MR. CADENHEAD: Yep. For the record, Bobby Cadenhead
with Cadenhead Brothers Recycling.
As far as the ordinance has been put in front of you here today, I
have no problem with it. It takes care of what the future is. But my
problem today is what he read, we was going to be grandfathered in,
which is all right for the 90 days. But this period, I'm having an
issue with South Florida. They got -- the press and everybody else
kept hammering them, and they denied our request to extend our
permit.
Now, we have filed for an administrative hearing. The
administrative hearing allows a permit to continue as long as we're in
the hearing. So we've wasted a month. In other words, this
happened on November 1st of -- the 3rd, and it was till December 1st
that we got the first telephone conference with South Florida.
Then at that point, it was -- we was issued an order from South
Florida to continue our operational permit, which means all the
exotics, all of the water management, everything else has to continue,
but there would be no construction. Now, that's verbal. Nothing
has been put in writing. They have not registered their -- their
wording was "cannot approve," not stop and desist, not do nothing
else.
We have on -- December the 8th, we applied for an extension of
the hearing to do the -- for the administrative variance. We're still
December 14, 2021
Page 114
trying to work out a consent order with them. But this concrete
every day is sitting there. We're ready and we've been ready. I had
the county out there looking at it yesterday. We're doing all the
mitigation and everything else that South Florida's causing.
But you have a problem, number one, the last meeting we was
ordered by the Board to get this stuff done by March 22nd, 90 percent
of it, and we're fully capable and can bring in all the equipment to get
it done. We need the Board to tell us to get it done and get it over
with while we're in administrative hearing procedures with South
Florida, because the permit very well states and very well does agree
that the application is -- stays in force until we go through the last day
of the appeal process.
But this thing is not going to go away. They've asked us for a
new -- to submit a new permit. That's time. Everything else is
time. Our time is that all our legal experts from Tallahassee down
says that we have a permit in place right now. South Florida has
been mute. They have not come back and answered the question one
way or the other, but they have not filed nothing with the district that
said that we don't have a permit.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think, Madam Chair, I
would have to turn to the County Attorney. I mean, he's our legal
expert and, obviously, he needs to tell us what we can or cannot do
here. The ordinance, I think, is clear in terms of what will happen in
the future. But in terms of when crushing operations can begin on
this site, I have to turn to the County Attorney. I heard what you
said.
MR. KLATZKOW: This stuff needs to get cleaned up. That's
the will of the Board, all right. They want to make excuses that
they're having problem with Water Management, I don't know what
to tell you. I don't think Jamie or Jaime will stand in the way of this
site getting cleaned up. But if they want to hide behind this lack of a
December 14, 2021
Page 115
permit or what have you, I don't know. But I do think the public
benefit here is in the next three months get this rock crushed and be
done with it.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Commissioners.
I would only point out -- and I've had -- I've had numerous
conversations with Mr. Cadenhead, and we certainly want to help
him get this job cleaned up. But this letter that went to the
Hubschmans, the property owner, their permit has expired. They're
in violation. There is no permit as far as staff is concerned. So at
this point we would be in violation of the statutory requirements for
allowing them to construct on this site through your own Site
Development Plan approval process.
So at this point he does have a valid Site Development Plan.
Unfortunately, what I've stated on the record, and I'll continue to state
unless given different guidance, is that he's going to have to come
back in, the developer. We'll have to take him through a
preconstruction meeting to understand what he's going to do to make
sure he's met all the requirements as stated by the State of Florida
through a South Florida Water Management permit. But this is copy
of the letter that was delivered to us from the state. So there has
been correspondence. And if you look at the second paragraph, it
simply says that their requests cannot be approved because of Florida
Statute. There's significant noncompliance with the site.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Move it down, Jamie.
Move that down a little bit so we can see where this is from. No, the
other way.
MR. FRENCH: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we are.
MR. FRENCH: So as I mentioned to Mr. Cadenhead in the hall
before lunch, Bobby, let me help you get this done. Get your state
permits in line, and we're there.
December 14, 2021
Page 116
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So why don't we do this, so we don't
discuss this now. Commissioner Solis, I'm not going to cut you off,
but perhaps we continue this until later in the meeting and give you
both a chance to talk. But, Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you move that up just a little
bit so I can see the last paragraph. You know, our staff is telling us
he doesn't have a permit, and he can't do anything until he has a
permit. You know, I think this first came to us -- Commissioner
Saunders, you brought this when? At least nine months ago.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think we started in the
spring.
MR. CADENHEAD: In March. And I need to apologize to
you for our delay on this. Let me ask you --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let me finish what I'm saying.
You know, we have been going around and around this for -- since
March. I think that the fact that the Water Management permit has
either expired or it's in noncompliance is not our problem.
I don't think we should delay this anymore. I mean, I'm -- we're
going to keep going around and around with this. If there are issues
with his permit from another agency, those are his problems, and we
shouldn't be changing what we're going to do or what we think we
ought to do for the benefit of the citizens because he can't comply
with his own permits.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that gets into the
question, though, is what is it that we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would say we adopt the ordinance
and either work this stuff out in 90 days or --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- or not.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think what -- I think what
December 14, 2021
Page 117
he is asking for is for the Board to say, yes, tomorrow, you can start
crushing this cement. You've got 90 days to have it finished, but
you can't import any new material.
Now, I think staff's saying, he doesn't have a permit to do any of
this at this point.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so I'm just trying to get
a handle on what you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm suggesting that we can't do that
either. I think that's what Jamie is telling us, that we couldn't say go
ahead and start crushing again because he doesn't have a permit.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's got a state permit that he's lost. He's
saying that, well, we filed an administrative hearing, so I can do it.
Go ahead at his peril. Just go ahead at his peril. And if he's in
violation of the state, the state can take any remedies they want to.
MR. CADENHEAD: Our deal, if he would go down and read
the rest of the letter, okay, it gives you -- it gives us the right to
appeal their decision --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
MR. CADENHEAD: -- and it also gives us the right, as long as
we're in the appeal process, that the permit is valid. That has to be
taken in. You're reading one part of the letter. They came in and
said they cannot be approved. On the other part, the rest of the
letter, that second page, there's a thing that says, that -- this our rights
as to the permit holder.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second page. Jamie, the second
page.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's under Chapter 120, and --
MR. CADENHEAD: Basically, I've got a copy right here what
it says, the rule.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The other side.
December 14, 2021
Page 118
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's right.
MR. CADENHEAD: Those are our rights, and we're
exercising our rights.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, you've got
the letter. I think you can tell us what we can and cannot do. That's
all I'm asking for. I want to do anything that is --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not doing anything illegal. If --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Hang on a second. I don't
want to do anything that's contrary to what our rules and ordinances
say and what this denial from the state says. If the denial from the
state says -- permits him to continue crushing material, that's one
thing. If it doesn't and we don't have that authority, then just tell us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Jamie, the only issue you have here is they
lost the ERP, right?
MR. FRENCH: And the LDC requires that they have a valid --
MR. KLATZKOW: The only issue is the state issue, ERP.
MR. FRENCH: And the state has issued on the website that --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're --
MR. FRENCH: -- it's invalid.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- taking the legal position that they can go
forward with it. I say let them do it at their peril, all right. And if
the South [sic] Water Management District doesn't like it, the South
Water Management District can take whatever legal action they want.
This is outside us. But if we're going to just simply not allow him to
do the work, you're going to go around in circles and circles and
circles, and you'll never get it done.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Your recommendation
is -- and I'm going to try to put words in your mouth, but I want to
understand what your recommendation is -- is to permit him to crush
the material that's there --
MR. KLATZKOW: At his peril.
December 14, 2021
Page 119
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- at his peril over the next
90 days, ensure that there is sufficient watering of that material so
there's no dust, and then he's got 90 days to do that. And if the state
comes down on him, that's on him, not on us.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you understand that,
Mr. Cadenhead?
MR. CADENHEAD: No, no, I understand it very -- in other
words, correct. That's all we've been trying to do since -- since
November, early November, is to get somebody to tell us we could
do something. In other words, we abide by what the county's told us
to do. We've stopped. And we're just waiting. And I've gone to
the county and tried to read rules. We finally come up with a thing
that is good. I mean -- so I will totally -- in other words, we can
abide by that. All we need to do is get started by tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do you think we need to put this in
writing?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That would be up to the
County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, that's up to you, too, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, they don't need it in writing. They're
saying they can do it. Do it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. We're not saying he can or
he can't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You're going to roll the dice, sir, in
whether or not you can do it or not.
MR. CADENHEAD: But you've got to tell your staff, okay.
Staff is saying that one thing has to be in place for the other. In
December 14, 2021
Page 120
other words, right now -- last meeting that we came to, it was
basically you already approved the deal that said no -- that you knew
that the permit was suspended. In other words, the operation was
suspended, and you said go ahead and get it crushed. And we've
been, ever since that time, trying to get somebody to understand us.
Our deal with South Florida is we're still working on the consent
order, but a consent order takes a while to get all done. They're
asking for a new permit. Our new permit will be fine. The whole
piece of property that we've got out there is to get it built and get it
onto the tax rolls, not to keep talking over a piece of concrete that I
brought in to defray the cost of razing the land.
So I agree with Commissioner Saunders. We will -- if you tell
us to go to work, staff understands we're going to work, we will work
at our own peril.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but you're going to follow all the
requirements.
MR. CADENHEAD: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Watering, and make sure there's no dust.
MR. CADENHEAD: Watering and everything.
MR. KLATZKOW: Best practices.
MR. CADENHEAD: Best practices. The only permit that is
required is an air permit from DEP of the crusher, that it meets the
criteria. That is complete. South Florida has no criteria whatsoever
over crushing concrete.
We finally got a statement in from the Tallahassee attorney last
night that they come to that conclusion, that we do not have -- that
they have no jurisdiction over it. We have agreed not to -- in other
words, actually, we stopped. I mean, this is kind of ironic. We
stopped all import of fill on November the 1st before any of this here
came up, just simply -- and I put up more fence. In other words,
every time Burt asked us to put up fence, I put up -- and then I put up
December 14, 2021
Page 121
another because you could see it from the road.
All we want to do is get the property cleaned, get it presentable,
and go with South Florida to get a new permit.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Then, Madam
Chairman, I'll make a statement. I think Commissioner Solis has
something to say. I'll defer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, just one more question. It's
a question for staff. So let's -- in any other situation, if we're advised
that a Water Management permit has been denied or is out of
compliance or is expired or whatever, staff checks online to see what
the status of the permit is, and if the permit is expired, then the
property owner is told, you're not in compliance with the Land
Development Code which requires that permit, you've got to stop
what you're doing. Is that the way it works?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. Again, for the record, Jamie French.
This is -- this would be an LDC violation, and what staff would
request, if the Board went this direction, is that you would hold -- any
Code Enforcement action at abeyance at this point, because it is a
direct violation of your Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But, I mean, he's asking us
to tell him that he can proceed with doing what he wants to do that
he's supposed to have done months and months ago, in my opinion.
So, I mean, he can't -- I'm trying to get to the question of whether or
not we -- if he doesn't have a permit, he can't do what he wants to do,
correct?
MR. FRENCH: That's correct. By your LDC standards, you
are correct. And if -- and any other case where we had an expired
permit, we would open a Code Enforcement Board case or a
contractor's licensing case, and we would prosecute that case. And
in this particular case, I believe what Mr. Cadenhead is asking is to
December 14, 2021
Page 122
be treated differently. And to --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what would happen -- in a
regular case, you would at this point be looking at this as a -- as either
a Code Enforcement case or a contractor violation?
MR. FRENCH: Absolutely, and we would prosecute
accordingly.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, that changes the whole thing,
I mean, for me. So I see -- from your standpoint, he's asking us to
stop that process that we would normally go through so that he can
continue doing what he's doing even though he doesn't have a permit.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because we told him he has three
months to clean up this property.
MR. CADENHEAD: And the other thing is that on December
the 8th, we filed our last request for time. We were totally in what
the district tells us to do, the way to get the permit back and forth.
And the district very plainly says until the last -- the permit is still in
effect until the last hearing is over with, not that -- what somebody
says. And it says very plainly, until the last result of the Court's
decision. So until we go through all the process of -- in other words,
administrative hearing and consent orders back and forth with
South -- our permit is right now valid. And we will take the
consequences that Commissioner Saunders says if it happens. This
way the neighborhood is done, and we don't have to come here and
talk no more.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would give you a mechanism to end this
if we're just going to take the position that until he gets the permit
situation resolved, you're going to have this for -- based on prior
inaction by these people, you're going to have this forever. I don't
know what else to say.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro, and then
December 14, 2021
Page 123
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Listen, nobody wants this lot
cleaned up more than all of us, but I have a real problem sitting up
here going, we know you're in violation and may or may not have a
permit, and the state doesn't want you to do certain things, but we're
going to sort of look the other way and say, do it at your own peril.
That's not how the law works. So I won't vote for any -- I won't vote
for anything like that. And if it means that that lot stays the way it
is, well, the lot's the way it is because of a whole bunch of mistakes
previously that could have been avoided. But we don't have a time
machine or a crystal ball.
But having said that, I think it's very irresponsible for us to have
a conversation up here and say, you know, we really wanted the lot
clean, we know you're in violation of a whole bunch of things, but go
ahead and do it, and it's at your peril, but you're assuming that, and
then we'll just, you know, put our hands over our ears and hope
nobody calls you, and then we'll get our lot clean. That's not how
the law works.
And I think it's -- we're here also representing the State of
Florida. So if you have something -- wait a minute. If you have
some -- if we're being told by our staff that there's certain letters that
you have gotten even from other organizations, our job here is also to
support those organizations whether it's the state or an environmental
group or what have you and represent their view up here, not say,
well, you know, it's not our job, and, you know, they might come
down on you, so hopefully -- work fast, and so -- I mean, if I'm
missing something, I have a real problem.
MR. CADENHEAD: You are, because, number one, the site
development order that we have requires us to have a current ERP
from South Florida, okay. Now, when South Florida ruled very
plainly -- and they came along and they went for the -- they said it
December 14, 2021
Page 124
cannot be approved. At that point we asked for an extension of time,
and we met all of their rules that are up there on that board, just like
you or anybody else would do. That is your right to meet these
rights.
In those rights, it gives us the right to have administrative
hearing. And in their Rule No. 40E-60 -- 1.601, it says that the
permit stays active until the last court decision is made. So our
permit is active and valid. We cannot get South Florida to send us a
letter saying that because they're on the other side.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I want to hear our
staff -- if the staff echoes that and says, I mean, it's great that you're
highlighting all those things, but I'm hearing something different
from Mr. French. So if he can echo that, then I feel better. So I
hear everything you're saying.
MR. CADENHEAD: I can give you the South Florida's rules
right here, and South Florida rules --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, staff advises us, and so
I would like to hear Mr. French say, yep, the gentleman's exactly
right, everything he said gives him the legal authority to continue
working there until his court case is heard or whatever. And so,
Jamie, if you're saying all that, then all the concerns I have are wiped
clean, but if we're sort of going to do what I said before, which is,
hey, we want the lot clean, this isn't in our backyard. It's not -- you
know, it had to do with the state, I just don't think that's responsible.
So what say you? Educate us here. What does he have and
what doesn't he have?
MR. FRENCH: Here's the only out that I see, sir.
Mr. Cadenhead needs to go to the State of Florida, get a letter to
us to say, my permit's still active while I'm in this appeal period, and
we're done. He can go right back to work. We're going to have a
preconstruction as Section 10.02 --
December 14, 2021
Page 125
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, he's implying in that
letter that it says his permit stays active until his -- and I might be
mis-summarizing, but until his case is heard or whatever. Is that true
or not?
MR. FRENCH: His permit is expired.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, that's what I heard you
say.
MR. FRENCH: It is not extended. It is on their website, and
we have a letter that says it was denied. If Mr. Cadenhead can
provide us with some sort of documentation that says, I still have an
active permit while I'm going through that appeal process, we'll sit
back down, we'll go through a preconstruction meeting. We're going
to enhance some of this dust, and we've talked about that before.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. FRENCH: And he can go back to work. We've asked for
that on three occasions, by the way.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can you flip back to -- let's read
this letter again, because it doesn't say that his permit -- he's
requested an extension of his permit. Reserve request to extend the
duration of the above-mentioned ERP. Okay. So the request was to
extend the permit. It's expired. He's not appealing the termination
of a permit. It's expired, and they've decided they're not going to
extend it. That's what the appeal is. The appeal has nothing to do
with whether or not your permit is actually valid at this point.
MR. CADENHEAD: No.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's what -- sir, the beauty of this
is that I get to talk first, okay. So this is not about whether or not
your permit is valid during the appeal period. What you're
appealing, sir, is the denial of the extension because it's expired.
There is no permit to extend.
MR. CADENHEAD: No, sir.
December 14, 2021
Page 126
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I don't know why -- I'm sorry
for being frustrated, but we have been going around and around with
this. We should treat this just like anything else. If his permit is
expired but he's got an appeal of that with South Florida Water
Management District, that's up to him. But if it's -- if it's a Code
Enforcement Board issue at this point, we treat it that way. If it's a
contractor's licensing issue, we treat it that way. And we adopt this
ordinance, and we just -- and he's got to figure it out. Because I
think, otherwise, we're going to start making exceptions to rules, and
who knows where we'll end up with this thing. But I, frankly, am
personally tired of going around and around on this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we've got a difference of
opinion here with Mr. Cadenhead and this board. The Board needs
to make their positions very clear, and I need to have it in a motion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, we've got two things
here. We haven't dealt with the ordinance yet.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I think we should
go ahead and pass the ordinance. That's a separate issue. So I'm
going to make a motion to pass the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Adopt the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the
floor and a second by Commissioner Solis. 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.
December 14, 2021
Page 127
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We have a second issue, and
that is how do we deal with what's on site right now. And I think
we've been told that the -- that all we need to do is get a letter from
the state, have Mr. Cadenhead get some acknowledgment that he has
a permit; in that case, then, we can move forward. Until then, I
agree with Commissioner LoCastro and Commissioner Solis, I don't
see that the -- I'm not willing to treat this petitioner any differently
than we would treat somebody else. And it sounds like the proper
thing is get us a letter from the state, or get staff a letter from the
state. I'll even go a step further. You get a letter from the state that
says that the permit is valid and staff is satisfied with that, you don't
need to come back here to get us to tell you to go crush the material.
All you need is staff saying go ahead and crush the material.
MR. CADENHEAD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a consensus here that -- what
Commissioner Saunders said?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And in the meantime, staff's going
to treat it like they would treat anything else?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So, sir, at this point that's
the -- that's the decision of this board.
MR. CADENHEAD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. County Manager?
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL: 2021-260: ZONING PETITION - CU-
PL20190001326-IGLESIA PENTECOSTES PENIEL CHURCH CU,
December 14, 2021
Page 128
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A 100-SEAT CHURCH
WITHIN AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2.03.01.B.1.C.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A 5.15+/- ACRE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8TH STREET
NE AND 22ND AVENUE NE IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #9B) – ADOPTED
Item #9B
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2021-261: AN ORDINANCE OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY
AMENDING THE RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-
ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN
ELEMENT AND RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES FUTURE
LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES; BY AMENDING THE
ESTATES-MIXED USE DISTRICT TO ADD THE 8TH STREET
NE-22ND AVENUE NE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A 100-SEAT
CHURCH AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 5.15± ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8TH STREET NE AND 22ND
AVENUE NE IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND
December 14, 2021
Page 129
FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
[PL20190001333] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #8A) –
ADOPTED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 8A.
It's a zoning petition. This is the -- it's CUPL20190001326, Iglesia
Pentecostes Peniel Church CU. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
It's a recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of
Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the
establishment of a conditional use to allow a 100-seat church within
an Estates zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.C.1 of the
Collier County Land Development Code for a plus -- for a
5.15-plus-or-minus-acre property located on the northwest corner of
8th Street Northeast and 22nd Avenue Northeast in Section 27,
Township 48 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida.
One note, that this is a companion item to Item 9B on your
agenda.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So at this point we do some ex parte
declaration. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. On both I've had
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The same. I've had those
communications as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same here, exactly the same.
December 14, 2021
Page 130
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I've had numerous emails
from neighboring property owners on both sides of the issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I would -- I've had meetings,
correspondence, and emails regarding this issue.
So all those who are going to testify, please stand and raise your
right hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So we're going to hear the
petitioner. Thank you.
MR. DE AZA: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is
Ronny De Aza, and I am with RDA Consulting Engineers, and we
are representing the Iglesia Pentecostes Peniel. We'll put a
presentation here just to introduce the project.
Again, Iglesia Pentecostes Penial Church in the Estates, like you
mentioned, we are proposing to develop a 100-seat church in a
5.15-acre parcel within the Golden Gate Estates community.
MR. MILLER: Sir, can you get closer to the mic.
MR. DE AZA: So this project will require a Growth
Management Plan amendment and also a conditional use, and the
church is -- you can actually petition for a conditional use on Estates
zoning, but in this case we will need the GMPA as well. This slide
is just showing the location of the church, which is in the -- like you
mentioned, on the northwest corner of 8th Street Northwest and 22nd
Avenue North -- Northeast, I'm sorry. This parcel is combined with
two separate lots, and they will need to be combined if this -- in the
site development process.
We put together an exhibit showing where the members of this
congregation are. They're -- most of them are within -- within
proximity, and this is the reason why the pastor decided on this
location for the church. They are, right now, renting a space off of
December 14, 2021
Page 131
Randall, and they would just like to transition to their own -- to their
own space.
We are now showing a conceptual site plan. We put some
thought into this, trying to shelter everybody else and make sure that
this is a fitable [sic] church for the community. On the north and
west side we have a 75-foot buffer, and it's all fully vegetated, and
the church plans on leaving all that vegetation. So we have
residences on both those sides. We're also considering all the
environmental issues. There are some wetlands in the site, and we're
proposing to keep all wetlands as a preserve and not even touch it.
Then we have a -- this is going to be a metal building. The
church is limited to 100 seats, and the building itself is going to be no
more than 5,000 square feet. A lot of the neighbors have been
concerned with the size of this church. They think that in the future
the church will continue to grow, and they're going to bring a lot
more than that. This will not happen. It actually goes against the
vision of this church. They have their mother church in North
Naples. And instead of growing a big church, they've always tried to
keep their small community, 60, 70 people, and just bring what we
call a neighborhood community church with limited hours of
operation.
We have conditions of approvals, and everybody has them, but I
wanted to touch on a couple things that have been the concern of all
the neighbors. First of all is the hours of operation. The church will
only separate two dates out of the -- two days out of the week; on
Wednesday evenings and on Sunday mornings.
The church, per the condition of approval, will only gather to do
services and Bible studies. A lot of the opposition has mentioned
that there will be -- this is an opportunity for daycare, schools, and
other type of uses. Per the conditions of approval, none of this will
ever happen. This is just for the congregation members to gather a
December 14, 2021
Page 132
couple times a week and worship the Lord.
Another big concern was parking, people parking on the streets.
We are providing 45 parking spaces and, per the conditions of
approval, no vehicle shall ever be on the streets. If a neighbor sees
stuff like that, they can call in Code Enforcement, because this should
not be allowed.
And, again, I just want to touch bases on the maximum area of
the building. This will only be one 5,000-square-feet building.
There will never be more buildings in the site. It's part of the
conditions of approval, and the neighbors shouldn't be worried that
all of a sudden this church is going to be from 100 seats to 100 to
300, or you're going to have 3-, 400 people on this property.
We did a traffic analysis. This has been concerning us. Well,
we partnered with Mr. Jim Banks with JMB Transportation Engineer.
He's a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida. We all
know him. And the traffic study demonstrate that there will not be
any negative effect into the traffic because of the additional trips
generated by the church.
The hours of operations are not in the peak hours. It's going to
be in the Wednesday evenings and Sunday mornings, and we should
have no negative effect on the community because of the extra
generated trips.
Like I said, the church is trying to get their own space in the
Estates where all or majority of members are living right there. Not
trying to grow more than that community. Right now they got
approved a conditional use for another church in Immokalee city just
showing that, you know, they grabbed this community, they have
their congregation, small congregations, and they don't plan to
expand, bring people here. Instead, the vision has been go where
their people are and have small communities. When it comes to big
meetings and all that, they don't do those in those churches. They
December 14, 2021
Page 133
have their mother church, or they will do baptism or different events
at the beach and things like that instead of bringing a bunch of people
into one spot on a regular day and -- which is cause of concern to the
neighbors.
And with that, I think Justin has another presentation.
MR. MARTIN: Leave it on the site plan. Go back to your
presentation on the site plan, and we'll start with that.
MR. DE AZA: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: By the way, any questions?
(No response.)
MR. DE AZA: Thank you.
MR. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Justin Martin. I'm the brother of Pastor Jorge Martin, who's also
here and will also be speaking. He is the petitioner.
I'm not an attorney. The church doesn't have the funds to hire
an attorney to prepare an elaborate presentation and to take this
through this process. As you know, this is a very expensive process
for anybody trying to develop a property in Collier County.
This -- I just want to reiterate, this is a very small church, 5,000
square feet. There are some homes that are 5,000 square feet. This
is in Golden Gate City residential Estates size lots, as has been
presented.
Staff has carefully reviewed this petition and recommends
approval. We went through two Planning Commission meetings.
We had a neighborhood information meeting. We've heard the
concerns of the residents, and we've made numerous, numerous
concessions to accommodate those concerns, unprecedented
concessions. As was mentioned by Ronny, the engineer of record,
the hours of operation are limited -- I don't think this has been done
with another church before -- to two days, primarily Sundays and also
Wednesday evenings.
December 14, 2021
Page 134
The concerns, to reiterate, have been about traffic, and, you
know, that's a red herring, because there is no peak traffic on Sunday
mornings. And we're talking about a 100-seat church. And the
traffic, this will -- this project will actually take traffic off Immokalee
Road. Immokalee Road is a very stressed arterial road, and you can
talk to your county staff planners, and they can -- all you need to do
is just drive down Immokalee Road and see how much traffic there is
on that. So this will actually provide a community church which
will take traffic off Immokalee Road.
Bear with me. I will put up some graphics here. And I have
this on the laptop, so bear with me one second. Okay. All right.
There are over a dozen churches within residential zoning districts in
Collier County existing right now and have been existing for many
years. I will go over some of these.
This is the First United Methodist Church. As you can see, it's
surrounded by residential, and this is -- this is in the City of Naples,
but it's in Collier County. This is the view from across the street
from the church. On the left is the church. Across the street are
homes right next to it. This is a lot denser zoning. This is not even
wide-open zoning like Golden Gate Estates.
Naples Alliance Church, this is in unincorporated Collier
County East Naples on Pine Street, the corner of Pine Street and
Estey, and it is also in residential zoning right across the street from
homes.
Here's a view of what the church looks like. That's the Naples
Alliance Church, and this is across the street. So right across the
street from homes you have a church.
Now, you have the Romanian Polycarp Orthodox Church in
Naples Park. This is on 109th Avenue. And the original Iglesia
Pentecostes Peniel Church on 107th you can also see on this aerial
photo. All of these are surrounded by residential. And this is a lot
December 14, 2021
Page 135
denser even still. If you've been to Naples Park, you know what I'm
talking about.
This is the view of the existing Iglesia Pentecostes Church on
107th Avenue. As you can see, there are homes right across the
street. This is on the corner of 109th Avenue in Naples Park, and on
your left there you can see the Romanian Polycarp Orthodox Church
right across the street from existing residential.
On Price Street in Southern Naples and on the Estates size lot,
you have the Saint Demetrius Orthodox Church surrounded by
residential on an Estates-sized lot. Here's a view from the street,
from Price Street, of the Saint Demetrius Orthodox Church.
In Golden Gate Estates, you have churches in residential Golden
Gate Estates zoned lots. You've got the Grace Romanian Baptist
Church right there on Golden Gate Boulevard, and close to it you've
got the East Naples Kingdom Hall.
This is a photo of the Grace Romanian Church in Golden Gate
Estates on an Estates-zoned lot. Photo of Kingdom Hall on an
Estates-zoned lot in Golden Gate Estates.
More recently you have the church of Jesus Christ Latter-day
Saints in Golden Gate Estates on the corner of Randall and
Everglades Boulevard, not too far from where the proposed
church -- this proposed church is. That was a Growth Management
Plan amendment. It was a conditional use approval granted by this
board.
There's a photo of the LDS church I just mentioned. This
church happens to be a 17,000-square-foot church with multiple
buildings. The church being discussed here today is one building,
5,000 square foot. It's 29 percent. It's less than a third of the size of
this one. Another photo of it.
What I'd like to do now is go through a recent letter of
opposition that was submitted and go through point by point on that.
December 14, 2021
Page 136
Okay. This is dated yesterday. Okay. Some of the points in here.
Okay, this is residential zoning, yes. This is an area of single-family
homes, approximately 25 children, including a farm across the street.
I'm not sure which farm that is, but I can guarantee you that this
church will not have any farm animals.
There is no sidewalk on 22nd Avenue. Members of the
neighborhood and their children walk, run, take their babies out in
strollers, and children bike on the road to get to the sidewalk on 8th
Street. This is particularly true on weekends. The church will not
change that.
The school bus stop for Collier County is on the same corner of
the proposed church. Any activity such as group meetings or
funerals during the week could be of concern. The bus stop will
remain there. The bus stops are within county right-of-ways.
They're not on private property. The church will not impede a bus
stop. That's a misnomer.
Overflow parking, we talked about parking already. As you are
fully aware, Commissioners, you have LDC standards that require
certain amount of parking spaces for a certain amount of seats and
per 100 seats, we have 45 parking spaces that are presented in this
conceptual site plan. So the church will be meeting all of the
parking requirements that are listed in the Land Development Code.
Right here it talks about the move of the entrance to the parking
lot to 22nd Street is a major safety concern. Without a sidewalk,
walkers or children or bikes could be at risk. Furthermore, an
entrance to a church on a dead-end residential street is not a
reasonable solution, and so forth.
All right. As part of the SDP process, the county will require
that the church put in a sidewalk where there is not one right now.
So the church will actually be building a sidewalk along that frontage
on that street. So this is actually a benefit that the church is
December 14, 2021
Page 137
providing. Right now that doesn't exist.
It talks about additional activities, how would they be regulated.
Well, it's spelled out in the conditions of approval, and it's in the draft
ordinance that's before you today.
Okay. And the rest of it is -- it doesn't have any points. I'm
going to stop sharing for a moment. Here, we'll go back to the site
plan. Podium computer, is that the one?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
MR. MARTIN: Okay. You had a meeting this morning or a
presentation regarding redistricting. In that redistricting
presentation, there was information there on population. What I was
able to read in the information there on the population is you've got
44 to 49 percent of Golden Gate Estates residents as
Spanish-speaking Hispanic; 44 to 49 percent. Right now there exists
no church in Golden Gate Estates which is Spanish speaking. This is
a small church; this is a community church. The church officials are
here today. They can confirm to you that they don't have any plans
to expand any more in this area.
This is the third in a series of churches. The second is actually
within Immokalee -- the urban area of Immokalee, and that's been
also presented to this board as a Growth Management Plan -- I'm
sorry -- a conditional use and was approved by this board. This is
the third church, and it happens to be in Golden Gate Estates.
The opposition would have you believe that a church is a
nuisance neighbor. Nothing could be further from the truth. No
alcohol will ever be served at the church. There will never be loud,
late-night parties as is allowed in a residential house. Somebody that
lived -- wants to have a party, and people can park on the street, that
will not be allowed at the church, and it's in the conditions of
approval.
The conditions of approval strictly limited the church gatherings
December 14, 2021
Page 138
to Sundays and Wednesday evenings.
In Golden Gate Estates right now, you're allowed to discharge
firearms. You can do target practice. You can take your rifle, set
up a range, and shoot. That won't be happening at the church. If a
house is built where this property is located, that would be allowed.
Church has obtained over 458 petition signatures in favor, and
I'll be presenting that. Bear with me. This was submitted with a
documentation during the review process with staff. And, you
know, I don't -- all these are Golden Gate Estates -- the vast majority
are Golden Gate Estates residents. Sorry about that. Go back to the
laptop.
Okay. So 22nd Avenue Northeast, 54th Avenue, these are
all -- or vast majority Golden Gate Estates. The ones that are
crossed out -- we had over 500 signatures, but some of these are out
of the area, so we crossed those out and didn't even count them.
Everglades Boulevard, 35th Avenue.
And I have a spreadsheet that tabulates these, starting from one
going all the way through 458 signatures. The vast majority live
within Golden Gate Estates. Forty-nine percent Hispanic population
in Golden Gate Estates; zero Spanish-speaking churches within
Golden Gate Estates.
Bear with me here. I'm trying to find comparisons between this
church and -- okay. All right. The LDS church that I mentioned
earlier, I just tabulated some general statistics here. The LDS church
is located on almost an eight-acre site. This, once these lots are
combined, will be a five-acre site. The floor area of the LDS church
that received a Growth Management Plan amendment and
conditional-use approval from this board was 17,000 square feet.
This petition is for 5,000 square feet, and that's roughly 29 percent of
the church of the LDS church. The LDS church has 230 seats. This
one is proposing 100 seats. That was one of the concessions that the
December 14, 2021
Page 139
church made during the review process.
Building height is about the same, and that's allowable.
Chances are it won't be that high. Steeple height, LDS church was
approved with 60. The conditions of approval for this church is
50 feet. Hours of worship service specified for the LDS,
unspecified. There was no conditions limiting the worship services
for the LDS church in the conditional-use approval; whereas, this
church has made concessions to limit its services to Wednesday
evenings, the hours that you see there, 6:00 to 9:30 p.m., and Sundays
from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Parking spaces for the LDS church, 130. This petition, 30, with
an additional 15 grass spaces as required by code.
Okay. Here is an aerial photo -- let me try and expand this. I
don't know if you can see my cursor up there. But these two are the
two properties that will be combined on the corner of 8th Street and
22nd Avenue. As you know, the county connected 8th Street all the
way up to Randall. One last thing to put up here on the board.
Okay. This is a letter of support from the immediate neighbor
adjoining the longest property line of the church, and I'll show you
that on the aerial where that is. I can't get to it now. Okay. So
you've got -- along the two long edges of the property, you've got
22nd Avenue, and then you've got this property here. The letter I
just showed you is a letter of support from that property owner. If
there's any property owner that's going to be impacted by this church,
it's that property owner, right. It was mentioned that this project will
have a 75-foot landscape buffer, so it would be plenty buffered from
the surrounding neighbors.
And with that, Commissioners, I'll be happy to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A couple questions. So the main
December 14, 2021
Page 140
church, I understand, is in Naples Park.
MR. MARTIN: That's the -- that's the first church.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's the first church.
MR. MARTIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So how long has it been in
Naples Park? Because I drove by it just the other day.
PASTOR MARTIN: Twenty-eight years.
MR. MARTIN: Twenty-eight years.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-eight years you've been
in -- and are there any restrictions on the hours of operation at the
Naples Park church?
PASTOR MARTIN: Yeah. My name is Jorge Martin, pastor
of the mother church. So say that again, the question.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are there any restrictions on hours
of operation at the church in Naples Park?
PASTOR MARTIN: Not in our -- in the mother church, no.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. How big is the Naples Park
church, square feet?
PASTOR MARTIN: Just about -- close to about 5,000.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Five thousand square feet, okay.
And how many members do you have there?
PASTOR MARTIN: Between it's -- you know, being season,
sometimes they are 100, sometimes 85, sometimes 100.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But it's around 85 to 100?
PASTOR MARTIN: Yes. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Twenty-eight years, okay. And do
you have activities there every day?
PASTOR MARTIN: No, sir. Most of the activity we have is
like a baptism if we do on the beach, and we have some kind -- at the
last Sunday we have an event in the park. We got children [sic] over
there. They have a lot of different activities. So we use different
December 14, 2021
Page 141
resources in the county to don't be bothering your neighbor.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And your -- I don't want to
call it a model, but your model is to build churches where your
parishioners live?
PASTOR MARTIN: Yeah, just about -- just about it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Community churches.
PASTOR MARTIN: Community church, small community
church. That was my degree -- when I get a master degree, that was
my --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thesis.
PASTOR MARTIN: Thesis, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Thesis.
Okay. So those are all the questions I have. And I will just
say that I have never received one complaint about the church in
Naples Park, and I've never -- I've never -- I'm looking at the
restrictions that the church has agreed to, and what -- I do have a
question for staff, and that is, you know, are there any other churches
specifically in Golden Gate Estates as well that has agreed -- I mean,
frankly, limiting the hours during which a church could have a
funeral bothers me, or a wedding, I mean -- and limiting the number
of funerals or weddings that they could have in a day to one and
between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. or an evening funeral or wedding
between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., I've just never heard of that
anywhere. And I just -- that really bothers me that we would want to
limit the time at which people could either get married or have a
service for somebody that's died. That's all I've got to say.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had a couple questions for
you, sir. Sir, are you a parishioner? You said, no, you weren't an
attorney. What was your relationship to the church?
December 14, 2021
Page 142
MR. MARTIN: I'm the brother of Pastor Jorge Martin, the
original church.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, you did say that at the
beginning. You might not be an attorney, but you did a thorough
job, I thought. I know it takes time to go through all those
different -- a lot of people might not have patience for that, but I've
been on that other side there and trying to find all your documents, so
I appreciate you taking the time.
But I did have a couple of questions. In fairness to the people
that sent the letter -- and you were basically going down saying, hey,
this isn't true and whatnot. The one part that we're making about the
bus stop wasn't that the church would interfere with the bus stop.
What they were saying was the traffic of a funeral or a wedding,
which I definitely agree with Commissioner Solis, but I just wanted
to clarify the point. They were basically saying, you've got kids
standing at a bus stop; if there's something going on at the church, it's
a safety issue. So it wasn't a matter of, like, building a building
affects a bus stop. So just, you know, for point of clarification.
Can you just give us a short version. You said in the beginning,
boy, we've really made a lot of concessions from day one, and I
can't -- you know, I can't say I've been following this from the exact
moment and all the different maps. But, obviously, just looking
at -- I have several different drawings here that have changed. So
you've decreased the parking, right, made the parking a lot smaller.
And I can see some things on here. What other things, just for the
record, do you feel like you've gone over and above to reduce the size
or the scope or more buffering, you know, whatever? And, you
know, I don't need a lengthy type thing, but I think it's important to
just sort of hear a summary of all the things you've gone above and
beyond to do.
MR. MARTIN: I don't know if staff, Laura DeJohn, is here.
December 14, 2021
Page 143
She can go over it in more detail with you, but the number of seats
was reduced from originally --
MR. DE AZA: From 250.
MR. MARTIN: -- from 250 down to 100. The square
footage --
MR. DE AZA: The size.
MR. MARTIN: The square footage was reduced.
MR. DE AZA: Originally we went in with 9,000 square feet,
and we came down to 5,000.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I guess my only concern is,
you know, if it's a church and people love the church, they come. So
if you have 200 seats in a restaurant and then we make you skinny it
down to 100, when the 101st person walks in, we say, there's no
seats, we can't seat you, and then they leave, the church doesn't work
that way. People sit, stand in the back, and crowd.
So, you know, in fairness to some of the residents here -- and
I'm not saying I'm for or against. I want to hear, you know,
everything that's said here -- is when the 101st person comes in when
whatever the parking is -- what is it, 45 slots? So when the 46th car
comes in, they won't turn around because there's no parking.
The concern of the residents is, they're going to be parking all
over the curb. They're going to be parking everywhere, just
like -- which happens at the beach, what happens at a carnival, what
happens at a farmers market. And so that's part of the concern, and I
think this church is going to have a lot of popularity. And so part of
the concern, I think, of the residents -- and I'm only throwing this out
there because I want to hear your rebuttal. I don't think you're going
to have a monitor in the parking lot saying, sorry, the church is closed
or, you know, no more weddings because our parking lot's full.
So, you know, we want to make sure that this is conducive and
cohesive to this neighborhood and that, you know, we're not
December 14, 2021
Page 144
approving something that then does become bigger than what it's
sized for because of the popularity, you know, of the church or what
it does. Like you said, there's not something in this area. It's in a
perfect spot and all that.
I mean, quite frankly, when I saw how you skinnied down the
footprint, I got a little concerned that it's definitely going to be a
full -- you know, you might not be operating seven days a week, but
on a Sunday, you know, with the right pastor and right sermon, it's
going to be a full, full -- you know, a full capacity. What are your
thoughts to that?
MR. MARTIN: That's a good question, Commissioner.
Thank you for the question. And you also had another question
about the bus stop. I'll try to answer both questions here.
As far as the size of the congregation, right now that
congregation -- I don't know if the Commission knows -- is actually
meeting in a mini market -- market, kind of supermarket-type store
on Randall Boulevard right now in a leased space.
To answer your question regarding what happens if that 46th car
comes in or not, the hours of operation that are in the conditions of
approval are from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. That's enough time to
have two services. So you could have one service from 9:00 to
11:00 and the other service comes right after that from 11:00 to 2:00,
so that's how you would handle that type of --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's not your initial plan,
but that's a contingency if it becomes more --
MR. MARTIN: Yes. And that's why the -- what is it, six
hours of operation would allow us to do that. It is very limiting.
And like I mentioned before, I don't know of any other church that's
had all these conditions imposed on them.
But as we went through the Planning Commission meetings,
those were some of the concerns of some of the commissioners on
December 14, 2021
Page 145
that commission and that they had wanted us to consider to address
the concerns of the residents. And so the church agreed to those
terms.
And so to answer your question about you have the 101st person
come in or the 46th car, at that point we'd have to have two separate
services during that six-hour window.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. You would slowly
start to see that build and anticipate it, and then you would still be
within your window of hours to make those -- okay. That's what I
wanted to hear.
MR. MARTIN: And as I mentioned, right now the
congregation has about 70 members, and that's what this will start
with.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Got it, okay.
MR. MARTIN: The other question about the bus stop, well,
bus stop for kids for school buses, those are Monday through Friday.
Church services are on Sunday. So I don't see the conflict there.
Wednesday evening is not going to be a conflict with that bus stop.
We're talking about the hours of operation of 6:00 to 9:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just saw that one of the
bullets was weddings and funerals may be conducted on an as-needed
basis; however, no one [sic] will occur more than on a single day.
So could there be a funeral on a Wednesday morning when kids are
waiting for the bus? I think that's what that letter meant.
MR. MARTIN: I will let brother speak to that, but I have never
seen a funeral done at 7:30 in the morning when kids are at a bus stop
at the church.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, they're also there at
whatever time in the afternoon when they get out.
MR. MARTIN: Yeah. Either in the evening time or in the
afternoon when things are starting to get ready for that --
December 14, 2021
Page 146
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Understood, yeah. I don't
want to split hair on it.
MR. MARTIN: -- but I don't see that as being a conflict.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No other questions? All right.
That's it. That's your presentation right now. We're going to hear
from staff if that's -- if you've finished. Is there any more --
MR. MARTIN: No, but I'll be available for questions --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
MR. MARTIN: -- and for rebuttals if there's questions that
come up as some of the public comes up to speak.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course. We definitely will be
able to come back.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Mr. Bosi, you can use the other podium if it's easier.
MR. BOSI: Oh, I appreciate it. I'm good here. Mike Bosi
representing staff.
As indicated within their presentation and commented a
number -- by members of the Commission, there are a number of
restrictions that have been placed upon this church and more so than
any other church. We have placed some hours of operations,
limitations on other churches, but not to this level of specificity, and
it really gets to the heart of my comments.
This was heard originally by the Planning Commission on 9/7,
and then it was continued by the Planning Commission to
October 21st, and the primary concern was they felt about the
neighborhood compatibility. 22nd Street being a dead-end street,
being a local road, 8th Street now being a collector, didn't quite set
itself up as the intersection of two busy roads, the local road being a
little bit more of concern.
December 14, 2021
Page 147
And just to mention, one of the other -- there's two other areas of
concession. They did lower the overall height. The steeple can
only be at 50 feet where before it was going to be able to be at
80 feet, and they did increase the buffering that was being proposed.
But it really was compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
So the church went back. They made a tremendous amount of
concessions. And to be honest with you, I mean, they -- they're
proposing nine-and-a-half hours of service on a weekly basis with the
limitations to funerals and weddings.
Because of that, because of these concessions, because of the
recognition of the residential character of the street, staff is
supporting the petition. The Planning Commission did recommend
5-2 to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners,
and it was really -- it was consistent with the concessions that were
being made that they fit this -- fit the facility with the characteristics
of the street and some of the concerns that were raised by some of the
adjoining property owners.
But as well, this is not only a conditional-use approval, and
we've described those conditions, but it's also a GMP amendment,
and this does require an amendment to the Golden Gate Estates Area
Master Plan.
The Estates zoning district has churches as an allowed
conditional use, but there's a restriction within the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan in terms of locations. So for a conditional use to move
forward, there's very few locations that a conditional use can actually
be sought. You need to amend the Growth Management Plan.
That's why the previous church had a similar type of a circumstance
needing a Growth Management Plan as well.
But with all that being said, staff is recommending approval.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval at 5-2. It
does require a GMP amendment, and we feel that the conditions that
December 14, 2021
Page 148
are being imposed will provide neighborhood protections in a manner
that can provide the compatibility that we're looking for for -- in
terms of this facility at this location, and staff would entertain any
questions that the commissioners may have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have -- I have a question.
There's no one else up here. What does the overlay state, the Golden
Gate overlay? Talk to us about -- I think it was just created a couple
years ago, correct? Last fall.
MR. BOSI: Oh, no. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The master plan.
MR. BOSI: The Golden Gate Area Master Plan was updated a
year and a half ago.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And it was updated for a number of different
provisions. And one of the things that it did do was it allowed for
telecommunication towers to be requested along any arterial or
collector road. So what you heard today this morning was a result of
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan being changed as part of that
public process.
But what it has always said, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan,
was they want to limit the number of conditional uses, and that dates
back to the mid '80s, early '90s, toward where there was a rush of
conditional uses out to the Estates because of the affordability of that
area. And because of that, they wanted to put a control. They
wanted to put a limitation towards where conditional uses could be
sought.
So the only way a conditional use can now be sought in the
Estates, even though the zoning district says a church is a conditional
use in the Estates, you have a Growth Management Plan, a Golden
Gate Area Master Plan, that places that limitation. So it's an extra
effort. There's extra consideration, and because of that, there's
December 14, 2021
Page 149
normally more concessions and more conditions that will be imposed
upon a facility such as this.
So it has always had that restriction because of the concern of a
proliferation of these facilities, but I think, as you heard the applicant
state, there are -- I mean, there are some churches within the Rural
Golden Gate Estates, but there's very limited opportunities for those,
and that's where the Estates has that provision, and that's why it does
require that Growth Management Plan amendment associated with it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the updating of the master plan
continues to prohibit commercial or churches within the residential
area?
MR. BOSI: The -- it has specific locations towards where
conditional uses could be sought. It has specific locations where
neighborhood centers are allowed to be developed and where others
commercial activity can -- I mean, there are interior locations where
commercial activity is supported, and that's just a recognition that
households have needs and at least bringing those goods and services
in a little bit closer proximity to the households within the Estates
does have some value from an environmental standpoint, from a
convenience standpoint, from an efficiency standpoint, just from an
overall quality-of-life standpoint.
But it's a balance. It's a balance. They want to maintain the
rural character, but they also want to have some of the conveniences,
but they don't want to become urbanized. So it's most certainly a
precarious balance. And every application that you have for a
conditional use requires the GMP amendment. It's not a bad thing,
because it's an extra layer of protection. The applicants have to go
far and above, beyond to show that they can be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, and staff's perspective is we feel that
compatibility has been arrived upon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I was curious when I read the
December 14, 2021
Page 150
staff report about the two planning commissioners that -- the planning
board commissioners that voted against it. I think it was Mr. Shea,
and do you remember who else the other one was? I wondered what
area they represent. I believe Mr. Shea is your appointment? Is he?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not sure.
MR. BOSI: I think Commissioner Vernon and Commissioner
Shea both, they -- what they cited was they felt that there wasn't a
compelling public benefit that was going to be able to provide the
justification for amending the Growth Management Plan, because
your Growth Management Plan is the pinnacle of your regulatory
documents. It's the highest level. It's the one that's supposed
to -- that takes the most to amend, and because of that, they
weren't -- they felt that they weren't able to pinpoint that public
benefit. The other five planning commissioners felt that that had
been satisfied.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had a really educational
conversation with our County Manager. Actually, he had it with me
to educate me. When we were talking about all these Growth
Management Plan -- the GMP amendments that -- you know, it seems
like a lot of different ones come up. And so this is maybe more of a
question. It's maybe not so much in this vote, but I think it's
educational for us. Is the Growth Management Plan another
thing -- like you said, it's the big bible, it's the big overwhelming
thing that the county has -- that really we need to take a hard look at?
Because it seems like every time something comes up -- I say "every
time." I'm overexaggerating. But there's been more than a few
times where, well, we need an amendment. We need an amendment.
Is the Growth Management Plan dated, dusty, too stringent, not
stringent enough, and is it something that your office, simultaneously,
December 14, 2021
Page 151
while we're looking at all these onesies, twosies, is taking a look at?
It sounded like we were.
So I sort of wanted to hear out loud for the record, are we taking
a look at the Growth -- is something going to come to us at some
point where, with your expertise, and we've got a lot of new
leadership, that we're going to -- you know, do we need to or are we
going to address the GMP?
MR. BOSI: The Growth Management's a living document.
There is a constant evolution to it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: When's the last time we had
an evolution to it is, I guess, my question because --
MR. BOSI: Well, the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District in 2001
and 2002 --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, that recent.
MR. BOSI: -- and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, those
were pretty significant, and those were regulatory improvements to
the document that were recognized nationally in terms of being
innovative, in terms of how to handle sprawl, how to handle the
arrangement of urban activity.
What I would say is, later on in this agenda today you've got the
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. That was the first of the four
restudies that we were going to go out and look at the eastern portion
of the county. The Growth Management Plan was the focus. We're
looking at the eastern portion of the county.
So in 2015, this board directed staff to pick up the restudies. So
we are just now closing in on the remaining of these potential
improvements that we went out and have spoken to the community
for, and then after -- after these adoptions of these Growth
Management Plan amendments, you'll start seeing, and you're starting
to see, the LDC amendments that are going to come -- that are going
to come through to implement the GMP amendments. And then as
December 14, 2021
Page 152
soon as we're done with that, we're probably going to start in
looking -- continuing to evaluate the urbanized area.
One of the things that we have coming up -- when I was
working for Johnson Engineering in my two years that I was away, I
helped start processing GMP amendments related to maximum
density within our urbanized area, and we've arrived upon -- and
you'll see it eventually coming through the review process -- at 16
units per acre is what our current limitations are, but now we're
seeing 25 units per acre is probably more appropriate based upon the
overall needs of this county in its particular relationship to
affordability, and I think you heard some speakers today that were
echoing those type of comments.
So those are ongoing, and those will be coming before you. So
we are always constantly trying to identify ways for improvements
and ways to increase the land-use deficiencies, but we're also -- we
also bump up against inertia and human nature. People are hesitant
to change. They're not embracing of change for the most part. And
what we do is usher change into individual neighbors, and we bring
about levels of density.
At one time this Board of County Commissioners wouldn't think
16 units per acre was appropriate in some of the most urbanized
areas. Now this Board of County Commissioners recognizes there's
needs in the right locations for those types of intensities and those
types of densities and that there's a public benefit that's being
provided for in terms of when you have those types of arrangements.
So it's an ongoing evolution.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So my point is, the Growth
Management Plan serves a huge purpose to regulate and direct, you
know, what we're doing here, so it's not -- you know, but when we
start making so many exceptions or so many amendments, to your
point, if it is a living, breathing document, it is only living and
December 14, 2021
Page 153
breathing if we actually take a look at it regularly. And if you
remember, it wasn't too long ago we were in here talking, I think,
about the RLSA or something else that should have been reviewed
every seven years, and now we were at the 23rd year, or whatever it
was, and we were just digging into it.
So this -- you know, the conversation I had with the County
Manager was, this might be one of the ones that, like you said, if it's
going to be living and breathing, let's live and breathe it. And these
examples that have been coming to us recently, I think, in my -- at
least in my opinion, seem to show that -- it doesn't mean we, you
know, do a knee jerk and automatically change it, but taking a look at
it. And it might be, hey, we still think it's perfect. You know, we
still think it's perfect, but that's better than saying, well, we haven't
looked at it at in 10 years, so...
MR. BOSI: Well, the one thing I was saying is there's nothing
perfect, but we do try to chase the efficiencies that we know that we
can bring improvements to it. And we take that in, and we'll
incorporate that as we look at strategic planning over the next -- you
know, 2022 and beyond.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks, Mike.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we don't have any more questions
at this point for staff. How many public comment do we have?
MR. MILLER: We have 15 registered speakers for this item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I suggest we begin.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Madam Chair, one quick --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Oh, you have a question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, I have a favor or a
request, and is it has to do with one of our online folks. Tony Reyes
and his wife both online, and we don't have a provision for an online
participant to cede their time to another per my instructions --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we don't.
December 14, 2021
Page 154
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- without our giving
approval. And I --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can't do it. Because I was asked
the last meeting, too. You have to be present to cede time. That's
just one of our rules.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Even if his wife is
online with him?
MR. KLATZKOW: These are your -- these are your rules. If
there's three votes to change the rule, you can change your rule, but
these are your rules.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I told him -- he
was at the Evening with the Commissioner, and I told him that I had
to ask your permission to allow him his six minutes instead of -- and
have his wife cede her time, so...
MR. MILLER: Is she registered under a different name?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Maggie.
MR. MILLER: Because I only have Tony online right now, so
I'm assuming they would be together in the same place, then. So she
would just be able to say she's there?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. He is Gamal, Tony.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. I see -- yeah, I'm looking at actually
who's online as opposed to just who registered. I see that he's there.
You're saying she wouldn't have registered separately. She's just
going to be there with him?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I thought -- the way I
understood it, she was going to be registered as well, but she may be
with him as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is why it's three minutes for off-line.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. MILLER: She did register, yes, you're right. She is
registered, so I'm assuming they're in the same place, so they
December 14, 2021
Page 155
wouldn't be both online at the same time. So she did register.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They may be together. If --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Do we have a consensus
to allow a person who's in the same household as the other person to
cede their time? Both are registered.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Sure. More than three
minutes --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Discussing it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I agree. I want to hear
people talk.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So it's okay.
MR. ISACKSON: Madam Chair, I'm looking at Terri. You're
bumping up against a court reporter break.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it's a little early yet, right?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, 2:50.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We started late. You tell me. You
tell me. Do you want to do it now or wait til 3:30?
THE COURT REPORTER: 3:15.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 3:15.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we'll still call the speakers in the
room first and then the speakers online, if that's all right.
Your first speaker is Heidi Severeyn. She's been ceded
additional time from Dennis Ansbro.
Dennis, are you here?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. And Judy Rapp. I think --
MS. SEVEREYN: She had to leave.
MR. MILLER: She had to leave, so, Heidi, you'll have six
minutes. And Heidi will be followed by Teresa Ansbro. If you
December 14, 2021
Page 156
could queue up over here at this podium, I'd appreciate it.
MS. SEVEREYN: Except I have photos on this one.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Just give me just a second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What I am going to do is ask
everyone who wants to testify and speak to us today, we really want
to hear your comments, but given what's before us, I would ask that if
you agree with the speaker prior to when you're speaking, so
someone comes up before you, says everything that you wanted to
say and you've got the paper in front of you, it would be greatly
appreciated if you'd say "I agree with the speaker ahead of me. They
have made my points. My name is," that would be very helpful, and
then we wouldn't have to hear the same thing three minutes every
time. Thank you. That's both sides of this coin. Thank you.
MS. SEVEREYN: Thanks for listening to me. My name's
Heidi Severeyn. I live on 22nd Avenue Northeast, Naples. I have
some neighbors that I brought with me.
I'm here today to voice my opposition along with many in the
community to the rezoning of the residential property and the
building of a church. I have a few points I'd like to consider, but I
just wanted to point out -- let's see. This is a little small, isn't it? I
just wanted to give you an idea of what's happening around where we
live as well really quickly.
If you look at -- down here, this curve, that's Immokalee when it
starts going to Immokalee, and this is Randall, and then we come
right off of Randall on 8th Street, right here. And this is the spot
they're talking about, and this is our street.
There's going to be the 400-unit apartment complex over -- oh,
sorry -- over on this side over here somewhere, and then this pink
part is actually going to be commercial, okay. And I'm pretty sure
when -- Randall's going to be expanded to four lanes, Immokalee six.
It's going to -- there's a lot going on right next to where we are.
December 14, 2021
Page 157
And I just wanted to kind of make that point, because it's -- it's
just residential in here, and it would be -- you know, we understand
there's growth. We're not thinking everything's going to stay in the
1950s. It's just trying to keep the interior of the Estates as residential
housing, because it's actually a pretty rare thing nowadays to have the
kind of housing arrangement that we do have out there.
The other ones I was going to point out I don't have to. He
was -- he kind of showed a couple of them, so you kind of saw the
overlay of what the area looked like. But I do have to bring up that
when the representatives said that the only real person being
impacted was this neighbor that was on the long side of it, well, that's
not true. On the other side, right abutting the west side of the land,
the entrance and exit is right next to their house. The guy on the 8th
Street has -- won't have any traffic that way as far as -- you know,
you're forgetting about the entire other part. There's people across
the street from this parking lot, and there's those people. That's
where the entrance and exit is on a dead end little street. So I just
wanted to kind of clarify that that does matter.
So, anyway, I just want to make a couple points. First, the
Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, which I know you just talked
about, it was recently revised in 2019, and it does designate major
intersections for nonresidential. And this lot isn't one of them.
This was put together by residents' input and the county, and it
was ratified as the Growth Management Plan, and I think that should
hold some weight.
The second point I was going to make was that the church only
has the one entrance on 22nd Avenue and that -- when he was talking
about having multiple services, if you think about the traffic, well,
what did they incorporate with that traffic study? How many
different things? You're going to have a church service for an hour.
So you're going to have people come in, then they come out, and
December 14, 2021
Page 158
there's going to be more people coming in and coming out in a
six-hour window on a day. I mean, that's a lot more than just one
service, because you think of it as just how many people you can fit
into one parking lot, you know, but it's not. It's multiple. It's over
and over and over again. And I actually didn't even think about that
until he brought it up. I'm like, oh, wow.
The third point was that this church does have a growing
congregation, and they've said that many times in the Planning
Commission meetings, and that's self-described. I mean -- and I'm
glad. I'm not -- no one is upset about a church. Like, we're -- no
one on our street is against a church. Nothing in that vein at all.
But the way this church has been pared down it's already going to
outgrow its congregation by the time it's built.
And my fourth point was that church activities are difficult if not
impossible to regulate to certain days, which is something that you
brought up, you know, and --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It shouldn't be.
MS. SEVEREYN: But that's by their very nature, and that's
one of the reasons this was so difficult is because it's hard to say,
well, you can't do something because, I mean, you don't -- that's not
your entire point. But, in reality, there will be many more activities
than the restrictions allow. And, you know, once it's established,
you can also just petition for more activities once it's there.
The fifth thing I was going to say was that this precedence of
having another exemption to the master plan would set a precedence.
Once a lot's changed to conditional use, the surrounding lots couldn't
argue that this would change the nature of the neighborhood.
Essentially, this already happened here, so there's no recourse in
saying, oh, well, you know, that's fine, there's another one and here's
another one. And an important point in that argument is that it also
incentivizes people to -- why would you want to build somewhere on
December 14, 2021
Page 159
a major intersection where they will cost more money to buy the land
when you can buy a residential lot that, you know, was for a home?
What do you think is going to happen? This is going to come to you
over and over and over again with this master plan and people doing
the same -- you know, people doing the same thing. And, I mean, it
makes sense, but it's also going to erode what the Golden Gate
Estates is.
And the sixth and final point I have is we understand that
Randall is a major road. 8th Street will have commercial, all those
things that I just described in this first little slide here.
And to me, this is kind of a reasonable argument to have the
interior of the Golden Gate Estates for residential homes only, and
then you have outside and major artery [sic] roads. When you talk
about, oh, well, there's some in the interior, well, some of those are
on Golden Gate Boulevard, which is already four lanes. And it's
already an established neighbor where you have large acreages. So
it just seems that that would be reasonable.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. SEVEREYN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Teresa Ansbro. She's
been ceded three additional minutes from Mandy Wilkinson.
Mandy, are you present?
MS. WILKINSON: I am.
MR. MILLER: And she will be followed by Leo Vendecia. I
hope I'm saying that correct, sir. I can't read your writing.
MS. ANSBRO: Hi. Me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ANSBRO: Hi. My name's Teresa Ansbro. My family
and I reside at 580 22nd Ave Northeast and also 600 22nd Avenue
Northeast. My brother-in-law owns the house next to us. We both,
in both of these homes, have to drive past the proposed site to get to
December 14, 2021
Page 160
and from our house every day.
I wanted to state my opposition to the approval of conditional
use for this property as well as strongly against an amendment to the
master plan to allow conditional use at the property as well.
I wanted to point out that I stated that the site is on 22nd Ave
Northeast. Through all the Planning Commission meetings and
documentation and everything, we see that it's stated as 8th Street
Northeast and 22nd Avenue Northeast, the corner. But as the
applicant stated earlier, they have two lots that are side by side, and
the construction or the plot where that actual structure is going to be
built and the parking lot is going to be built is actually on the west
330 feet of Tract 133, which is located on 22nd Ave Northeast, not
8th Street Northeast, okay.
So I think that's important because at the October 21st planning
committee meeting, a staff recommended this application. I think it
was Mr. Bosi -- sorry about your name -- that the recommendation of
the application was based on the classification of 8th Street Northeast
functionally being a collector road. That's 8th Street Northeast being
the collector road, not 22nd Ave Northeast.
The in and out on is 22nd Ave Northeast. The parking lot's on
22nd Ave Northeast. The structure's on 22nd Ave Northeast. So it
impacts the residents on 22nd Ave Northeast.
One of the letters that the applicant showed that was in support
of the structure was the neighbor on 8th Street. The other neighbor
that I know Heidi mentioned, and I know I'm repeating slightly, so I
apologize, but the other neighbor is Mandy Wilkinson, who I'm
speaking on behalf of today. She's also opposed to the change to
conditional use and the change to the master plan as well because it
does impact her property directly next to the parking lot, 35-space
paved parking lot. That will be right next to her driveway in the
future if this is approved.
December 14, 2021
Page 161
I wanted to also say 22nd Ave is, like, identified as a two-lane
road, but if you've not been to the Estates, those two-lane roads are
very narrow. I mean, our street's so narrow that when my
16-year-old, who I'm trying to teach to drive a car right now, has to
drive down the road with a car coming the other way, he gets so
scared he has to, like, drive off the road sometimes if that car's not,
like, on their side and they're towards the middle. It's so tight. Or
when you're driving down the road and you're passing by mailboxes,
you've got to stop if another car's coming, because you don't want to
sideswipe your neighbor's mailbox. You know, it's narrow.
I know they said they're going to put in a sidewalk there to the
bus stop. We talked about it, right? It's not going to impact the kids
going to the bus. Well, the buses come -- my son gets on the bus at
6:00 in the morning. The buses come all the way till 8:00 in the
morning. The afternoon buses start coming home -- my son comes
home at 2:15, they go up until 6:00 p.m. for kids after school.
So if we have services in the evenings on Wednesdays, there's a
potential that those kids can be getting off the bus stop when those
people are coming for services in the evening on Wednesday
evenings.
If you have weddings and funerals, which are allowed, one per
day any day, in addition to the Sundays and Wednesdays, that could
impact our kids' safety. Yeah, there's a sidewalk there, but there's
cars coming in, and the kids are crossing to the sidewalk, and they're
young. That 6:00 p.m. bus is middle schoolers like sixth graders.
They're young. It adds a safety concern. So I just wanted to say
that.
They state that it's not going to impact the residents in the
neighborhood, right? It is. Sundays and Wednesdays just alone,
never mind the weddings and funerals or whatever else happens that
they are allowed to do. Sundays and Wednesdays -- like, Sundays is
December 14, 2021
Page 162
when I have off. Wednesday, the evening, is when I have off from
work. That's when I want to enjoy my neighborhood the most is the
weekends and the evenings, right? And that's when they're there.
So it is a change, right?
It's additional traffic. It's additional people. It is a change. It
is going to impact my way of life, and it is going to change the rural
character of our neighborhood that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
is supposed to protect. So I wanted to say that.
They say that it's going to decrease traffic on Immokalee Road.
I just think that's, like, nonsense. If your parishioners are in the
Golden Gate Estates and they're currently going to the Little Mart to
go to church on Wednesdays and Sundays, they're not going on
Immokalee Road to go to church now. They're just going to come
here instead of here. That's not decreasing any extra traffic on
Immokalee Road. That's just bogus. I don't understand.
Five thousand square foot, 100 seats in the church. My
understanding is it might be 100 seats, but my understanding is also
that fire code allows up to 300 people in that building at a time. So
standing room only. They have standing room only now in their
current facility. I was there at the neighborhood information
meeting. We were packed in there.
It is a small space, I agree, but you could have standing room in
that church up to 300 people, is my understanding, for fire code.
There's six sections at least in the Golden Gate Estates Master
Plan that protect us residents for this type of conditional-use
approvals. I'm not going to say them all, because I'm running out of
time, but one, Objective 4.2 states that it will provide the protection
of the rural character of the rural Golden Gate Estates.
Section -- Policy 4.2.3 of the master plan states, rural character shall
be further protected by resisting site-specific master plan changes that
are out of the scale or character with the rural quality of the Golden
December 14, 2021
Page 163
Gate Estates. Out of the scale, 5,000-square-foot building on a
two-and-a-half acre lot. I'm saying two-and-a-half acres because I
know they have five, but they're only building on two, two and a half,
half of that.
The only thing that's going to be on that other half of that lot, the
other lot, is preserve land, the wetlands, waste -- water management,
and septic.
Out of character, 30-space paved parking lot on two-and-a-half
acres plus a 5,000-square-foot building is not the character that we
have in our area. It's totally against preserving the rural character of
our Estates and our residents. I have a ton more, but thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Leo Vendecia, and he will
be followed by Barbara Lopez.
Barbara, if I could have you come wait at the other podium.
MR. VENDECIA: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Leo.
I'm one of the members of the church, and I'm here today to -- just
because I want to say that I'm for the building of the church, and I
can't wait.
I think it's going to be good for the community and just to bring
up the fact that the church has never been a negative impact on any
society. Also, just to remind the opponents that Collier County as
we know it is changing, and if it's not a church, eventually more
buildings are going to be built all because it is for the good of the
community. Like I said, the church, it's never been a negative
impact for any society, and if it's not, if it's not -- if it's not a church,
eventually they will be seeing a lot more than the building of a
church in that community.
Just like I've said before, Collier County continues to grow. A
lot of people are coming to Florida. And I believe that this is, you
know, we're opposing to the goodwill of Collier County. We know
December 14, 2021
Page 164
that you guys are approving what's good for the community, and I
just don't see where the problem of the building of a church in a
community is. So that's essentially it. I thank you guys for it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Barbara Lopez. She'll be
followed by Gustavo Marin.
MS. LOPEZ: Hi. My name is Barbara Lopez, and I support
the church. I am a member over there. And I know this is a
blessing for the community, and we want to help to the people. We
help the child.
I here today about this group, as I working on the Collier County
School Bus Transportation, and the kids coming in that time with the
church, the service. And I think it's not important for the child, the
teenager people and for the young people.
We want to be working. We want to help. That's all we want,
you know. And we pray to God, and that's it.
I think it's good, and listen a lot of things over here, but that's
important in the community. That's important, the child, the
children. We give our good money. We follow the Bible said. We
teach a good thing for the young people and teenager. That's
important. That's -- we have help. That's only we help. Thank
you so much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gustavo Marin. He
would be followed by Angus Gilmore.
MR. MARIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good afternoon.
MR. MARIN: It's a pleasure to be here.
I said it before, Naples and Collier County are one of the best
run counties and cities in the state of Florida, and I really mean it. I
really do mean it. Financially speaking, cleanest -- the cleanest city
December 14, 2021
Page 165
I ever seen in Florida is Naples, Florida.
And my daughter-in-law works for Collier County Sheriff's
Office. She's a deputy, and she's happy in joy because she got a
$10,000-a-year raise, you know, from the commissioners. So she's
very grateful. And that means financially that that this is a very -- if
you can afford that, that means that they have financially been able to
pay for everything around to give the Sheriff that kind of a raise.
But what I want to say is that, you know, the church needs a
home. We all need a home. We all need a place to stay, you know,
and we're -- you know, we're -- right now the church is in a little strip
mall next to a supermarket, you know, with nothing to call its own.
They need a place to call their own.
We all know the skyrocketing cost of living in Collier County.
You know, the church just got -- they just -- I was talking to the
pastor, and they just hiked up his rent again, you know.
I was watching the news in Mar-a-Lago, the apartments, and
they went -- a two-bedroom apartment, $4,000 a month. That's
sky -- that's crazy. So that's why we want to control our future and
have a place where we can call our home and stay there.
You know, this is a -- this is a benefit to the community. We
know the church is there to bring people to heaven. That's our goal.
Our goal is to bring people to get them into heaven by the atoning
blood of Jesus Christ. That's our goal. There's nothing else.
I hear all these negative things. And I was thinking, you know
what, if Jesus Christ was to come down from heaven and build a
church, they'd probably be opposed. Jesus Christ would receive
opposition, too. There's always opposition to everything you do.
But this is a benefit to the community. This is a benefit for the -- for
the county of Collier County.
And like the commissioner was saying, the pastor been there for
28 years, and he said, have we ever had a complaint? He never had
December 14, 2021
Page 166
a complaint in 28 years.
Right now the membership, the pastor's been there for 10 years
in little different spots, and it has only got 70 members. They -- the
people in opposition make you freak out like there's going to be a
bunch of traffic, a bunch of -- no. They only got 70 members in 10
years. What makes you think that he's going to grow a
mega-church? No, that's not our opposition [sic] -- that's not the
condition.
We want to grow as a church, and if we grow too much, we'll
build another church someplace else. That's our -- that's our -- that's
what the thesis of the pastor is, not to overcrowd one place and stick
a bunch of people and traffic.
And they were saying that it's going to impact the kids coming
from school. Come on, the church is 7:30 at night on Wednesday.
It starts at 7:30 at night? What kid gets off the bus at 7:30 at night.
Come on, that's -- they're just throwing a bunch of stuff at you to kill
this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MARIN: And this is only a benefit for the community,
and we just want to help the community get closer to Jesus Christ and
build a church if there are the Spanish community. That's all it's
about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MARIN: There's no Spanish church there. Thank you so
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Angus Gilmore. He'll be
followed by Brian Normandin.
MR. GILMORE: Yes, hi. My name's Angus Gilmore.
I live on 8th Street. I'm 300 feet away from where this church
is proposed to be built. I'm not very happy about it. I moved out
there. I've lived there for 26 years. The county -- or the DOT
December 14, 2021
Page 167
supposedly puts the bridge in, put the sidewalk in, that's nice, but
now we have to deal with what's going on from that, the traffic.
And then, you know -- okay. We can say we're not going to
generate traffic. I don't see how it's possible. They applied for a
200-seat church; they get 100-seat. The parking. Now we're going
to deal with parking lot lights. Think of that in your house, in your
neighborhood. We're going to have parking lot lights. They're not
low or anything. It's disturbing. Then we're going to have to listen
to it, which I live out there. Yes, I have parties, maybe one a year, if
that, maybe a couple a year.
I listen to all the parties in the neighborhood. I know what's
coming, you know. It's just -- the biggest concern is that we're
making a change to our amendments of to what our land management
is supposed to be. You know, I don't think it's fair to the current
landowners to be making these kind of changes. We've been there
for a long time; taxpayers. I supported you in your run, you know.
Quite frankly, I'm getting a pretty good education since I've been
looking at what's going on, and, you know, it's -- I think we need to
strengthen our association group for out in the Estates that we can be
more of a voice on what's going on.
And, you know, I've got nothing against churches, so it's
just -- you know, let's see, what else do we get? I think I've about
covered it. I'm very unhappy with it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brian Normandin. He'll
be followed by Rae Ann Burton.
MR. NORMANDIN: Brian Normandin here. I live on 22nd
Ave. Forgive me, I'm not a public speaker.
But first off, I'm not against churches. It's -- that's not the issue.
I'm just against a business being in a residential area.
We moved there about four-and-a-half years ago. We picked
December 14, 2021
Page 168
the lot. We picked a lot on that street because it was quiet, all
residential. No businesses. The businesses are out on Randall and
Immokalee Road, and that's fine. That's close around. But we
chose that area because it was all residential.
I see this as a business. I'm not sure how other people do. But
it's going to create traffic, not overwhelming traffic, but let's just look
at two -- when service comes out, here's 45 or so cars coming out
onto this tiny street all waiting a couple hundred feet down the street
to try to -- at the stop sign, try to go left or go right. It is going to
back up the street a bit.
It's not against the church. I would be up here if it was a pizza
joint or ice cream parlor; whatever it is, I would be up here as well.
A couple of the points I have here have been made by other
people. We did have someone on our street that was trying to run a
business out of their home. They were shut down because they were
running a business. This, to me, is a business.
I don't know. Back to the, you know, this is where we bought.
I mean, I could probably say that a lot of folks in this room bought a
house somewhere. They bought it because of the neighborhood that
they're living in. And if a business or a structure came up in your
neighborhood, everybody would be upset. That's what we're coming
from.
I apologize. I'm not a public speaker here, but...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're doing just fine. Thank you.
MR. NORMANDIN: I guess that's about it. Thank you for
listening to me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, one more, or do we break now?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's -- I think we need to break, I
think. And we'll come back with Ms. Burton. We'll break
until -- let's go 25 after.
December 14, 2021
Page 169
(A brief recess was had from 3:13 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.)
MR. ISACKSON: Chair Taylor, Commissioners, you have a
live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I think,
Ms. Burton.
MR. MILLER: Yes, Madam Chair, your next speaker is Rae
Ann Burton, and she'll be followed by Aaron Zwiefel. I hope I'm
saying that right, Aaron.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're going to use two podiums.
MR. MILLER: I know Aaron will need to be at that podium,
because he has something on the computer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Perfect.
MS. BURTON: Good afternoon. My name is Rae Ann
Burton.
And first off I want to say, it's not about the church. It is about
the conditional use in residential area.
This petition to permit this church conditional use in rural
residence should not be approved. It will set precedence in the
future and be used as an example. They're already using the
LSD -- the LDS church.
This church belongs on a commercial road, not residential.
Disrupt quality of life of rural residents. It's not the first time they
tried to move in residential area and a required zoning change.
They've done it in Immokalee in November 2017. It's now being
tried on 5.15 acres, only 100 seats.
They also did not contact the GGEACA. They have liens due
to code infractions in 200 [sic]. It got reduced in 2019.
Area already saturated with heavy traffic due to bridge.
I brought packets that are in front of you. The result of hours of
verifying member addresses used as proof. Transferred this
information in Excel and found 10 people at one address with
December 14, 2021
Page 170
different names.
Documentation: First one is a current map of the area showing
in current churches, and I have them here if you wish me to show
them. I guess not.
Current maps -- second map shows a requested Pentecostal
church is in area [sic]. All from website.
Copy of the NIM sign-in sheet, April 29th, 2021. Total of 77
names. Worksheet showed 47 listed on both their list and support
list. Nineteen only listed on at the meeting but not support list.
Twenty-eight are listed on support page but not at the meeting.
Four, map of the five-mile member addresses show need for
church. A total of 59 addresses. I went to the Collier tax property
search to find out the names. Verified 43 at the website. Sixteen
did not show up on property website. That's a total of 59. Fifty-two
addresses on the map did not show up on support list. Seven, only
seven on the map showed on the support list, a total of 59.
The church has failed to prove need, failed to work with the
association and members, plus still residential land in Immokalee
since 2017. Documentations are contradictory. Duplications of
three pages of the things that they submitted, the very list that's on
your -- on the original agenda, there are three pages that are
duplicates. That's an extra 52 extra names and addresses, or some of
them are not even in the area.
Please vote no. This approval will put a foot in the door for
more conditional uses. They already are using it against us,
destroying our rural way of life. The code was created for a reason,
to protect and keep the Estates rural. It's not about a church. It's
about changing zoning to conditional. It will be used for future
projects if approved. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Ms. Burton.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Aaron Zwiefel. He'll be
December 14, 2021
Page 171
followed by Michael R. Ramsey. And, ma'am, I know they both
have things on the computer, so they'll both be at that podium.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. ZWIEFEL: Good afternoon. Commissioners, I'm Aaron
Zwiefel. I live down on 4741 14th Avenue down on the southeast
side of the Estates off DeSoto.
I'm here in opposition to the change of this property with the
conditional use as well as many other of the Golden Gate residents.
It's clear that churches were mentioned roughly 13 times
throughout the Rural Estates sub-element which was adopted in 2019.
It's clear that this was -- was -- I'm sorry. It's clear that this was
really well thought through, and it was an agreement between the
Commission as well as the Golden Gate stakeholders -- or the Golden
Gate Estates stakeholders. Based on the ordinance, churches are a
handful of the compatible uses, and on Page 14, Section 3.B, it states
that this is allowed conditional uses for properties immediately
adjacent to one of the three neighborhood centers as depicted in the
squares up here.
And also, the churches can also -- or churches or any of the
compatible uses can be built on properties that abut to arterial or
collector roads that serve those particular areas.
It was mentioned earlier that three churches throughout the
Estates are on major collector roads. Those are pretty much on
Golden Gate and on -- or, excuse me, and on Everglades, which do
feed those particular zones.
The proposed property on 8th Street doesn't meet either one of
these requirements; therefore, it shouldn't be considered as an eligible
property.
While churches have their places in the community, the GMP
agreement between the Golden Gate Estates stakeholders and the
County Commission clearly defines the desires of both parties.
December 14, 2021
Page 172
Adopting this conditional-use permit unilaterally violates the GMP
agreement without due process with the appropriate stakeholders, and
it also opens the floodgates to future development. By voting no to
this application, you show that community that they can trust the
Commission to stand by the ordinance that you've made with the
residents.
I implore you to vote against this particular amendment.
MR. MILLER: Your next --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: -- speaker is Michael R. Ramsey. He'll be
followed by Martha Bantz.
MR. RAMSEY: Commissioners, my name is Michael R.
Ramsey. I am the president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association, and we have discussed this in great detail on this issue.
The Estates Civic puts forth that we feel that staff should have
been more rigorous on the petitioner to produce information to justify
the statutory requirements for this application.
First, one of the indications there was we need more protection
for the quality-of-life issues with the Estates residents. On
April 29th, there was a NIMs meeting for this petitioner. It was
supposed to be held at 13260 Immokalee Road. This is an aerial
photograph of that. The Estates Civic considers this to be one of the
most unfair NIMs meeting we've ever attended, and there needs to be
something done about it. We believe that this deprived the residents
from obtaining the information about a proposed change to their
neighborhood.
As you see on here, this is the strip mall or La Appetito that's
next to the Big Corkscrew fire station. It has approximately a 75-car
parking lot. On any typical day, 55 are filled with patrons to this
strip small.
By 6:00 p.m. on this day, every parking spot was filled. There
December 14, 2021
Page 173
were people lining up down the access road. More than 100 Estates
residents showed up; only about 40 could get into the building. So
they were deprived of their access to this information.
Second piece of information we submit, we believe staff should
have been more rigorous in making the applicant produce a more
detailed alternate locations analysis. Specifically, in the Golden
Gate Master Plan, it specifics we prefer all conditional uses to be next
to the three neighborhood centers. We've also changed that to have
the ability to conditional transitional use provisions. Staff did not
require them to do that analysis. We feel that's in error, and the
Estates residents were denied due process to produce that
information.
Finally, our final point is that we believe if staff understood the
definition of a collector road, and they probably knew this prior to the
creation of the Golden Gate Master Plan, it should have been a part of
the discussion, and if we put a bridge on 8th Street Northeast, it
changes the road to a collector and allows a specific conditional use
on this area.
We also submit your approval of the five bridges prior on 16th
Street Northeast, 47th Avenue Northeast, Wilson, 10th Avenue
South, 67th Avenue -- and 62nd Avenue Northeast. If you approve
this today, you violate those people's due process at this location
because they did not know if they build these bridges they're going to
be subjected to this lack of due process. Unintended consequences
due to lack of knowledge shouldn't be allowed.
The Estates Civic recommends denial of the petitioner's
application until these other issues on these other roads and these
people are allowed to know what's fixing to happen to them.
Please deny this application.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Martha Bantz to be
December 14, 2021
Page 174
followed by Santiago Jimenez.
MS. BANTZ: Okay. For the record, Martha Bantz.
When the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was adopted in 1991, it
included stringent locational criteria for nonresidential uses, both
conditional -- conditional uses and commercial. This was by design
to reflect the consensus of the Golden Gate Estates community to
know where nonresidential uses would be allowed. That is, people
wanted to know before they purchased property if a nonresidential
use would be allowed next to that property whether by right or
conditional use or rezone.
There have been two restudies done since then, and a stringent
locational criteria, though it was expanded for one neighborhood
center, was expanded in size, but that stringent locational criteria still
remains. Simply put, nonresidential uses should only be built in
perimeter areas where the residents said they wanted only
one-and-a-half years ago.
It is clear that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan treats
nonresidential uses differently than the urban designation. Again,
this is by design. And that goes back to the pictures that the
petitioners showed of the churches. They were in rural -- I mean, in
urban areas. We're talking about rural areas and the different
constraints.
So where would such a Golden Gate Estates Master Plan
amendment be acceptable? Along the perimeter of the Golden Gate
Estates, such as Immokalee Road. Their recent restudy based
Growth Management Plan amendment of 2019 included a policy
requiring a corridor study along Immokalee Road from Oil Well
Road to west of Wilson Boulevard to determine if nonresidential uses
should be allowed. The study has been completed, and staff is
drafting the Golden Gate Master Plan amendments now.
Also, along this corridor, the Board recently approved a Growth
December 14, 2021
Page 175
Management Plan amendment to allow a mixed-use development on
the north side of Immokalee Road opposite Randall Boulevard for a
significant amount of commercial and number of residential units.
This corridor would be an appropriate location for the subject
petition.
Churches are a part of the social fabric of the community and
usually provide a positive contribution to the community. Churches
are generally welcome in Golden Gate Estates; however, the
deliberation today is not whether a church does good, rather it is
where the church as a land use should be allowed.
In determining whether to approve the Growth Management
Plan amendment, the Board should determine whether there is a
demonstrated unmet need for more opportunity in the Golden Gate
Master Plan for a church, whether this is the appropriate location to
fulfill that need, and whether this location is consistent with the
desires of the Golden Gate Estates community as expressed through
the Golden Gate restudy and subsequent amendments to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan.
At the Planning Commission meeting on this Golden Gate GMP
amendment petition, it is my understanding that the Planning and
Zoning director stated staff is recommending approval because 8th
Street Northeast is now classified as a collector road. Under
this -- using this rationale, it appears that additional GMP amendment
petitions for conditional uses on 8th Street Northeast would have staff
support as well as petitions on the other existing collector roads in
Golden Gate Estates, such as Randall Boulevard, Wilson Boulevard,
Golden Gate Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard. This rationale
significantly undermines the Golden Gate Area Master Plan --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MS. BANTZ: -- locational criteria for conditional uses. I was
supposed to be speaking for somebody else, too.
December 14, 2021
Page 176
MR. MILLER: I don't have any slips supporting you, sorry.
MS. BANTZ: Someone handed you one, I thought. Okay.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: No. Your next speaker is Santiago Jimenez,
and he will be followed by our first online speaker, Sherry
Wong-Chen.
MR. JIMINEZ: Hello, Commissioners. My name's Santiago
Jimenez. I live on 2027 Randall Boulevard. It is right next to the
LDS church, and I can tell you that I have no problem with it. They
don't make any noise. It doesn't -- it hasn't affected traffic that
much. It doesn't affect my way of life, okay.
I grew up in a church, okay. I am where I am today because I
grew up in a church, okay. I grew up without a father; single
mother, okay. I am where I am because I could go -- I had access to
a church, okay. The community in Golden Gate Estates does not
have a church that -- for Hispanic where they can go and worship.
The noise, there's -- I don't think there's going to be any noise
because, typically, when you go to church, you go to have a moment
with God, to listen to someone speak to you about the word of God,
not to be making noise or having a rave.
I don't know what these people think they're going to being
doing. They're going to be going there to worship God. They're not
going to be going there to cause a disruption to the community. And
they are a part of community. These people live out in the Estates.
They just want to have a place where they can go and they can
worship God.
To one of the points that they made that they went to the strip
mall and it was packed and no one could get in and out, that's because
they don't have a place to go. They don't have a place that's big
enough for them to be. Right now there's only 70 people that go to
this church, and that's on and off because it's packed. It's typically
December 14, 2021
Page 177
packed. They have no -- there's people that are from the ages of 70
to 80, and those people, they get to sit. But the people that are older
or a little bit, like, in the 30s and 40s, like, yeah, they stand and they
don't have a place to sit. But I'm saying, like, they don't -- like,
where they're at now is -- it's small. They need -- they need this
church. They need somewhere to go. They need somewhere where
they can convene.
And it's not going to impact the community. The parking lot's
not going to impact that street because it's only going to be a certain
hour of the day. It's only -- it's not going to be every single day that
they're going to be -- that they're going to be there congregating. It's
not going to be Monday through Sunday. It's only Wednesdays and
Sundays.
On Wednesdays, it should not impact kids getting off the bus,
because kids do not get off the bus at 7:30 at night. I've went
to -- I've gone to school here my whole life. I never got off a bus at
7:30 at night. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, now to our first of our remote
speakers, Sherry Wong-Chen, and then she'll be followed by Tony
Reyes.
Sherry, you should be prompted to unmute yourself, if you'll do
that at this time. Sherry is not responding. Sherry, you're being
prompted to mute yourself -- unmute yourself, I should say.
All right. Let's move on, Lisa, behind the scenes. Let's go to
Tony Reyes. Tony, you should be getting prompted to unmute
yourself at this time. If you'll do that. You are unmuted, Tony.
And I understand your wife is with you, so you will have six minutes.
Oh, hold on. Wait a minute, Tony. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
That is my fault. We keep the computer muted during breaks.
Tony, please begin again, sir.
December 14, 2021
Page 178
MR. REYES: Can you hear me, Commissioners?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can.
MR. REYES: For the record, I am Gamal Tony Reyes. My
wife and I thank you for the opportunity to address this topic. We
are Hispanics, and we respectfully oppose this conditional-use
proposal and the amendment.
By way of background, I am a retired U.S. Air Force and
Department of Defense federal civilian. We purchased our property
on 16th Street Northeast in the Estates in 1998 and moved into our
house in 2015 retirement. Because of traffic, church activities will
directly affect our family and others on Sundays while driving to our
religious services, recreational activities, and shopping at the nearby
Publix. During the week, this will also affect us as we are returning
from work, driving to health-related appointments, transporting
children to their activities, or just running errands.
According to their proposal, those activities include general
services on Wednesdays, Sundays, and holidays with one wedding or
funeral per day. This would mean additional daily traffic burdens on
all of us. Proposed schedule times are within peak traffic hours,
8:00 or 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 2:00 to 8:00 p.m.
We've driven down 22nd Avenue where the church's only
entrance is to be located, and we cannot visualize 45 vehicles
entering and exiting the parking lot without increasing daily noise
and delays in vehicles finding suitable parking spaces without
backups towards 8th and Randall.
One only needs to routinely drive on Randall Boulevard or read
social media postings to learn about traffic during these peak hours.
As it is, we have witnessed drivers at 8th and Randall practically
throwing their vehicles in front of others because of their frustrations
with traffic. 8th Street church has been quite often compared to the
December 14, 2021
Page 179
church on Randall and Everglades Boulevard. In our opinion, there
is no comparisons since that church is located on a major intersection
with two main entrances on Randall and Everglades Boulevard, a
four-way stop sign at the intersection, and both of those roads will
become four lanes in the future.
If this proposal is approved, we recommend Randall Boulevard
be widened to a four-lane road and traffic lights be placed on the
intersection of 8th and 16th Street Northeast first. We know these
improvements are coming. It has been said on numerous occasions,
but it hasn't happened yet. And with the increase of numerous new
residents in the area, we believe this should happen first. We also
believe there should be a sheriff's deputy paid by the church posted at
8th and Randall to allow proper flow of traffic during church
activities. County records indicated that there were nine vehicle
crashes in 2020 and six in 2021 near this intersection. You need to
improve upon this.
We've seen this grow -- this area grow throughout the years.
And while we welcome some growth in the Golden Gate Estates area,
we believe in smart growth and not just placing conditional-use
facilities in mainly residential areas.
Commercial businesses and conditional-use facilities are mainly
located on Immokalee, Everglades Boulevard, and Golden Gate
Boulevard. In our opinion, this is the proper place for these
facilities.
We are involved in community activities, including attending
Commissioner McDaniel's town hall and Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association meetings among others. We believe we have a
good pulse of what's going on in our neighborhood, and the
placement of the church on 8th Street Northeast does not make sense.
Thank you. Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I got -- I communicated with our
December 14, 2021
Page 180
other speaker who didn't answer, Sherry Wong-Chen. She tells me
through text that her microphone doesn't work. She just wants you
all to know she's opposed to the project.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And that is our final speaker.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think the public portion of this
hearing is closed. And now I believe we'll hear from the petitioner
again, please.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Commission. And I won't bore
you again with any further graphics, but I did make some notes
during the public speaking, and I'd like to address some of the things
that were -- some were mentioned.
Going back to the first speaker talking about changes being
allowed later. Well, as we're all aware here, a conditional-use permit
and a Growth Management Plan amendment change has to come
before this board. This church, the officials of this church have no
changes in mind in the future that they're planning on or proposing.
So that's a false argument.
You heard over and over and over 8th Street is a collector road,
and then -- and why don't you put the entrance to the church on 8th
Street rather than 22nd? Well, this was reviewed and approved by
county staff, and their own transportation planning staff had directed
the entrance to be on 22nd so that you wouldn't have the traffic
backups on 8th Street, okay. That makes more sense. That makes
more sense. The public speakers didn't understand that, but that's
the -- that's the purpose of that, and county staff can address that.
There was mention that all -- someone said that I had mentioned
that all of the adjacent neighbors were in support of this. I didn't say
that. What I said is that the adjacent neighbor with the longest
abutting property frontage is in support of this. That is the neighbor
that has the most impact out of anyone on that street.
December 14, 2021
Page 181
I heard arguments about walking to school and in the morning,
and as we've heard -- and as you know, the hours of operation of this
church do not conflict with the hours of operation of picking up kids
from school or kids coming back from school.
I also grew up in Collier County, went to the Collier County
School District. I went to East Naples Middle School. I used to
walk all the way from Pine Street down Estey all the way to East
Naples Middle School crossing Airport Road. That is a lot of traffic.
This is nothing, and this doesn't conflict. A church on Sunday
mornings does not conflict with school kids walking to a bus stop
Monday through Friday early in the morning. So that's a false
argument.
Someone said that, well, that's a lie. This won't take trips off
Immokalee Road. Those same people are the ones saying that, well,
why don't they build something on Immokalee Road? Do you
think -- if the church built something on Immokalee Road, that's
going to add traffic to that. So this will not -- this will mean that that
traffic will not be on Immokalee Road. And we're only talking
about 45 cars at the most.
Someone mentioned about impeding the rural character of the
residential zone. Well, I can't think of anything more serene than a
church. Drive by any of these churches that I showed you earlier
here, that First Alliance church, the LDS church, any of these. You
don't see anything happening. No activity. There's nothing more
serene than a church in a residential neighborhood. So it is very
compatible with residential.
There was -- there was a comment made about, well, they're
only building on half -- on one of the properties on half of the five
acres. Are they really saying that we should develop the rest of it?
The other half is being preserved for wetlands and landscape buffers
and, you know, it's not being developed, so that's a false argument.
December 14, 2021
Page 182
Schools are allowed in Golden Gate Estates without a Growth
Management Plan amendment. Collier County School District can
build a school anywhere it wants on any property that it has. I don't
understand why churches are not afforded the same -- but that's -- but
here we are. This is a Growth Management Plan amendment.
There is a need for it.
One of the -- one of the youth that spoke here said he grew up in
the church. As you all are aware and when you look at the news and
you see what's happening today, we need more churches to serve our
communities so that you have good citizens and they're not being
involved in drugs and gangs and all these other things that -- you
know, those -- a church does not have drug dealers and gang
members, okay.
Traffic. Traffic keeps being brought up over and over and over
again. The speaker that was online talked about traffic and being
conflicts. It is obvious that Sunday morning service traffic is not
going to impede anything during peak hours. That same speaker
online was for four-laning Randall and putting traffic signals on
Randall. So which is it? I mean, they want more traffic to come
down Randall, but then they're opposed to a small community
church, 5,000 square feet.
It was mentioned about the NIM meeting. I'll let staff talk
about that. But staff coordinated that. There was no access denied
to the NIM meeting, and that's public record, and so that's a false
argument.
All but two of the speakers that spoke in opposition are English
speakers. There was no Spanish speakers. I looked at the
redistricting maps proposed this morning during the meeting, and just
in District 5 there's 28,000 voting-age Hispanic in District 5. That's
nearly half of the population, the voting-age population. And, again,
there are zero Spanish-speaking churches. If you look at the map of
December 14, 2021
Page 183
Golden Gate Estates and you see the vast expanse, one little
5,000-square-foot church not far from Randall is not going to impede
the way of life for the vast majority of Golden Gate Estates residents.
As I presented earlier, we have 458 signatures. There was one
speaker that talked about duplicates and whatnot. We had over 500.
When we did the recount and looked at each one of those, we took
out those signatures that were duplicated, and there are 458
petitioners or signatures that signed the petition in favor of the church
as opposed to a handful of those -- those in opposition here speaking
publicly today.
Do you have anything?
MR. DE AZA: No.
MR. MARTIN: Thank you. I'll be glad to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got a question for you,
Mr. Bosi, if you would come to the podium, please. Thanks.
So the president of the Golden Gate Homeowners Association
brought up several points, and I just wanted your, you know,
assessment. When he was talking about the bridges that we
approved, and then he said we'd be in violation, and I wasn't
following perfectly everything he says, but I assume you were.
What point was he trying to make, and was that point valid that that
had something to do with us approving this, the surrounding bridges
and how the roads work and whatnot? Educate me on that.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. When the bridge connections are placed in,
that provides for more through traffic to come through, and those
roads changed their classification to a collector road; therefore, they
are eligible for an expanded amount of conditional uses, and I think
that's their point, that they felt that that was somehow -- wasn't
communicated adequately enough to the citizens, that that was the
December 14, 2021
Page 184
consequence of the bridge study.
And I can't speak to that point. I'm not sure exactly how much
detail was provided in terms of those public presentations, but it's a
consequence of the change in the additions of those bridge locations.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But regardless of the
information that may or may not have been provided, are we
somehow -- I mean, he did use the word we would somehow be in
some sort of "violation" was the exact word he used.
MR. BOSI: I would disagree with that assessment, but
Mr. Ramsey's entitled to his opinion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, I wanted to
know your opinion on how that was.
And then the NIM meeting, you know, do you have -- were you
at that meeting?
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I just wondered if
anybody --
MR. BOSI: I've heard of the meeting. They said it was
overcrowded. And they said no -- the applicant indicated no one
was turned away, but there was -- there was comments from the
public that they felt that it could have been held at a bigger location.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Yep.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question, Mr. Bosi, and
then a question for our folks with the church. But the -- I also
understood there was an analysis of another location, or there was
some kind of not a complete job done by staff to offer other locations
for this particular building?
MR. BOSI: Part of the application process is the contemplation
of are there other locations that could be evaluated or could host this
facility. Staff's -- staff's response to that is we analyze and review
December 14, 2021
Page 185
the application in the location that's being suggested for the
conditional use. There's a multitude of different locations that could
be determined. You could -- I couldn't -- I couldn't determine the
criteria that the church has utilized to make this -- the determination
that this fits their congregation needs the best. All I can do is
analyze the proposal as it's suggested.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. The application asks for this
information?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if the application asks for it, is it
the petitioner that's supposed to supply the answer?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And they didn't?
MR. BOSI: No, they supplied the answer with the same
response that I said; there was a multitude of individual lots that had
similar characteristics. This was a lot that met the criteria that was
established for the church's needs.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. And that was their response?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. I
would like to ask a question.
One issue has troubled me from when you brought it up. Four
hundred fifty-eight people signed your petition, and yet your church
is only going to hold 200.
MR. MARTIN: I'll be glad to address that, Commissioner.
Yes, as was mentioned here before, the existing congregation, which
congregates right now in a small mini market in a strip mall on
Randall Boulevard, has about 70 members.
There are members from the -- those members reached out to
residents within Golden Gate Estates, friends, family, acquaintances
that they know, and they sought signatures for those petitions as
December 14, 2021
Page 186
opposed to what was mentioned by the opposition where they
actually tried to get someone to stand at a 7-Eleven and get signatures
from anybody just crossing their path there. These were all called,
contacted, visited, and obtained, those signatures. So, yeah, it's not
just the congregation members, but it's other Golden Gate Estates
residents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That might be interested in coming to
the church?
MR. MARTIN: It could be or may or may not. Some of them
may live far enough -- just because they're in Golden Gate Estates,
Golden Gate Estates is a vast area. I mean, it goes all the way down
to I-75 and then all the way up close to Immokalee. So within that
area, as your redistricting map this morning showed, there's -- just
voting age, there's, like, 70-something thousand in there.
So 458 is a good, sizable number, but those 458 won't be
necessarily coming to this church. And it was our charge, seeing the
opposition, to try and get as much support for the church as possible,
and our way to relay that support is via a petition and some of the
speakers here today. But you compare that to the opposition, you
know, less than 10 of them that came up. And there was mention
about other people, but I don't see anything on that side, an
overwhelming opposition to it. It's just a handful. They've
contacted the media. During the Planning Commission, both
Planning Commissions and this one, there's media out there asking
for interviews because they're trying to stir up the controversy and
make it seem like there's an overwhelming opposition to it, which
there isn't. There's about 10 or 12.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Does anybody -- no, no
one else, no other question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I think the -- hearing no
December 14, 2021
Page 187
other questions, I think our public hearing is closed. And now we
will debate and create a motion. So I'm open to
any -- Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do have a couple questions, and
maybe Mike Bosi can help with this.
I've looked at the conditions of approval, and I mean, it -- I
mean, it seems to me that if there were any more restrictions put on
this property, they basically couldn't use it. I mean, the services,
Bible studies, and business meetings shall be limited to Wednesday
evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 and Sunday mornings from
9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. So Wednesday nights for three-and-a-half
hours. Sunday mornings for five hours. Two days a week, okay.
Church services -- with the following exceptions: Church services
may be conducted on recognized holidays. Do we a definition for
what recognized holidays are?
MR. BOSI: Our Land Development Code doesn't have a
definition for recognized holidays --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It doesn't.
MR. BOSI: -- but we have a recognized holiday calendar that
general purpose government maintains.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, that was my
question. Is it the county government's holiday? I mean, what
holidays? I mean, I just -- I think that's -- and if that was what's
intended, then that's fine. I'm just trying to figure out
what -- because my recognition might be somewhat different from
somebody else's, right?
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. I think it's -- I would view it as
religious holidays. I mean, Easter and Christmas. And, I mean, I'm
probably missing a couple because I'm not --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that's one question.
So, then, they can have services on holidays limited to either
December 14, 2021
Page 188
morning services between 8:00 and 2:00, so that's four hours if it
doesn't -- or even services. So on a religious holiday they've agreed
only to use the property for four hours if it doesn't fall on a
Wednesday or a Sunday. That's okay? You've agreed to that, okay.
Again, you know, weddings and funerals, it just does not feel
right to me -- and I'm speaking to my colleagues -- to regulate
weddings and funerals in this way. It just doesn't seem right to me.
I mean, that's -- talk about, you know, liberties and -- religious
liberties. It just does not seem right to me. You know, there's a lot
of fear over what could happen, and it's, you know, the boogeyman,
so to speak, of what could happen in the future.
I will tell you that -- and I've never actually spoken to the
applicant, ever, but I was intrigued by this, and I reached out to the
Naples Park Civic Association, and they have nothing but good
things to say about this particular church. There's never been a
complaint. There's never been parking issues on the street that I've
been told of. I came across it by accident when I was driving
through Naples Park. Didn't even know it was there.
I feel obligated also to say that one of the things -- and this has
come up in all of these conditional uses that have come across in the
last five years, there's this provision that always gets worked into
these things about the church is not allowing other groups like AA
and Al-Anon and these kinds of groups to use their facility. And
that is another thing that I think that, for the health of our community,
is something we really need to think about. I mean, these are groups
that benefit our community that people need. I mean, to regulate out
groups like -- a church from allowing a group like that that they don't
even charge to meet there so that people -- not -- they don't go there
to drink or to do drugs or something. They're going there so they
won't, right?
So to regulate that out of a church use is -- again, I just -- I can't
December 14, 2021
Page 189
get my arms around that. And I think it's unwise because these are
services for communities that make communities stronger.
And I'll close by saying, you know, am I the only -- is anybody
else born in Florida? I mean, I'm born and raised in North Florida.
Have seen every part of rural Florida from north to south, and the
first thing you always see are churches. When you drive through the
countryside, you see churches.
I think that this particular church has agreed to everything they
could possibly agree to to where they can barely use the property.
And I think, you know, churches are and should be a part of the rural
character of communities. I mean, they've always been that.
So I'm in favor of approving the petition. I would like to hear
from my colleagues on some of these restrictions that just -- they just
don't seem -- they don't seem right to me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I -- this is a tough one for me.
I'm inclined to agree with you Commissioner Solis about the undue
restrictions on this particular use request. And I truly believe that if
it were in conformity with the GMP and with the Growth
Management Plan for Golden Gate Estates we wouldn't be seeing
these kind of restrictions put upon them.
I, Commissioner LoCastro, wasn't aware of the trigger of the
bridge changing a rural neighborhood road to a collector until today.
We're going to review all of those bridge approvals and the impact of
all of those people as we go forward with the impacts of the
installation of the bridges. I was all for developing the grid system,
moving our people to and through, so ons and so forth, but I also
know and work with the civic association while they were still
talking to me back then. I don't know if they will or not now. But
in implementing the GMP amendments and the adjustments for the
allowable nonresidential uses to be in very compact locations in and
December 14, 2021
Page 190
around collector roads, intersections. The church used the example
of Latter-day Saints church there on the corner. That's on the corner
of Everglades Boulevard and Randall, two to-be-four-laned roads.
Everglades Boulevard runs north and south and eventually will be
four-laned all the way from Oil Well down to Golden Gate Estates
Boulevard.
There's nothing to do -- I love these folks. The pastor comes to
my Evening with the Commish once a month. He actually does the
prayer for me at our meetings. I love the -- a branch of their church
is in Immokalee. Again, I have no complaints. The good that they
do do for our community in Immokalee is wonderful.
I have an issue with this location and deviating from the master
plan as we set forth that was just recently adopted in the latter part of
'19 is where I have to hold. And I truly believe, Commissioner,
when you brought up those -- and again, I commend the church for
trying to work with the community, for trying to make amends with
regard to their activities and what they are and they're not going to
do, but this is not an appropriate location.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any other comments?
Mr. Saunders, you're poised.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Well, this is a very
difficult one for me as well, and if it didn't have all the restrictions, I
wouldn't even be considering supporting it. But I feel somewhat
compelled to follow the lead of the commissioner for that district,
which is Commissioner McDaniel, who says he's got a problem with
that location. And I understand that, because it does open the door
for other uses and other churches that may have an impact on that
rural community.
So I'm kind of leaning towards agreeing with you,
Commissioner McDaniel, that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I hate that.
December 14, 2021
Page 191
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, unfortunately, this
is -- I'm honestly saying, this is probably one of the most difficult
issues that I've had to deal with in recent memory, because I'm very
sympathetic of having a church and having those folks have a place
where they can worship, and I also feel that the impact on the
neighborhood really would be somewhat minor. I understand that.
But it's still -- this is still Golden Gate Estates, and it's a rural
community, and this is an impact on it, and it's a change.
So I'm kind of leaning towards what Commissioner McDaniel
has said, but I don't feel good about it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You know, we've had some
really passionate speakers, and people bring up a lot of points. But
as a few people said, it's not really about if you're supportive of a
church or not. It really -- and I don't want to sound bad, but it really
is of minimal consequence. The question is, is this property better
suited for homes for residential, or should we waive that and allow
something other than residential, you know, to go there? I mean,
that's the whole point.
So if we're overly sympathetic to, well, but it's a church there
and it's a good thing and whatever -- and trust me, I'm sympathetic to
it, so I'm not trying to be too black and white, but I think the better
question is, is that tract of land more conducive to adding more
homes to it that are more cohesive to that community or putting that
church, which isn't huge, it's not massive or, you know, whatnot, and
I get all that with all these conditions, is that something that we
would give an exception to?
And, you know, in this particular case -- and we've given
exceptions before, but when I voted for an exception, it was because
there was a lot more space, a lot more buffering. It wasn't a big
December 14, 2021
Page 192
traffic area and, you know, there's -- I could cite several examples
here where we did approve of several things, but it just seemed like,
you know, in this particular case, this is really being shoehorned in
there a bit; a bit, you know, not overly so.
But in the end, I sit here and look at this tract of land and say,
would it be more conducive to add a few more homes there, whatever
would fit, or do we make an exception and put a church there? No
question a church in this community has pluses and all the things that
everybody has said here, but I tend to agree with Commissioner
McDaniel that I'm not sure this is the best spot for it. So it's a spot,
and we can make it work, and we can give all these conditions so that
it would be less bad, you know, for some of the residents that are
there in so many respects, but I think it's -- it is -- I think it's a fair
assessment to say it may not be the most advantageous, you know,
location when you look at all the other parts and pieces, and so it's a
tough one. But would houses fit there more and be more conducive
to traffic in that area and whatnot? I think it would be. Could we
make an exception here? We could. I just -- I'm not sure that we're
not forcing, you know, the issue a bit on this one. I'm curious if my
colleagues agree, disagree. It sounds like some agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Well, I haven't spoken
yet, and I'd like to do that now.
There's a master plan for Golden Gate, and it's really easy to
change those master plans and to say, you know, we'll make the
exceptions here, exception there, but I have no doubt that your church
is doing the work of God. I have no doubt that people come to you,
and it's going to spread throughout this county. And how do we
justify putting a church in a residential area that is defined by a
master plan we just passed a year and a half ago?
We gave our word -- and I think you can understand that -- to
the people of Golden Gate that we are going to keep this master plan
December 14, 2021
Page 193
intact. We passed it. And, unfortunately, what you want to do
doesn't fit into that -- into that plan. And it troubles me so much.
This is not about Spanish. This is not about churches. This is
about the integrity of our planning process in Collier County. And it
has been said to us many times in different ways -- not here as much,
although it has happened here -- that we have pretty much found that
we don't always find the plans. We amend the GMP at the drop of a
hat. In fact, I'm going to bring up some statistics that could, you
know, be very surprising to you what we've been doing since 2019.
People come here for a reason. People invest their life savings
in a residential area for a reason, or another part of community for a
reason. And we are so lucky we have such a broad breadth of
neighborhoods, and they incorporate different things. And it's that
integrity that I'd like to keep here.
So, unfortunately, I can't support your petition, and I sure wish
we can find you a place, because your model is incredible, and I think
you have a great future here.
PASTOR MARTIN: One more little question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Completely out of order, but
yes.
PASTOR MARTIN: My name is Jorge Martin. I just want to
ask, why was so easy in the residential area in Immokalee? We
approve. We get approve conditional use. And why take us so hard
in here in Golden Gate, and why they don't apply the master plan
over there and they do here?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because what is happening now is
that we, as a community of Collier County, are growing, but we're
growing at such a staggering rate that we have -- we have to start as a
board deciding what we want to follow. Do we follow the growth,
do we chase the growth, or do we listen to the master plan that
defines this area, wherever it is, and that's our challenges. And I see
December 14, 2021
Page 194
you're waving down there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I just wanted to -- I
wanted to address that, because I was in support of our church -- your
church in Immokalee. How much resistance did we have in that one
from the community with people that were neighbors complaining or
any -- we had none. The community embraced the church. And I
suspect that when we find you another location, the community will
embrace the church when, in fact -- when, in fact, it comes when it's
an appropriate location. You're coming -- this application -- and the
sole reason that I'm not supporting it -- I've already told you this.
I've told you this before. I mean, I love the congregation. I love the
people that are coming here. It has to do with the master plan that
we have already -- that we have already adopted and approved. This
is -- it's really that simple. It has nothing -- no other ramifications.
I mean, the suppositions and the fears and the things that were
represented, Pastor, those aren't weighing on me. What's weighing
on me is the deviation from the Golden Gate Master Plan.
We approved -- in the Golden Gate Master Plan in 2019, we
approved locations for nonresidential uses to be considered. And I
said to you from the beginning, I remember -- I think I was speaking
to your brother when you folks first applied. I said, you have -- a
conditional-use process is the American way. You have the right to
ask but not the right to receive. And so this -- and the asking, with
your -- even with your adjustments that you've made, aren't sufficient
enough for me to waive off of the Golden Gate Master Plan, sir.
PASTOR MARTIN: Okay. That is nothing real wherever a
conditional use is being applying in the community, no matter if it's
Golden Gate Estates or all over the United States. That's a very
normal thing. So anyway, I appreciate you guys. I'm going to bless
you guys, every one. I know God is going to supply the place you
say, maybe. God bless you all.
December 14, 2021
Page 195
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So do I have a motion
and a second on this board?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No one's going to want to
make a motion to deny, even though we have four votes, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to do it?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't want to do it, but I'll
do it. I'm sorry, but I'm going to make a motion for denial.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'm sorry as well, but
I'm going to second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there's a motion on the floor to
deny.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Both items?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Both of the items, A and 9B,
I think. My computer shut down. But we don't need to vote on the
GMP and the zoning, do we?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can do it two ways. Just deny
the GMP amendment; that makes the conditional use moot, or
just -- my recommendation, just vote on both items and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Vote on both the same.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- be done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the seconder agrees to the
amendment?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Uh-huh, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor of the motion to deny, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
December 14, 2021
Page 196
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1. Thank you very
much.
Terri, it's time, right? What time?
THE COURT REPORTER: Five o'clock.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Five o'clock. Okay.
MR. MARTIN: The church is residential. It's the house of
God.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2021-262: A RESOLUTION AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT TO CHANGE THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT,
COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMUNITY FACILITY
SUBDISTRICT TO THE MIXED USE DISTRICT; COLLIER
BOULEVARD LORD’S WAY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT; TO
INCREASE THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS FROM 306 TO
690 WITH SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING; TO REMOVE
CHILDCARE FACILITIES AS AN ALLOWED USE AND
ALLOW THE CHURCH TO CONTINUE AS AN INTERIM USE
FOR UP TO 5 YEARS; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
December 14, 2021
Page 197
THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND
HACIENDA LAKES PARKWAY FORMERLY KNOWN AS
LORD’S WAY, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 69± ACRES – ADOPTED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings us to 9C. It's a
recommendation to approve a resolution amending Ordinance
No. 89-05 as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, specifically amending
the Future Land Use Element to change the mixed-use district,
Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict to the Mixed-Use
District; Collier Boulevard Lord's Way Mixed-Use Subdistrict; to
increase the maximum dwelling units from 306 to 690 with some
affordable housing; to remove childcare facilities as an allowed use
and allow the church to continue as an interim use up to five years;
and, furthermore, directing transmittal of the amendment to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Hacienda Lakes Parkway,
formerly known as Lord's Way, in Section 14, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, consisting of 69 plus-or-minus acres.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I guess at this point we
need to start with ex parte. Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Why don't you start at the other
end while I find my papers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I've had
communications with the petitioner. I've seen some emails.
Typical communications.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I've had emails and conversation
with the petitioner and with staff, of course.
December 14, 2021
Page 198
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Same with me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, same for me; emails,
correspondence, phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think -- I don't believe I've had
any communications with anyone nor any emails on this matter.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Thank you. All those
who are going to give testimony, rise and raise your right hand,
please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is this legislative, or is this --
MR. KLATZKOW: GMP amendment's legislative.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is legislative. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: We're ready to go. My name is Bob
Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant, David Torres.
I have the team listed on your screen. Rich Yovanovich is our
land-use attorney, and Norm Trebilcock -- there he is. I was about to
start panicking -- is our transportation consultant.
Probably you're aware of the location, but it's on the screen here.
It is on the east side of Collier Boulevard just north of the Lord's
Way. Across Collier Boulevard to the west is Naples Lakes Country
Club. This -- actually this photo is a little bit older. Let me see
here. This project now has some houses in it.
And this is the subject property right here and, as you can see
right in here, there is a -- try to clear that. There is an existing rental
complex located on the east side of the subject property. It's about
69 acres in size.
This is the county's Future Land Use Map, and the subject is in
this subdistrict right there, which is the Collier Boulevard
Community Facility Subdistrict.
December 14, 2021
Page 199
I guess the point is is that subdistrict currently exists. We're not
changing the boundaries of that subdistrict. Right now on the site
there is a church and accessory facilities associated with the church.
There's a preserve area with the boardwalk. There's a
communication tower and, as I said, there's 296 multifamily dwelling
units on the east side. There's an FP&L power line that runs through
approximately the middle of the property.
The project history is pretty significant. You may remember
way back in the late 1990s the Reverend Mallory was involved in
having this approved, and even at one point the late Mike Davis, who
was in the House of Representatives, was involved in establishing a
statute that created an opportunity for essential service personnel. I
didn't want to at this late hour spend a whole lot of time going over
the history, but that's a pretty good summary, I think. There are
some important aspects, though, that relate to the existing approvals
on the site.
So the site was approved -- zoning was approved under the
subdistrict to allow for a 2,200-seat church; 200-seat chapel;
300-student private school; 249-bed care unit facility -- I'll talk about
that a little bit in more detail in just a minute -- 300-unit daycare
facility; and then the 296 multifamily dwelling units.
What we're asking for now is an amendment to the subdistrict to
allow a total of 690 dwelling units, and we would be removing many
of the uses that are presently permitted under that subdistrict.
This just is an example of -- it's the exact text, and it shows the
strikethrough/underline version in the subdistrict. So, for example,
under B, allowable uses, we would be removing this reference to
churches and community facilities. And this is more of the
strikethrough/underline and additional language.
The PUD, which is not before you now, but just so you -- you're
familiar with it, because we typically want to advise you as to where
December 14, 2021
Page 200
we're going with that should this be approved and come back for
adoption, if you can see on this -- on the visualizer that, for example,
right here, the kinds of uses were alcohol -- alcoholism rehabilitation
centers, drug rehabilitation centers, homes for children, and homes
for destitute men and women. So those uses are already permitted in
there. We would be removing those with this proposed amendment
to come back after the -- assuming the amendment is transmitted and
adopted. And that's just another.
One comment on the -- well, let me get through it. It's the staff
recommendation, so I'll just -- this is the master plan, and it just
shows in a little greater detail. Again, this is -- this area here is
already built with multifamily, and this is a preserve tract. And,
really, this tract and this tract are the undeveloped tracts that we're
talking about.
As far as traffic goes, this -- when we -- when Norm analyzed
the traffic for the existing approvals, the p.m. peak-hour count was
585 trips. And when he reanalyzed the p.m. peak-hour trips, which
the county used because it's the highest trip period, trip generation
period, the p.m. peak-hour trip with our request now will be 330. So
I think, if my math's right, that's a difference of 255 trips, a reduction
of 255 trips.
So we had a hearing at the Collier County Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission did recommend approval.
There was a fair amount of discussion at the Planning Commission
with respect to essential service housing and workforce housing and
affordable housing. And the project already has a requirement to
reserve units for essential service personnel, but the discussion at the
Planning Commission was related to whether or not additional units
should be required with our request for additional density.
I do not believe that the actual motion of the Planning
Commission contained any condition, but the staff is recommending
December 14, 2021
Page 201
that we provide 10 percent, which would translate -- on 384 units
which would translate to 38 units for either rental or fee-simple
housing, affordable, in a range of 120 percent to 80 percent of the
median income, and we have agreed to that condition. It's not
reflected yet in the language, but we have agreed to it.
So just to clarify in terms of the staff recommendation, it's either
fee simple or rental 10 percent, 38 additional units in the average
median income range of 120 down to 80 percent of median income,
which we have agreed to. Again, the Planning Commission did
recommend approval, and staff is also recommending approval
subject to that condition.
That concludes my presentation. I don't know if
Mr. Yovanovich felt I missed anything and, if he did, he's going to
tell me what it is.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to supplement. You didn't
miss anything. This has been -- this has been an incomplete project
for many, many years, and the residents in this community would like
this project to be completed.
So we had two neighborhood information meetings, and in both
of those neighborhood information meetings, we did receive support
for the conversion of the front of this property to a residential use
instead of the already permitted uses in the area. I just wanted to add
that to the record.
And Mr. LoCastro has said in the past he's not in favor of
development. He'd rather see it stay vacant as opposed to the wrong
thing being on the property. I think the wrong thing being on the
property is the existing permitted uses in the subdistrict, and I think
the residents would agree in that area, and we're requesting that you
support transmittal of this proposed amendment to the Department of
Economic Opportunity.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thanks for reminding me of
December 14, 2021
Page 202
that, but that may or may not play in this particular example, but
thanks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any questions?
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Who from the staff
can we ask questions to? Who's prepared here? Oh, hey, Mike.
You know, the only thing I'd just like to hear a little bit more
about is that's a big jump in density, you know. I know all the other
moving parts. I mean, I've done a deep dive with Mr. Yovanovich;
got the entire briefing here. I'm sure we've all done a deep dive.
But just tell me a little bit about why we don't think that's -- and one
of the things I'll also preface is, the affordable housing piece is great,
but I want to make sure we never run the risk of, oh, everybody
always dumps that in there so that we go, wow, I hated this project,
but, oh, it's got 10 percent affordable housing. Now all of a sudden I
love it.
I mean, you know, we do have an affordable housing challenge
here, but in my particular case, that doesn't make it an automatic,
like, 10 times better. I look at it sometimes as a minimum
requirement in some cases. So, great, they've agreed to that and I
understand initially they didn't agree to that, so they're sweetening the
deal a little bit. But my bigger issue is the jump in the density
request. Educate us a little bit more why we shouldn't be as
concerned about that or why our staff wasn't as concerned.
MR. BOSI: Well -- and Mike Bosi, Zoning director. It's
simple. We have a supply-and-demand issue. We have way too
much demand and too little supply.
This is a proposal that's going to offer 384 additional units, and
we have the opportunity to reserve a portion of those for affordable
housing. We're never going to address -- I mean, you've heard story
after story of apartment buildings that have raised their rent from
December 14, 2021
Page 203
1,300 to 2,800 to these outlandish -- and it's supply and demand.
You're never going to tackle it if you don't approach it and
understand it's a supply-and-demand issue. And what we have
always been hesitant within this county has been allocating too much
density. Well, there's consequences associated with it, and the
consequences associated with it is your average median sale is
$643,000 for an individual unit that's selling. You have
two-bedroom apartments that are rented for $2,500 just because of a
supply and a demand issue. And I know -- and I'm not suggesting
that we just throw as much supply as we possibly can, but the way
that a market responds to a supply-and-demand issue is you have to
increase the supply.
Now, this area is in close proximity to the Rattlesnake
Hammock/951 activity center. Because of that synergy, because of
the density that's associated with that activity center and the
proposals that we want to increase the level of densities within our
activity centers in a future GMP amendment, we think that this level
of density is appropriate because of its proximity to how the plan is
suggesting that this is where the highest intensity and the highest
density uses can.
Now, what we weren't comfortable with was giving 384 units
away and not having at least some contribution to the affordable
housing dedication, and that's why we started with a 10 percent
request for -- and the language that we suggested wasn't 38 -- or
10 percent. We just said 38, because it's 384. We said, we're not
going to have a sliding scale. Ten percent of what you're requesting.
We want 38 units to be dedicated to 80 to 120 of AMI.
So because of that, that's why --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: For how long? In
perpetuity, or what was the length of time, or did we not decide that?
Did I miss that somewhere?
December 14, 2021
Page 204
MR. BOSI: Thirty years.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thirty years, okay.
MR. BOSI: That's what currently is adopted within our LDC is
30 years is the reservation period for affordable housing
commitments.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And I agree with you, I want
to hear -- you know, I think it's important for us to hear the staff. So
when we vote on something, it's not like we're doing it here in a
vacuum. One of the reasons why I think the density here -- and this
is in my district, but I think as we all say, we're all Collier County
Commissioners. The location of this, I believe, supports that
density. It's in a perfect location where I think it's going to be very
popular, and all the other positive things.
But one of the questions I asked in a private meeting
yesterday -- and I got it answered. But I think for the knowledge of
everybody here and even people that are watching, I asked, do we
have any concerns with the infrastructure around this area that when
you increase that density, commonly we hear from citizens where
they say, oh, my God, the roads are going to be overflowing or, you
know, there's going to be other issues with traffic and this and that.
And the answer that I got is, typically, what we always here, oh, the
roads are actually under-serviced when we run the algorithm and
then, of course, you could bring in a thousand residents here that say,
well, traffic would tell you otherwise.
Give us the short version about why we're not concerned with
traffic, roads, infrastructure, other things that maybe a taxpayer
would have to absorb when you increase this much density and bring
this many extra people into this footprint. Why is this -- why is this
footprint set up in an acceptable way to absorb this without having to
do anything above and beyond?
MR. BOSI: Well, this Board of County Commissioners has
December 14, 2021
Page 205
remained commitment -- committed to a concurrency management
system, and that means that roads, that means your public utilities,
that means your park systems, that means your stormwaters, your
school districts. All of those facilities have to be in place before we
will issue a Site Development Plan or a plat associated with it.
We've had -- at the growth management stage, we don't apply
hard concurrency, but we do coordinate with our Transportation
Planning, our Utility Planning staff and we say, is there available
capacity? So there is available capacity. We do have long-range
plans to provide a reliever for 951. That's the Benfield Road
corridor.
Now, there's some issues with that in terms of, you know, the
time it's going to take related to the environmental sensitivity of some
of those plans. But long-range plans have solutions for how we're
going to address the capacity within 951. There is available capacity
as suggested by our Concurrency Management System in
coordination with our Transportation Department in coordination
with our Utilities Department, with the school district, with
Stormwater Management, and we feel that this increased density can
be accommodated by those facilities that we have in place and the
volume and the capacity that is existing within the system.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Now, if we approve this,
obviously, we'll see this again, right? It will come back to us with
more detail and, you know, the design and all those kind of things,
correct?
MR. BOSI: Thank you, yes. And I'm remiss. There is only
the Growth Management Plan here.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I'm leading you down
the road for the things that --
MR. BOSI: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- I think we need to hear.
December 14, 2021
Page 206
MR. BOSI: This is only the Growth Management Plan
amendment. Because it's a large scale, it's going to take two
hearings. Normally we marry the planning or the PUD document up
at the adoption stage. This is only the transmittal stage. So that's
why you're not getting the level of specificity that you'll get. You'll
have much more details in terms of how it's going to be arranged and
how they're going to put forward the project for the -- at the PUD
stage.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So things that would be
important to me -- I'm supporting this, okay. It's in my district.
And I want to hear from my other colleagues, but unless I hear
something that, you know, I haven't -- I've already taken a bunch of
meetings on this. But some things that are important to me and
really to all of us when this comes back here, I want to see minimal to
no deviations. I want to make sure that you guys have burned a lot
of brain cells on all the things that -- I've had three-hour town hall
meetings in this little footprint area, and you guys know those
meetings. Maximum buffering, okay. A lot of thought process into
landscape. Let's make sure that we put a project here, if it gets -- if it
moves forward, that's cohesive to that surrounding area. And you
know the town tall meetings that I've had at Hacienda Lakes and all
that surrounding area and all the things that are important to the
people there.
So I want to be -- I want us to be extremely impressed with the
design, the plan, the buffering, the landscape, and all those parts and
pieces. Some that maybe you don't even have to do, but you go
above and beyond to impress us that we're trying to do the right thing
for this community and we're not bringing development -- like I
always say, I'm against development. I'm for improvement. And
improvement sometimes means going above and beyond to get an
overwhelming majority vote that, wow, you all have done not only
December 14, 2021
Page 207
what's required but to really bring an -- a project that improves that
area. Because this is a big footprint.
So, you know, I don't want to jump ahead. My colleagues
might have something else to say, but this is a project that I'm going
to approve, and I'd be prepared to make a motion, but I wanted to just
lay that groundwork that we're going to see you again, and, you
know, some -- the project could be halted quickly if we don't see
those positives in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I quickly could say, we already
have enhanced buffers as part of this. We haven't shown you that;
that's part of the PUD discussion. But we will make sure we revisit
what we've already done and see if we can improve that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Terri, you got that on -- I
wanted to quote Mr. Yovanovich on the record that he will see if he
can improve even what he has.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do we have any public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes. I have one registered speaker who is
currently online.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that what you wanted to ask?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I was going to ask him
to make his motion, and I would second it if he was ready to go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let's hear from the speaker.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question of staff. What
do they have right now in terms of density? And give me the history
of this property. I mean, we've got a history of what it was going to
be, but tell me the zoning: Where did they start; what were the
increases; what were the terms of those increases.
MR. BOSI: In '08 it was agricultural. It first rezoned to a
December 14, 2021
Page 208
community facility with a church and the uses that they're proposing
to remove as well as a residential development. Slight modifications
in 2015.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What was the density in 2008?
MR. BOSI: Density level I believe at six --
MR. KLATZKOW: Three oh six.
MR. BOSI: Three oh six. So I think it turns out to a little bit
over five units an acre is what they had. This will increase that
density to just over 10 units per acre.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Double the density?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And why are we doing this?
Because they asked for it?
MR. BOSI: No. We've --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. Can I ask a -- because
I -- there was five units an acre, but there was a church and a private
school and a whole bunch of other more intense uses, though.
MR. BOSI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It wasn't just residential. I mean,
there was a whole bunch of other stuff going along with it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right, but the church -- the church is
a church. It's not the density. It was -- it's five units. So let's just
say -- let's say for this conversation, if we kept it at five units an area,
there would be housing that would be five units an acre that would be
replacing the church, not housing at double the density that would be
replacing the church. Am I looking at this incorrectly?
MR. BOSI: I believe they probably have already utilized the
allotted residential units that were provided for within the existing
apartment complex that's there. They had --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Why can't we -- I don't understand.
December 14, 2021
Page 209
So you're saying that it's an aggregate?
MR. BOSI: It's a mixed-use project, so we don't segment out.
The entire acreage is allocated with residential in the
community -- the square footage associated with the community
facilities.
So that has -- they've already satisfied -- they've already spent
the units that they've received during the prior approval, so they're
eliminating the nonresidential land uses, and for that they want to
substitute additional residential units.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: They're swapping it out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct, and with a reduction
in traffic with those use changes, a fairly substantive reduction in
traffic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Fairly substantive increase in density.
We're talking doubling -- more than doubling the density. Doesn't
this give anyone pause here?
I do not accept that we're chasing the market as a justification to
increase density. I think that is -- what do we do in the recession?
Then we take it all back? I mean, why -- why are we here? Are we
here to keep a standard of building? Are we here to keep a density?
I'm going to be getting some materials shortly from Sherry, but since
2019 -- I think you referred to this -- every land use that's come
before us has been amending the GMP. You've been part of it. You
were gone for two years.
Just pass that out, Sherry.
It's troubling to me, because we're dishonest. Not you. We
are.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not correct.
MR. BOSI: I would just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no. If we are saying we like
a different town, if we are saying that we want a different Naples
December 14, 2021
Page 210
with density, then let's -- let's amend the Comprehensive Plan. Why
are -- why are we not allowing the public to come in -- we're
piecemealing this, and that's what -- that's what troubles me. And,
clearly, there's something going on, because I've got one, two, three,
four, five, six pages of amending the GMP.
And so I guess -- I mean, I know -- I know you're an urban
planner. I know urban is what you've been trained in, but my
concern is we're losing sight of what Naples is or what we're hearing
from our constituents what we want Naples as.
MR. BOSI: In 2017, the ULI completed the housing study. At
that time, 45,000 individuals every day were identified as coming in
and then having to fill the economic needs of this county. I'm sure
it's over 45,000. So that's 50,000 people a day we import because
we're not providing the housing for that workforce.
We're not going to be able to solve it, but what -- these increase
in densities, there's been a common theme. There are more
additional units that are needed. There's too much demand that's
placed upon this location, and it is a -- it is a hard problem to solve,
because what you have a commitment to is when you go and speak to
your constituents, is they're -- most of them are from the Midwest.
They want a little bit lower density. They like -- they like a
suburban style of development. But that suburban style of
development spreads people out over large areas, and it doesn't take
care of all the needs, especially when you have such a place that's of
so high demand with the coastal environmental opportunities and
everything that we have that makes this place so nice and so unique.
It's an unbelievably difficult decision that you have as
commissioners to have to make these decisions, to have -- to hear
your constituents with honesty and truth when they say they can't live
here. They can't get an apartment. It's $2,000 for a two-bedroom.
There's no easy way to solve it, but there's opportunities within the
December 14, 2021
Page 211
right locations. We think this is the right location for higher density
to be accommodated and start -- and at least take a small bite out of
that project or a small bite out of the issue that we're trying to deal
with.
We're never going to be able to catch up completely, but we are
continually trying to promote higher density opportunities in the right
locations so it doesn't create disruptions for the community but it still
provides the additional supply to be able to meet the demand that we
have, and there's no easy way around it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If there was a cap, which I'm not
suggesting there would be, on the amount of rent that increased
density could qualify for, you cap it at this, we know that we're going
to serve this population. This population needs the housing. We
heard three women today, mothers, single parents, teachers. They
need this. They need this rent. If we could -- if we could work that,
I would agree with you, but what's happening, we're building, and the
prices are going up, and we're building again, and the prices are
going up, and it's going like this (indicating). And it -- and I
just -- at this point, I cannot support doubling the density. I just -- to
me it's a -- what is it? It's a cat chasing its tail. It just goes round
and round and round. The idea of building more so somehow the
prices come down is not exactly the reality that we're facing today.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What if -- what if in increasing the
density we increase the number of affordable units?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It would have to be substantial, more
than 10 percent. It would -- doubling the density. This is --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: How about 60?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I mean, this is -- we're doubling --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Wait one second. We're
missing the point here, okay. If we had a tract of land and the
maximum density was 306 units, and they came in here said, we want
December 14, 2021
Page 212
to go way higher. We want to build another giant condo. We want
it to be 690 units on this tract of land that will only fit 309 -- I think
the part that we're missing here is what Commissioner Solis alluded
to, and maybe he agrees or disagrees with this project. But there's
some other dynamics going on here with the tradeoff of the size and
the space and the footprint.
So I just would say, Mike, if you want to elaborate on how
that's -- because I think -- I totally agree with Commissioner Taylor.
I know her point. But the part that I think is not apples to apples is
this isn't a single footprint that they just want to double the density
on. They're looking to, you know, morph it quite a bit so that it
would fit that. So it's not just doubling on one footprint. I mean, I
may not be saying it as eloquently as you would say it.
MR. BOSI: No, it's not. And Commissioner Solis said it; they
want to swap out. They really want to swap out the community
facilities for residential. And it's -- the density that's allocated on the
existing apartment complex, the way that it nets out is probably -- I
mean, what's --
MR. MULHERE: It's just under 15 units an acre.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. Because it's condensed to what, 20 acres.
So the existing -- the existing footprint, the existing development of
that apartment complex --
MR. MULHERE: It's on the screen right now, too.
MR. BOSI: -- is just under 15 acres. They want to take -- they
want to take the opportunity, and for the other 40 acres, to develop at
384 units, and that gets you right -- just under 10 units per acre.
That's -- there's infrastructure available. It's in close proximity
to an activity center. And I understand you said, you know, it's like
we're chasing the market. We're in a hole. There's no two ways
about it. We're in a hole. We have -- we have economic
opportunities that are created in this market, and if you remember that
December 14, 2021
Page 213
affordable housing study, the average job that's being created within
our market is service based. So you're $15 or $20 an hour. It is
hard to provide housing at that level. And this can provide us an
opportunity setting aside 10 percent that will be dedicated for 30
years. I know it's not forever, but it's 30 years that will at least have
a price restriction. As you said, it's rent restricted. It's rent
restricted for 30 years.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thirty-nine is lovely, but it's not
enough for me. Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Understood.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I respect your response.
MR. BOSI: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I just threw out 60.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, what I would request, if I
can -- because I haven't analyzed that number, but I know I've got to
come back at adoption. So if we could have the opportunity
to -- because if you say 60 and I come back and I say I can only do
45, I can't go back. I could go up. So if we can get transmitted at
what we're at, give us an opportunity -- I hear loud and clear what
you're saying, Commissioner Solis. I'd like to have the opportunity
to study that issue and come back, and maybe we can get to the
number you're asking for. And you're talking 60 units, not 60
percent, correct?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sixty units. Well, I hadn't thought
about --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Why isn't it 10 percent of the
690? Why isn't it 69 units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because we already -- don't forget, we
already have 147 units in the back 296 that are dedicated to essential
service personnel. So there was a big give, if you will, on the front
end of this project. So if you're looking at the whole project, you'll
December 14, 2021
Page 214
see there's far more than 60 units that are income restricted. So we
need to flesh that out, but there is a previous commitment to that.
And just from a market perspective, you could see a lot of older
apartments in this community taking advantage of the short supply
and just raising their prices without improving any of the amenities or
improving any of the apartments. So now we can actually provide,
you know, competition, and hopefully at some point you're going to
have more apartments coming. You know that. We've got several
more coming. And we anticipate that there's going to be a portion of
those income restricted as well. And we're taking a little bite each
time with each of those projects. And if we can have some time to
study the issue between now and adoption, we'd appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If this was just a single
footprint and you were asking to double the density, I don't think
anybody up here would approve it --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- but there is more, you
know. And I know we've oversimplified it just for the sake of time,
but there's a lot more going on with the acreage and the expanding
and the trading and whatnot. So that's why I think it does make
sense and also, too, exactly where it is.
But I would be very supportive of anything that would raise the
number of affordable units. So if we have that flexibility, I guess, to
have them come back and see what the maximum number could be,
yeah, I definitely would agree with Commissioner Solis,
Commissioner Taylor, and anybody else who likes the number being
higher.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Would it be appropriate to
make a motion to approve this for transmittal with the understanding
that we want you to sharpen your pencil as it relates to affordable
December 14, 2021
Page 215
housing with the goal of increasing that number to some point that
obviously has to make some sense in the market?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sixty.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But the goal would be to
increase it to some point as opposed to picking a number right now so
that you'd have the opportunity --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've heard it loud and clear.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I like 60 as well.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's an even number.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, that's our proposal.
We don't have to decide the number --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's been a long day, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The motion is to move this
forward, but when you come back, we're going to be looking for a
bigger number.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely. So that's the
motion I will make, unless there's other comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the
floor. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you have the one
speaker.
MR. MILLER: I do have the one speaker, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I beg your pardon.
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have a second, though?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I'll aye the motion, but I
want to hear from the public.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion and second.
Okay. I'm sorry. All right. Let's bring the speaker.
MR. MILLER: Madam, online we have registered Paul
Cosentino.
December 14, 2021
Page 216
Paul, you should be prompted to unmute yourself at this time.
I'm keeping an eye out for Paul.
Mr. Cosentino, I hope I'm saying that right. You are being
prompted to unmute yourself at this time.
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: I hear nothing from him. I will look in my
chat just to see if I have anything from him, but I think we've made
our honest effort there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. We have 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, like sign.
Aye. It carries 4-1.
So I would like to suggest for your consideration -- as we're
talking about amending GMPs and the Comprehensive Plan, I'd like
to suggest that we schedule a workshop where we discuss what our
vision for Naples is going forward and that we make it a public
hearing so that we don't have to get so many amendments. If higher
density is where we're going, let's be honest about it, let's be
forthright to the public, and let's declare it for your thought. Thank
you.
And I think right now we're going to give Terri a well-deserved
break; 5:15.
(A brief recess was had from 5:01 p.m. to 5:14 p.m.)
MR. ISACKSON: Chair Taylor, Commissioners, you have a
live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. I did it the
December 14, 2021
Page 217
right order today, right? I gaveled and then you said it. So waiting
for you to say it. So thank you.
Item #9E
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE
RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT RESTUDY AND
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE URBAN MIXED USE
DISTRICT, URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT
AND THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO REQUIRE TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS FOR INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY;
AMENDING THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, URBAN
RESIDENTIAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO REMOVE THE
DENSITY BONUS CAP ON RESIDENTIAL IN-FILL AND
REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO USE TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE URBAN
BOUNDARY; AND AMENDING THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED
USE DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
CHANGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
REQUIREMENTS, TO INCREASE DENSITY ON RECEIVING
LANDS LOCATED ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD, INCREASE
DENSITY ON RECEIVING LANDS FOR AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, ADD TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
CREDITS, ADD USES IN RECEIVING AREAS, AND ADD A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR RECREATION IN SENDING LANDS,
AND TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RURAL
December 14, 2021
Page 218
VILLAGES; AND CREATE THE BELLE MEADE HYDROLOGIC
ENHANCEMENT OVERLAY; AND FURTHERMORE
DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY -
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A FUTURE MEETING TO BE
SPECIFIED BY COUNTY MANAGER AT THE JANUARY 11,
2022 BCC MEETING – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that moves us to 9E,
formerly 17H. It's a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners proposing amendments to the Collier County Growth
Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, relating to the
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Restudy and specifically amending
the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict,
and the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Subdistrict of the Future Land Use
Element to require Transfer of Development Rights for
Comprehensive Plan amendments for increased residential density;
amending the Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Fringe
Subdistrict to remove the density bonus cap on residential infill, and
remove the requirement to use Transfer of Development Rights
within one mile of the urban boundary; and amending the Rural
Fringe Mixed-Use District of the Future Land Use Element to change
development standards and requirements to increase density on
Receiving Lands located along Immokalee Road, increase density on
Receiving Lands for affordable housing, add Transfer of
Development Right credits, add uses in receiving areas, and add a
conditional use for recreation in Sending Lands, and to amend
development standards for Rural Villages; and create the Belle
Meade Hydrologic Enhancement Overlay; and, furthermore, directing
transmittal of the amendments to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity.
December 14, 2021
Page 219
I believe, based on what the County Attorney said at the last
item, no ex parte or no swearing in is required.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No swearing?
MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Bosi,
Planning and Zoning director.
We have -- I have a formal presentation, a PowerPoint that
Ms. Mosca had helped put together. I'm not sure if you want a full
presentation. I know this was pulled from summary. Is there
specific areas you just would like to address?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's to give an overview, but
we may not need a full presentation. I think it would be helpful to
talk about where we were and, you know, why this -- why this has
taken so long and, you know, the process by which we started
looking at these plans again. If there's anyone else that has
anything -- is that fine?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
This was the first of the restudies that we were directed back in
2015 to go and speak with the community about, and it is the last of
the four GMP amendments that needs to be updated and adopted.
One of the greatest issues with the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
different than the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, the Rural Lands
Stewardship Area is primarily made up of six large property owners
and, because of that, finding agreement and developing a strategy for
how you deal with urban sprawl and better planning for longevity and
sustainability is a little easier to achieve.
Within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, there's over 5,500
individual property owners; trying to find consensus and agreement
amongst that is extremely, extremely difficult.
December 14, 2021
Page 220
History of it, provide protection for agricultural lands, directing
compatible land uses away from wetlands, upland habitat, protect
water quality, provide measures to contain urban sprawl, existing
regulations, residential at a maximum within your Sending Land.
Your sending area is where you send development away from your
environmentally sensitive areas.
One dwelling unit per 40 acres or a legal lot of record.
Conditional -- permitted and conditional uses are pretty -- are limited.
You have the ability to lift TDRs from the property at four TDRs per
five acres. You've got your base, your early entry, your bonus, your
environmental restoration, and your conveyance. And, as I said,
these are the areas of your highest degree of your environmentally
sensitive.
Your receiving areas are the areas where you want to see the
development. If you utilize TDRs, you could -- you can gain one
unit per acre. If you develop a village, you can develop up to three
units per acre with a little allowance for above that for some
affordable housing, but not much.
And within the -- as I said, within the villages, you know, you've
got a minimum of two units per acre, a maximum of three. You
have to have your Rural Village where public infrastructure exists or
is planned. It has to be on an arterial or classified -- or collector
road, and it also requires fiscal neutrality for the approval of those
Rural Villages as well, similar to your RLSA program.
Your Neutral Lands are neither sending nor receiving. They're
neutral to the program. They have similar uses towards what would
have been provided for within the ag zoning district. Permitted and
conditional uses allowed per ag zoning; no change. Residential
density is one to five; no change. It's really outside the regulatory
framework of the program.
When we were out -- when we first started, the four major areas
December 14, 2021
Page 221
that the Board told us to look at: Complementary land uses,
economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environmental
stewardship.
Here's some of the amendments that were arrived upon during
the public hearing or the community planning process. Provide
additional TDR credits to sending owners. Make TDR credits
available to sending owners with existing agricultural uses. In
natural resource protection, only existing passive, agricultural
operations, exclude aquaculture. Passive ag uses may be considered
for restoration and maintenance TDRs. Allow landowners who have
generated TDRs but not conveyed to participate in any changes to the
program. Provide Board-approved conveyance of land to a
non-profit or a land trust by gift. Allow landowners with large
sending parcels to cluster dwelling units and retain the one-per-40
standard.
Related to the Receiving Lands, we wanted to eliminate the
limitation on village centers and research and technology parks, and
that's really talking about job creation opportunities and land uses to
be allowed in a greater degree within the villages. Provide measures
for new mixed-use standards consistent with the RLSA similar to
square footage requirements per individual unit so we can make sure
that goods and services are going to be provided within the Rural
Villages.
Development of over 30 acres shall use the Rural Village
provisions. Now, some of these suggest amendments did not make it
to the final proposed adoption just because of the recommendation
from the Planning Commission and further staff evaluation are areas
we were looking to defer.
One of the big things was to incentivize workforce housing and
also allow for commercial components to be developed within there.
Again, the Florida targeted industries within the Rural Villages.
December 14, 2021
Page 222
And one of the things that wasn't -- we're deferring on is we had
suggested to increase the density from three units to seven units to get
the economies of scale to allow for the true sustainability in a wider
range of commercial goods and services to be supported by the
villages. We're deferring that because of some of the concerns
related to infrastructure availability within the -- within the receiving
areas and maybe needing a little bit more of a lead time to have that
infrastructure be ready for the type of development that would be
associated with it.
Allow TDRs for existing ag and conservation uses to come from
the Neutral Lands. That would be another source of TDR credits.
And remove the 40-acre minimum project size for a cluster
development. Currently, if you wanted to do a one to -- a
one-unit-to-per-acre development, you needed 40 acres. We're
suggesting to remove that restriction.
Eliminate the one-mile boundaries for where TDRs must be
derived through the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
That -- we've had a number of different GMPs that have basically
almost made that no longer necessary.
Increase TDR demand by adding requirements that any Growth
Management Plan amendment that proposes to increase density
within the Urban Mixed-Use District or the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District must use TDRs, except for those ones determined to be a
public benefit.
Here's -- like I said, here's some of the amendments that we did
not propose because of various different reasons. Density in
Receiving Lands outside of Rural Villages, the Board directed to
increase it from one unit to two units per acre, but we're only going to
suggest that for the receiving areas along Immokalee Road. The two
seven [sic] receiving areas, because of infrastructure concerns, we
think we still need to do a better evaluation as to what's the
December 14, 2021
Page 223
appropriate level in terms of the density for those.
Density in the Rural Villages remain at the two to three units per
acre but further study of the North Belle Meade and the Belle Meade
Receiving Lands to determine about, like I said,
infrastructure -- infrastructure capacity.
The size of the Rural Village, staff recommends retaining the
maximum size but also to conduct further studies. We were
suggesting to allow for these Rural Villages to be larger, but
we -- because of infrastructure concerns, we still want to evaluate as
to whether that is a sound recommendation. And reducing the
greenbelt with -- not eliminate it, but reducing the width -- the
demands of the greenbelt around your Rural Villages.
And here's the various comments that we received through the
public-hearing process. A lot of these were supporting the type of
things that we were talking about: Increase the Rural Village
threshold to 1,000 acres compared to 300; extend flowway TDRs to
the entire Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area; expand
industrial uses within the receiving area.
One of the things that we did hear, and I found it
somewhat -- and I don't want to say unusual, but refreshing, was the
general public, when we talked to them, what they said was they
really don't want to see the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
developed like the urbanized area with all gated communities. They
wanted a little bit more integration within the projects.
Now, that will be related to some of the design standards and
how we would go about designing the Rural Villages and some of
those regulations, but the general public that was attending our early
meetings were suggesting that maybe we can do it a little bit different
than the gated community model and have a more integrated type of a
mixed-use development.
So we went to the Planning Commission on the 20th of May,
December 14, 2021
Page 224
and the recommendations -- modified staff's recommendations from
the Planning Commission is remove the limitation on the required
TDRs utilized for Growth Management Plan amendments that
proposes to increase density for projects that have a public benefit;
continue to protect environmentally sensitive lands for development;
defer the recommendation that requires parcels over 300 acres in size
to develop as a Rural Village; the creation -- defer the creation of the
agricultural TDR while we're going through the North Belle Meade
restudy; and move up the staff-requested initiation for the North Belle
Meade from a two-year period we were giving ourselves to giving
ourselves only one year.
And then staff's recommendations: With the proposed
amendments that are contained in Exhibit A of the attached resolution
is, you know, continue to protect the agricultural lands; continue to
protect environmentally extensive lands for development; protecting
listed species; planning for future growth and economic
diversification; and we're, you know, recommending approval of the
resolution in Exhibit A, which contains -- and that, I guess, brings us
to, noticing when the County Manager had pulled this item, he had
mentioned every single one of the commissioners had requested that
this be pulled off the summary agenda.
So with that I would open it up to whatever specific question or
topic that you guys would like to address. And like I said, I
have -- Ms. Mosca is with me as well. She worked on the
presentation up to the Planning Commission; can provide a little
more in-depth knowledge if I -- if we have a question that maybe I
can't tackle.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I do have a question about the
increased density on Immokalee. I mean, that -- that just -- that flies
in the face of logic right now, given what Immokalee is. Someone
described it today as one big parking lot. And we've actually heard
December 14, 2021
Page 225
from staff people who say what a disaster it is. And I'm just -- why
would we -- I mean, I understand why we don't want it in other
places, but why are we doing it there?
MR. BOSI: The nature of the request is to increase the demand
for TDRs. We have participants that have TDRs that they're looking
for a developer or looking for a project that's going to need TDRs so
they can be made whole for having put restrictions on their Sending
Land. They receive these TDRs. They're sitting with these TDRs.
And if the increase from one to two would double the demand for
TDRs within those two receiving areas, that -- that creates an inherent
increase in demand for a supply that we know that -- we know we
need to continue to make sure that there is going to be demand for.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I understand that there's not
enough TDRs, right? There's not --
MR. BOSI: Right now --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're looking for more TDRs, not a
place to put the TDRs. There's just not enough. So the question
came -- and we've had several meetings about this, or maybe two,
that why are we not giving extra TDRs for flowway preservation or
for the environment? Why are we doing it along the Immokalee
Road for density?
MR. BOSI: Well, we're working in combination, meaning that
there are a number of TDRs that were being identified. The ag
protection, the flowway protection, allowing for TDRs to be created
within the Neutral Lands for existing agricultural operations.
So we identified a number of new TDRs to be proposed as part
of these amendments, but we also wanted to enhance the demand
side, and that was part of the reason why we were looking at and
thinking the benefit of moving from three units an acre for your
village to seven units per acre just to be able to create more demand
in that regard, just to bring more activity to the program. Because
December 14, 2021
Page 226
it's one of the oddest arrangements that -- the area that we've
projected out related to the Collier interactive growth model, the area
that we project to be the very last to develop is the middle portion of
our county, is the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District.
Is has a lot of characteristics of why that is. I think when I
talked about the 5,500 individual lots and owners and the
regulatory -- the process of land assembly of generating and
gathering TDRs is cumbersome, and there's much -- there's greener
pastures, so to speak. But with all that being said, we recognize that
the demand side and the supply side needed to be attended to, and so
that's why we were suggesting that increase from one to two.
And I'll ask Michele, but I'm sure that we've had some
conversation with our transportation planning staff
regarding -- regarding the Immokalee Road and the capacities.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, Michele Mosca, Zoning
Division.
We did have those discussions with transportation staff. This
was a Board directive to increase residential from one unit to two
dwelling units per acre throughout. Those would be non-Rural
Village developments.
Along the Immokalee Road corridor, on paper, we had the
additional capacity to handle the additional two dwelling units per
acre. And I want to point out as well, the receiving area in the north
side, that is the site of the future Immokalee Road Rural Village. So
no additional non-Rural Village acres would be developed there. So,
really, the impact would be to that northwestern receiving area unless
for some reason the Immokalee Road Rural Village didn't go
forward. Then they would be allowed to come in and develop at two
dwelling units per acre.
With that, I'll defer any of the specific transportation questions
to transportation staff.
December 14, 2021
Page 227
MS. SCOTT: Good evening. Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning. I'm sorry. No longer Transportation Planning.
Department deputy head, Growth Management Department. I was
in my prior role when I worked on this.
I'm actually going to go -- I'll use the slide that's up here. So if
you look at the two receiving areas along Immokalee Road, the blue
area here, if you can see my cursor -- if you actually look at an aerial
of that, that area is very well built. It includes Heritage Bay. It
includes Bonita Bay, Twin Eagles, Valencia Trails, all of the
development that's along Tree Farm Road and -- I'm
sorry -- Woodcrest and Massey. There are already substantial
developments within -- that are taking up that vacant area.
So I'm not going to stand here and tell you that when this
proposal first came to me and I looked at that blue box along
Immokalee Road that I didn't have the same reaction that you had,
and then I went back and I looked at the aerial photo.
Really, exactly what Michele just said, the focus is in this
northern blue box. And I went back to our Long-Range
Transportation Plan where we used the county interactive growth
model as our base data when we were looking at our projections for
what we were going to construct through 2045. And we had
development in that area. And so that was why I was okay with
increasing the density along the Immokalee corridor, taking into
consideration that a large portion of it's already built.
Now, with that being said, there's very large golf courses out
there. And we know that we have a process to convert golf courses.
I don't know if that would happen. But that is what I'm dealing with
in that specific area, that this blue box here is in large part golf
courses and areas that are already built. There are some lands along
Immokalee Road that have churches that have conditional uses on
them -- we've been talking about churches a lot today -- have several
December 14, 2021
Page 228
churches on them, and there are little pockets in between those
churches that would require some assemblage.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just -- I have a quick
comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Go ahead, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, one of the comments
that might ease your concerns --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Anxiety.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- is the estimate of reduction
of impact on -- or traffic on Immokalee Road with Vanderbilt Beach's
extension coming out through 16th right now and then funding
appropriated next year to carry it all the way to Everglades
Boulevard. What's the estimated impact of that -- that single route?
MS. SCOTT: Approximately 20 percent reduction on
Immokalee Road. And I also want to address as part of this area up
here, one of the things that we identified in the Long-Range
Transportation Plan was a need for another roadway in there. And
so we actually identified, as part of the Long-Range Transportation
Plan, a collector roadway, if you will, that would kind of go through
this development to provide relief if -- to that really environmentally
sensitive section of Immokalee Road. It's not our desire to widen
that section to four lanes. So having an alternative route was
something else that was identified through the Long-Range
Transportation Plan process.
And as that development comes forward, we will work with that
developer to set aside the right-of-way for that future roadway
connection as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And what would happen if -- and I'm
not -- I don't know what my colleagues -- but if this board says great,
just no increased density on Immokalee, what happens to the plan?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do have another question.
December 14, 2021
Page 229
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Whenever you get around.
MR. BOSI: The plan would stay as currently allowed, with the
one-unit-per-acre allowance with the TDR. Of course, the
Immokalee Road Rural Village is -- as it's being proposed, is -- is
going to be outside of, you know, that limitation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know.
MR. BOSI: So it would really -- and it really -- it gets back to,
as Trinity had said, there's not a tremendous amount of vacant land
within that middle -- that northwest receiving area. It's pretty much
spoken for. But if you suggest to eliminate the increase from one to
two, it would just maintain -- you would maintain the current status
as it is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You have a question.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do. This is the supply side
with the existing TDRs that are currently available that can be
generated but haven't -- not all of them have. I think there's an
assumption in here of -- at least I read it -- something about a
50 percent --
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- assumption.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What's the demand side?
What's the requisite for the development?
MR. BOSI: We looked at -- we looked at the two northern
areas, and the demand side for the northernmost receiving area was
about 1,137 TDRs. Within the northwest Receiving Lands, we
thought an additional 724, for a total of 186. And then at the North
Belle Meade receiving area, we had projected a number of TDRs at
30 -- at 3,500, and then for the Belle Meade receiving areas, for a
total of 9,278, for a total TDR demand of 11,139. So what that gets
December 14, 2021
Page 230
to is a little bit -- your difference between your potential supply on
your right of 8,021 and the demand a little bit higher of 11,139 right
now is what our current projections were at.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's based upon an
assumption of a 50 percent participation of those that have TDRs that
could, in fact, convert them.
MR. BOSI: And lands that are still eligible to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To be done.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So the
recommendations for what are coming forward right now, is there
a -- is there a better balance with the system for the increase in TDRs
for protection of agriculture and so on and so forth and/or the
reduction in -- or increase in densities on a per-TDR basis?
MR. BOSI: Well, in speaking with Michele, we were in
agreement that because of some of the modifications that were put in
in terms of deferring some of the suggested amendments from the
Planning Commission's perspective, that a recalibration of the
supply-and-demand curve would probably have a better opportunity
to true it up a little bit more. But like we said, this is -- these are
models, and we have to have assumptions that go into it in terms
of -- you know, these aren't exact numbers. This is an accounting
exercise; we're trying to do approximations as to what we think they
are.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the incentivization to
convert from a unit to a TDR, there has to be value associated with
that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And one of the things I was
really happy to see was the allowing for the transferability of these
TDRs out of, necessarily, the Rural Fringe and into other areas. That
December 14, 2021
Page 231
would allow us to have discussions with developers similar to what
you just had. You want an extra 380 units; let's talk about some
TDR consumption. And some -- even with that very -- even in the
urbanized area. So that's one thing that I really was pleased to see.
The other thing I would like to have a discussion about -- and
maybe we need to do this, Commissioner Taylor, because I like your
idea of the workshop with our GMP at large -- because
we -- Mr. Bosi and I talk regularly about having services and supply
for consumption in the rural area. But it's nice to have goods and
services for the appropriation for those goods and services in those
areas, but those lag so far behind to the residential that, in fact,
comes, because residential's instantaneous. Commercial always
lags.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, and it demands.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you'll recall -- I mean, the
demand is enormous when we approved the 47 acres on the Randall
Curve. One of the things that I specified was that they build into
their development criterium construction of a minimum of 10,000
square feet of usable space before they opened up those apartments.
In that general locale -- and we're talking about increasing some of
the intensities along Immokalee Road and Wilson Boulevard even
further west, there's close to a million square feet of commercial
that's already approved in that -- in that area that's not being
developed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Where? Where?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: In and around Randall Curve.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, okay. Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Across the street in front of
Orangetree south of Waterways. There's another subdistrict that
may or may not ever come to fruition over on Randall just east of
where the Mobil station is there now.
December 14, 2021
Page 232
When you move out onto Oil Well Road in front of where 39th
will ultimately come down out of the Big Corkscrew Regional Park,
there's another 40-acre piece that's coming before us to be divided
into residential -- it's all commercial right now, but they're going to
ask for residential and commercial. That's coming at us here at some
stage as well.
So one of the things we can have a discussion -- I would like to
have a discussion about at some stage is some kind of a requisite for
developers to plan on a minimum construction of those goods and
services capacities within their development plan. It's just business.
It's a math -- I don't want to get into dictating policy into the
commercial sector, but we also at the same time need -- our
infrastructure is stressed. Immokalee Road -- Trinity and I go round
and round and round about whether there's even capacity on
Immokalee Road at all.
But the more goods and services that we can redirect into the
eastern part of our community, the less compact that's going to have
on our already existent stressed infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'd like to talk about North Belle
Meade and the Belle Meade, but North Belle Meade and the
environmentally sensitive land and the thousands of individual
property owners in that area, and I'd like to see if it comes back, you
know. And I'd like to see it come back, maybe a discussion, because
within -- within the -- within the executive summary for it, it refers to
a part -- an awareness by staff that it's ecologically important.
There's water resources there we need to protect.
And I would like to have a robust discussion of how to do it
because, clearly, clearly, this area is poised for development
and -- but there are willing -- there are a lot of people that want to
sell. But how does an individual property owner that owns one
of -- you know, a small lot, and you say, okay, you know, you can get
December 14, 2021
Page 233
a TDR off of that, but, oh, by the way, you have to maintain it
afterwards. They can't afford that.
So maybe we look at this area uniquely and develop a program
by which we don't penalize folks for giving up their TDRs but figure
it out how we do -- and maybe it's outright purchase. I don't know,
but it's critical.
MR. BOSI: That was one of the early issues Mr. Van Lengen,
who led our studies, identified was that North Belle Meade area in
the Picayune Strand. They've got an adopted management plan, and
any property owner that severs their TDRs can transfer their land
underneath that plan to the state.
In North Belle Meade there's no agencies that are willing to take
it. So you're right. You ask them to go to restoration and
maintenance, and then they have to maintain it for in perpetuity,
there's no incentives for that.
So I would agree that that is a hugely important discussion point
that I would almost suggest to delay. And I know this has been a
long time coming. But I would delay any transmittal of
any -- because we haven't spoken to the state yet, so we're not under a
timeline. We've just had our review with the Planning Commission.
We could schedule that workshop and put that as a focus in terms
of -- and, I mean, I know you wanted to talk about density as a whole,
and we can have that, but we could also bifurcate today and put a
focus on the North Belle Meade, in that area.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I think those are two separate
issues; the Comprehensive Plan is over here, but the Belle
Meade -- North Belle Meade -- and also to look at it with fresh eyes,
to look at how can we incentivize the preservation of land there and
create TDRs? We've got flowways. Why don't we give more TDRs
for people who want to preserve their flowways? Why don't we
reward somehow? And I don't know -- I don't know what it is, but
December 14, 2021
Page 234
just simply reward folks for putting land aside for water because, my
gosh, we need it, we know that, for flowways. So I'll turn that over
to you. Are you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Well -- and on that
note -- because we have -- I have talked with Mike about this, and
that's -- even in Golden Gate Estates in the eastern
part -- southeastern part in the NRPA overlay, we've got an enormous
amount of environmentally sensitive lands down there, and the
co-development of a TDR program in the Estates outside of the Rural
Fringe but an additional incentive to reduce the density.
We've got nonconforming lots in Golden Gate Estates, and
there's -- as we've all heard, there's close to pushing 10,000 -- for
today's discussion, 10,000 developable lots in Rural Golden Gate
Estates right now, and a large portion are on those Band-Aid strip
75-foot tracts. And so disincentivizing development on those
75-foot tracts and preservation in some form of compensation for that
incentivization to not build a house on a nonconforming lot also
needs to be part of that discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And when we talk about possibly
purchasing land, we do have a vehicle that we approved, and that's
Conservation Collier. Now, that's a huge jump, but I think this
conversation should be brought forward to see if there's any support
for it.
And I think a clear picture of the potential of what could go
there needs to be really communicated to the public. Thank you.
So where does that leave us? No one else would like to speak?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I was just going to ask, can
you go to Slide 3. I just want to take another look at it, and then I
wanted to see Slide 4 again, right. I don't have the ability to change
your slides, right? Yeah, I wanted to see 4, not 3; 4.
Okay. I don't have a question. I just wanted to -- I might have
December 14, 2021
Page 235
a question, but I mean, I'm not holding up anything. I just wanted to
take a look at it while everybody else is talking.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other comments
or -- do we have any registered speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, I do, ma'am. I have two registered
speakers for this item. Nancy Lewis, and she will be followed by
Bob Mulhere.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Who has a green tie on for Christmas.
MR. MULHERE: I forgot I was supposed to say -- before I say
anything else, I was supposed to say, Commissioner Taylor, you look
absolutely lovely today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You heard the morning remarks,
right?
MR. MILLER: Ms. Lewis, please.
MS. LEWIS: Okay. I was waiting for Bob. Good afternoon
or good evening at this point, Madam Chair and Commissioners.
Again, for the record, my name is Nancy Lewis. I'm a resident of
District 2 in North Naples. And I am here late this afternoon
requesting denial of the transmittal of this proposed draft amendment
to the Growth Management Plan relating to the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District.
First, I want to thank all of you commissioners for actually
removing it from the summary agenda because an amendment of this
magnitude never belonged on it. To me, there's so much in here that
it really needs not to be bundled. It needs to be looked at
individually rather than just transmitting this whole thing.
You commissioners know that you've heard me say before that
we agree that every property owner has the right to develop their
property in accordance with development laws. To allow any
increased density bonuses anywhere along Immokalee Road, the
whole corridor at this point in time, by removing density bonus caps
December 14, 2021
Page 236
on infill parcels and amending the FLUE to change development
standards and requirements is downright preposterous. It's a classic
case of, a couple of months ago, putting the cart before the horse,
okay.
The thing is is it's an accident waiting to happen. There's no
way Immokalee Road or, for that matter, Vanderbilt Beach can
handle such an increase in traffic. Trinity just talked about Valencia
Trails. That's not built out for another couple of years. We're
looking at, what, 11/24 for the extension of Vanderbilt Beach.
We -- the way that things are, it is an absolute parking lot.
Unless you have a plan in place that we're going to give every
property owner helicopters to get over the traffic, I mean, it's
ridiculous. Cars don't sprout wings, and it is a parking lot.
With the projects that are already approved, Allura, a lot of other
projects going out, there's so many that have not even -- they're
coming out of the ground or they're just approved. This roadway,
we're looking at at least six to 15-plus more years in order for the
residents to see any substantial relief in the congestion.
When I was looking at this agenda and reviewing it, it brought
to mind a recent post that I saw on Nextdoor where some residents
were discussing similar issues, and someone made the comment,
Naples, Florida -- this is a quote, Naples, Florida, trading quality of
life for developers' profits. I'm waiting for the bumper sticker, end
quote. Is this the legacy that you want to leave for Collier County?
Please deny the transmittal and really, really look at it. You
need to take the time to educate the public and for them to understand
what the impact truly means. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your last registered speaker for this item is
Bob Mulhere.
MR. STRADLING: I've been here since 9:30. I signed in.
December 14, 2021
Page 237
MR. MILLER: What's your name, sir?
MR. STRADLING: Bill Stradling.
MR. MILLER: I'll take your word for it; I don't have a slip.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's been sitting here.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. Oh, no. I've seen him. I've spoken to
him several times. He'll speak after Bob.
MR. STRADLING: Thank you. I didn't mean to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. And if you would get another --
MR. MILLER: No. I've got one here we'll fill out.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere. It's been a long day. I'll be brief.
The -- one of the policies that's contained in the transmittal
amendments proposed -- by the way, Bruce Anderson and I have on
behalf of the Coalition of Rural Fringe Landowners made a
presentation to the Board in 2015. That's a long time ago. The
Board agreed with some of the recommendations but said we're going
to direct staff to do a restudy, and somehow that got put to the end of
the line, and here we are after all the other restudies have been done
finally getting to something here.
So I did want to say, I'm here on behalf of my client, which is
Lipman Family Farms, and Lipman Family Farms owns a significant
amount of land in the South Belle Meade or Belle Meade area of
receiving.
And we have worked all the way through this process in
agreement that there should be a separate analysis for this area. I
think the staff recommendation also includes the North Belle Meade.
And there's a policy in your draft amendments that says within one
year the county will commence a specific study of these two areas,
because there's different issues in each of those two areas:
Transportation, environmental -- some of the issues that you raised,
Chairman Taylor.
December 14, 2021
Page 238
So we support that. We will work with the staff on that. We'd
like to see these amendments go forward, you know, in some
reasonable time frame. I understand you have more questions and
that some of those will have to be addressed between now and when
this comes back. But we have worked all the way along over the last
six years on some of this stuff, and we look forward to participating
in this additional analysis of those two substantial areas. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, and now your final speaker, Bill
Stradling.
MR. STRADLING: The name is Bill Stradling, spelled
S-t-r-a-d-l-i-n-g. I'm a resident. I reside at 2324 Grenadines Way,
Naples, Florida. That's the community of La Morada.
And I said good morning to you this morning, and now I'm
saying good evening and, thankfully, I'm the last speaker. I'll make
it as quick as possible.
I did send you-all an email in regards to requests to table this
item. And my specific request reasoning was that, believe it or not,
none of the people in our area knew anything about this. I
understand that there is mailings -- there are no mailings that are sent
out because it's not actually a direct property change, but this is very
significant in a change -- I mean, you advertise maybe in a
newspaper, but I contacted numerous members of boards of directors
along Immokalee Road. None of them had any idea this was being
proposed.
Now, this has gone back a number of years. I've only been a
resident of La Morada since July of 2018. And I know this goes on
long before that. And it's a tough task for all of you.
The reason we're asking for this change is that we're not against,
you know, things that need to be taken care of, but we would like the
opportunity to have input. And there is no input that I can -- I come
from Broward County originally. Moved to Tennessee for two years
December 14, 2021
Page 239
to be with grandchildren. Now I'm back where I am right now.
But in those years, Commissioner LoCastro mentioned about the
growth management act. Well, shortly after it was enacted in 1984, I
served 14 years on the Broward County Planning Council in Broward
County. And it's -- that was a daunting task at that time, but it's
something that needed to be required. But I think when it comes to
my opinion working for commissioners and serving for
commissioners in Broward County, that you really have to stay on
top of that Growth Management Plan, and you've got every -- every
side -- can I continue, please?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. STRADLING: Every side coming at you, well, let's
change this amendment, let's add this in the amendment, and it makes
it very difficult for you as commissioners to vote consciously on
what's going to happen, because it's coming at you from all sides.
And there's no doubt about it, I mean, when I was serving on the
planning council, I had all types of developers calling wanting to talk
to me, and, you know, telling me how they wanted me to vote, which,
you know, we vote the way we feel.
But I think it's crucial right now in this county that you at least
table this and take the time. The residents that live in that corridor,
and I -- and I would say in 2015, they weren't even there -- give them
the opportunity to help. And a lot of us are retired people, former
contractors and educators and everything.
There's so many people that live in that area that would roll up
their sleeves and help you out to get through this process. But right
now I think there's a lot missing. There's a lot of loopholes. And I
am requesting that you table this and take it back and really study this
thing to where it is in today's world. It's changed from 2015. It
changes every day here.
You know, before being on the commission, I was a
December 14, 2021
Page 240
commissioner in Coral Springs for 14 years, and our staff would
come up and say, how are we going to handle this? How are we
going to handle all this development? All these things coming down
from the state now. We've go to have affordable housing. Well,
right now affordable housing is not just our problem. It's a problem
in our country. It's all over, and you -- and you are in a position
that's so hard to handle, but you can't do it unless you get the
community to take a part of what you're trying to do and get
consensus to work together. Right now --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. STRADLING: -- the problem with this country is we're
all separated. We don't -- you know, we need to come together.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question for him
before he goes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How you liking the new
school?
MR. STRADLING: It's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They're a lot better neighbor?
MR. STRADLING: I don't know if you all knew that Bill
worked very courageous with us with the new school coming in, and,
of course, the per -- or former tenant that was in there before the
problems we had over the years, and going on, but everything worked
out well, and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good.
MR. STRADLING: -- we have a wonderful neighbor.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Outstanding.
MR. STRADLING: The other thing I wanted to point out
particularly --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. I'm sorry. Your time is up.
December 14, 2021
Page 241
MR. STRADLING: One more second. No?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just quickly. Just quickly.
MR. STRADLING: Okay. We are -- La Morada, the border
is --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's too much. We can't
do that. So we can talk later, or you can talk to us, but we're going
to have to --
MR. STRADLING: Thank you so much for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. STRADLING: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Send him the bill for
breaking the microphone, by the way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Bosi, obviously, all of
this has been a long time coming. And one of the reasons why I
pulled this off the consent agenda, I wound up getting 60 -- a little
over 60 phone calls and emails in opposition to this, and I'm not
really prepared to vote for this tonight. And the question I have is, if
we delay this until our second meeting in January where -- and we
had some opportunity to, perhaps, get into the details a little bit more,
I'd be more comfortable, so I'd like to see us continue this. I'm not
prepared to vote for this.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would second that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm not prepared to vote on
this.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think that's why we all
pulled it off. I mean, 90 percent of what I just saw in here today I've
seen for the first time, I mean, I'll just be honest with it. It's not like
it's foreign to me, but packaged this way. And then also I think the
most important thing to all of us up here is this gentleman's comment
December 14, 2021
Page 242
about citizen input. And so even if we gave them the opportunity or
it was in the newspaper or whatever, I got emails from a lot of people
that were questioning this and in some cases even the emails I got,
they were confused about what we were about to vote on, and so that
concerns me.
And this is one of those things that I don't think speeding to a
vote accomplishes anything. If we've waited this long and this thing
is a big muscle movement, let's all really be, you know, confident
about it. And so I'd agree with, you know, Commissioner Saunders
and Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the forum should probably be a
workshop that we would have here. I would think that would
be -- that would be televised. That would be the best --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to try to do that
in January before the second meeting in January when this comes
back?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. That would be our first
workshop of January.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just have one point I'd
like to -- if I may, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did light up. I just -- I
want to say, you know, I've been -- per what Bob Mulhere had to say,
this is not new information. This has been -- this has been studied ad
nauseam for a long, long time. I do believe there are enhancements
that we can, in fact, do, and there will be an opportunity for an
involvement of the community. But I certainly don't see
anything -- you know, for a 30-day delay, I don't see any reason for
us to not do that just to offer that up and get input -- further input
from the community.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager.
December 14, 2021
Page 243
MR. ISACKSON: A couple of comments. Number one is you
already have -- your January workshop is with your TDC. Number
two is, you need to give Mr. Bosi some time to evaluate this, and
maybe February is the proper time for that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. ISACKSON: Okay. But we'll be back -- we can be back
at our first meeting in January to give you more specifics on that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Perfect.
MR. ISACKSON: -- if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Great.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So just to clarify, we're
continuing this until our second meeting in February or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. I would think that's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's saying no. You're
saying --
MR. ISACKSON: I think --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think what the Manager's
saying is at our first meeting in January he'll give us a schedule as to
when we can have a workshop.
MR. ISACKSON: Yeah. I think the Board has consensus that
they want to workshop this, and what I'm saying is that I'll know
more at that first meeting in January and give you an update in terms
of when that workshop can occur.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So there's a
motion on the floor and I second to continue this to a date that will be
specified in January by our County Manager. All those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
December 14, 2021
Page 244
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Stradling.
Item #9F
ORDINANCE 2021-49: AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO ADVISE
THE BOARD ON ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC
ART WITHIN THE ENTIRE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
THE COUNTY, INCLUDING THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA -
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that moves you to Item 9F,
which was previously 17A. It's a recommendation to adopt an
ordinance creating the Collier County Public Arts Committee to
advise the Board on all matters relating to public art within the entire
unincorporated area of Collier County, including the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area. This
item was moved by Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Ms. Chairman, I asked to pull this
so we can have a discussion. It's my recollection that the direction
we had given staff was to come back with an ordinance to create a
countywide public art --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Program.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- a program, right, and an
ordinance, and then we would create an advisory committee. And,
December 14, 2021
Page 245
you know, in looking at the proposed ordinance, I -- you know, and I
brought this up before, but I question why it is that if this is a
countywide effort, that Bayshore -- the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
community is specifically granted more of a position than any other
area. I mean, if this is a countywide program and we want an
advisory committee, I mean, if we're going to start giving one area
one seat, we should give other areas another seat.
I mean, you know, again, we have more than one art district.
So I'm trying to figure out why it is that, again, this is -- it specifically
says one member shall represent the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment Area either as a resident non -- well, I
mean, then we should add in a whole bunch of other ones.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So what if we just eliminate
the specificity of Bayshore and just make the committee countywide
and qualifications -- we can, when you go out for that, that, look, you
can specify the qualifications that they -- I think it's already in the
ordinance, but would that satisfy you?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. I'm --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm fine with that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One per district?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, just countywide. Because
it's not one per district. I don't believe it is one per district. The
idea is this is art. Art is everywhere. It's the most qualified folks
that are with art will come forward. There are places to put art right
now, which is the Bayshore/Gateway area. They're very excited
about going forward. Immokalee is already doing it. And so I
think -- I think we're poised. It's just to get this organizational,
which is extremely important, this organizational part. So I'm --
MR. KLATZKOW: For clarity, what you are doing is you are
December 14, 2021
Page 246
eliminating the last sentence of Section 3. The rest of the ordinance
is --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Uh-huh.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- to be enacted as written, correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't have it in front of me, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You're taking out including
the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Development --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One member shall represent
Bayshore.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You're saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: Otherwise, we're fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's all right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I'll just add, I like to
see balance on these boards, but I think that's our job here. So when
you -- like Commissioner Taylor's saying, you have an expert in your
district that you think would be great, you know, in this -- to be part
of this board that's an art expert or has, you know, passion for this or
whatever, then, you know, you've got to encourage them to apply. I
mean, some of our boards are a little bit sort of top or bottom heavy
to a certain district just because those are the only people that
applied. So, you know, this will be one where we want to shake the
trees and get, you know, the people that have a strong background
and passion and knowledge and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just delete the last sentence of
Section 3 and --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're ready for a motion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we're ready for a motion.
December 14, 2021
Page 247
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. So if we -- with that
change, I would move to approve this ordinance.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Third.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second,
deleting the last sentence. All those -- of that particular section. 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. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves
us --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. County Manager, I wonder if we
could go to the fee schedule.
MR. ISACKSON: Sure.
Item #11B
RESOLUTION 2021-263: A RESOLUTION REPEALING ALL
PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING
PARTS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION DIVISION FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS
LICENSE AND FEE POLICY TO UPDATE PARKING FEES,
BOAT LAUNCH FEES, BOAT LAUNCH PERMIT FEES, AND
ESTABLISHING NEW FEES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH
December 14, 2021
Page 248
RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USERS IN ORDER TO
SUPPORT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION
FOR COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
FACILITIES - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEE SCHEDULE
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND THE CONCESSIONAIRE TO
NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSIDERATION –
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's 11B. That's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution repealing all previous
resolutions establishing and amending parts of the Collier County
Parks and Recreation Division Facilities and Outdoor Area License
and Fee Policy to update parking fees, boat launch fees, boat launch
permit fees, and establishing new fees and requirements for both
recreational and commercial uses in order to support management
strategy implementation for Collier County Parks and Recreation
Facilities.
MS. GRANT: Good evening, Commissioners. Kim Grant.
I'm the director of Operations and Veterans Services.
Our division supports all the divisions in public services as it
relates to financial matters. And this evening, of course, it has to do
with the parks fee policy which we're bringing back, as requested,
from your last meeting to make fee policy changes associated with
the boat management strategy that you approved in November.
We do have a previous presentation, five slides, if you'd like us
to go through it, or we can take questions, whichever is your
pleasure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'd like to see the slides.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Question.
MS. GRANT: Okay. I will introduce Jeff Newman, who's the
December 14, 2021
Page 249
manager of Financials Operations, and he will take you briefly
through the policy changes.
Jeff.
MR. NEWMAN: Good evening. Jeffrey Newman, manager,
Operations and Veterans Services.
On the November 9th meeting, the Board approved a strategy to
help us better manage our commercial activity of our boat launch
facilities. Part of that directive included amending our fee policy.
So the Park system charges a wide variety of fees for the
different programs and facilities. Tonight's presentation is going to
only focus upon the fees that are in yellow.
And to give you just a brief benefit of history, in the past years,
Parks has maintained budgetary compliance while expanding the
portfolio of parks and increasing maintenance expenditures. When
we put this proposed fee schedule together, it reflects a best value at
least cost while trying to ensure the Collier County residents only
experience a minimal fee increase, and it apportions costs fairly to
commercial vendors and out-of-county visitors who use the amenities
that we provide for Collier County residents and visitors.
We did conduct a benchmarking against sister agencies here in
Florida, and many of those sister agencies have very similar fee
structures but are, in most cases, higher than the fees that we're
seeking to propose for Collier County.
So, currently, if you'll look at the nonresident recreational
annual boat launch, that is one fee, currently, that is a recreational
annual boat launch permit. It currently is $100. There would be no
change for county residents other than transitioning it to a residential
$100 and $50 fee and creating a recreation annual boat launch permit
which would be $250 for motorized and 125 for nonmotorized, plus
tax.
The commercial boat launch permit annually is currently $100
December 14, 2021
Page 250
plus tax. That would go to $250 for the first permit for individual or
company, $350 for the second permit, and then $450 for the third and
subsequent permits, plus the tax.
Our current motorized boat launch rate is $8, inclusive of tax.
That would increase to 10; and our nonmotorized boat launch rate is
$4. That would increase to five.
The beach parking, which is currently $8 a day, would increase
to $10 a day. It would remain free for Collier County residents with
the beach parking sticker. We would be establishing a new fee for
parking at the boat launches. That would be equalized with beach
parking at $10 a day, but we would be honoring beach parking
stickers for Collier County residents who would park at our boat
launches for free.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro, what do
you --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Good. Let me just -- yeah,
let me just -- I'm going to have a bunch of questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're thinking? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I want to see his last
few slides.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if I may -- if I may just interject
right here. Two gentlemen who own two commercial businesses and
work out of Marco Island Caxambas, Michael Hoffman of Wow Jet
Skis and Ron Hagerman of Captain Ron's, have said that they would
prefer that -- to raise significantly the cost of their permits on a
one-year basis and not pay 96 percent of the profits to the current
manager of these areas. I guess it's Paradise.
They indicated that they run -- the concessionaire runs four boat
ramps: Cocohatchee, Port of the Isles, Caxambas, and Goodland.
They're grossing 96 percent of the profits, and they -- and they only
remit 4 percent to the county. Last year, Mr. Hoffman paid $38,000
December 14, 2021
Page 251
in launch fees.
So if you look at what they're estimating to make, which is
39,450, Mr. Hoffman pays that to -- one commercial business pays
that to -- not to the county. So I think it's something we need to
really look at.
MR. NEWMAN: Absolutely. We are in the process of
discussing that with that vendor. The rate I state in here is what the
county will be taking in to support the current contract. I have
already pursued an RLS on that, and we are handling that matter.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I believe that Paradise has more
years left on the contract with the county; isn't that correct?
MR. NEWMAN: I believe they have approximately one
year -- one final renewal of a year left before --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would -- I would like to suggest that
nothing is renewed; that we really look at bringing the money here.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I remember right, we have the right to
cancel that contract. I don't know if it's 60 days' notice or what have
you, so -- but I would also note to the Board that the reason we're in
this contract is we used to run these things, and we lost money.
That's why we went to the concessionaire business.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: One of the things -- and just one
more thing. One said there's a ranger at the boat ramps. They said
they have never seen the boat ramps run as well as it's being run now.
They are very, very happy with the supervision there; very happy.
There's a couple of other things, though, and that's the January 1
date, which is what we're saying you're going to go from your six to
four. They can't get four -- what is it? -- four-place trailers. They
can't get them in that time for that January 1 date. It's a supply issue.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me just -- let me just say
something. I appreciate your educating us on what the people that
December 14, 2021
Page 252
I've met with for months have said, but that's not what we're voting
on here. So that's a totally different issue.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think it's important we bring
it up, but I just think that, you know, we're looking at the fees right
now. We know that we screwed up with the 96 percent; that goes
years back. The 1 January thing we can talk about. But I just think
that you're jumping ahead to cover some issues that I think we
already all know about. So I think it's great, but I don't think that has
anything to do with this slide, unless you're about to tell me why it
does.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, the fee changes, but the
policy -- this is our last meeting before January the 1st.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so the question is, are we
willing, as a board, to extend it? Because there's no -- there's no
staging area at these places. The staging area has to be created based
on the way the parking has changed. I'm not suggesting we turn a
blind eye to it. I'm just suggesting that I was fairly persuaded that
this is probably something that we need to take a look at and perhaps
come back to us in January, but don't make that January 1 date sort of
the drop-dead date and they can't do business anymore.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, Barry Williams, Parks and
Recreation director.
First of all, let me just say, thank you. At the last meeting you
gave us great direction in terms of dealing with this issue that's been
around for some time. And part of that direction, I think, it is a
hard -- it's a hard shift to make in terms of the history that we've had.
But, you know, the direction that you did provide was the recognition
of the limitation of that particular site. You do have some oversized
trailers. And the concession that you gave was to allow them to
December 14, 2021
Page 253
continue to launch at that site. Your issue is your ability to park
them in that facility. You just don't have that capacity.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is part of your issue that you're dealing
with at that site in terms of public safety. So part of what we're
dealing with in terms of issuing permits for the next year is, as you
say, the existing permits that folks have that we are looking to
grandfather for next year, they do expire December 31st. So we are
anxious to begin that process.
We certainly will work with folks. We know that coming to the
park -- and we're already hearing some of our vendors that are doing
different things, in particular as it relates to the oversized trailers, the
40-footers. We're hearing people that are acquiring smaller trailers
that will fit into the parking spaces. And so we know that this
is -- this shift is happening, but we are seeing kind of a turn.
So, anyway, I'm not sure if I answered your question, but I did
want to throw --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, it's just if there is some
flexibility. If there's consensus up here on the Board to give you the
flexibility by which you can deal with them, I think that's pretty much
what we're asking for, I'm asking for.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I think the fee
structures that are being offered here today meet where we're looking
to go. I have no interest in raising these fees for and until the
contract with the vendors that are operating our boat -- our boat
ramps are renegotiated. I have no intention of throwing another
6- or $700,000 out there in additional revenue until I know that
money's going to come to the county.
MR. WILLIAMS: Understood. And one thing I would tell
you about these funds that are identified, these -- and you look at the
December 14, 2021
Page 254
rates that are on the list, the annual fees do come directly to us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's the top one.
MR. WILLIAMS: And so the question is that annual fee that's
paid to us, that ramp fee that's collected by our current
concessionaire. During the time of the ship store being inoperational
[sic], they do take that fee. We are sitting down with the
concessionaire and renegotiating that and looking at that very closely.
And so -- but to your point, I think you're saying you don't have a
comfort level in approving these fees until that negotiation is
finalized.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because it's evident that the
annual fees come to us, but the increases in the launch fees and the
parking fees are straight revenue to the vendor, if I understand
correctly.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, part of fee structure,
too -- and the correct me if I'm wrong, Barry -- was also, too, to -- not
that raising it $2 is all of a sudden going to cut the cars in half, but
part of the discussions that we've had -- and, I mean, a lot of the
vendors have told me, geez, even your new fee is way -- I'd even pay
way more than that. I mean, one of the things I'll say is we're not
amending anything. We're catching up to where we should have
been all along.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But some of this is
to -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- I don't want to say
discourage some of the parking problems and things that we have out
of there -- and I don't know that $2 necessarily does it, but buried in
some of this is a little bit of -- creates a little bit more control, a little
bit less waste.
I mean, we heard from some of the vendors that said, well, I
don't know that I really need three permits. Now that the third
December 14, 2021
Page 255
permit is 450, I'll just keep -- I'll just take two, right? I mean, so that
is also part of it. And we heard that at my three-hour town hall
meeting on Marco Island, that, you know, there was a few vendors
that said, hey, when they're 100 bucks apiece, I'll take 30 of them.
You know, I'm being facetious, but that -- when it went up a little bit,
some of vendors actually don't use it, and that it would help us get a
little bit more control. I think the question of dumping more money
into Cindy's pocket with the 96 percent, that goes without saying.
But we're not going to fix it today. And I --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can fix it today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, we can.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can fix it. Just don't
approve this until we renegotiate the contract.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But you're not hearing what
I'm saying, that this also does some other things. You know, this
also does some other things with volume and density and parking and
that sort of thing. And also, too, with controlling the permits. We
have 180 permits. We heard from some vendors that said, if the
third permit costs 450, I actually might not take the third permit.
And then remember our whole discussion of 180 is a big number;
we're really trying to figure out -- so buried in some of this did some
other things, and so I just want to make sure that's not lost.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. If I may, for the record, Dan
Rodriguez, your Public Services department head.
Commissioner McDaniel, the goal here is exactly what
Commissioner LoCastro's outlining, is to implement that strategy and
bring control, and it's actually worked. The message is out. We
have actually commercial vendors that some of them have gone to the
marinas and moved their operation out.
But as far as the contract, we'll take a look at the contract.
We've looked at it thoroughly, and there is clauses in there to go
December 14, 2021
Page 256
ahead and discontinue that contract and look at either renegotiating it,
and make the fees appropriate for the county.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And we can do that fairly quickly.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'd like to make sure
that the County Attorney's involved in those negotiations, because
there's some legal issues there. So I want to make sure that
Mr. Klatzkow or someone from his office is at the table during those
negotiations.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It seems to me that if there's
an immediate termination provision, the vendor is -- the
concessionaire is going to be very willing to renegotiate if they know
that our option is just termination, so let's --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: They've actually reached out to us,
Commissioner Saunders, I believe three weeks ago formally to sit
down and start negotiations, so we're ready to do that. And I think
these fees, as Commissioner LoCastro stated, they're going to help us
to manage those commercial vendors, and that really is the priority at
some of these smaller parks.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So we can accommodate
Commissioner McDaniel by approving all of the annual fee increases
today and not increase the other fees.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Necessarily, we can approve
them all. I think at the end of the day --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I would prefer to do that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We are -- I mean, I
understand -- as long as I understand what is -- what I'm hearing is
that we're moving expeditiously on the agreements. I think -- I think
approving them all accomplishes what Commissioner LoCastro --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And I will say we did hear
December 14, 2021
Page 257
from some residents that, you know, when you see it on here, remains
free for residents, if you have a beach parking pass. Residents
knowing that we're keeping pace with maybe the fair market price
that's out there in other counties but they still get to park for free, this
resonates in a very positive way with residents that, you know, we're
not just keeping -- you know, how long has the fee been, you know,
$8 a day for beach parking? I don't know, but longer than a week,
right? It's been a while. And so to the residents out there that now
continue to get to park for free but we're keeping up what they have
seen at other counties is also a piece of this. Not a ginormous piece
but it's also buried in here that, you know, we're not sitting on our
hands and that their benefit has increased that much more. They're
saving $10 instead of $8 or whatnot. And that might not seem like a
big deal, but we talked about it for an hour at my town hall, right?
Over two bucks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make a motion
to approve the fee schedule and direct our staff to work with the
County Attorney's Office and the concessionaire and to come back as
quickly as possible with a renegotiated agreement for us to consider.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Do we have public
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I have four registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Many, many hours.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Michael Hoffman. He'll
be followed by Ron Hagerman.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're not here.
MR. MILLER: Then Bill D'Antuono. I hope I'm saying that
right, Bill.
MR. D'ANTUONO: D'Antuono.
December 14, 2021
Page 258
MR. MILLER: D'Antuono. And he'll be followed by Carlos
Escarra.
MR. D'ANTUONO: Well, my name is Bill D'Antuono. I
operate an offshore fishing charter. I've been running charters for
five years out of Bayview ramp and also out of the Wiggins ramp
prior to that another five years.
So this whole grandfathering in thing, it really doesn't address a
huge part of the problem where -- the operators that have initiated the
problem with the multiple permits, they still get to keep their permits
at Caxambas. It's still crowded, I understand. You know, there's a
lot of initiatives going forward to help that also.
A couple solutions: The 951 boat ramp, it can be expanded. I
was just down there the other day. There's literally caution tape
around the filet table. There's a water pump there and a port-o-potty.
There's not even running water at 951 right now. And that's just one
example of these boat ramps not being up to par with, you know, the
rest of the county.
Tour guys and charter guys advertise for free for people to come
to this county. We're on TV shows. We bring in thousands of
dollars for the ramp fees annually and millions from around the world
for our guides. Me alone, I probably see a thousand people a year.
Again, grandfathering in the permits does not alleviate the
issues, in my opinion. And this grandfathering in, it kills small
businesses for the future and current ones. I have many friends who
are starting -- want to start a business. They can't start this business.
Even current guides that couldn't get a permit or don't have a permit,
they've been operating for 20 years, and COVID last -- the permits
office was closed all of 2020. And we were told that -- you know,
some of the Parks and Rec employees as far as, you know, the
rangers, some people have told me that they didn't need a permit if
they're going via boat. So that's another issue that -- you know,
December 14, 2021
Page 259
another solution that could be brought up is that there's a lot of people
that just go by boat. They're not taking up a trailer spot. And in the
past, I've had multiple people tell me that they didn't need a permit if
they're going by boat because they're not using a trailered spot.
Another big issue was the Miami crowd came over here
during -- because their ramps were closed down, so all the Miami
crowd came over here. You had snook closures from Tampa south.
And the snook closure was at Gordon's Pass south. It was open
south. So you had all those people coming down. Miami coming
down. 951, Goodland, and Caxambas were super crowded. No one
in this whole thing has mentioned red tide. The charter captains had
to endure red tide in 2016, and we're still dealing with it.
I motion to table that grandfathering clause due to the fact that a
lot of people couldn't -- like, they weren't getting it because of
COVID.
And, you know, six-pack permits should be able to -- if you
have one business, you should be able to get one permit, and if you're
going to grandfather anything, it's the existing permits. And just
thanks for having me up here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a quick question for
him.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro, you
lit up. Is this for him or in general?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, it's for him. We've
talked before, but I want to separate a little bit of rumor from fact.
MR. D'ANTUONO: Hello again.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How you doing? First of all,
I appreciate any businesspeople that are here. I realize you could be
elsewhere, and this takes away from your livelihood. And, you
know, I hear from a lot of businesspeople, we all do, saying, hey, I
December 14, 2021
Page 260
can't sit there for 12 hours. Well, you know what, if your business
possibly could completely go out of business if we make bad
decisions up here, it's probably worth the day. And so I appreciate
it.
A little bit of rumor from -- separate rumor from fact. So we
grandfathered the people that already have permits. But to your
point, the new businesses that want to start aren't totally exempt or it's
impossible for them to start.
MR. D'ANTUONO: I did learn that at your town hall.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right, you heard at the town
hall what I said. And so one of the reasons why raising these rates
is, if we get more than a handful of businesses that have three permits
that go, damn, I've got to spend $450 for the third permit, I'll just take
two. We're going to take a look at, then, that number that we get,
and maybe end of December, early January, Dan -- he knows the
magic date. And we've talked ad nauseam that we are not -- you
know, it's not -- we're not oblivious to the new --
MR. D'ANTUONO: Who gets to choose who gets a permit?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, we have to see what
the number is. So you're asking me to have a crystal ball. If we sit
here and go, wow, we could offer 50 more permits to new businesses
and only 15 new businesses want a permit, great. I mean, so we
don't have a crystal ball, but we want to make sure that we're not
saying no right now.
And so I've heard from plenty of new businesses, oh, you're not
going to give me a permit? Well, I don't know if I am or I'm not, but
the people that currently have a permit -- but by raising these rates as
well, I think we've already heard from more than a few that that's
going to save a few permits, and we're not looking to just put those in
our pocket and say, tough noogies. There is a handful of people that
did have permits during the year of COVID, they didn't get a permit,
December 14, 2021
Page 261
so that's why they're not grandfathered.
MR. D'ANTUONO: Myself --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But they have operated out
there for a long time, so that's not oblivious to us.
Your comments about the 951 ramp, we already have talked
about that. Is that -- I have no idea why we haven't maintained that
one the way it should. So you brought that to our attention. Other
people did as well. We also saw it. So you're going to see major
changes out there to improvements.
MR. D'ANTUONO: I think that ramp could potentially be
expanded all the way to the Jolley Bridge.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, it could.
MR. D'ANTUONO: There's a parcel there that is already
zoned, I'm assuming, commercial, but it's a huge plot, and that could
be just an area where the inspected vessels could show up, or you
could have some jet ski tours show up, and that would alleviate some
of the, you know, jamb.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I hope you would appreciate
that that's not something you can do tomorrow, so that's designed --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MR. D'ANTUONO: I totally, totally understand that. That's a
huge endeavor, and it would be a beautiful project.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. It won't help us at
Caxambas this month. But you know what, so many people having
raised that, to include yourself and even -- it hasn't been lost on us,
you know, that's something that, you know, we spend a lot of big
money on a lot of big projects here. That's one that, man, would
have been awesome if five years ago we would have put that in
design and whatnot, but we can't go back in time either. But
anyway --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
December 14, 2021
Page 262
MR. D'ANTUONO: And to filet the fish at 951, there is a hand
pump that doesn't even work. Like --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It's about to.
MR. D'ANTUONO: I mean, we need running water there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely.
MR. D'ANTUONO: But, I mean, it's just long overdue. And
if you go to Lee County at their ramp, they have a huge grinding
machine and all kinds of stuff. So that's at a public ramp. That's
just one example of keeping up with all your ramps.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So tell the Miami people to
go to Lee County because their ramps are awesome.
MR. D'ANTUONO: I would love for that to happen, trust me.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you. We're hitting
those things, and the new businesses for sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And my comment,
Bill, was similar, because I have -- I have a note here having to do
with these permits and a number of permits and that -- and maybe we
ought to hear from our other public speaker and then we as a board
have a discussion about how we manage this number of permits.
There are --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there a lottery system or what is it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, and -- well, there's two
one-offs that have come at me. We set a hard number. You had to
have a permit last -- and I don't want to belabor the discussion while
we're in the discussion about -- we're actually voting on raising these
rates. This is a separate subject from what we're actually voting on.
So if you would wish, I'll hold my comments. Because I wanted to
clarify that, relatively speaking, you're kind of sort of okay with the
fee increases that we're proposing.
MR. D'ANTUONO: I'm fine with the fee increase. I mean, it's
December 14, 2021
Page 263
just another cost of doing business. One thing I would like to
suggest as far as the solution to that is just getting these guys up to
compliance that have been operating for 20 years, and they might not
have a permit. And those guys are going to need permits, or this is
going to be another issue that's going to go somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll talk about that as soon
as we get --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That is some of what our new
dockmaster, though, is doing out there, that you heard Taylor say
we're hearing rave reviews. Some of what they're doing out there is
making sure people aren't pulling in without permits. I'm not saying
we've solved everything, but, man, if we would have had that
dockmaster out there a few years ago --
MR. D'ANTUONO: Because I don't go to Caxambas, so I don't
see the huge issues down there. So, like, I know that's its own thing,
but I'm more up north where, like, I go out of Bayview and Wiggins.
Wiggins is probably the best facility in Naples as far as the boat
ramps go. I mean, you've got huge trailer spots. You've got a ship
store. You've got -- you know, it's great. They've got a fuel station.
Bayview, you know, that's -- it's not as great. I mean, the filet table
is what it is, but, you know, it's better than 951, but --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll talk about the total
number of permits here in a minute.
MR. D'ANTUONO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. D'ANTUONO: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker for this item is
Carlos Escarra.
MR. ESCARRA: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is
Carlos Escarra. I'm a resident of District 1, Marco Island, a South
Florida native; been here 43 years. I spent a 29-year career at the
December 14, 2021
Page 264
fire department here with East Naples Fire Department. Retired in
2006.
And I have been a charter captain for 27 years. I had started my
business while I was in the fire service. And I have seen the
problems arising over the years in these marinas. One of the
problems besides -- I'm not pointing fingers. We're here to try to
work on the solution.
I've worked closely with the Parks, and I've been to all of their
meetings with their advisory board meetings and give them some
suggestions. Some of them, they have taken some of my suggestions
as the tier system with the pricing.
Though I agree, I think that you shouldn't stop at 450, because
for a company to have eight permits, that's excessive to run out of a
public marina. That's my opinion. The Board has a right to choose
whatever it sees as fair.
But if you allow a company to have more -- if you went to one
company, one permit, it wouldn't be an issue today. I'm sorry.
That's how I speak, and I speak the facts and only the facts. But if
you're going to have four permits or you're going to stop at four, if
you have five or six permits, that fee should just continually go up. I
mean, that's just the cost of doing business. I don't think you should
have that many, but that's my opinion.
Also, I'm speaking in continuing to allow commercial operations
at these marinas because there isn't any place for these commercial
businesses to operate from. There is no private marina for these
guys to come in. Myself as well. I am fortunate. I live on the
waters down from Caxambas. I do not take up ramp space. I come
in by boat off my house, I pick up my guests, and I'm gone for four
hours, then I come back, and I pick up another guest if there happens
to be two trips a day, which is very rarely for me because I do this out
of my passion. I don't do it for my livelihood.
December 14, 2021
Page 265
I've been on the water, lived on the water, raised on the water,
and I educate all of my guests about protecting our environment. I
work closely with the Audubon Society. I rescue birds on their call.
I've rescued two large great American White Pelicans this past two
weeks, brought them to Caxambas marina where they were picked up
by the volunteers for the Conservancy. And I donate money to their
shore fund program, and I'm out there cleaning up, and I teach all of
my guests the same.
I just think that we need to -- I know Rick LoCastro's been doing
great work in trying to work -- trying to get a solution with the City
of Marco with the ordinance and so forth by allowing commercial
permitting to continue -- or commercial business to continue. I just
think that -- there was some information given about the inspected
vessels last meeting that I think the Board needs to hear. These
commercial inspected vessels hold 20 passengers.
And if I may continue, take another minute of your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just one minute. You sat here all
day long, so...
MR. ESCARRA: I appreciate that.
The inspected vessels, I just want you to understand, the Board
to understand that by -- the advisory board tried to limit to six
passengers on vessels, and the reason why they did that is because if
you have -- one company out of Caxambas alone has three
20-passenger vessels, they hold 18 passengers -- paid passengers and
a captain and a mate. That equals 20. That's the Coast Guard
requirements. That vessel's no more safe than my vessel. It's just
that the Coast Guard requires specific guidelines for an inspected
vessel.
That's -- that's almost 60 people every -- three times a day.
You're looking -- you had 162 people just from that one company
taking space at Caxambas marina. That's a lot. I'm sorry. That's a
December 14, 2021
Page 266
lot of people for one company, three vessels a day.
Goodland Boat Park has four of those vessels. Two companies
each have two. That's four. That's a lot that you're allowing to
operate out of a public marina creating problems.
So I think that you need to really look at what the advisory
board came up to you with and try to limit to six passengers a vessel,
and that would really reduce the amount of people and the parking
situations at these marinas.
And, again, I just would like to thank you for giving me an
opportunity to speak, and I'll let you make your decision.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Well, that's -- the issue of six-pack versus 20 is not the topic right
now. It's -- but I think the comments are well taken, and I think
maybe there's consensus for you to take a look at that again.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do we have that? Not now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not now.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But to look at it. Staff needs -- staff
needs to hear from us that we say it's okay for them to take a look at
the six-pack versus 20-passenger boats.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, if I may just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Of course.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- part of your direction in the last
meeting -- and it was very helpful for us to begin to put some rules
down in terms of the operation of these ramps. And so, you know,
part of our commitment to you as well was to evaluate this, as we
introduced these ideas, to evaluate that and come back to you in the
future to look at some of these other items that maybe didn't make the
cut but are still out there in consideration.
So we can look at, you know, applying the direction you gave to
us last month and come back to you at a future date and look at some
December 14, 2021
Page 267
of these other things that perhaps weren't adopted. That may be the
simplest thing, because you do have a lot of people that heard what
your direction was last month and are operating from that. So to
make this change at this point might be a challenge.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I'm not suggesting you make a
change right now. I'm just suggesting that you are -- that there's
consensus up here for you to explore it further at your -- at your will.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. And we can use your Parks
and Rec advisory board as well to kind of vet some of this as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And just as an aside, I was on the city
council and watched what happened when the mullet fishing was
made illegal, the net fishing, and I watched fishermen, one in
particular, take a beautiful boat dry docked at Turner's, I watched him
chop it up with a chainsaw because he was so outraged. I watched
the privatization of the waterfront, and we struggled with it for a long
time. So I'm very empathetic to the six-pack, the smaller businesses
that really keep things humming here and, frankly, are the personable
ones that bring the tourists back.
So thank you for your indulgence in all this. It was important
for me to hear this. Thank you.
Okay. So we have a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I wanted to -- I want to make
a comment. So let's just get back to the vote at hand, which is about
these fees.
First of all, you've got two rock stars out there in the boat
captains. We met everybody, right, on Marco and at Caxambas.
And these two gentlemen here, talk about professional. I mean, I
think it's worth making a comment. We had a couple people come
up to us screaming and yelling, almost took our heads off. You have
two guys out there that really do represent what's great about our
captains. We're trying to work together, so I really thank you for
December 14, 2021
Page 268
your professionalism, your indulgence, your patience in sitting here
quiet to get three minutes at the podium. It matters.
Sir, you brought up a comment that actually I had written down
here as well. Dan, I'm surprised that we stopped at three. I thought
it was going to be -- you know, and granted, we're all seeing this for
the first time. We asked you to come back with some suggestions.
So explain to us why it goes from Permit 1 is this, Permit 2 is
this, Permit 3 is this, and then Permit 4 is the same as Permit 3,
Permit 5 is the same as Permit 3 as far as fee. I actually expected
exactly what the captain said. It would seem that that would also
help to -- and not that our goal is to discourage people from getting
permits, but it's to discourage people from wasting the permits. And
so why didn't we continue to go? And not that it's a cash cow or we
need the money or whatever, but, you know, he said it perfectly. So
what's your comment?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think it has something to do with
exactly what you said, the impact to the commercial businesses.
This is a big change. We haven't had anything like this probably in
over 20 years. So out of the gate, we didn't want to, you know --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But, remember, we also said
the number of people that have four, five, six, seven, and eight is
very, very small. So I don't think we're going to have an uprising
from all of the people, or tell me I'm wrong.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're not, and that's why we actually
recommended that we limit it to three, but the Board made the
decision to keep it to eight, if I'm not mistaken, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But if I want a fourth permit,
it's going to cost me the exact same price as the same permit --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Four fifty.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- right? If I want a fifth
permit, it's the same. It's not a graduated scale all the way up to --
December 14, 2021
Page 269
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The first three are incremental, yeah,
graduated.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But why didn't we go -- why
didn't we got further just -- and especially since it impacts such a
small number, but it does discourage people that have seven and eight
permits that don't even use them from saying, oh, I'm not going to
pay $1,150 for Permit No. 7, or whatever the algorithm would be.
What was the thought?
MR. WILLIAMS: Just in the 181, you know, that you're
looking to grandfather, the bulk of these were 1 and 2, 3 permits. So
the majority of them were in that category. You've only got a very
few that went up to that eight, so...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I know. That's what I said.
So I'm saying so why not at least still assign a dollar value that
incrementally increases? It seems sort of artificial that it stopped at
three, even though we offer all the way up to eight. I mean, I don't
know what my colleagues think. I'm not trying to, there again, split
a hair, but it just seems like it would make more sense if you say, you
know --
MR. WILLIAMS: If there was a desire to escalate $100 per
permit up to that grandfathered eight, certainly that could be the case.
We were recommending that three -- you know, that escalation from,
you know, one permit to two to three. Again, that captured the bulk
of, you know, the permits from the grandfathered. So -- but if there's
a desire to do something different, certainly we could pursue that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If there's a demand -- if there's a
demand for these permits, if there are folks that would like to have
permits and there's not enough, and if we're going to cap them, I think
we make it very expensive if someone has more than three.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. I mean, I do as well,
and I actually expected to see that, but...
December 14, 2021
Page 270
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a thought, and it
maybe leads us into the next discussion that we're hopefully going to
have here in a minute with regard to the permits and the number of
permits. Why don't we leave this alone at the 450, as we've already
agreed to. The industry's okay with it. Have it up for discussion
with our Parks and Rec Board and go forward and then,
ultimately -- because I concur that the disincentive to spend the extra
money for the extra permits might be enough to open up some if we
have a supply/demand issue. But I'd like to address the
supply/demand issue separate and apart from the, relatively speaking,
small amount.
I mean, we've got a motion and a second to approve these fee
structures as have been vetted by our Parks and Rec Board, by us and
so on. Let's just -- let's leave it alone for now knowing that we're
going to continue to review it, get this motion done, and then have a
discussion about the total number of permits that I was talking with
Bill about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: If I may add, Commissioners, our goal is
to come back to you sometime in March with some information data
on who's using these permits --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: -- with the different types vendors, and
where are they launching from, because our recommendations -- you
know, our goal is to do this annually, to come back to you and say,
here's the condition of your parks, here's the number of commercial
users. We may have 15, 20, 30 vendors going out of Caxambas and
may come back to you with a recommendation say, hey, let's limit it
to this for these types of vendors and commercial to potentially get
better control of -- because you don't want 10 jet ski companies
operating out of Caxambas.
December 14, 2021
Page 271
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So there is a motion on the floor, and
there is a second, and that is to accept the fee structures as presented;
am I incorrect on that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And to renegotiate the
contracts and have the County Attorney involved in those
negotiations.
MR. WILLIAMS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. 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.
Item #11A
TO AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 21-7918, TO
ANDREW SITEWORK, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,546,350.00, APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED AGREEMENT FOR THE TRAIL BOULEVARD
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS PHASES 2 & 3, PROJECT
#70181 – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings you to
December 14, 2021
Page 272
Item 11A. It's a recommendation to award Invitation to Bid
No. 21-7918 to Andrew Sitework, LLC, in the amount of $1,546,350,
approve the necessary budget amendments, and authorize the Chair to
sign the attached agreement for the Trail Boulevard water main
improvement, Phases 2 and 3.
Dan Bullert, your project engineer in the Public Utilities
Department, will present.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to
approve unless there's some need to have some discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion and a second.
Thank you for coming up.
MR. BULLERT: Thank you.
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.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
Item #11C
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 21-7935, “WIGGINS
PASS AND DOCTORS PASS DREDGE 2021-2022,” TO
WATERFRONT PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC D/B/A GATOR
DREDGING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,197,180.00, AUTHORIZE
December 14, 2021
Page 273
THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT AND
APPROVE THE ATTACHED BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
(COUNTY-WIDE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 301/TDC BEACH
RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE FUND 195,
PROJECT NOS. 80288 & 90549) – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 11C.
It's a recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 21-7935,
Wiggins Pass and Doctors Pass Dredge, 2020 -- Fiscal Year '22 to
Waterfront Property Services, LLC, Gator Dredging, in the amount of
$2,197,180, authorize the Chair to sign the attached agreement, and
approve the attached budget amendments.
Andrew Miller, your manager of Coastal Zone Management,
will present.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to move approval for this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 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.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
Item #11E
December 14, 2021
Page 274
TO ACCEPT STAFF’S PROGRESS UPDATE AND PATH
MOVING FORWARD FOR THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF
COURSE PROJECT AND ANTICIPATED TIMELINE FOR GOLF
COURSE CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - MOTION TO
APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Item 11E is a
recommendation to accept staff's progress update and path moving
forward for the Golden Gate Golf Course project and anticipated
timeline for golf course construction, and authorize all necessary
budget amendments.
Mr. Geoff Willig from the County Manager's Office will
present.
MR. WILLIG: Good evening, Commissioners.
Not a whole lot to add to what was in the executive summary,
but I wanted to just point out that we had a meeting last week with
folks from Davidson Engineering and Q. Grady Minor. They
indicated that we may see the final design of the golf course much
sooner than mid January.
As I drove past the golf course the other day, I noted that they
already started doing some staking for some of the layout of the golf
course.
As we mentioned in the executive summary, we did have the bid
out for the CMAR but only received one bid, and when Procurement
reached out to some of the other vendors that had -- that we had
reached out to, they indicated that they were not interested in bidding
on the CMAR process but would be much more interested in bidding
on the building of the golf course.
So we anticipate that when we do get the design back from
December 14, 2021
Page 275
Davidson Engineering and Nicholas Design, that we can take this out,
put this on the street, have it on the street for 30 days, and we'll
probably get much more interest based on the feedback that we got
during the CMAR process. I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro,
Commissioner McDaniel, and Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Just one thing I
wanted to add to just remind the commissioners here, one of the
things that we're trying to do, I don't mean to say behind scenes, but
while we're moving forward on the golf course, is always keep in
mind that if we are supportive of the veterans nursing home, the more
acreage we can preserve for that, the more competitive we're going to
be to get it.
And so we've had some conversations about when the design
comes in from the golf course, it does matter if we try to make it as
efficient as possible and to create -- even if it's a few more acres. I
mean, I've talked to John Mullins, and we've talked to the folks in
Tallahassee. So we're trying to do both. You know, we don't want
to have this incredible, amazing golf course and then find out, wow,
we just lost the veterans nursing home because we wasted three acres
on maybe an excessively large driving range or something, and the
veterans home needed that. So just one thing to keep in mind.
The magic number that we were being told -- and it's flexible for
the veterans nursing home -- was to preserve about 25 acres. We're,
like, eight or nine acres short. It doesn't mean we wouldn't get it
with less than 25, but the closer we can get to 25. So when we look
at the design and whatnot, if we see some excessive buffering or, you
know, some things that are nice-to-haves but would help us to
preserve a little bit of that veterans home nursing footprint, just -- we
want to just keep that in mind. So I just want to throw that out there.
And we are taking a look at that.
December 14, 2021
Page 276
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question from a
clarity standpoint and -- because my recollection was the folks at
ClubCorp were going to be the ones building this course.
MR. WILLIAMS: That was the initial bid when we went out
for this long ago and did award this to ClubCorp. But in that
negotiation process, our contract with them states that the county
would be building the golf course and that we would be, so to say, on
the hook for $7 million worth of that construction and design, and
then ClubCorp would be responsible for anything above that number.
So in our contract that we signed and that you approved with
ClubCorp, it did state that the county would be building the golf
course.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So now we're
building -- because I didn't -- I know even now -- because I didn't
vote for it, and I'm not going to make a big stink about that. But I'm
just -- to clarify, we are now building the golf course, not just
loaning -- and maybe, Commissioner Saunders, you can explain this
to me better. Because originally I thought we were just putting
another $7 million in a loan that we would get back out of a TIF.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I thought we said no to
the seven million as far as, like, a freebie, you know, as far as, like, a
gift.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The decision that the Board
made was to pay for the first $7 million of the golf course. It's our
golf course. And there was a bit of a defective process in terms of
how the bidding went the first time. And I'll leave it to the Manager
to get into the detail.
But the county's still building the golf course. We're getting
ready to hire a contractor to build the golf course, which is totally
December 14, 2021
Page 277
consistent with what we did in the past. But the county committed
to the $7 million for the cost of construction of -- constructing the
golf course. Anything above $7 million is paid for by ClubCorp.
That's been the process from the very beginning. And perhaps the
Manager can explain a little bit about why that first process was
somewhat defective, and this will get us a good contractor to finish
building the golf course. Now, that contractor may very well be
ClubCorp. They can certainly bid on it, but...
MR. ISACKSON: When we put the documents out in the
street, we did it with a construction -- management-at-risk structure,
and I believe that was the reason why we only got one bid.
So we're going to put it back out on the street again. As Geoff
indicated, it's likely that Nicholas Design will have the plans and
specifications to move the dirt, essentially, and that once those plans
and specifications are received sometime in mid January, we will go
out to bid again.
We're hopeful based on a conversation that I and my staff had
with ClubCorp, that the selected vendor, whoever that is -- and I
suspect we'll get a number of bidders under an ITB rather than a
CMAR. We'll work closely with ClubCorp and Nicholas Design, all
leading toward a fourth quarter fiscal -- fourth quarter Calendar Year
'22 completion which would coincide most likely with the finishing
of the BigShots facility. So it's a -- we're trying to get a nice neatly
wrapped package, but the first step in this is, obviously, to get some
more qualified bidders, those who are experienced, frankly, in golf
course construction, so that's where we're at.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But for clarification. So I
think I'm more clear now. I know we sent it out for rebid, but part of
that rebid that we put it, like you said, back out on the street, is a
promise that the county will absorb the first $7 million regardless of
who bids?
December 14, 2021
Page 278
MR. ISACKSON: No, that is a contractual provision in the
contract that we had with BigShots.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Got it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So if it's appropriate, I'll
make a motion to approve the staff recommendation on moving
forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll second that.
Motion on the floor and a second. No other discussion. All
those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye, still.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 4-1. It carries unanimously -- it
doesn't carry unanimously. 4-1 it carries.
Item #11F
PAYMENT TO PARADISE ADVERTISING FOR $555,354 IN
EXPENSES INCURRED IN FY 2021, WHICH PROVIDED
INCREMENTAL TOURISM DESTINATION MARKETING AND
ADVERTISEMENT DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC –
APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 11F,
and what I'd like to do, if there's no objection, is since 11G, which is
an add-on item that we had on your change sheet, it's not -- and the
packet material was left on the dais.
So let me go to 11F first. It's a recommendation to approve
December 14, 2021
Page 279
payment to Paradise Advertising for $555,354 in expenses incurred in
FY 2021 which provide incremental tourism destination marketing
and advertising during the COVID pandemic, and similar to that,
Commissioners, Item 11G, which Ms. Patterson will nicely package
up, is a recommendation to approve the administrative report
prepared by Procurement Services Division for change orders and
other contractual modification requiring Board approval.
Amy.
MS. PATTERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. Amy
Patterson, Deputy County Manager, for the record.
As Mark indicated, these two items were originally one and
were broken apart when we prepared the agenda late on Wednesday
afternoon when it became apparent that we needed to use a different
vehicle to address the Paradise Advertising invoices. So these are
services that have been provided; therefore, payment is due. This is
related to pandemic advertising that was directed to Paradise
Advertising in the last fiscal year.
So we've been working closely with the Clerk of Court's staff to
find a way forward for these payments because they are from a prior
fiscal year. The likely funding source is Fund 184 where adequate
budget exists; however, we will continue these conversations with the
Clerk to work through the payment process, and any needed budget
amendments or contract documents that may arise out of this will be
brought back to the Board for approval on an as-needed basis. So
with that, that's the Paradise Advertising piece.
This document was originally -- this Paradise Advertising
information was originally part of our routine administrative reports
prepared by Procurement where we deal with things like change
orders and after-the-facts. Because we pulled that out, we re-placed
that item back on the agenda -- that was your walk-on item -- so that
we could get the vendors paid here at the close of the calendar year.
December 14, 2021
Page 280
So this is a routine item as the 11G and Paradise Advertising as
11F. We're looking for the Board's approval to pay Paradise
Advertising these outstanding invoices once we are through working
with the Clerk on that process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
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.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. And I want to thank the
Clerk's Office again. They've been helping us along the way, and
also for expediting payments, current payments to Paradise
Advertising while we work through this.
Item #11G
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL – APPROVED
MR. ISACKSON: Amy, do we have a motion on 11G? 11G,
as Amy pointed out, is a recommendation to approve the
December 14, 2021
Page 281
administrative report prepared by Procurement Services Division for
change orders and other contractual modifications requiring Board
approval.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll move for approval.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 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.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12A
RESOLUTION 2021-264: APPOINT THREE MEMBERS TO THE
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD -
APPOINTING JESSICA BERGEL AND REAPPOINTING
KRISTINA HEUSER AND PAUL DEMARCO AND
APPOINTING DONNA FIALA AS AN ALTERNATE NON-
VOTING MEMBER - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, Item 12A, which was
formerly 16K3, is a recommendation to approve three members to the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. That was moved by
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The reason I asked that to be
pulled off, Commissioner -- Former Commissioner Fiala had applied
December 14, 2021
Page 282
for the position but she applied late. And I wanted to at least have a
conversation. I think, with her past knowledge, she would be a great
asset for the Park and Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What's the item number on
that again, please?
MR. ISACKSON: This is 12A.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's 12A now, but where was
it?
MR. ISACKSON: It was 16K3 before, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Under County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, yes, yes. I'm getting
there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So I just want to make -- I'll
make a comment.
So three people were already selected for the panel, and
so -- and I don't want to turn into the Grinch here or anything, so one
of the motions could be, well, the three people that were elected stay
elected, and she gets an extra seat because she's Donna Fiala. I will
tell you, we just had a vote for the Affordable Housing Committee,
and several people applied late, and they were given notices saying,
too bad, so sad. You know, you had a certain time to hit a date. It
doesn't matter if you're a senator or congressman. This is how it
works.
So I'm just, you know, putting it out there that I know we all
love Donna. I'm not here to say anything negative, but our process,
is you know what, if you served as a commissioner for 20 years, you
should know when the deadline is. And I would hate for us to open
ourselves up to people who have also applied late and were told no,
that they missed the window.
So the only thing I could say is, if we're going to make a special
compensation for her, that she's basically going to get an extra seat.
December 14, 2021
Page 283
We're not going to have a revote and tell one of the three people
they're off because we've put Commissioner Fiala in the seat. Would
she be an incredible asset? No question about it.
But also, too, much like we've said about the -- you know,
Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Overlay, and we
have rules and regulations and things like that, you know, I just throw
that out there and say, you know, we elect people to boards a lot, and
we hold really, really, you know, fast and specific things. We
extend deadlines at times if we don't get enough applicants.
You know, on this particular one, we got a fair amount of
applicants. And so I just say that out there. But, you know, I think
that if we were going to make a motion to put her on there, I would
hope it wouldn't be at the detriment of pulling off one of the three,
and we'd basically be giving her an additional seat. But, you know, I
don't know how -- you-all probably feel a lot more strongly than I do
about it because you've had more of a relationship with her, I guess,
but anyway.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a question for the
County Attorney. And I don't have the ordinance establishing that
board in front of me, and you may have it. Are there positions there
that are nonvoting or --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. If you want to appoint her to the
board as nonvoting, that's your prerogative. This is your advisory
board. And if you want to give her a nonvoting seat, you can do
that. If you want to give her a voting seat, you can do that, then I'll
come up and clean up the ordinance later.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Why don't we consider a
nonvoting seat almost like an alternate. And if somebody falls off
the board, then she'd be in line to apply for it, for a voting position.
December 14, 2021
Page 284
At least that way she would be able to participate. We'd get the
benefit of her knowledge, but none of the other three members that
were recommended by the current board would not be appointed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Do you want me to come back
with an ordinance amendment to that effect that we'll create an
alternate seat?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. And please let her know.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Well, okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I like that idea. All right. So let's
get a motion here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the only -- because the
way I was reading this, is Jessica Burgel already on the PARAB?
Because the way I was reading it, that Kristina Heuser and Paul
DeMarco were being reappointed because they had reapplied and that
Jessica was going to be appointed to fill the balance of Phil's seat.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think so.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so my thought was when
Commissioner Saunders brought this up, that actually popped into my
head. I wouldn't be interested in replacing the two appointees that
are reapplying. But if Jessica is, in fact, new, we as a board can pick
whoever we want to, and we could appoint Commissioner Fiala to fill
that seat for the balance of Phil's term.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, you also have to
remember, though, these people interviewed, you know. I mean --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: True.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- at least for the Affordable
Housing Committee, they come in and they make a presentation. So
December 14, 2021
Page 285
it's not a matter of just, you know, we're sitting here, you know,
picking people in alphabet order.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If we're heading down the
path of creating a new seat that she fills the first vacancy, then I'm
okay with that. That still takes care of the two or three -- the two
re-appointees and then the new one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The discussion was to create
an alternate position --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- so that she's a nonvoting
member. I don't have a problem creating another spot on the board.
MR. KLATZKOW: We do that for the Code Enforcement
Board. We have two alternate members. They don't vote unless
one of the regular members aren't there. It works very well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think that's a good
compromise.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I agree.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I make one comment? And it
goes to what Commissioner LoCastro was saying. If I'm reading the
executive summary right, there were two applicants that their
applications arrived too late; it wasn't just Commissioner Fiala's.
MR. KLATZKOW: You say "too late." What happens is that
we put it out on the county website. There are a number of
applications. When staff believes they have enough applications,
they bring it to the committee. But there's no real deadline.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But what I'm saying is it's
not just Commissioner Fiala's. There was also Nicholas
Jankowski's. It's both of theirs.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you look at these other executive
summaries to other boards, you will often see somebody who applied
after their recommendations, and we include that because it might be
December 14, 2021
Page 286
somebody that a commissioner might feel is especially qualified for
this board.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I mean, I'm only raising
that to point out that -- I mean, whatever we do, I think we need to be
fair to everybody involved, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agree.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, because we don't interview
here. We can read resumés. I think it -- I think when you think of
someone especially qualified, I think you'd think of Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a special note,
Commissioner LoCastro, you are the Grinch with regard to that. Just
so you know. You started off by saying that. I wanted to make sure
that that was said.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm not the Grinch.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm totally fine with creating
a new position as an alternate. I think that's the path that we're
heading.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So I don't know if there's a
motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I'll make a motion,
then, just so I don't come off as the Grinch. I make a motion that we
create a nonvoting seat for Commissioner Fiala, and that when she is
notified and that when the committee is notified that she is an
additional member to the board, that they take into consideration that
the next time a seat becomes available, a voting seat that, you know,
that she obviously apply.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's different from what commissioner
Saunders wants.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: How is that different?
December 14, 2021
Page 287
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm thinking the alternate member where if
a regular member does not appear, then they can vote.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think an alternate member
is a little bit -- is a little bit too unfair, I think, but, for -- you know, in
respect to her, I think allowing her after the fact of the interviews and
the timeline and whatnot, giving her a nonvoting seat and then as one
becomes available. But, I mean, I bow to the commissioners here
how they feel, but I just think you've got to be careful that, you know,
everybody in this room might love her, but there's a lot of other
people that apply for things and say, oh, see, it's a Good Ole Boy
network. If you're Donna Fiala, you get to walk into anything. And
also, too, we have to protect Commissioner Fiala. The last thing that
we want to see is something in the paper, a Letter to the Editor
saying, oh, guess what, she was just automatically appointed to the
board because she was Commissioner Fiala; I was denied three times
after I interviewed. And there's real citizens out there that have gone
through that process.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So there's a
motion that hasn't been seconded yet. If there's not a second to the
motion, then I'll make an alternative motion. If there's no second to
the motion, then --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I guess, what was the
motion? Was it alternate one or alternate two?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's probably why there
wasn't a second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You made the motion to
create --
MR. KLATZKOW: A nonvoting member.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nonvoting.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What I was trying to do is
create an alternate position so that Donna Fiala can participate. If a
December 14, 2021
Page 288
member doesn't show up, she can vote as a voting member when
someone's absent. And at some point in time when someone drops
off the board, then she would be eligible to be a full voting member.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's your motion?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was going to be my
motion, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm second your --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second it, too.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And when she -- to participate, but as
an alternate she can be part of discussion.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It's going to work --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's just the voting aspect.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: She won't care about the
voting. She wants to give her experience, which is what we want, so
I don't --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just saying we do this for the Code
Enforcement Board, and it's actually a very good thing on the Code
Enforcement Board, because it gives people experience before they
actually become regular members.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It also helps with the
quorums.
MR. KLATZKOW: It helps with quorums, too, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Could we -- and just as a
suggestion, there were multiple people there. Maybe, you
know -- and, again, I don't know, on some list, maybe all four of
those other applicants, five of those other -- all five of those
applicants could be -- could be alternates, just so we're not
precluding --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right now we have a motion
and a second on the floor for one alternate.
December 14, 2021
Page 289
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's vote.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, let's just --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's time -- it's time for this meeting to
end. All right. 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.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. That moves
us to Item 15, Staff and Commission General Communications.
I just want to thank the Board for their indulgence during this
long meeting. And I think I can speak on behalf of the staff that we
truly appreciate the business of government being done today in its
complete form, so thank you very much, and I wish the Board Happy
Holidays going forward.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nice. County Attorney.
MR. ISACKSON: That's all I have, ma'am.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, ma'am. Merry Christmas to
December 14, 2021
Page 290
everybody.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Just Merry Christmas. Congratulate my
daughter. She got her commercial pilot's license today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, wow. Fabulous. You're going
to be flying.
MR. MILLER: And at a discount, I hope.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing from me. Happy
Holidays; Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Nothing from me. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just I want to thank staff for
your indulgence. This has been a long day and everybody's been
very professional, and I appreciate that, and I want to wish everybody
a happy and safe holiday season.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two things. First off,
Commissioner LoCastro corrected me on the Humane Society thing.
I misspoke, and you were correct, there were takeover words in
those -- in that letter from the Humane Society. I'm also --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Terri, get this down word for
word, please.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, so. You are the
Grinch. So she's got that as well.
But I know the pretense and the intent behind it, so I wasn't
hung up on those specific words. And so that was the statement that
I was trying to make, number one.
Number two, when are we going to talk about the total number
December 14, 2021
Page 291
of commercial boat permits that we were going to talk about and we
set aside because we were doing the rate thing?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think -- I think that's the next time
staff is going to come back to us. I understood that when staff is
ready, they're going to come back, and we're going to talk about that.
MR. ISACKSON: I think that the staff intends to come back in
March with a complete review of where we're at right now, and at
that time, I think we can bring that up.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But even before that, the staff
might come back to us and say, this is how many permits have been
sold so far for 2022. It's less than we thought, so we would like to
present 20 new permits for new businesses; right, Dan? Correct me
if I'm wrong, right? We had that conversation. I don't want to
belabor this. That's what we're monitoring now. How many people
who have been grandfathered in who have permits in 2021 actually
do reapply in 2022, and then we've asked Dan to keep us posted on
that number to see if, wow, we have a pretty big deficit. Maybe the
price increase did scare a few people away. Do we want to offer X
number of permits to new businesses that weren't grandfathered or
not -- or not.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I might just suggest -- and
this is just a suggestion, because I've already got two one-offs of a
new business that got formed, a charter boat business that can't get a
tag right now who's a Collier County resident who can't get a tag
because he didn't have a tag last year. And then I have another one
who was -- who did have a tag in '18 and '19, didn't get one in '20
because of COVID and/or '21, now wants to come back and can't get
a tag.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: There's a bunch of those.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One of my thoughts -- and I
had a note on this -- was maybe we index this with a percentage of
December 14, 2021
Page 292
float, maybe 10 percent of the -- I think we approved 179 permits.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: One eighty.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hundred and eighty. And
maybe we allow for up -- on special circumstances for the one-offs
that come about so we're not shutting down small businesses. I
happen to know the young man who just got his captain's license and
is wanting to get a commercial permit but he's being told no. Maybe
we allow for our staff to make that administrative -- up to 10 percent
of the total amount of permits, 18. No one's going to die if we have
extra 18 permits, but we're not going to be discontinuing business
operators who actually are from here and want to work here and so
on, and that was the thought that I had.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I would only offer that I don't
agree. I just think it's a little too soon for the staff to be authorized
to do that. I think they need to see a little bit of how many permits
get -- and, like, I don't disagree with you, 18 might not be -- might
not break the bank or anything, but I think we want to go a little
deeper into renewals before, because that number could be bigger
than 18, so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It could. And at that point
then staff would be coming back. But, again, like I -- I know of two
one-offs that are right out there right now --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I know a dozen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- that are not -- that are
being told they can't get a tag. And so I don't think we ever had an
intention of disallowing people from operating at our ramps as long
as they were properly permitted and so on, and we didn't have
discussion about new businesses that actually happen to get formed
last year and didn't meet the requisite of having had a --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, we kind of did, because
new businesses couldn't be grandfathered because they didn't have a
December 14, 2021
Page 293
permit. So we sort of indirectly talked about that. And he's not
being -- he can't get a tag today, but I think we should let the process
work a little bit before we overextend permits to new business. So if
he got a -- if he was allowed to get his permit in the first week or two
of January, I don't think the sky is falling for that new business.
So I don't know, Dan, if you've got some comments. I mean, if
we gave you the green light right now to have 10 percent latitude, I
just think that that's dangerous, basically, based on what we know.
But, you know, you know more about what you're seeing out there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The problem with your
thought -- and this is just me talking to you -- is we're not going to
know until it's over. We're not going to know until it's necessarily
too late, until the consumption has been exhausted of the existing
permit holders or not. As the case may be, we're not going to know
probably until February or March.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think we're going to know a
lot sooner than that.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well -- and Commissioners, the goal was
to limit the number of commercial vendors out there because we just
don't have the capacity. But why don't you let us work within the
180 number. There are vendors that have told us that they're
potentially not going to get that second, third, eighth permit. And let
us work within that 180, and we'll look at each situation, and --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But as soon as humanly
possible. If we see the opportunity for a new vendor or somebody
that was -- we want to be able to say yes to them or say no because
we've busted the bank --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And that's the opportunity that we have.
If somebody had five permits and they say, hey, we're only going to
get two because --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you could --
December 14, 2021
Page 294
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What we were trying to do is
we had 180 permits, and we remember hoping that there wouldn't be
issued that many going forward and that we would ultimately reduce
the total number; however, since then we've got a dockmaster out
there, and that has facilitated better operations.
So the question I would pose is, are we still in need of reducing
the number of permits below the 180? Because that's where we
started. We wanted to get it below that. But we now have a
dockmaster, so we may be able to accommodate a few new applicants
above the 180, if that happens, and still not have an impact on the
operations out there because of changes that you've made. So that's
a question.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: And there is that potential. We just have
to look see and who's going to reapply for their permits, who's going
to come in for them, and how close we get to that 180 mark.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When does the
application -- the permits expire on January 1st.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. They're starting the 20th
to go ahead and start the renewal process.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You're going to know by the
end of the year pretty much how many total permits you're going to
have.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, they're standing ready to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so -- and I'm just
working this through my brain, which -- so by our first meeting in
January you'll know how many permits are in excess. And the
question is, what's your -- are we going to operate on the premise that
we're going to reduce down the amount of permits from that 180
and/or will we allow new vendors to be able to get a permit? If 170
of them are consumed and we still have 10 left, then the young man
December 14, 2021
Page 295
who just started his charter business, he'll be able to get a tag in the
first two weeks of January?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Our goal was to grandfather those folks
in, get them renewed, look at that number. We believe it's at the
180, but it's probably going to be below that. We were going to
come back to you with some data information in March, but we can
do that sooner if that's what you're looking for.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah, do that sooner.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Way sooner than March.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to -- well --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know, perhaps our first
meeting in January you can come back and let us know how many
permits --
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We'll give you an update.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- and how things are
operating and if the dockmaster is really making things work more
smoothly. In that case, we can accommodate a couple new ones.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that would -- that would
be a fine way to handle that, and then we can go forward. And
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Now, one of those new boat
captains is Commissioner Fiala, and we've already given her a
permit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, gentlemen, just bear with
me just for a couple minutes here. If we would put on the visualizer
the photograph. I'd like to see if Board can give staff consensus to
spend time assessing the beaches south of 18th Avenue South in the
City of Naples. That's why. And it is -- it is definitely beach that
would qualify for the Pelican Bay type of funding, which is -- there's
no access -- limited public access down there, so but it's -- they need
December 14, 2021
Page 296
to assess these beaches.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My question is, how is it
getting to that with the necessary renourishment that we're doing on a
regular basis?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That -- it doesn't qualify. So the
idea is this is serious. This is serious business right here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: This is south of 18th
Avenue?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah. 18th Avenue South.
So this is almost down to the pass in the City of Naples, yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What is that seawall and the
railing? Is that --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A private home.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's a home.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I was rather shocked when I saw it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: How does it not qualify?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because they don't have public
parking, not enough public parking.
MS. PATTERSON: It also hasn't been -- Amy Patterson, for
the record.
It is outside of our permit and hasn't been deemed critically
eroded up to this point, so that's what Commissioner Taylor is
looking for is direction to let the staff go down, have a look at what's
going on there, see what kind of changing conditions there are, and
make some recommendations for what can be done up to and
including any type of partnership like we have with Pelican Bay for
private beaches.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So if there's a nod that it's okay;
thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
December 14, 2021
Page 297
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Just a couple more things.
The Naples Depot Museum Baggage Car, I think we know all about
that. That was what the Chamber was going to take over and then
found out it was almost a million dollars to renovate it. The NAACP
is very, very interested in creating it but not to -- not building it out to
the degree that the Chamber was talking about. They wanted a
visitor's center there.
The Naples -- the NAACP is talking about honoring the legacy
of the black folk that came down and basically helped build this area.
They came by train, they came from Fort Myers, and they were really
the working folks that built the town. So they're looking at
renovating it, but they're not there yet but they -- because this is kind
of an after the fact what they have done is apply the museum -- the
Friends of the Museum have applied for a grant. So I just wanted
everyone to be aware that nothing is going forward until this board
says it's going forward, but it was more of an awareness issue.
Okay. Joint workshops, I heard today affordable housing. We
haven't had a joint workshop with the Naples City Council or the
Marco Island City Council. I remember one that we did both of
those councils at one time; that was very interesting. But we could
also do it separately.
The Planning Commission, they need to have a workshop with
us. They feel very, very unappreciated. They feel that we ignore
what they do. But I think -- I'm just putting this out that these are
some things that we could probably look at.
But there's one that I would like to really emphasize that I think
it would be a very educational workshop to have a water management
workshop. What are we doing in Collier County to manage water?
How is that affecting developments? What could we do going
forward to manage the water and with the building, what we're
doing? So I'd like to see if there's consensus to getting that on our
December 14, 2021
Page 298
list of things to do.
And then finally, just so you know, the Botanical Gardens, quite
by accident, decided -- not by accident, but it's serendipitous. They
decided that they're going to have a Frida Kahlo exhibit, and Frida
Kahlo's self-portrait actually sold about a month ago for
$34.9 million. She's deceased, but the estate is very much involved.
So they decided they're going to do a Frida Kahlo and a -- like a
day of the dead celebration. It's going to be all of '22 to '23. Just so
happens that Naples Opera is having Mexican singers as well as a
Mexican opera by chance -- this was not planned -- called Frida
Kahlo, and the zoo is planning on an exhibit coming in with South
American animals. But, again, it's that Latin South American
feeling. So we are very much at the beginning of planning a festival
of the celebration of the arts in Collier County countywide for the
time frame of '22 to '23. No money's been expended, nothing's
going on, but I wanted you to be aware of it.
I think we are going to be deciding who we're going to hire to
head up our -- the tourist part of the fine arts of what we do; that, I
think, is going to happen in January. So I really wanted you just to
be aware that this is -- this has come together, and we're all very
excited about it.
Immokalee, they are our resource. They are a resource, because
they are the ones who are advising us as we're going forward, and
they're much -- so this is truly a countywide celebration that we are
working with Paul Burns right now. All right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just a 10,000-foot view,
because you went through a lot of stuff. I'm totally fine with a
workshop about our -- with our two city councils, both Marco and the
City of Naples.
I'm a bit resistant on the Planning Commission, not from
anything other than it's duplicitous in my mind. And if it's the will
December 14, 2021
Page 299
of the Board to do the Planning Commission, fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't know why they -- I
don't know -- you served as a planning commissioner. Did you ever
feel neglected by the County Commission?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, but that was me. I mean,
we -- yeah, sometimes we -- like today, we didn't do what they
recommended.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, it happens all the time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It happens.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's one of the reasons why
they're there and we're here and they make the decisions and so on
and so -- but feeling neglected isn't really a reason --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those are my words.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I had not heard that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those are my words.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I hadn't heard that
either, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was like, do you ever listen to us?
Do you ever watch our -- what we do? Do you ever read -- and I
tell -- I told them I read it all the time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Constantly, constantly.
Heavily rely on our Planning Commission. We don't always agree
with them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, we can come back.
But this is kind of a list. You know, COVID is over, and it's -- now
we can start working and doing some workshops. We're managing it
better, let's put it that way. But the water management workshop, I
think, is critical. That's probably, of all of these, besides the
December 14, 2021
Page 300
affordable housing, it's critical.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask a question? I mean, we
have a staff. I mean, why wouldn't that just be a presentation at a
meeting? Why are we going to -- why are we going to have a
workshop, I mean, instead of just having staff come and give us a
presentation?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I'm anticipating it being more
than, you know, a half an hour, I am, because I think there's a lot of
things. What could we do? I'm talking to South Florida Water
Management right now about the incentivization of maintaining more
water on property. How would that work?
Freedom Park is an extraordinary example of creativity with
water management. Can we do more Freedom Parks where you can
actually go and look and walk through this extraordinary, beautiful
preserve that you forget about what's around you and then walk to
Dillard's in the mall or walk to the food court. Can we do this in a
smaller scale throughout the county? So there are things that -- it's
thinking outside of the box, but it's planning for the future.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And a thought would be, as
opposed to a presentation -- we don't accept public input on a
presentation, but maybe have a public advertised item.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Agenda item?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then have staff do the
presentation. Because there's a whole -- there are a lot of things that
are going on with water management, and then we can get input from
the community with regard to other ideas and circumstances that
might -- that might --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. We budgeted $60 million for
stormwater. It's -- we need to really, you know -- I think we need to
understand it will become increasingly important. Is there -- so,
finally -- and please forgive me, Maureen Garrity. Ms. Garrity did
December 14, 2021
Page 301
all the work in the back. She's a pastel artist who's worked in pastels
for more than 30 years, and much of her work reflects inspirations
from the beautiful environment of Southwest Florida. So thank you
very much, Ms. Garrity, for your work.
And on that, I wish everyone a Happy Holiday, Merry
Christmas, and we are adjourned.
*******
**** Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner
Solis and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas by approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER
AND ALL OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ALLURA, PL20210000371 – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 5, 2021 AND FOUND THESE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR AZURE AT HACIENDA LAKES - PHASE 2A2,
PL20190002079 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
December 14, 2021
Page 302
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – A
FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 7, 2021
AND FOUND THESE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR AZURE AT HACIENDA LAKES - PHASE 2B1 & 2B2,
PL20190002955 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 – A
FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 5, 2021
AND FOUND THESE FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY
AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2021-239: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PLAT DEDICATIONS, FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPLANADE
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES DILILLO PARCEL,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000536; AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
December 14, 2021
Page 303
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE
SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR FREEDOM SQUARE,
PL20210001815) – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED
ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 AND FOUND THESE FACILITIES TO
BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2021-240: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
FRONTERRA PHASE 1, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20150001982, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2021-241: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
FRONTERRA PHASE 2, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20170001195, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR MILANO LAKES, PL20180000385,
ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE
POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE
December 14, 2021
Page 304
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $51,744.10
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON JUNE 9, 2021 AND FOUND THESE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE WYNDEMERE COUNTRY CLUB TURF CENTER
PHASE 2 PL20210001423 – A FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON JULY 29, 2021 AND FOUND THESE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A10
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF FAERBER
ESTATES, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200002564 –
LOCATED IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST
Item #16A11
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ISLES OF COLLIER
PRESERVE PHASE 17 (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20210001454) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
December 14, 2021
Page 305
APPROVAL OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,779,184.30 – W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2021-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
REQUESTING AN EASEMENT FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND (TIITF), FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING
INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRIFFIN ROAD
AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN (GRASIP)
PHASE 2 PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT LESS THAN $1,300
Item #16A13
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $522,700 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
PL20180002419 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
BRENTWOOD LAKES (F/K/A TWINEAGLES SOUTH – PHASE
1)
Item #16A14
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A
VALUE OF $35,323.50 FOR PAYMENT OF $723.50 IN THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. PETER A. ATSALES,
December 14, 2021
Page 306
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 743
PROVINCETOWN DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A15
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $141,034.74 FOR PAYMENT OF $500 IN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. TERRY DILOZIR, RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4913 18TH AVE SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A16
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $126,973.50 FOR PAYMENT OF $3,000
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VS. ULLAHS PROPERTIES, LLC,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1134 TRAIL
TERRACE DR, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A17
THE RELEASE OF TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS, WITH
AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $625,450 FOR PAYMENT OF
$13,080.07 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TITLED,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. WILLIAM M.
STONESTREET, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 43
TWIN PALMS DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A18
December 14, 2021
Page 307
RESOLUTION 2021-243: A RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION 2006- 160, AS AMENDED, THE POLICIES, AND
PROCEDURES FOR: 1) THE CLOSING AND VACATION OF
ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY; 2) THE VACATION AND
ANNULMENT OF PLATS OR PORTIONS OF PLATS OF
SUBDIVIDED LAND; 3) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF PUBLIC
EASEMENTS CONVEYED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT
RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS (CONVEYANCES
OTHER THAN ON A SUBDIVISION PLAT) ON PLATTED OR
UNPLATTED LAND EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC ROADS, OR THE
EXCHANGE OF REAL PROPERTY
Item #16A19
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP)
AGREEMENT NO. LPA0154 TO RECOGNIZE GRANT
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF UP TO $250,000 FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAKE PARK BLVD. CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND WATER QUALITY FLOW WAY,
PROJECT NUMBER 60246, GRANT FUND 711
Item #16A20
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FY21-22 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5310 GRANT AWARD
CONTRACT FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
SYSTEM AND THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,641 (TRANSIT GRANT
MATCH FUND 429), AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER
OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO RECEIVE THE AWARD
December 14, 2021
Page 308
Item #16A21
THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED BENTLEY
VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND CC-NAPLES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION (THE
“OWNER”), FOR THE PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE
BENTLEY VILLAGE, A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY (“CCRC”) IN THE RETREAT AT NAPLES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (“RETREAT PUD”),
ORDINANCE NUMBER 97-71
Item #16A22
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 21-7928 “SOD &
SERVICES” TO LEO’S SOD, LLC., AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT. THE
ANTICIPATED ANNUAL SPEND IS ESTIMATED AT
$650,000.00. ROAD MAINTENANCE DIVISION BUDGETS FOR
THESE EXPENDITURES IN FUNDS 103, 111, AND 112
Item #16A23
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF REQUIRED
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH
ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES
(PL20120001261) SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION
10.02.05 C.2 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
December 14, 2021
Page 309
Item #16A24
SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING FOR REQUEST FOR
ROPOSAL (“RFP”) #20-7811, “IMMOKALEE AREA
IMPROVEMENTS - TIGER GRANT,” AND AUTHORIZE STAFF
TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP
RANKED FIRM, QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., SO THAT
STAFF CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR
THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A SUBSEQUENT
MEETING
Item #16A25
SUPPORT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION APPLICATION PROCESS FOR OFFICIAL
DESIGNATION OF US BICYCLE ROUTE 15 IN COLLIER
COUNTY AND PROVIDE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE
BICYCLE ROUTE, INCLUDING A MAP AND DESCRIPTION
OF THE PROPOSED BICYCLE ROUTE ALIGNMENT. THERE IS
NO FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION
OR DESIGNATION
Item #16A26
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”)
NO. 21-7880 FOR “CEI SERVICES FOR GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY OVER SANTA BARBARA CANAL BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT” TO HARDESTY & HANOVER
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, FOR A TOTAL NOT TO
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $456,008.52 (GAS TAX) AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT
December 14, 2021
Page 310
Item #16A27
RESOLUTION 2021-244 (5311) AND RESOLUTION 2021-245
(5339): THE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF GRANT
APPLICATIONS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS 5311 AND 5339 RURAL FOR
FY2022/2023 AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED
RESOLUTIONS TO SUPPORT TRANSIT SYSTEM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,364,815 (LOCAL
COMMITMENT OF $119,952 SUPPORTED BY GENERAL FUND
(001) ANNUAL TRANSFER)
Item #16A28
SUBMITTAL OF A DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
COMMISSION FOR THE REMOVAL OF TEN (10) DERELICT
VESSELS FROM COLLIER COUNTY WATERWAYS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $160,260.00 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THE GRANT APPLICATION
Item #16A29
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CITY OF NAPLES - NAPLES
MUNICIPAL DOCK RECREATIONAL BOAT SLIP RENTAL
LICENSE AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”) AT THE NAPLES
CITY DOCK FOR COASTAL ZONE’S VESSEL EXTENDING
FOR FIVE YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,824.00 PER YEAR
December 14, 2021
Page 311
WITH SUFFICIENT BUDGET APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA GENERAL FUND
Item #16A30
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A
BIG CYPRESS BASIN REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE CARSON ROAD
STORMWATER TREATMENT AREA FACILITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $720,000 WITH A LOCAL MATCH
COMMITMENT OF $3,280,000. [PROJECT NO. 60143;
STORMWATER 2020 DEBT FUNDING (327); $3,280,000]
Item #16A31
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION (FWC) GRANT AGREEMENT NO. 21085 UNDER
THE BULK DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL PROGRAM,
EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO FEBRUARY 4, 2022
(PROJECT #33771)
Item #16A32
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL OF THE GRANT
AMENDMENTS FOR AGREEMENT NO. LPA0008 FOR THE
PLANTATION ISLAND HURRICANE IRMA WATERWAY
RECOVERY PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60238), BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND
COLLIER COUNTY. THERE IS NO FISCAL IMPACT
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR DESIGNATION
December 14, 2021
Page 312
Item #16A33
AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
WITH WPPI NAPLES TF LLC AND TBC TREE FARM I, LLC
THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE DESIGN, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ON
COLLIER BOULEVARD EXTENSION AT THE FUTURE
GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX/TREE FARM PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT ENTRANCE AND COST SHARING AND
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$443,582 GAS TAX FUND 313)
Item #16A34
AFTER THE FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FLORIDA
BEAUTIFICATION GRANT AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR A
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR A PORTION OF
STATE ROAD 45, US 41 NORTH (LEE/COLLIER COUNTY
LINE TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) FOR AN AWARD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION
INSTALLATION AND APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (LANDSCAPE FUND 112)
Item #16A35
AFTER THE FACT ACCEPTANCE OF A FLORIDA
BEAUTIFICATION GRANT AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR AN
AWARD OF $100,000; AND ACCEPT A SEPARATE FDOT
December 14, 2021
Page 313
BEAUTIFICATION AWARD FOR $865,000 FOR LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ON PORTIONS OF
STATE ROAD 84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
(LANDSCAPE FUND 112)
Item #16B1
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY (DEO) AND COLLIER COUNTY SPECIFYING
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE IMMOKALEE
COMMUNITY AS A PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE
SOUTH-CENTRAL RURAL AREA OF OPPORTUNITY (RAO)
THROUGH JUNE 28, 2026, APPOINT DESIGNATED
CONTACTS FOR COLLIER COUNTY AS IDENTIFIED IN
EXHIBIT “A” TO THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
Item #16C1
THE PROPOSED OFFER FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO
RESOLVE CIVIL PENALTIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,066.05
AND $500 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, FOR VIOLATIONS OF
CHAPTER 403 FLORIDA STATUTES AND RULES 62-620 AND
62-604, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WATER - SEWER
DISTRICT OPERATING FUND 408)
Item #16C2
December 14, 2021
Page 314
AWARD AN AGREEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 21-7904, “CEI
SERVICES FOR HAMILTON AVENUE,” TO JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT OF $390,539, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT, AND APPROVE A $400,000
BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES
OR EXISTING GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS SETTING
UP AN ADVANCE TO BOATER IMPROVEMENT FUND (303)
WHICH WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CASH FOR THE
DESIRED CEI SERVICES
Item #16C3
A PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $273,653.00 FOR
PROPOSAL #9609, UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7592,
BUILDING AUTOMATION ENERGY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, FROM JUICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A PLUG
SMART, TO REPLACE THE CURRENT PROPRIETARY N2
JOHNSON CONTROLS BMS WITH NEW BACNET RELIABLE
CONTROLS AT THE IMMOKALEE JAIL (PROJECT NO. 50221)
Item #16C4
AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $75,000 TO PROJECT NUMBER #70185, “YMCA
ROAD AC WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT” TO REALLOCATE
FUNDING WITHIN THE WATER USER FEE CAPITAL
PROJECT FUND (412)
December 14, 2021
Page 315
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2021-246: A RESOLUTION REMOVING
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $6,483.37 WITHIN WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT OPERATING FUND (408) AND MANDATORY
COLLECTIONS FUND (473)
Item #16C6
EXECUTE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR POTABLE
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ON COUNTY OWNED
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE COLLIER COUNTY SPORTS
COMPLEX AND EVENTS CENTER, 3920 CITY GATE BLVD N,
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
Item #16C7
AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ”) #2109-004 FOR
“CLEARING \ GRUBBING & EXOTIC REMOVAL AT THE
RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK,” UNDER
AGREEMENT NO. 18-7459, TO A+ ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC
FOR $300,970.70, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO OPEN A WORK
ORDER IN THAT AMOUNT, AND TO APPROVE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT (PROJECT #59007.1)
Item #16D1
December 14, 2021
Page 316
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT THE ESTIMATED
FUNDING FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2022 OLDER AMERICANS
ACT PROGRAMS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,257,041.36 AND
THE ESTIMATED CASH MATCH OF $77,788.09. THE
VENDORS WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED MATCH
IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,135.56 (HUMAN SERVICE GRANT
FUND 707)
Item #16D2
TWO (2) “AFTER-THE-FACT” AMENDMENTS AND
ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., OLDER
AMERICAN ACT GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO INCREASE THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR SERVICES FOR TITLE IIIB,
REVISE ATTACHMENT II-EXHIBIT 2 FUNDING SUMMARY
AND REVISE ATTACHMENT VIII BUDGET AND RATE
SUMMARY AND SUPPORTING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
(NET FISCAL IMPACT $70,741.69, HUMAN SERVICES GRANT
FUND 707)
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2021-247: A RESOLUTION REMOVING
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $65,260.15 FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF
THE LIBRARY DIVISION WITHIN GENERAL FUND (001) IN
ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252 AND
AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
ATTACHED RESOLUTION
December 14, 2021
Page 317
Item #16D4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY
FORWARD INTEREST EARNED IN THE AMOUNT OF $699.66
FOR THE PERIOD APRIL THROUGH AUGUST 2021 ON
ADVANCED LIBRARY FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO SUPPORT LIBRARY
SERVICES FOR THE USE OF COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS
(PUBLIC SERVICE MATCH FUND 710)
Item #16D5
EXPENDITURES UNDER AN EXEMPTION FROM
COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
MAINTENANCE WITH INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC. FOR
LIBRARY SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUPPORT IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $180,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS BUDGETED
WITHIN GENERAL FUND (001)
Item #16D6
AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS FOR A
SUBSCRIPTION TO HOOPLA STREAMING SERVICE FROM
MIDWEST TAPE, LLC FOR LIBRARY PATRON USE IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS
BUDGETED WITHIN GENERAL FUND (001), LIBRARY
DONATION-PROJECT FUND (612) AND LIBRARY GRANTS
FUND (709), THROUGH FY 2024
Item #16D7
December 14, 2021
Page 318
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN THE FIRST AMENDMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES SENIOR
CENTER AT JFCS, INC. TO MODIFY THE EXPENDITURE
LANGUAGE AND PROVIDE CLARITY OF THE
PERFORMANCE PERIOD FOR COVID-RELATED ACTIVITIES
UNDER THE COLLIER COUNTY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(CCAP) (COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES GRANT
SUPPORT FUND 123)
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2021-248: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
APPROVAL OF SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER
COUNTY'S U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR FY2021-
2022 TO REALLOCATE $500,000 IN CDBG FUNDS FROM
CASA SAN JUAN DIEGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO THE
CITY OF NAPLES STREETLIGHT ACTIVITY, AWARD
$350,000 IN HOME FUNDS FROM WOUNDED WARRIORS TO
RENTAL ACQUISITION COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE TENANT-BASED RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, AND AWARD ESG FUNDING TOTALING
$101,461 TO YOUTH HAVEN AND CCHC HMIS (HOUSING
GRANTS FUND 705)
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 2021-249: THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME
December 14, 2021
Page 319
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANTS (ESG), COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) - CV, AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS
GRANTS (ESG) - CV FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 AS REQUIRED;
APPROVE THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
AND EVALUATION REPORT RESOLUTION; AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR SUBMISSION TO U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HOUSING GRANT FUND 705)
Item #16D10 – Continued to the January 25, 2022 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO AGREEMENT #19-7537, “AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MARKETING OUTREACH CAMPAIGN,” WITH QUEST
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIR TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AMENDMENT.
(ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT $171,528, HOUSING GRANT
FUND 705)
Item #16D11
SUBMITTAL OF THE 2021 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP INCENTIVE STRATEGIES REPORT TO
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND
FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA
STATUTE SECTION 420.9076 (4). (ALL DISTRICTS) 16.D.12.
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE TWO (2) BUDGET
December 14, 2021
Page 320
AMENDMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL FY 21/22 SHIP PROGRAM
ALLOCATION OF $6,905, FY 21/22 PROGRAM INCOME OF
$23,362.47 AND FY 20/21 PROGRAM INCOME OF $3,659.22
(SHIP GRANT FUND 791)
Item #16D13
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN FIFTEEN (15) MORTGAGE
SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$94,750 AND APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATE REPAYMENT AMOUNTS
TOTALING $47,294 (SHIP GRANT FUND 791)
Item #16D14
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN TWO (2) STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP SPONSOR AGREEMENTS, A
RENTAL ACQUISITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED
LIVING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $600,000 AND A RENTAL
REHABILITATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND OAK MARSH, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF
$450,000 (SHIP GRANT FUND 791)
Item #16D15
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $320,000 OF
CARRY FORWARD REVENUE FOR DEPOSIT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUND (116)
December 14, 2021
Page 321
RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF A PAYMENT MADE PURSUANT
TO A DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT
Item #16D16
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN TWO (2) RELEASES OF LIEN
FOR THE DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE PROGRAM
AGREEMENT FOR UNITS NO LONGER SUBJECT TO THE
TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT
Item #16D17
TWO “AFTER-THE-FACT” CONTRACT AMENDMENTS AND
CORRESPONDING ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
FOR THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT
PROGRAM FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO INCREASE THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
WITH REVISION TO THE SERVICE RATE REPORT AND THE
SUPPORTING BUDGET AMENDMENT (FISCAL IMPACT
$70,000.00, HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUND 707)
Item #16D18
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $293,218.22,
FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS FOR COVID-19
RESPONSE FOR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
(HOUSING GRANT FUND 705)
December 14, 2021
Page 322
Item #16D19
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 20-7783,
“MENTAL HEALTH DATA COLLABORATIVE,” TO 5 POINT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN
THE ATTACHED FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $200,679.52 (COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICE GRANT
SUPPORT FUND 123)
Item #16D20
THE CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,263.93, FOR THE BUILDING
BRIDGES BETWEEN JAILS AND COMMUNITY-BASED
TREATMENT FOR OPIOID USE DISORDER GRANT AWARD
(HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUND 707)
Item #16D21
A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $87,598, TO
TRANSFER PERSONAL SERVICES BUDGET WITHIN
GENERAL FUND (001) FROM PUBLIC SERVICES
OPERATIONS COST CENTER (155) AND (115) TO PUBLIC
TRANSIT AND NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT (PTNE)
OPERATIONS COST CENTER 163601 TO REFLECT A
POSITION TRANSFER FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
Item #16D22
December 14, 2021
Page 323
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,100,000 TO
ESTABLISH FUNDING WITHIN PARK BOND FUND (308) FOR
THE DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF THREE (3) PROJECTS
AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) PROJECTS AT COUNTY
AQUATIC AND PARK FACILITIES
Item #16D23
DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING
TWO ADDITIONAL ROSEMARY CEMETERY PARCELS (PLOT
W AND PLOT N), TO PERFORM NECESSARY
IMPROVEMENTS AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE TO
CONFORM WITH STANDARDS SIMILAR TO THE COUNTY-
OWNED ROSEMARY CEMETERY PARCEL (UNIT B
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US41 AND PINE
RIDGE ROAD) IN ORDER TO HONOR AND REMEMBER OUR
COMMUNITY'S FOREBEARS. (MUSEUM FUND 198,
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: IMPROVEMENTS $27,543,
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE $3,024)
Item #16D24
RESOLUTION 2021-250: THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO ACCEPT THE HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIPS - AMERICA RESCUE PLAN (HOME-ARP)
PROGRAM GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,729,078
FOR QUALIFYING ACTIVITIES THAT PROVIDE HOUSING,
SERVICES, AND SHELTER TO INDIVIDUALS OR
HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, OR AT
RISK OF HOMELESSNESS AND OTHER VULNERABLE
December 14, 2021
Page 324
POPULATIONS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO APPROVE THE
SUBSEQUENT REQUIRED HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN
SUBMISSION (HOUSING GRANT FUND 705)
Item #16D25
FIVE (5) COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL (TDC) CATEGORY “A” GRANT APPLICATIONS
FOR BEACH PARK FACILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $710,000 WITHIN TDC BEACH
PARK FACILITIES FUND (183), AUTHORIZE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND TO MAKE THE FINDING
THAT THE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM
Item #16E1
THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS ASSETS PER
RESOLUTION 2013-095 VIA PUBLIC AUCTION ON
FEBRUARY 19, 2022
Item #16E2
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE
DISBURSEMENT – THROUGH THE ONLINE AUCTION
Item #16E3
December 14, 2021
Page 325
RENEW THE ANNUAL COLLIER COUNTY’S CERTIFICATE
OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) FOR
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO
PROVIDE CLASS 1 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT
(ALS) FOR ONE YEAR AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE
Item #16E4
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS,
DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO TRANE U.S.
INC. FOR AGREEMENTS #18-7235 “HVAC PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES,” AND #18-7464
“CHILLERS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR”
Item #16E5
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS,
DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO SOCOTEC
CONSULTING INC. CONCERNING AGREEMENT #18-7432-CE,
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY CIVIL ENGINEERING
CATEGORY,” AND AGREEMENT # 18-7432-TE,
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIBRARY MATERIALS TESTING
AND FIELD CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT CATEGORY”
Item #16E6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $146,777.39 FOR EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES PROJECT/MOTOR POOL FUND 491 FOR
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF STRYKER POWER
December 14, 2021
Page 326
LOAD LOCKING COT SYSTEMS INTO THE FLEET OF
AMBULANCES
Item #16E7
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (“RFP”) #20-7805,
“PROPERTY CASUALTY BROKERAGE SERVICES,” TO RISK
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A PUBLIC RISK
INSURANCE ADVISORS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO
SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT
Item #16E8
AN AWARD OF $66,374 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND TO AUTHORIZE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATE
GRANT FUNDING WITHIN EMS GRANT FUND (493)
Item #16F1
EXPENDITURES UNDER AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
COMPETITIVE PROCESS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$55,000 ANNUALLY THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2025, FOR A
SUBSCRIPTION TO THE ECIVIS GRANT NETWORK,
PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE OFFERED THROUGH
CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP, FOR EMPLOYEE AND
COLLIER COUNTY NONPROFIT USE (GENERAL FUND 001)
Item #16F2
December 14, 2021
Page 327
RENEW THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NON-EMERGENCY
CLASS 2 – BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS) INTER-FACILITY
AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS TO CARE MED
TRANSPORTATION, LLC FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
POST-HOSPITAL AND INTER-FACILITY MEDICAL
AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICES
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2021-251: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FY21-22 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F4
SPORTS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC (“SFM”) TO
CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER THE COUNTY’S EXISTING
PARADISE COAST SPORTS COMPLEX OPERATING
MANUAL, UNTIL AN AGREED UPON NEW MANUAL CAN BE
BROUGHT BACK FOR THE BOARD’S CONSIDERATION FOR
APPROVAL IN JANUARY 2022 (AMATEUR SPORTS
COMPLEX FUND 759)
Item #16F5
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDS TO
SUPPORT THE UPCOMING FEBRUARY 2022 NAPLES
PICKLEBALL CENTER CHAMPIONSHIPS UP TO $7,500 AND
December 14, 2021
Page 328
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTE
TOURISM (TDC TOURISM PROMOTIONS FUND 184)
Item #16G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZE ITS CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE T-HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
MATECUMBE FLYING SERVICE INC. FOR COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT. MONTHLY RENT
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $314.72 WILL BE DEPOSITED
IN THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OPERATING FUND (495)
Item #16H1
APPOINTING TANYA WILLIAMS, COLLIER COUNTY
LIBRARY DIRECTOR, AS A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF
THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA (ELC OF SWFL) WITH AN EFFECTIVE TERM FROM
JANUARY 1, 2022 TO DECEMBER 31, 2025 TO BE THE
BOARDS REPRESENTATIVE
Item #16H2
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS,
DUTIES AND BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC D/B/A ALLIED
UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES LLC. CONCERNING
AGREEMENT #18-7429 “SECURITY SERVICES”
December 14, 2021
Page 329
Item #16J1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE
APPROVAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA E911 BOARD/E911
STATE GRANT PROGRAM
Item #16J2
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE
APPROVAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA E911 BOARD/E911
STATE GRANT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $586,886
Item #16J3
REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF
COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 2021
Item #16J4
THE CLERK’S REPORT INDICATING NO INTEREST PAID
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 218.78 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2021
Item #16J5
BOARD RATIFICATION AND 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
December 14, 2021
Page 330
DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS
BETWEEN OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND NOVEMBER 10, 2021
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 THAT WERE
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER BETWEEN THE
BOARDS NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER MEETINGS
Item #16J6
BOARD RATIFICATION OF THE PURCHASING CARD
TRANSACTIONS AND INVOICES PAYABLE APPROVED AND
DETERMINED TO HAVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE BY THE
COUNTY MANAGER BETWEEN THE BOARDS NOVEMBER
AND DECEMBER MEETINGS
Item #16J7
TO RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 11, 2021 AND
DECEMBER 1, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE
136.06
Item #16J8
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND
PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF DECEMBER 8,
2021
December 14, 2021
Page 331
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2021-252: APPOINTING THREE MEMBERS TO
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE –
REAPPOINTING GARY HAINS AND APPOINTING JANET
FISHER MILLER AND JESSICA BRINKERT
Item #16K2 – Continued to the January 11, 2022 BCC Meeting
(During Agenda Changes Per Commissioner Solis)
RECOMMENDATION TO REAPPOINTING FOUR MEMBERS
TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16K3 – Moved to Item #12A (During Agenda Change Per
Commissioner Saunders)
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2021-253: APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE
IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
– APPOINTING JOHATHAN ARGUETA
Item #16K5
THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED STEVEN RITTER V. COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, (CASE NO. 20-CA-
0249), NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE SUM OF $150,000
December 14, 2021
Page 332
Item #16K6
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE, AND BRING
BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE
ESTABLISHING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY REGULATIONS IN
UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY, AND TO REPEAL
PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE 87-60, AS AMENDED
Item #16K7
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $812,200 PLUS $109,050 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 102POND,
REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #16K8
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$694,600 PLUS $91,202.78 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #16K9
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$797,500 PLUS $99,125 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
155POND REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
December 14, 2021
Page 333
Item #16K10
PAYMENT OF STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 73.092, FLA. STAT. INCURRED BY
ATTORNEY AD LITEM APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO
ASSIST WITH COLLIER COUNTY V. GEORGE A. NESTORY,
ET. AL., CASE NO. 16-CA-1347 REGARDING COLLIER
COUNTY’S EMINENT DOMAIN PROJECT ACTION FOR THE
EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BLVD., PROJECT NO. 60145
Item #16K11
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$82,500 PLUS $26,214 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS, AND AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $3,000 FOR STATUTORY SUPPLEMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS AS NECESSARY, FOR THE TAKING OF
PARCEL 1224FEE REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #16K12
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$125,000 PLUS $30,222 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
1132FEE REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #16K13
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $144,000 PLUS $39,587 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
December 14, 2021
Page 334
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
110FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT, PROJECT NO., 60168, AND DELEGATE
AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO PROCESS PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATUTORY
ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS, IF
ANY, AS AUTHORIZED BY CH. 73, FLORIDA STATUTE
Item #16K14
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $115,000 PLUS $29,946 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY AND
EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
115FEE, REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION PROJECT, PROJECT NO., 60168, AND DELEGATE
AUTHORITY TO THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO PROCESS PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL STATUTORY
ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS, IF
ANY, AS AUTHORIZED BY CH. 73, FLORIDA STATUTE
Item #16K15
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$145,000 PLUS $35,549 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES
INCLUDING EXPERTS’ FEES AND COSTS FOR THE TAKING
OF PARCEL 323RDUE REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT NO. 60168
Item #17A – Moved to Item #9F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17B
December 14, 2021
Page 335
RESOLUTION 2021-254: PETITION VAC-PL20210001223, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE 10-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN REAR OF LOT 164
OF GULF HARBOR, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE
31 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED AT 702 PAN AM AVENUE, IN SECTION
16, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2021-46: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED
AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, ADOPTING A
COUNTY-INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO CREATE THE
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT AS REQUIRED BY
STATE LAW; AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE [PL20210001793]
Item #17D – Continued Indefinitely (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A COUNTY-
December 14, 2021
Page 336
INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY
TEXT, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION
AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO ADDRESS SEA
LEVEL RISE, AND UPDATE NOMENCLATURE, AND
FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
[PL20210001271]
Item #17E – Moved to Item #9G (During Agenda Changes Per
Commissioner Saunders)
Item #17F – Moved to Item #9H (During Agenda Changes Per
Commissioner Saunders)
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2021-255: PETITION VAC-PL20210000552, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE 7.5-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE EAST LINES OF LOTS 11
& 50, BLOCK 52 OF NAPLES PARK UNIT NO. 4, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET WEST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH BETWEEN 91ST AVENUE NORTH AND 92ND
AVENUE NORTH IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17H – Moved to Item #9E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
December 14, 2021
Page 337
Item #17I
ORDINANCE 2021-47: TO ESTABLISH THE 42ND AVENUE SE
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) WITH A
MAXIMUM OF ONE (1) MILL FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS
AND A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) MILLS THEREAFTER, FOR
THE REPAYMENT OF FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,231.00
USED TO MAKE EMERGENCY ROAD REPAIRS ON 42ND
AVENUE SE AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
ADVANCE FUNDING FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FIND
341 TO THE 42ND AVENUE SE FUND 761
Item #17J
RESOLUTION 2021-256: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FY21-22 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
December 14, 2021
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:33 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PENNY AYLO , CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
/14;t4L-4 - -
Attest as to Chairmane
sinnatlr onto.
These minutes approved by the Board on e 1 t 120 22 ,
as presented � or as corrected J
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, RPR, FPR-C,
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 338