Agenda 01/14/2025 Item # 2A (December 10, 2024 BCC Minutes)December 10, 2024
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida December 10, 2024
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 Board members present:
Chairman: Chris Hall
Rick LoCastro
Dan Kowal
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Burt L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT:
Amy Patterson, County Manager
Trinity Scott, Transportation Management Services
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 14 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 2
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the commissioner meeting.
I want to let everybody know that we have a full day today, very
full day. And if you haven't silenced your cell phone, please do so at
the moment.
And we're going to have some procedural changes today a little
bit. We'll explain those later.
I want to remind every speaker that speaks on any subject that
you have three minutes, not three minutes and a second. We've got a
lot of people to move through the chute this morning. And we want
to hear what you have to say, but we don't want to hear more than you
have to say.
So with that, let's get started. Let's get the Lord in on this deal.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY PASTOR JOHN HUFFMAN – HARVEST
RECOVERY MINISTRIES – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE BY
ARMY VETERAN JR RESTREPO – INVOCATION AND
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE GIVEN
MS. PATTERSON: Very good. Today we have our
invocation by Pastor John Huffman, Harvest Recovery Ministries, and
our Pledge of Allegiance will be led by JR Restrepo, Army veteran,
Desert Storm, five years, and VFW 7721.
PASTOR HUFFMAN: Father, I just thank you, Lord. I thank
you for this county, Lord. I thank you for the leaders that are leading
this county, Lord. I just pray that you give them a supernatural
wisdom, Father. Lord, that you just give them the ability to articulate
their hearts, Father, for this county. Lord, I pray that you protect
Page 15 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 3
them and their families.
Lord, I pray for those that are going to come up here with their
petitions today, Lord, that you allow them to articulate properly so
that we can understand them, Lord, and this county can continue to
grow with your grace.
Lord, be involved in this meeting, Lord. As the commissioners
said today, Lord, there's not a lot of time. So we just pray that
everybody here is heard, they feel heard, Lord, and that the County
Commissioners that you blessed to serve over us, Lord, hear them
loud and clear and implement properly.
So we thank you for that wisdom. We love you for this wisdom,
and we ask all this in Jesus' name, amen.
MR. RESTREPO: Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in the
Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA.) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER
MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO -
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good job.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, agenda changes for
December 10th, 2024.
First is to move Item 16K12 to 12B. This is a recommendation
to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a settlement
agreement which will dismiss all prejudice -- all claims brought by
Page 16 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 4
Naples Golf Development, LLC, against Collier County and
Commissioner McDaniel related to a Bert Harris claim filed pursuant
to Florida Statutes 70.001 regarding application of the county's golf
course conversion ordinance on the Links of Naples Golf Course and
approve all necessary budget amendments. This is being moved at
the County Manager's request.
Second is to move Item 16K8 to 12C. This is a
recommendation to appoint four members to the Library Advisory
Board. This is being moved at Commissioner Hall's request.
We have an agenda note for 16B12. It should include the
following additional text to the recommendation: "And authorize
staff to enter into a work order for Task D for permitting, bidding, and
post-design services for the Wiggins Pass maintenance dredge." This
add is at staff's request.
We do have a couple of time-certain items. First, we have
Companion Items 9A, 9B, and 9C are to be heard no sooner than
10 a.m. This is related to the Fiddler's Creek Section 29 development
area, Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development, and
Marco Shores Fiddler's Creek Development Order Amendment.
Second, Companion Items 11A and 11B to be heard no sooner
than 1 p.m., which is the Collier County Behavioral Health Center
updates and the related naming rights agreement with the David
Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.
We do have court reporter breaks scheduled for 10:30 and 2:50.
With that, County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, ex parte on the consent
and summary and any changes.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I have no changes on the
summary. 17B, I do have meetings.
Page 17 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 5
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no changes to the agenda and no ex parte on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning, sir.
I have no changes either, and I do have meetings on 17B and
meetings and calls on 17D on the summary.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Thank you.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No changes, and I had
meetings on 17B.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I have no changes, and I do have
meetings and e-mails on 17B and meetings on 17D as well.
Troy, do we have any speakers regarding one of the summary
items?
MR. MILLER: I have no one listed for consent or summary at
this time, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. With that, can I get a motion to
approve the consent and summary.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Done.
Page 18 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 6
Item #2B
OCTOBER 22, 2024, BCC MINUTES - MOTION TO APPROVE
AS PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO - APPROVED
Item #2C
NOVEMBER 12, 2024, BCC MINUTES - MOTION TO APPROVE
AS PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO - APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, Item 2, agenda, and
minutes. We have Item 2A and 2B if you'd like to take them
together. Those are the meeting minutes for October 22nd, 2024, and
November 12th, 2024.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Moved and seconded. All in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
MS. PATTERSON: Very good. Before we move past our
awards and recognitions, I did just want to thank the staff. We had
several staff members scheduled to get awards today, and they
graciously agreed to be moved to January so that we could make way
on this agenda for some of the more lengthy items, so we'll be seeing
all of those folks in January. And thank you again to those of you
Page 19 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 7
that agreed to be moved.
Item #5
ARTIST OF THE MONTH – EMILIO TODRIGUEZ AND JOHN
MELLEKY, COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
That brings us to Item 5. Before we start the presentation for
5A, I just want to direct your attention to the back of the room for the
Artist of the Month. We have two Collier County employees as the
December Artists of the Month.
Along the back wall are two original paintings by Emilio
Rodriguez, tangible personal property appraiser, who has worked in
the Property Appraiser's Office for seven years. Emilio grew up in
New York City as a young aspiring artist. He marveled at the
explosive high-energy colors and diverse themes depicted in the New
York City subway system. Since moving to Florida in 2011, he has
carried forward those themes in his artistic work as seen in his
paintings here.
On the side wall are two digital prints created by John Melleky,
arts and culture manager, Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades CVB.
John likes to travel and photograph the places he visits. Since
the -- since the Employee Art Exhibition, he is now working on
developing his digital editing skills and taking more photos on his
journeys.
Both Emilio and John participated in the Creative Collier
Employee Art Exhibition held earlier this year at the Collier County
Government Center Museum. Additional artists from this exhibition
will be displayed throughout the year in the Board chambers.
Item #5a
Page 20 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 8
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE QUARTER FOR DECEMBER 2024 TO SPHERION
STAFFING & RECRUITING, ACCEPTED BY
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BUSINESS. ALSO ATTENDING IS
BETHANY SAWYER, GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE - PRESENTED
With that, that brings us to Item 5A. This is a presentation of
the Collier County Business of the Quarter for December 2024 to
Spherion Staffing and Recruiting. The award will be accepted by
representatives of the business. Also attending is Bethany Sawyer,
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce. Congratulations.
MR. DAVID MILLER: Hi. My name's David Miller. I'm the
owner of Spherion Staffing and Recruiting.
We want to thank Collier County for this recognition. We've
been in Collier County/Naples since 2011. We really enjoy the
pro-business climate you guys have provided for us, which was a
great recognition for our company.
We basically help people find employment, and we help
companies find people. So if you're looking for a job or you know
somebody who needs a job, we're your people, Spherion Staffing.
And just on another note, our branch here in Naples, they have
won the Branch of the Year four times. So congratulations to Denise
Serdahl and her team. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. County Manager, what can we
knock out before 10?
Item #7
Page 21 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 9
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MS. PATTERSON: Troy, do we have any public comments?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We have two for public comment.
Your first speaker is Patrick Wack, and he'll be followed by Sue
Black.
MR. WACK: Wack and Black.
Hi. Thanks for your time. I'm Patrick Wack, president of the
Seagate Property Owners Association in Naples, joined by Joanne
Jaddy (phonetic), who's representing Naples Cay and many of our
neighbors.
We're here to speak to you about two issues with regard to Clam
Bay. The first is the declining water quality and ecological health.
The second is our community's lack of representation in matters
critical to the bay.
As a bit of background, the waters of Clam Bay about our
communities. The waters have been impaired for many years and
were recently added to FDEP's list of impaired waters. Now, we care
about the bay for two reasons. One, it's our back yard, it's integral to
our quality of life and property values. Also, it's a jewel of Collier
County enjoyed by residents and tourists alike.
We're concerned that the continued decline could result in a
situation like the late 1990s where the system collapsed, and
remediation costs millions in today's dollars.
Clam Bay's water quality and ecological issues are well
documented in the county's Pelican Bay Services Division report. I
can provide copies of the relevant data. These issues are primarily a
function of nutrients entering the system, which has a lot to do with
reclaimed irrigation water and also inadequate flushing, which is
partially related to dredging effectiveness. The bay is small and
Page 22 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 10
shallow and particularly sensitive to how water flows and restrictions.
The second issue is our community's lack of representation, both
of our communities. In 2016, in a contentious 3-2 vote, the BCC
gave oversight of both the dredging and the water quality to the
Pelican Bay taxing unit. This was largely done as a result of a
conflict between Coastal Zone Management and Pelican Bay over
dredging for navigation.
At the time a dissenting commissioner said, I feel the County
Commissioners are really abdicating their role for the rest of the
county by approving this for one community. Essentially, a private
entity was given control of a public asset.
I will also add that Pelican Bay has historically been reimbursed
with TDC funds for the dredging and related costs. One real-world
implication of this structure occurred in 2022 when, during a dredging
operation, PBSD's contractor built an unauthorized land bridge. For
at least six weeks, this shut off the water flow. And if your toilet
doesn't flush for six weeks, it stinks. This was -- there was never a
heads-up, never an apology.
Now, we've met extensively with Pelican Bay representatives
over the last year. Unfortunately, I think the response is best
summed up at a recent PBSD board meeting where our request for an
action plan was met with no discussion and an eye roll by one
member.
To address these issues, we suggest three things: One, the
formation of a Clam Bay advisory committee to advise the county on
issues related to the health of the bay; water-quality
flushing/dredging. This should represent all stakeholders. Second,
consider our request for $75,000 to fund an alternative engineering
and biological analysis of the bay. Third, there should be greater
oversight by other entities within the county, whether the County
Manager or otherwise.
Page 23 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 11
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sue Black.
Now might be a good time to remind all of our speakers, there is
a timer with lights at each podium. When the light goes yellow,
you'll have 30 seconds. You'll hear a single beep. When the light
goes red, you will hear beeps. Your time is up.
Sue.
MS. BLACK: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Sue Black. I'm a resident of Seagate for the past 22 --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me. Before
you get started, we'll reset your clock.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Don't be sorry. He was
sleeping at the switch.
There's a fellow in the room that knows more about Clam Bay
and everything that transpires that's in the far back corner there. I
think maybe at some particular point in time -- Tim Hall. And I think
at some particular point in time, we ought to -- we ought to bring this
up as a hearing and have the public discussion with regard to it. I
think --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yeah, I agree about several --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like -- I would like to
do that.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Can I just make a comment on
the subject?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Myself and Trinity attended a
meeting last week with the individuals at Pelican Bay, the
organization there with Chad and the other individuals. We had
another gentleman from the county. These fine folks came to see me
at the beginning of last week and brought this to my attention.
So we are in the infinite stages of moving this in a direction
Page 24 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 12
hopefully everybody can be satisfied with. I know I didn't have an
opportunity -- I think I e-mailed Mr. Wack back the other day. I
think the meeting went pretty well to a point, and I believe they had a
meeting right before my meeting, and it seemed to be more positive
than a typical meeting they've had in the past. So we are -- it's -- we
are -- the problem is it's jurisdictional. These individuals live in the
City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: They're right on the line.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: And they are closer to the bay
than most of the people in Pelican Bay, and they feel the effects
anybody else, but they don't have any voice in that. So I think that's
something we need to just start moving forward.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I remember when I first got
elected, I went and sat with Tim and learned everything there was to
know about upper, lower Clam Bay and everything that goes on with
the ultimate flushing and the loss of the mangroves that we have up
there and so on and so forth. So I think bringing it forward and
having a public discussion about it is a really good idea.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Mr. Chairman, none of
us were on the Board at the time that decision was made.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And it does seem a little odd
that we don't have authority over the environmental impacts of
dredging on a body of water that is within our jurisdiction. So I
agree. And I think sooner is better than later.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No, I think it warrants a great discussion.
So thank you. All right.
Page 25 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 13
Sorry about that.
MS. BLACK: No worries. As I said, I'm Sue Black. I've
lived in Seagate for 20-plus years. I just want to reiterate and thank
you gentlemen for your comments and feedback of getting support for
our cause.
Hurricanes are not going to stop. We're always going to have
the sand shifting and the shoals being created. As Patrick said, this is
about 50 feet from our backyard. We don't have a view of it; we live
it. So we really need to look at the health of the water.
There's got to be an amicable solution for the cleansing and the
dredging of the water. Do the right things, and the right things will
happen.
So thank you very much for your time.
MR. MILLER: That is all of our speakers on Item 7.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we're going to try to jump
around the agenda a little bit here and take some of the items that we
can address prior to our 10 o'clock time-certain.
Item #11C
AWARD CONSTRUCTION INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO.
24-8222, “MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICE EXPANSION,” TO
RYCON CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,584,760 AND AN OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $250,000.00
FOR POTENTIAL UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS, AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT,
AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
(BRIAN DELONY, SUPERVISOR - PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(LICENSED) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER
MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO –
APPROVE
Page 26 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 14
So let's start with Item 11C. This is a recommendation to award
construction Invitation to Bid No. 24-8222, Medical Examiner Office
expansion, to Rycon Construction, Inc., in the amount of $4,584,760,
and an owner's allowance of $250,000 for potential unforeseen
conditions, authorize the Chairman to sign the attached agreement,
and approve the necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Brian DeLony, your Director of Facilities Management, is
here to present.
MR. DeLONY: Good morning, Commissioners. Brian
DeLony, Director of Facilities Management.
Today I'm here to present on the construction contract 24-8422
for the Medical Examiner expansion project.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want a quick motion
for approval?
MR. DeLONY: That would be good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll move that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Do you have anything in your
presentation that you want to get on the record that maybe -- you
know, for the public or anything that, you know --
MR. DeLONY: I mean, the biggest part of the project is -- this
construction project is the Medical Examiner has to stay in operation.
So this will be a phased project for an expansion, but it's a
little -- been a little bit of difficulty there associated with it. But
other than that --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It's a planned expansion. I
didn't want anybody that never heard of it to think that all of a sudden
you're squeezing something in.
MR. DeLONY: It is a planned expansion, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So moved.
Page 27 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 15
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Moved and seconded. All in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good job, Brian.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nice presentation.
Item #12A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTING ITS
MEMBERS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THE
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL, AND THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
• COMMISSIONER KOWAL AND COMMISSIONER
MCDANIEL -COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
• COMMISSIONER HALL - TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
• COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO - COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Page 28 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 16
• COMMISSIONER KOWAL - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMMITTEE
• COMMISSIONER KOWAL - PUBLIC SAFETY
COORDINATING COUNCIL
• COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL AND COMMISSIONER
LOCASTRO - SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH
CHANGES BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER HALL – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners let's go ahead and go to
Item 12A. This is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners appoint its members to the Community
Redevelopment Agency, the Tourist Development Council, the
Community and Economic Development Board, the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee, the Public Safety Coordinating
Council, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.
This item is brought onto the agenda under the County Attorney's
Office's section, but these are your annual appointments to the
advisory boards.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So basically -- I have to move to the
Tourist Development --
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: -- so that's going to put a hole in the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
And, Commissioner Kowal, are you satisfied where you're at, or
do you want to move?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You know, I could take on a little
extra responsibility. With the public safety board, it's -- I mean, I
have -- it's pretty scheduled out, and, you know, it's not like we get a
lot of extra meetings or extra stuff that comes up. So I could -- I
Page 29 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 17
could help out with the Affordable Housing Committee.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I would like that. I mean, we've talked
about that. We've talked about you behind your back.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Oh, okay. I didn't know that. I
guess I have that sixth sense.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No. With your real estate background, I
think you would be a good fit to fill those shoes.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: All right. Well, I'll be more than
happy to accept that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ha.
CHAIRMAN HALL: What about you, Commissioner
LoCastro, you got any desires where you'd like to go?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You know, one of the things
that we've said at previous meetings is that we want to spread the
wealth so we all get a chance to have exposure to these boards. So
I've done AHAC. I'm obviously coming off of TDC. When I was
first elected, I did Public Safety Coordinating Council and then turned
it over to Commissioner Kowal. So I look at those as things I've
already gotten exposure to.
The South Florida Regional Planning Council, that's what you
and I tag team on. But Colonel -- or Commissioner McDaniel really
leads the charge on that one, and that one I look at as sort of like
almost the subset. You know, I actually think, before I volunteer for
anything else, unless you think differently, we should stay on that one
for continuity because --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Especially you. You're in the
guts of that one, and that one -- to save some time here, you know, I
strongly suggest the two of us, you know, stay on that one. It could
dissolve this coming year. It could totally be overhauled, and, you
know, we don't want to change horses on that one.
Page 30 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 18
So I'm basically his backup, but I try to go to as many meetings
as possible. And then, you know, when we're there together, we
really sort of lead the charge in some discussions or, you know, my
job's to back up Commissioner McDaniel. So I'll stay on that one.
The Community and Economic Development Board, that's you,
Commissioner Saunders --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- right? Okay. What do
you want to say about that one? Is this your second year?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I have no problem
staying on that. I am going to be chairing next year, so -- and that
particular board does not -- is not really active, so I can certainly
handle both of those.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I mean, that's the only
board that I haven't been a part of. I guess -- I'm sorry, the
Community Redevelopment Agency is another board.
That's -- who's the -- that's you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Immokalee and Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, so that really can't
swap.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It could, but it would be
better --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, it doesn't make sense.
So it looks like there's nothing left for me, so I'll pass my time to
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, why don't you take
over the Economic Development Board then.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That will free him up.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. And also because
you're about to be chair, so I'll take the EDB.
Page 31 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 19
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders, is there
anything that you haven't done?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There are a lot of things I
haven't done that I can't talk about.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So with those anointments,
then we'll --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think we covered it all,
right?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We covered it all.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Commissioner Kowal, you're
staying on safety, right?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, I would like to stay on
there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you need a motion on
those things?
MS. PATTERSON: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: You may as well.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So I'll make a motion that
those appointments stand.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second it.
All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed, speak now or forever hold
their peace.
(No response.)
Item #14A
Page 32 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 20
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 24-8267, THE
BAYSHORE 17 ACRES PEDESTRIAN BOARDWALK
CONNECTION TO SUGDEN PARK PROJECT, TO INFINITE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC IN THE BASE BID AMOUNT OF
$3,335,497.77, APPROVE AN OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF
$37,000.00, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED AGREEMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE BY
COMMISSIONER KOWAL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SAUNDERS – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners let's move on to Item 14A.
This is a recommendation -- this is under your Community
Redevelopment Agency. This is a recommendation to award
Invitation to Bid 24-8267, the Bayshore 17 acres pedestrian
boardwalk connection to Sugden Park project to Infinite Construction,
LLC, in the base bid amount of $3,335,497.77, approve an owner's
allowance of $37,000, and authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
agreement.
Mr. John Dunnuck, your Director of CRAs and Facilities
Management, is here to answer questions or present.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning. The pleasure of the Board,
I can do a full presentation or cut to the chase.
This has been a long-standing --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I could make a motion to
approve. I think it's something we've been working on for a long
time.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yeah, I'm very familiar.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm very familiar, I mean, with
what's going on. And the contractor that got awarded this is very
reputable, and they actually come in lower than a lot of other
Page 33 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 21
contractors.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Motion and second to
approve. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you. I'd like to take a moment to
thank Tami Scott from on our team who's worked on this for six
years. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. All right.
Item #12C
RESOLUTION 2024-257: APPOINTING FOUR MEMBERS TO
THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. (COMMISSIONER HALL’S
REQUEST) - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CHANGE TO ADD
JENNIFER ASHLEY FOR DISTRICT 2 BY COMMISSIONER
HALL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS –
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HALL: County Manager, if we want to, we can
just do 12C real quick. It will take a minute.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. 12C is moved from Item 16K8.
This is a recommendation to appoint four members to the library
advisory board, and this was moved at Commissioner Hall's request.
Page 34 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 22
CHAIRMAN HALL: I am only going to change one thing. In
District 2, I'm going to recommend that we approve Jennifer Ashford
to sit on that board, and that's the only change.
So I'll make a motion to approve Jennifer Ashford to the Library
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So that adds five? We're
appointing five?
CHAIRMAN HALL: It's the same one. There was one -- there
was just one spot for District 2, and it was another person, but I would
like to see Jennifer Ashford in that spot.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the motion includes the
appointment of the others?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you.
Item #11D
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE
REPEALING AND REPLACING PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE
NO. 2013-69, AS AMENDED. (SANDRA SRNKA, DIVISION
DIRECTOR) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER
HALL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS –
Page 35 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 23
APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, with that, let's jump back
to Item 11D. I think we have enough time to take the procurement
ordinance item. This is a recommendation to authorize the County
Attorney to advertise an ordinance repealing and replacing
Procurement Ordinance No. 2013-69, as amended. And here comes
Sandra, your division director. Now, you'll have to say your name
for me.
MS. SRNKA: Sandra Srnka, for the record.
MS. PATTERSON: Division Director for Procurement.
MS. SRNKA: I do have a presentation. This definitely is a
good-news item. If you'd like, I'll start my presentation.
So this has been -- the development of the procurement
ordinance, which is part of your agenda packet, has been really a joint
effort. We have worked with outside legal counsel, the office of the
County Attorney, key county stakeholders, along with the Clerk's
Office, and we also have a consultant that provided benchmarking
comparison with other local agencies.
Now, the establishment of the procurement ordinance, it was
established in 1987. In 2015, there was an increase to the thresholds.
Those are the current thresholds in place. So keep that in mind
during this presentation that we have not requested an increase since
2015.
In 2013, there was a repeal of the ordinance, and there were
subsequent amendments.
Now, the key benefits of repealing the ordinance, it ensures that
we're in compliance with Florida Statute. It promotes fair
competition and transparency. It aligns the thresholds with peer
organizations, reduces administrative burden while streamlining
processes, and it improves efficiencies and maximizes county
Page 36 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 24
resources.
We are recommending an increase in the thresholds. We are
recommending, from the small purchase, a single quote to increase it
from 3,000 to 10,000. For your informal competition, your three
quotes, from the $3,000-50,000 range to 10,000-to-250- range. For
the formal competition threshold, we are requesting an increase from
50,000 to 250,000.
Now, as part of the benchmarking study, our consultant looked at
surrounding agencies that were similar in nature and size. And as
you can see here, Collier County is among the lowest at a $3,000
range for your informal competition, highest being 50,000 for Lee
County.
For your competitive bidding threshold, again, Collier County is
among the lowest at 50,000. City of Cape Coral is at 250-, along
with Lee County and Manatee.
The same applies for the governing body approved threshold.
Collier County is at a $50,000 range, where we have Sarasota,
Broward, Manatee at a higher range.
Now, as we were putting this together, we didn't want to lose
sight on the fact that it's important to have internal controls to mitigate
risk associated with an increase of thresholds. We want to make sure
that they're strong, accountable measures. We want to make sure that
we provide mandatory training, and this would be at all levels of the
procurement cycle, and everyone that is involved in this cycle.
And then we also wanted to make sure that we implemented and
leveraged our OpenGov, which is our bidding platform. We want to
make it mandatory for quotes between that 5,000 to $250,000 range to
be mandatory use through that bidding platform.
Now, the bidding platform does provide a lot of security. There
is a lot of reporting capabilities, and there's also an ability to have that
audit trail. We are also on a leverage SAP, and we're working on
Page 37 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 25
seeing if we can add additional fields that will provide additional
reporting capability.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I have a question.
MS. SRNKA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Explain "strong accountability
measures."
MS. SRNKA: So strong accountability measures comes at -- in
all facets of it. We have to start with the individuals that are
requesting services. For example, those that are out in the field,
along with those in the accounting division, along with those that are
managing it, approving the managers, and also director. So we are
working with our corporate compliance, along with our Clerk's
Office, to ensure that there are internal controls at each of those -- in
each of those areas.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I mention that because -- I mention that
because, you know, for two years we've dealt with after-the-facts and
single source, you know, all of these things that we have to basically
ratify because they're already done. And I can see, you know,
internal controls to mitigate the risk. I'm all about empowering
people, empowering people to do their job, empowering people to
streamline the process.
Procurement is a slow part of the speed of government. So I'm
all about empowering people to do that, but I'm also more about
holding them accountable.
I understand that there's things that fall out of the normal
processes, and that's fine. But if you have to come out of the normal
process, find somebody to talk about it. Find a superior to talk about
it. Find somebody -- get with the Clerk's Office. Find out a legal
way to do this instead of just willy-nilly doing it and it coming back to
us, "Commissioners, why did you-all make that decision?"
Well, we didn't. It was already done.
Page 38 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 26
MS. SRNKA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So I'm all about the strong accountability.
So I want to empower people, but I also want to hold them
accountable, because they need to act like their job depends on it
because, basically, it does.
MS. SRNKA: And we also included additional language in our
ethics section that really adds a little bit more value overall, and we
also are adding additional language in the procurement manual, which
the County Manager will execute.
So we're trying to cover all areas, but also what goes hand in
hand is the educational part of that. That's why we are developing a
more comprehensive training that would be mandatory and, again, at
all levels.
Any additional questions, sir?
CHAIRMAN HALL: No. I love it. Set them up to win.
MS. SRNKA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One quick question.
MS. SRNKA: A couple additional significant proposal --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Before you jump, are the
manuals going to come back to us for review before they're signed off
on?
MS. SRNKA: Yes, absolutely. And, again, those manuals, it's
the purchasing manual and the procurement manual that are executed
by the County Manager. But, yes, we would make that part of the
packet.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because I concur with the
Chairman with regard to accountability, but I'd like -- I'd like to be
able to see what those measures that we're going to implement, in fact,
are to hold people accountable that -- you know, we want to empower
them, but at the same time they've got to step up to the plate. So I
Page 39 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 27
want to make sure that if we're authorizing greater authority that there
is, at the same time, accountability that comes with that.
MS. SRNKA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MS. SRNKA: So a couple additional significant changes that
you'll find in the ordinance is Section 3. It increases the County
Manager's approval from the 5,000 to 250-. And, again, this is
aligned with that formal competitive threshold.
Like I mentioned, the ethics section we expanded a little bit
more, added more language. We wanted to make sure that it aligned
with Florida Statutes, included a conflict-of-interest section, along
with a code of silence process.
For Section 12, that is your procurement methods, for your
exemption of competitions, along with the waiver, we went ahead and
aligned it with the formal threshold. For your exemption of
competition, we added a few additional categories, and for your
waiver competition, we went ahead and aligned the single-source
definition with the Florida Statute. Currently, we have a sole source,
and a lot of times that causes a little bit of confusion, so we went
ahead and just mirrored the language from the Florida Statute.
For your emergency purchases, we clarified the language in the
ordinance and also in the manual, and that's more aligned with Florida
Statutes.
We have a new section titled "Formal Competitive Awards," and
that outlines the bidding process along with negotiations, and it's
aligned with current and best practices.
For your purchasing card program, we clarified a lot of the
language in there. We went ahead and clarified the language that the
County Manager is responsible for setting those limits for your single
transactions and your monthly spending limits.
Section 20, your contract administration section, again, we
Page 40 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 28
wanted to make sure that we aligned the approval with that
competitive threshold. So for your change orders and amendments
that exceed the original Board amount, anything over 250- would be
presented to the Board for approval. Anything under will be
presented to the Board for approval through that
ratification -- Procurement Ratification Report.
It also allows the procurement director to approve increases and
decreases to Board-approved days, and we have incorporated a
process for requests that come in for contractual price adjustments.
In addition to that section, we went ahead and stated that any
request from staff to reduce the retainage below that 5 percent that is
Florida Statute or waive the assessment of liquidated damages, those
would be coming back to the Board for approval.
And then it also authorizes the procurement director to approve
assignments of contracts and after-the-facts. I know a lot of people
don't want to hear the after-the-fact term, but we went ahead and
aligned it up also with the formal competitive threshold that will
streamline a lot of our processes. So anything over 250- would be
presented to the Board for approval. Anything less than that amount
would be reported to the Board through that ratification report.
So our next steps is for the Board to approve the advertisement
of the procurement ordinance. We would bring it back at the next
meeting, and we continue to work with internal staff, corporate
compliance, and the Clerk's Office to establish those internal controls.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Great.
MS. SRNKA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Can you include how we can incorporate
the cone of silence?
MS. SRNKA: Absolutely, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll make a move for approval.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
Page 41 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 29
CHAIRMAN HALL: Moved and seconded. All in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good job.
MS. SRNKA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good job.
Item #11E
THE PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY STATE AND FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRIORITIES FOR 2025.
(BRIDGET CORCORAN, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
COORDINATOR) - MOTION TO APPROVE BY
COMMISSIONER HALL; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
KOWAL – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, if you are okay with it, we
can take the county -- Item 11E, which is our federal and state
priorities. I think we have enough time to get through that one, even
with a little bit of discussion. So, Item 11E is a recommendation to
approve the proposed Collier County State and Federal Legislative
and Administrative Priorities for 2025.
Ms. Bridget Corcoran, legislative affairs coordinator, is here to
present.
MS. CORCORAN: Good morning. For the record, Bridget
Page 42 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 30
Corcoran, Legislative Affairs coordinator.
So this document was produced in conjunction with the lobbying
teams, county management, department staff, and, of course, with
your input.
It's not an exhaustive list, and it's a snapshot in time. And I'll
bring back any issues which I cannot derive direction from this
document; I'll bring those back to you for your approval.
It is formatted in alphabetical order. There is -- the only one
that is in order of priority is the appropriation projects, and the
appropriation projects will be presented by Chairman Hall to the
legislative delegation in this room on January 8th at 9 a.m.
So given your input in this document, if you have any questions,
you know, I'm happy to answer them at this time. If not, I would just
ask for a motion to approve. That also authorizes the Chair to draft
as needed any correspondences on behalf of the Board for any of
these projects.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. I don't think we have any
questions. We've seen the document pretty extensively, so we're
pretty familiar with it. With that, I'll make a motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
MS. CORCORAN: Great, thank you.
Page 43 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 31
Item #11F
AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS TO
EXECUTE EXPENDITURES TO VISIT FLORIDA FOR
MEMBERSHIP FEES AND DESTINATION MARKETING
PROGRAMS UP TO $82,000 FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER
2024 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2025, AND TO MAKE A FINDING
THAT THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM. (JAY
TUSA, DIVISION DIRECTOR - TOURISM) - MOTION TO
APPROVE A ONE-TIME $82,000 WITH THE CONTINUATION
OF VALUE ASSESSMENT BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO;
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, just in time, I saw
Mr. Tusa walk in the room, so let's go ahead and continue on with
Item 11F. It's a recommendation to approve and authorize the
Chairman, through an exemption from the competitive process, to
execute expenditures to Visit Florida for membership fees and
destination marketing programs up to $82,000 for the period of
October 2024 through September 2025, and to make a finding that
these expenditures promote tourism.
Mr. Jay Tusa, your division director of Tourism, is here to
present. Sorry to get you right coming in the room.
MR. TUSA: But I've been in the hall, so I just --
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
MR. TUSA: Yeah, I've been here. I'm just waiting to step in
when --
MS. PATTERSON: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HALL: A man that stays ready doesn't have to
get ready.
Page 44 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 32
MR. TUSA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Just -- I've prepared a brief overview for this agenda item for
you, and I can walk you through this if you'd like.
I think that this presentation demonstrates the value of this
partnership, this relationship that we have with Visit Florida, and then
certainly when I'm through presenting this, any questions that the
Board might have, I'm happy to answer those for you.
All right. So here is just a few -- a little brief overview, a few
items on here. Visit Florida in their role, you know, official tourism
marketing corporation for the state of Florida and then the partnership
and what it provides to us. You know, marketing opportunities,
marketing campaigns, co-op opportunities for tour operators, PR
opportunities. So, these are just a few things. Also, their research,
we have access to that, and then inclusion in photo and video shoots.
Let's see what else on here. And then this is a big one here at
the bottom, assistance with recovery messaging and digital campaigns
to support the destination after declared emergencies, as was the case
with Hurricane Ian.
So, Visit Florida put up $200,000 in advertising for us after
Hurricane Ian which really, you know, that's a great benefit for us
when maybe we're not spending as much dollars in the event of a
storm situation like that. And Visit Florida just did this recently with
Bradenton and Sarasota as well following the storms we just recently
had. So, they put up $500,000 for those two destinations. So
definitely some added value there in our relationship with Visit
Florida.
This is something that I wanted to demonstrate the value of our
relationship with opportunities through tour operators. So, there's
actually two of them here, and I'll just kind of show you this one real
quick, and then I'll jump to this one. So, one was Germany; one was
UK.
Page 45 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 33
These are really important because these are where we do co-op
marketing opportunities in international markets, and then people go
through a tour operator and they book their stay to come to Collier
County. So, this is something that we can track. So, this is number
of room nights and revenue that were booked through these various
operators. And you can kind of see here there's two for Germany,
and then there are several others here for the UK.
One thing that I want to point out is I sent an e-mail to the
commissioners yesterday afternoon in regard to this item in particular.
The Clerk had brought up a point about this and maybe being a
duplication of efforts with our international reps, and this actually
works in concert with our international reps. Our international reps
take advantage of these coop marketing opportunities to market these
packages to people and then sell them.
So, in addition to these opportunities with Visit Florida, they also
do this with other tour operators as well that generate room nights and
revenue. So, I had asked our reps to send us a couple of examples
yesterday, which they did. And just kind of a real quick note, there's
probably about another $2 million in revenue that's realized through
tour operators. So, tour operators are really important for us in a
destination.
And then this is just some marketing campaigns, some support
that we received. You can see there the cost savings, $255,000.
And that $200,000 that I mentioned earlier in the presentation is listed
here. That was the funds that Visit Florida put up. There was no
matching for that. That was something they put up on behalf of the
organization, the county.
And then you can kind of see there some other opportunities
through AAA, and then there was also something we did for
Hurricane Ian. Visit Florida matched some funds that we put up.
And then again, here's some cost savings through co-op
Page 46 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 34
advertising, $85,000. So, if we were to go and do these different
programs on this slide, it would cost an additional $85,000 outside of
the Visit Florida partnership.
And then here's just some UK public relations. So, you can see
there, we had some -- an opportunity for an article in The Times. The
reach was one and a half million, and the value was $146,000.
So, you know, these PR opportunities, and then we have some
here as well for Germany, these are really great opportunities for us to
get out from a PR standpoint. It stands up and works in concert with
our marketing efforts. So, when people see our ads or they go to a
tour operator, they see articles and publications, they all work hand in
hand together to showcase Collier County.
And then these are media mission opportunities through Visit
Florida. This is where, basically, Visit Florida is taking us and other
destinations as well to journalists in certain areas. So you can kind of
see there, there was one in New York City, California. So what
they'll do is they'll do a mission, and then they'll meet up with all
these different media folks, and then they'll represent the destination.
That also saves us a little bit of money on the back end where we
don't have to fly somebody out to California or New York. So there's
also some cost savings there that's not reflected in this slide.
And then here's one slide that was asked when I presented this
earlier to the Board on kind of what other counties are spending, and
you can kind of see here it's broken down. This is a 2023 fiscal year
spend by county for Visit Florida. And you can kind of see there,
and then we're highlighted a little bit more down towards the bottom
at $206,000.
And then -- so the request now -- when I originally came to the
Board, it was $150,000, but that was across the remainder of FY '24
and then for '25. This ask is just for FY '25. So, it went from
$150,000 to $82,000.
Page 47 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 35
And then certainly, if you-all have any questions, I'm happy to
entertain those.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My main memory -- and I
don't have specifics, Jay, but my main memory is telling me that the
Visit Florida has a lot of conflicts, has a lot of duplication. And I'm
not in support of this -- of this expenditure. I'm -- and I apologize for
not having those specifics with me here right now. I was in the
process of trying to get them, and I didn't come up with that because
of my computer blip. But just in remembering what's, in fact,
transpired going -- in the past with Visit Florida, I'm not -- I'm not in
support of this request.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, Jay, what's your response
to that? You know, one of the things we charged you with when we
recently hired you was shake the trees. Take a look at things that
maybe we think aren't worth the money or, on the flip side, that we're
not investing in, hence our last meeting where we basically allowed
you to spend money you already had but it needed our approval to
double what we were putting against tourism because you brought in
front of us something we hadn't really seen before, which was how
quickly Collier County was dropping down the list of communities
who were investing money in tourism.
What's your honest assessment of this? I mean, you know, you
do come from this world, so it's not like you haven't heard of Visit
Florida before.
MR. TUSA: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Obviously, you wouldn't be
standing before us if you didn't think it was an investment. But, you
know, this is your chance to plead your case. I actually don't
disagree with Commissioner McDaniel. I have some concerns as
Page 48 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 36
well. But to just give another perspective -- and we've done it on a
few other votes, we've given you the latitude of saying, "You know
what, we're going to fund this one particular thing" -- and I'm talking
generically, not about this -- "but we're going to fund this one
particular thing." But, Jay, this could be it, so go in and really take a
look and then come back to us, and then with deep experience as a
Collier County employee, you're able to stand in front of us and
said -- and not just sort of say, "Well, in my previous job I think Visit
Florida was great," or "I hear from my colleagues that it's great or not
great, but I appreciate the latitude of continuing the investment so I
could be present, my team could be."
I'm not saying this is the answer, but this is one possibility. And
then you come back here and say, "You know, the $82,000 was well
spent, but it wasn't well invested. I think we should back off from it,"
or "Wow, what you guys don't know is Visit Florida might have a bad
rep on social media or in some sort of circles," but the way you and
your team are utilizing it, it is big bang for the buck. So, you know, I
look at it as that is a possibility.
What are your thoughts hearing that? I mean, do you have
enough knowledge already to know, "Oh, Commissioner, you're going
to give me 82,000. I'm going to get you a million dollars’ worth of
investment," or "I'm not really sure, and Commissioner McDaniel
could be right, and the 82,000 might be better spent somewhere else"?
It's not like we haven't recently invested in tourism in a major
way. We just voted for you to spend millions and millions of dollars.
Give us your perspective. Because I'm sort of on the fence.
We've had other discussion about Visit Florida, I think, even before
you were hired. You know, it was sort of in the TikTok discussion,
remember that? You know, why are we investing in TikTok? And
that might not be the best use of our money, you know.
So, either fight for Visit Florida right now, or tell us you're not
Page 49 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 37
sure or say that, you know, you think it's somewhere in the middle.
MR. TUSA: No. I think there's definitely value to the
partnership and the relationship. Visit Florida definitely brings some
advantages to us. There are trade shows that we're able to take
advantage of specially through Visit Florida that we would not have
access to if we were not a member of Visit Florida. That's a pretty
big thing.
And then, you know, as far as what I just demonstrated on the
slides, you know, those relationships with those tour operators, the
value that we get from those room nights that are generated through
that. You know, could we pick that up in another means, another
way? Yeah, perhaps, but it's probably a little bit easier to do that and
a little bit less expensive to do that through Visit Florida than it would
be to do that on our own or through our international reps.
And then, you know, the same thing with the marketing
opportunities, you know, there are savings there for us. So, you
know, we're able to take advantage of that when we place an ad in,
like, a Southern Living type magazine, you know, versus if we went
and did it on our own.
So, you know, if we didn't have the Visit Florida partnership, you
know, could we survive? Yes. It would cost us probably a little bit
more money, in my opinion, at the end of the day. But it's obviously,
you know, the decision the Board has to make on how they feel about
this.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Because here's something I
would not want to see happen. We vote down Visit Florida to save
82,000, but you keep going to the trade shows, and instead of getting
80 percent discount because you're a Visit Florida member, you're
paying top dollar, and in the end, instead of paying 82,000 for Visit
Florida, you spend 270,000 on things that Visit Florida would have
given you free admission to or a greatly reduced price. I think part of
Page 50 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 38
the decision here is -- I would say, if I vote against funding you for
Visit Florida, or any commissioner does, what they're really voting
against is not going to many of the things that a Visit Florida
membership allows you to go to, because if you don't get this 82,000
but you keep doing business as usual, then you're going to spend three
times this amount possibly --
MR. TUSA: Perhaps.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- going to things that Visit
Florida gives you a discount to.
So, I just wanted to get that on the record. I'm not banging on
tables saying Visit Florida is a great and wonderful organization. I
think it does do some good things that we've done a deeper dive
during our TDC meeting, but my vote's going to be an either/or, either
for Visit Florida and then you do a deep dive and make sure we've got
biggest bang for our buck, or if we don't vote for the 82,000, you don't
have a blank check to then be paying triple and going to all the same
things. That would be stupid.
MR. TUSA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Then we would have
been -- you know, even if -- whether we thought Visit Florida was
great or not, then I think we want the ability to say yes or no to the
things you're about to overpay for if you're not a Visit Florida
member.
MR. TUSA: And that's a really good point, Commissioner.
You know, just one thing off the top of my head, I mean, IPW's
international trade show, we participate through Visit Florida with
that. We spend $10,000 on that show, but if we were going to do that
on our own, it would cost $30,000. So you see right there in that
instance, I mean, it's $20,000 more, so -- and depending on where,
you know, budgets fall, it could possibly be a missed opportunity.
So I mean, that's just something that, if this is not accepted, then,
Page 51 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 39
you know, we'll just have to relook at what we do, and the number of
shows we go to and those types of things, which, you know, we
certainly can do that, but there might be some missed opportunities
there.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
I'm going to shed a little different light on it. I was -- you know,
I was sitting up here like the rest of us, you know, when we first made
a decision not to participate a year or so ago and just see where it took
us.
And since then I've had the opportunity -- I think it was the
organization -- they call theirselves BID, I believe. It was small
private-owned restaurants, galleries, stuff like that, within the City of
Naples and Collier County that do not participate with the big hotels,
do not participate with -- or even get any money from the city CRA
for Fifth Avenue and some other organizations where we provide
money as taxpayers to these organizations.
They went, as usual, to get a grant from Visit Florida, which
they've done every year since they've been in existence, and they went
up there this past year to get their grant, and they were told they
weren't allowed because Collier County didn't participate.
So, there's more affected by this than what meets the eye. We
sit up here and look at the big numbers as it compares to the other
counties and stuff like that, but then you have a group of
ma-and-pa-owned restaurants here, or whatever, that rely on some of
this money, and they weren't allowed to participate because of the fact
that we didn't participate.
So, I mean, there's a lot more to it when you peel the -- peel the
skin back on the onion. So -- and I don't know what they would have
got in the grant regardless, but, you know, they see theirselves getting
choked out by a lot of bigger corporation restaurants, I think. And if
Page 52 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 40
you look just recently a transaction happened down on Fifth Avenue
was Chops, Yabba's, Pazzo's, they were all bought out by a
corporation which used to be owned by a local guy that built them
from nothing.
So, you know, there is some unseen things that, you know, these
little things do affect from time to time. So, I kind of got a different
perspective of what some of these organizations depend on and I
didn't even realize, so just -- I wanted to put it out there to my fellow
commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
How much are we spending on advertising going forward? I
know we've had an increase in that. What is that number again?
MR. TUSA: So, we increased the budget at the last board
meeting, and so now we're looking at $12 million.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, we're spending $12
million on advertising. Your recommendation is to approve this.
You're our hired expert on this issue. I don't have any hesitation in
saying I really don't know the real benefits from Visit Florida. I do
know it's our job to second guess and to inquire and to learn as much
as we can about these issues. But I'm relying on you, so I'm going to
support your recommendation. If it turns out that your
recommendation is wrong, then we can change that. But you're the
expert, so I'm going to rely on your recommendation.
MR. TUSA: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I guess, you know, I sit here -- my
fundamental question is, I feel the burden as a commissioner to
advertise for all these hotels and these restaurants, and I shouldn't
have to feel that burden. That's their burden. "But, Commissioner,
if you don't approve this, then the blood's on your hands with -- our
vacancies are down, and there's nobody coming to our restaurants."
Page 53 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 41
Well, lower your rates, lower your prices. You'll -- I mean, that's
capitalism. So that's just my fundamental -- I mean, just basically
where I'm at.
Whether $82,000 is going to generate, you know, a couple
million bucks in revenue, I could see how that'd happen.
But I'm going to support the request, but going forward I want
you to remember the basic core fundamental values that we have as
commissioners, to spend taxpayer money and do it wisely. And to
throw money against the marketing wall and see what sticks is
something that I just don't -- I don't geehaw. That's g-e-e...
Anyway, that's my thoughts.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And this has nothing
to do with you, Jay. My -- and, again, I've already apologized once,
and I'll say "I'm sorry" again for being ill-prepared.
I'm not going to throw myself on the sword. I can count noses,
so this is going to pass. But it has nothing to do with your
recommendation.
There was an effort shortly after I became a commissioner by I
think it was maybe Governor Scott to actually eliminate Visit Florida
in its entirety and put that onus back on the private sector with regard
to the capitalism requisites that we all like and love. And so my
negative vote has nothing to do with your professional opinion. I can
certainly see the rationale that Commissioner LoCastro brought up,
but I'm going to hold.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think we have a motion on
the floor to -- did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I haven't made a motion at all.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, I'm going to make a
motion to approve. I guess it's the last formal thing I'll do as the
Page 54 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 42
TDC chair. Actually, we have one more meeting.
MR. TUSA: One more meeting.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But the other thing I'll remind
my colleagues of is you've already done an incredible job, you and the
team that you've joined, squeezing the budget and making sure our
money is invested properly.
So, I echo what Commissioner Hall says. I make a motion to
approve this, but much like we've said before -- and this isn't negative
or anything at you. You and your team are on notice to really make
sure we're getting major value. And one of the things I've said at the
TDC when we've had all these great ideas -- and Commissioner Hall
will pick up on this -- is we can do anything, but we can't always do
everything.
And so you don't have an unlimited checkbook. And I'd rather
see money sit in an account than see it wasted or, like we say, throw it
against the wall and see what happens. Although, sometimes you
don't have a crystal ball either.
So I'm going to make the motion to support this 82,000, but
similar to what we said, it's kind of a one-time good deal, so -- or, you
know, one-time approval would be my motion, and that you come
back here and tell us what you saw.
Was this one of the things that was a nice-to-do but not a
must-do, and if we gave you 82,000 for something else, there would
be bigger bang for your buck? And then it will allow you on a
discount to go to all those things that you haven't maybe personally
witnessed wearing the Collier County, you know, badge.
But having said that, I expect that you continue to keep us
updated on -- when you do go to those trade shows, I personally want
to know how did it go, not hear at the end of the year or in 2025 when
we talk about the budget, "Oh, that show eight months ago, it was
worthless."
Page 55 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 43
MR. TUSA: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: As I've said at the TDC, you
never need permission to come to the podium and give us a
state-of-tourism update, especially when you come back from events
that we invest quite a bit of money.
So, my motion will be to approve the 82,000 and then continue
to get your assessment on the value of this investment.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. We have -- is the public
comment going to be in opposition? Because we're about to pass
this. So, if you want to oppose this...
MR. MILLER: Kristina Park.
MS. PARK: In support.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Great. All right. We have a motion and
a second. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
MR. TUSA: All right. Thank you, Commissioners.
Appreciate it.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us, by the time
I read this in, to our 10 -- to our no-sooner-than 10 o'clock
time-certain.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2024-51: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Page 56 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 44
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 AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE FIDDLER'S
CREEK SECTION 29 DEVELOPMENT AREA AND AMENDING
THE ALLOWABLE USES IN THE NEUTRAL LANDS WITHIN
THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT,
AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION, TO REMOVE
DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS ON SECTION 29 AND
ALLOW 750 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS, 22.6% OF WHICH WILL BE RENT RESTRICTED AS
AFFORDABLE, ON 49.91± ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ¾
MILES SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41) AND ¾
MILES EAST OF AUTO RANCH ROAD, IN SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; AND FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL
OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(COMPANION TO ITEMS 9B AND 9C) (PL20210003111- GMPA)
- MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES BY COMMISSIONER
LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL –
ADOPTED
We have three companion items. It's Item 9A, 9B, and 9C.
And now I'm going to look at the County Attorney and see if I have to
read these all in their entirety.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just a summary would be sufficient.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Very good.
MR. KLATZKOW: Life is short.
Page 57 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 45
MS. PATTERSON: Yes. All three of these items were
continued from the November 12th, 2024, meeting.
First, 9A is a recommendation to approve 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 areas of Collier
County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element
and map series by adding the Fiddler's Creek Section 29 development
area and amending the allowable uses in the Neutral Lands within the
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Agricultural/Rural designation to
remove the development restrictions on Section 29 and allow 750
additional residential dwelling units, 22.6 percent of which will be
rent restricted as "affordable."
Item #9B
ORDINANCE 2024-52: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 6,000 TO 6,750 BY
ADDING 750 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS WITH SOME
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO SECTION 29; INCREASE THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, DECREASE PARK
AND RECONFIGURE PRESERVE ACREAGE IN SECTION
29; AND TO ADD ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING
FACILITIES AS A LAND USE TO THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AND THE BUSINESS DISTRICT AMONG OTHER
PUD CHANGES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING
OF 3932+/- ACRES, IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND SOUTH OF TAMIAMI TRAIL
EAST (US 41) IN SECTIONS 11,13, 14, 15, 22, 23, AND 24,
Page 58 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 46
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND SECTIONS
18, 19, AND 29, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO ITEMS #9A
AND #9C) (PL20210003112) - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH
CHANGES BY COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HALL – ADOPTED
Item 9B is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending
the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development
ordinances to increase the number of dwelling units from 6,000 to
6,750 by adding 750 multifamily units with some affordable housing
to Section 29; increase the residential development area, decrease
park and reconfigure preserve acreage in Section 29; and to add adult
congregate living facilities as a land use to the residential district and
business district.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2024-256: A RESOLUTION AMENDING
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3, AS AMENDED, FOR THE
MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT TO ADD 750 MULTI-FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 6,750 SINGLE -
FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS; TO
LIMIT THE ADDITIONAL 750 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS TO SECTION 29 ONLY AND DISALLOW THEM
FROM THE CONVERSION FORMULA; AND REVISE THE
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 3,932+/- ACRES, IS LOCATED
EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND SOUTH OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (US 41) IN SECTIONS 11,13, 14, 15,
Page 59 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 47
22, 23, AND 24, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
AND SECTIONS 18, 19, AND 29, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(COMPANION TO ITEMS #9A AND #9B) (PL20210003115 -
DOA) - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CHANGES BY
COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HALL – APPROVED
Item 9C is a -- sorry, I lost my place -- oh, is a recommendation
to approve a resolution amending Development Order 84-3, as
amended, for the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Development of
Regional Impact to add 750 multifamily dwelling units for a total of
6,750 single-family and multifamily dwelling units, to limit the
additional 750 multifamily dwelling units to Section 29 only, and
disallow them from the conservation formula, and revise the master
development plan.
With that, Chair, did you want to make any opening comments
regarding public comment, or County Attorney, either? And then we
have to swear everybody in.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. Let's go ahead and swear
everybody.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. All of those that are going to be
participating, including public speakers, need to stand up and be
sworn in by the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN HAL REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the
testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we also have to do ex
parte, and then we can get into your comments and get started.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Ex parte, Commissioner Kowal.
Page 60 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 48
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yes. I have, on all the items
above, meetings, correspondence, and e-mails.
CHAIRMAN HALL: On 9B?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, 9B, 9C.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Great.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I have the
same; meetings, correspondence, e-mails, telephone calls on both
items.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Same.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same. All four; meetings,
correspondence, e-mails, calls.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Me as well. I've got everything on all of
it.
With that, I'd like to open up the floor to Commissioner
LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had asked Commissioner Hall if he would indulge me to make
some opening comments since I've spent an inordinate amount of
time, as is required on something this complex. And as you see, all
of us have. You know, I think this is a first that we have an issue
where we all have everything across the board, or at least this deep.
So if you'd indulge me, I think -- I wanted to set the table on a
couple of things before we get into this issue, because it's a deep dive.
This is a complicated case, and it's bigger than just District 1. I
look for all four of my colleagues today to do a deep dive, ask tough
questions, and get satisfactory answers, because we have to remember
every decision we make sets a precedent for many future construction
projects. Although this issue today might be district specific, it
Page 61 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 49
affects our overall county. That's why all five of us vote on
everything when we are in these chambers, regardless of district.
This is the very reason why I personally delayed this discussion
for over a month to give all sides a chance to have more discussions,
meet with us, and for us to spend more time with the county staff to
understand this request for rezone and changes to the possible
growth -- and possible changes to the Growth Management Plan,
among other things. I trust we've all done that.
I know I've used this additional time to further meet with
multitudes of citizens and those even more deeply involved who are
here today to fully hear their concerns but also ensure all sides
understand what we can and at times what we can't do.
The many e-mails we all received show there is quite a few
citizens who care deeply about this area but some who don't fully
understand the environmental, legal, and moving parts of the issue at
times. Sending us all e-mails demanding a traffic study first or
talking about how this is a panther preserve shows the confusion.
Any traffic study would come after a rezone, and I think we will hear
today, although anything with grass, water, trees, et cetera, obviously
contains wildlife and vegetation, there's a major difference between a
protected preserve like the Everglades and an undeveloped parcel of
land with vegetation.
However, we aren't looking to arbitrarily allow construction on
every undeveloped parcel of land, but landowners also have rights,
when they pay for a piece of property, to be able to do something with
it.
We can't vote no to everything just because somebody took a
poll or handed us a petition. That said, this has many moving unique
parts, and the key today is we aren't voting on a construction project
and the many details of one. We are voting on allowing a parcel of
land currently zoned for a park, a golf course, boat storage, and a
Page 62 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 50
multitude of other things to possible be rezoned so the landowner can
then pursue the extremely complicated continued steps before any
shovels would ever go in the ground or not. Many of these steps
have huge hurdles which could easily stop any project.
Today our main decision is to determine if a rezone should be
approved to allow the landowner the opportunity to explore all of the
needed future steps to pursue possible construction.
There is quite a bit of misinformation out there whenever
something comes to us for a vote. Much of this at times swirls
around the role of the Planning Commission. I first want to thank the
Planning Commission for spending three days in discussions with all
sides to give us their recommendation.
First, however, Planning Commission members are volunteers.
They're not commissioners. Many of the e-mails we received talked
about telling us how to, quote, "follow the lead of those
commissioners." The only commissioners in the county are sitting
right here. The Planning Commission role is to allow both sides a
preliminary step to, in essence, dry-run their proposals and allow
Planning Commission members who are volunteers appointed by us to
begin the initial process of questions and answers which leads to their
recommendation and gives the five of us, the actual elected
commissioners, Planning Commission perspective, not a decision or a
final vote. That's our job.
I often say presentations before the Planning Commission is a
formal practice or dry run. Yes, a very critical part of the process,
but presenting here is what leads to the actual vote and decision.
Often, and as is expected, between the Planning Commission's
overview and questions, both sides then have a time to regroup,
reassess, and even retool their presentations for our consideration and
final vote.
The other main differences are these five county commissioners
Page 63 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 51
spent a massive amount of time speaking with the county staff before
any vote. Over this extra past month that I provided by moving this
to today's meeting, every commissioner up here used that extra time to
do a deeper dive with not only county staff but the citizens who have
concerns with the rezone and the other things to be decided today.
That time with staff and citizens is something the Planning
Commission doesn't do at the level these elected County
Commissioners accomplish.
So hearing the first volley of presentations by the Planning
Commission is far different than what we will hear today, and the five
of us have much more depth in not only the issues, but especially the
law, as to what is feasible and what is not. We're not here today to
direct traffic studies, debate the size of an apartment building, how
many trees could be planted around a structure, or what the setback
distances might be or not.
Should we decide a rezone is feasible, all of those discussions
come later, as well as a huge uphill battle by the landowner as they
possibly pursue required additional approvals in many other areas
before anything could ever be considered for construction.
I applauded the citizens who are here today. We often hear
from citizens demanding us to vote a certain way, telling us if we
make, in their eyes, the wrong decision, it will ruin their entire
community for 100 years, yet often in the same e-mail they remind us
they won't be able to attend the meeting today. And often some
questions embedded in their e-mail are off base because they don't
fully understand the issues being considered or the sequence of
events.
I don't fault those citizens for that, but instead, I strongly applaud
the ones who are here today who have been visiting our offices
regularly and who understand the many moving parts, especially
environmentally, when it comes to our consideration to allow a rezone
Page 64 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 52
of this property for possible future construction or not.
We have a lot of details to dive into today, many which this
panel already have done but which we must get on the record during
this formal proceeding. There is no rush to judgment here. And as
I've told every single person I've met with, coming to this meeting as a
commissioner with any premature determination of how you will vote
is irresponsible.
We've all heard pieces of the puzzle from all sides and received
tons of e-mails but hearing everything collectively together today in
this room has no substitute.
I look for my colleagues to do a deep dive in questioning because
although this issue today might be in District 1, the next similar case
to come before us might very well be in their district.
I look to the speakers who come to the podiums to be
professional, factual, and concise in your presentations.
We all know what happened in the three days of the Planning
Commission and, as I said, those discussions and their eventual
recommendation gave us perspective, but today we are here to work
towards an actual decision and vote. Let's not let discussions today
get off track or wander down multiple unrelated premature paths that
we aren't here to decide yet, or maybe even at all.
I look forward to both sides outlining their positions, and as I've
said for myself and my colleagues to continue the deep-dive analysis
we have done outside of this room separately and collectively bring
together our brain power and understanding of the environmental
issues and legalities involved to come to the best decision possible.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
make one or two quick comments. In reference to the Planning
Commission, I don't want the members of the Planning Commission
Page 65 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 53
to think in any way that we don't value their input.
Commissioner LoCastro, you indicated that you considered the
Planning Commission to be a dry run. And I just want to say that it's
not just a dry run. I know those were your words, and I just want to
make sure it is on the record that the Planning Commission input is
critically important. It's not just a dry run. From my personal
consideration, it's the critical step, and I want the planning
commissioners individually to know that we really value what they do
for us.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, my sentence, if you
continue with the rest of that sentence, says it was a dry run but a
critical piece in the entire process. So, we might differ on the words
"dry run," but obviously, it's not a vote, and it's not a decision.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I disagree with using the
terms "a dry run."
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To me that means -- if I was
sitting there and a commissioner said this was a dry run, I don't care
what comes after that. I'd probably resign from the Planning
Commission. Why have that dry run for developers? It is not a dry
run. It is a critical piece. And I understand that you had some --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: After that.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- words after that. But you
did use the words "dry run," and I just want to make clear that's not
what it is.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Noted.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Procedurally, the way this is
going to work is we're going to hear from the applicant. We're going
to hear from the county. The applicant can ask some questions after
that. And if there's anybody that's here to speak that represents five
or more people, you've got 15 minutes to present your case, and that's
Page 66 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 54
including -- including expert witness. Every individual has -- we
want to hear from every individual who wants to speak on this matter.
Every individual has three minutes. There will be no ceding of time,
so we're not going to have 30 people cede three minutes to a speaker
who pontificates for 90 minutes.
So, every individual has that right to speak, and we want to hear
from you, but that's three minutes individually. If there's somebody
that represents five or more people, an attorney or a Homeowners
Association or whatever, you've got 15 minutes, and that's a lot of
time to talk.
Remember, the Gettysburg Address is the greatest speech of all
time, and it was delivered in less than three minutes. However, we
want to hear that. It's important to us.
Commissioner LoCastro did a great job of laying it out with the
posture that we have.
I have no idea how this is going to go, but we're going to listen.
We're going to ask questions. We're going to get as clear and as
clarity -- as much clarity as we possibly can, because this is a big
decision, whether it goes one way or whether it goes the other, and we
take it to heart. And whatever -- however this turns out to be this
morning and this afternoon, it's because we've taken great diligence
and great care to arrive at whatever decision that we come to.
So with that, Mr. Yovanovich, let's hear your stuff.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
Terri gets a break in 15 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Would it be possible to take that break
now so I don't get started and then stop 15 minutes into the
presentation?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like that.
Page 67 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 55
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yeah. You're not going to hurt her
feelings doing that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. But I -- that's my request is that if
we could take the break a little early.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Let's take a break, and we'll be back at
10:25.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had from 10:15 a.m. to 10:25 a.m.)
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you for your
indulgence, Mr. Chair.
Just to get on the record, and because we always say up here, you
know, "Words do matter," I read a five-page speech, and I hope
people got more out of it than just the two words "dry run."
But for the sake of the record, a "preliminary step" of the county
Planning Commission is more correct. I'm not looking for a mass
exodus of the Planning Commission but merely to put it in context.
So, I hope that the people that heard me heard everything else which,
to me, was the meat of what I had to say. So, it is an important
preliminary step, as I said afterwards that -- to complete that sentence.
So, for the record, I'll say instead of "dry run," maybe
"preliminary step" is better wordology. But I hope nobody missed
the message of my opening comments. And due to the thanks and
appreciation I got from several people who came up to me afterwards
thanking me for my comments, I think it was heard by proper ears.
So, thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ready?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before I get too much into our
presentation, I just want to kind of clarify the process. I understood
Page 68 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 56
that if you represent five or more individuals, you get 15 minutes, and
that includes your experts. I assume that that person who says that's
going to identify the five that they represent and that someone else
can't come up later and say, "I represent those same five individuals"
to also get another 15 minutes. I'm assuming it's just --
CHAIRMAN HALL: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. All right. Thank you.
For the record again, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the
applicant. The applicant is FCC Preserve, LLC. Joe Parisi is the
applicant's representative, I am the land-use attorney on this matter,
Mr. Arnold is our professional planner, Mark Minor is our
professional engineer, Jim Banks is our traffic expert, and Tim Hall is
our environmental consultant.
You've heard from them many times on their individual areas of
expertise, and I am -- I will be -- I am tendering them as our experts in
those specific areas.
Our presentation will be fairly detailed. It will address all of the
requested changes in the PUD; however, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of all the changes that were not related to
Section 29, so I don't -- I'm not going to spend a lot of time in our
presentation addressing those other minor changes related to senior
housing and floor area ratio and things like that.
We are going to spend a fair amount of time discussing the
history of Section 29 and what was committed to as part of the PUD
approval process in 1998 and what is committed to as part of a
separate Army Corps of Engineers permitting process with regard to
Section 29. They are two separate processes. They are two separate
commitments. And, in my humble opinion, I think at the Planning
Commission level there was a confusion as to melding both of those
separate processes into a county-related commitment.
We will -- I will also address -- and I think very early on at the
Page 69 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 57
Planning Commission there was a question of Mr. Bosi, "Would you
be recommending approval of this project if it didn't include
affordable housing?"
And Mr. Bosi said, "No, we would not be recommending
approval of this if it didn't include affordable housing."
And I think the Planning Commission went off on a tangent
focusing on, well, that means the rest of the project wasn't
worthwhile; it's only affordable housing.
What Mr. Bosi was responding to was your requirement in your
Growth Management Plan that says if we request through a Growth
Management Plan amendment an increase in density, we have to
provide affordable housing to support that increase in density. So he
had no alternative but -- other than to say, "No, I would not be
recommending approval," because he was legally bound to
recommend denial had we not included an affordable housing density
bonus as part of our two petitions, the Growth Management Plan
amendment as well as the PUD.
Mr. Bosi never said, "This wasn't a good project, and the only
reason I'm recommending approval is because it included an
affordable housing density bonus commitment as part of this project."
As I mentioned, there are several amendments that we're
proposing today related to Section 29, which is 49.9 acres. We are
asking to be allowed to put 750 dwelling units on that 49.9 acres.
Currently the Growth Management Plan amendment -- Growth
Management Plan does not allow density on that parcel.
We are proposing a 30 percent affordable housing commitment.
That is 15 percent at the 100 percent and below median income and
15 percent at the 80 percent and below income. If all 750 units are
built, that is 225 income-restricted units, which I believe is probably
the highest private-sector proposed affordable housing commitment in
Collier County.
Page 70 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 58
We're modifying Map H to -- and Mr. Arnold will take you
through this process. There's a business -- business area parcel out
front of Fiddler's Creek on Collier Boulevard. We're modifying the
boundaries of a few of those tracts to make it work better for potential
future businesses as well as for a senior housing project at that
entrance, and that's what that's related to.
We're modifying Map H to -- which is -- and the PUD master
plan to address that change as well as the changes related to
Section 29. We're updating the acreages based upon the
modifications we're asking to Section 29 and other areas throughout
the PUD changes.
We're asking to increase what is today a 6,000-unit DRI to 6,750
units, and that's to address the 750 units on Section 29.
We're asking to -- we already can convert multifamily to
single-family and stay within the 6,000 units. We want to do the
same for the ability to convert single-family to multifamily staying
within the 6,000 units that -- this conversion does not apply to
Section 29.
We're modifying the senior housing commitment to have it be a
floor area ratio, which is what is typically done for senior housing.
And I think, finally, and very importantly, we are making
significant improvements to Auto Ranch Road to address the traffic
that will be coming to and from Section 29. These are mandatory
commitments. These aren't something that we may do or we may not
do. These are mandatory commitments that are in the PUD, and we'll
go through in great detail what those commitments are and how Auto
Ranch Road will be improved, will be much safer, it won't flood, and
there will be overall improvements for those who live along Auto
Ranch Road.
We are providing a CAT bus stop at the intersection of Auto
Ranch Road and U.S. 41, and we're providing 480 general-population
Page 71 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 59
cots, 84 special-needs cots, and a towable generator related to our
request to provide additional density on Section 29.
The existing Growth Management Plan designation for this
property is agricultural/rural designation, Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District, Neutral Lands. What Neutral Lands are in the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District regulatory scheme are not Sending Lands.
Sending Lands are the environmentally sensitive lands. Rural Fringe
Neutral Lands are not environmentally sensitive lands. And in fact,
other than in Section 29, you can put residential housing in Neutral
Lands, and you can do density blending in Neutral Lands for purposes
of developing residential uses.
Our current zoning is the Fiddler's Creek PUD and DRI. Our
overall project acreage is 3,932 acres. Our proposed Growth
Management Plan amendment applies to 49.9 of those acres.
You're the best. Thank you.
And so the overall acreage remains the same.
Our dwelling unit count today is 6,000 units. I will take you
through the history of Fiddler's Creek to show you how it went from
basically 9,000 vested units down to the current 6,000 vested units.
And we're asking to increase the overall dwelling units to 6,750
because of what we're asking to do on Section 29.
This is a little bit unique. We're not asking you to increase the
overall density the Growth Management Plan would allow us to
generate on the acreage that consists of Fiddler's Creek, because we
have enough density based upon the Growth Management Plan
designations of urban neutral lands related to this project; however,
we are asking you to increase the density on Section 29 because
currently we're not allowed to have any units on Section 29.
So we can generate almost 6,900 units from the current acreage
within Fiddler's Creek. Because we're asking to put some of those
900 units on Section 29, we are increasing the density; therefore, we
Page 72 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 60
have to provide an affordable housing density commitment that
Mr. Bosi was asked about and commented on at the Planning
Commission.
From an overall density on the project, we can calculate it a
bunch of different ways. If you want to calculate it purely based
upon the existing acreage within the PUD by adding the 750 units, we
go from 1.53 dwelling units per acre to 1.72 dwelling units per acre.
If you want to look at it solely based upon what can come from
Section 29, we are going to 2.25 dwelling units within Section 29.
And if you want to look at just Section -- the 49.9 acres within
Section 29, we're asking for 15 dwelling units per acre. Fifteen
dwelling units per acre is not an abnormal number of dwelling units
per acre for a multifamily rental project in Collier County.
So what we're asking for is in line with previously approved
projects, and the overall project density is having a very minimal
increase in overall density.
Fiddler's Creek on this is everything outlined in red. The yellow
is Section 29. Fiddler's Creek was originally approved in 1984 at
9,110 dwelling units. There were several amendments to the project
over time adding acreage, and as part of that amendment process, in
1989 the units went down to 7,000 units. In 1996, it went down to
6,000 units. It's remained at 6,000 units since 1996; however,
acreage has been added, including the acreage we're discussing in
Section 29. Over time, there was basically 2,266 acres added to
Fiddler's Creek without any request to increase density, so that density
was being spread out over an increase in acreage.
As I mentioned -- did I get it right, Troy?
Where you see the arrow, there is a gray area; that is where
Section 29 is. That is Neutral Lands on your current Future Land
Use Map, and Neutral Lands are not environmentally sensitive lands.
They are lands that can be developed under your current Rural Fringe
Page 73 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 61
Mixed-Use District regulatory scheme.
Immediately across the street are Receiving Lands. That's
where you encourage development to occur. That's basically where
the Six L's 6,000 acres currently is, and that's slated for development
in the future.
The environmentally sensitive lands are here. Those are the
Sending Lands in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District regulatory
scheme, and that is where you generate TDRs, and that is where you
want to put your preserves.
You'll note that right here -- it's hard for me to be -- there they
are. You can see that on the Neutral Lands in the gray area and the
Receiving Lands in the blue area, it's bisected by U.S. 41. The
Sending Lands, under your Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District
regulatory scheme, are all on the north side of U.S. 41.
Tim Hall is going to get into greater detail as his part of the
presentation about environmentally sensitive lands and what these
specific lands in Section 29 are, and Tim will provide the expert
testimony that this is not panther habitat land for purposes of the
regulatory scheme as far as primary, secondary panther habitat.
I will note that as we go through this process and why it takes us
so long to get through this process, you have professionals on your
own staff, Environmental, Transportation, Planning, that we work
with, and we go through this process, and every one of your experts
has concluded that this is a project that they're recommending
approval. Your Environmental staff is not saying, "This is
environmentally sensitive land; this shall be protected at all costs."
As Commissioner LoCastro pointed out, as we go through this
process, just like every other project that comes before you, we start
with the zoning approval. Sometimes there's a Growth Management
Plan amendment that goes with that. We start with that zoning
approval, then we go to the state and federal -- applicable state and
Page 74 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 62
federal regulatory agencies, and if they say no, well, then I don't have
a project. If they say yes, then I have a project.
So should we be fortunate enough today to get an approval from
the -- I'm sorry -- from the Board of County Commissioners, we still
have to deal with the state and federal agencies, and we will have to
amend an existing Army Corps of Engineers permit, which I'll get into
in a little bit greater detail, for this project to be able to move forward.
This is a closeup of Section 29 outlined in yellow. The dotted
yellow line is the 49.9 acres that we're requesting to put the residential
units on. You will see that we're asking to put those residential units
on what was previously cleared agricultural lands. There will be
some minor clearing. There's a farm road buried in those trees. That
farm road will get removed, and a real road will be placed in that area.
And as Mr. Minor will point out, that farm road currently is
acting as a dam. When we rebuild that road, it will actually have
culverts underneath it to allow for water that overflows right now
from that long lake to continue to flow through the preserve area in
Section 29 and ultimately through state lands and into the gulf.
Section 29, when it was originally approved, had multiple
designations on it, and I'll take you through that master plan in a
second. But suffice it to say that where you see the trees, that was
originally, in 1998, designated "reserve." Now they call them
"preserves." And where you can see the farm field, that was
designated "active recreational" as well as "lake." So the farm field
was also intended in 1998 to have some form of development on that
property.
This was the master plan that was approved in 1998. That's
where the trees are; that's designated "preserve." That's where the
farm field is; that's designated "park." That's where the farm field is,
and that was designated "lake."
So in 1998, based upon the PUD master plan, Section 29 was
Page 75 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 63
partially a preserve, partially a lake, and partially a park at which -- in
which active recreational uses can occur on that site including boat
storage and boat launching facilities, tennis facilities, pickleball
facilities. You name it, any active recreational use under the PUD
can occur on that property.
This was repeatedly stated by myself and my team and your staff
at the Planning Commission meeting. Anybody who tells you
otherwise that in the PUD all of Section 29 was committed to be a
preserve is factually incorrect.
As I mentioned, Section 29 was not -- the entirety of Section 29
was not designated a preserve. It's neither primary or secondary
panther habitat. It's designated Neutral Lands in the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District. I mentioned typically Neutral Lands allow for
residential development, and Section 29 allows for active recreational
uses.
There's a separate permit that was for the Estancia portion of
Fiddler's Creek. Estancia is not Section 29. Estancia is another
residential community. Originally Estancia the permit said, "Thou
shall buy panther credits." The panther credit system is a bank where
more important lands have been restored as panther habitat, and
developers buy those panther credits so these panther banks and better
panther habitat are provided for the cat.
Initially, the developer said, you know, maybe I won't do the
recreational uses as part of the Corps permit. They elected to put
Section 29 as preserve under the Corps permit instead of buying the
credits.
The developer in 2019 started talking to me five years ago about,
"Hey, we've got an affordable housing crisis. I'm feeling it.
Everybody in Collier County are feeling it. What do I need to do to
be able to develop a portion of Section 29 that's already been cleared
as an affordable housing project?"
Page 76 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 64
And I said, "Well, you're going to have to do a couple things.
You're going to have to amend the Growth Management Plan because
right now it currently says no residential, you're going to have to
amend the PUD because it currently says you can only have active
recreational uses on that, and then you have to amend the existing
Army Corps of Engineers permit because right now you've made a
commitment."
He said, "Okay. I'll want to start that process."
Well, we're almost -- almost hitting six years into this process,
and we're working on the Corps permit. We're going to have to
remove 58 acres of Section 29 from the existing Corps permit.
Now, I think a fact that needs to be pointed out is U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has never said to us, "We are never going to agree to
amend the Army Corps of Engineers permit." They've never said
that. They said, "We would recommend doing it if you purchase
120 acres in Glades County for purchase price at that time for
$1,600,000." That was the cost to amend the Army Corps of
Engineers permit at that time.
Keep in mind that the value of panther credits for the 58 acres to
be removed from the Corps permit was $100,000. My client had
offered 200,000, and that wasn't good enough. He was not willing to
pay a million-six for a parcel of property in Glades County. And we
are in that process.
And then we got another -- which is not unusual from federal
agencies. We get another letter that says, "You're in the wrong
process. Because the Army Corps of Engineers permit has closed for
the Estancia project, you're going to have to start the process all over.
You can't amend that permit. You're going to have to start over again
with a new Army Corp of Engineering permit."
We will do that if we get approved today. We will start over
with the Army Corps of Engineers, and if we're successful with them,
Page 77 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 65
we will have a project. If we're not successful with them, we will not
have a project, and that will be the end of the story.
It makes no sense for us to go through that process, have the
Army Corps of Engineers say yes, and then come back here today to
possibly be told no by the Board of County Commissioners. So that's
why we're here today. If this project makes sense to the Board of
County Commissioners, and we think the evidence is there that it
should, we will go through the process of hopefully amending the
existing Army Corps of Engineers permit.
So I hope I've made this clear there's the PUD commitment with
regard to what can be allowed zoning-wise on Section 29 today. And
zoning-wise on Section 29 today, active -- I'm sorry -- active
recreational is a permitted use on that property that we're talking
about today. Under the Corps permit it is not. We're going to have
to amend that permit.
So anybody who is saying that in 1998 my client committed to
the Board of County Commissioners that the entirety of Section 29
would be in a preserve is not accurate. You can read the PUD for
yourself. And even if we were supposed to put a PUD -- a
conservation easement on the lands that were identified as a preserve
in 1998, the lands we're talking to you today about would not be part
of that conservation easement. And I'll show you the actual
provisions in the existing PUD, the 1998 PUD when these lands were
added to the Fiddler's Creek PUD.
Section 5.5 talks about the reserve district, and it says, "We will
place a conservation easement on the property pursuant to Section
3.2.8.4.7.3 of your Collier County Land Development Code." Clear
as day. For the Fiddler's Creek addition, which were the lands that
were being added, we will do it pursuant to Section 3.2.8.4.7.3.
What that section says, and your staff agrees, it says -- this is
what it says. It says we'll do it when we are platting or developing
Page 78 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 66
that portion of the project. We are not platting or developing that
portion of the project yet; therefore, no, we're not tardy in providing a
conservation easement on that property. That doesn't mean we can
develop anything on that property, because the zoning document in
the PUD limits Section 29 to these uses. This is what we can do in
Section 29 under the PUD. And I've highlighted those portions of
what can go on the existing farm field in Section 29.
We can do launching and storage facilities for watercraft, and we
can do active recreational activities. I thought that was fixed. That
typo is still there. And not only there, it's highlighted so you can see
there's a typo. And then any other conservation, recreation, or related
open-space use is currently allowed on that piece of property under
the PUD.
The proposed change to the Growth Management Plan is in
the -- it's obviously in the ordinance. I've highlighted a couple of
sections of it for you to show you what I previously mentioned was
the 15 percent income restriction for those making 80 percent or
below and the 15 percent for those making 100 percent or below, and
we have the typical essential service personnel definition for those
who will be eligible to reside in these units. And we'll tell you that if
you -- I guess you guys jointly -- you, the county, jointly developed a
property on the Bembridge PUD out on Santa Barbara, and I think it
was 82 units, and you had 300 applicants for those 82 units.
The other projects like Allura and other projects that have these
units either constructed or getting ready to construct, like the project
up on Immokalee Road, there's way more demand than the number of
income-restricted units that are being developed so far, and this
project will be very important to the success of starting to address a
critical housing shortage that we have in Collier County.
And I would point out that the DRI development order that was
approved as part of the Fiddler's Creek DRI has a housing
Page 79 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 67
commitment that says the developer shall explore the economic
feasibility of providing residences within Fiddler's Creek that are
affordable by middle or lower income families. So we are fulfilling
that obligation that is in the DRI development order as part of this
process.
The income levels, as you can see, for a family of four making
80 percent or less, it's $79,850. It may have gone up a little bit since
this table was published in '23. And for those making 100 percent or
less, it's $99,805.
And in the PUD, I wanted to point out we had added to this
PUD, and it has become pretty common, that we also consider
essential -- as essential service personnel military veterans. So there
is a significant portion of our essential people in this county; nurses,
firefighters, teachers, police officers, and skilled building trades that
we need for our county to function, and this project will provide 225
units for that much-needed workforce. And I agree with
what -- some of what -- well, I agree with everything that
Commissioner LoCastro said at the opening except for -- I will tell
you -- I want to tell you that I have all the respect in the world for the
Planning Commission and going through that process. It's arduous.
We don't always agree, and that's fine. We get feedback back and
forth, and I try to understand where they're coming from.
I think they got a little off track on why this was being
recommended for approval by the staff and why -- I think they got a
little off -- a little confused as to what were the PUD commitments for
preserve. But the Planning Commission recognizes the need for
affordable housing, and the definitions that we've come up with have
been with great input from the Planning Commission.
And as Commissioner LoCastro pointed out, this is a countywide
problem. This is not a District 1, a District 2, a District 3, District 4,
or District 5 problem. This is -- this is critical to all of our quality of
Page 80 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 68
life in Collier County. If we do not provide housing for these
essential workers, we're not going to have the quality of life we
currently have in Collier County. We're not going to have the quality
schools. We're not going to have the quality Sheriff's Department
and police forces that we have. We're not going to have the quality
EMS that we have or the quality care when we go to our hospitals.
This is a countywide problem.
And all portions of Collier County where there is -- where there
is a good piece of property where it makes sense to have housing that
provides for essential service personnel, that needs to happen.
There's not a lot of land left in the urban area. That's why you see us
going east and you see us going south for this to occur.
Wayne's going to take you through the master plan, the changes
we're going to talk to. He's going to show you an exhibit that shows
you within a 10-mile radius all the employers that are close to this
parcel of property. But keep in mind -- and I'm sure we've all driven
north in the mornings during the week. On I-75 you see all those
cars coming south. They're not coming here to go to the beach.
They're coming here to work, and Mr. Bosi has pointed out on many
occasions we're probably 5,000 units short in providing affordable
housing, and we're going to have to do this one project at a time to
make a dent. I don't think we're ever going to get where we address
all 50,000 of those people.
But I guarantee you those 50,000 people that are driving south
from Fort Myers are driving to employment that's a lot further away
than if they were living here on this particular piece of property for
them to go to -- to work at.
With that, unless you have any questions of me at this point, I'll
have Wayne come up, and we'll take you through our presentation.
Hopefully we'll address most of your questions and comments but, of
course, interrupt us at any time, and we'll be happy to answer any of
Page 81 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 69
your questions.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Yovanovich, can you go
to Slide 1, which was titled "Summary of Proposed Request."
So just for the record -- and I want to hear your understanding
because I believe the other side maybe has a different take. But
during the extremely critical and important preliminary step of the
Planning Commission, what was their take on -- like I said before, this
isn't just one vote on one thing, and your opening comment sort of
said that. But can you give a quick summary on the things that are on
here that weren't subject to their concern, confusion, recommendation
against? Because, you know, there's quite a bit on here that are, you
know, separate decisions. Can you give a rough overview of what --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I could tell you what they approved.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you I think there was even
some confusion as to what they were approving, and we had to slow
down the process because there was a focus on Section 29.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And the reason I think it's
important you state that is before the other side comes up, I think they
should -- they should hear what you say so they can either rebut it or
say, "Well, he's got us there." And I don't know what their position
is, but I think this is a critical piece in interpretation of the preliminary
step the Planning Commission provides.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They recommended approval to revise
Map H with regard to what Wayne's going to show you, the business
park parcel at the entrance of Fiddler's Creek. They -- they approved
the change to the master plan. They approved -- other than
Section 29. They approved the floor area ratio that was part of senior
housing. They approved the conversion from single-family to
multifamily because it had nothing to do with Section 29. They
Page 82 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 70
partially approved, if you will, the updates to the acreage other than
the updates relating to Section 29.
And they approved the master plan changes other than the
Section 29-related master plan changes.
And Wayne will get into this, or maybe I'll just get into this real
quick before I turn it over to Wayne. Whoops, now I've got to
go -- sorry.
This is the proposed master plan that's before you today. Right
about here, there -- if you look back in I think 2018, that connecting
road didn't exist. We went through the process of having plats
approved within the PUD that showed that road. Those plats came to
the Board of County Commissioners. They were all approved.
Actually, that road itself is an administrative amendment that
could occur. And what we're doing is we're truing up, if you will, the
master plan to be consistent with the Board-approved plats that show
that connection road that is an administrative amendment that does
not require Board approval. But we did receive Board approval
through that platting process.
So that came up as a discussion point. Your staff agrees that
this is -- we're basically just truing up the master plan to address that.
And then Wayne will take you through the changes to this portion,
obviously, of the PUD, and then specifically to what's occurring in
Section 29.
Does that answer your questions, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Anything else before I --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, Mr. Yovanovich. You said that this
is not designated as panther lands but panthers exist.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Panthers exist throughout Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. So the 50 acres that we're talking
Page 83 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 71
about where the 750 units are being proposed, that's over ag land.
That's not over vegetated land?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct. That's been already
cleared.
CHAIRMAN HALL: And then if you'll go just a couple
of -- maybe it's a couple of slides forward, you showed in a master
plan of 1998 -- yeah, that one along with the lakes. Can you go back
to the first map and kind of overlay those for me?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that I can overlay them, but
I can describe them for you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No. I'm just saying, just with your arrow
there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Where I showed you the lakes
and the parks --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- all this is lakes and parks.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This was -- on the master plan, it was
where the --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Originally the master plan was going to
be in the vegetated area?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The preserve was going to be in the
vegetated area.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. And we're talking about 50 acres
for the site, but we're talking about 58 acres to reapply with the Army
Corps of Engineers out -- to take out a preserve. Is that the same -- is
the 50 acres part of the 58 acres?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- yeah, 49.9. 49.9 acres is this
area, and then there's -- it's hard to see, but you can see the farm road
that kind of goes from here to here.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Right.
Page 84 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 72
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the other eight acres.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Gotcha.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. That's the other eight acres. So
that's the access road that will connect to Auto Ranch Road.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. That clarified it. All right.
Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Okay. Let me get you back
to where Wayne...
All yours.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm a
certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates here representing
the applicant.
And starting with the slide that we have; this is our proposed
master plan. Rich highlighted a couple of areas, primarily the area
near the entrance for Fiddler's Creek on Collier Boulevard. We're
realigning that. A big portion of that that's currently designated just
above the arrow, that's currently designated as a business tract, so that
would allow commercial shopping centers and other office uses.
We don't think the market's there for a large-scale commercial
property along that entrance. So, we're reidentifying most of that
tract as a residential tract that would also allow the senior housing
project. We think that makes a lot more sense on Collier Boulevard
than a large-scale commercial. And then just south of there we've
reconfigured and retained a small amount of the red business park --
or we call it business tract area that would allow for additional offices
and some miscellaneous retail that would serve primarily the residents
of Fiddler's Creek.
The small red area that's located -- these arrows are not very
precise -- but in that area, that's where the current offices are. If you
go there, the Gulf Bay offices and some of their other administration
functions for Fiddler's Creek are located there.
Page 85 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 73
The other change that Rich mentioned, there was a true-up of this
overall master plan. So, this iteration, this is one of the first digital
versions of the master plan that has been created. These were all
hand-drawn exhibits starting back in the early 1990s. So, this has
been trued up based on the actual configuration of the golf course
tract, the platted residential tracts, et cetera, so that reflects the
internal road system that has been platted.
So that explains how that connection point was made. And as
Rich said, not to get too into the weeds, but your code allows for
administrative changes as you plat property to deal with configuration
of internal roadways for these large master plans, set aside of the final
preserve areas, and things of that nature. So that's what was -- what
was handled there.
And then the larger change, obviously, is everything -- what we
call Section 29. So, it's not a full section, but it is located in
Section 29. And a good portion of that was designated, which we've
been through, as a park area, part of what was a preserve area, then
called reserve.
So, on the master plan today, we're reflecting the area that will be
retained as preserve in green, and then the residential tract which
would be the tan color, and then park areas that would be retained as
open space around the 49.9-acre development tract.
So here -- and unfortunately, not a color exhibit from back in the
day, but showing you the two primary areas that we're reconfiguring
on the plan. Here's a little closer-up version of what's going on on
the entrance on Collier Boulevard. But, again, Planning
Commission -- and I don't think any of the residents in Fiddler's Creek
had an issue with it. We reconfigured the business tract which was,
you can see, a large B tract in favor of keeping a small B and then
converting the balance of that to residential. And I think that's been
well accepted by everyone.
Page 86 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 74
Here's Section 29. So, Rich has already showed you -- in
essence, this on the left depicts everything in this area was called
reserve back in the days. Everything to the right was open space and
lake, and that open space area, as you have heard, allowed everything
from active recreation to agriculture. It would have allowed polo
fields, golf courses, et cetera. So active recreation for sure.
And then, of course, we're modifying that to identify on the
49.9-acre tract that would have the 750 units and then still retaining
the "P" park designation for the surrounding lands.
So the tract does not directly abut the -- the development tract
does not directly abut our neighbors to the north, and I know that
they're here represented and here in the audience.
Here's a little bit of perspective on our Section 29 development
area. And so the Royal Palm Estates to our north -- Boyne South for
those of us who've been in town long enough. We started laying out
where our 49-acre tract is. And you can see the large yellow line to
the north represents the 49-acre tract line. When we apply setbacks
where we can put the apartments, it becomes this area. So you can
see the separation from the property line, which is the canal. It's
361 -- let's call it 350 feet at minimum up to 500 feet away from the
neighboring properties to the north.
We will be providing a 15-foot-wide Type B buffer that
separates multifamily from single-family use. It doesn't matter that
we're separated by 500 feet. That's what the code requires, and that's
what we're happy to provide.
Now, we also created this cross-section -- and I'm not going to
take you through all of the cross-section, but it extends -- north is to
your left on the cross-section. North is up on the color exhibit. But
what we did, identified as you move across the site from north to
south, you go from the canal to the north, across the open space areas,
you get into our development tract and our landscape buffers that will
Page 87 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 75
be provided adjacent to our neighbors.
We went out and took photographs of the existing property. So
this is from Royal Palm Estates looking south across the canal that
you can see in the prior aerial. We had conceptual elevations. The
buildings have not been designed, but these were designed to be
four-story over parking buildings. So, we have morphed in into the
imagery what that looks like at the distances, and these are
approximate, but -- so that would be the image that's viewed from the
neighboring properties looking south toward the 750 proposed units in
Fiddler's Creek.
So, there was discussion by experts representing some of the
other neighbors about how this was incompatible, and multifamily is
out of place here. And I would only tell you that the same people
who were objecting have a multifamily tract in their community and
that their density is very similar to what's allowed in Fiddler's Creek.
We don't think that this is incompatible, and in fact, our proposed
height that we're asking for -- currently in Fiddler's Creek,
multifamily units can be up to 150 feet high, and there are certain
setbacks that are applicable, but the relationship of our multifamily to
single-family is much greater in this concept than you would find in
the balance of Fiddler's Creek.
We also heard a lot about this is an inappropriate land-use
change because it's an isolated area. It's too hard to get to. So, I did
a little Google mapping and determined that from the homes down
here on Royal Hammock Way to get out to U.S. 41 and up to the
intersection at Auto Ranch Road and U.S. 41, it's 1.99 miles. So, if
you leave our community that we're proposing and get to the same
intersection at Auto Ranch Road, it's about 1.95 miles. So, I don't
consider that to be something that's an isolated district.
As you can also see that we don't extend farther to the east of the
Boyne South community to the north. And as Rich briefly
Page 88 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 76
mentioned, the areas to the north that contain 6L Farms, as we all
know it, that qualifies for a village under your Growth Management
Plan, and I fully expect that in the next several years you'll see a
proposal for them to develop more housing and more commercial east
on U.S. 41.
We also looked at a 10-mile radius around the project. And
when you look at a 10-mile radius, we also associated drive times to
demonstrate that from an employment standpoint, we have a lot of
employers that are within 10 miles. And when you look at our time,
we have Section 29 time and distances, we also had the Royal Palm
Golf Estate time and distances that we did from Google mapping, and
you can see that the times are within a minute difference to drive from
their community or from Section 29. I don't think that's a significant
difference, and I don't think that points us out as an isolated area.
But interesting, though, when you look within that 10-mile drive
radius, we have all of Marco Island, and I think we're all aware how
many hotels and other businesses that we have there as well as
schools, hospital, Physicians Regional up on Collier Boulevard is also
there, the multitude of retail opportunities, Lely High School, and
other things that fall within this drive-time area. So, again,
demonstrating that we're not an isolated district; that we're very much
in the center of the mix.
And as Rich pointed out, you know, as a business owner that's
located barely across the Collier County line in Bonita Springs, you
know, it's a struggle to retain people, it's a struggle to hire people.
And for those people that, unfortunately, have to drive here from Cape
Coral, Lehigh Acres, other parts in Lee County, it's a chore, and it's
significantly more than 10 miles. And I can tell you from somebody
who does it in the evenings a lot of times, it's probably closer to an
hour drive. So, if I can drive less than half an hour to be within a
major employment center, this really does look good, especially for
Page 89 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 77
our first responders and other folks who would be getting the first
opportunity to rent these facilities.
A lot of good planning considerations. You know, we had
objectors that talked about our density was too high. Well, we
showed you how we calculated the density for both overall Fiddler's
Creek or just on the Section 29 density. And I would tell you that
under your Growth Management Plan, the only exception, because we
are in the coastal high hazard area for increased density, is for
provision of affordable housing. Your Emergency Management
department reviewed this application. They're the ones who made
the recommendation for the emergency generator purchases as well as
the cots, to put those, because you don't want to put more people at
risk for the sheltering, but you do want to make sure you have
facilities elsewhere for them. So that's been well coordinated, and
we're consistent with your Growth Management Plan provisions for
that.
From a compatibility standpoint, I don't think it is an issue. It is
very compatible. The separation that we're providing between
multifamily housing and residential housing is greater than you would
find under your typical Land Development Code. And in fact,
Fiddler's Creek puts units much closer than we are from our
neighboring property.
This isn't an isolated district. The drive-time exhibits and the
other, just, distance to get back to U.S. 41 from both communities
demonstrates that we're not creating an isolated area.
And I think we also need to point out that -- you'll hear a little bit
more about it, but in addition to the affordable housing commitment
that's been made, we will be reconstructing large portions of Auto
Ranch Road to eliminate flooding and make it safer by installation of
sidewalk. We committed to providing a CAT bus stop. Though not
currently serviced on the roadway at Auto Ranch Road, there will be
Page 90 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 78
the opportunity for a future CAT stop there, and that will be
coordinated with Florida Department of Transportation. And then
you'll hear Mark Minor talk to you about stormwater benefits that are
going to accrue from the improvements we're making to Auto Ranch
Road.
So, you know, we heard a lot of interesting things, but I think as
Rich mentioned, I think much of the discussion at the Planning
Commission got sidetracked on this whole "the preserve was
committed," and I think it's been clear that this was not intended -- all
of Section 29 was never intended to be part of a preserve. They're
going to tell you that, you know, me personally stood up in 1998 and
said they're proposing not to put residential density here. I did that in
my capacity as what Mike Bosi is for you today. The application that
was before us by Fiddler's Creek then said we're adding this acreage;
we're not intending to spread density out there. That was 20-plus
years ago, and here we are. We're proposing to put in some
affordable housing that we all need, and we know we need it.
And I think we've got a good project and hope you can support it.
Be happy to answer any questions you might have for me.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good job, Wayne.
MR. MINOR: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Mark Minor, and I'm a civil engineer representing the petitioners.
And I was asked to start off talking about access to the property,
Section 29, from U.S. 41 down to Section 29. The proposed access is
by Auto Ranch Road. It's an existing 20-foot-wide paved roadway
with open swales in a 60-foot right-of-way. It is a public road
right-of-way. It was deeded to the county back in the early '80s.
It shows some pictures up here, photographs at the -- at U.S. 41
and at the end and then along quarter points.
The asphalt and the structural elements of the road are in pretty
good shape. We feel that the road is a little narrow. The shoulders
Page 91 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 79
are not in very good shape. The roadside drainage is not in
that -- very good shape, so it needs -- in our opinion, to operate into
service, our proposed community would need substantial upgrades,
and I'd like to go through those if I could. If I can find -- oh, there it
is.
On this slide is the improvements that we're proposing for Auto
Ranch Road and U.S. 41. At the intersection along U.S. 41, pretty
standard improvements; extend the existing right-hand turn lane into
Auto Ranch Road, and then the northbound left-turn lane would need
to be constructed.
Number two is to reconstruct portions of Auto Ranch Road to
elevate the finished ground above the 25-year, 3-day storm.
So, this is important. We did a survey of the center line of Auto
Ranch Road, and there's a low spot about halfway down that goes
below the recommended minimum road crown elevations within any
part of Collier County. We have observed inundation of the road
during regular rainy seasons. Not too bad, but an inch of water, two
inches of water topping it.
And then after Hurricane Ian -- this is Auto Ranch Road after the
hurricane, and there's several inches of water along a large stretch of
the road. Obviously, we wouldn't want the existing residents nor the
potential future residents to have to drive through puddles to get home
every night.
So, we propose to elevate -- to physically elevate the crown in
the road between just a few inches at the ends and up to a foot and a
half in the middle in the existing low spot. So, the road would
remain dry in a normal wet season and in most -- after most heavy
storm events; of course, storm surge. In Ian, we would have
remained dry there. So that's very important and a commitment that
we're willing to make.
Number three is to widen the road and resurface it. We've got a
Page 92 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 80
cross-section. It's right there. There it is.
So, again, there's 20-foot of existing asphalt and roadside swales
that are in not very good condition, very little bit of shoulder that's
existing. So in reconstruction of the road, we're proposing to
increase the travel lanes to 11 feet with a four-foot paved shoulder on
one side and an open swale. On the other side, non-mountable curb,
a utility strip, and a five-foot sidewalk that would run from U.S. 41
down to the project.
We feel these are significant improvements and would provide
adequate facilities to service our project and the existing residents and
the future residents along Auto Ranch Road.
Number four, again, is the sidewalk shown on the cross-section.
Number five is to re-grade the shoulders, which is a benefit, of
course, on this section.
Number six, existing today there's, I don't know, 15 driveways
that connect to Auto Ranch Road. Most contain a culvert underneath
the driveway closing in the swale. These culverts are of different
materials, different sizes, and different operating conditions. Found
some that are crushed, one that was missing. They're just -- they're in
poor shape. So as part of rebuilding the one-and-quarter mile of
Auto Ranch Road, we would replace each of the driveway
connections with a brand-new culvert of same material and adequate
size to direct water to flow underneath their driveways.
Number seven is along that point, that the driveways are of
different materials and widths. And anyway, so after we install the
new culverts, we would also provide the owner with a new driveway
apron much like you see on many of the county projects that we are
doing now.
As far as helping with the water flow, Auto Ranch Road does
have some existing cross culverts. They're culverts that run from one
side of the road to the other to allow the stormwater surface waters to
Page 93 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 81
equalize. I've done some preliminary engineering and have identified
at least one point where an additional drive cross-culvert would want
to be installed, and also replace the existing cross-culverts underneath
Auto Ranch Road.
The proposed apartments in Section 29, of course, would want to
be provided with municipal water and sewer, Collier County water
and sewer, so we would install an adequately sized water main with
fire hydrants down Auto Ranch Road and also a sewage force main
along there. So the capacity would be both for the 750 apartment
units as well as the lots along Auto Ranch Road.
I do believe that while -- they would be provided with fire
protection immediately, and then they could always get a water meter
from the county, apply for a water meter and get water. The sewer
would -- they would have to abandon their septic system and put in
their own pump stations to get into that. This is a pressure system.
But still, the water and sewer would be available to them.
Wayne talked about the bus stop at 41, so I won't talk about that.
So the developer would commit to making these improvements
to Auto Ranch Road. We estimated the cost of what I just went
through at $7.8 million of improvements just on the Auto Ranch Road
portion of the property.
The immediate benefits to the surrounding neighbors, I think,
most importantly, is with drainage and flood relief. The road would
be elevated above the flood stages so it doesn't periodically become
inundated. There would be brand-new swales on both sides of the
road graded at an equal gradient all the way down from 41 down to
Section 29 with brand-new functioning culverts under each of the
existing driveways. So, when we get heavy rains, the water
would -- today it moves slow or barely moves, and with these
improvements it would allow the water to be able to traverse its way
down Auto Ranch Road and get into the estuary down below
Page 94 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 82
Section 29.
Do you want me to do water management now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
MR. MINOR: Is there a map? That one.
So as part of the access and utility corridor to the apartment
complex, we're proposing to run the same cross-section that you see
for Auto Ranch Road down along that old farm road. That road acts
as a dam and blocks the water which naturally travels to the south, or
down on this picture, into the wetlands and the estuary, finally into the
backwaters in the Gulf of Mexico.
The cross-section for the roadway would be similar to
section -- or to Auto Ranch Road, which would take up 60 feet. And
you heard the number of the area for the -- that we were proposing to
impact through that wetland area at 5.8 acres. Most of that is for
drainage and water management.
So, we propose to have a collector swale along the northerly side
of that road with cross-culverts underneath this new road to a spreader
swale along the southerly edge of the road. So, in other words, we
would be facilitating the movement of surface water flow from the
north side of Section 29 down through the estuary.
Moving over to the development portion of the apartment
projects, that -- the surface water management system would be
stand-alone per South Florida Water Management regulations to
where we would retain an attenuated 25-year storm. We would
discharge to the south. So, there's no users south of us that will be
impacted; however, the Boyne South neighbors to the north have that
long, linear lake there. Some of that water could overflow or
flow -- inflows into the site. And our preliminary water management
plans show that we will be collecting that -- any offsite inflows along
our northerly development boundary and carry them over to the
access road from the end of the existing Auto Ranch Road to our
Page 95 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 83
development and cross them -- pass that water through to the south
side and let it go down into the estuary and move on to the south.
So, this project would provide additional drainage and much
superior drainage along Auto Ranch Road than what we have today,
and then it would also overcome the dam that was created by the farm
road many, many decades ago by us passing the water -- collecting it,
collecting the water first of all and then passing it under our new
driveway to the south. So, any water that would be backing up and
collecting along that linear lake would be able to sheet-flow out and
then down through the new facilities that we're proposing to build.
So, if you have any questions, I can try and answer them.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. You referenced a
couple of times portions of Auto Ranch Road the plan is to improve.
Which portions, or is it -- do you have a map that shows what you're
going to do and where?
MR. MINOR: We may have a map, but no, the improvements
to Auto Ranch Road are from -- including the intersection at U.S. 41
all the way down to Section 29.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Basic -- so the reference of
portions of Auto Ranch Road really is different improvements to Auto
Ranch Road on portions of Auto Ranch Road, but you're going to
improve the whole road to the crown for -- to be above the 25-year
storm event?
MR. MINOR: Yes, sir. My reference to a portion of Auto
Ranch Road is in the -- about halfway down Auto Ranch Road from
41 to Section 29 it gets really low; there's a belly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I get -- yes, sir. I got that. I
just wanted to -- I just wanted to clarify, because both you and Wayne
mentioned portions of Auto Ranch Road, and I just wanted to make
sure -- my understanding was what you've got -- what you just said is
Page 96 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 84
from 41 and the improvements there all the way down to the access
road to Section 29.
MR. MINOR: Yes, sir. The cross-section that's on the screen
now is what we're proposing; Auto Ranch Road, 41 to Section 29.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Was any modeling
accomplished with regard to the capacities for movement of water
east and west on Auto Ranch Road? You talked about some -- some
cross-culverts underneath Auto Ranch Road to move water back and
forth. We don't want to negatively impact somebody by moving
somebody else's water to them.
MR. MINOR: Yes. There was some preliminary modeling
that was performed, and we relied on that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I don't know if
you're the appropriate person to ask, but when water and sewer is also
extended down to the site, is there a requirement for the people on
Auto Ranch to connect, or is it voluntary?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I was going to hit that point. Since
they're zoned ag land, it's voluntary. They're not required.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say that again.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The properties on Auto Ranch Road are
zoned agricultural. They're not required to connect. It's purely
voluntary if they want to connect to water and/or sewer.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah, don't say "portions," because that confuses us. It's the
entire road. You don't want to mix words.
Ms. Scott, I actually have a question for you. So, seeing -- since
we're on Auto Ranch Road, seeing those photos, historically what's
been the county's position? I realize there's not 10,000 people that
live on Auto Ranch Road, but is there a recent time that we did some
Page 97 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 85
improvements on there? Is there something -- forget this. If this
never happens, is there something in our future road improvement that
would significantly enhance Auto Ranch Road at the county's -- you
know, using the county's budget?
MS. SCOTT: A few years back -- a few years back the county
undertook what we called the Lake Park flowway study, which is
actually looking at stormwater in the area along Auto Ranch Road as
well as Lake Park Boulevard, which is a roadway that runs parallel to
Auto Ranch Road. And as part of that study for stormwater
improvements in the area, we identified the need to improve Auto
Ranch Road. The project is not funded, but it was a study that the
county did undertake.
So in the future, if we were to undertake those improvements for
stormwater, also potential looking at going through perhaps some
grant opportunities to do a septic-to-sewer type conversion in the area,
then absolutely we would look at improving Auto Ranch Road at that
same time.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Did we do anything in the last
three, five, six years, whatever, to make repairs? You know, hearing
culverts are crushed, you know, culverts are all -- because the culverts
serve a very important role. Have we done anything out there at a
smaller level? I realize, like you say, oh, there was a master plan to
maybe hit it hard, but have we done any type of just maintenance?
Have we addressed those culverts or any type of drainage that was
maybe at a smaller level as just part of normal road maintenance?
MS. SCOTT: I do not believe so, but I can check in our system
to look at that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay, thanks.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I have a follow-up.
Trinity, since you're on -- Trinity, can you just clarify. Just from
my experience, if it's a culvert on a driveway, is it the county's
Page 98 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 86
responsibility or the property owner's responsibility to maintain the
culvert?
MS. SCOTT: It is the property owner's responsibility to
maintain the culvert for their driveway.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And this is just an
after-the-fact thought. If this project were to be approved, are there
any speed-control mechanisms to be installed on Auto Ranch?
Because that's going to be a mile-long straightaway.
MR. BANKS: For the record, Jim Banks.
It's currently 30 miles per hour, and it will remain 30 miles per
hour.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's not what I asked, Jim.
I know it's 30.
MR. BANKS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm talking about how do you
get people to throw out the anchor?
MR. BANKS: Like traffic-calming devices?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
MR. BANKS: No, we're not proposing any traffic-calming
devices. It's a public road. You typically don't put speed humps and
that type of thing on a public road.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I know there's
positives and negatives that come along with, but that's something we
may need to address at some stage.
MR. BANKS: I will talk a little bit more about that when I'm
up.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's a good segue. Mr. Banks is --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Here he comes.
Page 99 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 87
MR. BANKS: Good morning; good late morning. For the
record, Jim Banks here on behalf of the applicant. I will be relatively
brief.
My firm prepared the traffic impact study for this project. The
project -- the traffic study was prepared pursuant to Collier County
standards. Your staff reviewed the report, and they agreed with its
findings.
The report was based upon the proposed development of a
750-unit apartment complex, and we determined that the trip cap that
would be applied on this project is 343 p.m. peak-hour, two-way trips.
The report also established that at project completion and in
considering the improvements that Mr. Minor had mentioned, which
I'll discuss a little bit more here in a minute, that at project
completion, that the Auto Ranch Road will operate at Level of Service
C standards and at a volume-to-capacity ratio of 42 percent. So that
means at project completion there is a 58 percent surplus of capacity
remaining on Auto Ranch Road.
We also determined that U.S. 41 -- am I too close to the
microphone? -- that U.S. 41 would also operate at Level of Service C
and at 80 percent of its capacity.
So, the traffic study concludes, and as agreed to with your staff,
that the proposed apartment complex will not negatively impact the
adjacent road network and that there -- that the roadways under
influence have adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic
associated with this project. Now, this conclusion also considers the
improvements on Auto Ranch Road, which again, begin at U.S. 41
and extend all the way down to Section 29.
So, the improvements, I refer to them as both safety
improvements and capacity improvements; again, widening the lanes,
the north/south travel lanes on Auto Ranch Road the entire length of
Auto Ranch Road. We'll also be providing a paved shoulder on one
Page 100 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 88
side of the road, and on the other side of the road we'll have a
curb-and-gutter feature as well as a sidewalk that's offset of the road.
The roadway will be elevated in those sections where it's needed.
So again, the entire length of the road is being improved, but in those
lower sections where the road has a tendency to flood, it will be
elevated. But the cross-section, as shown now, is what the drivers
will experience the entire length of Auto Ranch Road.
There will be roadside drainage feature improvements, which
includes reestablishing the swales and culverts.
In addition, the corridor's drainage outfall will be reestablished,
which is a very important element of the drainage operation. As I
said before, the speed limit will remain posted 30 miles per hour
legally enforceable, but we are not proposing traffic-calming devices.
There will be intersection improvements at U.S. 41 and Auto
Ranch Road. As you can see from this aerial, the right-turn lane
that's on U.S. 41 today is grossly substandard. The developer
commits to extending that right-turn lane to meet FDOT standards.
In addition, if you're traveling northwest on U.S. 41, we're also going
to -- the developer will also construct a left-turn lane for those
motorists that want to turn southbound on Auto Ranch Road. These
are very important safety improvements that the developer will
undertake.
I submit to you that these proposed safety enhancements on Auto
Ranch Road as well as at the intersection at U.S. 41 will substantially
increase the road's capacity. Today in its current condition it's
estimated to be 400 vehicles per hour peak direction. With these
improvements, the capacity is raised to 600 vehicles per hour peak
direction, and that is a conservative estimate. We're understating the
actual capacity of the road.
And it will also provide superior safety features for the residents
that live along Auto Ranch Road. And that -- one of the critical
Page 101 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 89
features of that is that offset sidewalk along Auto Ranch Road that
will accommodate pedestrians.
That concludes my testimony, and I'm happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
Can you put back the traffic numbers, your --
MR. BANKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Scott, have you seen this
slide before, at least these numbers? Is this part of something you're
aware of?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So, do you concur
that these numbers are at least close? You know, they're always plus
or minus, but are they -- you know, would you agree with the
estimation of the trips?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, sir. They use the Institute of Traffic
Engineers. We require that as part of our Traffic Impact Statement
guidelines.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So, what I -- what I
recommend to the other side before you come to the podium -- and as
a said in my opening statement, I greatly appreciate the preliminary
steps of the Planning Commission, but I watched and read the entire
transcript of the Planning Commission, and a lot of discussion was
about the increased traffic on Auto Ranch Road.
Let me read you an excerpt from one of many citizen e-mails I
got, which -- we're here to separate rumor from fact. So, I'm going to
read it verbatim. And I got this from quite a few citizens, and it was
also mentioned in the Planning Commission discussion.
And I don't say this to take sides, but we're here to figure out
truth, facts, details. We already heard several people talk about
Page 102 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 90
preserves and panthers. And, you know, it's one thing to say, you
know, I saw a tree and I saw an animal, but is it a preserve? And we
have to deal with the law. We have to deal with facts.
And they're just two short sentences, but this is what has gone
out on social media and also it came to all five of these commissioners
in a plethora of e-mails. "If approved, this development will cause
4,000 vehicle trips on Auto Ranch Road exiting onto State Road 41 in
East Naples per day. It will also destroy the storm surge protection
of this preserve" and gives Royal -- "that it gives Royal Palm Golf
Estates. It will further endanger the Florida panther, 35 of which
were killed by vehicle traffic this year alone in Collier County, and
other wildlife living within the Seminole State Forest."
I don't say that to pick sides here, but there's a huge difference in
what is being sort of told by you-all and what we're going to hear.
So, what I would tell the other side is we're here to hear you
prove this. So, if these numbers are wrong and it's 4,000 trips, boy,
I've got a significant issue with Auto Ranch Road and with
Section 29. If the trips are in the several hundreds, we've approved
projects where vehicular traffic was much greater. And if it's on an
improved road that you're going to spend $7 million on improving, I
have a lot less concern over the number of trips I see on this slide than
the 4,000 that came to us in a flood of e-mails from citizens who all
were begging us to disapprove of this project of which, if this was
true, it would be one of my main concerns, and probably all of us.
So, what say you? I've already heard from Ms. Scott who I
consider our traffic expert. I know there'll be an opposing view,
which I welcome hearing. But we have to -- we have to sort out what
maybe the people before us who heard the preliminary presentation
might not have sorted out.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- and I'm sure Trinity will
correct me if I'm wrong -- is the way Traffic Impact Statements are
Page 103 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 91
done in Collier County is you do it based upon the peak hours, the
morning peak hours and the afternoon peak hours. That's the critical
time because that's when you're going to have the most people on the
road at the same time. So that's the analysis we do is the peak-hour
trip.
There are -- there are going to be trips throughout the day. And
I don't think their number is wrong for total daily trips, but that's not
how you measure capacity and how you measure safety. You
measure traffic and safety based upon the peak hour, because people
come and go throughout the day.
So I don't think they're wrong in telling you that there's going to
be 4,000 trips a day, but that's not the safety analysis that's done. The
safety analysis that's done is at the peak hour.
So I think what they're trying to imply is this great number of
trips is going to make the road unsafe. That's not factually correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Scott, your comment on
that; true or false?
MS. SCOTT: Mark it down: I'm going to agree with
Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, that's true. We do look at the peak times
for the highest concentration. That's the highest concentration that
we anticipate having those vehicles out there. But certainly they're
going to have traffic throughout the day.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Would you -- and this will be
my last question. Would you agree that if the -- if in the end the 750
units were approved, could the current Auto Ranch Road, as it sits
right now, sustain the traffic that would go back and forth to those
units, or the improvements they're making would be a requirement,
not sort of a carrot or a benefit, but it would be a requirement for that
project due to the increased trips and the large residential area that
Page 104 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 92
would be created if it got to that point? What would be your
professional opinion?
MS. SCOTT: From a pure technical standpoint, can it withstand
those trips, yes, it can from looking at our capacity manuals and
things like that. But would that -- that's not what staff would
recommend.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. SCOTT: We would -- we would say we would want the
improvements. That is a lot of traffic going down a roadway that we
know does have some stormwater challenges, so you really don't want
to have an additional 750 units at the end of that without having some
improvements to it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: When you looked at the
schematics of their proposed drawing of what the road would look
like, with your expertise, does it look like that their $7 million
enhancement hits all the bells and whistles of the things that you look
for? If we had the 7 million and we were going to upgrade that road,
would it look very similar to this, or is this even above and beyond
what the county standard normally is? I'm just trying to get an idea
of quality of improvement compared to other things that the county
does or that we expect of other developers.
MS. SCOTT: This is what we would expect to do. Certainly,
the addition of the sidewalk with having the 750 units at the end is
certainly something -- perhaps if I was looking to improve that road,
we always look to put a sidewalk in, but we would look at what we
had from a funding standpoint and all of that. So yes, I mean, raising
the road is a significant improvement to what we're dealing with
today.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And what's the height of the
road -- what's the height of the road now and what it could be if you
did this? How much higher would it be raised, ballpark?
Page 105 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 93
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think he said it could be from
inches to 18 inches in the middle that we're raising the road. It's
significant.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Which some people
think is a small amount, but raise the road 18 inches, and just look at
what we did in Goodland. It made a significant difference. Yeah,
absolutely.
Okay. Thank you, sir, and, ma'am.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I could just -- and I'm going to bring
up Tim to talk about the conservation qualities of the land in a second.
But I want to point out something, all of the expert testimony at the
Planning Commission was that we met all the criteria from a
conservation standpoint, from a transportation standpoint, and from a
water management standpoint. There was no expert testimony to the
counter of that at the hearing.
So going on let's talk about facts, that's what we're trying to
present today is what is the expert testimony. Not what people may
feel, but what's the actual expert testimony. It's taken a little bit
longer than I had hoped, but I want to make sure that it's all in the
record not only for you-all but for -- again, for the people who live in
that area. And I'll bring Tim up, and then we'll have a conclusion
slide and --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I have a real quick question about the
traffic study. It says a.m. peak hours, p.m. peak hours. What is
the -- is that one hour or several hours?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to -- I know it's from four to
six in the afternoon. I don't --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. So it's not just, like, in an hour's
time?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. There's a -- we've been doing these
for -- I know enough now that Trinity's trained me to give you those
Page 106 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 94
answers. So even though she was agreeing with me, I was actually
agreeing with her.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Good. Thanks.
MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall with
Turrell, Hall & Associates. I'm the environmental consultant here on
behalf of the petitioner.
I'll start talking about, I guess, the quality of the habitat in terms
of listed species. The big one that everybody keeps talking about is
the panther. The exhibit I have up here shows kind of a little regional
area. And when the wildlife agencies were developing the
management plan for the panther to try to help prolong the species,
they looked at all of the habitats within the panther's range, and they
kind of ranked them. And they looked at those highest priority areas
where there was the most use where prey species were being -- were
present, where the panthers were moving in terms of corridors, and
they ranked those. They gave those highest quality habitats a
designation of primary habitat. The kind of buffer areas and those
that were still being used but not to the extent, they qualified as
secondary habitat. And then other lands are just designated as "other
lands."
And so what this exhibit shows is that when they were doing that
exercise, the primary habitat, if you look at -- Rich had a map up
earlier that kind of showed the Sending Lands and Receiving Land
kind of areas. And you can see that the primary habitat kind of
mirrors the Sending Land boundaries to the north of the project, and
the secondary habitat kind of mirrors those Receiving Land areas.
The land south of U.S. 41 was not designated under the panther
management plan as primary or secondary habitat. It was looked at
"other lands." That's not to say that panthers can't -- sorry. That's
not to say that panthers can't go down into that area.
MR. MILLER: Give me a minute.
Page 107 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 95
MR. HALL: And the FWC, the state wildlife agency, does have
a tracking system where when cats get collared they're able to -- they
used to do it by planes. They would fly three days a week, rain or
shine, and the guys would use the radar tracking to triangulate the
panther locations out of these small planes. I've done that. If you
don't have a very strong stomach for the guy doing circles in the
airplane, it's no fun. But they actually were able to pretty accurately
find and designate where all of those panthers were and how they
moved around.
With the advent of technology, they use GPS collars now, so it's
a little bit easier. They don't have to do quite so many aerial flights
and all.
But I say that because there are exhibits that show that there
are -- there has been panther movement kind of around this property.
One of the reasons -- and I can't speak for the wildlife agencies, but I
have, you know, worked with them quite a bit. The area south of 41
with Fiddler's Creek and the mangrove habitat that's down there and
all, mangroves are not primary preferred habitat by the panthers and
all.
So this area between south of U.S. 41 and San Marco Road and
951 kind of forms this little cul-de-sac. So when you look at the
panther movement through there, based on the radio telemetry and all,
you can kind of see that they'll come down into that area, and then
they'll leave. They kind of loop down, and so they don't spend a
whole lot of time around this site. And that's kind of why it wasn't
looked at as high-quality habitat when any of these were being
established.
When you get to the property specifically -- I think I might have
lost control.
MR. MILLER: What is going on?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gremlins.
Page 108 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 96
MR. HALL: There we go.
So the property itself, originally it was cleared and used for row
crop agriculture. After the row crops, there was a time frame where
there were some nursery operations that happened out there, and then
in the most recent time frame, the last, I don't know, maybe 10, 12
years, it's been pasture. It's been used as pasture.
And so when we went through the process with the Fish and
Wildlife Service and this area was offered for preserve, they use
a -- kind of a complicated math problem, math equation to look at
what that value is in terms of mitigation or benefits for the panther.
And as I showed you on the slide before, because this was
outside of any of those designated areas, this -- the property as a
whole, both the Section 19 and the Section 29 preserve areas, were
treated as one-third of the value as if they would have been in primary
habitat. So they're discounted by that value initially.
And then looking at the type of habitat that's on there, the highest
quality habitat has a numerical ranking; it's called a PHU value of 9.5
PHUs per acre. And you get down to exotic vegetation, which is 3
PHUs per acre; water, which has no value.
So the pasture area was looked at a lower value, and when we
made the application to try to just amend the Estancia project, the
value associated with this 50 acres out of the 1,300-plus that the
project was providing, this -- the value of this one was 119 PHUs. So
you can see it had a very low value in terms of the credit that Fish and
Wildlife Service gave to the project in terms of the panther mitigation.
The two other species that were also addressed in the discussions
with Fish and Wildlife Service was the Florida bonneted bat and the
American crocodile. The bonneted bat needs tall, relatively large,
like 15-inch DBHs or bigger cavities in trees for their roosting and all.
And you can see on the pasture areas there are no trees that meet the
criteria that would support any type of bonneted bat roosting.
Page 109 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 97
Foraging can occur. They like to forage over the open-water areas
and all. We did some radio echolocation monitoring out there and
did not see any evidence of any Florida bonneted bats in this area
based on the echolocation surveys that were done.
And then the last species was the crocodile. When we originally
permitted this project with Fish and Wildlife and all, the crocodile
was not an issue. After we made the application, I believe it was in
2019 or 2020, there was some crocodile nesting that was documented
to the east of the Curcie fill pits, which are -- this is Curcie. Did that
show up? The fill pits.
In the marsh mangrove area to the west of those fill pits, I
believe there was two crocodile nests that were documented down
there. So that was an additional -- when we were trying to make the
modification to this project, they asked us to verify whether or not
there was any crocodile use within the farm fields or the project area,
and so I did a crocodile nesting survey and found no evidence of any
crocodiles. There are alligators within the ditches there, but we didn't
see any evidence of crocodiles at that time.
So as Rich had said, the application that we had made previously
to Fish and Wildlife Service didn't have really anything to do directly
with the development of this parcel. The application that was made
to Fish and Wildlife was to amend the panther mitigation that was
provided to the Estancia project and make that change.
Fish and Wildlife came back and denied that application, but a
lot of the denial was based on process in terms of -- the Army Corps
of Engineers permit had expired, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
process, through their Section 7 consultations and the Endangered
Species Act, has to have a permitting agency -- they call it a nexus.
Commissioner LoCastro probably knows this better than I do in terms
of how the different agencies interact with each other.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Poorly.
Page 110 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 98
MR. HALL: But without a -- without a -- without an active
Corps application, the Fish and Wildlife Service basically said they
would not act on our -- on our request to make that amendment and so
denied it.
And as Rich said early in the presentation, as this moves forward,
if it is approved, then a new application will go in to the Corps of
Engineers which will address the impacts associated with developing
this property as well as that mitigation associated with this property
that was assigned to the -- to the Estancia project. So, essentially,
there will be two different mitigation analyses done that -- which will
provide the credit back towards the Estancia project plus the impacts
that would be associated with actually developing this and removing it
from the -- from use by any of the cats or other listed species.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can you go back to the map
that has the striped maps that show primary and secondary. So my
first question is, for the record, can you define the difference between
the yellow primary section and the purple secondary section with
regard to level of panther concern, preservation; define the difference
between those two areas.
MR. HALL: So as I said, the yellow striped area is the primary
habitat. That's the area that the Fish and Wildlife Service and FWC
consider has the most benefit and the most value to the panther. So if
you go in with a project to impact lands within those areas, they will
assess a higher mitigation value to those lands in order to impact
them.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And the secondary one would
be similar but less of a mitigation?
MR. HALL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But the reality is, a major
portion of Royal Palm Golf Estates sits in the secondary area, correct?
Page 111 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 99
MR. HALL: No.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No?
MR. HALL: The Royal Palm is also south of 41.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, in that secondary area,
there's no residential communities at all?
MR. HALL: No, there are.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
MR. HALL: I think Greenway Road. There's a couple of the
little roads that go to the north there that are up in there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 6L Farms.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, 6L Farms and all those.
So one of the things that I say to the folks that are going to come
up, you know, I guess probably after lunch, in opposition is although
the Planning Commission had three days and uncovered so many
things, went in so many different directions, please listen to what the
five commissioners here are asking of this group. These are the
things that we're zeroing in on. We do this full-time with lots of
other things, many things that don't even come to the Planning
Commission or just conversations we have with developers.
So it's important that the questions we're asking aren't steering us
to a certain preliminary, you know, decision, but these are the
particular things we're zeroing in on: Traffic density, preservation,
the wildlife, water runoff. We're trying to get down to the brass
tacks.
And some of the numbers on their side differ on your side. It
means that maybe some of them are -- like, Ms. Scott said, the
numbers for traffic actually are not incorrect. It just depends on
perception, and you could be giving a perception that's actually not
how we do it, maybe.
And the other cases, the things that you -- that are important to
Page 112 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 100
you, make sure it's important -- or it is important that you hear the
questions that we're zeroing in on, because those are the main points
that lead to our decision, not a recommendation, a decision on what's
going to happen.
So things that you don't hear, it doesn't mean they're not
important, but all of you who have been in my office, and it's almost
everybody in this room, I said over and over again, "Pick the main,
huge points. Don't go down a rabbit trail on Point No. 11 which
actually has merit but might be a lot less significant to our decision
here today."
So I hope that helps. If it doesn't -- but it's my view. But I
appreciate your clarification on the map.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Hall -- that sounds pretty good, by
the way -- I have a question.
So back in the day when Estancia was come [sic]
, they could have mitigated the panthers for a million dollars, and
in lieu of that they offered Section 29 in lieu of paying a million
dollars; is that correct? A million dollars would have solved all the
panther's credit -- solved all the panther's problems.
MR. HALL: The original -- the mitigation requirement for the
Estancia project -- and forgive me, these numbers may not be exactly
right, but it was about 2,400 PHUs; 2,400 PHUs. The properties in
Section 29 and 19 that they offered for preserve provided
1,390-some-odd PHUs. They still had to go purchase that other
thousand that they were short from the bank.
They had the option to purchase that whole 2,000-and-some from
the bank, and they used this option as a -- as a -- kind of a way to
lessen that offsite purchase that they had to do.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So, my point in asking that question is --
MR. HALL: How much -- if you looked at that number, the
1,300-and-some that this whole preserve area provided, about $800
Page 113 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 101
per PHU. So, 1,300 would be about a million, a million-one, a
million-two.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I would just want to point -- you're
right. I would point out Section 19 was additional lands within that.
So I don't know how many, you know, what, 400 acres in Section 19?
MR. HALL: Three hundred.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Three hundred. So, it would be
even -- you're right. They could have just bought it for a million
dollars, and we wouldn't be sitting here today, or even less. We
could have gotten that for $100,000, and we wouldn't be sitting here
today.
CHAIRMAN HALL: My point was money would have solved
the panther's problem.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So now you're -- I saw something earlier
in a bullet point or something where the applicant is asking -- you
know, we will provide twice the amount of panther coverage to be
able to take back the obligation that they offered in the first place.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. We had talked to the agencies
about paying 200,000 to remove the 58 acres, and they wanted a
million-six.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And if I just might clarify,
they wanted a million-six, but it was, like, in a different county.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Glades County.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which was hard for us to understand
how that really benefited Collier County. But, you know, it's the
federal government.
We're at the end of our presentation. Your staff is
recommending approval of all three petitions: A change to the DRI,
Page 114 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 102
a change to the PUD, and the change to the Growth Management
Plan. Your staff are experts in their individual areas of expertise.
It is a -- it's an arduous process to get through to get here, and we
wouldn't be here if staff weren't recommending approval and
satisfying all the criteria for making sure we're handling water
management, we're handling traffic, we're handling
environmental-related issues.
We have checked the box with every one of your staff reviews
and in their expertise, and we're requesting that -- this is -- this is a
project, focusing specifically on Section 29, that you-all have
identified as a priority to provide affordable housing. We are doing
that. We are doing it in a location that makes sense. It's close to
employers. It's on lands that are not environmentally sensitive, and it
is going to be done in a safe way including roughly $7.8 million worth
of improvements to Auto Ranch Road that we would make, I would
think is probably above and beyond what the county might do
themselves, but we're doing it because it makes sense for the residents
on Auto Ranch, but it also makes sense for the residents who are
going to reside in our community.
That's our presentation. If you have any more questions
regarding everything we've gone into, we're happy to address them or
turn it over to however you want to go next as a Board. If you want
to go to staff, take a break, or whatever you want to do.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Bosi, how long do you think you're
going to need?
MR. BOSI: Twenty, 25 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. So, we'll do you, and then
we'll take a lunch before we hear public comment.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director.
Good afternoon. Hopefully I'll be able to wrap this up in 20, 25
minutes.
Page 115 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 103
What I'm really looking to do -- we've expressed our
recommendations within our executive summary. We've included
our staff reports. I wanted to get some more pertinent things on the
record. A lot of stuff has been covered by the applicant, so I can
expediate those in a little bit.
I just wanted to go back to the Planning Commission
recommendation. It was a recommendation of 4-0 on July 28th to
recommend denial to the Planning Commission [sic]. They identified
the importance of the GMP as being a high bar to pass, and they felt
that the applicant hadn't met that. Lack of creating jobs, creating
economic development, discourage urban sprawl, not adequately
protecting natural resources, providing goods accessible to related
land uses, and limited development in Coastal High Hazard Area to
protect human life.
Those were the issues that the Planning Commission had
identified to recommend denial of the petition, but they did have an
alternative recommendation that they said if you remove all references
to Section 29, all of the other master plan changes, the reduction -- or
the reallocation of the land uses on Collier Boulevard, the internal
modifications to the master plan, the floor area ratio, all those changes
were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
As it was pointed out, since 1998 -- since 1998, from a local
perspective, we have -- we have always anticipated -- we've always
anticipated that some development was going to be -- and I'm just
trying to find the actual page. And this is where -- this is -- '98 is
when they added it. I think Mr. Yovanovich has already highlighted
these. It's tough to read. But it's passive reaction; biking, hiking,
launching, storage facilities, active recreational, agricultural, boat
storage facilities within there.
And another thing I think that is important to understand, and
that's within the -- that's within that section area -- Area 29, if you
Page 116 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 104
look, it says, "In addition, there shall be a 0-foot setback line required
from water bodies and structures." So, they're having -- the
development standards that are contained within that section are not
that demanding. If you look up to the top, your front yard, side yard,
or rear yard's going to be 50 feet or 30 feet. So, what's that saying?
Is the development that was going to be proposed since 1998 with a
maximum height of 35 feet -- that's not -- that's not an actual height.
That's a zoned height, but 35 feet -- could be within 30 feet or 50 feet
of -- of the property line. Pretty -- places it in closer proximity to the
development that's within Boyne South within the Royal Golf Estates.
I thought that was significant.
And we've always known, for 26 years there's been land-use
activity that has been allocated to Section 29. I think -- I wanted to
put that forward, because during the Planning Commission, there
was -- it was stated, I couldn't tell you how many times, that all of 29
is supposed to be in preserve. All of -- what they're referencing was
the federal permitting act, and I don't deny that that could have
been -- that that's the case. But what was done at the local level has
always called for activity. Something was going to happen.
Something was planned. Something was allowed for within
this -- within this area.
Rich had alluded to the -- alluded to location in terms of where it
sits within the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District. The Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District was adopted in 2002. It became effective in 2003
because of some legal challenges. It's made up of a series of Sending
Lands, Receiving Lands, Neutral Lands.
Sending Lands are the areas that are the most environmentally
sensitive. You've got -- you want to really send the development
away from there.
Your Receiving Lands are less environmentally sensitive; more
prone to development. It's where you want to receive that
Page 117 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 105
development.
Neutral is -- is neither environmentally sensitive or directly prone
for development. So, they're really outside of the program, and
they're entitled to, you know, your traditional agricultural uses that it's
originally zoned for, and I think that's important.
I will acknowledge that as you -- this is the -- basically the
southernmost portion of the -- of that land use that is -- been
disturbed, because the rest of the land uses basically make up your
Rookery Bay estuary, your Collier-Seminole State Park system. So,
the land is environmentally sensitive. But this is -- where this is
being proposed is the end of the disturbed area, and then south of that
is when you really start your environmentally sensitive areas.
And Mr. Hall referenced, you know, the utilization of this area in
limited fashion from the panthers as well.
The next slide I wanted to put up, it just highlights some of the
other activities that are being requested. Not only -- and I think
Mr. Yovanovich is probably going to cover this. And I don't have to
get into it -- but changing the intensity from group homes from 26
units per acre to .60 for floor area ratio to allow for the provision of a
CAT bus stop, removal of lakes, and reconfigure the residential and
the business tracts along Collier Boulevard.
So, there is -- there's a lot of different things that are being asked
for. There has been objections from -- obviously from the Boyne
South folks relating to the affordable housing. There has been some
objection from homeowners within -- within the Fiddler's Creek about
the relocation of some of those internal alignments. And I want to
really -- I really want to address that point with these next couple
slides.
So, this is the master plan that currently exists with the '18
ordinance. And as you can see, I have circled in red here, you have a
road that comes down and ends here. And when you go to what's
Page 118 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 106
being proposed, we see that road now extends here. So, what the
objection has been has been that folks that live in the neighborhoods
to the west are objecting to that amount of residential development
that is now going to be routed through their individual neighborhood
saying that it all -- and a lot of the statement has been a
generalization: It's all going to end up onto 951.
Now, there's some other access routes towards where they could
access to 41 that probably has a little bit different distribution of
where that -- where those trips are going to be, but that's really
irrelevant to the point that I want to make. And it's related to what
our code says, what our Land Development Code says about this
particular activity of modifying some internal realignments within a
master plan and what that master plan does and does not vest.
And that's related to 10.02.13. These are our PUD procedures.
So, these are from our Land Development Code. And it basically
says, this is what -- this is what staff is obligated to follow when we're
proposing a PUD or a PUD master plan. And I highlighted the
pertinent area for this development. And it says, effective -- and this
is under C, "effective Planned Unit Development zoning." And it
says, "The development in the area designated as the PUD district on
the official zoning atlas shall proceed only in accordance with the
adopted development regulations, and master plan does not authorize
or vest the location, design, capacity, or routing of traffic for access
point depicted on or described in such ordinance or plan."
So, it's a lot of words, but what it's saying is there's no vesting
within the location design, capacity, or routing of traffic for any one
access plan depicted on or within such plan. So that statement stands
by itself, and staff feels that gives the reader the understanding that
that PUD master plan is conceptual -- conceptual in design and is not
a Site Development Plan.
And it's further refined with this section where it talks about
Page 119 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 107
minor changes, and this is how you deal with minor changes within a
PUD and within a PUD master plan. And basically underneath 3,
minor changes, "The County Manager or designee shall also be
authorized to allow minor changes to the PUD master plan during its
subdivision improvement plan or Site Development Plan process to
accommodate topography, vegetation, or other site conditions not
identified or accounted for during its original submittal, and review
when said changes have been determined to be compatible with
adjacent land uses have no impacts external to the site, existing or
proposed, and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of this code
and the Growth Management Plan," and these changes shall include,
the very first one, internal realignment of rights-of-way including a
relocation of access points onto the PUD itself where no water
management facilities, conservation/preservation areas, or required
easements are affected. That second provision authorizes staff to
make those modifications that the platting -- that this master plan is
trying to catch up to.
So staff feels we have been within the rights that the Land
Development Code -- the instruction that the regulations are contained
within the Land Development Code in terms of moving forward with
approving plats that maybe aren't 100 percent in alignment with the
site plan, but that's -- or with the master plan, but that master plan is
not a site plan. It's a conceptual development plan, and the LDC
specifically within these sections allows for staff to take those
administrative functions.
Another aspect that we wanted to -- just to highlight -- and this is
related to the distinction between our local permitting and our federal
permitting -- and this is straight from the Florida Statutes, and it talks
about development permits and orders. And you go down to --
MR. MILLER: Sorry, Mike. It's some sort of a Zoom issue.
MR. BOSI: That's all right.
Page 120 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 108
And if you look at No. 5, "For any development permit
applied -- application filed with the county after July 1st of 2012, a
county may not require as a condition of process or issuing a
development permit or development order that an applicant obtain a
permit or approval from any state or federal agency unless the agency
has issued a final agency action that denies the federal or state permit
before the action of the local county." So what he's saying, has
the -- has the agency issued a final development permit?
And then second, 6 says, "The issuance of a development permit
or permit ordered by a county does not in any way create any rights of
the party or the applicant to obtain a permit from the state or federal
agency and does not create a liability on the part of the county for
issuance of the permits if the applicant fails to obtain requested
approvals or fulfills the obligations imposed by the state agency or
undertakes actions that results from a violation of state or federal law.
A county shall attach such a disclaimer to the issuance of the
development permit and shall include a permit condition that all other
applicable state and federal permits obtained before commencing
development."
That's what we do within every single one of our PUDs. Within
our PUDs, we say that when you come for a Site Development Plan
and a plat, and actually the development order that will be associated
with those building permits, you're required to show your federal and
state permitting, but not until that stage. We are at the entitlement
stage. It still has to go through an SDP or a plat and then the request
for building permits before that -- before that preconstruction meeting
would happen.
So in that regard, there are two distinct processes, and we think
we are -- that the county is within its rights in terms of acting upon the
request that we -- that we currently have.
And one last thing staff would like to get on the record, and I can
Page 121 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 109
wrap it up. Hopefully I'm within that time frame I estimated. But I
did notice -- and Mr. Yovanovich had recommended, staff is
recommending, but staff is recommending approval with conditions.
One of the conditions that was contained within the staff report, and
staff is still requesting, is that a type -- a 15-foot Type B landscape
buffer be provided along the northern -- the northern and western
portions of the development area.
And another aspect -- and another reason that staff is looking at,
and it's one of the things that -- or that helped us reach a
recommendation of approval, if you look at the development area on
the eastern side, the closest proximity to the development area of the
apartments and the amenities to the south side of the canal is 361 -- is
361 feet. On the west side, to the north side of the canal, you're at
518 feet. Now, what's being proposed is the maximum height of
69 feet.
So, from the west side, you're close to nine times the height of
the building setback, and on the eastern side you're closer to seven
times the height of the building setback. Those are -- those are
significant setbacks that help mitigate the impact of this potential
development on the residential development that sits to the -- that sits
to the north of the property. That was one of the reasons staff, from a
design standpoint, felt that compatibility could be arranged.
From a public benefit standpoint, the 225 units that are being
proposed as income restricted is a significant benefit. If you
remember, this Board of County Commissioners provided over
$3 million of money for affordable -- from our surtax fundage for
Ekos on Collier, and that was 162 units of 100 percent affordable.
This -- this proposal is significantly higher than that proposal. Both
of those proposals were in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and because
of that both of those proposals do have to mitigate. The applicant
has -- has indicated they are willing to provide for the cots that are
Page 122 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 110
requested from EMS as well as the portable generator to provide for
the -- to provide for the expansion of the sheltering facilities within
the county.
That -- in addition to the improvements upon Auto Ranch Road,
one of the things staff was wondering as part of the Planning
Commission presentations, what was the value? What's the
estimated value of those improvements? And I think there was
significant consideration that's going to be required for that, as well as
the bus stop, as well as the contributions to EMS.
Those reasons, with the site planning, are all the reasons why
staff arrived upon this recommendation of approval. But staff would
be insistent -- if there was a recommendation of approval, we think
that the setbacks that are provided for within the current display has to
be incorporated with into the PUD. It's not explicitly incorporated
within the PUD. And because of that and because of that separation,
that's one of the reasons why staff was able to sign off in support of
the program.
And with that, any questions you would like for myself,
Ms. Scott, or Ms. Cook, or any other staff.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah, Mr. Bosi, I just -- real quick. I just want to kind of touch
on some things. The way the language is written right now, from
what I understand from Mr. Yovanovich's presentation, and you just
reinforced it yourself, the particular 49 plus/minus acre section that
right now basically has been used as farmland, agricultural, and it's
clear-cut, it's not part of the vegetated area of Section 29, but you said
that it could be used for several different things the way that it's
written right now, like boat storage. And I'm just kind of, like, spit
balling. Could they do, like, dry boat storage, like put buildings?
Because it says you could go up to 35 feet.
Page 123 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 111
MR. BOSI: Yes. It's --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: They can do, like, dry storage,
like almost storage buildings up to 35 feet for boats? And what
would the setback be according to what the language is now?
MR. BOSI: It's kind of tough because there's no real road
system there, but the most prohibitive setback is 50 feet for rear and
front, so -- and it's 30 feet on the side. So it would either be 30 feet
or 50 feet from the property line that that would have to be set back.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You could have a building as big
as a storage boat facility building, as big as 35 feet high within 30 to
50 feet of residential property as the way it's written right now?
MR. BOSI: From the -- from the property line of their
development envelope, it would have to be set back, yes, 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. And could the developer,
the owner, could he go in there and put, let's say, a tennis/pickleball
court center that he could build in there for his residents and/or
members of his club for Fiddler's Creek?
MR. BOSI: I think that would fit. Recreational facilities is one
of the allowed use -- allowed uses within Section 29 currently.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: And would they have -- of
course, they'd have the right-of-way to get back there, and Auto
Ranch Road would more than likely be the way?
MR. BOSI: Well, that would be -- that would be the way that
Transportation would direct them.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So that's just as of right now, if
we did nothing, the developer -- the owner of the property still has
these rights to do these things as it is right now?
MR. BOSI: Yes, vested -- vested by the PUD.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Mr. Bosi, the buffer height
Page 124 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 112
that you -- the buffer that you talked about north and also to the west,
what would be the required height that the county would -- if we
approved this, would mandate?
MR. BOSI: I believe the trees only have to come in at 8 feet,
and I believe it's 25 feet on center with a hedge that's planted at 3 feet
that grows to 6 feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. We got a lot of
concern about Auto Ranch Road, and I think that we've talked about
that, you know, quite a bit. A lot of concern from people talking
about Marsh Drive. And just the short of it, is that a -- is Marsh
Drive a concern? What would the county's recommendation be?
Does it need to be enhanced? Would the increased traffic be above
and beyond what we expect?
You know, a lot of Marsh Drive complaints came in kind of late,
at least to me, and all of a sudden it was, oh, my gosh, you know,
Marsh Drive -- or to Ms. Scott. What's the short version of our
concern? Impact? Is that just somebody grabbing at straws trying
to, you know, stop a project or slow a project, or do we have a real
concern about Marsh Drive being impacted?
MS. SCOTT: That is an internal between the CDD and the
HOA.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So it's a private road, as we
discussed. I'm trying to get a little bit of this on the record.
MS. SCOTT: So from a traffic impact standpoint, we're looking
at where that traffic is hitting the major county roadway network. So
Fiddler's Creek development is one of our older communities within
the county. It's a vested development. So when they're vested, we
already have the trips for that -- those 6,000 units already accounted
for within our transportation concurrency network, so where those
trips are hitting U.S. 41 or Collier Boulevard.
So the internal private roadways, that is a private matter between
Page 125 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 113
the community development district and the associated homeowners
associations within the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So if they felt there was some
sort of significant impact, they would have to address that with their
citizens as we've discussed?
MS. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And then this might
be for later, but just stew on this. So I appreciate all the details, all
the specifics going through the maps and everything. But my
question for you probably at the end of this is, why didn't the Planning
Commission after three days agree with you, or why did they think
what you presented was incorrect and they recommended something
almost totally different than what our entire county staff is
recommending?
So maybe that's not the answer for now. I have a feeling you're
going to be back at the podium. But that's a big question, you know,
for me. Three days' worth of testimony, most of it from Mr. Bosi
going through all of this here, yet, you know, our Planning
Commission after three days said, sorry -- you know, now they did
agree to quite a bit, so I will preface that, that you said in the
beginning. But, you know, the part that is really the biggest moving
part that we have to decide here -- obviously, you've outlined how you
don't -- you know, you don't feel it's a major impact. And all those
bullets that they considered, I think you have a rebuttal to every single
one.
But I would say hold that answer because I think we're also
going to get a lot from the opposite side. But, you know, before any
vote happens, that's really a big concern on my mind. If the Collier
County Planning Commission isn't a dry run and it's a major
preliminary step, why did they unanimously disagree with every
single thing when it came to Section 29 that our educated, informed
Page 126 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 114
county staff presented to them? I need that answer before I vote on
this, so -- and I think you're the person to give it.
I'm sure Mr. Yovanovich is going to have an answer, because
he's the applicant. I want to hear it from county staff. But I think
right -- not now, or Commissioner Hall will kill me, because it's -- I
think it's a long answer, but that would be something, I think, for you
all to chew on.
CHAIRMAN HALL: It's something that all of us is wondering.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have you got an answer for
him or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I was going to ask him one question
before the break.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Help me a little bit
with the density, Mike. This is -- this is a Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
piece of property that's already been delineated as neutral. Help
me -- help me get to the density request that's been -- that you're
recommending approval on here from a -- go ahead.
MR. BOSI: Sure. As a whole, the current allocation within
Fiddler's, about 1.52. This would take the overall PUD to 1.71, but
that's spread over close to 4,000 units. As a -- as a net, it's 15 units
an acre.
The most comparable that would be in close proximity, the
receiving area, the blue area that was within the Rural Fringe
Mixed-Use District, it's just right across the street from this
development. If they did affordable housing, they would be eligible
for 11.2. So basically, it's about 3.8 units above what they could do
within the receiving areas when they have a project that contains
affordable housing.
That was -- that was part of our evaluation. And the net density
at 15 -- at 15 units an acre most certainly is much higher than what
Page 127 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 115
the -- the Boyne South PUD is allocated. And we felt that because
their access point is on Auto Ranch Road and that has no interaction
with the -- with the Boyne South PUD -- and additionally, the
proposed setbacks of being over 350 and 500 feet set back, we felt
that that density would be ameliorated by that distance, and that traffic
impact associated with this would not be experienced by the existing
residential development to the north because there's no interaction
within -- within the roadway system that accesses this apartment
complex and that individual development.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Being designated as
neutral, what's allowed?
MR. BOSI: It's -- right now it's traditionally what your ag
would allow for, and that's one to five units with residential
development; any of your agricultural activities.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And because this is in the
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District, are there any requisites of TDRs in
this calculation to allow them to get to this density?
MR. BOSI: There's no -- there's been no consideration for
TDRs, as this is a project that predated the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use
District.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. That was the
rationale -- that was the rationale behind not having TDRs, okay.
That was one of my first notes from back in the beginning when Rich
was talking, so -- all right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Any other questions? Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. All right. This is a good time to
break for lunch.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask the one question before the
break?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure.
Page 128 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 116
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually maybe two, and it kind of goes
to -- I think to what Commissioner LoCastro was asking you.
Would you agree that one of the first questions asked by the
Chairman of the Planning Commission is, are you recommending
approval of this solely because you're providing -- we're providing
affordable housing; do you remember that question?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you recommending approval of this
project solely because we're providing affordable housing?
MR. BOSI: And that's one of the responses I wish I would have
elaborated on instead of just a simple affirmative. It's one of the
reasons. It's one of the reasons I just listed. It's one of the public
benefits that we've identified. But not only the public -- not the
additional public benefit of the bus stop, of the additional -- of the
affordable housing, of the significant improvements upon Auto Ranch
Road, but also the -- but also the fact that the site design has taken
into great consideration the adjoining properties to the north and set
themselves back.
Five hundred and thirty-one feet is a significant setback. That's
a football field and a half away from your existing residential
development. That type of distance will ameliorate the heights that
are proposing, and with the additional buffering, we think can most
certainly find compatibility within that built environment.
But it's not the -- affordable housing's not the only reason why.
I think it's the most significant of the public benefits that's provided
for. The drive time that was provided by their submittal showed a
tremendous number of employers within that 10-mile -- within that
10-mile area that would -- that would be a prime location for the
workforce and our essential services personnel to locate.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Let's break for lunch. Let's
come back at 1:30, and we'll begin with the public speaking.
Page 129 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 117
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:41 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. We are to the point now where
we can start listening to the public comment. Is there somebody
that's going to speak for --
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, I have three people submitted slips
saying they represent an organization. The first one is Mr. Oldehoff,
who is an attorney, representing the group, who has two experts; the
other is Christine Koren, who represents an HOA or possibly two, I
can't remember. One HOA. And then Brad Cornell, who represents,
I think -- is it Audubon of Western Everglades, Brad? Yes. So
would you -- and then we have 28 individual speakers.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. I'm going to hold Brad to three
minutes because we -- that's not actually a part of -- a party to the
deal.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: But we'll be glad to hear what you have
to say.
MR. MILLER: Would you like to start, then, with these
representatives?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Gary Oldehoff. I'm sorry, I'm having
trouble reading the handwriting, sir. Is it Oldchoff?
MR. OLDEHOFF: Oldehoff.
MR. MILLER: Oldehoff. I'm sorry, sir. Okay. And he has
two experts that will be testifying with him, Dan Trescott and Max
Forges.
MR. OLDEHOFF: I believe they'll speak to you after I've
finished.
MR. MILLER: I believe they're supposed to be a part of the 15
minutes, but that's -- is that correct, the experts?
Page 130 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 118
CHAIRMAN HALL: Yes, including the experts is 15 minutes.
MR. MILLER: Okay, sir.
MR. OLDEHOFF: We're ready whenever you are.
MR. MILLER: Do you have a PowerPoint, sir?
MR. OLDEHOFF: No.
MR. MILLER: Okay, thank you.
MR. OLDEHOFF: Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission, my name is Gary Oldehoff, and I represent a large group
of people that have a very, very keen interest in this application.
Let me give you just a moment of my background. I've been a
land-use law expert since 1990. I'm an expert in the Florida
comprehensive planning law, I'm an expert in land use, I'm an expert
in Comprehensive Plan writing. I've written Comprehensive Plans;
I've done it all over the state.
And so I take a look at this, and I want to try to put this in the
proper context, because it seems to be a little upside down. The first
item on your agenda is a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
That -- that has to be addressed first. If you do not approve the
Comprehensive Plan amendment, you do not approve the PUD
amendments associated with Section 29, because they are inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. The law is very clear on that. Now,
you can take up a motion to deny that request because it's inconsistent
with the plan, but that's how the law goes.
Now, something you haven't heard anything about so far is the
law. The law is in the Comprehensive Plan Act. It's in the statutes
that provide for how you create and form and modify and amend a
Comprehensive Plan. That statute is in Chapter 163 of the Florida
Statutes, and you haven't heard anything at all about what the law says
you have to do with regard to a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
I had written a memorandum because I -- to the County Attorney
because of that omission. You only have a memo in your packet that
Page 131 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 119
deals with a rezoning. You don't have anything there that deals with
the law of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment has to start from the baseline
that the Comprehensive Plan that is in existence that someone is
seeking to amend is lawfully established in light of all the data that is
available with regard to Comprehensive Planning and writing
Comprehensive Plans. If someone wants you to amend a
Comprehensive Plan, they have to demonstrate to you that this plan is
out of sync with the data and with the analysis of the data, and it has
to be changed.
If it's with regard to a specific property, it has to follow the
requirements of the Comprehensive Planning law, the statute. It also
has to maintain absolute internal consistency with all of the other
elements of the plan. It has to be connected.
I heard somebody say during the Planning Commission
discussions that there was something about a balancing of plan
policies. That's illegal. That's clear. The statute couldn't be
clearer. Section 163.3177(2), Subparagraph 2 says, "Coordination of
the elements of the Comprehensive Plan shall be a major objective of
the plan and the planning process. The elements of the
Comprehensive Plan shall be consistent." You can't just pick and
choose which ones you want.
Now, when I take a look at this as a County Attorney, as I
was -- I sat in that chair, like that one, for 20 years. I'm coming to
you, and I'm talking to you, and I'm inviting you to please question
me. I'm telling you exactly what I would tell my county
commissions and what I have told my county commissions.
I'm going to be perfectly candid with you. This application to
change the Comprehensive Plan -- and mind you, what's available for
that property is exactly what this developer wanted. It's exactly what
he gave in return for entitlements to you as well as to the federal
Page 132 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 120
government, and it's also exactly the uses that he says he wants. So
that's your baseline. Your baseline is this is Neutral Land. This is
ag land. This is a little tiny piece. This is ag land. It's one per four,
and it is not a place where you can put any other units, including
affordable housing units. This is not a transfer right. This is
intended to be that dense.
So my take on this, in looking at this over the past almost two
years, I'm going to really simplify it, and I'm going to be perfectly
candid with you. In 35 years, I have never seen an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment as unbelievable as this one. I've
never seen one. This is breathtakingly illegal. This is breathtakingly
illegal. It's also incredibly audacious. And what it's really asking
you is how low will you go to give this applicant what it wants?
How low will you go? What will a commission do for this applicant,
to please this applicant?
This applicant has all the development entitlements that it ever
asked for. It's used them all. It has never paid the bill. It has not
given the county a single conservation easement.
I want to digress for a second. The easement. The problem
with this is if you look at the 2018 master plan, the 2018 master plan
for this property shows this property in an enlarged area of preserve.
They changed the preserve on it. Now, during the hearings, we got
this new thing which was, oh, wait a minute, it turns out that we left
this land out of the masterpiece. It suddenly reappeared.
Look at the 2018 master plan. Compare it to the one that you're
getting to make the modification with. But, anyway -- so there we
are. Now, when we look at this, we are looking at this from the
standpoint of affordable housing. Affordable housing, let's look at
the affordable housing that we're talking about here. The affordable
housing is between $84,000 and $110,000 -- 104,000. So if you
make $80,000, based on the rent amount, you can live here. If you
Page 133 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 121
make more than $104,000, you can't live here. A majority of your
people that need workforce housing don't fall into that upper-crust
category of this 80,000 to 104,000.
Look, if you make this amendment -- and I'm absolutely
confident on this -- you will violate the federal law; you'll violate the
Endangered Species Act; you will violate several sections, at least
four sections of the state statutes; you'll violate the -- you'll violate the
conservation easement that's on this property pursuant to a federal
permit. You will -- and that's final action by the way. You have that
in your materials. That's final action.
So when you heard a staff member who's not a lawyer tell you
that the staff cannot consider that, number one, you absolutely have to
consider that in connection with the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Absolutely clear. It only applies to development orders. It would
only apply in the context of a rezoning, but that statute says, if the
agency has said, "This is final," that's it. That's it. We're not going
to reopen this. We're not going to amend it. It's done.
A question that was raised about, well, what about the value of
this land? There is no dispute. That's undisputed. This land is
panther land. This land is blue bonneted bat land. And how do we
know that? Because Mr. Hall in his own expert reports that he gave
to the Fish and Wildlife Service says it. And in the Fish and Wildlife
Service analysis that they did for this permit, they said it, too. They
said, "It's there."
Now, what did they say in their final letter where they said, no,
we're done? They said, "We are not going to give back or take back
that conservation easement." They said, the -- this is January 31st of
this year. "The value to Florida panthers alone is especially
significant as indicated by panther telemetry data showing the area is
used by panthers" -- and this is about this specific land -- "is used by
panthers and provides an important travel corridor. Because the 57
Page 134 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 122
requested acres to be released are situated near the center of the full
606.8 acres designated for protection, the habitat fragmentation effect
is larger than just 57 acres. Developing 57 acres in the center of this
protected area severely compromises the entire area as a corridor and
habitat for panthers. One of the most significant threats to Florida
panthers is habitat loss and fragmentation."
It goes on -- it's in your materials, and I take it that you've read
these, because you've said that you've gone to painstaking detail to go
through all these things. I don't want to get off my point.
You have to be able to support an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan which is a change from the established
constitution for the county. You have to be able to show that it's
supported by data and analysis of the data.
There is no data. You have heard no data at all that would
support this Comprehensive Plan amendment on this particular
property. None. There's zero data. You have to have that data to
show that you're required to make this change. You also are
completely abandoning it. You're completely violating it.
I'm looking here, it could be a dozen -- a dozen established
policies in your Future Land Use Plan. The same with regard to the
number of policies in your coastal management plan. This land is not
urban or coastal residential fringe. This is not urban coastal fringe.
This is rural neutral. It does not provide for -- and as a matter of fact,
they want you to put that language into that element solely and
specifically with regard to this property. It doesn't fly without it.
It violates a host of your plan policies. It is incompatible. It is
not internally consistent with the plan.
Public benefit. Public benefit. You know, when I listened to,
over all these days, the comments and the justifications that are being
made by this applicant, and now with staff with its impassioned plea,
it does seem to me -- it does seem to me that it's really, really, really
Page 135 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 123
mumbo-jumbo. It's smoke and mirrors. It doesn't add up.
Why -- when asked why do we have to make this
Comprehensive Plan amendment, why is it necessary, the response
that we got from -- and this is in your -- you know, in the Planning
Commission record, is it's necessary because we have to do this to
amend the -- to amend the PUD, to amend the PUD. That's not data.
That's not analysis.
Auto Ranch Road, that's going to be a wonderful benefit to the
people of who? This isn't a public benefit. That benefits nobody
except for this applicant, nobody. Auto Ranch Road doesn't want
this. They don't want a levy down the middle of their neighborhood.
They don't want to do this.
Four thousand average daily trips. That means this project is
going to put 4,000 cars back and forth on that road every single day.
When you look at peak hour, peak season, that's an hour in the p.m.,
it's a 60-minute period during that period, and that's where you're
getting those numbers. It's not a matter of safety. It's quality of life.
This is a rural neighborhood. You're going to destroy it completely.
Public benefit? It doesn't benefit anybody, anybody at all.
An elevated levy, two, $7.8 million. I'm telling you, I'm telling
everybody here, I've done this for years. The taxpayers are going to
pay for that road either directly or indirectly, I guarantee it. The
utility ratepayers are going to pay for that utility line. Directly or
indirectly, they are going to pay for it. You are going to be asked to
pay for it directly, or it's going to be done indirectly in your budget
process and your Capital Improvement Plan process. So that's not a
public benefit.
Look, this violates the federal law. Do you really, really, really
want to make this Comprehensive Plan amendment and entitle this
land that the federal government has said, at the agreement of this
applicant, is limited and can't be used, are you going to fight the
Page 136 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 124
federal government over this?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, Mr. Oldehoff.
MR. OLDEHOFF: You're going to -- you're going to tick
off -- in one way or another --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you so much.
MR. OLDEHOFF: -- you're going to tick off all of the residents
and all of the taxpayers --
CHAIRMAN HALL: You're done.
MR. OLDEHOFF: -- in the county.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you so much, sir. You're done.
MR. OLDEHOFF: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chair, he did have two experts that
obviously didn't get heard in that time. Do you want to give them
three minutes as stand-alone speakers? How do you want me to
proceed on this, sir?
CHAIRMAN HALL: You know what, the rules are 15 minutes
including testimony and expert witnesses, so we'll move forward.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I do have a question for you.
MR. OLDEHOFF: Oh, please.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Which federal agency are we violating?
You mentioned federal this and federal that.
MR. OLDEHOFF: Yeah. The --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Just which one?
MR. OLDEHOFF: The Endangered Species Act.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Which federal agency?
MR. OLDEHOFF: The federal government, the Department of
the Interior.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Which federal agency? Either just
answer that question, or just say I don't know.
MR. OLDEHOFF: No, I know. It's the Department of the
Page 137 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 125
Interior --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. That's what I needed to know.
MR. OLDEHOFF: -- but it's the federal government.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thanks. That's what -- I was just
curious.
MR. OLDEHOFF: Yeah. You're violating the federal law.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker representing -- she'll have to
tell us which homeowners association -- Christine Koren. I'm sorry,
Christine, I didn't get a chance to write it down when you told me.
My apologies.
MS. KOREN: Royal Palm Golf Estates.
MR. MILLER: Representing Royal Palm Golf Estates.
MS. KOREN: My original speech was three and a half, four
pages long. I've been timing myself for days to get this down to three
minutes, so...
CHAIRMAN HALL: You're good. Go right ahead.
MS. KOREN: So bear with me. I thank Gary for that
presentation. That was wonderful.
MR. MILLER: You do have 15 minutes. Go slower so the
court reporter can get it all down.
MS. KOREN: Okay. This -- I am a director on the board of
directors for Royal Palm Golf Estates. I am also the co-chair for the
Protect the Preserve committee which was organized two and a half
years ago, so we've been -- I've met all the commissioners. And,
believe me, I'm glad to have that opportunity to meet all of you. I
was absolutely impressed with your credentials and your
backgrounds.
But now that I schmoozed a little bit, I just want you-all to know
that I viewed this project not on a lot of the areas we've been talking
about but on the amount of impact this is going to have to Royal Palm
Page 138 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 126
Golf Estates. And I don't think anybody could be more of a witness
than the people living in Royal Palm Golf Estates during Hurricane
Ian in 2022. I must say I think I have PS -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN HALL: We know.
MS. KOREN: -- PTSD because of that hurricane.
But the thing is -- and I learned this early on when I was
speaking with Stormwater Management and Mr. Orth that I believe
has retired now from Collier County, and he said to me, he said,
"Chris, I'm going to tell you one thing; if there's ever a threat of a
hurricane or storm surge, you pack up and leave. Do you hear me?"
He said, "Leave."
And I said, "Why?"
Well, Royal Palm Golf Estates, during its construction, was not
required to bring in fill to elevate the homes that were being built.
As we all know in Collier County, fill is extremely expensive. So
what they did -- what the developer did, he left it up to individual
landowners to bring in their own fill. So consequently, Royal Palm
Golf Estates sits extremely low, and those of us that live on that
east/west spreader canal, which you might have seen on some of the
overheads, we lost our backyards totally this year just from regular
wet season. Well, I'm not talking hurricanes. I'm just talking our
regular season that -- to emphasize how low these homes were built
on.
Now, yes, there is new constructions going up. I mean, they
look unbelievably high, which is a good thing. It doesn't help my
house that was built in 2005.
Anyways, during Hurricane Ian, a bunch of us just watched the
preserve because what South Florida Water Management District had
told me is that the soils within 29 have rare consistencies to it. It's
called a short hydro period wetland. And what the -- what the soils
do in 29 is they absorb the stormwater like a sponge, and they hold it,
Page 139 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 127
and it did that during Ian until 8:30 that night it surged.
Now, luckily it was holding most of the water at that time, and
then it got to the point it could hold no more. It come rushing across
the canal. It came into the swales, out onto Royal Hammock
Boulevard. There was a neighbor of mine that called me and says,
"Oh, my God. I have fish in my driveway," and the water just surged
over.
Now, I feel because of the qualities of that soil, that if this
development gets approved, it's going to totally destroy those soils
which I -- which I will say again that South Florida Water says is
extremely rare and that we need to protect those type of soils in
Southwest Florida.
Now, I don't know why I wrote this, because I'm not even paying
attention to it. But for me, I'm scared to death to think what they're
going to do to the -- to the delicate balance of the preserve. And
that's why, you know, I am standing here pleading with you, you
know, "Don't take away our protection."
I did further research on that. I found documents within Collier
County stating that 29 protects -- it said it protects the development to
the north from dangerous storm surge. So going in there and
disrupting those could be very bad for us, all of us in the community.
Like I said, we're unique. We are very low. We're in a high hazard
flood zone now that it's been changed, and we're very unique because
no dirt was required to come in when they were doing that
development.
Thank you. Does anybody have a question for me?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Christine, do you have
documentation from the Southwest Florida Water Management
District talking about the --
MS. KOREN: You know, I do. I don't have it on me. I could
Page 140 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 128
send it to you, though. Yes, I do. I mean, I was learning two and a
half years ago.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I know. That's a pretty bold
statement that Southwest Florida Water Management District says
Section 29 contains special soil.
MS. KOREN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. So I mean, we've all
done a pretty deep dive. I guess I didn't get the special soil
document. And you and I met several times. And I'm not trying to
be disrespectful or anything, but like I said at the start, I'm trying to
separate rumor from fact. So the special soil violating the interior,
Department of Interior, somebody hand me that in writing.
MS. KOREN: It's a short period -- short hydro period wetland.
That's how they classified 29.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And respectfully, if that is
such a major part of your rebuttal of this project, wouldn't that be one
of the first things that you would have sent to all of us or that, you
know --
MS. KOREN: Oh, everybody got these, especially when we
met.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Never saw anything on
special soil.
MS. KOREN: No. I said it was a short hydro period wetland.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. KOREN: And that's how they classified it. And if you
look up the terms with South Florida Water Management, they'll
explain it to you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, but I mean, you have
something --
MS. KOREN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- sent to you from them --
Page 141 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 129
MS. KOREN: Yeah, I gave that --
CHAIRMAN HAL REPORTER: Please let him ask the
question. I can't write two people at the same time.
MS. KOREN: I'm sorry. Yeah, when we came and visited
you, it was in the packets that I submitted. We all submitted different
things. Mine was storm surge, because that is personal, a concern to
me.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. But my question is, in
that packet there's a letter from the South Florida Water Management
District on their letterhead addressed to you talking about the special
soil in Section 29?
MS. KOREN: No. It's not on letterhead, no.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But it's from them? It's
signed by them, or it's your comment saying you heard from them? I
mean, it's important because these are key points.
MS. KOREN: Yeah, I know. When I was doing my research
on it, I have a document with the picture of the preserve, and it says
this preserve has these -- the short hydro period wetland. I have it --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. KOREN: -- several places. That's why I included it in
your packets. And I realize that we dumped a lot of material on the
commissioners when we met with you, and I didn't expect everybody
to read all that. I didn't even want to read it all. So I know how it
could have been missed. That's why I wanted to make this part of my
discussion is because of the soils in there. I feel very strongly we
need to preserve the preserve for several reasons, but that to me is the
most important.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But you understand that from
our --
MS. KOREN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- standpoint here --
Page 142 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 130
MS. KOREN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- citizens laundry listing all
their concerns is not as effective as very specific evidence from the
Department of the Interior saying we're about to violate law --
MS. KOREN: Oh, I agree.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- from the Southwest Florida
Water Management District saying Section 29 has special soil. I
mean, of course citizens who are against this project are going to say
there's 4,000 cars all day long that are going to --
MS. KOREN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And you hear -- I'm not
disputing that.
MS. KOREN: Well, I couldn't make this up, because I have no
idea what a short hydro period wetland is. So I never heard the terms
before, but I did talk to Collier County staff back two and a half years
ago, and it was explained to me, and that's -- you know, that's all I can
say.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. KOREN: You know, I understand where you're coming
from, too.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, ma'am. No, I do, too.
MS. KOREN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: All right, Mr. Chair, it's time for our individual
speakers.
Just a reminder of the process to those here in the room. I'll call
two names. Please queue up at both podiums, first speaker followed
by the second speaker. And last reminder, there will be a single beep
when you have 30 seconds to go.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, point of clarification. If
any -- if these speakers were represented by either of the two
Page 143 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 131
speakers, are they also allowed to speak? Because I thought the
reason these speakers were given extra time is because they were
speaking on behalf of the individuals they represent.
MR. MILLER: If it helps, Mr. Chair, I have no way to identify
who these individuals are that are being represented because all I got
was the note from the attorney saying he represents them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I mean, all I'm asking you is, if
that's -- if that's the case, then if you can ask them were they
represented by either of the two speakers, then Troy can answer that
question.
MR. MILLER: All right. We'll move forward. Your first
speaker is Brad Cornell, and Brad will be followed by Matthew
Holliday.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you all this afternoon. I'm here
on behalf of Audubon Western Everglades which has 3,000 members
here in Collier County, and Audubon Florida that owns the
13,000-acre Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
I'm here to share that we have reviewed the three petitions before
you. We have also attended and testified before the Planning
Commission. And based on numerous factors and principles, we
strongly oppose the approval of these changes for this project, this
proposed project.
Our reasons are summarized in the following points: The
proposal is inconsistent with the Collier County Growth Management
Plan. Audubon objects to changing the Growth Management Plan's
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Neutral Lands on Section 29 to add
750 residential units. Audubon Western Everglades helped write the
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District policies and helped defend them in
court alongside Collier County in 2003. We hired our own attorney
that worked with your attorney, and we were successful in that
Page 144 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 132
defense.
Neutral Lands do have significant environmental value, such as
the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood, which is right next to Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary and is Neutral Lands, and North Belle Meade
Section 24 where the Nancy Payton Preserve is is also Neutral Lands.
These are highly valuable habitats.
Section 29 is also surrounded on three sides by preserves:
Outstanding Florida Waters, Collier-Seminole State Park, and very
near the Picayune Strand Everglades restoration project, which is the
panther conservation bank for all of Everglades restoration in South
Florida.
It's also near Ten Thousand Islands' National Wildlife Refuge
and Rookery Bay Reserve. The habitat value of this proposed
development site listed as a park in the PUD is fairly high as currently
pasture which is a prominent habitat in Primary Panther Zones. The
Primary and Secondary Panther Zones, by the way, have not been
updated since the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted them in 2008
based on earlier data. The abandonment of row craps -- row crops
has made this area much better panther habitat in recent years.
Audubon also objects to the violation of the original 1998 PUD
commitments in Section 29. Panthers -- and the objection we have is
that eight acres of the forested preserve, the actual preserve in that
PUD, are going to be destroyed for a road, and that's a significant loss,
especially when you consider this is a panther preserve. And
panthers are wide-ranging species. You put a road through, you
fragment that habitat. The value is much, much less. That's a big
deal.
And finally, I just want to -- I guess I'm not going to say
anything else.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
MR. CORNELL: But we do oppose this project. Thank you
Page 145 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 133
very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Matthew Holliday. He'll
be followed by William Mallas.
MR. HOLLIDAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. On
behalf of NCH, I'm grateful to be here today to talk to you a little bit
about what's impacting your healthcare and this community.
I wish I could remember where I found it, but I found an article
once upon a time from 1976 bemoaning the lack of affordable housing
in Collier County. I know how much you love anecdotes, but that's
the best I've got today there.
Consider in your outing that you've been out to lately,
restaurants, any services you're going after, finding workforce is
challenging. Now imagine that in a hospital. I live up in Lee
County, because that's where my bride works, that's where my child
goes to school, but I travel this route from Fort Myers to Naples every
day. I can tell you the volume of traffic coming into here for people
that work is overwhelming. These folks are coming on the roads
anyway; they're here.
When they find employment in Lee County, that's where they'll
go. You're going to lose services. You're going to lose access to
people that keep this county moving forward. And I know it affects
the county because I see county vehicles commuting morning and
evening back and forth to Lee County. So there are multiple
agencies, multiple organizations that are feeling the same effects we
are.
I've talked to you in the past. We've done studies on our
workforce. We know that about a third or 30 percent of our
workforce live in Lee County. That represents about an $88 million
economic impact that leaves Collier County every day with our
payroll.
We very much are sensitive to the needs of the environment, of
Page 146 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 134
our wildlife. I spend a lot of time in the Everglades just having fun
looking for animals myself; however, with 800 residents a day
moving to Florida -- that's one estimate -- these folks are going to
come somewhere. And if you want to continue to have access to the
best of services, the best medical care, you've got to do something
about accessible housing for the workforce. Keeping them local,
keeping those payroll dollars local. Keeping the interests local is
absolutely important to our mission, your school district, your law
enforcement, and all the other good people that keep everything
moving forward. So I thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Mallas. He will
be followed by Jan Mallas.
MS. MALLAS: We were going to cede our time.
MR. MILLER: Do you want to speak?
MR. MALLAS: No.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marlene -- oh, my
goodness. Is this Church? Lurch?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Steven John?
MR. JOHN: I was going to concede my time.
MR. MILLER: Do you want to speak individually, sir?
MR. JOHN: No.
MR. MILLER: Lawrence Peterson.
Mr. Peterson will be followed by Brad Clough. I hope I'm
saying that right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Clough. He left.
MR. MILLER: He left. So Karen Clough, I'm --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She left.
MR. MILLER: She left as well.
Annette Macaluso.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave.
Page 147 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 135
MR. MILLER: John Robinson. Mr. Robinson, you'll be after
this gentleman at the next podium.
Please go ahead, sir.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you. I'm here to deny the
Section 29 --
MR. MILLER: Can you start with your name, please, sir. Can
you state your name, please.
MR. PETERSON: Oh, Lawrence Peterson.
I'm here to try to deny the Section 29 development. A little bit
about my background, my parents were residents of Marco Island
since 1970s. My wife and I own property on Marco as well.
Therefore, I have firsthand experience with Andrew, Wilma, Irma,
and all the others that have impacted us. Now I own property on
Royal Palm.
In October, I sent a letter to Commissioner LoCastro, which he
answered, and I thank you, Commissioner.
I submitted -- submitted to the Board here for your review. In
that letter is a picture of my neighbor's backyard during Hurricane Ian.
The flooding approached their house, but I took the photograph to
document the damage to my screen. So it didn't show their house,
but it was pretty significant.
I would also offer this testimony that the flooding has touched
the shoulders of U.S. 41 during their recent -- during the recent
hurricanes, especially after all the rain that we had this year.
You're probably aware of the high-tide flooding on San Marco
Road, and I'm sure that you're -- your highway people can attest to
that.
I found Fiddler's presentation interesting in that they document
significant flooding on Auto Ranch. It's unfortunate they did not
picture the flooded yards.
My final statement is an opinion, but if -- as an old person, if the
Page 148 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 136
Army Corps of Engineers has not fully figured out how to solve the
impact of human develop and Mother Nature on the Everglades and
Okeechobee, for example, how does this applicant avoid adding to our
flooding problem?
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Robinson, and he
will be followed by Mara Robinson.
MS. ROBINSON: I was going to cede my time.
MR. MILLER: Do you want to speak individually, ma'am?
MS. ROBON: No.
MR. MILLER: John will be followed by Lawrence Hanba.
You'll be at this podium, sir.
Mr. Robinson.
MR. ROBINSON: John Robinson, Royal Palms Golf Estates
resident. Thank you for hearing me today.
The Planning Commission, when they denied this, were
completely aware of the separate preserve areas, park, and I'll
emphasize again, parkland, adult use. That whole area, for decades,
has been designated reserve, preserve, lakes, and park. It has never
meant to have multistory buildings at a density of 15 people per acre.
That is totally inappropriate use of that area.
It is going to cost millions of dollars to put in a road and a sewer
that won't benefit any of the people that currently live there. They
couldn't afford to hook up to the water or the sewer. In any case, it
potentially is going to make it worse for them because of -- the
flooding usually has to go to the low areas. Their homes are
probably even lower than ours in the Royal Palm Golf Estates.
As far as the workforce housing, there has to be, and there are,
much better locations. I know when we had the last Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Yovanovich was representing another
group that was putting in a new neighborhood very appropriately
Page 149 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 137
mixed-use, mixed single-family, multifamily dwellings, and it was in
an area that was very appropriate.
This area in Section 29 preserve/reserve, park, and lakes should
remain that way. If they want to put in boat storage houses, fine. If
they want to put in single-family workforce housing, fine. That
would be up to them.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lawrence Hanba. He'll
be followed by John Erario. I hope I'm saying that right.
You have three minutes, sir.
MR. HANBA: Yes. My name is Lawrence Hanba. I'm a
resident of Royal Palm Golf Estates. I've been a permanent resident
of Collier County for the past 10 years. I'm a retired attorney from
Michigan. I was involved in defense trial work for counties, cities,
school districts. I was also appointed a special attorney general for
the state of Michigan handling complicated litigation.
Gentlemen, we're here simply for one reason: Affordable
housing, period. This is why this was -- was not approved by the
staff [sic].
Specifically, I'd refer you to the Planning Commission transcript
where Commissioner Shea asked Mr. Bosi: "But for affordable
housing, would you have recommended this proposal?"
And he gave a one-word answer. Well, actually, it was more
than one word. He said, "No, we would not support it," period. He
didn't -- now they're trying to candy-coat it. That's not going to
work. That's in the transcript. It's in writing.
Now, the reason why they're trying to candy coat it, because that
was the throat shot for them on this case, okay.
The other thing is -- of interest is Commissioner Shea is not only
on the Planning Commission, he's also on the affordable housing
commission. He's an avid advocate for affordable housing when
Page 150 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 138
appropriate. But you know what, he said this isn't appropriate. He's
the only nonlawyer on the Planning Commission.
And, you know, he said, I don't -- you've got all this
mumbo-jumbo about the land code and all that stuff. All I know is
this doesn't make common sense to put a 750-unit apartment complex
in an area designated by FEMA as a special flood zone hazard with
one way of getting in and out where people that live on Auto Ranch
Road got to their homes after Ian in watercraft, and it was over two
miles away from this development.
Secondly, you know, in terms of other reasons under the code,
while this isn't a recommended application, Commissioner
Fryer -- and I gave each of you the transcript -- portions of the
transcript from the hearing at the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Fryer listed at least 11 reasons why, under the code,
this is not an appropriate development for this project.
Secondly, you know, my neighbors over here, as well as your
constituents, are very interested in this. You know, it's your job
under Subsection F.12 in the code -- the question is whether the
proposed change will institute a grant of special privilege to
individual owners as contrasted with the public welfare.
As indicated by Gary, the only people that are benefiting from
this proposal is the developer. The people that live on Auto Ranch
Road don't want it. They don't want all that traffic going by their
nice little community. And you're here to represent the community,
not just this particular development.
And getting to this -- getting to this developer -- getting to this
developer -- let's take a look at this developer, okay. He's promised
you guys that this is -- that this particular land was going to be set
aside as a preserve in --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Gary, your time's up. Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Erario. He will be
Page 151 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 139
followed by Terri May.
Terri, are you here?
MS. MAY: I ceded.
MR. MILLER: Did you want to speak individually?
MS. MAY: No.
MR. MILLER: Thomas W. May.
Sir, you'll be at this podium when Mr. Erario is done.
MR. ERARIO: Chairman Hall and Commissioners, my name is
John Erario, and I'd like to start by acknowledging and thanking the
Chairman for giving me some extra time up here. I requested about
20 minutes, and he agreed to that.
And I would just point out that the many -- virtually all of the
people who ceded their time intended to do so so that I could
represent them, and I appreciate the ability to do that.
I have been -- I live on Royal Hammock Boulevard. Again,
John Erario. I live on Royal Hammock Boulevard. And my home
directly borders the Lake 25 canal directly to the north of Section 29.
The group that I belong to has been involved in this research for
two and a half years, and much of the material that you've received
has, in one way or another, come out of the research that we've done.
I'll say at the outset, Mr. Yovanovich is a terrific advocate, and
he's been doing everything I think he can to make the case that much
of the history of this very complicated issue doesn't matter, and what I
need to do here is to try and refute that. And it's important that I do
so because there are a number of Fiddler's Creek commitments to
Collier County that weren't kept, U.S. Army Corps and U.S. Wildlife
Service permit conditions that were not complied with over time, and
portions of the petitioner's past public testimony at the NIM meetings,
at the Planning Commission hearings, and even today, I would
suggest are not quite accurate.
So in a few minutes I'll discuss some of that, and that's what I
Page 152 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 140
handed out to you, a number of exhibits that I'll be referring to later.
Since 1998, 26 years of history have produced local ordinances,
permits, and numerous contractual agreements regarding the
petitioner in Section 29, and that basically begins with Ordinance
98-13, the Fiddler's Creek addition.
Now, we grant that the master plan has been revised a number of
times since 1998, and most recently with 18-27 in May of 2018, but
it's nonetheless critical, I think, for us to understand what was
happening in 1998, because this is when a conservation easement
covering all of Section 29 -- and I know that Mr. Yovanovich has said
that this is not the case, but that was supposed to cover all of
Section 29 was supposed to have been put in place.
So I'd like to please call your attention to Exhibit A, which is
Section 8. This actually was up on the viewer earlier. It's Section 8
from the ordinance indicating the parks designation uses, permitted
uses and structures, et cetera.
So one of the things that was not talked about when this was put
up on the viewer is -- if we look at Section 8.5-1 -- A rather. I know
it's hard to read, but it says that the uses set forth in preserve areas as
set forth in Section 5 of this PUD will apply to the park areas of
Section 29. So what this says, I think, is really important for us to
consider. It's saying that when you look at a park designated area in
the PUD, you have a -- now a linkage between the allowable uses in a
park and a preserve. That's exactly what that writing says, that the
uses set forth will apply in the preserve to the parks area.
And why is this important? If we look at Exhibit B, again, it's
the 5.5 reserve district conservation easement that's been spoken about
numerous times. And what we're trying to say is that it has to be
considered that if you link the preserve area uses to the park area use,
you also have to link the required conservation requirements of a
preserve with the areas in the park, and that was the intent.
Page 153 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 141
Especially when you read the minutes of 1998, that was the intent,
that the entirety of Section 29 would be placed under conservation
easement, because at the time it had purposes that were completely
unrelated to the conservation efforts that were made by the Fish and
Wildlife Service. At that time it was because -- providing a buffer,
urban sprawl, all those things that you're well aware of. In 2018, it
was a totally different reason for looking for conservation on that
land.
So, again, I would ask you to consider the importance of that
very important 8.5-A, which talks about linking the uses in a preserve
to the park areas of the Fiddler's Creek PUD.
So the applicant has talked about -- to a great extent about
platting and that the land wasn't supposed to be -- didn't need to be
platted -- the land did not have to, excuse me, go under a conservation
easement until it was platted, and I think we have a big problem with
that reasoning.
Section 5.5 requires the conservation easement to Collier County
on all park and preserve land, and when would that apply? Well, in
Ordinance 19 -- 98-13 it was established that no residential
construction was permitted on Section 29. That's what the law said
in 1998. So it would have been clear at that time that the land would
never be platted by definition, because if you can't build on it, you'll
never plat it.
So the easement was never filed in 1998, and the reasons cited in
a memorandum that Mr. Yovanovich wrote for the planners, and
which was even referred to today, is that, you know, to date the lands
have not been platted, and so therefore, no conservation easement.
But here's the problem. The applicant can't base the reason for not
filing the easement in 1998 on conditions that he thought would occur
in the future.
So it's a -- it's a requirement that was made in 1998, and it should
Page 154 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 142
have been executed in 1998. So we feel very strongly that those
conditions should be satisfied now, that an easement should be placed
on the land now. And I would also note, just for your consideration,
that if he will not file that easement now -- and this is just a logical
thing to consider. Let's agree that as soon as a plat is required, he
will go ahead and file the conservation easement which will, in effect,
block him from doing the very development on that land that they just
platted. So it actually is a total illogical thing to suggest that they
want to handle the conservation easement based on platting in that
way.
What I -- what I had planned to do -- and I'll really try to make
this brief, and I think it's important, is that we've had Tim Hall come
up here. We've had opposing counsel come up here. And one of the
things that we need to do is discuss what -- and Mr. LoCastro has
pointed this out, what is the truth of things? And I want to point out
just the record that points out some of the inconsistencies in what
we're trying to determine is true and not true.
At the second NIM meeting in September of 2023, among other
things, Mr. Hall stated that the reason that the conservation covenants
weren't filed with regard to Oyster Harbor and Estancia and the U.S.
Army Corps permit, they weren't filed -- and this is a quote, that they
were not filed because the development of Section 29 was being
contemplated as far back as then, so the coordination with the Fish
and Wildlife Service was ongoing through that period.
A similar question at the hearings -- in answer to a similar
question, he said, "The easements hadn't been filed because we had
been in discussions to change this area, and to my mind, it made no
sense to put a conservation easement on the property and then take it
off."
If we can look at Exhibit E, Exhibit E is an e-mail I received
from Robert Carey. I'm sorry, it was sent from John Policarpo from
Page 155 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 143
the U.S. Army Corps to Robert Carey from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on August 11th of 2022. And that letter states, "As of right
now, no one has notified us," meaning the Corps, "about modifying
the permit." So when we look at statements being made about the
permit not being filed, but, you know, we were coordinating with the
Wildlife Service to do so, this, to me, directly refutes that, and I think
that it would be worth questioning Mr. Hall to find out why that
exists.
Over more than two years of direct communications with the
Corps and the Service, as well as a review of thousands of documents
we obtained from FOIA and the federal -- from FOIA, from those two
agencies. There's absolutely no evidence of any sort on the part of
either of those agencies that there was any understanding with the
applicant that easements had not been recorded or that discussions
were underway to modify the biological opinion.
And in the absence of any information, like an e-mail or a letter,
which I'm going to talk about in a few minutes, to the contrary, I leave
it to the commissioners to ascertain from Mr. Hall how and why his
statements are so incongruous with this evidence.
In the hearings, Mr. Yovanovich stated on a number of occasions
that the petitioner is now, in the present, compliant with the federal
permit, but let the record show that for four-plus years they were out
of compliance until they were caught and cited in October of 2022.
It's, therefore, I believe, likely that the conservation covenants that
were finally filed in November of '22 would almost certainly not exist
today if concerned citizens hadn't taken action to alert the federal
agencies that the applicant had not filed for four years.
At the hearings, Mr. Yovanovich suggested that even after
coming into compliance with the permit by filing the covenants, the
applicant was in continuing negotiations with the federal agencies to
modify the terms of the biological opinion, and these are verbatim.
Page 156 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 144
And, again, I bring these to the microphone because we're trying to
seek truth. These are verbatim quotes taken from the 4/18 hearing
that were spoken. "We've been totally aboveboard with every
agency. We're not hiding the ball from anybody. We weren't
saying, 'Screw you. Catch us.' And maybe, most importantly, we
are still talking through this process."
But if we look at Exhibit G, please, Exhibit G is an e-mail from
Robert Carey to me where I had questioned him about these alleged
conversations and communications that were going on. And Robert
Carey, in part, writes, if you look at the highlighted area, "I have no
indication that the Service had an agreement with the permitholder to
delay meeting the terms and conditions of the BO."
So I would ask, Commissioners, if you think it will be useful to
you to hear from the petitioner's counsel an explanation for these
diametrically opposed inconsistencies between his version of the facts
and this evidence.
Mr. Yovanovich is suggesting that there are -- still ongoing talks
to modify the opinion to lift the mitigation requirements deserve even
further scrutiny given a letter from Mr. Carey to Mr. Hall, if you look
at Exhibit H. This letter was written on January 31st, and
Mr. Oldehoff referred to it. The letter states in part,
"Modifying" -- and this is about the finality of the condition of the
conservation status of Section 29 and this notion that it can still
somehow be changed by speaking to the federal agencies.
"Modifying the project and the biological opinion in the context
of the original Corps permit is not possible. For the above reasons,
we are unable to process the modification you have requested." It's
impossible to misconstrue the finality of this letter.
Additionally, it's notable that this letter also refutes a number of
representations we've heard today and in the past from Mr. Hall and
other of the counsel's agents, that Section 29 is no longer
Page 157 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 145
environmentally important. Well, in this very letter, Mr.
Carey -- Mr. Carey refutes this contention on the part of the applicant,
and his expert analysis is highlighted in blue. And you'll see that it
talks about specifically -- and we heard a little bit about this before, of
the value because of panthers and other species that are protected that
are on this land.
It's also noteworthy that in 2018, Mr. Hall represented this land
as being absolutely environmentally important enough to be traded as
mitigation for the loss of panther habitat in the Oyster Harbor
neighborhood, and a few years later suddenly that has completely
changed.
Jim Banks came up here before. It was very interesting to hear
what he had to say. And just quickly, I'll say that when he spoke at
the Planning Commission, he talked about the fact that there had been
six crashes in six years. If we look at Exhibit J, there was an
exchange between Mr. Oldehoff and Mr. Banks. Much of that was,
you know, brought out by Mr. Banks today.
But the report concluded six crashes in six years. His expert
findings of how future traffic conditions at this intersection will
change if the project is approved was a comparison of six crashes in
six years on a one-way rural road dead-end as compared to an
acknowledged 4,883 daily trips. This is in his -- these trips -- and
Mr. LoCastro, you brought -- you asked this question before. The
documentation is right in here. The trips and the peak counts, it's all
there.
Yes, there will be peak hours where there's a few hundred
vehicles per hour. It actually amounts to one per minute, if you look
at it. But over the course of each and every day, 4,883 vehicle trips.
So I think that comparing six crashes in six years on a dead-end
road to that amount of traffic is a strategy that speaks for itself.
I'll also say that in the diagrams that were put up about the
Page 158 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 146
right-turn lane onto Auto Ranch Road from 41 and the left-turn lane
off of 41, there was no mention -- and if you know Auto Ranch Road,
you'll know what I'm talking about -- there's no mention -- when
someone comes north on Auto Ranch Road to make a northbound turn
onto 41, that is going to be the most dangerous traffic event that can
possibly happen there. You're making a left turn on a road that has a
60-mile-per-hour speed limit, and I heard nothing from Mr. Banks
about how that traffic condition would be handled.
I propose today that the bar's not been met to amend the GMP in
favor of what the applicant is asking for. The public benefit is clearly
limited to 225 apartments and Auto Ranch Road. That is the totality
of the public benefit.
The major benefit goes to the 525 luxury apartment owners who
will live in this complex, and that leads us to question, do the goals of
balanced land-use decisions all go by the wayside on -- when we look
at this protected parcel and the small amount of public benefit that we
actually have when we look at it carefully?
These proceedings in my mind, represent a unique opportunity to
set precedent, and Mr. LoCastro mentioned that before. When
instances such as these come up, which I would say have a higher bar
than many do where the land in question has been legally designated
as conservation land not once but twice, and affordable -- the
affordable housing workforce umbrella becomes a tool and a means to
obtain, you know, a large, probably mostly incompatible use.
So on behalf of the entire community, I ask that consideration to
allow or deny this change be undertaken with the greatest care, which
I know you will do.
I had a couple other quick notes here. Mr. Bosi wrote -- said
before that the diagram that he put up stated that federal and state
permits would be reviewed at site development, and we understand
that to be the case. But I would ask you this: It's peripherally
Page 159 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 147
related to what you're going to decide today.
There was a Site Development Plan in 2018 when Oyster Harbor
was constructed. If what Mr. Bosi said is going to happen, if this
project moves forward, I have to ask -- and I have asked. I have not
gotten an answer -- why didn't it happen in 2018? Because in 2018 at
site development, if they had been asked to produce their federal
permit, which they had just obtained at the time, and they had put it
on the table, it would have said you cannot start construction unless
this easement is filed within 90 days of putting a shovel in the ground.
That did not happen. That's a failure on the part, I believe, of both
this county and applicant, and I've never heard an explanation for why
if site development is the time and place when a federal permit is put
on the table, why wasn't it done there? Because if it had been, we
wouldn't be talking about a conservation easement that had lapsed for
four and a half years and was only satisfied in 2022.
In the future, developers who own land that is protected under
easement or covenant will come into this room and cite the decision
you make today. Will it be a decision that weakens the protection of
preserve land and reinforces the use of affordable housing and the
funding of capital improvements as a tool to do an end run around
Growth Management Plan guidelines, or will it be a decision that
upholds the county's commitment defined by the objectives and
policies of the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development
Code?
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, your vote to reject this
defective rezoning petition may well become a modern landmark
decision and one that will set precedent for years to come, an
affirmation that this body -- from this body that changes to the
Growth Management Plan must always live in harmony with the Land
Development Code and Florida Statute even when affordable housing
is the driving force.
Page 160 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 148
In one of the closing comments at the Planning Commission
hearings on July 18th, Chairman Fryer said, "Right now what's before
us, I think, is affordable housing above all else, and I reject that."
I believe that was -- there was much wisdom in those words, and
I ask that you cast a vote of no to the rezoning portion of the petition
before you today.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Thomas May. I'm sorry.
Hold on, Thomas.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro's --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: John, I have a couple
questions for you.
MR. ERARIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: First off, I hope the multitude
of citizens who aren't here but who have sent us notes and whatnot
realize how much work you and Christine, especially, have done on
this project, you know, from day one. Every meeting in my office
was extremely professional, and sometimes when we're dealing with
these really difficult decisions, the citizen side isn't always that
informed and professional.
If you're looking for a strike to the throat, as was said up here,
you gave us a lot of exhibits. Do you have Exhibit H1 in front of you
right now? Do you have a copy of it?
MR. ERARIO: Yes, I do. I can look at it with you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So it's the letter from
the Interior dated January 31st, 2024?
MR. ERARIO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want you to rip it out of your
packet there, and I want you to hand it to Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. ERARIO: It's the first thing I've ever given
Mr. Yovanovich.
Page 161 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 149
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, you're about -- see, you
guys are cooperating now. We're working together.
There's some really significant things in this letter that concern
me and always have. And so I'll -- I mean, I'll leave it to
Mr. Yovanovich. You know, he'll have a chance to speak. But, you
know, we're here to hear facts and rebuttals and maybe agree to
disagree on certain things.
But, you know, there's a letter here from the Department of
Interior with some very specific language in it that you read. You
paraphrased a couple times a little bit. Like, read the exact words,
you know. You kind of jumped over a couple things. But the tone
is in here. I mean, I said before, if you've got a special letter talking
about special soil, we need five copies of it.
MR. ERARIO: Oh --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So -- but this letter right here
is significant. And so I'm sure the applicant -- I've never addressed
this with the landowner, the applicant, the legal representation, so
we'll get to that. But I just -- I'm sure this is something that Mr.
Yovanovich has, and if he already has it, he can hand it back to you.
But at some point, in the closing or in the rebuttal, certainly this
right here is, to me, in your packet -- we all read the dialogue. We
know what happened at the Planning Commission. We know the
difference between 4,000 trips and 200 trips, depending on how you
do the algorithm. This right here is a thing I need some answers to,
and maybe my colleagues would feel the same.
MR. ERARIO: If I could just say that I provided in here, but I
didn't get to mention it, you had asked about panther trajectory, and
there's a map in there --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I saw it.
MR. ERARIO: -- which is actually part of this letter that talks
about that.
Page 162 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 150
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. We'll get to it. It's
not a question -- or an answer we need now, but this is the main thing
I pulled. And there again, thank you again for all the time you've put
into this.
MR. ERARIO: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Thomas May. Mr. May
will be followed by Kristina Park.
MR. MAY: Hi. My name is Thomas May. Thank you for
taking a few minutes to listen to me. I am not an expert. I was
raised a middle-class person in Wisconsin, and I did work at
McDonald's.
Okay. Some questions I have that maybe could be answered
after I'm done, 49.9, 49.9. I don't know why that number's there,
49.9 acres.
My home is 240 feet from the canal on the north side of
Section 29. Ian brought the water within 30 feet of my house,
halfway up my driveway. Scared the poop out of me. I was there.
I was there for all the hurricanes.
Section 29, I looked at that a little bit, and I'm going, what the
heck is that? Well, it's only valued at $16,099,000. Nice piece of
property for 320 acres.
So I looked at -- there was a transition in 2011 where they sold it
to FCC Preserve, LLC. Signed by one, two, three, four, five
Delaware limited liability corporations. So it was not a local
ownership even though the new ownership is Fiddler's Creek Ways.
When I look at this, I try and look at common sense. I don't
want the land shoveled or anything because that's my protection
against surge, as well as all the rest of these people that live on that
canal, and I'm on the other side of the road.
What I look at is why are they doing this? Well, let's go back.
They had permission to build 6,000 houses. They built 6,000. What
Page 163 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 151
are we going to do now? Let's build some more on Section 29, some
more houses. Can't do that. That's in a preserve. Well, if it's in a
preserve, let's just change that so it's not a preserve anymore.
If you gave it to us as a preserve the way it was given to us in
2006, 11/18, whenever it was, that's the way it stays.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, can I ask you a question?
MR. MAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll defer to the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Sir, so like you said, you're
not an expert, and maybe none of us are perfect experts, but we're
trying to digest all of this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Burt is.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Burt is. Yeah, that's right.
But your contention is the photos of your house, if we saw them
during Ian, right, the way the water came up, that if they built 750
units 300-plus feet away from your house, or maybe it's more give or
take or whatever, with improved drainage, improvement to Auto
Ranch Road, and all the other things that would be required per code,
I mean, you wouldn't be building -- and I'm asking this hypothetically,
okay. Just hear me out, because I want to hear what -- because I
think you're representing a lot of people that live on your same street
that are all showing us pictures of what happened during Ian. I can
tell you pictures of my house were way worse than yours.
But the reality of what I'm trying to get at is if anybody builds
anything now, the level of requirement per code and permit is way
more -- much higher expectation than your current house, my current
house, and all of Fiddler's Creek.
But your contention is, if they built something to code now with
all of the requirements and drainage and all the improvements to Auto
Page 164 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 152
Ranch Road and Ian hit exactly the way it hit when it did, your house
would be flooded more because of this new construction than if we
build nothing on that -- on that parcel. I mean, is that -- that's
basically your contention?
MR. MAY: No. If you take a 55-gallon drum, fill it with water
to the top, and put a bowling ball in it, water's coming out.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. MAY: You disturb one cubic yard of that soil, that water's
got nowhere to absorb.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So here's my reply to
that --
MR. MAY: No matter what engineering can do, they're not
going to fix the problem of surge.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So if they have to put a
55-gallon drum in the middle of a plot of land, before they drop the
bowling ball, do you realize that the permit requirements for
construction would be so intense that drainage around that 55-gallon
drum and a whole bunch of other things would catch that water and
not just throw it in your living room?
MR. MILLER: It's proven by Collier County that even our
highway ditches retain water for more than three months after rainy
season.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I know, and that's -- and that's
not a --
MR. MAY: Agreed?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No, look up here, sir, because
you're talking to me. So when there's water in swales for a month,
two months, one of the things that I say a lot of times to my citizens is
the reason the swale's there is because if it wasn't, that water would be
in your living room.
And so when swales catch water, even if it sticks around a little
Page 165 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 153
bit longer -- and as you know, we have king tides and we have all
types of other things. It doesn't always drain in an hour.
But the fact that those swales are there or that significant permit
and requirements now that we have on the books now would require
significant drains around that 55-gallon drum, like, do you realize that
the water from anything built on Section 29, if it was built, wouldn't
just run off into your living room, that there would be such intense
requirements, even above and beyond what the applicant's looking to
do to Auto Ranch Road; that they would have to have the significant
drainage and all of those things to catch that water? It wouldn't just
roll right into your living room.
I mean, I don't want to oversimplify this, but they don't just build
something on a hill, and then when it rains, they're dry and you're
flooded. It doesn't work that way.
MR. MAY: There are some issues with the Southwest Water
Management on a blockage on a drain that was permitted back in
2006, something like that. And that's being addressed and
investigated now because we were told that it had to be maintained. I
agree to disagree with the rest of your statement.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. MAY: Auto Ranch Road, those people are going to be
dramatically affected.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kristina Park. She'll be
followed by Susan Caglioti. Susan, are you here?
(Raises hand.)
MR. MILLER: Go ahead, Kristina.
MS. PARK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm Kristina Park, the President and CEO of the Greater Naples
Chamber.
We represent approximately 1,000 members and over 50,000
Page 166 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 154
employees across Collier County. We work every day to strength the
local economy and to build our business community.
Housing affordability is the foremost concern for our members
with employers through the entire community consistently telling us
that the cost of housing is the number one most significant barrier to
recruiting and retaining a qualified workforce. This concern was also
reflected in the Collier County Community Foundation's most recent
community needs assessment which found that 65 percent of
respondents said that controlling housing costs should be a priority
moving forward, making it the most selection -- selected option in this
survey.
We saw similar results in a recent survey of our membership
with 70 percent of our members stating that housing is the
number-one concern facing continuity of business.
I'm encouraged by Fiddler's Creek desire to incorporate
workforce housing into their plans, and I believe it demonstrates an
understanding of our community's need as we consistently struggle
with the workforce housing challenges. Their proposal would add an
additional 225 below-market-rate units to our inventory ensuring that
our essential workers, like you heard from Mr. Holliday earlier, can
live in the community in which they serve.
I encourage you to approve this project today, and I am confident
that once approved this will have a meaningful impact on the
workforce housing needs for our community.
Thank you for your dedication to Collier County.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Caglioti. She will
be followed by Robert Hartsell.
Is Mr. Hartsell present? Yes, sir. You'll be at that podium.
Ms. Caglioti, go ahead, please.
MS. CAGLIOTI: Hello, Commissioners.
MR. MILLER: Can you get the mic right in front of your mouth
Page 167 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 155
there. Thank you, ma'am.
MS. CAGLIOTI: I'd like to help out a little bit with that hydro
period wetland. I believe that is referred to in Tim Hall's
environmental assessment on Section 29, if that's a help at all.
Okay. I had to pare down this, so I'm going to maybe have to
jump all over the place. But Fiddler's Creek added Fiddler's Creek
addition to their existing PUD in '98 coming to the county at a
February 24th, '98, hearing wanting to amend their PUD stating, if
allowed to add the 1,385 acres, they would do something important
and needed in return for the county.
Dr. Nelson, who was one of their experts -- and this is taken
directly word for word -- says, "Roughly the bottom third of -- of
Section 19 and all of Section 29 will be preserved, thereby providing a
buffer between urban development and the state-owned wetlands
beyond."
Commissioner Hancock then says, "There's a common statement
that urban boundary will someday get moved and that it's a shifting
line, which is not what our plans indicate. But as you point out, in
this case right now, there's no clear line in the sand in this particular
area. With this amendment, if it's approved today, that line becomes
far more clear to anyone in the future than it is currently."
Dr. Nelson says, "That's correct."
Commissioner Hancock says, "I think that's something that we
need to consider because not to approve it would probably allow the
waters to be muddied more so then clarifying them, and I think for our
public clarifying that line is key to them. So I thank you for that."
The above was agreed upon unanimously, and both sides were
under oath.
An argument we've heard is that this is an old agreement, and it's
no longer relevant; however, this goes against the very reason the
amendment was agreed upon in the first place, that being that growth
Page 168 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 156
will happen in the future, and when it does, this agreement will serve
as a hard line in the sand providing clear guidance to future
lawmakers, as it surely should today here and now.
I'll skip to the end. What the petitioner is asking for was given
away repeatedly over the years by this applicant. Please
note -- please vote to uphold the clear directives that are memorialized
in the '98 ordinance and minutes. Please honor the importance of this
land environmentally, ecologically, to this county and to the State of
Florida and, importantly, please deny, as there is so much at stake
here to be lost for a project that lacks true affordable -- affordable
housing benefits to the ones who truly need it. Please vote no to
rezoning of Section 29. Thanks.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Hartsell.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got a question for you.
MR. MILLER: Hold on, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So why do you think it
provides no affordable housing benefit when it's 225 units? Why do
you say that?
MS. CAGLIOTI: Well, because of where it is. Now, if it's for
doctor -- or rather, nurses and teachers and whatnot, I don't know just
how many of those jobs are immediately in that area. And with more
and more affordable housing coming in, I mean, just how much is
needed for that? So that's my question. And then they brought up,
well, there's Walmart and there's this and there's that. Well, you
know, you can't have it both ways.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What are the both ways?
MS. CAGLIOTI: Well, if it's going to be for people that make
80- to over 100-, 104-, and then you're going to say somebody at
Walmart is going to be making that or working at Lowe's is going to
be making that, that doesn't really jive. I don't know how many hours
they'd have to work to get to that point. So I just think -- and I know
Page 169 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 157
you don't like this, but I just think it would be better served elsewhere.
It's --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Of course.
MS. CAGLIOTI: It's not on a main -- no, it's not on a main
arterial road.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me ask you this, ma'am.
Mr. Holliday who works at NCH drives from Lee County, and I
guarantee you a large percentage of medical staff at NCH and the
hospital that I ran, Physicians Regional where I was a COO for
multiple years, came from a lot further than just a few miles down the
road.
So I'm trying to separate rumor from fact. And when, you
know, the main points being told to us are, "Wow, affordable
housing's great, but it's the wrong area" -- first of all, this is my
district. I can tell you it's a long walk to a whole bunch of places for
225 apartment renters if this project was put there.
So, you know, that particular argument, hey, H-1 here, I can't
wait to talk about this one, you know, the flooding and those things.
But I will tell you, we've put affordable housing, a unanimous vote
here with the support of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee,
further away from commercial and employee-impacted areas than
this. So, I mean, I'm just -- you know, I'm trying to decipher this one
and make sure that people don't just come to the podium and talk
about special soil but can't give me a letter.
And where's Christine? Christine, no disrespect. But I'm
telling you, what did we talk about in my office? If you're going to
bring forward the main arguments --
And same goes for Mr. Yovanovich. You don't think we're
about to beat him up so that we can get down to brass tacks here?
And same for Mr. Bosi. So make sure you don't leave either, Rich
[sic].
Page 170 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 158
But I will tell you, this area is in the middle of a place that
does -- I will tell you, if we cut a ribbon on this place tomorrow, there
will be -- there will be a line out the door. There would be a long
wait list. Because we've done it on Santa Barbara, we've done it on
Davis and some other places.
So I'm not saying what you say doesn't have merit, but, you
know, when you make a statement that says, "Affordable housing in
this area really has, like, you know, no basis, it should go somewhere
else," that's not a strong argument with me.
MS. CAGLIOTI: It was in the context of --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. CAGLIOTI: -- gains and losses --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. CAGLIOTI: -- risks and benefits.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And that's what I
wanted to give you, is I wanted you to clarify. You know, okay.
MS. CAGLIOTI: Yeah, to give up so much. I mean -- and you
talked about accountability earlier. Accountability matters here.
This land has been bargained away several times differently, but it
keeps getting used, and now here we have affordable housing. Oh,
yeah, let's do this. This is the time to do it. We'll get in there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MS. CAGLIOTI: Forget about every other agreement that we
ever made. That was my point.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. No. And that's I -- I
wanted to give you the extra time to clarify your position.
MS. CAGLIOTI: Yeah, it was risk and benefit.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I got it. Thank you, ma'am.
MR. MILLER: After Mr. Hartsell is Amy Ernst.
Ms. Ernst, are you here? Okay. You'll be at this podium.
Mr. Hartsell, three minutes.
Page 171 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 159
MR. HARTSELL: Robert Hartsell with Hartsell, Ozery, P.A. I
represent Alicia Russo, Shannon Russo, David Russo, Kailey Russo,
and Anthony Russo, who are all residents within the Fiddler Creek
development.
We are -- my client is more concerned with the master plan
revisions that are happening within the Fiddler Creek development,
especially the ones that are being incorporated into this larger
development plan.
First I want to go -- my planning is sort of checking off the
boxes. You heard it today. You go through it, you look at the code,
you look at the Comprehensive Plan, and you check off the boxes; do
they comply?
First thing you want to do whenever you have a hearing like this,
was there proper notice, right? Was there proper notice to the
residents? Well, in the package I delivered to you, there's two
pictures where it shows that the sign was down for 80 percent of the
time that notice was required before the first hearing, which is in
violation of the code, so you can't check that box.
Second box, was there written findings by the Planning
Commission? And, Commissioner LoCastro, you hit it on the head.
I want to know what they said. They were required under your code
to provide written findings to this board. They didn't. You don't see
it. We saw the minutes. We haven't found the written findings, and
they're extensive findings. Those findings are -- are in 10.02.13.B.5,
A through H, and they're extensive findings that they're supposed to
give you of why they made that decision. And everybody keeps
talking about "I don't know how they made that decision," and
everybody's giving their different interpretation. They're required to
give it to you. They didn't. You need to remand it back for them to
give you that decision.
The next one -- there were substantial revisions in this from the
Page 172 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 160
2018 master plan to the 2024 master plan. I list them. There's six.
They were casually addressed that, "Oh, yeah, we put one roadway
in." These are substantial because they change the traffic circulation
within that development.
And when you want to talk about property rights and people's
ability to use and enjoy their property to the best that they can, when
you change a promise like the 2018 master plan and you sell that
property to somebody and then you change the traffic circulation so
everybody has to dump out into a failing road, that's a problem.
The last -- I want to talk about that external traffic of dumping
the traffic from Estancia out through the development onto Collier
Boulevard. Collier Boulevard's a failing road. Now, all that traffic
comes out into a failing road that's over 125 percent at peak.
I ask that you deny this application. I ask that you remand it and
send it back down to the Planning Commission to give you written
findings so that we can at least know what we're all talking about and
what they said and what their expert opinion was. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Amy Ernst. She'll be
followed by Robert Weissmein.
Robert, are you present?
MR. WEISSMEIN: I am, but I going to cede my time.
MR. MILLER: Ashley -- is this Jones?
MS. JONES: Yes. You will be at the next podium after
Ms. Ernst.
Amy, you have three minutes.
MS. ERNST: Hi. I'm Amy Ernst. I live on Royal Palm -- I live
in Royal Palm on Royal Hammock Boulevard. I'm also a member of
the HOA board.
I would just like to say that we do have crocodiles. They have
come across from Section 29. I have pictures of them. We have
panthers. I have seen bats. I can't tell if they're bonneted bats, but I
Page 173 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 161
see them flying around. They don't stop and talk to me, so I don't
know.
And I do know that landowners do have rights to their lands;
however, Fiddler's Creek, this Section 29 wasn't land that they had
purchased because they wanted to purchase it. They purchased it,
they got it as panther habitat remediation land so that they could build
their Estancia -- or Oyster Harbor land. So it's really a shell
game -- now it's a shell game. Now it's like, "We have it. Let's do
something with it," and that's what they want to do.
We're also talking about the affordable housing that they have
back there, they're going to put back there, and if we just talk about
the 225 apartments that they're going to put in there, they're 225
apartments. We have 342 lots/homes in our development, which if
the flooding does get worse -- all the hurricanes are getting stronger.
Ian, my house was surrounded by the water. I'm not directly on the
canal. I'm across the street from it. But you're going to be
potentially putting the homes in our development and the golf course
in risk of flooding, and I know you understand that there's other things
that they can do to remediate it. But these are apartments. They're
not taxpayers, and I know all that kind of stuff.
And some of the older homes, I believe, are going to be put at
risk for that -- the hydro period land. You put concrete on that,
you're going to stop the water flow underground when that storm
surge comes in. It's not the water going back out. I'm concerned
more about the storm surge coming in with the high tides and
everything else. And when you have concrete and asphalt and all
that, that's not going to absorb any water. And I know you're going
to say they're going to put palms in or whatever. I don't know.
You know, the Board, years ago in, I think it was, '98 promised
the residents of Collier County that this land in 29 was going to be set
aside as a buffer. It was promised to the residents of Collier County.
Page 174 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 162
I don't care if it was 100 years ago or 300 years ago, it was a promise
that was made, and I know it's something that I think that the Board
should also keep in mind that promises should be kept that are
important to the residents of the thing.
And I request that you vote this down. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Miller, before Ms. Jones speaks, let's
take a 10-minute court reporter break. We're due for that. Give
Terri a break, and then we'll be back here at 10 after three.
(A brief recess was had from 2:58 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.)
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Ms. Jones, we're ready for
you, yes.
CHAIRMAN HAL REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the
testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
MS. JONES: Yes.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ashley Jones.
I'm the vice president of Community Impact at United Way of Collier
in the Keys.
I'm writing to -- I'm here today to express my support for the
proposed multifamily residential community with Fiddler's Creek
Section 29. This development addresses a critical and pressing need
in Collier County, the availability of affordable housing for our
hardworking residents.
The asset-limited, income-constrained employed report for
Collier County illustrates the severe challenges faced by 42 percent of
households. Thirty-two percent of those households are ALICE
households, and 10 percent are in poverty. These families struggle to
afford the essential housing, childcare, food, and healthcare despite
being employed in vital community roles.
The project's commitment to reserve 225 units for workforce
Page 175 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 163
housing targeting those earning 80 to 100 percent of the area median
income directly addresses these challenges. Financial hardship is
growing, and it's a concern.
Collier County's median household income is 80,815, but with
the rising cost of living leaves many behind. The household survival
budget for a family of four was estimated at $82,164 annually,
equating to an hourly wage of $41.08; however, as of 2024, the figure
has risen significantly, approaching 110,000 per year, which equates
to an hourly wage of $52.28, assuming a standard 40-hour workweek
over 52 weeks.
Single-parent households, particularly those led by women, are
disproportionately affected with 72 percent of the female households
below the ALICE threshold. This proposed project provides a vital
solution by offering housing that aligns with these economic realities.
Workforce impacts: Housing of 40 [sic] deeply impacts the
county's ability to retain essential workers. For example, as we've
heard today, public safety and healthcare workers, first responders and
medical technicians often commute long distances due to prohibitive
housing costs. In our education sector, educators essential to the
future of our community face similar challenges. Addressing their
housing needs supports recruitment and retention.
The Fiddler's Creek project not only promises to reduce these
barriers but also aligns with Collier County's broader goals of
workforce stability and economic growth.
The developer's commitment to preserving two-thirds of the
property as nature reserves ensures that the project respects and
enhances the county's environmental priorities. This balance
between growth and preservation reflects thoughtful planning as a
set -- sets a standard for future developments.
Support of the ALICE population by providing stable affordable
housing also strengthens the local economy by allowing workers to
Page 176 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 164
live closer to their jobs, reducing commute times and costs. As a
non-profit professional and a long-term resident of Southwest Florida,
I have seen firsthand the struggle ALICE households face.
Thank you for considering this essential step towards addressing
the housing crisis in Collier County. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Ferriby, and he will
be followed by Lynn Copper.
MS. COPPEL: Coppel.
MR. MILLER: Coppo?
MR. FERRIBY: Good afternoon. My name's Robert Ferriby,
and I live in Royal Palm Golf Estates also. I also am a retired
lawyer, having done it for roughly 40 years.
That being said, I would like to talk a little bit about the Planning
Commission hearing. It seems like we've kind of glossed over some
of that. That was three days, multiple witnesses, examination and
cross-examination not only by counsel for both sides, but also by the
commissioners themselves. Interestingly enough, at the conclusion
of that, all of the commissioners suggested that this was not a good
place to put this project.
They all acknowledged that affordable housing was important;
however, they made it clear in their analysis, and they stated right in
their findings, that, in fact, that desire for affordable housing did not
rise to the level that it should override all of these multiple reasons
that they came up with that this project should not go forward.
It's important to note that they were very concerned and spent
some time on the fact that Fiddler's Creek did not do what they were
obligated to do in 1997 and 1998 when they undertook this project.
They did not file the conservation easement and, in fact, they have
never filed one.
Instead, they filed some conservation covenants that they drafted
and that benefited them and that had provisions that allowed for
Page 177 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 165
potential modification. This was not what was originally
contemplated, and I think the Planning Commission was
understandably bothered by that fact.
I believe, Commissioner LoCastro, you indicated you had
concerns about this January 24th letter from the Department of
Interior, specifically Fish and Wildlife. We can go farther back than
that. In October of 1922 [sic], the Commission said, "The Service
finds that revising the biological opinion is not in the best interest of
the conservation of the Florida panther. Not only was the previously
[sic] upon mitigation never completed, but additional development on
this property would cause habitat for panthers in this area to become
more fragmented and create additional adverse impacts."
And they go on to indicate that there is no reason they should
change their opinion, and they say in '24, they will not change their
opinion.
For these reasons and the almost 20 reasons cited by the planning
commissioners after three days of testimony, I ask you -- putting
affordable housing aside, because we can see this is not the
appropriate area for it --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERRIBY: -- it comes down to profit versus us wanting to
protect our home.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you so much, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Lynn Compo [sic]. She'll
be followed by Tom -- is this Slaughter? I think. Lynn?
So Lynn must not be here.
Tom will be followed by Todd Lyon. Is Mr. Lyon here? Yes.
Okay. You'll be at this speaker.
Tom, you have three minutes, sir.
MR. SLAUGHTER: Thank you. For the record, my name is
Tom Slaughter. I'm a land-use planner by trade, spent 20 years in
Page 178 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 166
local government. Since leaving government, I've also served on a
community redevelopment agency as well as, in Lee County,
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
In reviewing this petition, I'm going to keep my comments
strictly just to the affordable housing and especially locational factors.
One of the interesting things I found is the absent [sic] of direct
policies in answer to questions of how this is in support, and I have
gone through the material and through your own Growth Management
Plan, your Land Development Code. And then, lastly, we depend on
state and federal guidelines as well for affordable housing.
And what I'm speaking to is really four big criteria: Proximity
to employment centers and economic hubs; accessibility to our
essential services; transit and mobility, which I'll get to in a second;
and then, of course, avoidance, remoteness in those high-hazard areas,
which we have learned this to be in.
In going through this development, we've identified that 2-mile
trip. And for the average person walking, you can probably do that
in about 40 minutes or so at about a 3-mile pace. That's not
reasonable for somebody to actually walk to work. So I think we
acknowledge you're pretty much stuck to driving. And I say driving
because even on the roadway, which the engineer showed, there's no
bike path. There's no mobility plan that goes beyond, "We're going
to improve the road because we have to."
So when you look at this, that's the problem not only from a
standpoint of mine reviewing this, but in your own Growth
Management Policy 1.1.1, which talks about prioritizing workforce
housing. We acknowledge we want it, but in this case it talks about
near jobs, reducing commuting time. And one of the things we've
heard is is, no, this won't address that at all.
So then we look into other areas, essential services, and these get
into our financial resources, grocery stores, schools, those things that
Page 179 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 167
we use beyond just going to and from work.
And again, it suffers from that same problem, because when I
pulled up a Google map and started counting off how far away Publix
was at about three miles, where these other things extend further out, I
think it identifies that this is very much on a fringe of a development.
And again, I point you back just not only to my own review, but
to Policy 1.3.4, which requires affordable housing near these essential
services. And I think it's clear that this really hasn't been met at this
point. It's close. You want it.
In the remaining 30 seconds, you also have the transit
integration. Policy 5.1 speaks to that specifically, and that roadway
by itself -- the internal roadway for the development is a much better
roadway cross-profile section than the one you've got. So I think you
really should take a step back and go, if you want to put in more
development along that road, improve that road beyond simply those
minimum.
And with that, I'm out of time, and I thank you very much for
your consideration. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Todd Lyon. He will be
followed on Zoom by our first Zoom speaker, Gary Kluckhuhn.
MR. LYON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
letting me come and speak. I'm going to speak from two different
lenses today. My first lens is as the vice president of human
resources at NCH. We are the second largest employer in Collier
County after the Collier County Public Schools, and the issue of
employment and recruitment retention is very real among our
workforce.
We are consistently losing staffing. We are at a turnover rate of
19.1 percent despite market increase aftermarket increase for all of
our positions.
Our nurses, our technicians, our lab personnel work 12-hour
Page 180 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 168
shifts with often more than a one-hour commute each way to work.
This is not safe for our workforce here in Collier County. They also
don't feel the assimilation into our community, thus creating a higher
turnover rate. I'd like to mention, too, that the proximity to Marco
Island and our southeast immediate-care locations and rehab facilities
as well as imaging and our southeast location in Naples are very
proximal to this development, and we would actually -- it would serve
us well because these are some of our hardest areas to recruit into.
Our urgent care on Marco Island is actually one of the few
medical facilities that was open during -- 24/7 during the hurricanes,
and they are our hardest areas to staff.
I would like to say, too, there seems to be a misconception that
these staff can't have cars. These folks do make, you know, $90,000
a year. They have a car. They don't need to be able to walk to a
grocery store. They can't afford the cost of housing here in the
community. I just wanted to make a point of that.
Also, residents, people are worried about who could really afford
this. I will tell you that based on our pay scales, a nurse with about
10 years of experience would hit this income bracket. Or perhaps a
new nurse grad, who is maybe engaged to or married to a first
responder, this would be in their -- their income.
The other hat I'd like to wear today is as a member of the
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee with the county here in
Collier County. I've been on AHAC for about two years. Growing
up, and then also in my work, I've always been taught that when
there's a problem, you don't just bring the problem back, you bring a
solution.
One of the things I always think about is if not here, then where?
We are not going to solve this problem of affordable housing with one
or two major projects. This project of 225 units is a great project.
I would like to say that there was a project recently approved in
Page 181 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 169
North Naples two hours from my home, Ascend Naples. It hit a lot
of controversy, a lot of opposition. I'm elated that that was approved.
I want my neighbors to be our first responders, our teachers, our
nurses. That, to me, is what it's all about to be here in Naples.
I encourage that everyone here take their energy and passion in
wanting to protect their homes instead to perhaps help us find
locations and areas for affordable workforce housing in Collier
County. But today I would like to say that because we have people
here who are bringing a solution to a problem we have, I vote to
support this product.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is on Zoom, Gary
Kluckhuhn, and he will be followed also on Zoom by Glenn Russo.
Gary, you're being prompted to unmute yourself, if you'll do so
at this time. Gary, I see you online. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. KLUCKHUHN: Hello.
MR. MILLER: Hello. Go ahead, sir.
MR. KLUCKHUHN: Yes. I want to thank you guys for all the
work you do and the time you spend in those meetings. I'm sorry I
can't be there today. But I attended some of the workshops and, in
fact, was denied the opportunity to speak on it at the last meeting
because that had been shut down.
But I realize that the decision may have already been made;
however, I believe that the comment about the other side that I keep
hearing stated -- and I wonder -- I thought the commissioners, all of
you -- and I know a couple of you pretty well and know that you
represent We the People, and I don't think we're the other side.
But nonetheless, I go back over 45 years here, and I remember
some of you might -- in fact, even 10 years ago we had a subtropical
climate. The elimination of River of Grass has been way, way before
that, but we still had all of that short hydro period wetland acreage
Page 182 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 170
along 951 and on the south side of 41, the upper part of Rookery Bay.
And I live in Rookery Bay.
And even as recent as five years ago, I could swim in the water
here with impunity, and we had a bit of a subtropical climate. It
rained most every day back when I first moved here, 2 o'clock.
That's because we had the River of Grass, about a million acres of
wetland. No, it wasn't short hydro period wetland. It was a swamp.
But we converted that into sugar cane desert, and our Growth
Management Plan has left us with a lot of ground that's going to be
covered up, eliminating what we did have was enough dirt, enough
land to absorb the rain and then give it back to us in the form of cloud
cover, and we had cloud cover mitigating the excessive heat.
Now the sun hitting the 13 UV rate, the gulf is getting hot, and
right here on the -- on the Rookery Bay, it -- that 100-degree gulf
temperature gives me a tidal surge. My house is not habitable
because it floods in these storms.
But the solution, as the gentleman just before me mentioned, I
don't want to just sit here and say why I think it's important that we
draw a line in the sand and keep the wetland.
And it's not real complicated. This short hydro period wetlands,
a term I just heard today, makes a lot of sense. But we've limited all
of it, so now we get the sun extremely intense, 105 degrees it feels
like frequently in June, July, and August. If we were to look at an
alternative, such as developing some of the already developed land
using air rights above these massive asphalt parking lots and go
high-rise density like you did here on Isle of Capri for luxury housing,
let our affordable housing be in high-rise and high-density above the
existing already developed parking lots of which there are many right
at Manatee Road and 951. There's --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Your
time's up.
Page 183 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 171
MR. KLUCKHUHN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker and final speaker on this
matter is Glenn Russo.
Mr. Russo, you're being prompted -- I see you've done that.
Mr. Russo, you have three minutes.
MR. RUSSO: Oh, Glenn Russo, 3 -- 3169 Naples -- 3169
Capistrano Lane, Naples.
My attorney, Mr. Hartsell, gave you a pamphlet. I direct you to
Exhibit P5, which is the 2018 master plan which shows all of the
traffic from south Estancia going out to Tamiami, and Exhibit P6,
which is the 2024 master plan which redirects all that traffic out to
Collier.
I would direct your attention to Exhibit P18, which is an excerpt
from the -- according to the Annual Update and Inventory Report
Capital Improvements Element schedule update on public facilities
2023. This is a Collier County traffic -- a study that's done on a
regular basis.
On Page 13, Item 95.1, 95.2, and -- 95.1 and 95.2 shows that
Tamiami, where this southern Estancia was all going to dump the
traffic, was operating at a Level B, 45.1 percent, and a Level C is
65.9 percent.
Now, all of that is being redirected through Marsh Cove to the
other side of the development, which is Collier. Now, that's -- the
roads of Collier are listed as 31.6 in the Exhibit P18, 36.2 and 37.
They're operating at 99 -- 99 percent capacity, which is an E;
122 percent capacity, which is an F, it's failing; and 90.5 percent
capacity, which is Level D.
So basically, this master plan takes traffic that was intended to go
out towards Tamiami. And we all know Tamiami in this section,
down by where this entrance is for Estancia, there's virtually no traffic
down there. We know that Collier Boulevard between the Walmart
Page 184 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 172
all the way down to Fiddler's is heavily trafficked. The entire island
of Marco empties all the workers when everybody leaves there.
So you're taking traffic from an underutilized road, and you're
redirecting it to a road that one section is operating at 122 percent of
its capacity, it's failing today, and yet you're redirecting traffic from
an unutilized [sic] road, Tamiami, where this exit is -- where this
entry point is, and redirecting it to the other way.
So there is ways that this developer can get the traffic from the
southern part of Estancia. It's a big parcel of land if you, again, look
at the P5, which is the 2018 plan, and compare it to the P6 Exhibit,
2024. It's a very large substantial piece of property. You can get it
out --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, sir.
MR. RUSSO: -- give access, but you can give access to --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, sir. Your time is up.
MR. RUSSO: -- the underutilized road --
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That is all of our public speakers for this item,
sir.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Before Mr. Yovanovich has a chance to
debate, I want to talk to our colleagues just for a second. The whole
thing about the federal permits and the federal environmental stuff
and the conversations between the Fish and Wildlife and Mr. Hall, all
that doesn't apply with us. That's all environmental stuff. That has
nothing to do with our rezone decision that we have to make.
And regarding the easement, if -- big if. You know how I think
about -- how I feel about "if." If the easement was recorded, we
could still change it. It has nothing to do with if it was -- if it was
recorded, it was in perpetuity, it's solid stone, you'd never change it in
our life. The fact is we could change it if we wanted to.
So those two issues, you know, don't really play with the
Page 185 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 173
decision that we have to make. I just want to keep that in mind.
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I just had a couple questions
for the County Attorney, similar to some of the discussion you just
had, Chairman Hall.
Mr. Klatzkow, you've been pretty quiet during this hearing.
There has some discussion concerning whether we're violating federal
laws, whether we're violating state laws, and whether we're violating
our own ordinances in the potential approval of this project if it is
approved. And I need some analysis on your part as to whether there
was any merit to those arguments. The last thing I want to do is
violate our own ordinances or our Comprehensive Plan or any of
those other statutes that may apply here.
So I need some analysis as to whether or not we are doing some
things potentially that would be in violation of those regulations.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I thought that, this item wouldn't come
before the Board until that was cleared up. I don't find any merit to
the allegations that were made.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So in terms of the procedural
issues that were raised?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What about the issue of the
sign being down? There's some pictures in our packets with the sign
being down. Anything in regards to that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's not material. I mean, this was
duly advertised multiple times, and clearly the residents of the area
were aware of it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm going to ask Ms. Scott to
Page 186 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 174
make a comment if she'd like. But a couple things I had on
here -- and I'll piggyback on what Commissioner Saunders said.
You know, when I hear, "Are we violating a, quote, a 'boatload
of different policies, we are violating a host of federal policies and
federal law,'" that was going to be a question I had for our County
Attorney because, obviously, nobody wants to do that, but I didn't feel
like we were, and you've answered that.
Ms. Scott, when you hear somebody make the claim and they say
that, you know, Collier Boulevard is already operating past max
capacity and it's a failing road, wow, I don't know that I've heard that
before, especially with all the construction we have there and a lot of
the improvement. What -- what's your comments to that? You're
our traffic expert, for sure.
MS. SCOTT: So according to our Annual Update and Inventory
Report, the 2023 adopted version, Collier Boulevard from Walmart
driveway to U.S. 41 and really Manatee Road is severely congested.
The State has another improvement to State Road 951 that they're
trying to work into their -- and I say 951. Collier Boulevard, because
some people don't talk the same lingo.
The State is working to get that final widening of Collier
Boulevard that they have planned, which is Tower to Manatee, into
their work program. It's currently not programmed, has been in and
out of their work program.
What I would say is this is a vested development. Their traffic
impacts are already figured into part of contributing to that
exceedence of the -- of the capacity on the roadway. It's a state
roadway, and we would work with the State to address any congestion
issues that they have.
But from a state statute standpoint, it's a vested development, and
we cannot turn it down. They're not increasing their density on that
for the 6,000 units. They're not -- they're not changing their
Page 187 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 175
traffic -- what traffic can come out of that development. They are
remaining with 6,000 units for the Fiddler's Creek proper, if you will.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: There was a lot that was said. A lot
of -- I was thinking about -- and I try not to talk about people's names,
but I have to in this case. Mr. Ossorio's [sic] 20 minutes of
comments about how bad a people we are. It's essentially what he
said.
This is -- it's Part 2 to what happened in the Planning
Commission. He said the very same things at the Planning
Commission, and he keeps repeating these inaccurate comments. I'm
going to just highlight a couple of them because we'd be here all night
if I were to put in all of the e-mails and all of the conversations back
and forth with the State, including the letter from the person -- from
Mr. Carey that you want to talk about.
But let's start with the first thing about how he somehow says,
"Because there was a reference in 8.5.A to a provision," which he
didn't put up on the podium -- put up on the visualizer, which I'm
going to -- and he gave you his legal analysis that somehow allowing,
in Section 29, uses that are allowed in a preserve somehow made this
a preserve. That's not what it says. It says, "If we want to put those
uses in Section 29, we are welcome to do that." And then we could
do all these other uses, B, C, D, E, F G -- G's not yet. G, we're
adding -- but H, which including what we showed you, active
recreational activities, launching and storage facilities.
So he's giving you an inaccurate legal conclusion that somehow
in 1998 this entire Section 29 was going to be a preserve.
I showed you the master plan. The master plan says what the
master plan says. And Mr. Bosi and everybody else on your staff
agrees that Section 29, as far as the PUD goes, was never entirely
Page 188 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 176
going to be a conservation preserve area. That's the facts.
If we were to place a conservation easement on Section 29,
according to the PUD, it would be the portions that are identified on
the master plan I showed you that's a preserve. It would not be in the
area we're talking about today, so I wouldn't be asking you to amend a
conservation easement for the county's PUD. Factually incorrect, a
misrepresentation, and it's consistent constant misrepresentation by
him in a public forum as to what was agreed to and what is in today's
PUD.
He then -- I almost feel like I should quote some of
Mr. Oldehoff's language and how he basically dressed us all down
with phrases like "breathtakingly illegal," "audacious to even ask for
it," "How low will you go?"
We spent -- "we" being Tim Hall, who I've known for almost 30
years, the most honorable person or honest person I know when it
comes to permitting that I know, and he testified and said, "I had
multiple discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of
Engineers about Section 29 and modifying the commitment that these
57 acres were going to be part of the -- part of the conservation area."
He starts back in 2020 saying, "We want to remove the 57 acres
from" -- let me put this up here. I've highlighted a few areas. He
starts in April of 2020 with an e-mail to Robert Tuis (phonetic) with
the Army Corps of Engineers notifying him that "the State won't take
our lands. What are we supposed to do? How do we modify the
permit? And, oh, by the way, I want to remind you, we're trying to
take the land out." That's 2020.
He follows up several times in 2020. Finally, Mr. Carey, with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who wrote the letter says -- oh,
he's confirming to everybody they're going to reopen up the biological
opinion. Where's the -- we did such a good job of hiding that they
were taking this land out, we told everybody. We did not hide
Page 189 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 177
anything from anybody.
It was correct -- why would you write a conservation
easement -- as Commissioner Hall pointed out, I could have put a
conservation easement on it, and I could have said, "Please let me
remove it." They didn't insist upon that. Ultimately, we did what
the law says we could do, which was accepted by the Corps. We
recorded these covenants, and in the covenants said, "We reserve the
right to come back and ask to remove these 57 acres." No hiding. It
was accepted by the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
They say, in 2022, "We're going to reopen and reinitiate
consultation."
Shortly after Mr. Carey says they're going to do that, the Corps
sends him a letter saying, "We're reinitiating."
We're not hiding the ball. We're having conversations with the
Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about how do we take the
57 acres out.
Well, the Corps finally says, "You know what, we need to
have -- let's record the covenants, record an easement." We did it
with the language approved by the Corps saying we can remove the
57 acres if we go through the permitting process to remove the
57 acres.
At no time were we found not in compliance. At no time were
we cited for anything. We did everything asked of us, and we
followed through asking, "What do you want to do; how do you want
to handle removing this 57 acres?"
If you remember, I said to you, oh, by the way, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service said, "Hey, we're fine." We get an e-mail from
Mr. Shindle, who works for Mr. Carey, saying, "For a million-six,
we'll take the 57 acres out." That's summarized under that second
asterisk right there, for the 57 acres that the PHU value is roughly
$90,000.
Page 190 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 178
We were being held hostage, to use some fiery language that
others want to use in this room. We were held hostage, and we said,
"Not going to happen." We're going to go through the process. The
letter -- that's the -- what was the quote? -- the throat-shot letter.
If you remember, I started the presentation by saying we got a
letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saying, "Guess what, we
can't change it under the current permit." I underlined the language
that he didn't highlight for you. It says finally, "The Corps' permit
was the federal action subject to Section 7, consultation under the
Endangered Species Act; however, that permit has now expired.
There is no ongoing discretion for the purposes of" remaining -- or
"reinitiating consultation as articulated in this rule. Therefore,
modifying the project in the biological assessment in the context of
the original Corps permit is not possible."
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Because it's expired.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Because it's expired. I have to start all
over again.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we've said to you, we will start all
over again if the project is approved.
Now, Mr. Carey, I'm sure he was getting beaten up pretty good
from people calling him, and he's got his own personal opinions.
But, you know, he is subject to the rules and regulations, and when we
submit a permit and we submit all of the biological information that
follows up, he's going to have to review it, and he's going to have to
follow the process. And if the process leads to modifying the permit,
the permit will get modified.
This is not final agency action. This is someone telling us,
"You're in the wrong process right now, and I'm going to delay and
delay and delay and not take any action because you wouldn't pay me
the million-six we originally asked for in 2023."
Page 191 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 179
That's where we were, and that's where we are. And we are
asking, and we will go ask, hopefully, if we get approved, for a
modification to the permit for Estancia to remove this 57 acres and
pay whatever mitigation we have to pay related to developing the
project in Section 29. There will be additional mitigation for
developing the project in Section 29. We will do all of that in
accordance with all of the rules and regulations in effect at the time
we ask for that.
I'm glad Mr. Klatzkow gave you his legal analysis about all those
statements made by opposing counsel. There is data and analysis.
We provided you all the data and analysis. There is a shortfall of
affordable housing. We all know that. The data and analysis is
there. We provided you the data and analysis about -- Tim Hall
provided the testimony about what's the environmental attributes of
the property that we're seeking to make a change to.
If you approve this, this will be internally consistent; your GMP
will be internally consistent.
We provided drainage testimony from an actual engineer who
does this for a living. You don't have any engineers up on the other
side saying this won't work out. You have people -- and I get it, but
they don't understand. They're not engineers. They don't understand
how this all works and what the process will be for us to go through
the Water Management District process, and if we can't satisfy those
requirements, we will not get approved.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I ask you a question, Mr.
Yovanovich --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- before you move on to
these, like, federal letters?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They matter.
Page 192 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 180
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But I wanted to hear it from
you, so I'll sort of summarize. What's stated in here -- and I read
some of the things that weren't highlighted as well, so that's why
I'm -- but I want to hear you bring it out. But the reality is, you will
have to go back through all these steps and, in order to move forward,
you'll have to get a much different letter than this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If you get a letter very similar
to this, then it doesn't matter what we did today. The project never
moves forward.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely, and I said that right from the
very beginning. This is the first step in the process. I got -- and it's
like every other project. Let's just say we never had a discussion,
there's no history related to Section 29 whatsoever, no history, and I
were to come to you today, and I asked you to do that, and they were
still up here talking about their concerns -- forget any history about
this was going to be a preserve or not a preserve.
I still would have to go through the very same process I'm going
through on every other project. Get a Water Management District
permit, and if there's wetland impacts or endangered species impacts,
you deal with the Army Corps of Engineers. This is no different.
You don't -- you're early on in process to get the entitlements. We
have a lot of work to do before we actually move -- start moving any
dirt.
There is no expert testimony in the record contrary to our experts
and your expert's testimony with regard to environmental impacts,
drainage impacts, transportation impacts. All of that, the experts
agree we are not negatively impacting our neighbors, and we are
making it better from a water management standpoint because of the
improvements to Auto Ranch Road and actually removing the farm
Page 193 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 181
road that is in Section 29 that is acting like a dam. We're making it
better for the people who are concerned about the impact of this
project.
This is no different than a bunch of other projects that come your
way when there's vacant land. The reality is they just don't want to
see anything on that land. So they'll just hope we don't build the boat
barn, we don't build a racquet club. And don't forget, that's not
limited just to the people that live in Fiddler's Creek. That's
open -- we can open it and market it to the general public. They're
just hoping that just won't happen.
It's no different than, you know, other projects that you've been
involved in where I had likewise received a negative recommendation
from the Planning Commission. They're hoping it will always stay
vacant. It will not always stay vacant, and we're going to go through
this process.
We've met with Commissioner LoCastro. When I say "we," my
client and I and residents of -- I keep calling it Boyne South. I don't
know why I can't get the new name in my head. I've been here so
long.
We met to talk about water management issues. I said at that
meeting, "Please come talk to me." Nobody's talked to me.
Nobody's talked to my client. Nobody -- they've never talked to us
about it. There's opportunities for us to help, but I guess they're not
interested in those opportunities for us to help.
This is a good project. It's consistent with your -- the revisions
we're making are consistent with your policy to encourage affordable
housing at the right locations. You've heard from employers about
this is the right location.
The last planner who spoke, who's from Lee County, you know, I
would have asked him the question, "Is this particular project closer to
Physicians Regional on Collier Boulevard or where he lives in Lee
Page 194 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 182
County?" I'm assuming if he -- if he testified truthfully, he'd say this
property is closer to Physicians Regional on 951, or Collier
Boulevard, as well as to Marco Island. So anybody who's
commuting from Lee County, Cape Coral, Lehigh Acres, Bonita
Springs are traveling way further to come work here.
You've heard from, you know, the Chamber and Naples
Community Hospital about how important it is to have people living
in the community where they're working, because they're losing those
employees.
You know, Commissioner Kowal has told me stories about the
Sheriff's Office and losing recruits and losing deputies because they
can't live here. They can't -- you know, they just can't -- they can't
afford to live here. This is a crisis. It's a housing crisis, and we're
trying to do our part.
We're not -- Mr. Ferrao has been here a long time. He's not a
bad person. Because he wants to provide this affordable housing
doesn't make him a bad person. And it's not illegal, immoral to
change your mind from 1998. Yes, those were the original thoughts.
Things have changed.
Your Growth Management Plan is a living, breathing document.
It gets amended when it's appropriate. It's appropriate -- our request
is appropriate, and we're asking you to vote in favor of all three
petitions, the change to the Growth Management Plan, the change to
the -- I'm sorry -- the PUD, and the change to the DRI development
order.
And last thing, so I don't forget, the road connecting within the
project, as staff has pointed out, that ship has already sailed. It's
already been approved through the amended -- the different plats
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. This is just a
housekeeping detail, what we're doing. It's not something that you
can say no to, because you've already said yes to it. So all we're
Page 195 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 183
doing -- that's a housekeeping detail with regard to that road
connecting.
As you know and Mr. Bosi pointed out, master plans are
conceptual. They're not fixed in stone. And I'm sure whatever
Mr. Russo handed out probably had a disclaimer on there that says,
"All this was conceptual." But if he's got a gripe or he thinks he's got
some kind of a lawsuit, then he can file it, and we'll defend against it.
And with that, we're available to answer any questions you may
have regarding our request.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a couple of things.
And first I want to talk about the fragmentation of the habitat between
the 57 acres and the road that's going over to -- the connecting road
that's going -- the old trail that's through the woods.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You mean the farm road?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, the farm road that
you're going to convert to the -- that will be the access road.
One of the -- while I was reading this actual letter from January
of '24, I was talking about -- I was thinking about that fragmentation.
How do you feel about fencing that road and extended oversized
culvert for ingress and egress for the critters? Just to reduce the
fragmentation. This letter here talks specifically about that
fragmentation and its detriment to the habitat quality that's, in fact,
there.
MR. HALL: And I think that's one of the things, when we do
go in for the actual development of this parcel, that that would have to
be dredged. You're talking like maybe a wildlife overpass or
something like that that would --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Underpass.
MR. HALL: Underpass.
Page 196 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 184
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was thinking of an
underpass.
MR. HALL: Underpass, yeah. Sorry. Underpass.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. HALL: But yeah, I mean, that is -- I think that's definitely
within the scope of what's available or scope of what's possible doing
that kind of thing, the ground elevations out there related to where the
road will need to be. There's some existing -- there's, I believe, two
existing old culverts under that road that could be augmented a little
bit to support an underpass.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Because that was just
a thought that -- and I don't know if that comes from us or if that
comes from the Army Corps.
MR. HALL: That will come -- that kind of thing would come
out of the discussions with the wildlife agencies, and then it would
either be a permit condition -- it would either be a -- a terms and
conditions as part of a BO or an actual permit condition within the
state or the federal permit.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With the agencies, not -- but
that was a -- that was a thought that I had.
My next question has to do with the Auto Ranch Road
improvements. The 60-foot right-of-way that's existent on the
pictures that we've seen, is there enough room there -- are we going to
have to do any eminent domain or anything to be able to do all that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Everything -- I'm sorry. Everything
you saw fits within the existing 60-foot right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. The folks that are
living along Auto Ranch that choose to -- and maybe this isn't a
question for you. It might be for Dr. George or senior staff or
somebody. It's only going -- it's not going to be a mandatory hookup.
But if somebody wanted to volunteer to hook up to the water, I think I
Page 197 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 185
heard during the testimony that it's a force main so there's a lift
station, and there's other things there with regard to the sewer. But as
far as the water goes, if someone couldn't afford to -- wanted to but
couldn't afford the 4- or 5-, 10,000, whatever it was, the cost
associated with tapping into the public water that's there, do we have
capacity at the county level to allow for that to be accomplished and
then -- I know we've done it in other subdivisions where we assess a
non-ad valorem assessment for that fee. Is that a possibility here?
MS. SCOTT: So, Commissioner, that is certainly our desire is
to get these folks on water and on our sewer system, and that's part of
the study that we did anyhow.
And so our goal is -- if the Auto Ranch Road is improved, is to
go seek those alternative funding sources to be able to buy down those
assessments, which is what we've done in some of our partnerships
with the City of Naples with our Goodlette-Frank project and other
projects that we've done, as well as to go seek those grant
opportunities, those legislative appropriations to be able to buy down
that assessment.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And after we've done all of
those, we can still allow for someone that couldn't necessarily write a
check for the spread between the grant monies and the actual expense
to have that be attached as a non-ad valorem assessment, and they
could still be accomplished?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. In the West Goodlette project,
there were a number of options that were allowed. People could pay
it over time; they could pay it all at once; they could pay it at the end
if they knew they were going to be selling their house. So we could
model a program after that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And I'm back to you
now, Rich.
Let's talk about the spreader canal. Some folks have called it a
Page 198 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 186
lake that's along the south side. And by the way, it's Boyne South to
me, too.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Let's talk about that a little
bit. Yesterday when we were speaking -- and one of the residents, I
think a fellow back there in the green shirt spoke about it. There is a
culvert at the end of that that's crushed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking right here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, approximately where
you're -- yes, right there there's a culvert.
Now, yesterday you told me about -- there was an error in a
survey. Somebody dug a ditch or there was an old farm ditch that
went along the east side of your property, and that's that theoretical
outfall potential for that. Is -- are you willing to put -- you said
earlier that you haven't been communicated with by the -- by the
subdivision. Would you be willing to communicate with them and
rectify that and necessarily clean that ditch?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, here's what we -- had they
actually called me and said, "What's your client willing to do?" -- hey,
let me give you a little history because I think I have to put it in
context.
The way this was always originally permitted, it was supposed
to -- there's a pipe that brings the water here into the state lands. I
don't know if they ever got permission from the State to do that, but
over time what ended up happening, they had issues with that. And
near as we can figure out, the State built a road around its property,
and in getting enough fill to actually build the road, they dug up part
of my client's property, and that canal that's out there today that's been
there a few years was never the outfall --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- for that development, never was the
Page 199 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 187
outfall for that development.
So -- and we said that in a meeting. "Guys, you don't have any
rights to flow across my client's property." Mr. Parisi was there.
We said, "Come talk to us." I guess that -- they were going to hire an
engineer, and maybe they've hired the engineer, maybe they haven't
hired the engineer, but they haven't come talked to us.
What we would be willing to do is we would be willing to give
them a 15-foot-wide easement, nonexclusive drainage easement along
the boundary here. They could then install a pipe to get their water
down here so they can have their outfall, they can have their straw, if
you will, to drain their property, and we would give them that
easement when we get our Water Management District permit and we
get our Army Corps of Engineers permit.
We would be willing to do that to give them that drainage
capacity or ability. By putting the pipe in, we don't lose any land.
We could put -- we could put our landscape buffer over the top of it,
and they can have their solution. It's going to cost them a little bit of
money, but it's probably cheaper than going and dealing with the State
to go get an easement from the State and having to do something
there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What happens if you don't get
your Corps permit or your District permit?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know. At that point, then,
I guess -- getting the Corps permit and the Water Management
District permit, it depends on how -- you know, how much opposition
we have and who that opposition is from. But we're -- I guess at this
point they haven't given us any encouragement to just give it to them.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to see that rectified at
some stage, somehow, someway, irrespective of whether or not
you -- if the zoning's approved today, I'd like to see the ability for
them to be able to move their water off.
Page 200 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 188
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got to get a Water Management
District permit, and until I get a Water Management District permit,
I --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you do, or do they need
to?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It's on my property. I wish it
were my property. It's on my client's property.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So until I get a Water Management
District permit, I can't put them on my property.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then last but not least, if
the zoning were, in fact, approved, would you commit to traffic
calming with some kind of a trigger on Auto Ranch?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, I've been schooled by
Trinity enough that if Trinity says we want to put a couple of
traffic-calming tables, sort of like on Solana Road there are a
couple -- I don't know if they're tables or bumps or whatever,
whatever they're called, I can't imagine that it's that much of a burden
to us to go ahead and install that as part of our road improvements, but
I've got to be given some direction from Ms. Scott.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What kind of a trigger do you
need to see in order to effectuate that?
MS. SCOTT: We have parameters in our neighborhood traffic
management program that would trigger allowing traffic calming on a
roadway, and if those thresholds are met -- it's typically certain
volume of traffic, certain speed over the posted speed limit, and if
those are triggered, then we could allow them to do so. We have
language in other PUDs that I'm sure that we can pull to put that
commitment in there.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. That's all.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Do you have triggers for e-mail calming
Page 201 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 189
software?
MS. SCOTT: No, sir. I haven't figured that out yet.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chair.
So I'm going to just ask two questions, and then I want
to -- maybe my colleagues are lit up, and they'll have other questions,
and then I'll go back to the bulk of what I have.
But, Mr. Yovanovich, first question I'll ask you is the thing that I
asked at the beginning. And I know nobody wants to answer it
because they don't want to throw anybody under the bus or sound rude
or anything. But, you know, we've held up the Planning Commission
to a pretty high standard that they spent three days, and these
subject-matter experts across the board who, you know -- I'm being
extremely respectful. I nominated one of the people who's on the
Planning Commission.
But I'll defer to my colleagues here and say that if you added up
all the time that the Planning Commission spent talking to the county
staff, I bet if you picked just one of us here, our time dealing with the
county staff, you know, exceeds the Planning Commission's time in
total.
So they're part of the process, but we've done an unbelievable
amount of heavy lifting talking to the staff. So my question is the
same question I asked at the very beginning. And, you know, we're
all big boys and girls here. This is a big decision, multi-million
dollar. Don't worry about upsetting a Planning Commission person
and they might give us their letter of resignation. If they're upset,
then I want their letter of resignation, because I need people that are
leaders and can sit on the Planning Commission and ask tough
questions, give us a recommendation, outline it in detail, and not walk
into that meeting and maybe not be as prepared as we are. So it's part
Page 202 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 190
of the process. There's a reason why we vote and they recommend.
But my question is: Why did the Planning Commission -- and it
wasn't unanimous. You had Mr. Schmitt who lives in Fiddler's Creek
who had to recuse his vote. But I spoke with him as well as some
others to get feedback, and he would have had a much different view,
and he worked for the Army Corps of Engineers. So I value what he
has to say and what he maybe would have said as, you know, I gather
info.
But what do you think they missed or misunderstood that caused
them, after three days, to give us a recommendation of denial when it
comes to Section 29?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to give you Rich
Yovanovich's take on how that whole three-day process went. And
I'm probably going to make some people upset with -- upset with
you -- or upset with me for telling you how that hearing went.
It started rather assertively with comments from some of the
members pointedly asking and interrupting me several times during
my presentation, jumping to Mr. Bosi and basically saying, is the only
reason you're -- are you -- would you -- "Would you recommend this
project if it didn't have affordable housing?"
Mr. Bosi gave the honest answer, and he told you he should have
elaborated. But that was the tenor that was set right from the
beginning.
We kept having to answer questions about these alleged
commitments that all of Section 29 was going to be placed in a
preserve. And in my opinion, we were not being listened to. That's
my opinion. I thought it was one of the roughest Planning
Commission hearings I've been in, and I've done a lot of rough ones.
But I think that if you go and listen to that tape and you read that
transcript, I can't say that we had an objective Planning Commission.
I can't say everybody wasn't, but I think some of the members were
Page 203 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 191
not objective in their considerations. Their minds were made up
before we even got in there, which is okay. It happens. We're all
human.
They had received some information, and they weren't listening,
is my opinion. I don't think we were -- we were heard out. Because
I think if you listen to everything that was presented, the traffic
issues -- they said they didn't like the traffic, but all the experts said
traffic was safe. They didn't like the drainage, but all the experts said
drainage was fine.
There was a whole lot of "a promise is a promise." That's what
was agreed to, and you can't change your mind. And I think,
honestly, that's why they said no. They thought a promise was a
promise. I think facts left the meeting, and there were a lot of people
in that room that were speaking against the project, and the Planning
Commission punted.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, one of the things that
I'll say is how proud I am of my colleagues up here because you see
the -- I watched that Planning Commission, and others as well. And,
you know, maybe it's a little looser, it's a little more conversational,
but that's why it's a recommendation.
But when we're here to vote on, you know, a multimillion-dollar
project, you see how this meeting goes. So, you know, I commend
the Chair for running a professional meeting. I commend the citizens
for coming to the podium and doing their due diligence. I think the
extra month that -- I didn't punt this for a month. I pushed it for a
month because I had hoped that a lot of things would happen. And
some did. Citizens meeting more with the commissioners here, and
you can tell by the quality of the questions that we're very engaged
and very informed of what can be done and what can't be done.
Having said that, I guess I'll continue with a couple of my other
observations here. Growth Management Plan -- and you sort of stole
Page 204 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 192
my thunder a little bit or my words. It is a -- it is a fluid document.
We've changed it here before, so you can't just say it's set in stone
when you don't want it to affect something in your backyard. And
then if you want to build housing or something that benefits you, then
it's fluid, and you make changes to it.
We try to be fair. We look at every single document, but some
people that came up here and said, you know, you have to stick to this
particular document, well, then you're not at the meetings that we all
are in because we make adjustments to it all the time, and then other
times we say "absolutely not."
Same with rezoning. Rezoning is a right, to ask for rezoning.
One of the examples that I stress in my own district is there was
something zoned near Lely that was zoned commercial for many,
many years. While it sat empty, all the lots around it that were zoned
commercial were all built out, and it proved that maybe they were
overbuilt because some of the stores have gone out of business, and
they haven't survived. So the bottom line was it was an easy decision
to rezone the last remaining lot from commercial to something
residential, because we didn't need more commercial. So we look at
each thing, you know, on its own. So amendments are possible.
Let me ask you this: If you -- I'm disappointed between the
Planning Commission and today that there wasn't dialogue between
you and the citizens and the citizens and you. You know, I'm not
here to finger-point who could have called each other up. But in
previous decisions we've made when we've had a gap between a
Planning Commission decision and an actual vote by elected -- you
know, the five elected commissioners, it's benefited both sides at
times when they have come together and have negotiated or talked,
and even though they might agree to disagree, they come to our
meeting with at least a little bit more in hand than the Planning
Commission had.
Page 205 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 193
Had you met with the citizens -- and Commissioner McDaniel
took something right off of my list, the straw, that's -- regardless of
how we vote on this, but if we vote to move forward -- because I
know you're not going to make improvements here if this whole thing
dies. But let's say that we agree to the rezone, what is the maximum
that you are prepared to do in that area? You sort of touched on it,
but I'd like you to put a little bit more detail in there.
What's the maximum that you're prepared to do to help with the
runoff from the homes that -- on Royal Palm Golf Estates?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, there's a couple of things that will
happen if we get our permits, because we have to get permits to move
forward.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So let's assume you get the
permits.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I get the permits --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Tell me what you're prepared
to do.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. This road right here, which is
our access road, is going to get replaced with a road that has culverts
underneath it that's going to allow for water to flow and not get
backed up. That's one thing we're willing to do.
Second thing would be to give them what I said was the
15-foot-wide drainage easement for them to install a pipe so they
don't have to worry about ongoing maintenance. They can install a
pipe to drain their water along the entire boundary right on our
property. Fifteen feet's enough for them to install it. They will
probably never have to maintain it, but if they did, there's enough
room for them to maintain it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So that's a meeting that I
chaired --
MR. YOVANOVICH: You did.
Page 206 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 194
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- between the citizens and
you. And actually, Christine came up to me at one of the breaks and
said, "Are we still meeting?"
And I said, "Yeah, that's totally, you know, separate from this."
And she said at the last break that they have secured an engineer,
so it's probably time for a meeting.
So knowing that, like you said, you hadn't heard anything. So
maybe we're informally hearing here, and that might be a separate
issue, but we're going to have meeting number two.
So I would say to you, Christine, just since we're on the topic of
drainage, if you have an engineer secured, what Mr. Yovanovich is
proposing, should we pass this, is quite a bit of investment that would
couple with what you-all would provide that would -- would allow for
significant drainage and runoff that you don't have now. So maybe
that's a separate thing.
But -- so what you've said is 15-foot wide, and you would work
in conjunction with their engineer to greatly increase how water here
drains off into the other areas, correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. One of the things I'll
say as a comment is if this were -- everyone's throwing around the
word "preserve." If it were a preserve, you couldn't build boat
storage on it. So I appreciate what you said, but the long list of
things that -- you know, yeah, if it's a preserve, but then, you know,
the previous document that you put up -- and it showed all the things
that you could do in Section 29.
So I mean, there's a lot of people that have said, "You can't build
anything on here because it's a nature preserve," and, you know, I
think you've already sort of commented on that, but we have the
details of what could be on there as a minimum if we did nothing
today, and it's pretty significant.
Page 207 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 195
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: If I voted for this, here's what
I would like to see -- or I'd like to hear if you say yes to this. So first,
a very aggressive plan for the drainage, as we just discussed. And
like I said, I've chaired that meeting, and you've been there and the
citizens have been there.
The setbacks specifically put in the PUD 518 feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we should attach that document
itself as an exhibit --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to show those distances instead of
trying to call it out.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right.
That the seven million Auto Ranch Road enhancements would be
put into the plan in great detail.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But it -- okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in -- it's already -- what I
read to you is already in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Let me ask you
this -- and this might sound like smaller things. But a 10-foot
sidewalk, does that footprint there fit anything larger than a 10-foot
sidewalk, or that's the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a 5-foot sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm sorry, a 5-foot sidewalk.
Could it fit anything bigger than that? I wrote down here 10 because
that's what we're doing in a lot of different places.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've only got 60 feet, and I've got to do
the swales.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Okay.
One of the things that I'll say on the speed -- you know, speed
Page 208 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 196
bumps aren't necessarily a player here. If you brought in every EMS
and ambulance driver here, they would say, "Please remove every
speed bump here in Collier County. When we're trying to save a life,
stopping at every speed bump as we're trying to get to a house where
somebody might be dying" --
But, Trinity, what you and I and Tony have been working on on
St. Andrews, bumps, flashing lights, things like that. I'm not saying
turn Auto Ranch Road into Las Vegas, but there's quite a bit that
we've added to St. Andrews, which has been a real significant issue
when it comes to speed and safety.
And, actually, I just got a call from a senior leader that lives in
that St. Andrews neighborhood thanking us for the different things
that we've done. So -- yeah, shocker.
There's an awful lot that can be agreed to that aren't necessarily
speed bumps. But what did you -- what's the term you used? The
little buzz word for -- "speed attenuation," or what's the -- you had a
little sort of saying about slowing speed down.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Throw out the anchor.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, that wasn't it.
MS. SCOTT: Traffic calming, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Traffic calming, that was it.
So those would be all things that you'd be in favor of if this was
approved, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can't give you a blank check on
traffic calming.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. Okay. But none of
these things that we're talking about that are realistic are a million
dollars. I mean --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what they cost because I
don't know what you did -- I just don't know what you did on St.
Andrews. I don't know what that cost.
Page 209 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 197
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, take my word
for it, it would be something you could afford if this project went
forward, I would just tell you that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I get a grant from the county?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No.
The height of the landscape on the buffer, it might not sound like
a big deal -- and I think Mr. Bosi or somebody said it was eight feet.
Several things that we've approved here, when we're really trying to
create a buffer of something that's a certain height, 10 to 12 feet is the
minimum that, you know, I fought for. And it might sound like no
big deal, and in a year or two it will be 10 or 12 feet. But usually
when we say eight, then I hear when the trees show up, they're really
six to eight. So would you agree to a much higher, a much taller
buffer of landscape?
MR. YOVANOVICH: At Home Depot, which you guys
approved not that long ago, we had 14-foot trees at planting.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we could commit to our canopy trees
will be 14 feet at planting.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I'd want to get that in
writing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're just talking about the buffer. Is
that -- this buffer right here, the north buffer?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's right here.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
Okay. And I mean, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but
lastly, you know, besides, you know, putting in the pipe, if you and
the citizens would have met several times over the last month, are
there other things that, you know, you would have, you know,
entertained as far as, you know, above and beyond the things that
Page 210 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 198
we've mentioned here?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. At that point -- you know,
I've -- we've looked at everything, but at the end of the day, because
we compacted the footprint to just 50 acres, minimized what we'd
have to do to modify the Corps permit, I can't spread out. If I could
spread out, I might be able to go lower in building height, but I can't.
So this is -- what I understood to be the primary concern from
residents was flooding. And I understand their concern. They are
an older community. We can help address their solving some of their
flooding problems.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. And some of their
flooding problems have to do with elevation and dated drainage.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Giving them the ability to put a pipe in
will be a significant improvement for them in their drainage issues.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Lastly, one of the comments
made by somebody during their three minutes when they talked about
affordable housing and the ability to walk to Publix and this and that,
these five commissioners, we've been very focused on affordable
housing, and if you think we've cut the ribbon on affordable housing
all over this county and a Publix, a CVS, and all the bells and whistles
that you need were all within two blocks -- I mean, that's not -- that's
not feasible. The distances I look at on this map make it extremely
advantageous, you know, to affordable housing. We've built
affordable housing units in areas that we've very proud of that are
further in distance from a lot of the bells and whistles and the critical
needs and the transportation points, so...
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And I know you know this, but
when you say "affordable housing," the units that are
income-restricted are the very same units that market-rate people
have. So it's got all the bells and whistles. Those units have the
same bells and whistles as the market-rate units. So it's not a
Page 211 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 199
lower-quality unit. I don't know if everybody in the audience knows
that. I know you know that, but...
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Okay. Well, you've
answered my questions on what could be possible if we -- when this
comes to a vote and what you would have -- what you'd agree to
above and beyond what's already in the packet.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just a curveball on the
drainage. Yes. Are you standing in the box? Get in the box.
The thought -- because one of the things is is that they have a
drainage issue now. Why not offer a temporary drainage easement
while you're in your permitting process?
MR. YOVANOVICH: To be quite candid with you --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- the primary obstacle to my getting my
permitting through is my neighbor.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Say that again.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My primary -- the people who are going
to come and try to kill my permit are the people where the arrow is,
and if they're going to come and try to kill my permit, what's in it for
me or my client to give them the solution to their problem? We want
to work with them. We have to work together. This is a good
project. But if they're going to try to kill the ability to get the Corps
permit, why -- let's talk frank, as Mr. Oldehoff said. What's -- why
would we -- why would we do that?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: All right. Let's do this then.
Let's maybe, during your upcoming meetings with the neighborhood
and the developer, have that on the table as a discussion point, as
a -- as a temporary, because maybe if you can come to a consensus,
we can alleviate the flooding circumstances that are, in fact, there,
and -- and take care of it during your meetings.
Page 212 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 200
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me ask you this: Would
you agree to this, that if you did get all your permits all the way up the
chain here that you still are missing, that you'd make that the first
project before you put the shovel in the ground for the 750 units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll give them their easement.
They're going to put the pipe in. We'll give them their easement as
soon as I get all my permits.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Before you do anything else?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I just want to make a couple of
comments, and then I'm going to ask a question.
It's been said would you have done this project had it not been
for the affordable housing. And I get it, that's the right answer. But
the fact is, it is affordable housing, and there's great public benefit to
the project. If you don't believe it, ask people who are driving. Ask
people who don't -- who are paying 35, 40 percent of their income for
rent. And just the fact that the last project, the last ribbon-cutting that
we attended, they had 82 units, or 89, and over 300 applicants before
they were even finished. So the demand is there. People are
wanting the housing.
The location, you know, everybody says, "This is not the right
location." We're not -- "We're not opposed to the affordable housing.
We're opposed to the location." The location is not the county's
decision. The location is -- the burden is on the applicant. If people
won't come, then people won't come. If it's too far out, then the
people won't come. It will be -- he'll have to adjust his rents to get
those people there. So I would say that the location is not the
county's burden, but it's the burden of the applicant. He seems to be
okay with it.
I think the improvements to Auto Ranch Road are spectacular.
Page 213 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 201
"Well, the people, Commissioner, they're not going to appreciate that.
They're not going to want that. They want to keep flooding." No,
they don't. They don't want to keep flooding. They would welcome
the improvements to Auto Ranch Road.
You know, no one likes to think about Collier County and the
overcrowding, the congestion, the gridlock, and the decline of the
quality of life. No one likes to think about that. It's easy to assume
and to make broad statements. "You're turning this into Miami if you
approve this project." We hear it all the time.
I was in -- I was on the East Coast for four days last week. This
is nowhere near Miami, nowhere near Fort Lauderdale, nowhere near
West Palm Beach. We live in paradise.
And we are -- we are going to grow. That is -- that is a fact.
We can't put a gate at the interstate and say, "You can't come in."
We see what's going on with employment within the Sheriff's
Department, at the hospitals, with the restaurants, with the hotels.
We see that. We see the -- I see the turnover when we have a waiter
that we like at a certain restaurant. "What happened to Luigi?"
"Well, he's no longer here. He had to move back to New York.
He couldn't" --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He's in jail.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Or he's in jail.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Don't use that name. We
know what happened to Luigi.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Those are just my thoughts moving
forward if we approve this project. It's still subject to getting all the
federal stuff and getting all those ducks in a row.
As far as the Planning Commission comments, I watched -- I
watched the Planning Commission. Two of them, especially, they
were rude, they were interruptive, and they were very abrasive. I
completely agree with the treatment that you said. Now, whether
Page 214 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 202
they listened or not, I can't answer that. But I do -- I could answer
for how they would interrupt and not allow you to answer the
questions. And I hope they're listening, because I saw that, and I
didn't appreciate it at all.
I do know that Joe Schmitt's comments -- he recused himself, but
he did say in a summary in an e-mail that I read that there was great
confusion at the Planning Commission with what was actually
supposed to be decided on and what was not supposed to be decided
on, and that was the commingling of the environmental issues. That's
why I mentioned it earlier. That's aside from what we have to decide
on.
So my question is: Can we get more than 225 units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Forty percent's 300.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I know what it is, and I've
already -- I've asked the question. It's been asked. The
development-related costs for this project, including a $7.8 million
access road, we're at the number. We're as -- remember we started
this --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I saw that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we started at 20 percent, because that
was what the County Commission did. Then we went to
22.8 percent, because that was the County Commission. You know, I
got --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I wanted to ask while you were
getting -- while you were headed in the right direction.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I got to the 30 percent, and, you
know, there's no more -- there's no more give to give.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Thanks.
Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
Page 215 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 203
I echo a lot of what Commissioner Hall and my other
commissioners said up here. I wish we could just dictate where we
could put projects to put workforce housing in areas, but it's the
individuals out there that are willing to put their neck out and spend
their own money and obtain properties to do these projects.
You know, we can't just wave a magic wand and say, "Well, you
can only do it here." But if they don't own the property, they can't do
it there. And if they're not willing to do it or put their own skin in the
game to do it, then, you know, it's not going to happen.
So we have to look at that, too. And when it comes along, we
have to look at it with open eyes and say -- weigh the problems, weigh
the evidence.
And we don't want to lose sight of what our decision here today
is. You know, I -- you listen to the evidence from both sides. We sit
up here, and we're -- a quasi-judicial decision we're going to make
today with this vote on changing these Land Development Codes.
And it's -- it is what it is. We hear the evidence, and we weigh it
against the two sides, and we have to make an educated guess on who
has proved their case or not.
And listening to the evidence -- and that was a little concerning
that I was told that I'm breaking laws and that I'm below certain things
or I'm getting -- whatever -- whatever the comments were, it is what it
is. But, you know, I want to make sure I'm not breaking any laws,
and my attorney, you know, basically told me that -- the County
Attorney says we're not. We're in good standing.
And what we're going to make a decision today on is not based
on if these individuals get their permits from the stormwater
management or the Army Corps or the Department of Interior. We
can't -- we don't base it on that. We base it on the facts presented to
us today on what the ask is, and then we weigh who proved the case
or didn't prove the case.
Page 216 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 204
And that's -- I didn't come in here with a decision today one way
or the other the way I was going to go with this. But sitting here
since 10 a.m. this morning and giving everybody the opportunity in
the room to state their case, I have to say, I am -- I'm in support of the
project, and, you know, that's kind of my position.
And I'd just like to put something else on the record. I don't
know -- if Mr. Bosi did mention the west side buffer, too -- I made a
note -- for the trees. I don't know if you're in the posture to say
anything about that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we've already -- which one?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: He recommended
west -- Mr. Bosi could probably correct me. He did recommend a
west side buffer also.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We already -- Commissioner --
Wayne, tell me when I get there. We've already --
I think we've already addressed it, is what I'm trying to say.
MR. ARNOLD: Again, Wayne Arnold.
So this yellow line represents where it's our understanding staff
had asked for the enhanced buffer.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. All right. I just noted
Commissioner LoCastro --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, my expectation is that
yellow line be 14 feet across the board. So maybe I wasn't clear. So
when you're north, south, east, west --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I think somebody said the north
side or something, and I just wanted to make sure we were clear on
that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is the trees along the yellow
line will be planted at 14 feet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The actual width of the buffer, I think, is
Page 217 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 205
15 feet. So I didn't want you to give me back a foot.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm just talking tree height,
tree height. And so somebody from the county make a notation
they've agreed to 14 feet instead of eight feet, if we approved this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: All right. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't think it's me. I'm not
lit up.
CHAIRMAN HALL: You're not?
Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Our staff had indicated there
were a couple other commitments they were looking for, so I don't
know if you've --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought they were -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Have you listed all of them?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They wanted the buffer along
the yellow is my understanding --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Bosi?
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- is what Mr. Bosi wanted. Everything
else we had already committed to. I think we had committed to that
buffer as well.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just nod your head if all of
your recommendations are already included.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Nod your head and act spiritual.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll light up.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So I'll go ahead and make a
Page 218 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 206
motion. But to be clear, we're not putting shovels in the ground
tomorrow. You have a long path from some people that wrote you
some letters that said, "It doesn't sound like we're supportive."
So like, as you said, Mr. Yovanovich, you have to go back to
those same people and explain to them what's different, what you've
decided to agree to, where they might have been wrong or right or
what could have been done but isn't and the here and now.
So I would tell the citizens, don't walk out of here and think that
tomorrow something's all of a sudden going to be built or even
improved. All these improvements actually go away if it doesn't -- if
you don't get the proper approvals all the way up the chain. And
those are -- those are -- I believe those are -- those are going to be a
bit of a challenge and maybe even extremely difficult, but I don't
think it's our position here to not give you the opportunity to move
forward to get those approvals.
And as, you know, Commissioner Hall even stated -- I kind of
wanted to hear it from you, Mr. Yovanovich, but he sort of stole your
thunder. But I think we're all in agreement those aren't for us to
decide, but to hamper you from having the opportunity to move
forward to see if you could get all those approvals, I don't think that
is -- that is our role, especially when all the other things that have
been lined up here are things that we're in agreement with.
So we've laundry listed -- and I won't be repetitive, because we
can always go back to the transcript of all the things that you've
agreed to add should all this be approved. And I'll stress that if
everything is approved, your first order of business is that drainage for
the folks.
MR. YOVANOVICH: As soon as I get a non-appealable Corps
permit --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we will give them a drainage
Page 219 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 207
easement so they can install their pipe.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right, yeah, so -- and all the
other things that we talked about.
But unless there's any other comments, you know, I'll make a
motion to approve with all the changes that we've made to allow you
to move forward and continue to see if you can get the proper
approvals that you need and, if not -- and citizens should still be part
of that process if they take exception to what we've approved today, if
we do approve it. But my motion would be to approve with all the
changes and improvements that we've added following the discussion
today.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Did somebody second?
CHAIRMAN HALL: I did, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So we have a motion to approve and a
second. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Motion passes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Happy Holidays.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Merry Christmas.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we're fairly close to a
court reporter break.
How are you? Yeah. Okay. Before we start our
no-sooner-than-1-o'clock time-certain.
Page 220 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 208
CHAIRMAN HALL: Let's come back at 4:50.
(A brief recess was had from 4:37 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.)
MS. PATTERSON: Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. What's next, County
Manager?
Item #11A
AN UPDATE ON THE COLLIER COUNTY BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CENTER (CCBHC) PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE
SURTAX FUND (3018), PROJECT NO. 50239 (COMPANION TO
ITEM #11B) (BRIAN DELONY, SUPERVISOR - PROJECT
MANAGEMENT (LICENSED) - MOTION TO ACCEPT THE
UPDATE BY COMMISSIONER KOWAL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED
MS. PATTERSON: We are now to our two companion items,
our no-sooner-than-1-pm time-certains.
Item 11A is a recommendation to accept an update on the Collier
County Behavioral Health Center project Infrastructure Surtax Fund
Project No. 50239 and its companion item, which is a
recommendation to approve a naming rights agreement with the
David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc., relative to the Collier
County Behavioral Health Center to generate donations to be
restricted specifically for use within the behavioral health center.
So we are going to start this out with the update portions. So
Mr. DeLony is going to kick it off, and at some point during this
presentation he's going to have the David Lawrence folks join us.
So with that, Mr. DeLony.
MR. DeLONY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Brian
DeLony, Facilities Director. I'm here to provide you an update on
Page 221 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 209
the project associated with Collier County Behavioral Health.
As shown here, the planning team for the behavioral health
center is pretty extensive. Some of the key personnel or key
stakeholders is Collier County, of course, Collier County Sheriff's
Office, the David Lawrence Center, DeAngelis Diamond,
RG Architectures, and HuntonBraden [sic].
The behavioral health center is a priority project that was
endorsed by voters in 2018. It was identified as a priority by the
Collier Coalition for Healthy Minds. Prominently funded through
surtax. The facility will serve as a central receiving center for
individuals requiring services under the Baker and Marchman Acts.
The project will enhance the mental health crises support while
reducing the burden on law enforcement.
Today I will provide an update focusing on the design,
permitting, and preparations to bring the guaranteed maximum price
amendment to you in January. David Lawrence Center will also be
available to discuss operational considerations which tie to the
upcoming discussion on the naming rights opportunity.
Here is a rendering of the facility's exterior. The view
highlights the north and west elevations, with Golden Gate Parkway
situated behind the facility.
Here is the project timeline, you know, just showing how long
the project's gone on. It outlines some key milestones from 2021 to
2023 covering the approval of the design and construction contracts
and accumulating [sic] in the delivery of the guaranteed maximum
price to Collier County in November.
We anticipate receiving final Collier County permits and
presenting the GMP, the guaranteed maximum price, to you-all in
January 2025 and then having construction start shortly thereafter.
This goes over the permit status. We've received the permits for
both the water use and the Environmental Resource Permits for South
Page 222 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 210
Florida Water Management District. We are still pending the Site
Development Plan and building permits with Collier County. We
expect to get those by the end of January.
The Florida Agency for Healthcare and Administration, AHCA,
is expected to be received in Q2 2025.
Here shows the construction timelines. Again, as I stated, you
know, we expect to start shortly after the guaranteed maximum price
amendment is approved. You'll have the foundation and shell of the
building going up in Q2 2025, and substantial completion and
move-in and final completion all in Q4 2026.
(Cell phone sounding.)
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Come on, Dan. You work
for us. Come on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody dock his pay.
MR. DeLONY: The contract relationship between Collier
County and David Lawrence Center associated with this project began
in 2021 with amendments in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
The lease agreement will take effect upon closing, which is
contingent upon the approval of the land entitlements. Basically, you
know, the SDP and the building permit.
Lease commencement date is tied to the certification of
occupancy and extends for 30 years.
At the end of this term, the lease can either be terminated,
renewed for an additional five years, or David Lawrence Center may
purchase the facility under predefined terms in the contract.
As far as maintenance, repair, and replacement responsibilities in
the lease, David Lawrence Center will manage the routine facility
maintenance ensuring the property's kept in good order. Major
system replacements, including HVAC and structural components,
will be the Collier County's responsibility.
David Lawrence Center will cover the project-related costs not
Page 223 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 211
funded by the surtax, which is estimated to be approximately five
million -- it's shown in the table and the slide -- along with the annual
operating costs, which is estimated currently at four million.
These include maintenance, insurance, and licensing, and Scott
Burgess with David Lawrence Center can provide more details on that
after I finish this deck.
The next several slides here is renderings and illustrations of the
building. This particular one presents the facility's overall floor plan
and patient safety risk assessment. The assessment identifies and
evaluates potential hazards to ensure patient safety, showcasing the
planning behind this facility. Basically, you know, we're just
showing this is not our standard operations that we do here typically
at the county. It is very complex.
This is the west elevation which faces the parking lot, and, you
know, Golden Gate Parkway would be on the right side of this
rendering.
This shows the south and east elevation as viewed from the
northwest, kind of like a drone shot over -- like we're over Golden
Gate Boulevard.
Here is another view from the south and the east elevations at
this time looking north from Golden Gate Parkway.
This is a -- this slide provides a south and west elevation
perspective, looking east from Golden Gate Parkway.
This, again, is from the parking lot looking at the west elevation.
This shows the main entrance to the facility.
Here we move into the interior of the facility, showing you a
rendering of what the lobby would look like.
This depicts the interior, showing the nursing stations and
common area.
And, finally, this slide shows the rendering of the interior
bedrooms for the patients.
Page 224 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 212
Recommendation is to accept the project update on the Collier
County Behavioral Health Center.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Motion to approve. Do we
have to vote or just -- I'm sorry. Do you have a question?
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do. And accepting the
presentation is one thing, but there are -- and I think I read that there
is -- the construction deficit between the cost of the facility, reduction
in the beds to bring down the cost, and the spread between the
25 million of surtax money and the actual cost, purportedly about
50 million, is being now made up out of excess surtax money; is that
correct?
MR. DeLONY: Correct. I mean, there was surtax money that
was collected, you know, additional.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: -- to the stated amount, and interest.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so that's been approved
by the -- that's been approved by the surtax committee?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So we've taken care of that.
What about the O&M and the FF&E?
MR. DeLONY: Going back to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know there's a slide in there
that said that David Lawrence was going to pick up the O&M, but
there was a -- there was a time when that burden was going to be the
county's.
MR. DeLONY: Yes. So the day-to-day O&M is going to be
on the David Lawrence Center, and you can see the FF&E is laid out
in part of that five million that I also stated would be covered by
David Lawrence Center. The expense to the county would be the
capital replacement of items, like repaving the parking lot, replacing
Page 225 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 213
the roof, replacing the generator.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The delineated expenses.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And maybe my
question needs to be to David Lawrence, then, as to whether or not
they're prepared to bear the burden of the O&M, because that's been
my largest concern -- one of my largest concerns. I've had
several -- but one of my largest concerns since this came forward.
We deviated from the consultant's original recommendations as
to where this facility needed to go. It ended up over here on this
piece of property next to the existing David Lawrence Center, and
cost overruns, expenses have exceeded, continually risen, and there
wasn't -- I didn't feel that there was sufficient warrant to justify those
additional expenses. So am I -- am I hearing here, then, that
those -- those burdens have now been lifted off of the county?
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, when we move on to the
companion item, we'll have an opportunity to talk with the David
Lawrence folks about the naming rights, which is one of the ways that
they are suggesting we may achieve some of these costs, so --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There is another item here.
I'm asking the wrong time.
MS. PATTERSON: That's right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Let's move on to it.
MS. PATTERSON: We're going to go on to -- so these are
companion items. If you want to accept our update, because we'll be
back seeing you again in January with the GMP. We'll move on to
the second part of this, and we can get into these questions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want a motion?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Make a motion to accept the
update.
Page 226 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 214
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HALL: Update accepted.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Exceptional.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #11B
A NAMING RIGHTS AGREEMENT WITH THE DAVID
LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., RELATIVE TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER
TO GENERATE DONATIONS TO BE RESTRICTED
SPECIFICALLY FOR USE WITHIN THE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CENTER. (COMPANION TO ITEM #11A) (JOHN
DUNNUCK, DIVISION DIRECTOR) - MOTION TO APPROVE
BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL – APPROVED
I already read the title, but this moves us to Item 11B, and this is
relative to the naming rights and will be the appropriate time for us to
answer those questions, Commissioner McDaniel, that you have as
well as anyone else. And so we'll invite Mr. Burgess to the podium
now to kick this off.
Page 227 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 215
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MR. BURGESS: Good afternoon. For the record, Scott
Burgess, CEO of the David Lawrence Center. Thank you so much
for allowing me to have a couple of minutes here to speak to the
operations of this -- of this facility as well as the proposal that we are
putting before you related to naming right opportunities.
I wanted to start out just really quickly with an overview. Most
of you are highly aware that we've been a trusted resource here in
Collier County since 1968. We are the only comprehensive
behavioral healthcare provider in the community. And
importantly -- and we're going to come back to this and circle around
this multiple times in this presentation -- is that we're available to all
in need in Collier County, and that does come at a pretty significant
cost, and I'll share that with you in this presentation.
Obviously, we know, according to what we've already presented
through the behavioral workshops, through what the Collier Coalition
for Healthy Minds has prepared and presented to you-all, that we are
in a growing community. We have to ensure that there's access to
care for all that are struggling with these conditions, behavioral health
conditions, mental health, substance-use disorders, and that there's
growing prevalence. In addition to the growing community that we
live in, there's growing prevalence around these conditions that we
have to attend to, so it's critical that we work together to do that.
And as such, you know, DLC has proven, and we want to
continue to prove to this community, that we're an integral partner in
the health, the well-being, and the overall safety to our community.
Commissioner Solis, who was very active with us for many,
many years, had been a participant -- a regular participant in our
strategic planning process. One of the things that he had asked to try
to come -- to wrap his brain and mind around what happens with
behavioral health in Collier County -- he came up with a graphic that
Page 228 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 216
looked very similar to this. We kind of spruced it up just a little bit.
But what you see is DLC is really the hub in the wheel. Whether it's
the Sheriff's Office, whether it's the specialty treatment courts,
whether it's emergency transitional housing, veterans services, the
schools, hospitals, healthcare providers, DLC really is that trusted,
relied-upon conduit to assisting everybody with these needs.
This is a graphic that demonstrates the great growth. This is just
the Baker Acts that are transported to DLC by the Sheriff's Office by
those referrals. I think the graphic really speaks for itself as you see
the continual growth in the demand and the need and those referrals
coming to DLC. Without DLC, we don't know where those referrals
would actually go.
So here is another graphic related to the population growth in
Collier County. You'll see that that's the orange line across time, and
you'll see the DLC service growth across time. Again, during that
period of time, about 12 years, about a 26 percent population growth.
Our services have had to grow almost 138 percent to meet the demand
of this community.
Related to what I had said before, that we have a challenge in
providing care to all in our community, I really thought it was
critically important for you to see, when it comes to an operational
challenge that we will have in almost tripling the capacity of service
available, very high-cost services available in Collier County, what
the payor mix looks like of the folks that come to DLC. This is
are -- these are by services at DLC, and you'll see that our payor mix,
61 percent have no insurance; 22 percent have Medicaid insurance,
which actuarial studies would demonstrate pay about 50 percent of the
cost; Medicare, about 4 percent, which also -- actuarial studies will
say don't cover the actual cost; and commercial insurance, 13 percent.
So when we come forward and continually share with you that
we need to be looking at every possible resource to help us with this
Page 229 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 217
mission of care that's critically necessary, vital for Collier residents,
this is the backdrop of the challenge that we face each and every day
at DLC in not only trying to maintain what we're doing with costs
going up year over year, but to grow what we're doing.
There was a question, if I could bring a slide that would represent
our current revenues across DLC against our expenses. So you'll see
on the left side, this is our revenue stream for our 55-plus years at
DLC. We have had to use a diverse comprehensive funding stream, a
braided funding stream to be able to meet these needs in our
community.
And as you'll see, state funding, grant funding -- and just as a
reminder, Florida's 49th out of 50 in state funding for mental health
and substance-use disorder. So that is 39 percent of our funding.
Insurance, as I mentioned, we have about 13 percent of
individuals come to us with insurance, but it represents about
26 percent in total of our revenue; federal funding, 10 percent; county
GR funding, 6 percent; CCPS/CCSO about 2 percent; and our
fundraising, to point out -- and you also take a look at the expense
side of things -- about 4 percent of our revenues are spent on
fundraising efforts, and about 12 percent of our -- of our revenues
come in through fundraising efforts demonstrating, obviously, a really
important element to fundraising for DLC to advance our mission of
care.
There was a question in regards to our current operations for
these services, and I'll remind you that currently we have -- we
operate, really, the behavioral health emergency room for all of
Collier County over at our main campus currently. That's three beds
for all of Collier County. And we have 33 adult inpatient beds. So
that's 33 beds in total for these services. And in Fiscal Year '24, the
revenues were about 7.7 million. Our expenses for those services
were about 10.1 million, so we have a deficit already for those
Page 230 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 218
services.
I've listed some of the primary sources of revenue there, and I've
listed the fact that a good portion of what we're raising money for
right now at DLC is in support of these services that obviously are
already losing money.
As we look at the forecast for what it will look like when we're
into the Collier County Behavioral Health Center, Fiscal Year '32,
which would represent the fifth full year of the operations, which
would represent about -- we're anticipating about a 90 percent
capacity at that point in time.
Again, we're talking about almost tripling those beds. So we
have almost a tripling of the revenue, and we have almost a tripling of
the expenses, so you'll see that the annual costs are going up, and that
will mean that our revenues are going to struggle there as well. We'll
have a little bit more of a loss.
So what I have pretty consistently said is we were -- we were
thinking that the operational delta, meaning the amount of money that
we're going to bring in versus the amount of money that is going to
cost us to provide this is -- we'll probably come in about $4 million of
an increased delta or an increased loss, if you will, in that fifth full
year of operating.
So that -- and I listed also the revenue streams. One of the
things that you will note there is we do believe that because we'll have
additional uncompensated care in this -- in this new building with the
new supports and the new beds we have that increased online, that we
should be eligible for some increased federal low-income pool funds
that's specifically for organizations like ours and these operations to
assist with -- with uncompensated care for -- you know, when you're
working with so many people that are uninsured.
And then we also -- I've listed Medicare on this slide because
part of the new facility will have a license to be able to provide
Page 231 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 219
Medicare supports.
So as we have indicated before, we are very open and interested
in trying to do everything we possibly can do to make sure that we
continue to meet the needs of Collier County residents with the
backdrop of having that significant financial challenge to do that.
I have listed here that we have agreed that we are going to take
on the burden of the $5 million worth of FF&E that was listed before.
The operational budget is -- the projections that we put together,
I think it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about a
24/7/365 operation. We never close. We didn't close during any of
the hurricanes. We had 60 individuals that were there during the
most recent hurricane providing that level of support. So, obviously,
these are expensive services to provide to our community.
We know that it's going to require a tremendous amount of
increased clinical personnel. I've listed some of the positions that
will be represented -- that already are represented at DLC currently,
but obviously, when you have almost a tripling of your beds, you're
going to have a much greater increase in your need for staff.
And we know that we'll also have an increase in our operational
expenses that are outside of the clinical side, including our IT
technology quality and compliance, human resources, clinical records,
accounting, finance. Of course, almost a tripling of individuals is
going to mean more food, more psychiatric medications, which are
not cheap.
And we are going to be bearing the burden of a lot of
increased -- significant and material cost increases in scaling this
operation as well, meaning the security insurance that we'll have to
carry and the ongoing maintenance that we've talked about.
Which leads to the item that we're here to talk about. That's a
bit of the backdrop of what we're -- what we anticipate and what we
believe that we're going to see from an operations finance standpoint.
Page 232 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 220
We heard very clearly what you had shared with us before when
we came before you, which is that the county does not want to bear
the full burden of additional costs and that it would be wonderful if
we could figure out a way to secure support from our local
community to help with some of these items, some of increased costs
in the FF&E, some of the increased costs in the operations, some of
the increased costs with maintenance. And what we have done is
prepared a naming rights opportunity that will hopefully inspire and
engage our philanthropic community here to support this initiative.
We have built out a whole -- a grid of potential naming
opportunities, and I have a slide that will show you some of those.
The naming right opportunities in the facility come to about
$13 million that we've identified, and we'll all hope and pray and
work really hard to try to secure as much money as we possibly can
through naming rights. And if we were so fortunate to be able to
raise that $13 million from fellow, you know, Collier residents that
want to link arms with us to see this happen, good things happen for
the people that are in need in our community, that would be amazing.
We also have a $15 million potential that we would like to put
forward for the naming of the building and the campus. Between
those two things, that's a significant amount of money that could go a
long way in helping us with those -- those items that have been listed.
We have proposed -- and what we would be putting in place and
executing would be that this would be in a segregated fund. It would
be designated specifically for the Collier County Behavioral Health
Clinic -- or Center. It would be just for these items. It would be
audited. It would be accountable to the Clerk that could -- that could
audit those books at any -- at any time.
And we believe that that could satisfy anybody's obvious interest
in accountability around those funds, and we would certainly be very
open to that.
Page 233 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 221
These are a list of some of the naming right opportunities that we
have -- that we've put forward, things like the lobby, unit wings,
cafeterias, event rooms, meditation room that will be in there, suicide
prevention office. We hold court -- Baker Act court. We will have
Baker Act and Marchman Act court in this facility, so there will be an
opportunity for that courtroom to be named. Staff wellness rooms,
study, outdoor holistic rooms, and patient wellness rooms.
In addition to what we're putting forward here -- and we're very
much hopeful that you will support that -- I'm listing other funding
sources that we will be working towards securing related to that
continued operational delta between revenues that are coming in and
expenses that need to go out in order to operate this facility. We will
be looking at state funding, private grants, additional federal grants,
and I mentioned before federal potential through the LIP program.
Other sources of local support -- and we believe that there are
several other areas that we can still continue to look in for local
support.
And then heaven forbid, this is -- this is the life that I've lived for
33 years operating these types of services and opportunities -- and
operations for those that struggle in these conditions as well as in a
funding system that struggles to keep up with the demand is that at the
end of the day, if we end up having to curb operations to the level of
resources that we have, that's what we have to do. That's how you
have to, unfortunately, operate a not-for-profit organization under
these types of circumstances.
I will say I've been very blessed to work with incredible people,
to work with incredible communities and leaders, that -- for my entire
career, I've only seen increase in services that have been able to be
provided because people have always risen to the occasion to assist.
So with that, I believe that's my last slide.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
Page 234 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 222
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
Good evening, Mr. Burgess. How you doing?
MR. BURGESS: I'm doing great. How are you?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Could you go back to the screen
that has the two doughnuts on it?
MR. BURGESS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm a cop. I always will be.
MR. BURGESS: Let me see here. I'm going to go here.
MR. MILLER: Use the back arrow.
MR. BURGESS: I was going to do that, but then I know it's
back a bit.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: There you go.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I see the doughnuts.
MR. BURGESS: We've got a doughnut.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: When you had showed this slide
before, I was looking at the -- was it the uninsured?
MR. BURGESS: Oh, the one that was right before this.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah.
MR. BURGESS: It's the one before this, then.
I'm sorry. That was the pre-doughnut slide.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Previous, at the top.
MR. BURGESS: Previous. There we go.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay. So that number, the
uninsured, 60 percent. Now, on the doughnut, it's 61 percent. On
that -- I guess on the doughnut -- I'm trying to figure out -- because
you made the comment that when we get the new facility, you'll be
certificated to be able to accept Medicare.
MR. BURGESS: Yep. Medicare, correct.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So is Medicare not captured in
this statistic even though you provide the treatment, or is there a way
to figure out these people had Medicare but you -- didn't foot the bill?
Page 235 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 223
MR. BURGESS: No, that's a great question, and it's a little bit
tricky. The Medicare that we have right now, that 4 percent, is for
services that we can provide outpatient services that we are
credentialed to be able to provide. So right now we're only able to
get reimbursed by Medicare for outpatient-related services. In the
new facility, we will have it built to the specifications that are
required for Medicare. We'll have the Medicare license, so then we
will also be able to bill Medicare for inpatient support.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay.
MR. BURGESS: So right now folks that have an inpatient need
that have Medicare insurance are having to go out of county in order
to receive that service. So they're going --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So it's not part of the 61 percent.
It's just not capturing as noninsured.
MR. BURGESS: It's not -- the vast majority of the folks that
have Medicare are going out of our community right now.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay.
MR. BURGESS: There are still some that end up staying with
us, and then it becomes likely uncompensated care, because a lot of
them can't afford --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That will just basically add to the
in-patient number?
MR. BURGESS: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Not so much has anything to do
with captured and un-captured in the uninsured.
MR. BURGESS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You answered my question.
MR. BURGESS: Yep, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, Chairman.
Scott, when it comes to the naming rights -- and obviously we've
Page 236 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 224
talked about this before. Before I was a commissioner, when I was
doing some consulting over at Avow, you know, they missed some
great opportunities with some really large buildings and rooms that
were named, and they gave it away in perpetuity for $500, you know,
and so they missed out on some opportunities. But then, you know,
with the new building they had built, we didn't make that same
mistake. But that's a private organization, so it was all controlled
in-house.
Ms. Patterson and I were talking yesterday in my office to just
make sure that if we all agree that that's a way to raise revenue, man,
it really has to be a lot cleaner, because if you, as David Lawrence
Center, are, you know, shaking a tin cup around town for naming
rights of a building you don't own that the taxpayers paid for, it starts
to become a little bit sloppy.
So we were just sort of brainstorming. And I would just say I
don't know the answer, but before we do this, we've got to make sure
it's tight, and that's where you, County Manager, County Attorney,
Ms. Kinzel have to really, you know, assure us that something's going
to be -- it's going to be in a nice tight bow.
And one of the things we were brainstorming -- and then it was
just -- these are the experts that will make sure it happens. But when
Amy and I were talking in the office, it was, would it be smarter for
them to find people or anybody that wants to, you know, invest, you
know, in naming something, but then that money goes directly to the
county first, not to you, and then there's some -- you know, so alls I
would say is I don't have the answer, and all the people I just
mentioned are extremely smart.
I don't think anybody here is against the naming rights, but we've
got to measure twice and cut once on this one because it could come
back and bite us that you're out there raising money for David
Lawrence Center or to benefit David Lawrence Center or even to
Page 237 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 225
benefit us, but you're sort of selling our rooms. You're selling our
building. And so, you know, if we approve it today, I would expect
that -- unless you've already shaken out those details. Have you?
MR. BURGESS: We've already put together a --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So how do we -- how are we
going to do it?
MR. BURGESS: So the plan would be that the dollars donated
would be specifically for exactly what's identified that would be
specifically identified for the potential donor. They would know that
this is for a county -- a Collier County building, CCBHC, Collier
County Behavioral Health Center, but that it would go in support of
only services --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But who would they give the
money to?
MR. BURGESS: They would give --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They'd write the check to
who?
MR. BURGESS: They'd write the check to DLC, and then --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They do.
MR. BURGESS: -- and then that way that becomes a charitable
tax donation.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. Well, and that's what
we talked about is when I initially said, "Wow, they would have to
write the check to the county, or it would be really sloppy."
And then Amy said, "Yeah, but then they don't get the tax write-
off."
And I was like, "Okay." But if they write the check to you, do
we still, you know, perceive an issue that, you know, you're basically
selling stuff that we own and the money goes directly to DLC.
MR. BURGESS: We don't believe so because it's specifically
identified. Everybody that is going to be contributing is going to
Page 238 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 226
well be aware of exactly what they're contributing to. It's going to go
into a segregated account specifically for that, which
everything -- every in and every out is only going to be for that
account, and that account is going to be -- is going to be audited on an
annual basis. It will be --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And supporting the
county -- and it would be specifically supporting the county building.
MR. BURGESS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure that we had this conversation here, so if we just said,
"Approved," we didn't get 300 e-mails -- or one e-mail from
somebody that said, you know, they had an issue with it.
MR. BURGESS: And we did put together a document that -- it
says naming right agreement that specifically codifies all that
information for the person who would be -- who would be agreeing.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Well, the main
auditor, who would drop the hammer if it's done wrong, is walking to
the podium. So if she comes to the podium, we probably don't need a
long speech. We just need to hear Crystal say, yeah, you know -- and
I guess she's talking with Amy, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think she's just going to
point out that a contribution to the county is tax deductible as well.
MS. KINZEL: That's one.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So if it is, you
know -- and maybe it doesn't need to be solved here. I think nobody
here is going to have an issue with the naming rights, but -- and like I
said, we'll hear from Crystal here. There's -- there's a correct way to
do it, there's a sloppy way to do it, and then there's a perfect way to do
it, and we want to do it the perfect way. You know, there's a way
that would be, like, kind of okay, and I think we sort of tossed it
around here. I don't think that's the cleanest way. Just me. But,
Page 239 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 227
you know, I defer to Crystal, because she'll be the one auditing. I just
think that we could get in a little bit of trouble if we don't do this
perfectly.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller.
You have hit the nail on the head of my concerns on the naming
rights to date. We have the opportunity to take that, and there are
certain deductions, because we're county government, that people still
can take. A lot of people still want to be very comfortable with a
501(c)3.
One of the other concerns I had -- and we can work through these
details, but I'm very glad that you put that on the record, because that's
been an ongoing concern in my discussions with David Lawrence.
Auditing once a year for our office, a little bit difficult. The
money's going. The money's spent. David Lawrence collects
money from a lot of revenue sources and expends it in a lot of ways.
So specific identification, which we haven't seen yet other than a
list similar to this, yes, those are all things I think we need to clean up.
The other concern that I had is that when you said the money
would all go towards the building, well, it will go towards the names
on the building, but the revenue would be used to offset the portion of
David Lawrence's obligation. In the current way it's constructed, my
understanding is none of that naming rights revenue will come to
offset the cost of the building which has doubled from the 25 million
to the $56 million. And that's kind of concerning that, once again, it's
the taxpayers with the majority of money and the -- all the revenue
would be offsetting their costs for the future. Those are topics I'd
like to work out with them.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. So I guess maybe
when you work it out -- maybe we're going to vote on the naming
Page 240 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 228
rights but not necessarily on the packaging, on the process of it, but
we definitely need that.
I wouldn't want to scare off any donors who say, "Oh, I'd write it
to the county. Oh, it's a tax write-off, but maybe it's" -- and I'm not
an expert on this, but if it's to the county, maybe it's not as big of a
write-off as it would be if it's to a 501(c)3. If it's the same, then
great. But I do know there are some philanthropic people out there
that would like to put DLC on the check, not Collier County.
And then, just like Ms. Kinzel said, when the money comes in,
you know -- and I guess we'll wait to hear your proposal. I, for one,
would like to see that it save the county some money, especially when
we're putting the name on a building that we built, even though we're
doing this as a team effort.
So there's a few things to work out. I think the way it's written
here in the agenda, we're just voting on the idea of naming rights, or
maybe we table it and say, "Come back here with the process and
everything," but I think there's still some things to work out, you
know, before I feel comfortable just saying, you know, yes.
If we needed a yes to the idea of naming rights, I don't think
anybody's got a problem with that, but we definitely need the process.
So maybe that comes back to us.
MR. BURGESS: Yeah. I would certainly say that we would
come back to present to you all the buttoned-up details on it. And I
don't think there's anybody in the room that works for DLC or our
board chair that's here that doesn't want it to be perfect. We will have
a process that everybody is -- is okay with, and we'll -- we'll agree it's
a perfect process.
One thing that I can say -- and I don't think I'm coming up here
and saying that without any history of credibility. I think the Clerk
could come up here and let you know that for 55 years we've not had
a problem as a great partner with Collier County. We get audited by
Page 241 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 229
Collier County. We have multiple grants and programs that we
operate with Collier County year over year, decade after decade. So I
think we've got a pretty good track record that we can --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is that true, Crystal?
MR. BURGESS: -- button things up.
MS. KINZEL: Thirty-six, not 50.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: FGCU used to say that, and
then -- FGCU used to say that, and then Crystal caught them in a
whole bunch of things.
MR. BURGESS: So just 36 years, I guess, has been the time
that we've officially partnered on with grants.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And I'll just final -- the final
thing I'll just say is all five of us are going to be working hard, too, to
steer people who are interested, philanthropic people or whatnot.
You know we're all out and about in the county, so that's why we've
got to make sure we're all reading from the same sheet of music, so --
MR. BURGESS: We appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- but great work.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And, you know, I
hope you know and understand, all of you, there is no reflection of
credibility whatsoever. There is no reflection of warrant of good
DLC has done for our community for a millennia; 36, 51 years,
whatever. My concern with your presentation today is you're going
to do what you can do with the available amount of money and/or
you're going to cut services, and that concerns me.
MR. BURGESS: That concerns me every night.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It hasn't been -- there hasn't
been a soul that's ever came before us that hasn't known or been able
to typify the actual need. The need is here within our community.
There's no argument about that.
Page 242 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 230
My question to my -- to my colleagues is: We don't want to get
a little bit pregnant with this and have a 50-plus-million dollar
building sitting over there and then not be successful in the naming
rights, not be successful in the philanthropic efforts that are necessary
to offset these expenses. I have huge concerns with regard to that.
Up until today, and necessarily even today, I have concerns with
the capacity to be able to raise the money to be able to offset these
overages or these deltas, as you referred to them, so that it doesn't
come back to the taxpayers, doesn't come back on the community.
And I have to say it out loud, at some particular stage, we, the
Board, need to pull the trigger, make a decision as to whether to go
forward with this development as is, in fact, proposed or do something
different that is more cost effective, that it is more attainable.
I know there were recommendations that were made to this board
years and years and years ago with regard to the locations of the
facility. There were -- there were issues that were talked about siting
of this particular facility. And so I'm -- I concur with my colleagues
with regard to the naming rights. It's a wonderful idea.
What are we going to do, gentlemen, when the naming rights and
the fundraising isn't sufficient? When do we say, "Time out. We
need to have a different plan"? That's my question. And I've said
that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: On day one.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, today's past day one.
We're moving down a path here now where we were able and
fortunate enough to have excess sales tax revenue to be able to offset
the expense, cut this -- we've cut the size of the facility down in order
to bring that overhead expense down from a capital standpoint.
When do we say -- when do we say -- because I approved Brian's
construction plan and update on the facility which set out timelines,
and I saw construction dates starting next year. Did I see that in his
Page 243 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 231
slide?
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, we'll be back with the
GMP, the guaranteed maximum price, in January.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: So sometime between now and January
would be the decision point, because once you pull the trigger and
start construction, obviously, we're not pulling it back then.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're a lot pregnant at that
stage.
MS. PATTERSON: The other thing is is the naming rights.
Conceptually, if the Board is okay with the naming rights, then David
Lawrence can definitely put out better feelers into the community
with the naming rights with the -- then bring back the buttoned-up
agreement with the concurrence of the Clerk and the County
Attorney's Office.
But up until this point, we had been before you once before
where we reversed course a little bit on kind of that thought process,
even of the money coming into the county.
So now they've gone and taken this idea, they need -- if the
Board is okay with the idea of the naming rights, they can now talk
about it a little bit more openly while we finalize those details. But
we're now at the hard decision point. There's -- if we're -- if we're
changing course, we're well into this, and we're now to construction
contract.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand.
MR. BURGESS: Can I interject one item?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. Go ahead, Scott.
And, you know -- you know this is coming with love, this is. This is
just me --
MR. BURGESS: I can feel it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. You can feel it?
Page 244 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 232
Good.
MR. BURGESS: Maybe it's just the holidays, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's Christmastime.
MR. BURGESS: I know -- I really know where all your hearts
are related to this.
One thing that I think it's critically important to amplify and
reinforce is that this new facility is also going to take on Marchman
Act. We don't have a Marchman Act receiving facility. Marchman
Act is the equivalent of the Baker Act but for folks that are in
imminent danger to themselves or others because of their
substance-use disorder. Those folks are, right now, still utilizing jail
for those supports.
So I know -- I see the Sheriff actually is up here.
But I just -- I just want to encourage that we think about it as a
community from a more macro perspective, because I
understand -- and trust me, I would prefer never to be in a situation
where you're having to try to figure out how to operate something
that's so critically important in a community without the appropriate
resources to do it.
But if we are not operating this facility, that does not mean these
issues go away. It just means they get moved somewhere else. And
wherever they get moved elsewhere is likely going to cost more
money, and it's likely not going to be as effective, or it's completely
unattended to, and we've got much more problem -- much bigger
problems than that in our community.
So for that reason, I'm just encouraging you -- for our whole
entire existence at DLC, we have had to figure out a way in a state
that's 49th out of 50 in funding, how are we going to continue to grow
the needed services? And we've been able to do that. We've been
able to do that in partnership and support with our community and
with our community partners, so we're committed to doing that.
Page 245 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 233
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One of the things -- and
I'm -- Kevin -- Sheriff, you can come on up.
I just -- you know, one of the things is -- to move us out of that
49th out of 50 states is to ratchet up on the reduction of our
recidivism, ratchet up on our productivity, ratchet up on our -- you
know, you hear us talk -- you were here for part of today's discussion.
But, you know, we're into transparency and accountability, and
the easiest way to do that is to be -- have efficacy that isn't
questionable. I mean, you don't have a rate of recidivism with a
revolving door and people coming back and back and back.
MR. BURGESS: Yeah. And I would just say to that, it's one
of the reasons why we are a national model for our drug court here,
our mental health court in the nation, because we do what we do so
well here.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
MR. BURGESS: So there are people coming from all over the
country to learn how we do it here in partnership with our law
enforcement, our judiciary, and our treatment providers. So it
definitely has a -- has an impact.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Quit bragging. No, I'm just
kidding.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Before the Sheriff goes --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I really want to hear from the
Sheriff but -- Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Before the Sheriff goes, if I got this
presentation and I was a banker, I'd already have slammed the door.
I would have slammed the no deal because, you know, it didn't -- it
doesn't stand on its own. But since for -- since 1968 you've taken the
risk and you've made it work.
I'm not convinced that this is the right model. Like
Commissioner McDaniel said, we don't know what the recidivism rate
Page 246 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 234
is. We don't know what the success rate of your program is. I can
call other people, and they can say, "We're 65 percent. The people
that come into our program and are drinking and leave our program
never drink again; 65 percent of those people." We don't know that
with DLC.
The naming rights I look at like if I had a house and I had a room
and I wanted to rent my room out and somebody wanted to call it "the
blue room," and they could pay for it, I'll take their money and let it
be the blue room. If I ever sell the house, the blue room goes away.
But -- so I don't have any problem with the naming rights.
But I am questioning the program, the efficiency of it. You
know, the Sheriff may stand up here and say, "Well, the county's
going to save X amount dollars by taking our, you know, patients
from the jail and putting them in the DLC," but I don't want to take
the savings from the Sheriff and apply them back to here. I don't
want to do that. I just want to take the savings from the Sheriff and
live happily ever after.
So with that, Sheriff, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It's all public safety.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Good afternoon, everyone, or maybe
good evening. Kevin Rambosk, Collier County Sheriff.
I was going to talk a lot more about the need in Collier County
for the center, but you know we've -- you've talked about it today.
We've been talking about it for more than eight years. We put
together an advisory committee which then led into the development
of a strategic plan and with a lot of data in there.
And I don't want to go back through all of that right now, for two
reasons. One is, you're all familiar with it. Number two is, it's five
years old already, or close to it. So our growth and need has gone up
fairly substantially during that time.
I mean, if you look back to a couple of different points in time,
Page 247 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 235
2006 we were doing 377 Baker Acts in Collier County. If we went to
2010, we were doing just shy of 800. When you fast forward to 2022
and 2023, we are fifteen hundred and -- no, 1,650 to 1,750. So that's
a pretty significant increase.
If I think back to when I started, the David Lawrence Center was
really -- not had been in operation that long. They were building.
NCH really ran the majority of mental health services. Fifth floor
NCH, that's where I transported people. We couldn't house them
here in Collier County at that time and, in fact, I personally drove
patients from NCH to Arcadia to house them, which virtually took me
off the road for the entire night.
So I give you that background because one of the reasons for us,
in this concept of building an enhanced center, certainly it's for getting
people to the right place for the right expert treatment, because jails
are the largest mental health facility in a community. We are. If
you look at where we are today, our average daily population is about
750, give or take.
Of those, 63 percent are receiving mental health or behavioral
services. So we are there. And you say, "Well, then why is this
important if you're already doing it?" Because if you look back 10
years ago or 15 years ago, we had more than 1,150, pushing 1,200
people average daily population in the jail. We were going to have to
come back to you and ask to build a new facility and, in fact, if I'm
correct -- if I remember it correctly, we were starting to put together
plans and costs to come back to build an additional jail to house all of
the people that we were getting.
So let me -- so physically, we need assistance. From a crime
and safety perspective, during that same period of time, the last
decade, we've trained over 1,500 law enforcement officers not only
from our county, but the City of Naples, Marco Island in crisis
intervention where we're trying to intervene before a crime occurs and
Page 248 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 236
get those people transported to our facility and resource, and that is
the David Lawrence Center, because NCH doesn't exist anymore.
There are one or two private entities out there, but they're not
supporting what we're doing, so -- and, you know, we're saying,
"Well, why is that important?" Well, again, going back to one of the
reasons, a facility as we're talking about gives us the opportunity to
drive in, drop off, go back on the road within 30 minutes. That's
important. If you look at those 1,500 times, if you put four to six
hours on each one of those, that's a lot of time that we're not available.
Number two, keeping your deputies and consumers safe and
safer. With all the training we've got, and we've gotten it, to reduce
the potential for liability, to make the community safer -- and, you
know, there's a lot of studies -- and I can provide them to you and the
cites for this information.
But if you're involved in substance abuse and/or certain mental
health crisis involving violence, you know, there is an increase in
crime. Think about where we have gotten over the last 10 years with
everything that we have been doing.
Certainly, our crisis intervention training program is one of many
elements, because we have the best proactive law enforcement
deputies in the nation right here. We have the best support from our
community for taking professional law enforcement action, and that
includes crisis intervention and what we do with consumers in need:
Getting them to the right place.
So we're right now treating a hundred and -- take for
example -- and all these snapshots are one day, because they change.
A hundred and sixteen people in our jail today are being detoxed.
Now, they could be there for 30 days, they could be there for six
months, but they're not here for years.
So predominantly, get people detoxed. Well, we open the door
when they finish their sentence. Do we let them walk out the back
Page 249 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 237
door? No. We try and do a warm handoff to the David Lawrence
Center. Since now they are detoxed, get them to professional care
that can keep them on that road. And not everybody takes it. But
when they don't take it, back into the community, look for drugs, and
look for a way to pay drugs.
Burglarize your car, burglarize your house, burglarize your
business. And there are stats for all that.
So I give you, and, more importantly, the community that's
listening -- the bases for why Collier County is the safest community
in the nation. It's all of the programs we do. It is essential and
critical for the support that you give us, because we would not be able
to operate without the dollars and the resources that you provide to us
to make it work, and you always have.
So as we look forward -- you know, I was listening to Scott.
I've not heard his presentation. But if I were to stand here and tell
you what my budget projection was for nine years from now, you're
probably not going to like it. So I know that's what he has to do.
So set that aside for one minute. So I'll go into an area that I
really probably wasn't going to go into.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Before you get going -- before you get
going, Sheriff, I just want to remind us all -- I don't want to lose our
focus here. We're not talking about the need for what we're -- DLC.
Our focus is naming rights, whether we want to do that or not, and
we're going to come back with -- so I just -- I want to -- I want to kind
of focus there.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I think the conversation went in
this direction because we had two people on the Board here that were
talking about pulling the carpet out from under something before --
CHAIRMAN HALL: I made some comments about that, but
that's not -- I just want to remind us all what our focus is. Our focus
is on naming rights today, and that's what we need to decide on.
Page 250 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 238
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Okay. I'm not here to talk about
naming rights, so if you're all good, I am good. Be happy to come
back and talk about some other things. But two things: One is,
whatever the Clerk says, lawfully and legally; that's No. 1. The
second thing is I am no longer on the board of the David Lawrence
Center, have not been for years. Have no authority, have no
responsibility, have no anything other than they bestowed a nice
retirement title when I left the board.
But what Scott -- and they have a tremendous chairman and
board of directors, as they have had -- actually a number of them
throughout the years.
But I think to support, Commissioner Hall, what you were saying
in referencing Scott, they have done a great job with regard to
fulfilling the need and the responsibility no matter what the challenge
was, and I think they will continue to do that because people in this
community will support them, and now I'll go sit down.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may. You mentioned a
population of our jail today. Could you tell me that number again?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: I believe today was 754. Average
daily population right now is 754.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because I -- and, Sheriff, you
know, you and I have been friends for a long time, and one of the first
things you said to me when I became a commissioner was that the
largest mental institution in Collier County was our jail, and that
resonated with me.
How many beds total do we have in the jail here on campus?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Well, let's see. I think there's 200 up
in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. On campus here.
Page 251 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 239
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yeah, so it would be, like, 800.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Eight hundred on campus and
another two over in Immokalee?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Maybe a little bit more, because we
were able to house 1,152.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's close enough. Round
numbers. That was a number that I didn't have.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: And I'm not here trying to argue with
you. I'm --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nope.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: -- here trying to support you in making
your decision --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: -- to let you know what I think.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I hope no one's taking
what I'm saying as argumentative. I just want to have an open,
honest discussion about how we're going to manage this monster.
There's no argument that there's a monster.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Completely agree.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's no argument that
there's a monster. How we're going to manage the monster is my -- is
my rationale for having that discussion.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Completely agree.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to kind of keep it simple in terms of how we're dealing
with the naming rights. I like the proposal that the David Lawrence
Center has made in that they would handle the naming and collecting
of the dollars, but there would be an accounting for the Clerk to make
Page 252 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 240
sure that those dollars are used in a way that this commission is in
agreement with David Lawrence Center.
So I think that we may be overcomplicating things because
there's an 800-pound gorilla in the room, and that's the $4 million a
year in operating expenses, and we're trying to merge the two, and
we're trying to -- I don't know that we would admit this individually,
but I think we're trying to kind of negotiate here as to how we're going
to handle operating expenses along with the naming rights. And this
is not a very good way to kind of negotiate that.
So I think I'd like to break these into two pieces. As the
Chairman said, let's go ahead and resolve the naming rights issue.
And my view is let's go along the way David Lawrence Center has
suggested. But we would also -- I think the Commission needs to say
to David Lawrence Center how we want those dollars to be used. For
example, there's going to be 4 or $5 million in FF&E. You're going
to have, what, 13 to 15 million dollars in revenue for the naming
rights. There are going to be capital costs down the road for this
building. Perhaps we use those dollars for capital and for FF&E and
have that trust fund set aside for that purpose. That's easy to account
for. The Clerk would be able to make sure those dollars are being
used properly.
And then on the operational expenses, we know there's going to
be a $4-million-plus operational cost to this facility. Some of us
thought at the beginning that David Lawrence Center was going to
pay for all of that. I think what David Lawrence Center is saying
today is they can't pay for all of that.
And so there needs to be some agreement between David
Lawrence Center and Collier County on how we're going to divide up
that $4-million-plus operating expenses, and perhaps we need
somebody from our staff to sit down and negotiate some sort of a deal
with David Lawrence Center not in front of a board of five
Page 253 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 241
commissioners, because we -- you know, we're all kind of dancing
around this, and I don't think anybody wants to be the bad guy to say,
you know, we don't want to pay any of it, and nobody wants to be the
good guy saying we're going to pay all of it.
And so I think that somebody from staff needs to sit down, and
maybe with the commissioner in tow, to get the numbers from the
Sheriff on how much savings there are in these operations, get some
real numbers from David Lawrence Center in terms of what is
anticipated, and try to come back to this board with some sort of a
recommendation. But we can stay here all night and dance around
this, but I don't think we're going to get to a solution.
But I would suggest as -- and I would make a motion at some
point to strike a deal in terms of the naming that is similar to what
David Lawrence Center has proposed but that we advise David
Lawrence Center as to how those funds are going to be used and make
sure that the Clerk can audit this -- those transactions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Okay. Just as a comment. Going
forward, if we have $4 million of operational expense and you get
some money in, once you reach 125, 130 percent of your operation
money, then the money kicks forward to the county in capital reserves
or some other portion or back to the taxpayers to make the deficit up
for the 27 million in addition, and once that's -- over the years, once
that's satisfied, then you get all of it. That's just a thought I had.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I think you
get your cake and eat it too because you had said you'd like for some
of those dollars to come back to the taxpayers. Well, I think if we are
able to establish that the Sheriff is going to save dollars in his
operations, those are dollars that are coming back to us. It's the same
thing. It's just a different source.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And in the -- in the -- it's an
Page 254 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 242
ancillary savings at the same time. But if, in fact, the successes are
achieved that we're all wanting to have achieved, we have an ultimate
reduction in crime and exposure for our Sheriff's Department to
be -- to be dealing with the mental health issues of the folks that
they're having to deal with every single day. So I'm -- I seconded his
motion for the naming rights.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. For the naming rights, all in
favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. BURGESS: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then, Mr. Chairman, in terms
of -- I know this is early on. We're not going to have a building to
operate for at least two years from now. But perhaps it would be
appropriate to begin a process to negotiate with David Lawrence
Center on how we're going to handle the operating expenses going
forward, because it's going to take some time to ferret that out.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My personal -- my personal
one is to have that done before we put a shovel in the ground to build
the building. I mean, I think that discussion needs to happen before
we put a shovel in the ground to, in fact, build the building. That
needs to be -- that needs to be ironed out.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'd like to see it as part of our maximum
price deal.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, Mr. Dunnuck and I will sit
Page 255 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 243
down with David Lawrence and work through this between now and
when we bring the GMP back, and we'll continue to work on the rest
of the details on the naming rights in accordance with your direction.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
Merry Christmas.
MR. BURGESS: Merry Christmas. Thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: All right. Commissioners --
Terri, how you doing? You good? We've got two more items.
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
Item #9D
ORDINANCE 2024-53: AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 2023-71
TO REMOVE ROADWAYS THAT ARE NO LONGER UNPAVED,
ADD UNPAVED PRIVATE ROADWAYS AND ESTABLISH AN
OPT OUT PROVISION - MOTION TO APPROVE BY
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL; SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HALL – ADOPTED
MS. PATTERSON: All right. Commissioners, that brings us
to Item 9D. This item was continued from the November 12th, 2024,
BCC meeting. This is a recommendation to approve an amendment
to Ordinance No. 2023-71 to remove roadways that are no longer
unpaved, add unpaved private roadways, and establish an opt-out
provision.
Ms. Trinity Scott, your department head for Transportation
Management Services, is here to present.
MS. SCOTT: I've been waiting all day for this. I thought I was
going to sneak in this morning.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm wondering if it would be
appropriate for a commissioner to opt out about this time.
Page 256 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 244
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Quit.
MS. SCOTT: Two more agenda items, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll see you guys.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Where you going?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just kidding, just kidding. I
don't want to miss this.
MS. SCOTT: Brief history or questions, however you would
like to approach this agenda item. This hasn't changed since the last
time it was presented to you back in, I believe, October for
advertisement. As Amy, County Manager, discussed, this is
removing a few roads from the unpaved roadway ordinance, adding
all unpaved private roadways that are not in a gated community or
HOA, and also establishing an opt-out provision.
This is the roadways that are encompassed by the Unpaved
Roads MSTU, or what would be based on the amendment. And
just -- there is a little bit of new information. The total mileage is
75.783 miles.
The first revenue to be collected, if this MSTU is amended,
would be for the 2025 tax year. The taxable value of the properties
all benefiting is just over 203 million, and a millage of one mil would
generate approximately $203,000 annually.
So our next steps, if approved today, would be to finalize the
properties and transmit those to the Property Appraiser prior to the
December 31st, 2024, deadline. Publish our opt-out application on
our website. We would have our advisory committee of first
responders who would review those opt-out applications. We would
prepare a bid for the first 16 miles of roadway that we know have
been deemed unpassable by those first responders.
Our future year process is the advisory committee will present a
list of roads needing maintenance to remain passable to the MSTU
project manager. The advisory committee will rank the roadways
Page 257 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 245
worst first, and then we would develop a budget to be presented to
you annually each year through your budget process.
So we're asking for your approval today on the amendment of
Ordinance 2023-71.
CHAIRMAN HAL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chair.
Question with the opt-out. I know that's been in and out and in
and out, the opt-out. Now it's in. And we hold the premise on the
first responders to make a determination if the roads are impassable or
not through their process, however they come to that conclusion. So
if somebody opts out, let's just -- I'm spitballing. You opt out, the
road's fine. Five, six years down the road, they don't do their own
maintenance on the road, and then now they're put in that category of
the impassable. Do we retroactively go after them because they
didn't do anything -- they opted out when the road was good, but then
they didn't do anything to maintain that road, and now we have to deal
with it. Can we retroactively go back and collect that percent over
the years they didn't maintain the road?
MS. SCOTT: I would defer to the county attorney if I could
retroactively but do not believe so. I believe the way it's written is is
that they would just be included into the MSTU in perpetuity then.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Because I just don't like the fact
that they might have a good road now because whoever was taking
care of it before took care of it, and now that person's not there
anymore. They opt out, they get the benefit of that person that took
care of the road. Five, six years down the road they got it fixed
again, and they never paid a dime into the program.
MS. SCOTT: The opt-out provision does require that they
provide us a maintenance plan. But you're correct, somebody -- you
know, somebody could move off the road that had a grader that was
doing it for them. But the way it is currently written is if at a point in
Page 258 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 246
the future the road becomes impassable to emergency vehicles, those
previously opted-out homes shall become subjected to the tax levy
herein beginning the next fiscal year and continuing the following
years. That's how the existing ordinance is written.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I don't know. It's kind of --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It's kind of -- they can play the
system and kind of get a freebie out of it for five, six years. So I
don't know.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You know, there's a way to
scam any system. This circumstance has been prevalent in our
community forever, 25 years. Commissioner Coletta formed a
homeowners association in 2000 called the Corkscrew Island
Neighborhood Association, and if you all aren't doing anything, we're
having a Christmas party at Bill's cabin in the woods next week, next
Tuesday, for the CINA, Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Association.
The rationale back in those days was each individual road had to
do a referenda, 50 percent plus one, on the road to opt in to
do -- create their own individual MSTUs. Well, you can't get two of
us that live in the woods to agree on what color the sky is let alone
whether or not we're going to pay any extra money to take care of a
road.
This is a way -- I'm going to admit it's not the only way to
address a systematic failure that our community has had ever since
I've lived there.
There are people who -- and again -- and I've lobbied for this and
lobbied for this. I'm not saying that this is all perfect. I'm not saying
that there isn't a way to beat the system. I'm not saying that -- I don't
believe -- I think what Trinity shared with you, Commissioner Kowal,
is correct; I don't think we can retroactively go back on somebody.
Page 259 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 247
But I know that --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I don't think she said that. She
said we didn't have that in there. I was just asking if we could.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't think we can.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And so someone could
technically opt out today. But in order to opt out, they have to
provide us with a maintenance plan and adhere to that maintenance
plan. So it's not necessarily going to be five, six years down the road.
It could be, necessarily.
But Mitch Penner lives out in North Belle Meade. He's Mitchell
& Stark. He takes care of his own roads. So he can opt out. He
can supply a maintenance plan and support it. I technically on my
road, with Redhawk Lane -- and now that USA Grading's moved in
on the corner, we could, if we choose to, opt out if we wanted to,
supply a maintenance plan, and take care of that.
There's no -- there's no perfect position or perfect system that can
accomplish what needs to be done. We have to declare a state of
emergency when we enact these repairs. That's something that the
County Attorney and I have worked on extensively. We just came
through one of the worst -- and right now nobody's chirping about the
roads because it's been dry for a month, month and a half. But we
went through the data, the analysis, sent staff out, sent the emergency
services folks out.
We now know that there's 15, 16 miles of unpassable roads. We
have an obligation to take care of that. And the first shot over the
bow was to just enact the MSTU on those roads. Well, as soon as we
started moving on that, it rained, and then there was another
nine miles down in 6L Farms area that went under water and weren't
traversable any longer.
So my suggestion is, let's do this -- this is the beginning of a
Page 260 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 248
process -- and make the necessary adjustments. We're not going to
just enact this and then walk away from it. It's going to be an
ongoing process that we manage and monitor. We're going to track
the front-end expense. We're going to track the ongoing maintenance
that transpires after so that these roads don't become impassable again
and then manage the tax over a period of time to be able to hopefully
develop enough in reserves so that if a -- if a large storm event comes
along, we've got the reserves in order to take care of those roads.
And have enough money in there to do the ongoing maintenance that's
necessary to do this.
I don't want to regurgitate all of the reasons why this is
necessary. Our number one job as a local government is health,
safety, and welfare; take care of our people.
And this is a path that has never been tried before, I'll be the first
to admit that. And we as a community don't like to be the guinea pig,
but this is a path I think that can -- that we as a community can travel
to take care of a systemic failure that we have going on in this
community. Some of these private roads that have gone into
disrepair since I became a County Commissioner have cost eight and
10 times the amount of money that it normally would have cost had it
been done and done properly and then cared for after the fact.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just -- and I have no issues in
going forward with this, but I do have a question and maybe an
alternative just for discussion purposes.
But assuming that we adopt this with the opt-out, are you going
to need any additional staff to manage this? You've got people that
are coming in with maintenance programs because they're opting out.
Do you have the ability to handle this -- whatever that additional
workload would be?
MS. SCOTT: We will monitor that. Right now I have two
Page 261 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 249
MSTU project managers who have a lot of MSTUs on their plate.
What we would most likely do, because those staff times are charged
back to the MSTUs, if we needed to bring in additional assistance, we
would start with, through our temporary service, our key staff, and
bring in a temporary employee if we needed one until we can get
through the ebbs and flows of this. I think in the beginning with the
opt-out we're probably going to have a little more, and there'll be
some more administrative work, so bringing in some assistance.
But then if this goes as the commissioner has kind of laid out,
we're hoping that it's, you know, more of a streamlined process.
We're meeting with that advisory committee. They're giving us their
priorities for the year. We're setting that -- we're setting those
priorities. No different than kind of how I do a paving plan, you
know, where we're assessing the roads, we're building the plan.
Okay. The next fiscal year, bam, we're getting out there. We're
getting those things done. As soon as these are done, we're starting
to assess everything again, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So it would be interesting just
to know if you're going to incur expenses, because I think this will
generate $203,000 a year; is that the --
MS. SCOTT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. So, you know, if
there's an offset from that because of increased staff time, we're not
dealing with a big number to begin with. So that would be something
that I think we would need to know.
But I think I'd ask the County Attorney a question. We can't
spend our ad valorem tax dollars on a private road; that's why we're
going through this exercise?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So -- but we can determine
that there's an emergency situation, and we can spend tax dollars to
Page 262 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 250
correct an emergency situation, and we can go back and assess the
property owners along that roadway for those costs?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which we've been doing.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Which is what we've been
doing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. Has that not been
effective? I mean --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Absolutely ineffective.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, is that because we're
not declaring enough emergencies in enough locations or -- and
there's no one to monitor it? Why would that not be effective? It
seems to me that that would be the easiest way to deal with it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a -- what I've experienced
since I became a commissioner and even before I became a
commissioner, Commissioner Saunders, was the after-the-fact
expense associated with reparations of the road were extraordinary,
and then the burden was put upon -- put upon those folks just
specifically on that road. This rationale here is to -- it's a big
wagon -- have everybody tote a little bit on the wagon and then not
just a few are carrying and pulling on the wagon.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, just to cite an
example, I had a friend pass away of a heart attack out in the
sanctuary because we couldn't get an ambulance to him. That's one
too many.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Thank you, Chairman.
My wife's going to kill me. It's my anniversary today.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Hey, Happy Anniversary.
Page 263 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 251
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Isn't it great to spend it with
us?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, I know.
All right. I've just got to ask a couple questions.
Commissioner Saunders quoted a $203,000, supposedly,
collection. What do we base that on?
MS. SCOTT: That's based on the property values of the
properties that would -- without anyone opting out at this point.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That's with nobody opting out?
MS. SCOTT: Right, because I don't know who's going to opt
out at this point.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That's right. Now you're getting
to -- we're getting to what I'm getting to here. I know when we
started it was 110 miles of roads or something. Now I think you
quoted something like 97, 96 miles.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Seventy-five.
MS. SCOTT: Seventy-five.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Seventy-five. So it's really
shrunk, 75. And so far our professional opinion with our first
responders and our Road and Bridge people, we've deemed 16 miles
impassable.
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: So is there a possibility
that -- subtract 16 from 75, whatever that number is, that will be the
number that will opt out? And what are we collecting then?
MS. SCOTT: Certainly that's a possibility, and we did not look
at that number.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: What are we collecting then?
MS. SCOTT: We did not look at with the -- I might have it with
me.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Somebody's good at math.
Page 264 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 252
MS. SCOTT: It's not, because it's based on the value of the
properties along the --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I know, but I guess what I'm
trying to say is we could get to the point where, at the end of this
meeting and we agree on this, that we could possibly only be
collecting for 16 miles of people in this county with our one millage.
MS. SCOTT: It's a possibility that everyone would opt out. I
don't think it's likely.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: It won't be everyone. It won't be
everyone, because the 16 miles won't be allowed.
MS. SCOTT: Right. But I don't think it's likely that every
individual property owner is going to opt out. But there is a
possibility that they all could. But is it likely? No.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm just trying to put some eyes
on this, because if our system we had before didn't work and this
might be the answer to fix that, I don't know if this is the real answer.
And I'm going to keep saying this, that there's a chance that we could
only be collecting from 16 miles of roads moving forward. And I
don't know where you're getting this big purse we're going to have
this collection of money so -- when we have to do more mileage down
the road, bring these people on board when they don't do their
maintenance plans or where they don't keep up with it.
I -- I like going in there. You got 16 miles of bad road, guess
what? We're fixing your road, and you're getting taxed for it because
you failed, because you made a decision to live on a private road.
You wanted to live there. That's your responsibility. It's not the
taxpayers' responsibility. Now, we've got to fix it because you made
it unsafe for your neighbors. And now you'll pay for it.
And it's not that we neglected -- or that program don't work. We
just weren't paying attention. We weren't out on a regular basis
driving these roads and determining if they were passable or not.
Page 265 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 253
And now it just caught up to us.
And I hate to say it, but the only -- I think the best system we
have is the one we already have. We just have to imply [sic] it. We
haven't implied [sic] it. We haven't had a task force go out once a
year, every six months, drive these 75 miles, which when I was a
patrolman I drove way more than 75 miles a night in a patrol car, and
I'm pretty sure we can do it on a regular repeating basis to determine
which are the bad roads and which are not the bad roads.
I don't know. I don't want to create a whole 'nother bureaucracy
that's never been created in the state of Florida from what I
understand. This will be the first time this was ever done in all 67
counties.
I just don't -- I'm sorry. I'm just trying to bring some common
sense, shed some light on it. And, God, I don't want to belittle
anything that ever happened to any person, to anyone we ever loved in
our lives, because of a bad road, but that's on us, and that's on the
people that chose to live there that we weren't keeping an eye on our
roads and we weren't -- didn't have a plan in place to make sure they
were passable.
That's the problem. And I don't know -- if we get there, we get
there. But I know I've been talking about this for two years at this
point. I'm sorry. You're my friend, and I just --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You don't have to be sorry.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You're my friend.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no -- can I speak? Is it
my turn?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HALL: It's your turn.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You don't have to be sorry.
I'm going to be the first to admit that there is -- that there is no perfect
way. What we do know now is that we have 75 miles of road, that
Page 266 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 254
we have 16, 17 miles that are absolutely impassable that we are
obligated to fix. That's a fact.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Agreed.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Period. This way is the
proposition that I've brought forward that I've been trying to
implement for eight years.
Commercial Coletta tried it for 20 years before that. Nance was
online with it as well. This circumstance, Commissioner Kowal, has
been going on forever.
My rationale is --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: And that's on us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I don't disagree. I
mean --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: We failed these people by not
paying attention to their roads.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I could tell you stories. And
again, there are not a lot of these private unpaved roads in District 4.
The majority of them are in District 1 and District 5.
And so I'm the one -- I'm -- my constituency is the one that's
been dealing with this -- with this circumstance. Our not taking care
of that responsibility has -- has caused enormous expense increase.
This is a path to get to that point where that expense is manageable
and the wagon is toted by many people.
Is it -- is it a creation of -- and I'll tell you -- I will share this to
you -- two things. I'm going to be on top of this like it's -- like it's
those buckeyes that Terri made tonight, or today. That candy that's
in the back there. That was amazing stuff. I'm going to be on top of
this every single day.
I'll bring you a report as often as you want from a timeline as to
the -- for transparency and, in fact, accountability. I'll give this board
a list of those who have opted out, what the -- because it's impossible.
Page 267 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 255
You can't just do simple math, and 17 -- or, you know, 16 miles have
to opt in and the others opt out. We can't -- that's not simple math
because you've got different valuations of the assets that are along
those private roads. It's not that simple of a math equation.
My ask is let's do this, give it a whirl. If it isn't, let's tweak it.
We'll make adjustments along the way in order to effectuate
something different.
What has been going on -- again, we were all set to go forth and
persevere on the original 13 miles, and it rained, and nine more miles
wanted to come into the MSTU. So this is -- this is a systemic issue
that Collier County has had since time immemorial, and this is a way
to cure that.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Does anybody else have an
issue with the opt-out option? Am I hearing that more than just me
has the opt-out issue? I mean, and the reason I don't like the opt-out
issue is -- so I opt out. Commissioner Kowal, I thought -- I don't
know if he supported the opt-out or not, but the part he talked about
is, hey, I could game the system. So I opt out, and my road in front
of my house is okay, but I get to enjoy a beautiful road, you know, all
the way out to the main area because everybody else is paying. Then
my road starts to deteriorate a little bit, and then I get lazy or -- I
mean, I just think that you're either all in or you're all out. If your
road's beautiful and great and wonderful, you're still getting taxed
because you're enjoying a whole stretch of road, and we're trying to
keep it cohesive.
I just think with this opt-out option, we're not going to have
cohesive stretches of road, especially roads that right now are not
passable even if they have little patches that are being maintained. I
mean, I just think this is the cost of living in these type of
neighborhoods. But I know that we -- we went back and forth on the
Page 268 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 256
opt-out provision, but, you know, in Commissioner Kowal's
conversation, I mean, I agreed almost word for word when you were
saying, hey, there's a lot of loopholes here with the opt-out, if I was
hearing you correctly.
And, you know, I mean, that's the only part I don't love about
this. I think it creates a lot of -- a lot of options for people to say,
"Oh, my road's fine. You know, don't worry. I'll take care of it,"
and then we're chasing down maybe the handful or more than a
handful of people that opted out and then didn't maintain their road, or
their road's not as good as their neighbor who opted in and their road's
perfect.
But, you know, I think what we need are cohesive roads. And
when you choose to live in this type of neighborhood and you've let it,
you know, go, this is -- you know, establishing the MSTU is a way to
put it all back into a more cohesive, you know, road system.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: One little clarification on the
opt-out. It's not per house. It's the whole road. If you opt out,
you're opting out your road, not just your 200-foot and 30-foot-wide --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Even worse.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- portion of the easement.
You're opting out the -- you're opting out the whole road.
And so it's -- I don't look for the opt-out provision to be as large
of an obstacle as what it's being made out to be. I didn't -- I trooped
in a lot of people way back in the day before -- before Commissioner
Hall and Commissioner Kowal came onto this board who spoke in
favor of this adventure way back when who live on these private dirt
roads who were in favor of this unified path to get us to where we're
going.
To share an example for you, I shared one example of my friend,
Mitch Penner. Collier Enterprises owns, I don't know, five, six miles
of dirt road between Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road on Oil
Page 269 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 257
Grade. They own sides of the road. It's their own private dirt road.
They need to be able to opt out of that.
It's not -- it's not a traversable -- there's a gate on both ends of
that road. So there are -- there are people who should be able to opt
out. Are we going to have somebody game the system? Probably.
What system isn't gamed?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could we -- all right.
You've got some roads that need to be opted out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A couple.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. There are a couple.
Why don't you just identify those and keep them out of the -- do the
MSTU the way we've got it and just eliminate those roadways? I
mean, you're identifying roadways to be included in the MSTU. Let's
opt them out for ourselves so we don't open up an opt-out for
everybody. If you're only talking about a few roads that need to
come out of this, let's just take them out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Trinity's head just exploded.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I'm --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What did the Planning
Commission say about this? Oh, I'm just kidding.
MS. SCOTT: They had three days of testimony about it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I just wanted to throw some
levity in there for Dan, because he's going to get divorced at the end
of tonight because he's missing his anniversary.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'm good.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm just -- and --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: People's work.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- again, if you want my
personal opinion, we're making a mountain out of a molehill on this
opt-out provision. I think the way that this is written is as fair as it
Page 270 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 258
can possibly get. If the consequences of the opt-out provision end up
being not conducive for the greater good to be served, then we'll enact
something else.
CHAIRMAN HALL: My thoughts are: Number one, I think
it's our obligation to maintain public roads. I don't think it's our
obligation at all to maintain a private road. That's arguable. Set that
aside.
We have an emergency repair place -- an emergency repair
process in place, and now we have targeted roads so that we don't fail
as a county to have those things. We have targeted roads now that
we can force the issue. So that's one way that we can go that we have
in place now.
If we go with the private -- if we go with this MSTU, I don't
think that there's any incentive at all for people to add one mil for
them to maintain their road or want to opt out or not be a burden on
the taxpayer or not be a burden on themselves, which is a burden on
the taxpayer, because we're going to front the money for the repair
and the maintenance going forward in hope that we collect enough
money to pay for it. And there's just way too many holes in this
system for me to be comfortable.
If we could raise the millage rate, double it, and only do a portion
of the most critical ones until we got enough money in the kitty to
maintain them all, I'd be comfortable with that going, but I'm not
comfortable with establishing it and hoping that the opt-outs aren't so
great that we have such a great need to fix immediately and just skosh
amount of money to do it with. So there's my thoughts.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is rather unusual. No
one's saying anything.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, well, I'm cyphering. I
mean, I'm over here looking at it, and this circumstance is not going to
get fixed year one. It's not going to get fixed year two. It may take
Page 271 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 259
five years for this tax at one mil to accomplish what we want to have
accomplished.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So why don't you go ahead
and make a motion, let's see if it passes. If it doesn't, then we'll move
on to some other way to solve the problem.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then I'll make a motion
to -- I'll make a motion that we accept and pass what's been presented
to us in Agenda Item 9D.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: For purposes of getting this
on the floor for a vote so we can make a resolution one way or the
other, I'll second the motion. That is not a guarantee I'll vote for it.
It’s just it gives us all an opportunity to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So the Chairman's going to
call for the vote because we've wore out the discussion.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Well, I would be in -- I didn't -- I made a
note here, and I didn't say it. If we pass this, I would be comfortable
at 2 percent on the millage rate and to do this for two years and
monitor it and see how we're going. And if it's going south, I say we
kill it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll amend the motion to what
he just said.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is it 2 percent?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Two mills.
MS. SCOTT: Two mills.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, just so we -- I mean,
that's a fairly substantial increase.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're going from -- this
would be --
CHAIRMAN HALL: From one to two.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: To two mils.
Page 272 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 260
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Why can't we just leave it at
one mil and monitor it for two years and then kill it?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Because, I mean, if
you go to two mils, you're increasing their taxes 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Why don't you give me a tank of
gas. I'll drive around and look at these roads. When I find bad ones,
we'll fix them. And I'll tax the people that live on them with their
mill, one mil, two mil, whatever it is.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have sold this at the one mil,
Chairman Hall, since the beginning of time, and so I'd be happy to
leave it at the one mil, monitor it for two years. Heck, I'd be happy to
monitor it for a year and kill it if it's not working.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll go with that. I'll compromise on the
millage.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: All right. You're my friend.
I'm going to give you one year.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are we friends now?
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You've always been my friend.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And didn't he say he would
give us a report? I'd like a report every day, every day.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Oh, I want a report every day.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MS. SCOTT: Commissioner LoCastro, please don't do that,
because he's going to ask me for the report.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, that's true. Yeah, that's
right. He'll delegate that immediately.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, he will.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Just get your notes from Jaime back
there. She has rock crusher notes that you can just duplicate.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Lauren Maxwell just sent me
Page 273 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 261
a text, and she said, "Where the hell is my husband?"
CHAIRMAN HALL: All right. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: So done.
MS. SCOTT: Oh, my gosh. I almost retired on that one.
MS. PATTERSON: Way to go, Trinity.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: You've got one year, buddy.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I know. Thank you.
The happiest part of that whole thing is you admitted being my friend.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You know he's a politician,
so I wouldn't go to the bank on that one.
MS. PATTERSON: Terri, you good for one more?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
MS. PATTERSON: All right. Okay. We've got one more
item.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I thought we have two, 11E
and 12B. No? Did I miss one?
MS. PATTERSON: What?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't know. I'm sort of
checking them off.
CHAIRMAN HALL: How fast can we do the AUIR report?
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
MS. PATTERSON: We're not. It's continued to the 28th of
January.
Item #12B
Page 274 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 262
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WILL DISMISS WITH
PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS BROUGHT BY NAPLES GOLF
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AGAINST COLLIER COUNTY AND
COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL (CASE NOS. 2023-CA-001795
AND 2023-CA-2995), RELATED TO A BERT HARRIS CLAIM
FILED PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES §70.001
REGARDING APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY’S GOLF
COURSE CONVERSION ORDINANCE ON THE LINKS OF
NAPLES GOLF COURSE, AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (COUNTY MANAGER’S REQUEST) -
MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS;
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALL (COMMISSIONER
MCDANIEL ABSTAINED) – APPROVED
So all we have -- all we have left is Item 16K12 that is now 12B.
This is a recommendation to approve and authorize the chairman to
execute a settlement agreement which will dismiss with prejudice all
claims brought by Naples Golf Development, LLC, against Collier
County and Commissioner McDaniel related to a Bert Harris claim
filed pursuant to Florida Statutes 70.001 regarding application of the
county's golf course conversion ordinance on the Links of Naples
Golf Course and approve all necessary budget amendments.
This was moved to the regular agenda by me. And County
Attorney Klatzkow has some comments. I'll hand it to Commissioner
LoCastro or County Attorney Klatzkow, whoever is going to take the
ball.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'll hear from the County
Attorney.
MS. PATTERSON: All right. County Attorney Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: The first slide is an overview of where the
Naples Golf Course is located. That is a summary of what happened.
Page 275 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 263
It's just factual in nature. I don't need to repeat it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just go back for one second.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're involved in litigation in this matter.
My strong recommendation -- strong recommendation is that we
dispose of it with this settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Does this take care of the
public records lawsuit as well?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And then this allows the golf
course owner to move forward with some sort of residential project or
to sell the property to somebody who moves forward, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: He'll probably flip it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion to approve
if there are -- it doesn't look like there are any speakers.
MR. MILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN HALL: I'll second it. All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HALL: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have to abstain. He didn't
announce that, but I'm --
CHAIRMAN HALL: No worries. We passed you.
MS. PATTERSON: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 15,
staff and commission general communications.
Page 276 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 264
Item #15A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA BY INDIVIDUALS NOT
ALREADY HEARD DURING PREVIOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS
IN THIS MEETING.
Item 15A, public comments on general topics not on the current
or future agenda by individuals not already heard during the previous
public comments in this meeting.
MR. MILLER: Oh, there is none.
MS. PATTERSON: Item 15B, project updates. There are
none.
Item #15C
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Which brings us to Item 15C, staff and commission general
communication. I do have one housekeeping matter. We do need to
schedule a mental health workshop to talk about the mental health
strategic plan, which was actually mentioned when we were doing the
David Lawrence item, as well as I won't take --
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: That's all right. You're just
talking about --
MS. PATTERSON: Landfill.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: -- referring to us having a part
of-- work that day to talk about the future of the landfill. I wanted to
bring that up, so...
MS. PATTERSON: We had planned to schedule, basically, a
three-quarter day-ish workshop with mental health in the morning.
Page 277 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 265
Commissioner Kowal has some comments about land -- a workshop
topic on the landfill and all things solid waste, and it would be the
appropriate time for us, then, to touch on our update to our strategic
plan and budget.
Originally looked at a February workshop date, but based on
schedules, it looks like March 6th -- 4th, 6th -- let me check again -- is
going to be the date. We'll -- if this is okay with all of you, then we'll
check with your aides and make sure everybody's held that date. We
typically hold that first -- March 4th, I'm sorry. March 4th. We
typically hold that first Tuesday of the month as a workshop date
anyway, but we would utilize a good part of the day for these topics,
if it's --
CHAIRMAN HALL: What'd we talk about this morning that
we needed to talk about. We said we need to do that, and we thought
about "we need to do it sooner than later."
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Landfill.
CHAIRMAN HALL: No. It was something that we talked
about this morning.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That was the bay.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: Yeah, the Clam Pass. It seemed
like so long ago, yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, Clam Pass.
CHAIRMAN HALL: We probably need to do that sooner.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Clam Bay and that whole
thing.
CHAIRMAN HALL: We can get together on that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can add that as a subject
matter if you want to -- I mean, we can have a brief discussion on it.
It's not going to get fixed in one workshop nor necessarily is the
landfill, but --
MS. PATTERSON: No, so we --
Page 278 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 266
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- we can certainly have a
meeting on it.
MS. PATTERSON: We can add it as a topic based on kind of
where we are. I had assumed that we'll be meeting with our coastal
zone folks as well as the Pelican Bay folks as well as the other
interested parties to try to sort some of this out. But it may be an
opportune time just to hold some time for general discussion on that
because March is a long way away. So we probably can get some
work done on that topic between now and then. So if that is okay
with you, we'll hold March 4th for these topics, then we'll get those on
your calendars with your aides.
And with that, nothing else. Merry Christmas. Happy
Holidays.
County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Merry Christmas and nothing else.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Same. Merry Christmas,
Happy Holidays.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: A couple quick things. As
we turn the corner on 2025, let's not forget about ResourceX. I'd love
to get another update from them and see what kind of progress they're
making and those sort of things.
Along those same lines -- and I really don't need an answer. But
I hope we learned some things on the Links Golf Course. You know,
that was one that -- you know, we blew through it quickly here, but
there should be a lot of learning curves on that one. It was sloppy.
And I think we don't need to beat that dead horse, but it's not one of
our prouder moments.
You know, in closing, I just want to -- I want to thank my
colleagues for spending seven hours on Section 29. I'm sure we're all
Page 279 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 267
going to get hate mail from folks that think, you know, we can just
wave a magic wand and make everything perfect. But, you know,
sometimes we have to say yes to things that, like, we hate a little less.
I will tell you, with having a conversation with a few powers that
be afterwards, to include Mr. Yovanovich, they've got a two
year -- probably two years ahead of them going through all the state
and federal wickets, so that's going to -- that's going to be a while, and
there's no guarantee that that will get approved, but I think we're all
comfortable that we had a unanimous vote on our piece.
And then last, I want to thank Commissioner Hall. This is his
last meeting as Chair. You know, it's a lot; looks easy from the
cheap seats here for the four of us.
And I think Commissioner Saunders, we were talking yesterday,
and, you know, he'll be the next Chair. And he was saying, you
know, you do have to -- it is a different job than the four. You know,
you have to really run the meeting and stay focused. You have to
meet with the county staff a little bit more and really understand
what's on the agenda.
Really, at any given time, the four of us could walk in here -- and
I know we don't -- but could walk in here with very little knowledge
of the agenda and listen and vote and, you know, that sort of thing, but
the Chair doesn't really have that luxury.
I'm really impressed that all five of us run a professional
meeting, and I think the Planning Commission can learn a lot from us.
But, you know, today maybe didn't turn out the way -- you know,
we always say, "Somebody's going to leave here upset." And trust
me, a whole bunch of people probably did. But I think -- you know,
it's a big muscle movement in my district, but I'm proud of the way
that we conducted ourselves, and I really appreciate the deep dive that
the four of you did asking, you know, difficult questions,
understanding the moving parts, and also meeting with citizens and
Page 280 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 268
Mr. Yovanovich, and, you know, we certainly made good use of the
extra month.
But, you know, having said that, see you on the flip side, 2025.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Kowal.
COMMISSIONER KOWAL: I'd like to wish everybody a
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, and thank you, Commissioner
Hall, for running us through this past year as our chairman.
I'll swing by McDonald's drive-through, Honey, and I'll get us
some anniversary food tonight.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Happy Anniversary.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, Happy Anniversary.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I have 25
different items I want to go through, but in the interest of matrimonial
harmony, I will just simply state Happy Anniversary and Happy
Holidays to everybody, and also, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
past year. It's been -- it's been very good, very great. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN HALL: Thank you, all. Merry Christmas to you.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm ready to pass the gavel. It will be a
welcome little chance.
But I enjoy working with you. I never have left they dais
thinking that, oh, man, we blew this decision today or I had regrets.
I've spent two years here now, and every decision that we've made,
I've been very comfortable with it. And I just wanted you to know I
like working with you, and I appreciate everything that everybody
puts into this deal, and we got a lot more work to do coming next
year.
With that, meeting adjourned.
*****
Page 281 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 269
****Commissioner McDaniel moved, seconded by Commissioner
LoCastro and carried that the following items under the consent and
summary agendas be approved and/or adopted****
Item #16A1
REESOLUTION 2024-226: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT
DEDICATIONS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF NATIONAL GOLF
AND COUNTRY CLUB AT AVE MARIA, PHASE 2,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200001505, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $263,991.88
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2024-227: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT
DEDICATIONS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CITY GATE
COMMERCE PARK PHASE THREE REPLAT NO. 4,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200002078, AND AUTHORIZE
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $246,412.67
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER
UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR
Page 282 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 270
TERRENO AT VALENCIA GOLF AND COUNRY CLUB PHASE
2A, PL 20240008162
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR HAMILTON PLACE, PL20200000395, AND AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 15, 2024, FOUND THESE
FACILITIES SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2024-228: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT
DEDICATIONS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE AT
AVE MARIA, PHASE 5A, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20170002500, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$692,391.46
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2024-229: A RESOLUTION FOR FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT
Page 283 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 271
DEDICATIONS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ORANGE BLOSSOM
RANCH, PHASE 3A, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20180000417,
AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $580,068.99
Item #16A7
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,139.18 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
PL20210001820 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH ALTIS AT
SANTA BARBARA – THE LAKE WAS INSPECTED ON
OCTOBER 29, 2024
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE MINOR PLAT OF CUOMO SUBDIVISION,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20240004831 – FOUND IN
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE PLAT OF ESPLANADE BY THE ISLANDS -
PHASE 4 (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20240006275)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,220,586.70 - W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A10
Page 284 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 272
AN EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE FLORIDA WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR FOUNDATION (FWCF) UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
THAT ALLOWS FWCF TO CONTRIBUTE UP TO $1,283,455
TOWARDS THE ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION COLLIER
A-LIST PARCELS WITHIN THE PANTHER WALK PRESERVE
MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT AREA - EXTENDING THE MOU
UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2025
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2024-230: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
TRANSFER OF THE FACILITIES OF THE NORTH MARCO
UTILITY COMPANY INC. TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
AND CANCELING FRANCHISE CERTIFICATE 02S,
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 96-6, THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
REGULATORY ORDINANCE
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2024-231: A RESOLUTION TO CLEAR TITLE
TO 780± ACRES OF LAND BEING CONVEYED TO THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT
TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (TIITF)
Item #16A13
CONSERVATION COLLIER RAILHEAD SCRUB PRESERVE
FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-YEAR UPDATE UNDER THE
Page 285 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 273
CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM – FOUND IN SECTION
10, TOWNSHIP 48, RANGE 25, AND SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP
51, RANGE 27
Item #16A14
AN INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE OPERATIONAL COSTS
WITH SYMBIONT SERVICE CORP., UNDER SOLE SOURCE
WAIVER #24-086 FOR UP TO $586,164.00 FOR FY25 AND
INCREASE FY26 UP TO $162,000 FOR PARTS, SERVICES AND
WARRANTY REPAIR OF SYMBIONT GEOTHERMAL UNITS
AT COUNTY AQUATICS FACILITIES – THE WAIVER IS VALID
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2024-232: A RESOLUTION REPEALING AND
REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2014-128, ANY AND ALL
AMENDMENTS THERETO, IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE FEE
SCHEDULE USED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL SECTION
FOR ANALYTICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 2025
Item #16B2
RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD FUNDING FOR THE COLLIER
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,739.03, EARNED FROM THE FY 2023/24
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT,
AND TO APPROVE ALL RELATED NECESSARY BUDGET
Page 286 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 274
AMENDMENTS – UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED PLANNING REINVESTMENT PROJECT
#32128
Item #16B3
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF RIGHT OF WAY
(PARCEL 1324FEE) REQUIRED FOR THE VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD EXT – PHASE 2 PROJECT (PROJECT NO.
60249) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $61,500) – FOLIO
#40570720100
Item #16B4
RATIFY ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER
NO. 2 UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 22-7976 FOR UNFORESEEN
ADDITIONAL ITEMS REIMBURSABLE UNDER THE
OWNER’S ALLOWANCE AND FOR FORTY (40) ADDITIONAL
DAYS FOR THE CR862 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION FROM CR951 COLLIER BLVD. TO 16TH ST. NE
PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 60168, ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $582,575.00 FROM CONTRACT ROADWAY
ALLOWANCE, STRUCTURES ALLOWANCE & SIGNALS
ALLOWANCE) – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2024-233: A TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP)/ COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT
PROGRAM (CIGP) STATE-FUNDED GRANT AGREEMENT
Page 287 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 275
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) REIMBURSING THE COUNTY UP TO $2,974,555 FOR
THE DESIGN, ENGINEERING, AND PERMITTING OF THE
"OIL WELL ROAD WIDENING" PROJECT TO WIDEN THE 3.5-
MILE SECTION OF OIL WELL ROAD FROM EVERGLADES
BOULEVARD TO OIL WELL GRADE ROAD AND AUTHORIZE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT, FPN 453785-1-34-
01/02. (PROJECT #60144, FUNDS 1841, 1842 AND 3095) –
PROVIDING CONNECTIVITY AND ROADWAY
ENHANCEMENT TO THE COMMUNITIES AND IMPROVE
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIMES AND SAFETY ALONG THE
CORRIDOR
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2024-234: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF THOSE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OF AN EXISTING
PRIVATELY-OWNED POND REQUIRED FOR THE WEST
GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE 2) (PROJECT NO.
60142) (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $212,000)
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2024-235: THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SECTION 5339 PUBLIC
TRANSIT GRANT AGREEMENT (FPN 439255-1-94-24) WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO
ACCEPT FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GRANT
Page 288 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 276
FUNDING IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $676,172 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE REPLACEMENT BUS TO SUPPORT
FIXED ROUTE SERVICES IN THE RURAL AREAS, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS (CAT
GRANT FUND 4031)
Item #16B8
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A WORK ORDER WITH
HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR STATE
REQUIRED ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLIER COUNTY
BEACHES AND INLETS FOR 2025 UNDER CONTRACT NO. 18-
7432-CZ FOR TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED
$158,597 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM (FUND 1105, PROJECT NO. 90536) –
FOR ANNUAL REQUIRED BEACH AND INLET MONITORING
SURVEYS AND REPORTS FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES
AND INLETS FOR 2025
Item #16B9
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO GRANT AGREEMENT NO. 23CO2 AT THE REQUEST OF
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION FOR A REDUCTION IN FUNDING FROM
$5,000,000 TO $1,300,000 FOR DUNE REPLANTING EFFORTS
ASSOCIATED WITH DAMAGES FROM HURRICANES IAN
AND NICOLE – WITH A TIME EXTENSION UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
Page 289 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 277
Item #16B10
THE EXPENDITURE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX
FUNDS IN A NOT-TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $538,500 FOR
THE REGRADING OF SAND ON BAREFOOT BEACH,
VANDERBILT BEACH, SOUTH MARCO ISLAND BEACH, AND
THE CITY OF NAPLES BEACHES DAMAGED BY
HURRICANES HELENE AND MILTON, AUTHORIZE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM.
(FUND 1105, PROJECTS #50312 AND #50320) - FOR THE
REGRADING OF SAND
Item #16B11
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (THE "BOARD"),
ACTING IN THEIR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE GAC
LAND TRUST AND ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION, APPROVES AN
EXTENSION TO AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THE COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DIVISION
FUNDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN AMBULANCE,
STRETCHER, AND CARDIAC MONITOR FOR EMS STATION
74, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DESOTO
BOULEVARD AND GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $352,000 – WITH THE EXTENDED
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT
DEADLINE OF JANUARY10, 2028
Item #16B12
Page 290 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 278
A PROPOSAL FROM HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR
$200,978 USING TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES TO
PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
POST-STORM SURVEYS, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING OF
BEACH AND INLET IMPACTS FROM HURRICANE MILTON,
AND EMERGENCY PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR THE PURPOSE OF BIDDING, CONSTRUCTION, AND
POST-DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE DREDGING OF WIGGINS
PASS; AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT;
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES
PROMOTE TOURISM. (FUND 1105, PROJECT #50320) -
ACCELERATING THE DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS TO PRE-
STORM CONDITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY –
AND AUTHIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO A WORK ORDER
FOR TASK D FOR PERMITTING, BIDDING, AND POST-
DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE WIGGINS PASS
MAINTENANCE DREDGE (ADDITIONAL TEXT PER
AGENDA CHANGE SHEET)
Item #16B13
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ADDING SEVENTY-SIX (76) DAYS
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 20-7800 WITH QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., TO COMPLETE UTILITY
RELOCATIONS RELATED TO THE IMMOKALEE WATER &
SEWER DISTRICT (“IWSD”) TIGER GRANT AREA 4
RELOCATION PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 33563) – ALLOWING
FOR DELAYS RELATED TO THE COMPLETION OF
SIDEWALK INSTALLATION WORK
Item #16B14
Page 291 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 279
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 24-8292, “COLLIER
COUNTY - 2024 PARK SHORE RENOURISHMENT,” TO EARTH
TECH ENTERPRISES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,563,530,
APPROVE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE OF $254,000, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED
AGREEMENT, APPROVE THE ATTACHED BUDGET
AMENDMENTS, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM. (PROJECT NO. 90067)
Item #16B15
RESOLUTION 2024-236 (5310); RESOLUTION 2024-237 (5311);
AND RESOLUTION 2024-238 (5339): RESOLUTIONS
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) SECTION 5310,
RURAL 5311, AND RURAL 5339 FY2025/2026 GRANT
APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
THROUGH FDOT TRANSCIP TO SUPPORT TRANSIT
OPERATIONS AND SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS;
WITH A TOTAL ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACT OF $4,025,368
WITH A FEDERAL SHARE OF $2,547,094, STATE SHARE OF
$293,697 AND LOCAL MATCH OF $1,184,577 SUPPORTED BY
GENERAL FUND (0001) ANNUAL TRANSFER; AND APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16B16
A MODIFICATION TO THE FOREST PARK PUBLIC WALKWAY
PEDESTRIAN PATH AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
Page 292 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 280
FOREST PARK MASTER PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION
TO ALLOW FOR THE GATE TO BE SECURED DURING
CERTAIN DAYS AND TIMES – AS DETAILED IN EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B17
RESOLUTION 2024-239: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
VACATING A PORTION OF THE 80-FOOT-WIDE TRAIL
BOULEVARD ABUTTING LOTS 25-30, BLOCK A, PINE RIDGE,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 24 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
200 FEET NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (C.R. 896),
ABUTTING THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 41, TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20240002006)
Item #16C1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-
SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), RATIFY ADMINISTRATIVELY
APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 3, ADDING 30 DAYS TO
AGREEMENT NO. 23-8187, WITH POWERSERVE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR THE “33 LIFT STATION PANELS
REPLACEMENT” PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CHANGE ORDER
(PROJECT NO. 50280) – CHANGING THE COMPLETION DATE
TO DECEMBER 27, 2024
Page 293 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 281
Item #16C2
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), APPROVE AGREEMENT
NO. 24-055-NS, “SL-RAT ACOUSTIC INSPECTION
EQUIPMENT, SL-DOG SOFTWARE, PARTS AND SERVICES,”
WITH INFOSENSE INC., UNDER A SOLE SOURCE WAIVER,
APPROVE EXPENDITURES OF UP TO $200,000 PER EACH
FISCAL YEAR FOR THE DURATION OF THE FIVE-YEAR
TERM OF THE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT
Item #16C3
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAZARD
MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM CONTRACT MODIFICATION
NUMBER FIVE TO CONTRACT #H0419 FOR FIFTY-THREE (53)
PORTABLE GENERATORS TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF
PERFORMANCE – EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF
PERFORMANCE TO DECEMBER31, 2025
Item #16C4
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (THE "CCWSD"), APPROVE THE
Page 294 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 282
SELECTION COMMITTEE’S RANKING AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
TOP -RANKED FIRM, WSP USA INC., RELATED TO REQUEST
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ("RPS") NO. 24-8274 FOR
“SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION LABORATORY,” SO STAFF
CAN BRING A PROPOSED AGREEMENT BACK FOR THE
BOARD’S CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING
Item #16C5
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), AWARD INVITATION TO
BID (“ITB”) NO. 24-8242, “LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES FACILITIES” TO A&M PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE, LLC, DUVAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE,
LLC, GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING SERVICES, INC.,
MAINSCAPE, INC., AND SUPERIOR LANDSCAPING & LAWN
SERVICE INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE ATTACHED SERVICE AGREEMENTS
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2024-240: A RESOLUTION REMOVING
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THEIR
RESPECTIVE BALANCES FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $11,947.02
Item #16C7
Page 295 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 283
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), AWARD REQUEST FOR
QUOTE UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 20-7800, THE
“REHABILITATION OF PUMP STATION 309.23”
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $752,043, APPROVE AN OWNER’S
ALLOWANCE OF $80,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE ATTACHED PURCHASE ORDER. (PROJECT
NUMBER 70141)
Item #16C8
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS EX-OFFICIO
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT (CCWSD), AWARD INVITATION TO
BID NO. 24-8266, “NRO WELLS 117N AND 119N
IMPROVEMENTS” TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,562,533, APPROVE AN OWNER’S
ALLOWANCE OF $150,000, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT.
(PROJECT NUMBER 70085)
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 2024-241: THE REMOVAL OF
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $38,423.55 FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF
THE LIBRARY DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252, DETERMINE THAT
Page 296 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 284
ADJUSTMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
ATTACHED RESOLUTION
Item #16D2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRY FORWARD
INTEREST EARNED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,920.53, FOR THE
PERIOD OF MAY 2024 THRU AUGUST 2024. THE INTEREST
WAS EARNED 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 1840)
Item #16D3
APPROPRIATE THREE (3) RESTRICTED DONATIONS FROM
THE FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC.,
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, TOTALING
$33,970.75 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LIBRARY PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – FOR THE MAIL-A-BOOK
PROGRAM, SUMMER READING PROGRAM AND GENERAL
LIBRARY PROGRAM SUPPLIES
Item #16D4
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN 29 MORTGAGE SATISFACTIONS
FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN
PROGRAM IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $196,300.00 AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
Page 297 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 285
APPROPRIATE REPAYMENT AMOUNT TOTALING $18,000.00.
(SHIP GRANT FUND 1053) – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(MOU) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND MHP COLLIER
LTD TO FURTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES
THROUGH A $767,980.80 IMPACT FEE LOAN FOR NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF RENTAL HOUSING UNITS AT THE EKOS
ALLEGRO DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL SHIP-
RELATED SUBORDINATION AGREEMENTS FOR THIS
PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MOU. (SHIP GRANT
FUND 1053)
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE $105,112.14 IN
PROGRAM INCOME FROM OVERNIGHT AND INVESTMENT
INTEREST FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 (SHIP
GRANT FUND 1053)
Item #16D7
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THIRTY (30) MORTGAGE
SATISFACTIONS FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 298 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 286
$107,500.00 (SHIP GRANT FUND 1053)
Item #16D8
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN TWENTY-SEVEN (27) RELEASES
OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,240.46 FOR PROPERTIES
THAT HAVE REMAINED AFFORDABLE FOR THE REQUIRED
15-YEAR PERIOD SET FORTH IN THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
Item #16D9
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LANDLORD PAYMENT
AGREEMENT WITH MARY BIDDLE FOR THE PROVISION OF
MEDIUM-TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE RAPID
RE-HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION
PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS AND
RAPID UNSHELTERED SURVIVOR HOUSING GRANT
PROGRAMS
Item #16D10
RESOLUTION 2024-242: THE SUBMISSION OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM YEAR 2023 CONSOLIDATED
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP AND EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS
GRANT PROGRAMS AS REQUIRED; APPROVE THE
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
Page 299 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 287
EVALUATION REPORT RESOLUTION; AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO CERTIFY THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT
Item #16D11
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO
THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (IMMOKALEE) TO AMEND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT
#CD22-03 TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE AND
REDUCE THE FUNDING BY $61,000 TO $189,000 (HOUSING
GRANT FUND 1835)
Item #16D12
AN AFTER THE FACT GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION TO
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CONTINUUM OF CARE BUILDS
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY NUMBER FR-6800-N-25A IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH SWFL REGIONAL COALITION TO END
HOMELESSNESS VIA GRANTS.GOV FOR AN ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $5,000,000 WITH AN ESTIMATED REQUIRED
MATCH OBLIGATION FROM THE COUNTY OF $125,000
(HOUSING GRANTS FUND 1835 AND HOUSING MATCH
FUND 1836)
Item #16D13
AN AFTER-THE-FACT SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE FY24
Page 300 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 288
OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III AGREEMENT #OAA
203.24.02 BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $218,034.18 AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS (HUMAN SERVICES
GRANT FUND 1837)
Item #16D14
AFTER-THE-FACT EMERGENCY HOME ENERGY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AMENDMENT NINE BETWEEN THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC.,
AND COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS
EMERGENCY HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FY24
TO REVISE ATTACHMENT II EXHIBIT 8-FUNDING SUMMARY
(2024-2025); REPLACE ATTACHMENT IX-BUDGET SUMMARY
(2024-2025); AND REDUCE THE ADMINISTRATION BUDGET
BY ($1,918.13) BRINGING THE TOTAL AWARD TO $327,000.60.
(HUMAN SERVICES GRANT FUND 1837)
Item #16D15
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL RESOURCES FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE
HISTORIC COTTAGES AT MAR-GOOD HARBOR PARK TO
EXTEND THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FROM DECEMBER
31, 2024, UNTIL JUNE 30, 2025. (PUBLIC SERVICE GRANT
FUND 1839 AND PUBLIC SERVICE MATCH FUND 1840) –
EXTENDING THE PERFORMANCE PERIOD TO JUNE 30, 2025
Page 301 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 289
Item #16D16
THE CHAIRPERSON TO APPROVE A PURCHASE
AGREEMENT WITH DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,184,690.00 TO UTILIZE
FLORIDA OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS TO PROVIDE
OUTREACH SERVICES, INCREASE THE UTILIZATION OF
MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT, SUPPORT CRISIS
STABILIZATION, DETOXIFICATION INPATIENT SERVICES
AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT BEDS AND FACILITATE A
CENTRALIZED CALL CENTER
Item #16D17
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS,
DUTIES, BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO VERSATERM
PUBLIC SAFETY US, INC., CONCERNING COLLIER COUNTY
AGREEMENT NO. 20-7783, “MENTAL HEALTH DATA
COLLABORATIVE” – FROM JUSTICETRAX, INC. TO
VERSATERM
Item #16D18
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE FY 21-24 CRIMINAL JUSTICE
MENTAL HEALTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT
FINAL PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL REPORTS AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Item #16E1
Page 302 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 290
TWO ASSUMPTION AGREEMENTS ASSIGNING ALL RIGHTS,
DUTIES, BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS TO J & K AUTO
PARTS, INC., D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS OF FORT MYERS, FL,
CONCERNING COLLIER COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 19-7584,
“OEM & AFTERMARKET PARTS FOR FLEET” AND COLLIER
COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 23-8110, “FILTERS FOR FLEET
VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT”
Item #16E2
THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF
PROPERTY THAT IS NO LONGER VIABLE AND REMOVE
CAPITAL ASSETS FROM THE COUNTY’S CAPITAL ASSETS
RECORDS – CURRENTLY THERE ARE 306 CAPITAL ASSETS
Item #16E3
THE PURCHASE OF GROUP LIFE INSURANCE, ACCIDENTAL
DEATH INSURANCE, LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE,
AND SHORT-TERM DISABILITY CLAIMS AND FAMILY
MEDICAL LEAVE ACT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES,
COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS AGREEMENT NO. 25-004-
NS, FROM LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
(LINCOLN) FOR THREE YEARS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,
2025, IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,201,486
Item #16F1
AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
Page 303 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 291
USE OF TABLET COMMAND SOFTWARE BETWEEN NORTH
COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT, CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND, CITY OF NAPLES, GREATER NAPLES FIRE
RESCUE DISTRICT AND IMMOKALEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT, ADDING THE COUNTY AS A PARTY TO THE
AGREEMENT
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2024-243: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS, OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ADOPTED BUDGET. (THE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION HAVE
BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VIA SEPARATE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARIES)
Item #16F3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $125,000 FOR HURRICANE
MILTON DRAINAGE, BEACH, AND DUNE CONTINUED
RELATED CLEANUP EXPENSES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING &
BENEFIT UNIT
Item #16F4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE CARRYFORWARD
FOR ACCRUED INTEREST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,341.96,
FROM JULY 1, 2024, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2024,
Page 304 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 292
EARNED BY EMS COUNTY GRANT TO SUPPORT THE
PURCHASE OF MEDICAL AND RESCUE EQUIPMENT
Item #16F5
THE USE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDING, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $103,800, FOR A SPORTS
COMPLEX EXPANSION & TOURISM IMPACT STUDY FOR
THE FUTURE PHASES OF THE PARADISE COAST SPORTS
COMPLEX TO BE CONDUCTED BY HUNDEN PARTNERS
UTILIZING A SINGLE SOURCE WAIVER, AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F6
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT 21-7898 WITH SPORTS FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC TO (1) PROVIDE FOR A THREE YEAR
EXTENSION TO NOVEMBER 2029; (2) PROVIDE A BASE
MANAGEMENT FEE OF $21,000 PER MONTH COMMENCING
OCTOBER 1, 2024; (3) ELIMINATE THE DEFERRED
MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE FEE PAID ON THE FIRST
$504,000 OF NET OPERATING INCOME AND ADJUST THE
TIER RANGES; (4) ALLOW FOR PROPORTIONATE
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE FOR
COST OF GOODS SOLD IN THE OPERATING BUDGET, NOT
EXCEEDING 45%; AND (5) PROVIDE FOR A $250,000 DEPOSIT
TO THE OPERATING ACCOUNT AS A WORKING CASH FLOW
RESERVE TO MINIMIZE THE ADVANCE OF OPERATING
FUNDS BY THE MANAGER; AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE AMENDMENT; AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY
Page 305 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 293
BUDGET AMENDMENTS – EXTENDING THE CONTRACT
AND MOVING THE EXPIRATION TO NOVEMBER 2029
Item #16F7
THE EXPENDITURE OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT TAX
(TDT) PROMOTION FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING
2025 TOURNAMENT SUCCESS GROUP EVENTS UP TO
$18,000 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES
PROMOTE TOURISM
Item #16F8
AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
(FEMA) FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED
DURING HURRICANE HELENE AND HURRICANE MILTON
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE SUBSEQUENT FUNDING AGREEMENTS
Item #16F9
RATIFY ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER
NO. 3, ADDING 5 DAYS AND REDUCING THE CONTRACT
AMOUNT BY $18,585.94, USING $1,951.90 OF THE OWNER’S
ALLOWANCE FROM PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500230889
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 23-8182 WITH KELLY BROTHERS,
INC., FOR THE “CAXAMBAS PARK AND BOAT RAMP
REHABILITATION PROJECT,” AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CHANGE ORDER.
(PROJECT NO. 50280)
Page 306 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 294
Item #16F10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5, ADDING 53 DAYS AND $569,342.70
TO THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR WORK DIRECTIVE #5
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 23-8147 (PURCHASE ORDER NO.
4500229425) WITH QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR
THE “BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK PHASE 2A
ACCESS ROAD,” AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE ATTACHED CHANGE ORDER. (PROJECT NO. 70194)
Item #16F11
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, ADDING 90 DAYS TO THE PROJECT
TIME AND UTILIZING $28,683.56 OF THE OWNER’S
ALLOWANCE FOR PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500230829
UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525 WITH CAPITAL
CONTRACTORS, LLC FOR REPAIRS TO FIVE HISTORIC
STRUCTURES AT THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM AT THE
GOVERNMENT CENTER, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CHANGE ORDER. (PROJECT NO.
50510)
Item #16F12
CHANGE ORDER NO. 12, ADDING FIVE DAYS TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE AND RECONCILE THE
CALCULATION ERRORS FROM CHANGE ORDER NO. 10
INCREASING THE OWNER’S ALLOWANCE BY $20.41 FOR
PURCHASE ORDER NO. 4500229878, UNDER AGREEMENT
NO. 21-7883-ST WITH O-A-K/FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A OWEN-
Page 307 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 295
AMES-KIMBALL COMPANY, FOR THE MAIN CAMPUS
UPGRADES, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
ATTACHED CHANGE ORDERS (PROJECT NO. 50214)
Item #16G1
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, (THE
"BOARD"), ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, MAKE
THE SECOND AWARD FOR SOLICITATION NO. 23-8080
“IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT HANGAR/COMMERCIAL
AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT- PARCELS A & E,” AND
AUTHORIZE ITS CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED
LAND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GLOBAL FLIGHT
TRAINING SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR HANGAR DEVELOPMENT
Item #16G2
RESOLUTION 2024-244: THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
ADOPTS THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULES FOR THE EVERGLADES
AIRPARK, IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT FOR 2025
Item #16J1
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 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $43,941,040.92 WERE DRAWN FOR THE
Page 308 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 296
PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2024, AND NOVEMBER 13,
2024, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J2
THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 20, 2024
Item #16J3
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 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $52,034,632.67 WERE DRAWN FOR THE
PERIODS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 14, 2024, AND NOVEMBER
27, 2024, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J4
THE BOARD APPROVE AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF DECEMBER 4, 2024
Item #16J5
THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT OF COUNTY
FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
Item #16J6
Page 309 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 297
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $365,000 TO
REALIGN EXISTING CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDING WITHIN
COUNTY-WIDE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND (3001) FROM
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS BUSINESS PARK PROJECT NO.
70167 TO CCSO PHONE PROJECT NO. 50322 FOR THE
UPGRADE AND EXPANSION OF TELECOMMUNICATION
SYSTEM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL
Item #16J7
THE CLERK’S REPORT INDICATING THAT $516.30 OF
INTEREST WAS PAID PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE
218.78 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024
Item #16J8
THE EXECUTION OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE
CURRENT FUNDING FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF’S
GENERAL FUND (LAW ENFORCEMENT) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1.5M IN ORDER TO COVER OVERTIME, THE BENEFITS ON
OVERTIME, AND OPERATING EXPENSES RELATED TO
HURRICANE MILTON
Item #16J9
THE USE OF $5,000 FROM THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS
TO SUPPORT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST DRUGS
(L.E.A.D) PROGRAM
Item #16K1
Page 310 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 298
RESOLUTION 2024-245: THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NO
OBJECTION TO THE ENACTMENT OF A BILL BY THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE CREATING AN INDEPENDENT
SPECIAL DISTRICT UNDER CHAPTER 189, FLORIDA
STATUTES, TO BE KNOWN AS THE CORKSCREW GROVE
STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2024-246: REAPPOINTING TIMOTHY
MOSHIER TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE – REPRESENTING THE CITY OF EVERGLADES
WITH HIS TERM TO EXPIRE IN 2 YEARS
Item #16K3
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$44,300 PLUS $8,217 IN STATUTORY ATTORNEY FEES AND
COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL 1236FEE REQUIRED
FOR THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
NO. 60168
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2024-247: APPOINTING PAUL THEIN TO THE
IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
– WITH TERM EXPIRING ON APRIL 4, 2028
Item #16K5
Page 311 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 299
RESOLUTION 2024-248: APPOINTING 5 MEMBERS TO THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE –
APPOINTING NICHOLAS KOULOHERAS AND
REAPPOINTING JEREMY STERK, ROBERT MCLEAN,
ROBERT MULHERE AND WILLIAM VARIAN ALL WITH TERM
TO EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 14, 2028
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2024-249: APPOINT THREE MEMBERS TO THE
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD –
APPOINTING CONSTANCE BETTINGER W/TERM EXPIRING
ON DECEMBER 31, 2026, AND REAPPOINTING LIZETTE
HOMAR-RAMOS AND KAYDEE TUFF W/TERMS EXPIRING
ON DECEMBER 31, 2027
Item #16K7
RESOLUTION 2024-250: APPOINTING JIMMY NIEVES AND
RECLASSIFY CHERRYLE THOMAS TO A RESIDENT
CATEGORY ON THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE – CHERRYLE THOMAS WILL NOW
BE THE RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE AND JIMMY NIEVES
WILL BE THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPRESENTATIVE
W/TERM EXPIRING ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2026
Item #16K8 – Moved to Item #12C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K9
Page 312 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 300
RESOLUTION 2024-251: REAPPOINT WILLIAM SJOSTROM
TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE – REAPPOINTING WILLIAM
SJOSTROM W/TERM EXPIRING ON NOVEMBER 13, 2028
Item #16K10
RESOLUTION 2024-252: THE HOUSING FINANCE
AUTHORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR APPROVAL OF A
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAN OF FINANCING
INVOLVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE AUTHORITY OF
SINGLE-FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50 MILLION OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO USE VOLUME CAP ALLOCATION FOR
MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAMS OR FOR
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FOR PERSONS OF LOW OR
MODERATE INCOME - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K11
RESOLUTION 2024-253: THE COLLIER COUNTY
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR APPROVAL
OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE AUTHORITY TO
ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF EXPANSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO
ROYAL PALM ACADEMY
Item #16K12 – Moved to Item #12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16L1
Page 313 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 301
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
TO UPGRADE WATER LINES IN THE CRA AREA 1 (BECCA,
PINE, AND WEEKS). LOCATED IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA –
IMPROVING WATER LINES ON BECCA, PINE AND WEEKS
Item #16L2
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC), ACTING
AS THE BCC AND IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA), AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
PAY ELECTRIC INVOICES FOR STREET LIGHTING IN
IMMOKALEE
Item #16L3
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) ACTING AS THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE A SECOND
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT CD22-03 TO INCORPORATE
PHASE I LANGUAGE, ADD ADDITIONAL TIME TO THE
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, AND REDUCE THE FEDERAL
FUNDING AMOUNT TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION IN
ACTIVITIES FOR SAID AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (IMMOKALEE) FOR FY
2024/2025 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), AND
Page 314 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 302
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CRA TO SIGN THE
SECOND AMENDMENT
Item #16L4
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN ITS
CAPACITY AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA), APPROVE AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND
PURCHASE TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2695
FRANCIS AVENUE IN CONNECTION WITH A STORMWATER
PROJECT IN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF
THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$1,356,100 – FOR FOLIO #61834200002
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2024-49: THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE PALM RIVER CORPORATE
HOUSING RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN
MIXED-USE DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI-FAMILY
RENTAL DWELLING UNITS OR 41 TRANSITIONAL
CORPORATE HOUSING RENTAL DWELLING UNITS. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT VIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 2.06± ACRES; AND
FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE
ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 315 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 303
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
[GMPA-PL20230011318] (COMPANION TO ITEMS #17B AND
#17C)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2024-50: AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTI-
FAMILY-16 (RMF-16) TO THE PALM RIVER CORPORATE
HOUSING RPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 41 MULTI-FAMILY
RENTAL DWELLING UNITS OR 41 TRANSITIONAL
CORPORATE HOUSING RENTAL DWELLING UNITS ON 2.06
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
PALM RIVER BOULEVARD AT VIKING WAY, IN SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO ITEMS #17A AND #17C)
Item #17C
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A UTILITIES QUITCLAIM
DEED AND TERMINATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT,
QUITCLAIMING AND TERMINATING THE UTILITY
FACILITIES AND APPURTENANT EASEMENTS ORIGINALLY
CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY BY THOSE INSTRUMENTS
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1395, PAGE 2290,
AND OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1395, PAGE 2287, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 420-FEET NORTH OF PALM
VIEW DRIVE, LYING EASTERLY AND ADJACENT TO PALM
RIVER BLVD. IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
Page 316 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 304
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [VAC-PL20240002369]
(COMPANION TO ITEMS #17A AND #17B)
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2024-254: PETITION VAC-PL20220004451 AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE, AND
VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A 60’
X 391’ PORTION OF HICKORY WOOD DRIVE, DEPICTED AS A
60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT LABELED 5TH. AVE.
N.W. BETWEEN LOTS 11 AND 12, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
UNIT NO. 95, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 45, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND
TO ACCEPT PETITIONER’S GRANT OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-
OF-WAY TO REPLACE THE VACATED ROAD EASEMENT
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2024-255: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ADOPTED BUDGET. (THE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION HAVE
BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VIA SEPARATE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARIES)
Page 317 of 6405
December 10, 2024
Page 305
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:38 p.m.
` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
___________________________________
CHRIS HALL, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on _________________,
as presented ______________ or as corrected ______________.
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI L. LEWIS, REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTER, FPR-C, AND NOTARY
PUBLIC.
Page 318 of 6405