Loading...
Agenda 12/08/2020 Item # 2D (BCC 11/10/2020 Regular Meeting Minutes)12/08/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.D Item Summary: November 10, 2020 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 12/08/2020 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 11/30/2020 8:12 AM Submitted by: Title: County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: Leo E. Ochs 11/30/2020 8:12 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 11/30/2020 8:13 AM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/08/2020 9:00 AM 2.D Packet Pg. 24 November 10, 2020 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 10, 2020 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Burt L. Saunders Andy Solis William L. McDaniel, Jr. Donna Fiala Penny Taylor ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Geoff Willig, Senior Operations Analyst November 10, 2020 Page 2 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting of the County Commission will please come to order. We have with us this morning Reverend Beverly Duncan, member of the Naples United Church of Christ, to lead us in an invocation, and at the conclusion of the invocation, if you would please remain standing and, Commissioner Fiala, if you would lead us in the pledge. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would love to do that. Thank you. Item #1 INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – INVOCATION GIVEN REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning. Spirit of life and love, to you we lift the deliberations of this day and in this place. The stewardship of Collier County needs the helping wisdom that only you can instill. We ask that your spirit surround the commissioners and all participants as the democratic process unfolds today. Being a commissioner is an awesome calling and responsibility. We are grateful for the citizens who take it on. Shape their words and values this morning and always. Keep them and all of us strong in unsettled times and inspire us to combine all of the pieces of our fondest dreams to make a better, kinder world. And when this meeting is done, may all go in peace. Shalom. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you place your hand over your heart and say with me... (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The last time. November 10, 2020 Page 3 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you so much. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I want to introduce the November/December artists. And if you'll turn and look behind you, you'll see some incredible art displays. We've been very blessed to have artists in our community provide these for us over the years. Let me tell you a little bit about the artist. The featured Artist of the Month is Collier County resident Roberta Robb Walker. Roberta's array of creative art and photography are products of her travels throughout Florida. Her photography primarily focuses on nature, landscapes, sunsets, and capturing unique moments in time. She uses mediums encompassing collage, watercolor, and oil to acrylic while using various forms of tones, color enhancements, overlays, and other special effects. Roberta is honored to share with us her series of photos named "Tree Series." I want to thank her for sharing this beautiful art with us. Mr. Manager, we do have one proclamation I believe Commissioner McDaniel wants to read this morning. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And perhaps we can -- we'll take that off of the consent agenda. It's a proclamation dealing with the Farm-City Barbecue, so we'll get to that once we complete the rest of the consent agenda. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EXX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBER FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) – APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES November 10, 2020 Page 4 MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of November 10th, 2020. The first proposed change is to add Item 10A to this morning's agenda. It's a recommendation to consider a waiver of a requirement barring amplified sound after 7:00 p.m. for an event at the Collier County Fairgrounds. It's scheduled for Sunday, December 6th. Commissioner McDaniel has moved that onto the agenda this morning. The next proposed change is to add Item 16D11 under your public services consent agenda. This was an add -on item that you received last week. It's a contract award for preconstruction services related to renovation work ongoing at our Sun-N-Fun water park. That was added at the staff's request. And the one agenda note I have this morning, Commissioners, Item 16K4 on your County Attorney consent agenda, there was an inadvertent omission of a portion of the executive summary title on your index. It was included in the executive summary itself, but I just wanted to note that, and it's underscored on your change sheet. And those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any registered speakers on the consent-agenda items? MR. WILLIG: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we'll go through with each commissioner in terms of changes to the agenda and ex parte disclosures. We'll start -- we'll give Commissioner McDaniel a break this time. We'll start at the other end. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was all ready this time. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes to the agenda on the consent and summary. I just have disclosures on 17B for the Temple Shalom facility Planned Unit Development. I had discussions with November 10, 2020 Page 5 Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no changes, no corrections, and only one declaration, and that is for 17B as well, and I've had meetings with the applicants. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, good morning. I have one change request I'd like to -- hey, good morning, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning. Good morning. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to ask if we could move 16C4. That's that vacant tract of land on the Golden Gate Golf Course. I'd like to move it out of consent and up to 11 -- whatever 11 we're doing the golf course on. I can't remember right off the top. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 11B. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The Golden Gate Golf Course. If that request meets with your approval, I'd like to hear that and have a little discussion about it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Ochs, in terms of -- I guess you'll just put that as part of that agenda item. MR. OCHS: Well, sir, I suggest just -- we make that 11H but hear it at the same time. That way if there's different votes for each item, we can record them separately. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Taylor, do you have any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have one more. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a formal. I, as well, had communication on 17B. Just phone calls. November 10, 2020 Page 6 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes, no additions to the agenda, and I have a Zoom meeting on July the 9th, 2020, with Rich Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold on 17B. I also spoke with Rich Yovanovich about this last week in a conversation. Nothing -- no meeting. And then on 17D, I met with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Rosenthal at 10 -- on 10/24, October 24th -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- nineteen. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I have no changes to the agenda, and I also have the same ex parte communications in reference to 17B. No other. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I understand we do have an online summary agenda -- MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: -- speaker. MR. WILLIG: Mark Saperstein. MR. OCHS: Which item? MR. WILLIG: I don't know. I just received it. One second. MR. OCHS: Call his name, please. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich, if you'll identify yourself for the record. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Mr. Saperstein was only going to speak if we got pulled off the agenda. MR. OCHS: Apologize. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need a motion in reference to the regular, consent, and summary agenda. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve them. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. November 10, 2020 Page 7 All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) November 10, 2020 Page 8 Item #2B OCTOBER 13, 2020 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. Item 2B, the October 13 minutes. Anybody have any questions or comments concerning the minutes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If not, we need a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved -- second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. We do have one Employee of the Month issue to deal with, Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir. Item #3D – Consent Agenda Item #16F1 RECOGNIZING JENNIFER SMITH, PUBLIC UTILITIES AS THE OCTOBER 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH – RECOGNIZED November 10, 2020 Page 9 That's Item 16F1 on your agenda this morning. This is a recommendation to recognize Jennifer Smith, Senior Program Analyst with our Public Utilities Department, as the October 2020 Employee of the Month. Jennifer has been a member of the county staff since 2018. She recently stepped up to the plate accepting the day-to-day responsibilities left by a vacant managerial position while that position was being filled. As a dedicated team member committed to the success of our enterprise asset management and geographic information system sections, she did not let anything fall through the cracks. Even with the added complications during the early coronavirus work-from-home transitions, she diligently met the demands required to keep the division moving forward. Jennifer maintained continuity for the division over several months and was relied on as the point person for key initiatives, all of which were successfully completed. Of particular note, she ushered in the ability for the Public Utility Department's inventory team to automatically track inventory with a new bar code scanning system. Jennifer is a true professional devoted to accomplishing the mission of the agency wherever her talents can serve, and it's for these reasons that we're honored to present Jennifer Smith, your October 2020 Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Jennifer. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have one proclamation that we've pulled off the consent agenda. Commissioner McDaniel, you're recognized. Item #4A November 10, 2020 Page 10 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18 - 25, 2020 BE DESIGNATED AS FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO CYNDEE WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. – ADOPTED; READ INTO RECORD BY COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you, sir. Whereas, November 18th through the 25th, 2020, is National Farm-City Week, a time set aside to recognize and honor the contributions of the country's agriculturalists and to strengthen the bond between urban and rural citizens; and, Whereas, in Collier County, the high point of Farm-City Week is the Annual Farm-City Barbecue presented by Farm-City Barbecue of Collier County, Inc., local business and agricultural leaders; and, Whereas, the 65th Farm-City Barbecue has been postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic, the organization is continuing with annual raffle with proceeds benefiting local youth leadership development programs through Collier County 4H Association, Youth Leadership Collier, Collier Junior Deputies League, and the Collier County Key Club; Whereas, the agricultural and natural resources industry of Southwest Florida has an impact of in excess of 8.1 billion -- that's B, with a B -- annually; and, Whereas, 22 percent of Collier County is utilized for agriculture providing vital ecological benefits, including habitat for wildlife and recharge area for our aquifer; and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners -- Collier County Commissioners supports local agriculture through programs, including cooperation with the University of Florida, IFAS extension center; and, November 10, 2020 Page 11 Whereas, we courage all citizens to pause to recognize the contributions of our local farmers and ranchers to our economy, our food supply, and our society. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the citizens of Collier County, great appreciation and honor is owed to the Collier County's agriculturalists, and that November 28th [sic] through the 25th, 2020, be designated as Farm-City Week in Collier County. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. We do need a motion, I think, to approve that proclamation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would like -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So -- oh -- second your motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. Commissioner McDaniel's made the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Taylor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. That takes us to Agenda Item No. 7. Do we have any speakers? MR. WILLIG: You do, sir. MR. OCHS: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. MR. OCHS: Again, just in keeping with our past practice, we do have three more proclamations that normally would have November 10, 2020 Page 12 presented. We typically just read those titles to acknowledge the groups, if you'd like me to do that, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes, please. MR. OCHS: Item 16H1 is a proclamation this morning designating November 2020 as National Hospice and Palliative Care Month in Collier County. That proclamation has been mailed to Mark Beland, Community Liaison at Avow Hospice in Naples. Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating December 1st through the 7th, 2020, as Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Week in Collier County. That proclamation has been mailed to Yvette Stafford Jones of the Crohn's Charity Service Foundation. And, finally, Item 16H4 is a proclamation designating November 2020 as National Native American Heritage Month in Collier County. The proclamation has been mailed to Marianne Billie of Clewiston, Florida. So those are this morning's proclamations, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we've already approved those. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. That will take us to Agenda Item No. 7. I understand we have a couple registered speakers. MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. Your first registered speaker is Laurie Harris. She will be followed by Kristina Heuser. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. And we provide opportunity to speak for three minutes on these types of items. November 10, 2020 Page 13 MS. HARRIS: Good morning, Commissioners. You know, I find no joy coming here repeatedly, but since my emails go completely unanswered, I feel the need to be here in per son. I assume you-all get my emails? I assume you get email. Yeah? Because it ends with countycommissioner.gov or something like that. So you-all get the emails? Do you get emails? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. HARRIS: Yes? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're -- MS. HARRIS: Why do you not answer them? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're using up your time, ma'am. MS. HARRIS: I know. I want to know -- I want to know why you don't answer your emails, because my emails are saying that -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You can send me an email and ask me why I don't respond to certain emails. You have a little less than two minutes to go. MS. HARRIS: Yes, sir. If these masks, these face coverings, are so important that they must be worn all the time, they are clearly infected with medical waste, and I want them treated as a biohazard and disposed of properly. I have asked repeatedly now why this plan has not been implemented. Where is the plan to pick them up in all of the parking lots? They're the new cigarette butts. They're everywhere. Who's going to touch them? They're medically infested with bio -waste. I would like to know what your plan is to dispose of them properly. Is this not a conversation? I just speak for three minutes, and you ignore me? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is not a conversation, that is correct. MS. HARRIS: So you ignore me? So while I'm not a member of -- November 10, 2020 Page 14 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm listening. I'm not ignoring you. I'm listening. MS. HARRIS: -- your district, I am a citizen of Collier County, and I am subjected to what you impose on your citizens. If this face covering is so infected with biohazard waste, why isn't it be [sic] treated as -- properly as medical waste and disposed of properly? And God bless the janitorial services. They come up here and wipe everything down. This microphone hasn't been wiped down once, and I'm speaking into it. Do you see the hypocrisy here? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I do see some hypocrisy, but I think it's coming from the podium there, ma'am. MS. HARRIS: Exactly what is my hypocrisy? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You're speaking into that microphone complaining about it not being wiped -- MS. HARRIS: I didn't complain about it. I stated a fact. I did not complain it wasn't wiped down. I stated it was not wiped down. I don't care. I don't have a mask on. It's a virus that's 99.9 percent curable for my age group; 99.8 percent if you're over 70. What are we doing here? So when is this microphone going to get wiped down? I got 28 seconds. When's this microphone going to get wiped down, replaced after each speaker? If we're going to do this, let's do this. These ladies over here are doing it right. They've got their masks on with a face shield. They want to make sure the virus doesn't get in their eyes. God bless them. They're fearful of the virus. They are protecting themselves. I am not fearful. I am responsible for myself. No comment, sir? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Next speaker. November 10, 2020 Page 15 MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. The next registered speaker is Kristina Heuser. MR. OCHS: Hold on. Go ahead and clean it, please. MS. HARRIS: Get that microphone. MR. OCHS: If you want to use the other one -- MS. HEUSER: I don't mind waiting, and I don't mind using it not being infected [sic]. Whatever you guys want to do. Good morning. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning. MS. HEUSER: Like Ms. Harris, I don't enjoy coming here repeatedly. I don't enjoy public speaking particularly, and I don't enjoy being redundant, but I just feel that this issue is too important to let die. I'm sure that when you purportedly extended your mask mandate for six months, you had hoped that all of us would go away, and you wouldn't have to hear about this anymore. But to me it's important because it represents something larger. It represents an erosion of individual liberties. And I know from looking around the room and, unfortunately, around the county, a lot of people have come to a point of acceptance, but I will never do that because I know, as Ms. Harris stated, that I'm in the best position to make decisions for my health and the health of my family, and I'm not going to accept some irrational mandate from government. Commissioner Saunders, you, yourself, have stated that the efficacy of masks is questionable at best, but if it's just a minor inconvenience, what's the harm? And I think it is harmful on two fronts. It is harmful to your health. It's actually counterproductive if the objective is slowing the spread of the virus, because we need to interact with germs and with viruses in order to develop natural immunity, which is the best November 10, 2020 Page 16 defense against the virus. So while you did quote articles from people like Chris Christie and even our own Health Department director, I wouldn't take health recommendations from people who are morbidly obese because that, in and of itself, is a chronic health condition and is a risk factor for developing severe complications from the virus. So those are the things that really need to be addressed if we're talking about health. Secondly, to me, liberty is far more important. What is the point -- and many of our Founding Fathers made this statement. What's the point of living if you cannot live freely? So if, in fact, this virus is deadly, which is belied by the data -- we know that it has a 99.97 percent survival rate. But if, in fact, it were deadly, I would choose to accept that risk if it meant that I could live my life the way that I choose; to interact with people, hug people, see people's faces, smile at people. And I think that by requiring people to cover their faces you're really fundamentally eliminating an important part of their humanity. And I would ask you to reconsider this. I don't believe that there is actually a mandate in place. It expired on October 22nd since you never publicly noticed the prior order. But in spite of that, I want to continue to speak about this issue and hope that others will join me in taking off your masks and breathing the air freely because there is no risk to you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I want to thank all of you in the audience that are wearing your mask. We imposed that rule in our county government buildings to protect our county employees. Now, some of us on this dais have chosen not to do that. I think that's selfish, quite frankly. But I want to thank all of you that are wearing your mask because I think that sends a message that we are concerned about our neighbors. We are concerned about our county staff. And we'll go November 10, 2020 Page 17 through a very minor inconvenience to protect others. And I think that's certainly admirable, so I want to thank you for that. We have -- MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- over 100,000 new cases of coronavirus every day in this country. We have, I believe, 53,000 people in this country in the hospital today with coronavirus. We have increasing numbers of hospitalizations in Collier County. And I think the fact that you are wearing your mask is a n indication that you care about our healthcare workers and you care about our community. So I want to thank you for that. Commissioner Solis, did you want to, or -- MR. WILLIG: I've got an additional registered speaker, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. MR. WILLIG: Dan Cook. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Go to the next speaker. We'll come back to Dan Cook. MR. WILLIG: All right. That's all the registered speakers for -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. If -- MR. WILLIG: -- the public. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- Mr. Cook surfaces during any part of the meeting, we'll permit him to make his comments. MR. WILLIG: Sure. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Manager, where does that take us? Item #9A RESOLUTION 2020-211: AMENDMENTS TO THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY OF THE COLLIER November 10, 2020 Page 18 COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY (DEO) AND OTHER AGENCIES FOR REVIEW – MOTION TO APPROVE THE TRANSMITTAL – ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That takes us to Item 9A, advertised public hearings. This is a recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area overlay of the Collier County Growth Management Plan for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other agencies for review. Mr. Cohen will make the presentation. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning. MR. COHEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head, for the record. Today, it's been a long time coming. We believe that we're closer to moving the Rural Land Stewardship overlay recommendations forward. As you know, we've gone through a very long process. I've been here -- I was in the elevator. Someone asked me how long I've been here, and I said three years. This has been here for quite some time. We had a consensus back in 2002, you can see, in which we had an opportunity to value the Rural Lands Stewardship area by being able to protect the flow-ways, retention of agricultural land, and planning for growth and diversification of Collier County economy, and I think we're continuing to move that process forward. What I'd like to do first is to congratulate the Collier County review team. This can't be done by any one individual, and the folks that you see here have spent an enormous amount of time trying to November 10, 2020 Page 19 gain consensus across the various stakeholders to be able to bring us to the recommendations that we have today. What you're going to have is a few things. One is an overview as to where we've been and what we're going to propose. Sir? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask you to do one thing. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Take your time on this. Don't feel like there is a time limit. Don't feel like you're rushed. This is probably the most important decision for the future of this county that we're making, and I don't want anybody to feel that we're moving through this too quickly. So as you're going through the slides, if you need to leave them up for a little longer, don't hesitate to do that. Just make sure that we get all the information that you want to provide. And that goes for anybody that's presenting on this topic. MR. COHEN: Thank you, sir. We appreciate that. What you're going to hear from us today is a few things: One is an overview of where we are currently and what it is that we're proposing. And then Anita will talk about the substantive policy amendments that we're asking you to consider today. Some questions have come up as to how we pay for growth, so Amy Patterson will be addressing that issue, and then the actual draft amendments that have been modified. What you'll see is that there was a draft document out there. And we'll talk to you about how i t is that we've arrived at the final recommendations that we're presenting to you today. As an overview, as we've indicated, it's been quite some time. Back in 1999 to 2000 a final order was developed to adopt an RLSA, and as you all know, that's been an award-winning program. That's been in place for almost 20 years. Between 2007 and 2009, some stakeholders were able to get November 10, 2020 Page 20 together to review that program and see how it is that they could make some improvements, and the committee made some recommendations. But, unfortunately, those were not adopted or moved forward at that moment in time. So then we go forward 10 more years, and we've had an opportunity, since I've been here, to develop a white paper, additional public workshops to see if we are able to bring the various stakeholders together around not only that five-year plan, but also the white paper that added a little bit more embellishments to how it is that we could think about how we move forward in Eastern Collier County. And so that brings us to where we are today in which we have the final recommendations from our perspective as a consensus that we've gotten across the board as to how it is that we can improve a program that's already working. So the results of what we've been able to do over the last 20 years is 55,000 acres of sending areas protected at no cost to the public. We think that's been a very important aspect of this program. We've got a town, Ave Maria, that has made some adjustments to their plan over time that was able to inc orporate Arthrex manufacturing expansion. We think that's an important component as far as meeting that criteria, diversification of our economy, particularly in Eastern Collier County. And we've had two villages come forward; Hyde Park and Rivergrass, which we think is, again, part of the overall program in which we're trying to create towns, incentivize those, and to be able to have villages and being able to incentivize those as well. All that within a context of a program that was established as a voluntary program between the landowners, environmentalists, developers, and other stakeholders. And so we're proud of where we are and what we've accomplished today. So what does the future hold for us? What we'll be able to talk November 10, 2020 Page 21 to you about today is that future, we believe, is being able to protect another 134,000 acres. Camp Keais Strand, the OK Slough, expansion of the natural habitats, incorporating agricultural lands, which was not done when it was first thought of, additional panther corridors, and then direct development to 45,000 acres which we think is the most appropriate area in order to have development occur. So you can see that there's a balance between establishing 134,000 acres of -- excuse me -- of protected land and then 45,000 acres of development opportunity. Again, moving forward to diversify our economy. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Anita who will take you through the substantive policies and then be able to move forward with the other components of this presentation. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Good morning Commissioners. Anita Jenkins, your Interim Zoning Director. I'm going to highlight the substantive changes that have been recommended to you today for the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. And to put it in full context, the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay is a Future Land Use Plan unlike any other that you have in Collier County or in the state of Florida. It's a vision to protect 134,000 acres of natural resources, flow-ways, and agriculture, and direct growth to 45,000 acres in towns and villages. Some of the improvements that we have made to accomplish this vision is to incentivize agriculture land protection. And it's nice to hear that we're recognizing the Farm-City Barbecue and the relationship between agriculture and the urban area today, because today we get to bring forward to you a recommendation to protect agriculture lands in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area and to incentivize that through the credit system of two credits per acre for protection of agriculture lands. November 10, 2020 Page 22 Those agriculture lands would be within the open area, not within one of the sending areas but actually protecting agriculture lands and agriculture production rather than creating development in that particular area in the future. Another one of the substantive amendments is to adjust the restoration system. Previously, we were providing four credits per acre for dedicating restoration. We heard in the five -year review that we wanted to cut that in half, so that was a recommendation. And then additionally, through the recent public workshops, we heard that we wanted to further reduce that. So we are proposing one credit for dedicating land for restoration, and then you would be rewarded the restoration after it goes through the process of permitting and creating success criteria. And when we can deem that that restoration is successful, we'll reward the credits at the back end. So that's an important and substantive recommendation for these. We are also adding additional panther corridors. So we continue to hear that the panther is very important in this area, and we are addressing that by creating panther corridors and incentivizes for those, and those, again, are within that open area where development would occur, but there's an opportunity to reduce that footprint with these panther corridors. We're also adding wildlife and human interaction plans, and that would be required with both the Stewardship Receiving Areas and then also any development that would come in under the baseline would have to address the human and wildlife interaction plans. The Board had directed staff to bring back the five-year review recommendations, and a previous board at that time had directed staff to cap the Stewardship Receiving Areas at 45,000 acres and the credits at 404,000, and we have honored that and brought that back for your consideration in a recommendation to cap the SRAs at November 10, 2020 Page 23 45,000 and the stewardship credits at 404,000. We went through an analysis of the credit system to determine that that would be balanced and found that it is balanced, and we could recommend that to you. Another important change is an adjustment to the commercial areas. We have increased the commercial area for a town by over 150 percent, and we have increased the commercial for a village by over 100 percent on those as well. So, again, supporting the opportunity for economic diversification and creating more job and manufacturing and light manufacturing uses in these towns that will help to support those goals. One of the other policies is mobility. And we have strengthened the policy on mobility in the RLSA, providing for interconnections both within the RLSAs and the Stewardship Receiving Areas and connecting those internally and externally to the open and other future SRAs. The intent there is to create a transportation system that doesn't have the same impacts to Collier County's primary transportation system. So there is a mobility plan that we are recommending for you in these changes. And, finally, a substantive change is on housing affordability. We were able to make a recommendation to you that the new policies would require Stewardship Receiving Areas to include 2.5 percent of the gross area of their land to be set aside for future affordable housing. So those affordable housing acreages can be in one location in an SRA or disbursed through the SRA. The locations would be approved by Collier County staff during the review process. So those are the major and substantive changes that we were making to this. You can also see that on -- in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area we have what we refer to as Attachment C. These are the characteristics of a town or a village or a CRD, remembering that this November 10, 2020 Page 24 is a future land use, so we're guiding where land use is going to occur, and then the density and intensity and size of that. This is not the plan that says what the specific form of that development would be or how staff reviews that with different methodologies. That is included in your Land Development Code. But the purpose of the land-use plan is to set the vision of how we want to grow and how we want to direct that growth. So Attachment C, we did remove the hamlets. That was a very small size opportunity for residential development. We found in the five-year review that that was not achieving the initial purpose of growth in that area. So the hamlet is no longer an option, but we did modify the towns and village sizes to accommodate that future growth closer to the goods and services that would be necessary to support the population. Another important change that we've made on this attachment is to add the necessity for transfer stations or park-and-ride. So, initially, we had just addressed transit access, but we became a little more specific to saying we need transit stations or park-and-rides for these towns and villages. This is also where you see the change in the modification to the commercial goods and services. So how we did that comparison of the commercial goods and services and came to the recommendation for you is going back, again, to that Collier Interactive Growth Model that we have and to drill down into that. And how we came to those recommendations was Mr. Farmer, who prepared the Collier Interactive Growth Model, did the research regionally on how we accommodate commercial, and then he also looked at different factors within Collier County to understand what we will need in the coastal area where we support a lot of tourism versus what we might need in the rural area where we're trying to support a more permanent population and grow in economic diversification with more permanent jobs for that. So we November 10, 2020 Page 25 discounted the goods and services that you would relate to tourism in the coastal area to come to a more realistic square footage for the towns and villages in the rural area. So this is the adjustment that you can see from the town. We increased that from 65 square feet per dwelling unit to 170 square feet per dwelling unit, and in the village we increased that from 26 square feet to 53 square feet per dwelling unit. During the preparation of the recommendations and the policies, we went through the credit analysis. And staff went back through the whole model of the RLSA and the policies that also create credits for you to understand if the model and the policies are still balancing the program for you. And so this shows you the adjustment to those credits. The pie chart on the right -- or the left, I'm sorry, shows you what it is today. So we're generating credits out of restoration. The base credit is simply what we refer to when you are protecting a Habitat Stewardship Area or a flow-way or a water retention area. That's the base credit. If you restore those areas, you also generate credits. The original program also had an early-entry bonus. Those credits were not all consumed, so there were still some left on the table. But that early-entry bonus is no longer available. So how we rebalance that on the pie chart on the right side of the screen is through adding in the incentives to protect agriculture, also the incentives for the panther corridors. So this is a simple view to show you that we're rebalancing from just protecting natural resources and restoring those to also recognizing the importance of agriculture and agriculture production in the rural areas. That is a value that we wanted to accept. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I ask a quick question, or do you want to wait until the end of the presentation? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That will be up to you. I have a November 10, 2020 Page 26 few questions as well. I was just going to go ahead and wait. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I can wait. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's wait until she finishes up her presentation. We've got several questions then. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, sir. MS. JENKINS: So we're going to talk a little bit about how we pay for growth, and I'm going to ask Ms. Patterson to go through that for us. So, if you'd like to ask que stions now, I'm happy to address those, or we can wait until the end. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's get some questions to you. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to go first? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Be happy to. I've been trying to kind of get my arms around the problems that the Conservancy of Southwest Florida has with this going forward, and I think you've addressed a lot of those. So, for example, there was concern about restoration credits, getting restoration credits for simply designating an area for restoration without there being any restoration. So from what I understand you're doing, there's four credits, but you only get one credit for the designation, and then you get the other three credits once the restoration is completed and successful; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: In part, it's correct. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The three that you would get at the end is now based on the restoration itself. So the program that you have adopted now is just restoration. The program going forward has a tiered system based on caracara restoration, flow-+way restoration. So we broke the restoration -- the types of restoration apart, and we are rewarding credits based on the difficulty and the cost and the November 10, 2020 Page 27 value of that particular restoration. So restoration for habitat restoration, which is more expensive, more difficult, will be more rewarding than, say, caracara restoration, which is not as difficult. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. But the credits will actually be awarded upon completion of the restoration except for the first credit? MS. JENKINS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then -- so that answers, I think, a big question that they had. Second question, there are 404,000 credits. What does that translate into units, or can you make that translation? MS. JENKINS: It doesn't translate into units in the RLSA. We have a calibration that it's credits to acreage. So the acreage is set to 5,000 for a town, you know, and so those are set. The number of units can be up to four units per acre. So depending on the program brought forward in any town or village, it will be a basis of that. But we have projected population out there just on a g ross basis of 2.5 units per acre. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So one of the other big issues that the Conservancy has is what about landowners that are not involved in this process? We have the major landowners involved. What happens to landowners that are not involved in this process? Do they lose out? Do they have an opportunity to get some of these credits? How does that work? MS. JENKINS: Sure. All the landowners within the program, this is available to them by simply submitting either a stewardship sending application or a stewardship receiving application. So it's just a first come, first serve on this program. So if any landowners would want to come in with a receiving area or a stewardship sending area, that application would be processed eq ually. November 10, 2020 Page 28 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So if a landowner does not apply, all the credits ultimately get used up, that landowner still has certain development rights on their property. It's one unit per five acres. They just aren't part of the program, but they have an opportunity to participate on an equal basis with everybody else. MS. JENKINS: That's correct. And, Commissioner, the program is intended to be balanced to achieve 45,000 acres of Stewardship Receiving Area. It's balanced to protect 134,000. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. And I think that answers a couple of the major questions from the Conservancy. The other question they have is some sort of a credit analysis. And I'm not even sure what that means. But they're going to suggest that there be some credit analysis done. Can you kind of explain what that would be and why that is not something that we need to do or something that we would need to do. MS. JENKINS: So the Conservancy has been concerned about the credit analysis, and the credit model is av ailable to the public now. Staff went through and published the credit analysis and put it out with the draft recommendations for review. We did not receive any comments back on that credit analysis that anything looked incorrect on that credit analysis. Also on the credits, each time you come in with a new application for a sending area, that data is updated by the applicant and validated by staff. So it's a continual audit and evaluation of new data that comes in with each application. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So back to the credit analysis, and then I'll turn this over to Commissioner McDaniel. In terms of the credit analysis, what would that actually be? Is that a determination of the number of credits for different portions of the program, or what would a credit analysis even involve? MS. JENKINS: So the credit analysis involves running the November 10, 2020 Page 29 stewardship Natural Resource Index which includes different provisions for every acre of land there. That's what's updated each time you receive a Stewardship Sending Area. So the applicant has to verify listed species and FLUCFCS codes on that property. So it involves the Natural Resource Index, which is available to the public. And the other part of credits are in policy. So you have policy that says we're going to reward two credits per acre for agriculture protection. So you have a model that creates credits, and you have policy that create credits. So looking at that together we have done that analysis, and it is open to the public. Anyone can do that analysis as well. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: My understanding is that Kris Van Lengen had suggested some additional analysis be done. What's the staff's position in reference to that and why? MS. JENKINS: So Kris was fortunate enough to retire but the credit analysis was done. So after Kris retired and after the white paper, we actually did the credit analysis based on his recommendations in the white paper. We went through that exercise to do that credit analysis. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I think that addresses all of the issues that were raised by the Conservancy to me in some lengthy phone calls and in some meetings prior to the COVID situation preventing a lot of those in-person meetings, so thank you for that. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you could pop up the pie chart. I did have a quick question there. And while we're l ooking at that, that's -- if I recall in the five-year review process, we recommended an increase in the requisite of credits to actually develop an acre of land. MS. JENKINS: Yes, sir, and that did change, and based on the November 10, 2020 Page 30 Board's previous direction, we brought that back with 45,000 acres of development, 404- cap on credits, and then recalibrating the balance to increase it from eight credits per acre to 10 credits per acre. That is in there, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So that is actually required, additional 10 credits, as opposed to the plan that we have right now, to entitle an acre only requires eight credits. So that's one of the compensating factors. I just wanted to -- have you applied any numbers? These pictures are pretty, but the graph on the left talks about the early bonus, I think the availability of, and then didn't get consumed, and then over here on a percentage basis it looks like it's down by 30 percent or so. Is there actual numbers somewhere? MS. JENKINS: Yes. That's all in the credit analysis. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And if you have a specific question, I can look that up for you right now, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. I just wanted to make sure that folks understood that the -- there are credits generated for those who took advantage of the early-entry bonus program. They are there. They're locked in. And that portion of the RLSA is no longer availed. If you could hop over to the commercial designation on -- between a village and a town. That one right there. I would -- I just -- a little more explanation. What's the differentiation between a requisite of a person that lives in a town and that of a person who lives in a village? And why is there -- it's a fairly substantive decrease in the requisite of -- or requirement of commercial in a village over a town. MS. JENKINS: So villages are promoted in the RLSA at a smaller scale than a town. So you would expect a town to be serving November 10, 2020 Page 31 villages similar to how our activity cent ers in the coastal areas serve different neighborhoods. So that's the relationship, Commissioner. It's -- a village would then need to be supported by the hospital in a town that you wouldn't have in a village. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And that resonates. I wasn't -- I wasn't thinking about the aggregation of everything of the entire 200,000 some odd acres of the RLSA, so now that balances. Now I see that. And the last question, and it's, do you have an estimate -- and I understand this is a voluntary program. Have you got any feel or inkling -- you know, one of the things that I was really, really happy about was the incentivization to protect agriculture, as we talked about. It's an important industry for our community. And by awarding credits for that perpetual protection of agriculture, have you got any kind of a feel -- because as was earlier stated, those agricultural lands could be designated as an SRA or a receiving area, and we're actually setting those aside and protecting them for all of the benefits that we have of the protection of habitat and water quality and so on. Have you got a feel for the actual acreage that potentially could be -- MS. JENKINS: Sure. So we have assumed in our calculations 4,000 acres of agriculture protection in the RLSA. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Additional. MS. JENKINS: Yes. Because remembering that the natural resources, as you had alluded to earlier, provide for agriculture as well. They're symbiotic. But this would be 40,000 acres in the open area which would be eligible for receiving. That's where the agriculture credits would apply. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Can November 10, 2020 Page 32 you hear me, ma'am? Can you hear me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. I'd take my mask off if you couldn't, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much, but I can hear you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So let's talk a little bit about the credit system. And you made a statement that if the -- the credit system is balanced. And I guess my question would be to you, Ms. Jenkins, and also to our attorney. What if the credit system isn't balanced? MS. JENKINS: You have a cap of 404,000 credits, and that's -- that was the cap to balance the number of SRA -- SRA acres that you would be eligible for. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I ask our County Attorney, what if the credit system isn't balanced? Ten years, 15 years from now someone comes along and says, this was done all wrong. This is -- this is a problem. I'm being cheated out of things. I'm going to sue the county because I should be able to build this. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, nobody's going to be cheated out of anything. People have the right right now t o develop the property at one unit for every five acres. This is an incentive-based program. People who choose to get into the incentives will develop. If at the end of the day the door is shut because all the credits are used or whatever, there's still that ability to develop your property. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. So there's no -- I mean, anyone can sue anybody for anything, I get that. MR. KLATZKOW: It happens all the time, yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's business. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it's business. Okay. November 10, 2020 Page 33 County business. Okay. Very good. So I guess my concern -- and I, too, have talked to the Conservancy -- is that Mr. Van Lengen didn't say that he wanted a review of the credit system. He wanted an independent third party. He wanted someone outside of the government to do this. And I guess my -- I started thinking, well, that's kind of crazy, but then I realized the credit system is the currency of the RLSA. This is -- this is how they make it work. It's a voluntary program, but it's the currency that has been established and how they use it. If we have an audit of our government, why would we not have an outside -- outside audit of our credit system here? And I'm sure it will come out just perfectly. But what we're doing is keeping so much in-house, and it's caused, I think, a little bit of concern with the public. What do we do in government? Well, every year we have an audit, and we have standards. We have procedures we follow, and that audit confirms that it's been followed correctly or it hasn't been followed correctly. And I'm just questioning -- and just something for everyone to think about. Maybe this is something that we could do just to review the credit system because that's -- that's where -- that's the heart of this program. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to respond to that issue first, before I forget what came up for me, I mean, this -- these five-year revisions is kind of -- was kind of that process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No more after this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, but, I mean -- I mean, there was -- the original five-year revision was to look at how the credits were allocated and see if anything needed to be changed. I mean, this isn't going to be something that's forever set in stone either. I November 10, 2020 Page 34 mean, if there -- if in the future there need to be changes -- I see Mr. Casalanguida over there making a face at me. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well -- I told the Manager, I said, Commissioner Saunders and McDaniel and Commissioner Taylor all brought up really good points. When you talk about an audit, of our annual audit, our books are finite, whatever pennies in whatever account. Because this is a credit and voluntary system, it's like your Long-Range Transportation Plan that gets reviewed every five years. You can do a snapshot of what's been developed today, and then you monitor it for five years. And you may have people participate and not participate. And t hat's why it's important, whether it's five year or 10 years, that you do an annual review to see if the program is functioning the way it's supposed to. You're asking to audit something assuming a finite decision has been made, and it's not. It's a voluntary program. That's what we talked about yesterday on the phone. And that's your challenge. You can only do a snapshot in time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do this. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's way more eloquently said than what I was trying to say. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do this. Now we're getting into argument about the program itself. Let's finish the presentation, the speakers, and keep that thought in mind in terms of as we get to the point of where we're making some decision. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is this -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is a good time to ask questions and get -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just -- I'll drop that, but I do have a question about the affordable housing issue. And just to make it November 10, 2020 Page 35 clear, so affordable housing -- the affordable housing component's not going to be based upon the number of units or the uses or anything. Essentially, the landowners have agreed to setting aside in advance a certain percentage of whatever land is entitled will be set -- and that was 2 point -- what was it? Affordable housing as a percentage of the area. What was the percentage that would be set aside? MS. JENKINS: It's 2.5 percent. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: 2.5 percent -- MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- of whatever area is ultimately going to be developed will have to be developed as affordable housing. I mean, this is, I think, for Collier County a huge step forward that I just want to bring some attention to, because it's not the after-the-fact battle of affordable housing. Where is it going to be? We're going to let the developers figure out how it works best for them, but they have to provide it, right? MS. JENKINS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, am I paraphra sing that properly? MS. JENKINS: That's correct, Commissioner. And I do have a couple of slides in the background to show you how that changed if you're interested in seeing that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I mean, I'd like to see that. MS. JENKINS: So when we initially created the draft recommendations, after we received direction to prepare the recommendations based on the five-year review and some of the white paper considerations, we drafted the amendments, and then we posted the draft document to our website and sent the email to all the stakeholders to review the draft amendments, and this happened back in March. November 10, 2020 Page 36 So what we started with, Commissioner, was an affordable housing policy that you see here that is very specific to a lot of the things that you would hear in a zoning action. We want very specific AMIs listed for affordable housing, and the comments that we received back is that's too specific for Growth Management Plan policy. You know, everyone wants to work together to come to an agreement, and working through that issue -- working through that issue, we were able to come to this idea that we would set aside land rather than being specific in policy. Where you want that specificity is in your Land Development Code. So we brought that back up to a higher level, Commissioner, to say 2.5 percent of the gross area would be set aside. And I understand Cormac's behind me if you'd like to speak to Cormac as well. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I just wanted to bring some attention to that because I think that this is a huge step forward in tackling this issue that we've been trying to wrestle with as long as I've been in Collier County since '93, and that it will also, in my view, kind of let the market work itself out. I mean, there's a certain amount that's going to have to be set aside for that purpose when a town or a village comes through, and then the developer or the landowner's going to have to figure out what works best for them in terms of the plan, the business plan to make that happen. It's a requirement. So I just -- I mean, I want to congratulate the staff, the stakeholders, and everyone involved in reaching an agreement on this that is really significant for Collier County. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. We'll -- hit your button. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hit my button. November 10, 2020 Page 37 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I had read someplace, and I'm afraid I can't find it right this minute, but they said it's not really affordable housing, someplace they said, but it will meet certain criteria, and I'm wondering, tell me what all the range is. I mean, will you be -- you have to have entry-level workers, but maybe they have no accommodations for them to live there. Can you tell me what that is? MS. JENKINS: So, Commissioner, at this level, this is your Future Land Use Element where we're setting policy. The details of specifically what it's going to be in that 2.5 acres will be implemented through your Land Development Code, and we'll be bringing those details back to you first quarter of next year or so to implement these policies. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Just -- if I may just to go back to the credit system just briefly. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Sure. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll just give you just a little snapshot of a history. In 2002 it was a memorable summer because somehow a lot of restoration credits were added to a program th at had yet to be approved by the BCC, and in that -- in that time frame, it did go before the Planning Commission. And at the time Mark Strain said, you know, I think this changes dynamically what this program is about. And he was admonished, and I think it was accurate, that there was a time frame, and that clock was ticking and that they had to get this passed or all the hard, hard work of two years would be out the window. And so it was passed. And all of a sudden the 16,000 acres of development mushroomed, I believe, into 45-, I think I'm correct. It might have even been 48-, and that was announced in 2008, five November 10, 2020 Page 38 years later. That's why an analysis -- an analysis of this credit system is so critical, because it i s germane to the success of this program. Now -- but it has to be an outside analysis. And I'll remind everyone that last year there was -- there was bit of a dilemma because how this credit system was established was not in the purview of the county, unfortunately, because of the change of an organization that -- or a company that morphed into another company. They had a hard time finding the basis for this credit system, the analysis of how it worked. They found that, and now it's in-house. And so that's why I'm thinking it's timely and probably the only time we would need to do it, but to have an outside third -party entity analyze this credit system. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's try to get through the presentations and the comment. Let's kind of deal with questions and information. And then in terms -- in terms of arguments for changes and all, why don't we reserve that until we get to a point where we're making a decision. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. Are you -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One more thing. CRDs. They're two -- it wasn't established at the five-year review. It said it needed to be established. So it's two acres per dwelling unit; is that correct? MS. JENKINS: Yes. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So -- and it's considered -- so if I decide I'm going to go out there and I can buy a piece of property, a two-acre piece of property, I can put my little dwelling unit on it, and -- but that would not be considered a CRD. It's actually a grouping? November 10, 2020 Page 39 MS. JENKINS: Commissioner, it is a grouping, and we have revised the policy for the compact rural development to relate it to one of the economic drivers in that area. So it's going to be related to agriculture, related to research, and if you have housing to support that, then you're coming in with the housing to support that. But the policy change for the CRD is to relate it back to the agriculture and research that we're trying to promote in the rural areas. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So you don't envision someone, for instance -- and I just need -- because this is difficult for me. Compare a house on two -- compare a house on two acres. Give me a neighborhood that has houses on two acres. MS. JENKINS: Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that Quail West? MS. JENKINS: Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just the Estates? MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So are we -- and this, again, comes from just a couple of things, and I'll just throw this out to everyone to think about it. Without requiring piped water and sewer in any area out there that we're developing, are we promoting sprawl by not requiring that? Now, is that expensive? Uh-huh; yes, it is. But what are we doing? This is land -- is land that we're changing, and maybe it is something that we might want to consider, the importance of making sure that the water and the waste is on a community or county basis, not septic and wells. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to say something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. It has to be. In other words, to develop these towns at these densities, you can't be on well and November 10, 2020 Page 40 septic. That's why -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the CRDs can. MS. JENKINS: No. The policy, Commissioner -- if we look at Policy 4.16, central or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated, maintained by private utility services, the developer, or a CDD, the Immokalee Water and Service District. So it is intended that the CRDs would also be supported by central water. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Because I read it about -- so let's just make sure -- MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- that that development, that it's tied -- MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- together. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's actually an incentivization. CRD is concentric residential development. MS. JENKINS: Compact rural development. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Compact. Compact rural development. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not residential. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And it's actually -- it actually promotes the compact rural development away from that that is designated as sprawl. And, Commissioner Solis, I just wanted to share with you -- and thank you for recognizing the affordable housing aspect. I served on the five-year review committee. There was an enormous amount of resistance to that subject matter during that five-year review process. And I applaud the landowners in coming forward and actually designating that need for our community. November 10, 2020 Page 41 And, Commissioner Fiala, you brought up an important aspect. One of the things I really like about what our staff has done and transpired here is moving to a more global perspective with regard to the GMP amendments and allowing for the specifics to be in the LDC. You've been around for a minute, and you can recall that the housing affordability need in the '80s was different than the '90s and so on and so forth. This prospect allows for that flexibility going forward, so... CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's try to get the questions answered from our staff and from the public, public comments so we can then get into our discussion. Are you finished with your presentation? MS. JENKINS: For the moment. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. MS. JENKINS: I'll ask Amy to go through the next part. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I appreciate you disinfecting that microphone. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I bet Amy does, too. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the Director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management. I'm going to briefly speak to you today about how we pay for growth and how this fits into the RLSA concept. So we'll start at a high level, and then we're going to zoom into an example. The Board of County Commissioners established level-of-service standards, millage rates, and the impact fee rates with the caveat that it's up to the maximum legal limit established by study. So for impact fee purposes, that threshold is the amount that could be charged. No more. The Board can make a policy decision to charge less impact fees, but you cannot unduly burden a developer because we want them to take a greater share of the cost of paying for November 10, 2020 Page 42 growth. Population projections affect components of infrastructure differently based on the adopted level-of-service standard. And we're going to talk about that a little bit when we go into the AUIR later. But remember that the population projections, how they fit in depends on that level-of-service standard. Some are purely population driven. Others have different things that come in for trip counts or studies that affect how we project the needs. So diving right down into an example, there's been a lot of discussion about how we review the fiscal neutrality elements and the economic assessments that are integral to this program. Discussions about the appropriate persons per household versus persons per housing unit, how many people are actually going to live in this area, and what does that mean. So for -- an example for discussion, we've utilized a future population of the RLSA of 300,000 residents, and that came from -- actually 310,000 residents came from the Smart Growth America study in 2018. Many of you have heard that referenced a lot. That was a study commissioned by the Conservancy and has been central to some of the discussions that we've had about how does this fiscal neutrality work. If we use a population projection of 2.55 persons per household -- and this is a specific number that was referenced at the Planning Commission relative to how many people do we really think are going to be living in these homes. So we take, for discussion, this number, and we do a calculation: 300,000 people divided by the 2.55 persons per household is 117,647 units out in this area. So what does that mean? We're going to take that number, those units, and we're going to make some assumptions about they're multifamily units, they're single-family units, they're condominiums. So we developed a blended multifamily and single-family rate, a certain November 10, 2020 Page 43 proportion being multifamily and a certain amount being single-family. Why that's important is that single-family homes pay a lot more impact fees than multifamily, so we wanted to make sure that we were noting fairly that not everything is going to be a single-family home. When you calculate out that rate, that's $3.23 billion in impact fee revenue generated by those units. Now, some may recall that there's been a number thrown around or talked about about a shortfall in funding of about $3.8 billion. That's a huge number. But that number did not include one of the primary funding sources for growth, and that is the impact fees and developer contribution agreements. So you can see by way of this example now using a very high population rate as well as a higher than estimated persons per household, that we've generated over $3 billion in impact fee revenue just on the residential side of the house. Why we feel this is conservative is this was a blended rate to account for probably more multifamily units than are actually going to be constructed in that area. It's residential only and does not include commercial uses that will pay impact fees, including the new ratio of commercial square footage that's being proposed. And it uses a static rate and does not attempt to capture future increases to infrastructure costs which then build into future increases of impact fees. And I do have to note just quickly that the persons per household does not capture the full housing inventory as it puts people only -- only into the occupied units and excludes vacant units, changeovers in apartment complexes, things like that. So that's where this discussion happens. It's a little bit confusing on the difference between persons per household and persons per housing unit. November 10, 2020 Page 44 And we're going to dial down even deeper to the 2040 Highway Needs Assessment. This is $2.3 billion in the 2040 LRTP that was growth-related improvements needed but, of that, zero is coming from General Fund ad valorem funding. And it's projected in the 2045 LRTP that's being worked on now that the same will carry through. So the concept that the taxpayers are being unduly burdened, particularly on the transportation side of the house, is not -- is not coming forward through our analysis. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Are there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That's a very incredible analysis, so thank you for that. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. MS. JENKINS: Commissioners, I'm going to finish this up. We jumped forward to the affordable housing policy, and we showed -- showed you how that changed. One other change I wanted to make you aware of, that changed from the draft, that was March 9th, was a policy that we refer to as aggregation. And what we found in that is that going through this, that we can address the idea of looking at separate SRAs. We can look at that holistically using the tools that we have through our review process. And this was the policy here that basically says to the County Commission, if you have two or more villages come in, you shall aggregate that. So that locks the Board into a decision before the project is reviewed to aggregate those. You may have a situation where you're creating adverse impacts or environmental concerns through aggregation that you may not want to go forward with. So it was the team's recommendation not to include this policy going forward as we know that we can look at these different policies November 10, 2020 Page 45 that are new here. We have the mobility policy that we can look at how the SRAs are transferring and commuting between SRAs into the open area. We also can address economic development and diversification that we had put in this policy. There's a new policy that provides for that diversification and job creation in the towns and villages. We also have the review tools. And this goes, again, from the high-level vision that we're trying to establish today back into the Land Development Code which directs how we use our methodologies to review projects and what the process is to get the applications through that. So we can use, now, as you heard at our last meeting how we're using the Collier Interactive Growth Model and also new transportation methodologies that are being developed as well. We were also concerned in reviewing this polic y as a whole. When you put a draft policy in there and then you draw back and you look at the whole Growth Management Plan as a whole, your policies need to be consistent. And what we're finding is with a shall -- a "shall aggregate these," we're concerned about creating inconsistencies with a policy that you already have adopted that is not recommended to be changed. But I have underlined it here to show you that you had created a relationship between the towns and between the villages and recognizing here that some of your goods and services, and particularly those higher ones, hospitals and manufacturing, those are going to be located in towns or potentially Immokalee, and the villages can be served in those towns in Immokalee. So you have an established relationship and a pattern of development that is supported in both villages and towns. So that recommendation did not move forward, from the staff's perspective, from the draft to what we are proposing today. And we just wanted November 10, 2020 Page 46 to make sure that you understand why we did not include that. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, your light is lit up. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to talk about, just for a second, it was mentioned sprawl, and I just have a comment on that and that is, we're going to see a lot of people coming to our area real soon, and we better be preparing for them. And I think that this is the vehicle by which we can prepare. It was just a positive note on -- I'm glad you've done such a thorough job for all of us, and I think this will be what we're looking for. MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. And we can -- we can recognize the underlying land use of one unit per five acres. That's sprawl, and that's what we don't want, and that's why we want to incentivize landowners to plan better for the future of Eastern Collier County. And rather than developing it one-to-five, we like to see towns, villages, and compact rural development which addresses the condition of sprawl. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I see that Mr. Cook is here. For your planning purposes, we're going to finish this staff presentation, and we'll be taking a break, but before we get to the break, we'll have your comments. MR. COOK: Okay. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Well, I think staff knows that this is the one issue that I really am having a great deal of angst about. We have had an up-close and personal experience on this commission of a developer that decided it was too expensive to build a town and split it into three villages. You know, I don't blame him. This is -- it's all about money. It's all about money. We have different concerns. We have concerns about November 10, 2020 Page 47 taxpayers' money. We have concerns about planning vacant land in a -- the most effective way for the future, for the people who live there, and certainly for the county as large. And I have a great -- this, for me, is the wrong way to go. We have to leave Policy 4.7.5 in the -- in this plan going forward. We have to understand that and plan for the future and plan for the bigger picture, not for a developer's bank account. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. Anything else in terms of the staff presentation? MS. JENKINS: Just our final recommendation. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We do have a -- Commissioner Fiala does have some additional. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I can wait if you'd like, or I would just comment on what was just said, so it's up to you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Go ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I think that we're talking about benefits and so forth. I have this all written out. On this one, everyone benefits. We're going to be providing the water preservation that we desperately need in that area. We're going to be protecting the animals, which is an important thing in many aspects of our community. We have strategic land preservation that we must do, and all of these are going to be taken care of. I think we're covering all of the important things in this -- for this area but in a planned way so that when we end up, we're going to have a wonderful area, yet we can accommodate all these people that are starting to move down here. Let's face it. It's -- they're really coming down now. And I just am happy. I think they're providing for our future growth, which will still protect us and protect everything that is there. November 10, 2020 Page 48 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's go ahead and wrap up the staff presentation. Anything else you want to -- MS. JENKINS: No, just our final recommendation, Mr. Chair, is recommending approval that these five-year review amendments are a positive improvement to the program and it furthers the objectives of the community of protecting natural resources, adding in the protection of agriculture and directing growth into towns and villages. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. How many registered speakers do we have both in the room and on. MR. WILLIG: For 9A we have 15 registered speakers. We have four online. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and start with that. We'll go through part of the public comment on this. And before we adjourn, we'll get to Mr. Cook's comments on public comment. MR. WILLIG: All right. Mr. Chairman, your first registered speaker is Loralee LeBoeuf. She is being ceded time by Charlotte Nycklemoe. Is Charlotte in the room? MS. LeBOEUF: She's in the audience upstairs or downstairs. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll take your word for that. MS. LeBOEUF: Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to use the overhead, and I also have a handout for each of you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs can help you with the overhead. MS. LeBOEUF: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you'll -- if you'll hand those to Mr. Casalanguida, we'll distribute those. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, ma'am. MS. LeBOEUF: There you go. November 10, 2020 Page 49 MR. OCHS: And we have six minutes. Is that -- MS. LeBOEUF: Yeah. I think I'm actually going to be about five-and-a-half, so we should be good. Thank you, first of all, for allowing me to speak today. And my name is Loralee LeBoeuf, and I'm a resident of Naples, Florida. I am a member of the League of Women Voters Environmental Committee, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and Audubon Corkscrew. The RLSA program is complex, and my intention is to provide some clarity. This is -- there is a big difference between what we, the public, are being told and what the amendments are actually providing. I have prepared two charts that provide an overview of 179 acres of private lands in the RLSA. Please look at Chart 1. You'll see, how many times have we heard over the last few years that we -- the phrase, 45,000 acres of development and 134,000 of preservation with 100 percent participation? This looks pretty amazing. Landowners have the right to increase density in exchange for acres and acres of preservation. It conjures up images of 145,000 acres of Corkscrew's sanctuaries. Teeming with native wildlife and dense foliage. Looks like the RLS program -- RLSA program is on track, right? Well, not so fast. Please look at this chart, what we're actually getting. The promise of 134,000 acres of preservation is a false promise because there are thousands of additional acres of development outside the 45,000 acres of SRA's towns and villages. In other words, preservation is not the same as conservation. Eighty-nine thousand acres of -- 89,000 acres of important natural resource areas have been identified for the Stewardship Sending Areas, the total of the top two boxes. You can see the 54,000 and the 34,000. Fifty-five thousand have been approved, and November 10, 2020 Page 50 34,000 are remaining. These in sensitive areas. Please note that in the approved SSA acreage, just 1 percent or 570 acres is actual conservation; 99 percent are agricultural operations and ranches. While farms and ranches are valuable and should be preserved, it is not conservation. It is business as usual for the landowners. They continue to ranch and farm as they did prior to the RLSA program. There is a promise of conservation, but little is happening on the private lands. This box, the one for 46,000 acres of open lands -- the phrase "open lands" can be misleading. It is not fields for frolicking and recreation but land available for future development. It is what remains after the 45,000 acres of SRA towns and villages. Mostly agriculture, ranches, mining, and low-density development of one unit per five acres. This last box, the 20,000 -- approximately 20,000 acres are needed to support the infrastructure for the 45,000 acres of SRAs. That's an approximate number. Note: Most of the infrastructure acreage is being taken from outside the SRA. Not only does the county pay for the infrastructure, but it has to pay for the land to put it on. This means the Collier County taxpayers are carrying the burden for infrastructure. Contrast this to Ave Maria when, in 2004, they formed a stewardship district that paid for their infrastructure. It was financed by revenue bonds issued by the stewardship district, not the Collier County taxpayers. In addition, developers previously donated lands to the county for roads that services the new developments. Now the county has to pay for those roads. So what is actually happening with the amendments as presented before you today? Number one, there's a lot more development in the eastern lands than we have been led to believe; number two, November 10, 2020 Page 51 taxpayers are shouldering the burden of infrastructure costs; and, three, very important, landowners are meant to choose if they are in the program or out of the program; however, landowners appear only to be in the program when it comes to density but out when it comes to upholding conservation protection. The word "require" has mysteriously disappeared from all documents. Landowners conveniently put -- pull the volunteer program trump card to suit their needs, scaring the county away from enforcing requirements. There are no requirements when it comes to a lot of the conservation areas to be preserved or protected or maintained, including Water Retention Areas, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and flow-way areas are not required. So don't be misled. The tail is wagging the dog here, folks, and it doesn't have to be that way. What you see and hear on Chart 1 is not what you get, which is in Chart 2, because you know the devil is in the details. There will be other speakers and you've received documents related to the word "require," and when it comes to environmental protection, those things have been removed from an awful lot of the documents. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. As we get to the next speaker, I want to ask our staff to be prepared to address the issues that were just raised, because they're quite significant. Let's go to the next speaker. MR. WILLIG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We'll go to our online -- one of our online speakers, April Olson. She'll be followed by Susan Collins -- Calkins. MR. OCHS: Ms. Olson, are you on the line? MR. WILLIG: It says that she's talking. One moment. Make sure that the computer's not muted. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go to Susan Calkins, and November 10, 2020 Page 52 then we'll come back to Ms. Olson. Good morning. MS. CALKINS: Good morning. I'm Susan Calkins, and I'm giving -- it's probably better if I do this, right? I am presenting the League of Women Voters' statement today. The League's committed at its local, state, and national level, and -- to, among other things, wise land-use planning and the management of natural resources in the public interest, and that's why we're here today, and that's why we've been here before. Countless times, as a matter of fact. The League has provided comments regarding the Rural Lands Stewardship Program. You recently received, I think, 19 pages from us. So we've been at this for some time, and some of us have been at it for over 10 years, and our concerns persist, and I think the concerns of the citizens of Collier County persist as well, citizens who want to see their water and their wildlife and their pocketbooks protected. Essentially, their quality of life protected. I think we're all stakeholders here. So what you're being asked to approve are the 2009 five-year review recommended amendments, and you've been told there's a consensus. Yes, in 2002 there was a consensus, but by 2009, when this came before the Board of County Commission for its five-year review, as some of you may remember, there was a very contentious BCC meeting which ended in a 3-2 vote with a myriad of speakers and the Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Commission opposing. And today I think there's still a lack of consensus, which is shown by the fact that you had 63 pages of comments from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and 24 pages of comments from the League of Women Voters that went to the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, you didn't see those comments in your agenda packet. You only got 174 pages. The November 10, 2020 Page 53 Planning Commission received almost 800 pages in the agenda packet on this issue. So why the controversy? I'd say that because we feel that many of the amendments take the program farther away from the original 1999 administrative order to protect wetlands, to protect listed species habitat, and to avoid sprawl. It, you know, is a highly complex program. And, in fact, the Department of Community Affairs some years ago -- excuse me. I just have three minutes from someone. MR. WILLIG: Yes, I just saw that slip. I have three more additional minutes. MS. LeBOEUF: I hear the voice. MR. WILLIG: From Patricia Forkan. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. There's someone in the back that's waving. MS. FORKAN: I'm here. MS. LeBOEUF: She's giving me the extra minutes. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You've got her name? MR. WILLIG: Yes. MS. LeBOEUF: Anyway. So it's a highly complex program, I think we know that. The Department of Community Affairs called it extremely complex when they looked at it, and the devil is in the details of this complicated program, and a program, I think, as you've mentioned, that was created by consultants to landowners and developers and who also was involved in the preparation of these amendments. And it's the impact of the details in these policies that's a grave concern. I can only mention a few. I think water being one of them. The Rural Land Stewardship program requires development to be directed away from Water Resource Areas, yet Amendment 4.9 November 10, 2020 Page 54 eliminates the protection with no rationale. We agree with Audubon and Florida Wildlife Federation. At the Planning Commission, they argued that the revision to 4.9, this one revision, should be rejected. And Policy 4.9 also includes -- should include. It doesn't, but it should include staff's RLSA white paper recommendation to require Flowway Management Plans as part of the Stewardship Receiving Area, thus you ensure costs of downstream stormwater management don't fall solely on the taxpayer. Sprawl is another concern. Amended Policies 4.71 and 4.72 seem to us to run counter to the purpose of the RLSA overlay to avoid sprawl and create walkable communities. Instead, they increase the size of towns and villages. Now, you want to create commercial -- increase commercial space there, which has been the argument, then increase some of the density for the town. But why increase the footprint of the town? Additionally, Policy 4.72 allows a thousand-acre village in the Big Cypress area of critical concern. Now, this is completely contrary to protecting the significant wetland system, and I think this is something we feel you should reject. And the CRDs have also increased in size. I mean, that's an issue we don't have time for now, but I think that you should look carefully at that. Landowners and restoration, landowners should not be given R-1 credits for simply designating lands for restoration. It may even be one credit now. Still, credits should be given for completed restoration not just saying I designate this land. I think it's worth knowing that half of the total credits earned under the RLSA program to date originated from R-1 credits. So that's less -- am I -- you're resetting me, right? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need you to wrap up. Your November 10, 2020 Page 55 time's up. Just take a quick second to wrap up. MS. LeBOEUF: Okay. So I will wrap up by simply saying that the -- we've talked a lot about smart growth, and we do feel there should be an amendment that says that we follow smart growth principles, and that can be worked out in the Land Development Code, but it should be there. And I think you had a comment from the Planning Commission in the minority report to that effect. And as -- concluding in this, we hope you will direct staff to address some of the specific concerns that we provided in written comments -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need you to wrap up. MS. LeBOEUF: -- and if we don't -- as you know, if we don't act now, it will be too late. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Let's do this. Let's have Mr. Cook make his comments under public comment, and then we'll take a break until -- MR. WILLIG: All right. And he's being ceded time as well from Dajia Hinojosa. MR. OCHS: Is that person here? MR. COOK: She's not here. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. You'll have three minutes then, and then we'll take a break until 11:00. And for planning purposes I'd like to get through the RLSA issue before we break for lunch; is that all right? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Cook, you have three minutes. MR. COOK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me quote Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum. In his book he says that epidemics are, by nature, divisive and traumatizing. We are fighting against as invisible -- or what November 10, 2020 Page 56 we're fighting against is invisible. Our family, friends, and neighbors maybe all become sources of infection. Those everyday rituals that we cherish, like meeting a friend in a public place, may become a vehicle for transmission, and the authorities that try to keep us safe by enforcing confinement measures are often perceived as agents of oppression. Does that sound accurate? So allow me to acknowledge that this new order, 2020-7, seemingly gives more wiggle room than the previous order, 2020-6. The way it is written from my understanding, is very much is up to the people, how we deal with this mask thing. If people are okay with me participating in society without a mask, then they won't complain to Code Enforcement; however, if Code Enforcement does receive a complaint from people, then the named business may come to the Code Enforcement hearing with the full support of the patriot community to object to that fine. Furthermore, Section 2, Clause 2 of the 2020-7 states that places of worship and schools under the age of 18 are not included, so I think that's a good thing. Section 3, clause 1, of 2020-7, states that the masks are required where social distancing is not possible. So based on this, everyone in this room, who is social distancing, if they feel comfortable, could remove their mask, if I understand that correctly. Section 3, Clause 2(c) refers to salons where wearing a face covering would reasonably interfere with the receiving of services. Well, for me, when I'm getting my hair cut, I'd like to have my hair cut by someone with a face, with a smile, with an identity, so I wonder if that fits the definition of reasonable. So, Mr. Chairman, while I do still have several issues with the mandate and I oppose it with every fiber of my body, I do want to acknowledge these changes and additions to the order, and it is my hope that businesses in the county are educated on these clauses. November 10, 2020 Page 57 And I see that my time is running low, so I do want to just make a public records request, which you may have expected I would do. I would like to ask for the formal public notices as required by Florida Statute Title 11, Chapter 125.66, Section 2(A) for each of the following county executive orders, which would be 2020-5, -6, and -7. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Duly noted that that's a public records request. Mr. Klatzkow will make sure that that public records request is honored. MR. COOK: Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll take a recess until 11:00. (A brief recess was had from 10:43 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please take your seats, the meeting will come back to order. We were in the middle of the public comment on the RLSA. Would you call the next speaker. We were looking for April Olson. I don't know if she's -- MR. WILLIG: Yes. I have the computer unmuted, so it should be working fine. April Olson is the next registered speaker. Followed by Gaylene Vasaturo. MS. OLSON: Can you hear me? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. Speak up a little bit louder, if you could. We can hear you, but not very well. MS. OLSON: Okay. I'll try to speak up louder. Good morning, Commissioners. April Olson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The RLSA is an issue with such great consequence for Collier County that I rushed home early from my yearly vacation to be able to speak today. I got in very late last night; otherwise, I would be there. I actually had some prepared comments, but I'm just -- I was a November 10, 2020 Page 58 little shocked and dismayed at some of the comments that I heard provided during staff's presentation today. It was very -- I was very disheartened to hear that staff said they did not receive comments from the Conservancy. We did provide a 38-page comments including comments regarding the credit issues. And I did receive confirmation from Ms. Jenkins that she did receive our comments. We did ask for a little bit extra time, and she did assure me that that was fine. So I just -- it's just very disheartening that none of our concerns have been addressed regarding the amendments and the credit issue. And, furthermore, a third-party analysis was never done. Kris Van Lengen asked for a third-party analysis. This was never done. We provided you-all with an email regarding our concerns with the credit analysis and basically some omissions that were not included in the credit analysis. And I realize it's very technical, but none of these issues have been addressed. I'll give you an example. Staff assumed in the analysis that only 29 percent of the SSA acreage will qualify for restoration credits, but staff's white paper, Mr. Van Lengen's white paper, said that 34 percent of SSA acreage will qualify for restoration credits, and the trend is increasing. It's now 46 percent. Restoration potential indice has not bee n considered in the credit analysis. There's several other issues with the credit analysis, and our concern is that history's going to repeat itself. Like Commissioner Taylor had mentioned, back during the five-year review, people were shocked and dismayed when they found out that the development potential for the RLSA increased by 250 percent, and the whole reason was because a proper credit analysis was not done prior to the RLSA program being adopted. And we're really afraid that history's going to repeat itself here. So we ask that you please conduct a third-party independent review of the credit analysis. November 10, 2020 Page 59 And, by the way, I'm happy to provide you with the comments that we sent staff on the amendments and the credit analysis and verification that staff did receive these comments. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Olson. If you would send that, that would be appreciated. MS. OLSON: Certainly. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Next speaker. MR. WILLIG: Yes. Your next registered speaker. I'm not sure if she's in person or online. Gaylene Vasaturo. She'll be followed by Tom Jones. MS. VASATURO: I'm online. Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. MS. VASATURO: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Gaylene Vasaturo, a resident of Collier County and a member of League of Women Voters. My comments today focus on protection of our water and wildlife. First, continue to protect the Water Retention Areas. Amendment 4.9 removes all existing protections for Water Retention Areas. Currently, Policy 4.9 requires development to be directed away from Water Retention Areas. Amended Policy 4.9 removes this protection, allowing development on WRAs; that's water retention area. These areas protect water quality and quantity. They are shallow wetlands important for recharging our aquifers and supporting listed species. About -- almost 75 percent of the WRAs have a high natural resource value. Please continue to require development to be directed away from these Water Retention Areas. Second, continue to protect the area of critical state concern. Amendment 4.7.2 increases the size of a village allowed within this area to 1,000 acres. This is contrary to the current RLSA program that limits development in this area of critical state concern to protect November 10, 2020 Page 60 the critically important surface water and wetland system there. County staff explains that this revision just retains what the program currently allows. This is incorrect. There is no current provision allowing a thousand-acre village in the area of critical state concern. Currently, Policy 4.21 only allows, quote, two villages of not more than 500 acres each to be built along State Road 29 on land that's been cleared by Ag 1 or mining prior to June 30th, 2002. Allowing a thousand-acre village in this area is contrary to the purpose of Policy 4.21 to limit development here to protect the natural resources and rural character of the area. Third, revise the RLSA to protect habitat connectivity. One of the RLSA's stated goals is, quote, to protect and restore habitat connectivity, yet the current RLSA program fails to do this. Even if a flow-way, a habitat Stewardship Area, or a Water Retention Area is protected by a Stewardship Sending Area, there is nothing in the RLSA program to prevent fragmentation of these natural resource areas by development. Fragmentation negatively impacts the value of these areas for listed species as well as impacting regional water flow. Species cannot survive when isolated from adjoining habitat. You can amend the RLSA program to protect habitat connectivity by, among other things, requiring SRAs to show that they will not adversely impact habitat connectivity in flow-ways, Habitat Stewardship Areas, and WRAs. And, finally, just -- whatever I have left, I want to just respond to the discussion on restoration credits. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, if you could wrap up, because your time is up. Wrap up real quickly if you could. MS. VASATURO: Just 30 seconds. The amendments will create more than 404,000 credits. Even the staff and WilsonMiller's November 10, 2020 Page 61 credit analysis show this. With excess credits, several things can happen: Landowners with excess credit will claim to development. The credit cap could be reached before panther corridors are established or restoration work is done. Either way, there will be pressure to open up a cap, which then results in more devel opment. Mr. Van Lengen recognized this, and that's why he recommended a third party to determine the restoration work that was needed so that restoration credits could be reasonably estimated and structured to avoid excess credits. This work has not been done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We do need you to wrap up. Thank you very much. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is Tom Jones. He will be followed by Lynn Martin. MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is Tom Jones, and I'm with the Barron Collier Companies. And Barron Collier has been involved in the development of the Rural Lands Stewardship program since the very beginning in 1999. We are also the only landowner to date that's proceeded with development under the RLSA -- RLSA program, and that's the Town of Ave Maria. I think it's important to recognize that to entitle Ave Maria, we set aside over 17,000 acres of land. Most of those properties were in the Camp Keais Strand, which provide connectivity to Corkscrew Swamp Marsh in the National Panther refuge. We also put credits together in the Okaloacoochee Slough, which is a major connective throughway between the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Okaloacoochee State Forest. In addition to the 17,000 acres, it's also good to note that these SSA areas, the sending areas themselves, areas that could be designated for sending and developing credits, was established under the 2002 program. And in those areas that were established and November 10, 2020 Page 62 agreed upon by everybody that these need to be Stewardship Sending Areas, they included working landscapes that include farms, they include ranches, and other agricultural activities that take place in these. And to take a step further back, they were identified as important sending areas because of the multitude of listed species that were present on those properties. So to cast aspersions or doubts that these sending areas shouldn't include working landscapes, they were designated in 2002 simply because they were such -- of high important value not only to agriculture but to environmental creatures as well. And I think it's -- I think county staff did a very good job. No taxpayer monies have been spent on Ave Maria. If they have, we certainly haven't seen them in our receipts. Taxpayers do not pay for growth in Eastern Collier County. And back on one other item, in addition to the 17,000 acres, we've completed work on over 2,000 acres of restoration. All of that restoration work was completed within the Camp Keais Strand. It included converting farms to habitat areas. It included removing farm dikes. It included putting in new culverts to enhance water flow to the south. So today what's before you -- what's before you is an important decision. And if you support agricultural preservation to the tune of potentially 40,000 acres, which is it's over 62 square miles -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think your time is up, but I think Commissioner Solis may have a question. MR. JONES: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I just -- one, I wanted to thank Barron Collier Companies for -- specifically for working on this affordable housing issue. I know that was a very difficult negotiation. November 10, 2020 Page 63 But just to give some context, 17,000 acres, a section of land is -- and I know -- I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but a section of land has how many acres in it? MR. JONES: Six hundred forty. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Six hundred forty. And that's essentially a square mile. MR. JONES: Yes. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think Pelican Bay is 2,000 acres, so that will give you some sort of a -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. So at 640 acres, which is a section of land that's 26, almost 27 by my math, sections of land, 20 -- almost 27 square miles. MR. JONES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just trying to give, you know, people listening some context to how much land we're actually talking about. It's almost 27 square miles of -- MR. JONES: These are massive areas of lands that we're talking about. And I don't know if people appreciate the sc ale that we're at. Commissioner Saunders makes a good point. Pelican Bay is 2,000 acres. We've completed over 2,000 acres of restoration work in Camp Keais Strand to date. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go on to the next speaker. MR. WILLIG: Yes, Commissioner. Your next registered speaker is Lynn Martin. She'll be followed by Mitch Hutchcraft. MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a chart that one of my colleagues is going to put up on the overhead. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. She is doing that now. MS. MARTIN: Yes. Do you see it? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yes. MS. MARTIN: Great. Thank you. November 10, 2020 Page 64 Good afternoon. I'm a member of the League of Women Voters, and I recommend that you include an amendment which requires the aggregation of contiguous villages into a town. This was an important recommendation of the 2019 white paper, a request by certain commissioners at the Rivergrass hearing, and was included in the March 2020 draft amendments. That amendment said, for purposes of coordinating infrastructure and providing for economic diversification within Eastern Collier County, two or more villages under common or related ownership that are physically proximate and share infrastructure shall be aggregated. When aggregated, the c ounty shall review the application by the SRA standards applicable to the total size of the aggregated development. However, in the August 2010 draft, the aggregation requirement was eliminated. Why? Because it cost the developers more to provide the public requirements for a town. Look at the chart on the visualizer. It shows an example of the gap between the space dedicated to public services in a town compared to the Villages of Rivergrass and proposed Longwater and Bellmar combined. All three villages are proximate and under common ownership, yet developer will be providing significantly less space for commercial, government, civic, and institutional service and less park and recreation space as shown. The proposed increase in space for goods and services creates an even larger gap, as shown. Unless the developer is required to set aside space for infrastructure such as fire, police, EMS, schools, libraries, and utilities within a town, Collier County will be required to provide the infrastructure elsewhere at great expense, and the economies coordinated of infrastructure will be unavailable. Alternatively, residents will have to travel long distances to fulfill basic needs. In each case the burden will be placed on county taxpayers to November 10, 2020 Page 65 foot the bill, a bill that rightly belongs to the developer. Fiscal neutrality, a requirement of the RLSA, will be difficult to achieve without aggregation. Aggregation must be required to protect the taxpayers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is Mitch Hutchcraft. He'll be followed by Nancy Zolidis. MR. HUTCHCRAFT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mitch Hutchcraft. I'm with King Ranch. We are one of the landowners in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area. First, I'd like to say I appreciate the hard work of staff and the Planning Commission which results in the amendments that are being presented to you today. It's important you know that us, as a landowner, we support these amendments as we have since 2009 for a number of reasons. The first one is, they build upon the Rural Lands Stewardship program adopted in 2002 that provides for a long-term voluntary approach to landscape scale planning which is necessary for the landowners and for successful conservation planning. Also, that in its initial adoption, there was included a sprawl study that was found by the Department of Community Affairs at the time county staff and the Board of County Commission ers to be consistent with Florida Statutes. Also, these amendments are science based, and they provide for robust panther corridors, permanent retention of agricultural lands, which actually reduces the amount of development footprint. As you all have mentioned, they do rebalance the credits and confirm acreage caps, which provides assurances to all parties about the amount of land that can ultimately be developed. These amendments augment the most successful land protection November 10, 2020 Page 66 and enhancement program that I'm certainly aware of, and it does it at no cost to the public and does it without violating any private property rights. They also facilitate the equitable treatment of all landowners within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, which is critical to organizations like King Ranch. Secondly, I'm proud of the work that we've done. We have developed meaningful partnerships and created real and lasting legacies with real environmental organizations as well as state and federal agencies. This has resulted in significant environmental progress both inside and outside the Rural Lands Stewardship context, including wildlife panther protection, wildlife underpasses, protecting natural systems, regional connectivity, and restoring native lands. And we've done it by aligning private property rights and resources with beneficial environmental outcomes. And short of this alignment, the alternative is a public purchase and maintenance program placed wholly at the feet of the Collier County taxpayers, and our approach has proven far more successful. All of those benefits are only going to be enhanced by the recommendations that are before you today coming out of the Five-Year Review Committee, which includes credits for agricultural protection, creation of panther corridors, and a recalculation of credit caps, which brings us to today. As you know, in 2019 the Board directed staff to prepare these amendments reflective of the Five-Year Review Committee, and the package before you today is consistent with the Board's direction. It is supported with relevant and appropriate data and analysis which has been reviewed and affirmed by the staff and the Planning Commission. It's consistent with Florida Statutes 163.3177. It's supported by the landowners and reflective of a very long collaborative process. November 10, 2020 Page 67 And with that, I certainly encourage you to vote to support transmittal of these amendments. Thank you. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is Nancy Zolidis. She will be followed by Meredith Budd. MS. ZOLIDIS: Good morning. Commissioner Saunders, thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Nancy Zolidis. I am a required hydrogeologist recently moved to Naples. After earning a master's and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, I worked for over 20 years primarily in the private sector as a consultant on a variety of water-related issues. I am in support of the requirement that a Flow-way Management Plan be developed as part of the approval process for Stewardship Receiving Area. Although described by staff in the restudy white paper, the flow-way water management plan requirement was not included in the final recommended amendments brought to the Planning Commission and recently approved. The reasons that the plan should be required are as follows: First, one of the goals of the Flow-way Management Plan would ensure that the flow-ways operate efficiently and effectively maintaining flows and, when necessary, attenuating discharge and stabilizing water flows to reduce downstream impacts. To carry out this objective, the staff report outlines several maintenance activities. Second, the Flow-way Management Plan is one tool in the county's toolbox to protect water quality in flow-ways systems, including adjacent and dependent wetlands and downstream drainage areas. This is accomplished, in part, by conducting predevelopment baseline studies, analyzing results, and then continuing testing to track changes over time. This concern is highlighted in a recent 2019 national study of urban stormwater conducted by scientists at the USGS and EPA indicating that little is known about potential November 10, 2020 Page 68 chemical exposures from organic and inorganic contaminants in urban stormwater runoff or the potential effects on groundwater, surface water quality, or the ecosystem health. Third, it is imperative that the county be able to estimate and analyze potential cumulative impacts of multiple flow-ways as future developments that alter hydrology and water quality come online. Fourth, the requirement will enable the county to coordinate management activities and recordkeeping providing consistency in how plans are developed and reviewed. In conclusion, the consensus of the community is clear: Protect our natural resources and our flow-ways. The goal is to maintain the health, the structure, and functions of the flow-way as land conversion occurs. Assessment of the changes in conditions enhances our understanding of development impacts and leads to improved management methods that protects our water resources. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is Meredith Budd. She will be followed by John Harney. MS. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. Meredith Budd with Florida Wildlife Federation. The RLSA was created to help meet both conservation and landowner needs while limiting the potential for one to compromise the other, and the program has been mostly successful over the years and has protected over 55,000 acres at no cost to the taxpayer. These lands are preserved from development and maintained forever at the expense of the landowner, and some have restoration potential as well, another cost that will be borne by the landowner that would otherwise be unfunded. Based on the average cost per acre to outright purchase land here in Collier, if we wanted to preserve all the acres in the RLSA November 10, 2020 Page 69 that would be eligible for preservation, it would cost over a billion dollars. The five-year review, however, did expose faults that prevent the program from fully realizing the intent of the final order. Those recommendations, along with additional recommendations from the restudy, improve the program and include incentives to protect ranches from conversion to sprawl, incentives to create panther corridors, incentives to restore seasonal shallow wetlands, capping, development acres development credits, recalibrating those credits, and creating management plans for species. We have gone far too long operating under a program that everyone agrees can be improved, especially for the endangered Florida panther. During the fiver-year review, panther scientists concluded that the five-year review recommendations would significantly benefit the panther, and this doesn't even include the added benefits of the white paper recommendations, of which some are included in the recommendations before you today. Florida will continue growing by 300,000 people per year. With current population projection under the current zoning, extensive development will occur in eastern Collier with or without the recommended amendment. The RLSA, inclusive of the proposed amendments, isn't bringing increased population to Collier County, as has been purported by some people. It's planning for them. And not moving forward with the proposed amendments does not mean that nothing happens; rather, it means we will be at risk of landowners deciding not to opt into the program and simply use the underlying sprawl zoning, and it also means that landowners that do opt in are operating under a program that, while successful, is also in need of improvements. Development applications are moving forward in the eastern November 10, 2020 Page 70 lands, and so the county must not continue to delay in moving forward with these improvements. There are specific language needs that will be required in the LDC to ensure effective implementation of the recommended policies and clarity on Policy 4.9 that has already been flagged to staff and drafted to be modified before adoption. I am in discussions with both landowners and staff and plan to continue those discussions and communications in order to make sure the LDC language is effective and implementable. But Step 1 is getting these policies transmitted today, and I urge you to do so. Thank you so much for your time, and thank again staff for presenting their presentation today. Thank you so much. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is John Harney. He will be followed by Liesa Priddy. MR. HARNEY: I'm John Harney from Habitat from Humanity, and I wish to speak to just one small part of this, which is the set-aside for affordable housing. We at Habitat are very happy to see this. This percentage that is created will be used for apartments, which we don't build, condos, and single-family homes. We may not build within this area, but we very much are in favor of the idea of requiring a set-aside, a percentage, 2 and-a-half percent or a greater percentage, of all new developments in Collier County. This would be the first place where you would see it in a very comprehensive way in an area, but we think that it's very important for the county to do this. We feel that this will create an ability to catch up. There's a lot of catch-up to do in Collier County. We're very far behind on the amount of affordable housing that we have available. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. HARNEY: Thank you. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is November 10, 2020 Page 71 Liesa Priddy. She will be followed by Alan Reynolds. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Liesa. MR. WILLIG: Liesa, sorry. MS. PRIDDY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Liesa Priddy, and my family operates J.B. Ranch, a beef cattle operation, in the eastern portion of the county and have done so since the 1940s. We are part of the Eastern Collier Property Owners group that has an intense interest in the future of eastern Collier both financ ially and as stewards of the land. We've been involved with the RLSA program since the beginning. I just returned from a week in Franklin, Tennessee, about 20 miles south of Nashville. Using recent census numbers, Franklin is the 15th fastest growing city in the U.S. based on percent of change. As I drove around, I noticed relatively small areas which last year were probably a farm, because all the land around it was being used for agriculture. It looked to me like a developer had been able to buy the property and throw up some spec homes with buildout at as few as maybe 15 homes. It made me wonder about the Growth Management Plan for the city or what it might be. If what I saw was Indication, they're going to have a hodgepodge on their hands in the not too distant future. Luckily Collier County had the foresight to develop and implement the Rural Land Stewardship program 16 years ago to address a type of urban sprawl and loss of agricultural lands Franklin seems to be experiencing. Reality is that growth will continue, but it is the responsibility of all of us that it be done responsibly. Right now on our property we can build one house per fire acres, just as Golden Gate has, and none of us want to replicate that. So for us, and we believe the citizens of Collier County, the best alternative is the RLSA program and the enhancements that the November 10, 2020 Page 72 five-year review implementation would bring. I would like to address the comments made by several speakers about the volume of comments made to the Planning Commission and county staff. I don't need to remind you that what's important is the quality of comments, not the quantity and suggest that comments not addressed by staff are, perhaps, without merit. Ten years after the first five-year review was not implemented, here we are finally moving through the approval process that should have been done many years ago. I appeal to you to support your professional staff's recommendations and the direction from the Collier County Planning Commission to transmit these GMP amendments for the RLSA overlay. Thank you. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your next registered speaker is Alan Reynolds. He will be followed by Neale Montgomery. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. My name is Al Reynolds. I work for Stantec. I'm a planner. I've been planning in Collier County for 42 years, and I've had the privilege of working with the Eastern Collier Property Owners for 21 years of that time, going back to 1999. Most of the things I was going to say have been already spoken to. I'm just going to tell you that in my experience -- and I now work all over the United States -- the program that we have here in Collier County is an unprecedented program for incentive-driven conservation and driving quality growth. There's really nothing like the program that we have anyplace else that I've seen, and it's been shown to be one of the most successful programs. And what we're talking about today is taking a program that has already protected 50,000 acres, is going to protect 90,000 acres, and it's going to add another 42,000 acres of protection to that program. So what we're looking at here is a tremendous step forward in November 10, 2020 Page 73 actually increasing the benefits of a program that is already doing great things for Collier County. And when you talk about the development side of the equation, think about what we have. What we don't have is we don't have a single acre in Eastern Collier County of sprawl development over the last 20 years since this program was put in place. What we have is we have a new community of Ave Maria that is self-sufficient, that is generating high-wage jobs; that has been really extraordinarily successful, and that is the model and the type of growth that your Land Development Code and this program will drive. The Eastern Collier Property Owners made a commitment in 2009 in this room to adhere to the recommendations, and those were compromises. I mean, there are a lot of things that were worked through in the five-year process, and at the end of the day, Commissioner Fred Coyle brokered an agreement amongst all the parties that says we're going to agree to a credit cap, an acreage cap, we're going to put these new incentives in place, and here we are honoring that commitment that we made 11 years ago now. I would just simply urge you to move these amendments forward to the DEO. This is not the last time you're going to hear it, because after it goes up to the state, it comes back for a final adoption. But I would just really encourage that -- love to see a unanimous vote of support for a program that is really doing great things for Collier County and is only going to do better things with the changes that the staff has proposed, and they have done an extraordinary job in guiding this process over the last three years. So thank you very much for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you, sir. MR. WILLIG: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is Neale Montgomery. November 10, 2020 Page 74 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We saved the last for -- best for the last. MS. MONTGOMERY: Golly, I hope so. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Welcome to Naples. MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you for having me. Neale Montgomery, for the record, representing ECPO. I want to echo what Al said and thank the staff for all of their efforts. One of the issues that the staff addressed in depth before the Planning Commission was the fiscal neutrality for the two land-use attorneys. I know you remember the FIAM modeling that was done with DRIs. The staff has actually improved upon that and has their fiscal analysis so they can establish that fiscal neutrality. There's also been concerns expressed today about the continuing agricultural uses and rural activities, so I was glad Commissioner McDaniel read that proclamation. If you look at 163.3248, it requires you to encourage the protection of agricultural uses, and it goes on to say, and traditional rural land uses. So for those who object to that, there's not a basis under the statute because you're required to protect those and encourage those. There's also been some concern about aggregation. Again, particularly for the two land-use attorneys, you remember that that language comes from 9J2. And the purpose of aggregation wasn't to make a bigger project. The purpose of aggregation was to make sure a project didn't slip out and not go through the DRI process. In this case, under the statute, anyone who want s to increase their density or intensity has to go through this process. So the purpose of the aggregation rule is already being fulfilled by your regulations. There's also been concern expressed about, you know, well, the landowners, you know, want to make money. Under the statute, you're required to maintain the economic value of the property and, November 10, 2020 Page 75 in fact, increase it. And there's also provisions about the fact that you're supposed to provide economic and regulatory incentives to the landowners. You heard Mr. Jones talk about how much land was set aside. I know, Commissioner Solis, you worked on Estero by the River, so you know how much Estero paid for that land, and several of you are familiar with the Edison Farm purchase by Lee County. You ha ve phenomenal more lands set aside without having to pay that particular cost, and you don't have to provide the costs for maintaining it, because oftentimes that cost of maintenance is a significant ongoing factor that you don't have to address. There was a reference today -- I think it was Susan -- to the final order. Again, the RLSA statute provides that the legislator specifically found that Collier County's program is consistent with the statute, and they also found that it's consistent with Chapter 163. So when you hear those concerns about urban sprawl and smart growth, the legislature has already said that your program is consistent with 136 and addresses those issues. So I thank you for your time and ask you to transmit the amendments. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. I think that concludes the public comment? MR. WILLIG: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we'll close the hearing -- or close the public hearing comments section of this, and now we're ready for a discussion and eventually a motion. The issue today is the question of transmittal. I believe that requires a three-vote majority. So I'll open it up. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you want to -- do you want to do discussion first, or do you want to hear the motion and then November 10, 2020 Page 76 we'll go to discussion? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're -- either way you want to do it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to make a motion to approve the transmittal. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and second. Now we have an opportunity to discuss that motion. So let's do that. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I'd like to ask staff about the -- what I heard the League of Women Voters saying regarding the Flow-way Management Plan and that it's been eliminated from this go-round. MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. The Flow-way Management Plan, you'll remember when we came to get direction from the Board to prepare the recommendations, there was a number of issues regarding water management and flow-ways, and the approach to dealing with that was to form a partnership between Collier County, the stewardship districts, Big Cypress and Ave Maria, and the Water Management District to address the regional water management issues in that manner, and that's what was directed by the Board at that time. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So you're still addressing it. You're not turning -- MS. JENKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And t hen -- that was -- that was the -- the -- what is the rationale for increasing the size of towns? MS. JENKINS: So we removed the hamlet from the SRA opportunities. So by removing the hamlet and still creating for November 10, 2020 Page 77 development in a manner of towns and villages, we re-dispersed that development opportunity, removing the hamlet and then putting it back to the town and village where you would have closer proximity of those residents to goods and services that would be provided in a town or a village. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't understand that at all, because if I'm looking at it from the other side -- it does seem that the footprint of the towns or villages, but it's a minimum footprint, correct; that if you pass this threshold, it's a town, correct? MS. JENKINS: Yeah. There are guidelines and a range of acreages that you would be either a town or a village. The cap is still the same of 45,000 acres, so whether it's 45,000 acres consumed by a few towns and a few villages or CRDs, there's opportunity for flexibility for all landowners that own a variety of different sizes of properties out there to go forward. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it also triggers the increased costs of building a town over a village. So if you expand the footprint of a village, then, you know, you can kind of push on what before, if this passes, would have been a town. So what you're doing by doing that, that's the other side of this. You know, that's the -- that's the flip side of this is your raising the bar for developer contribution, allowing a village to be much larger than it was before, where before it would have been considered a town. So you're putting that off. Because it does seem to be, except for one, which is Ave Maria, and my colleague to my left is very upset, and he's -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no. My pen's loose. I'm not upset at all. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So Ave Maria, you know, it's a great example of the way it should be done, but we know that that's not the way it's coming in. And so my question is, why not just, you're done with hamlets, keep the sizes the way they are? November 10, 2020 Page 78 MS. JENKINS: Well, again, it's to provide the opportunity to have closer proximity to goods and services that were increased in both the towns and the villages. And I think what one of the things that Ave Maria has demonstrated over the years that it has been in place, there's amendments that are going to come forward. These towns and villages are going to grow and change to accommodate economic diversification when we have those opportunities. So you can see that even Ave Maria as a town did not anticipate Arthrex moving out there at the time that it was originally planned so, therefore, they had to amend it. They were able to fit it within the acreage that they have, but there might be an opport unity in a future for a smaller village to grow into a town by adding those additional uses as it becomes available. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. For now, that's all I have. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was only going to add that, you know, these amendments, the five-year revisions and then the additional ones -- this is a great program. It's voluntary. It preserves land not at taxpayers' expense. Is it perfect, maybe not, but it -- you know, we need to move the chains, right? It's time to move the chains and move this forward. And as you were saying, as things change, other revisions may be required, and we'll certainly, you know, be open to that process. But we need to -- we need to adopt these changes. I would hope that we would do this unanimously. This is, as the Chairman said at the beginning, probably the biggest decision -- one of the biggest decisions we'll make as commissioners. So -- and thank you to staff for all the hard work and years of dedicated service on working on this, because it is -- it's amazing. I mean, this is such a long process that -- but we're finally here, and so November 10, 2020 Page 79 let's -- we're not at the goal line, but we need to move the chain. So I'll -- if it hadn't been seconded -- or maybe Commissioner Fiala seconded it -- I'll third it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. I have spent a lot of time talking with the folks from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I've been hopeful that all of the environmental groups would come on board, but that hasn't happened. And so I wanted to try to accommodate the concerns of the Conservancy as best as possible, and that's why I asked those several questions at the beginning. And I think a lot of the ir concerns have been addressed. The one that, perhaps, hasn't been is the independent credit analysis. I realize that there's been an analysis, but they're looking for some independent analysis. I'm not convinced that based on what I've heard today that that is -- that we need any further review at this point prior to the transmittal. So I'm going to support the motion. Now, when it comes back, it takes four votes to ultimately approve this. And so there may be issues that develop, and we'll have an opportunity to massage this a little bit when this comes back, if necessary. But I think for purposes of today, I'm convinced that the right thing to do is to move this forward. And, again, I agree with Commissioner Solis. I want to thank our staff. This has been a very difficult, long process. The Planning Commission, I think the vote was 4-1 to authorize transmittal, and so that certainly is significant. Commissioner Solis, I see your light is lit up. And, Commissioner McDaniel, you -- Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Solis can go first. I had a couple of questions for staff. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis. November 10, 2020 Page 80 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm sorry. I just -- I'd be remiss not to thank the landowners that have spent years in this process to come up with a program that affects their land for the benefit of the county. Again, is it perfect? Maybe not, but it is a huge step forward. So a lot of thanks, I think, goes to the property owners a s well for working for so many years with our staff. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And I've seen two drafts, and I don't know if you folks have, of the conversion of Rivergrass and those other two Rural Villages into a town. Is that moving through the process yet? MS. JENKINS: I can address that. There are two villages moving through the process, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know there are two villages, but I've seen -- I got an email not too awfully long ago that talked about converting those independent villages into, ultimately, a town. MS. JENKINS: Well, the process would allow that, yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Thaddeus. MR. COHEN: I think she answered that very well. The process does allow that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. COHEN: We're having conversations as to what the possibilities can be, and as we have two villages that are coming through the process currently, they're not scheduled yet, we think people of good will can continue to have conversations as to what the ultimate results may be. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a second. I'm sorry. Do you have something else? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. And I just wanted -- I wanted to suggest that, just as a point of discussion, this process isn't November 10, 2020 Page 81 over. We've been involved with this since 2002 when the RLSA was adopted; '09 when the five-year review was done; '20 when we're moving forward with those five-year reviews. We're never going to stop reviewing these programs. So I just wanted to share that out loud. There seems to be concern that this is the end. It's not the end. It's just part of the process. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a second. Since I don't see anybody's light lit up, we'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Passes 4-1. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just closing remarks, you know, I wish it could have been unanimous, but getting rid of the aggregation rule is a huge, huge problem, and I feel that good will is usually secondary to bank accounts and, therefore, I have to vote against this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's see how much of the agenda we can get through until 12:00, then we'll take a break for lunch. We're on agenda Item No. 9B. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This item was continued from your October 27th board meeting. It does require ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and participants need to be sworn in. This is a recommendation to approve an amendment to the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1,600 to 1,950. And I'll leave it at that. November 10, 2020 Page 82 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll do the ex parte and swearing in of the witnesses. Did we complete the public hearing on this earlier on? MR. KLATZKOW: I believe you did. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we're really kind of rehearing something that's already been presented. I don't know if we need to do any additional ex parte. We've already done that. MR. KLATZKOW: You've done ex parte. And I don't know that there's going to be any witnesses. You last left it at board discussion. I believe Commissioner McDaniel asked -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The witnesses that we swore in before are still under oath from the prior swearing in, so let's move forward with the discussion. Mr. Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's still good morning, for the record. Where we left off, I believe, the president of -- the new president of the HOA had raised some comments during the public comment. We were asked to continue this item, meet with the president of the HOA, and then come back. We did meet with the president of the homeowner’s association, Valerie. She had -- she and the residents on the south side of Oil Well Road had asked for some modifications to the proposal. The modifications that they requested is if we elected to go with a townhome project on the south side of the road -- we basically have two projects on the south side. We would have a townhome project, and then we would have what they already have is single-family product as well as duplex product, which is considered single-family product. So they had asked us to separate the two if we did go forward with that type of a concept. We made modifications to the PUD document to provide -- to address those issues. November 10, 2020 Page 83 I want to go back to the master plan. I'm sorry about the little bit of a disjointedness but, of course -- where is it, Bob? MR. MULHERE: I think it's down below. You're going the wrong way. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not there. Anyway, what we created was a Tract A and a Tract B on the south side of the road. Tract A is the only area that we'd be allowed to have townhome product. Tract B -- Tract B is -- Tract B is where the current single-family homes are. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The bottom line is that you met with the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We did, and we made the changes that they requested. If we do townhome product, they would be separate projects with an emergency interconnect in case one of the gates at Oil Well Road were blocked; we'd open up the emergency access for both projects. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Now, was that the only issue that was outstanding? MR. YOVANOVICH: That was the primary -- yes, and then we also agreed to separate the amenities if they were two different types of products. And Mr. McDaniel -- or Commissioner McDaniel was on that call, so we all coordinated as he had requested. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I thought I was No. 2. I just wanted to say, Commissioner Solis, when we continued this the last time, I did that on the premise of that new homeowner ’s association, and the president was there. We made amazing adjustments to this density increase. We were able to segregate the existing homeowners from the condominiums of the villas, I think they call them. We were able to create a new access point, an entry point. We were able to wall off November 10, 2020 Page 84 the residential -- the single-family residential from the condominiums. We almost doubled the size of the amenity package for the existing single-family homes, created a separate amenity package with additional parking for the villas as well, and there's going to be, in a minute, a discussion about signalization of that new -- of the new road and entryway in. I just -- and I wanted you -- you asked me about that a month or so ago when we continued it. And I appreciate your indulgence for allowing that, because we had very effective meetings with the homeowners association, as is usually the case. Not everybody is totally happy. There are a few people that would like to see nobody else coming. But the majority of what was done here was very, very productive and good for the existing homeowners, so... CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you so much. In here they were talking about -- I got the affordable housing mixed with the last one and this one, because they were both talking about it. And in this one they say, it does not propose affordable housing or workforce housing. They are proposing lower cost options. Could you tell me what that really means? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll recall, last time we spoke, the price points of the products here would be in the -- like 220- to mid 300s price points for what was anticipated. So it doesn't quite qualify as affordable housing, but it -- I'll use the word "moderately" priced housing. It probably fits the gap category we've been talking about for many, many years. So the price points allow for working-class people to purchase homes here, be near schools that are already there, be near the Publix and other amenities that are already there, and close to work. So that's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: They are higher priced -- it isn't affordable housing. November 10, 2020 Page 85 MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not affordable housing, but it's also not -- I don't know the right word, but it's moderately priced housing for working-class people. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But yet the last speaker was talking about the need for affordable housing. It's not talking about low income. It's just talking about affordable housing. And I wanted to mention that here. I don't think we're hitting the mark right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, honestly, I think we are with those price points, but that's because that's the price point for people who are making right around 100 percent of the median income, and that's the gap we don't have. And so I think we are meeting that important gap. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, you had a comment? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I just briefly spoke with Mr. Mulhere and Anita. There's going to be a minor change to the PUD ordinance. Staff has not reviewed that. I think the easiest thing we do, just table this, and then after lunch, after staff has had a chance to review everything, we could vote on it. But at this point in time, staff has not seen the amended ordinance. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We'll defer action on this until we get back from a break. Let's go ahead -- and I know Item 10A -- I think we can do a couple items before we break for lunch. Item 10A is at Commissioner McDaniel's request. Item #10A WAIVING A REQUIREMENT IN THE COLLIER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS LEASE, WHICH BARS AMPLIFIED SOUND November 10, 2020 Page 86 OR MUSIC AFTER 7:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS THROUGH THURSDAYS, TO ALLOW FOR A CONCERT TO BE HELD ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2020 TO END AT 9:00 P.M. – MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE-TIME EXTENSION OF END TIME FOR THIS EVENT – FAILED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This is to waive the requirements or -- dealing with a special event. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I was approached by the fair board, the Collier County Fair. They're suffering terribly. As you know, we didn't have the fair this year because of the outbreak of COVID, and they have a special event that they would like to host, and it's a concert event. And the contracted artist won't sign the agreement without an agreement to go until 9:00. They can't -- apparently there was a revision to their lease that disallows them to have noise activities after 7:00 on Sundays, and they've asked for a special relief on this so that they can have this concert and go two extra hours. So I'd like to make a motion to -- a one-time exception for them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm going to make a comment, because I want to make sure we're not doing something that is inconsistent with the CDC guidelines and things of that nature. I realize this is an outdoor event but, as I mentioned earlier today, across the country we have over 100,000 new cases of COVID a day now, and we're starting to experience an uptick in Florida, and that's expected to increase as the weather changes and as more people come down here. So I'm a little reluctant to get involved in approving or authorizing large outdoor events. I'll turn to our staff and just ask them if I'm being overly November 10, 2020 Page 87 cautious, or is this something to be concerned about? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, sir, just for -- this conversation came up as these permits came forward, a lot of them. They're all included stipulations that they do all the CDC guidelines, they notice, extra cleaning, all the protocols are followed in all outdoor events. That's part of the issuance of the permit. We're following those guidelines and including them as conditions of the permit. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But who's going to be monitoring that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Staff monitors them at our facilities. I don't know that -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: At our facility. MR. CASALANGUIDA: At our facilities. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did anybody watch the second overtime end of the Clemson -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I did. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- Notre Dame game? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, I'm going to -- I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but I think I'm not going to vote to support this just because of that -- of that concern. Any other comments? Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just -- can we get some background on why this requirement is in there? I mean, there was a revision to the lease that requires the music not to go past 7:00, and I'm just wondering what -- because that was originally not in the lease, right? It was a revision? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to address it, or do you want me to? It was an amendment to the lease, and it had to do with the November 10, 2020 Page 88 residential development, Waterways and subdivisions and people in the -- to the north with Golden Gate Estates that were being impacted by extended hours of operation other than the fair. As you know, for two-and-a-half weeks during the fair, they go sunrise to -- they don't ever quit, hardly. So this provision was -- if I'm -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Klatzkow, but that's -- that was my recollection on why that amendment was put in there. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you are correct, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So -- and this currently -- it was to -- this is a -- this is a one-time thing. And we're not approving or disapproving the event. We're -- I mean, they still can have an event. They've just asked -- they have to stop at 7:00 under the current terms of their lease, and they've asked for an additional two hours. They have a musician that wants to come and won't sign the contract without that two-hour extension, so... CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have a motion? I think you made the motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did make the motion. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second. Any further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. November 10, 2020 Page 89 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's break until 1:00 for lunch. (A luncheon recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting of the County Commission will please come back to order. We were going to go back to your item, Rich. It's Item No. 9B. Item #9B ORDINANCE 2020-46: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04-74, THE ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,600 TO 1,950; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF OIL WELL ROAD (C.R. 858) APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTIONS 13, 14 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, AND SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 616+/- ACRES – ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I don't know where Commissioner Solis -- there he is. Thank you for tabling us. We did have an opportunity to go over the revised revisions to the PUD, and I believe Anita Jenkins can confirm. I'm just going to put up real quick on the visualizer what was added since the last hearing. There was actually a typo. We had previously agreed that we would have two access points both on the north and the south. So what got transmitted only had one on the north, but we are November 10, 2020 Page 90 committing to two on the south -- I mean on the north and two on the south. The two -- one of them on the north will be up by where the future county park is going to be, and that's going to be a primary access till the county builds its permanent access point, and then we'll come in and have a more permanent connection. We had -- as I had mentioned, we had agreed to limit where the townhome product could go, and I previously put the master plan on. And Condition H relates to that condition where we would have a separate -- they would be two separate projects, and we would have a wall with -- MR. OCHS: Speak closely into that thing, if you don't mind. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it this way. I'm not very good at performing. We would have two separate access points, and Tract A and Tract B would be separated by an enhanced Type B buffer, which is a wall and landscaping, but there would be emergency interconnection between the two if either entrance was blocked off. And we had -- that's the -- I is the wall. H is the two separate development tracts if we do a townhome project on the south side of Oil Well Road. And we had also committed to a separate amenity package for Tract A and Tract B on the south side of the road if we ended up doing a townhome product on the south side of the road. Real quickly, this is the revised master plan where I had explained the Tract A and Tract B concept that we're now implementing on the south side of the road. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can you turn that -- if you don't mind. MR. YOVANOVICH: I had it that way before. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you go, because north is up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, north is up. So those are the changes that we made after discussions with the HOA president. November 10, 2020 Page 91 She took it to her membership, and they are supporting the PUD as being revised and being presented to you today. Correct, Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: From what I understand, yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. So with that, we're hopeful that you can recommend approval -- or adopt this as presented. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a quick question. Is anybody here from Orangetree? MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not here, because I think they're happy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what I was going to say -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, one person. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: There's one gentleman. Would you want to come up? Are you supportive or -- MR. McARTHUR: No. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you're going to say anything, you need to come up to the microphone. MR. McARTHUR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just asking, because we hadn't heard, and so it looked to me that everybody accepted. MR. McARTHUR: Hi. Jim McArthur. I live at the Ranch at Orange Blossom on the north side. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: North side. MR. McARTHUR: And the last time -- well, this has been pushed off and pushed off and pushed off. But we never get notifications on this. We used to get them by mail. Occasionally, they show up in the paper. But I do have some comments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. I can't understand November 10, 2020 Page 92 you. Excuse me. MR. McARTHUR: Hi. Jim McArthur. I live in the Ranch at Orange Blossom on the north side. I wasn't aware of some of the changes here, but your previous chairman had turned us down because of these issues that weren't addressed, and I came to speak on some of those. But, really, it's a matter of trust, and a lot of the residents don't trust Ronto, and you probably shouldn't either, and I'll tell you why. I've been there since 2010. And we've seen this develop. And I have no problem with Ronto, and I understand why they -- they're in business to build homes, and -- but they have no vested interest in the property other than building homes. When we first moved in there, it was supposed to be a gated community, and they have -- or they had just the railroad type poles that came down that they had left open. For years we tried to get them to close them, and their excuse was we need them open for the construction trucks, even though there is a construction road that's a half a mile west on Oil Well that nobody ever used because it's inconvenient. You had to pull up at the entrance and then go back half a mile and go in that way. W ell, none of the trucks ever did that. So when they started the new development for the new 1,600 homes that they're building, they built a small clubhouse, and they built another pool. And we had a number of issues that were ongoing that continued to worsen as the people from other communities came, because the gates were open. They came to use the facilities, messed up the place, and the number of issues continued until it got to the point where firearms were drawn, the police came in, and it hit the evening news. It took that incident for them to finally put actual gates up and keep them closed. The new pool is nice. It's not big enough for the residents. They aren't anywhere close to doing the 1,600 homes yet, and there's November 10, 2020 Page 93 no -- there's no parking there. We've complained for years about no overflow parking. You can't have a commercial vehicle in your driveway, but there's no place to put them. They finally relented and said, well, you can park them at the pool. There's 40 parking spots at the pool; 38 of which are usually taken up by people's cars. So you can't even drive to the pool and park somewhere because there's no place to park. Do we just trust them to do the things that they're going to do? No, we don't. They've proven in the past, the last 10 years, that they're not responsible to do that. So those are my complaints. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Yovanovich, I think those complaints have been addressed. MR. YOVANOVICH: They were. MR. McARTHUR: I hope so. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If you could -- and thank you for your comments. If you could just take 30 seconds and explain real quickly. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. In the last presentation, if you remember, we agreed that before we used -- we had a CO on any of the additional units that we're asking for, we had to build additional parking. We identified that as a requirement of the PUD. We have an exhibit in the PUD to show you exactly where the 150 additional parking spaces will go, and we agreed also to increase the size of the amenity on the south side of the road to hopefully not prevent people from going to the north side to enjoy the pool but to hopefully keep more of those people on the south side because, they, too, will have a resort-style pool as well. So -- and that was how we addressed the concerns that were originally raised at the Planning Commission. And they are in the PUD, so you don't have to trust us. They are -- they are legal November 10, 2020 Page 94 binding commitments. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do any of my colleagues -- are you concerned, because in Orangetree the density is 1.36 dwelling units per acre, the Estates is .44 dwelling units an acre, and smack dab in the middle of this, the petitioner wants 3.4 dwelling units an acre. Now, yeah, it's nice to say that this is -- they're increasing density because they want lower cost options for residential home purchasers, but it's market rate. There's nothing that's going to keep it at a certain thing. It's market rate. So it's market rate because it's smaller. I just -- why are we -- why are we increasing the density? I mean, it's just -- why are we doing this, considering it? I know why we're considering it; they're before us. But the question is why? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other comments from the Commission? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I comment on that? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Certainly. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because if you recall, under the Growth Management Plan, this is actually an urban designated area out in that area, and the urban density in the urban area is four units per acre, so we're still below what the Comprehensive Plan density provides. So this is -- this is an area that was designated as an urban level density in your Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I'd like to talk about the traffic light. MR. YOVANOVICH: With me? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. You, our staff. If you'll look -- if you look on the map, they're coming out of -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you want to go back to the master November 10, 2020 Page 95 plan? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No. That map right there shows it, I think. Yes. Right there with Leo -- whoever's pointing. Yes, right there. That's the new entrance into the new Tract A which lines up directly with the road that comes through the commercial piece -- Brian Paul's commercial piece to the north and ultimately goes up to our new Big Corkscrew Regional Park. And so I'd like to hear today what our plans are -- there was a large concern from our residents over at the Grove and at the Ranch because their entrances to the east there line up with one another, and there's a full median cut. And it's difficult for the people to get in and out there without signalization and I'm -- and with this new entrance, there will be a full median cut there, but the folks will necessarily come out and go down to the main entrance to the Groves and the Ranch to the north and exacerbate an already difficult traffic circumstance. And I'd like to ask the developer if they would consider -- and what are our plans staff-wise and what kind of a commitment we could get to offer some assistance with that signalization sooner than later. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you from -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I think he's talking to you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. From a traffic perspective, they have to meet signal warrants, from a safety perspective. We don't install traffic signals when the warrants aren't met. Most likely one of those intersection points will trigger a warrant at buildout, along with the park, and I would imagine Trinity, and, Rich, you can confirm, all the PUDs have language that says, when they trigger a signal warrant, they'll pay for and install a signal. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we can intuitively assume that that entrance into the park, to the Big Corkscrew November 10, 2020 Page 96 Regional Park is going to have an enormous amount of traffic. And we know that that entrance is coming. We know that that -- you can come on up, Trinity, if you wish. I guess my question is, what do we have to do to do the warrant study to effectuate that, or do we got to sit around and wait for -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got to wait. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- accidents to occur? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, not accidents, but you've got to wait till the volumes get triggered, and that's a function of opening up the access point. MS. SCOTT: I'll just make this quick. Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager. I agree with Mr. Casalanguida. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Does he pay you to say that? MS. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other questions or comments from the Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Yovanovich, we're not even getting a motion on your -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no, no. I was -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I know. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll make a motion for approval. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor of the November 10, 2020 Page 97 motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. It passes 4-1. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Item #9C RESOLUTION 2020-212: REVIEWING A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BASED ON THE 2020 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES (AUIR), AND INCLUDING UPDATES TO THE 5- YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021 - 2025) AND THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT FOR THE FUTURE 5-YEAR PERIOD (FOR FISCAL YEARS 2026 - 2030), PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE – ADOPTED November 10, 2020 Page 98 MR. OCHS: Item 9C is a recommendation to approve the 2020 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. And Ms. Jenkins will make the presentation along with Ms. Patterson. MS. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Anita Jenkins, Interim Director of the Zoning Division. Today we're presenting to you the Annual Update and Inventory Report. This is a high-level overview presentation. I'll cover a portion of it, and Ms. Patterson will cover a portion of it, and then we have the full staff, people much more interesting than me, to answer questions for you on this one. So first of all, we'll acknowledge the number of agencies and divisions that participate in this update. You'll see that there are over a dozen different participants to update your annual report for you. We do have representation here to answer questions on these things. So this is the snapshot that we do annually for you and to look at your projected capital improvements and also population projections and then your level of service for your capital improvement. So the Category A that are included here are the items that are concurrency driven, and they're basically your infrastructure. Category B are the non-concurrency items, and those are more your government facilities such as la w enforcement and libraries and EMS. And then also the non-concurrency facilities that were added by the County Manager back in 2013 of the beaches and inlets that we consider as well. So my last slide is on concurrency, and this year we are making no recommendations to change the level of service for any of your items. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record, director of Capital Project Planning. I'll pick it up from here. November 10, 2020 Page 99 For the population requirements, as you're all familiar with, the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic Business and Research, BEBR, uses medium range projections, and then we factor in a 20 percent seasonal factor subject to much discussion often. Here's an example of how the AUIR works. So for this one it's library buildings. So we'll have a new population number, times the -- over the five years times your level-of-service standard equals the amount of the capital improvement that needs to be constructed. So in this example, 40,000 people projected over the five year s times your level of service for the buildings portion of library is .33 square feet per person. Multiply those, and that tells you, you need an additional 13,200 square feet required in the five-year period. As we discussed in a prior item, they're not only population-driven standards. Several of our other categories use population as a metric but also include other types of measures. For example, transportation uses traffic counts. Water and wastewater use historic demand usage, plus population projections, plus the capacity reserve. Stormwater uses basin studies for water -- in water management plans. Solid waste, landfill, disposal capacity, and coastal zone has adopted master plans and sustainability standards. We're here with the 2020 AUIR, and these are the recommendations: To approve the 2020 AUIR, approve the Category A, B, and C facilities relative to projects and revenue sources, approve the Category A facilities and the schedule of Capital Improvements and update for the CIE by resolution, and find that there are no inconsistencies for the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Program and facilities work program. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. November 10, 2020 Page 100 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, previous slide. I have an issue in -- I mean, I'm barely qualified to understand our own CIE and level of service and A, B, and C and all that sort of thing, and representing that there are no inconsistencies with the Collier County Public Schools and their CIE, I find it difficult. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I'm finding it interesting that I'm being asked to represent that there are no inconsiste ncies there. How would you feel if you were me? MR. OCHS: Amy? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, don't let Leo answer that. Or excuse me, Mr. Ochs. Please. Somebody. I just -- he can speak if he wants to. I'm just joking. MS. PATTERSON: We're all looking at each other. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, your staff is testifying. I think we've done -- we've combined the CIP and the CIE in the past. We're putting on the record that we reviewed it and found no inconsistencies, and you're just -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're ratifying. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're ratifying that the staff has put on the record -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: We do work collaboratively with the school district to prepare this document. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have no registered speakers. I don't see anybody else's light lit up. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second to approve the resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element. All in favor, signify by saying aye. November 10, 2020 Page 101 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I wondered if it would be possible to take Item 11E since we have three or four speakers that have been waiting patiently. They seem to be the only registered speakers. Item #11E AN OFFER TO PURCHASE THE RIVIERA GOLF CLUB PROPERTY AND FULFILL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICANTS FILING AN INTENT TO CONVERT APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 5.05.15 C.2. – MOTION TO NOT PURCHASE – APPROVED CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's move on to Item 11E. MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation to consider an offer to purchase the Riviera Golf Club property and fulfill the Land Development Code requirement for applicants filing an Intent to Convert Application in accordance with the county's Land Development Code. Jeremy Frantz, from Zoning Division, will present. November 10, 2020 Page 102 MR. FRANTZ: Jeremy Frantz, for the record. Good afternoon. I do have a brief PowerPoint just for background on the golf course, the history of what's gone on there. It doesn't look like it's pulled up. Let me grab that real quick. So back in 2018 this property was listed for sale. At that time you-all reviewed some action related to the HOA board's proposal to purchase the property. That purchase was not approved by the HOA. I was preparing this late at night last night, and it indicated the lawsuit was filed in 2020. The lawsuit was filed in 2019, the end of 2019. And since that time, an Intent to Convert Application was filed or, rather, a pre-application was held for an Intent to Convert Application, and towards the end of October this offer to purchase was sent to us. So just a little bit about the intent-to-convert process. There's three main elements. There's that Intent to Convert Application. That's what gives us the opportunity to review these conversion plans. There's also, as a part of that process, a set of developer's alternative statements. So that's where -- I'll get into a little bit more about what those consist of, but that's where we get to kind of have some open communication with the developer, you know, early in their planning process to really understand what the options are for conversion of a golf course to some other use, non-golf uses. The other element of the conversion process is the stakeholder outreach meetings, so this is where we have some very early public meetings with the surrounding property owners and, you know, get to have, again, that discussion with the developers early on in the planning process. So that developer's alternative statement, that's really kind of why we're here. Apart -- there's a few different things that they're required to consider. Potentially the non-conversion of the golf November 10, 2020 Page 103 course, the county purchase of the golf course, and then they also demonstrate some conceptual development plans for the conversion process. And so as a part of that second element, the county purchase, the applicant's required to coordinate with the county to even determine whether there's any interest to donate, purchase, or maintain a portion or all of the property for a public use. So that's really why you've received this letter. The intent-to-convert process is underway. Part of that process requires coordination with you-all. The letter that you've received kind of indicates the potential for the purchase of the entire property. The LDC does contemplate other options. As we've seen throughout the country, really, the conversion of golf courses has taken on quite a lot of different options for public ownership or public maintenance of portions of golf courses as well. Of course, any other commercial option, that will all come out through this intent -to-convert process and those stakeholders outreach meetings. We'll have many opportunities, the county as well as the property owners, to work out some sort of other option, if that's in the cards for this property. With that, I think I can leave it there. And I know that there are a couple of people from the Riviera Golf Club who -- Riviera Golf Estates, rather, who would like to speak. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Why don't we get to the public comment, then we'll get back to the Commission. MR. WILLIG: Sure. Mr. Chairman, your first registered speaker is Tricia Campbell. She's being ceded an additional three minutes by Steve Campbell, who is in the audience. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good afternoon. MS. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. Thank you for listening to us. My name is Tricia Campbell. I'm a resident of Riviera Golf Estates and also a board member. This is a request to Collier County November 10, 2020 Page 104 Commissioners to not rezone Riviera Golf Course for residential use. We request that the property remain zoned as a golf course as per its duly recorded deed restriction as written on Riviera Golf Course deed dated June 29th, 1973. I quote: The following restrictions shall run with the land. The grantee covenants and agrees that the demise premises will be used as a golf course and directly related activities and no other purpose; that the premises will be well maintained in an attractive state. The Murda (phonetic) Act eradicated this restriction with a stroke of pen. The 1973 owners placed the deed restriction to protect the surrounding communities and the county's assets. On Riviera Golf Estates map, the golf course is highlighted in red -- I'm sorry -- yellow to indicate that the community was constructed with an intention of the golf course becoming an integral part of our 55-plus community. This golf course is a gem, since it is one of three public executive courses in Collier County. When well maintained and properly marketed, it made a very healthy profit from 2000 to 2010. A golf course is the best use for this land because of the lay of the land, the communities which lie around it, and the major issues that could arise from development of this land for housing. In December 2018, Riviera Golf Estates voted to negotiate to purchase the golf course property. Because of no firm price, the conditions of the golf course in our covenant vote requirements, the vote did not pass. We lost by 50 votes. As a resident, I was involved in a small group in January 2019 of 12 people from Rivera Golf Estates called RGC408. We attempted to purchase the golf course to prevent development within our community. We contacted and received pledges for over a million dollars from Riviera Golf Estates and 12 homeowners associations surrounding our community. November 10, 2020 Page 105 We met with one of the golf course owners, Mr. Ken Grunn, numerous times, and at my home we made an offer to him for $2.3 million. We were told by Mr. Grunn that he would not take anything less than 2.5 million. Our attorney, Greg Wetzel, wrote a formal offer to purchase the golf course property at 2.5 million, as Mr. Grunn indicated. At our attorney's office, in preparing to sign the documents, Mr. Grunn proceeded to state he would not take anything less than 2.7 million. We asked to meet in the middle at 2.6. At this point, he was to talk to his partner, John Popel (phonetic), and his attorney. We would then sign the agreement and give him a check for $10,000. So July 2nd, 2019, an email was sent from our attorney from Mr. Ken Grunn's attorney with a counteroffer of $3 million. Our attorney was shocked, and we never responded. In summary, Riviera Golf Estates homeowners association has never been offered -- given a formal offer to purchase the golf course property. Riviera Golf Estates should be given the opportunity to purchase this golf course as a golf course worth much, much less than 6.5 million because of the neglected conditions. Collier County and our community should not reward these investors for their "get richer quicker" scheme because they overpaid for their investment. The duly recorded deed restriction to keep this land operating a golf course should be honored. Thank you. A special thanks goes to Donna Fiala for all that she's done for Rivera and our community. We wish you luck. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just have a question. MS. CAMPBELL: Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Thank you very much for the kind words. November 10, 2020 Page 106 You were talking about the price, and then the last I had heard something about that now they wanted three million, but then you said -- in following up you said, how can we afford six million. I don't know -- MS. CAMPBELL: Well, you as the county have been given, you know, an offer to purchase at 6.5 million. Supposedly, there is a letter that was supposed to come to our president, Mr. Michael Flaherty, that we have never received, and it was the exact same letter that you-all received. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this is the letter that I received that prompted this executive summary, and they're asking for $6.5 million to purchase the land. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I didn't see this before. MR. OCHS: Yeah. It's in your backup. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I meant before now. I'm sorry. MS. CAMPBELL: This was apparently sent out October 29th, and the same copy of the letter went to our president, Mike Flaherty, and it said -- supposedly for Riviera Golf Estates, but nothing was ever received. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they were willing to settle for two point, what was it, six million or something with you guys, but now they want six million from the county? MS. CAMPBELL: When we went out for the vote in 2018 that we lost, we were doing a vote to negotiate up to a price of $3 million. We had heard that the county was offered the property before that at 3.5 million, so we thought we could negotiate between two, five, and three. Then I started the private group to purchase separately from the association since we wanted to protect this land. I mean, as you can see on the map that I had out, we're really -- the golf course is in the middle of our property. All that yellow area is the golf course. The rest of the area is all our homes. There's only one entrance other November 10, 2020 Page 107 than cart paths for this property. The reason why I came with so much is because there's a pre-application on file right now, and I would like to be -- we would like to be given opportunity better than we have been. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So with our guys, has anybody asked you -- pardon me? MR. OCHS: They can't hear you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, probably. I'm not -- you couldn't hear my little ting tones? Okay. Do we -- are we hell bent for leather to buy this, or can we talk with these people and see, you know, allowing them to still -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- hell bent for leather, that's a new one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That's from my dad. Is there a way that we can step back and let them negotiate between them? Do we -- so that possibly they can keep the property that they live around? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. They could certainly reach out to the owners or the owner's agent to try to continue to negotiate, you know, a purchase, but for the purposes of this agenda item, your Land Development Code and your intent-to-convert procedure requires the owners to extend an offer to purchase the property first to the county and/or the homeowners association. So this is a step in the process that they're going through to convert this land from a golf course to some form of residential development. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, I mean, is there a way we could talk with them a little bit more to may be -- I mean, so that they can still keep the property that's surrounding them and between their houses and everything? It seems like we're not really intent on taking people's properties. I realize you've got an opportunity here, but it seems that the November 10, 2020 Page 108 seller -- of course, the seller only wants our money. They don't want to waste any time. But, you know, what about that? Is there a way that we can work with these people? MS. CAMPBELL: Excuse me. Mr. Flaherty has tried to reach out to the two owners and also one of the owners' sons and have not gotten any phone calls or emails back from them. MR. KLATZKOW: Your LDC golf course conversion ordinance requires that the developer speak with the HOA to see if they can come up with some sort of purchase price. It's part of your LDC. So, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who does it? MR. KLATZKOW: Now, what I'm hearing is that they're talking three million and the developer's talking six -and-a-half million, which is quite the golf, but that is part of the process. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So, in your opinion, has the LDC been satisfied given the contact that these folks have had with the seller of the property? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I think that additional conversations would be warranted. But, again, there is -- there is that golf. And I don't know that the HOA is even amenable to purchasing this property since, from what I'm hearing, when they took a vote, the vote failed. MR. OCHS: Right. MS. CAMPBELL: The property as it stands now is still zoned as a golf course. The condition that it's in, it's probably worth -- well, it's appraised for about one and a half at this point. We would like to purchase it. If we can get a yes vote on our HOA, we would like to purchase it as a golf course. Originally, when we were going to negotiate, we were going to make a green space for our community and the surrounding communities to use. MR. KLATZKOW: There's really a two-part here for the November 10, 2020 Page 109 Board. One is, under the LDC, the applicants come forward and ask if there's any interest in the county purchasing it, and that's one part of this decision. The second thing the Board could do is just ask the applicant to follow the LDC and negotiate in good faith with the homeowners association. But those are the two things, really, that the Board could do. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's go back to using the buttons here. Commissioner McDaniel, you're lit up here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I am. Yes, sir. Thank you. I, per the County Attorney, have no interest in paying six and a half million for this piece of property. I think, as what Commissioner Fiala's shared and the County Attorney said, this is part of the process for them to go through -- MS. CAMPBELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- in order to trigger their right under our conversion to be able to convert to something other than a golf course. I would recommend that they -- I know they're listening. I would recommend that they do reach out to the homeowners association. I would also at some stage -- you know, our Conservation Collier initiative passed back here a couple of weeks ago, and I remember that one of the -- one of the processes within that ordinance is the acquisition of green space within the urban area. And so it might be a little bit of a reach, Mr. Chairman, but it's certainly something that you could -- we could have a look at and utilize those monies in that manner. So I -- just for what it's worth, I have no intention of an offer or a purchase price along those numbers. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have any other registered November 10, 2020 Page 110 speakers? MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. We have one more registered speaker. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I thought we had finished those. MR. WILLIG: Your next registered speaker is Michelle Flaherty. MS. FLAHERTY: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You'll need to come up to the podium and identify yourself and then -- MS. FLAHERTY: Can I ask a question that's not on my time? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. Then I'll ask it -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, we may give you more time, but -- MS. FLAHERTY: What I'm asking is, we were in this room maybe two years ago and were successful at getting our setback at 100 feet. And as a matter of fact, Commissioner Taylor -- and I had said, those regulations are written in invisible ink. And she said, that will never happen, it will never change, 100 -foot setback. But if you look at that map, it does not take into consideration the 100 -foot setback, which then renders the property completely useless to a developer, and yet they're talking 200-plus homes on that site. So I just -- that was my question. I'm confused because I believed we had a 100-foot setback, and there was never a hearing for us to come before you and fight to keep that in place. If it's not in place, I'd like to know why. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Klatzkow, can you address that real quickly, and then we'll -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This is a multistage process. At this point in the process, they've simple made an offer to the county. November 10, 2020 Page 111 Whether or not you want to accept it or direct staff to negotiate, Board decision. If the Board elects not to move forward with the purchase or a negotiation, they're going to have to come forward with a conceptual development plan, at which case and time, staff would review it on the LDC requirements, and we start the process of the rezone. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: There is -- do we have the 100-foot -- MR. KLATZKOW: It is, but every property's different, and the Board can relax that based on the conceptual plan. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Go ahead and make your presentation. You've got three minutes. MS. FLAHERTY: Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Michelle Flaherty, and I'm here representing the owners and residents of Riviera Golf Estates. From now on I'm calling it RGE. But just as Trish said, RGE has never received an offer from the Grunn -- Mr. Grunn. Nothing in writing. And as you've seen, he's flip-flopped all over the place. And the letter that we referred to, we never received, nor did any of the surrounding communities, because they have to be notified. They did not receive a letter either. Our community is a 55-and-over, although some people say it's a 70-and-over. But we have no children and no school buses, et cetera. And to place housing on the golf course that is not compatible with the surrounding homes would be a tragedy, to say the least, because Rivera, for us, the people that occupy it, are really just middle-class people. We're not millionaires. This is -- the price of these homes allow people who've worked all their lives to retire to a piece of heaven that is affordable. So we want to try to preserve our environment as much as we can. And the things that we've heard that they want to do is really November 10, 2020 Page 112 just -- we have a flooding problem, and if they put houses there -- plus they're going to have to raise the land by four feet, so we'll be looking at the garages that will be under these, this development. And that water, that flooding issue is big. I mean, we have a storm, and the sand trap becomes a pool. So if that tells you anything. And we have traffic issues. There is no access to this land, first of all. And then secondly, for 200-plus homes, I don't know where the access is, and they cannot buy the home of a resident to make access because that's not allowed by our covenant. So there are all kinds of problems with this, and we just can't get a straight answer from the owners. And they keep flip-flopping on the price. And for them to come to you, the county, and suddenly it's 6.8 million, and what do they say they'd sell it to us for, 6.5? MS. CAMPBELL: They never offered it to us. We never got that -- the letter, but it was supposedly the same. MS. FLAHERTY: So I don't know what's going there -- going on -- well, I do know what's going on there, but they think you have big pockets, and we just would like you to consider the pe ople that live there and the impact it would have on the entire community, even if you're not on the golf course, is massive. Trucks -- I know. I'm done. Trucks, and -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many people live in that community? MS. FLAHERTY: We have 692 homes. Some of them are block homes and some of them are manufactured homes. So it's a kind of a mix of housing, but it's affordable. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Do we have any other registered speakers? MR. WILLIG: No, sir. That was your last registered speaker November 10, 2020 Page 113 for that item. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I think we discussed it, but just briefly. County Attorney Klatzkow, assuming this doesn't go forward, the owner of the golf course has to come before us for a zoning change; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. This is just the initial step for a zoning change. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And it will take four votes. MR. KLATZKOW: It takes four votes to change your zoning ordinance, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I think we're ready for a motion on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to deny -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and talk with these people to see if we can't work out an arrangement so they can stay in their communities. And this is an affordable, as you've heard -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, let me -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do a motion in reference to the agenda, which is either to buy it or not to buy it. MR. OCHS: Correct. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: If we want to do some other conversation, let's do that in a subsequent motion. So the motion is to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to not buy. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- not to buy it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a second. All in favor November 10, 2020 Page 114 of the motion not to proceed to the purchase of this property, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed, signify by saying no. (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. So we're not going to move forward to the acquisition. Commissioner Fiala, you had some direction for staff or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would love to have them, because if the people won't respond to them, is there a way for our attorney to get the guy to talk with our -- these people? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not required, because staff won't process this application till the developer makes some sort of offer to the community. Now, that offer could be, again, 6-and-a-half, $7 million, but staff's not going to process the application without that. It's sort of like a checkbox. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So we're good for right now, then. MR. FRANTZ: And if I could, also, regardless of the communication occurring right now, there is also the requirement through the intent-to-convert process for stakeholder outreach meetings. So they will -- they won't be able to get to you without having spoken to the residents. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you. MS. CAMPBELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just one thing. We've kind of November 10, 2020 Page 115 gone through it at the Golden Gate Golf Course, but I heard that there is a distinct lack of maintenance on the golf course, and if there's any kind of height to do with the vegetation that's growing, this is something that the county can address in code enforcement; isn't that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that would be correct. If they're in violation of the code, the county can enforce that. MS. CAMPBELL: The Maintenance Department -- they just opened on November 2nd, and maintenance has been mowing, other than the swales, and that's probably where we have most of our water problems, and we have Southwest Water working with us to try to solve this problem with the drainage. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on, then, to the next item. Item #11A A PROPOSAL TO SECURE THE REMAINING $36M+ ALLOCATION OF CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUNDS (CRF) TO COLLIER COUNTY, DIRECT STAFF TO CONTINUE IMPLEMENTING THE COLLIER CARES PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF’S RECOMMENDATIONS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11A is a recommendation to approve a proposal to secure the remaining 36-plus million dollars of allocations of Coronavirus Relief Funds to Collier County, direct the staff to continue implementing the CollierCARES program and authorize necessary budget amendments. Mr. Callahan will make the presentation. November 10, 2020 Page 116 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: What item? MR. OCHS: This is 11A; I'm sorry, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You might have said that, but I was thinking of something else. Imagine that. MR. CALLAHAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations. Today we're here to ask you to consider a proposal for our ongoing administration of the Coronavirus Relief Fund and the CollierCARES Program that we believe will allow us to meet -- satisfy the ever-moving deadline requirements of our grantor, as well as grant the Board the greatest flexibility to continue administering the program moving forward. So, just to circle back, earlier this year, the CARES Act passed, and there was the allocation of Coronavirus Relief Funds to individual counties under our Governor's plan. There were two allocations, the second of which was approved at our last board meeting totaling just over $30 million in the remaining balance of about $37 million is administered through a request for reimbursement. On the right side, again, is a reminder of the eligible expenses that these funds can be used to cover. Changes in federal and state guidance along the way. So October 13th and October 30th staff was advised as to changes to the deadline requirements for submission from the Florida Division of Emergency Management. So expense documentation deadlines, November 16th was for that first 45 percent or a bout $30.4 million where we have to show how those funds are being spent and reimbursed, and then December 3rd is the deadline to file any requests for reimbursement to the State. So those documentation deadlines are required to enter into Phase 3, which is the remainder of the money that is allocated in the fund. November 10, 2020 Page 117 Along the way, the Treasury has approved what they say is -- or they call it an administrative order of convenience, to which they have declared that all public-safety and public-health payroll and officials that are performing duties are substantially dedicated to the response from COVID-19, which means that 100 percent of their payroll costs from March 1st of this year through the end of year are eligible as expenses under the Coronavirus Relief Fund. So to meet our deadlines, what we are proposing to do is to take a conglomeration of the expenses that we've had so far in evaluating what's been -- what can be paid into those health and services initiatives by the 16th and then filling that with payroll from our public-safety and health officials to meet that deadline. And then in the Phase 3 request for reimbursements, to also submit both the Sheriff's Office and Emergency Medical Services payroll that total up to the remainder of the funds that are eligible for reimbursement, so that we can direct those into a project fund and continue to administer the Board-approved program as it's been prescribed. We believe that that will grant us the maximum flexibility, not require us to meet moving deadlines, and continue to put as much money into the community as we've been directed by the Board with that flexibility. So today we are seeking Board direction to allow staff to use those public-safety and health employee payroll costs and governmental expenses to meet the requests for advanced validation and both the requests for reimbursements in those requirements for FDEM, direct any reimbursement that's recovered through this methodology to be put into a grant project fund, and have staff continue to implement the CollierCARES program as it's been directed by the Board. We believe that that will, again, absolve us to the different deadlines that have been placed in progress by the grantor and grant November 10, 2020 Page 118 the Board the maximum flexibility to continue paying out these funds as they've been authorized so far. And with that, I will take any questions. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A couple of things I just wanted to ask. Are other municipalities -- because there was a division in the CARES disbursal money in the first place. Counties with populations of a half a million or more were given monies earlier on. And if -- it was my understanding they were plunked with that money. I think Lee County got close to 130 million, basically twice what we were allotted. MR. CALLAHAN: That's correct. So counties and municipalities as well that have populations over 500,000 were directly paid from the Treasury. That was done, I believe, towards the end of April, beginning of May; whereas, the remainder of that money from the Coronavirus Relief Fund for smaller governments -- smaller local government bodies, which were considered under 500,000, went to the State, and the State didn't make any allocations of that until I believe it was June 18th, off the top of my head. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So, necessarily, there's a disparity with population and counties of size in regard to the disbursal of funds, and these additional restrictions are being put upon us. Are the other counties with larger populations having similar restrictions put upon them? MR. CALLAHAN: No, sir. The advanced deadlines to meet these different requirements from FDEM don't apply to the larger counties because they received their allocation from the Trea sury directly. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd like to say out loud I'm November 10, 2020 Page 119 totally in favor of staff's move here to -- I don't want to call this a move. I'm totally in favor of what's -- MR. OCHS: Strategy. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- being recommended here today. It's going to provide, as our board has said on a regular basis, having these monies available for our community members is of utmost importance to me. I would also like to ask, if there's opportunity for us to solicit the State or the federal government or somebody with regard to the -- the disparity in population size of counties and regulations that are being put upon communities that don't have the higher population. So I'm -- I'll make a motion for approval, if that's what you're looking for. I mean, do we have any public speakers on this? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to find out. Any -- MR. WILLIG: You do have one public speaker on this item. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hold back on my motion, then. MR. WILLIG: Your registered public speaker for this item is Eric Brechnitz. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, he expressed his gratitude. That's the chairman of the Marco City Council; just said to say thank you to the Board, and he was very happy with staff's support. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I don't think I understand this. I'm pretty sure I don't. So let's -- can we go back. By the way, this wasn't in our packet, this -- MR. CALLAHAN: Where would you like to go back to? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How we're deciding to divide this up. We have 30 -- 36 million -- $37 million left, right? MR. CALLAHAN: Well, we have $67 million total. November 10, 2020 Page 120 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But what we haven't -- what has not been allocated, correct, is 37-? MR. CALLAHAN: That's correct. And if I may, Commissioner, we are not proposing any changes to what the Board has already approved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, no, no. MR. CALLAHAN: Again, you made some changes on the 27th. We are simply requesting that we're allowed to submit eligible expenses to reimburse these and that when those reimbursements come into the county, we will continue to administer the CollierCARES Program under the allocations that the Board has already approved. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But just recently -- not recently, but within this time frame, the state and federal government said that payroll of health providers and public servants can be reimbursed during this period, which was not one of the criteria at the beginning of this; is that correct? MR. CALLAHAN: It was always one of the criteria, but it was always costs that were not budgeted. So the administrative order of convenience has now said that public officials in safety and health are now deemed, overall, substantially dedicated to the response of COVID-19. Remember, these expenses could only be reimbursed if the services or the employers were substantially dedicated to COVID response. The Treasury and both -- and the State have both concurred that public-safety officials, so EMS, our sheriffs, our fires, they have been dedicated substantially to COVID, so they are eligible for 100 percent reimbursement under those payroll costs. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which is very important, and I'm not negating it. But what happens to the mom and pop business whose application has been in there? There's 3,000 applications, I'm understanding. November 10, 2020 Page 121 MR. CALLAHAN: Ma'am, what we're suggesting is that by seeking reimbursement this way, the funds that will come from these reimbursements from the payroll expense will be set aside in a project fund and will be continued to be paid out to process those different applications for individual assistance, small business, our nonprofits. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Got it. MR. CALLAHAN: And it will allow a little bit more flexibility with how to do that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then we as a government, from the General Fund or however we pay it, I want to make that very clear that these folks are not going to be shortchanged; that they're in line. They're going to get, you know, depending if they do it correctly, and then it will be -- everyone will win at the end. MR. CALLAHAN: The third part of the staff recommendation that we're asking for today from the Board is to continue to implement the CollierCARES Program as you've directed us previously. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I believe we have a motion to approve the staff recommendation; is that correct, Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That is correct. I'd like to make that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. November 10, 2020 Page 122 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Thank you. Item #11B STAFF'S PROGRESS UPDATE FOR THE GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION, AS APPROPRIATE – MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH STAFF’S INPUT AND ANALYSIS – CONSENSUS MR. OCHS: Item 11B is a recommendation to accept staff's progress update for the Golden Gate Golf Course development project and provide further direction as appropriate. Mr. Willig will make the presentation, and then after this item, or in conjunction with this item, we also, at Commissioner McDaniel's request, will hear Item 11H, which was previously Item 16C4 on your agenda. I'll read that after we deal with this one. MR. WILLIG: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Geoff Willig, Operations Analyst in the County Manager's Office. I'm not going to read this slide. It's just a series of dates and just kind of a timeline of the action that's taken place so far with the golf course. November 10, 2020 Page 123 Obviously, the most recent action is ClubCorp/BigShots withdrew from the project, so we'll talk through some of the options that are available to you today regarding that piece of property that we had identified on the fit plan as well as the next, Item 11C, is to accept the developer agreement with Rural Neighborhoods. So that's -- that will be up next. But going through the fit plans here, I've got a couple of options that we have developed in conjunction with o ur planning and engineering firm. The first plan, Fit Plan 1, considers 110 acres around the Pars community in the center, which was previously identified for the BigShots facility and golf course development. 25.5 developable acres. It's about 30 acres total of land with the water management for the Rural Neighborhoods development that we'll talk about in a little bit; 8.3 acres for the veterans nursing home up in the northern corner; 15 acres for a government building. We had discussed putting -- potentially moving GMD services to that area; as well as the corner lot that the county purchased at Golden Gate Boulevard -- Golden Gate Parkway and 951 for future development. It can also be used -- as we extend the -- or expand the roadway for Collier Boulevard, it can be used to include some of a turn lane onto Collier Boulevard. With this plan and also of the fit plans, we have identified the appropriate amount of right-of-way to assist with the re -- widening of Collier Boulevard. And, Commissioner McDaniel, as County Manager mentioned, in the southern portion here where that cross I just put on the screen is, is where -- the other item that you had asked to be pulled to the regular agenda is the lot that the county is looking to purchase. What that will be used for -- and I can get into more detail after this. But what that will be used for is to route public utilities through to the housing complex as well as provide some pedestrian access so that if November 10, 2020 Page 124 there are kids that need to walk to the scho ols or people from the neighborhood that want to access the trails in that southern portion of the residential neighborhood, they would be able to access the trail network that we're planning for the site from that spot as well. The next fit plan that we've developed is similar except that it provides a corridor along 951 or Collier Boulevard for potential commercial development. At this point in time, we don't have any specific commercial establishments that we would put into that area, but we would make that available and look to have that, and we would have to eventually come back with a Growth Management Plan amendment in order to incorporate whatever uses would be -- would be suggested. This also shrinks down the golf course slash passive recreation area to 79 -- or 77.9 acres. And you can see there that we've got a roadway that we can connect to from the Parkway as well as to Collier Boulevard, potentially providing access to that passive recreation area. And the final fit plan is a slight modification from the previous one where it takes that corridor for commercial development and shrinks that to about half the size, the 13 acres along 951, and then, obviously, extends the amount of land that's available for passive recreation or some golf course use. As we'll get into in the next agenda item, but just to kind of give you an overview of the essential services housing location, we're looking at 30 acres with 25 -- about 25 acres of developable land. We're going to provide a couple of -- we're planning a couple of ingress/egress locations along Collier Boulevard for that property. They would be right-in, right-out for the one, and then on the southern portion I believe it's just a right-out, providing access to Collier Boulevard. As mentioned previously, using this vacant lot, if the county November 10, 2020 Page 125 does go ahead and purchase that lot, we would plan to run utilities through there as well as -- as pedestrian access. Along the western edge, you can see there's about 100-foot setback between the development and the residential neighborhood that's existing, and then down here it shrinks to about 50 feet. The veterans nursing home site location is on -- we've identified a portion of the golf course on the northern portion of the golf course right next to the hotel piece. And with that, we would be able to, according to our planning and engineering firm, develop a 120 -bed facility along with 48 spaces for parking for that facility as well as to incorporate the 88 spaces that are required for the hotel, restaurant, and condo parking deficiency that's currently -- currently exists. On the western part there is another setback. It goes between either 50- or 100-foot setback based on whichever fit plan we're looking at, but providing a buffer between the currently existing residential neighborhood. And then probably the thing that we'll spend most of our time talking about and what we're looking for your direction on, since BigShots and ClubCorp have withdrawn from the project, we need to figure out what we're going to do with this piece of the property. So the options, as I outlined in the executive summary, are that we can go out to the second-place vendor that responded to the previous ITN and begin negotiations with them. I have not reached out to them to find out if they're interested to continue or to start negotiations, but that is an option for you. We could go out for another solicitation and try to find another golf partner to work with us on the property. We could reconsider potentially -- the First Tee had approached the county to work with us to develop some sort of golf on the property in the interim, and potentially we could reconsider that option and see if they're interested in working with us on that. November 10, 2020 Page 126 We could develop a portion of the property or an entirety of the property as a passive park -- passive park or recreation. With that option, you could do several different things within that property, and with the size of this area, the 110 acres of green that you see on your screen there, there is a potential that you could provide space for some sort of golf -- golf component as well as a passive park or passive recreation or a mixing of the two. And then, finally, as was shown on Fit Plans 2 and 3, you could establish a corridor along Collier Boulevard for future commercial development. Now, one or all of these options are available to you to consider. And for your fiscal impact, if the county does develop any part of the central area, it will require some sort of capital improvement and capital investment to improve the irrigation system. We'd have to remove and replace the maintenance buildings, obviously, to hold any kind of mowing equipment or maintenance equipment that's required to maintain the site and also purchase equipment to maintain the property. In discussion with our Parks and Recs team, we've been kind of spit-balling some ideas of what it would take to -- the operating costs for maintaining the property. With some of those investments as well as the operating, we felt that it was probably about a million -- up to a million in the first year with $6,000 for equipment being required. So with that, I'll end there for questions, and I'm happy to answer. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I'm going to jump in first here real quick. Nobody's lit up their machine here yet. Sometimes you just have to start all over again. So I would be very much opposed to trying to go back to the other bidder and try to work something out. November 10, 2020 Page 127 The ClubCorp project would have been -- as initially proposed, would have been a win-win, I think, for everybody. ClubCorp apparently had some internal issues. Didn't really have anything to do with the financial ability to do the project, but they had some other financing issues that prompted them to withdraw. So I think we need to take a step back. I believe that the concept of a 12-hole golf course will still work. I believe that there are vendors out there that will provide funding for -- if not all, for at least a portion of it. We had that commercial site that would have been a nice family-oriented recreational opportunity and a dining opportunity that would have helped offset the cost of the golf course and generated profit for the operator. I don't think that opportunity's gone away just because ClubCorp has gone away. So what I'm going to suggest is that we do not attempt to do something quickly here; that we continue this item. Let's step back and see; maybe at our next meeting, perhaps, consider doing a request to negotiate another ITN to deal with the commercial site and the golf course. Even if those have to ultimately be done separately, I think that there is a good opportunity here. I would be opposed to taking a large section of this property and turning it into a commercial development. We purchased this property because of its strategic location to help protect the neighborhood and provide some community-oriented services. To have a strip of commercial there, I think, would be a violation of that commitment that we've made to use this property in the best interest of the overall county as well as that community. So I'm going to ask my colleagues not to look to some choice here today. I would like an opportunity to work with Mr. Casalanguida and our staff to see about developing another ITN to do something that would preserve the opportunity to have golf. I know that was very important to Commissioner Fiala, and I think that November 10, 2020 Page 128 opportunity's still there. But if we start to chip away at this property and do something which I think would be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction at this point, then we'll lose that opportunity. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree with you, Chairman. The original planning, your vision for this property, I think, is solid. It makes sense. I've always been advised that you never go to second place. If it doesn't work, you go out again. I think we need to go out again. And I would certainly follow your guidance and wait until the next meeting and make that decision by the next meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I agree as well. If I had to -- if I had to pick a fit plan, I'd pick Fit Plan 2, because it offers us a lot of flexibility with what our uses are. We know we've got that residential property coming, assuming the next agenda item goes forward, down in the -- down in the south end of the property. And I see that there is an access road coming in off the Parkway and through and out to 951, and we could potentially even add in an access route to the residents that are down on the south end of the property, so... And that -- just because it's designated as a potential commercial doesn't mean that it can't be changed. If we do choose to do a 12-hole instead of a nine-hole and so on and so forth, I would really like to -- as far as what staff suggested today, I would like to reengage with the folks at First Tee. They made a very nice proposal to us when we first acquired this piece to continue to run it as a golf course. Somebody who I could feel confident in doing business with on a true-up basis as an offset against the greens fees and things that at least maybe -- we're not going to -- I'm not November 10, 2020 Page 129 suggesting we make a decision today, but we -- we initiate those conversations just to get a cost comparison as to what it's going to take to bring the course up to facility and have some kind of ongoing operational facility there until we make our final decisions. It's obvious -- I mean, the best laid plans of mice and men take a lot of time, especially when decision-making by a committee comes along. So that would be my like, if you would. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does this -- the property that we now own, does it have any commercial on it whatsoever? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Not without a rezone. MR. OCHS: No. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just know there's restaurants and hotels, but I was just -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We had made an effort to try to acquire some of those other commercial sites, but it became way too complicated and way too expensive. So there's some, you know, easements and things like that that made that potential very, very difficult. So, no, we don't own any of those commercial sites. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've -- you know, from the beginning I have been opposed to the county getting into the golf business. And when it looked like there was a possibility, although I had my doubts of there being golf offered there at absolutely no cost to the county, that, you know, I could go with that. You know, I'd like to see -- if we're going to take a step back and see what else we can do with this property, I'd like to do that and including other uses other than possibly the golf. I mean, I think when this whole thing came up, I had just come back from Oklahoma November 10, 2020 Page 130 City, and in Oklahoma City, they had -- the city had purchased a golf course that ran through a beautiful neighborhood and turned it into some really spectacular linear parks and things. And I'm just -- I'm very skeptical still about offering golf. It's just -- and in the age of COVID, I just -- I'm really not in favor of that. So if we're going to step back and have -- even if we're going to have staff revisit the golf possibilities, I would like to also have staff look at the other possibilities so that we have a full picture of, from A to Z, what can we do with this property? What kind of ideas are there out there? I don't think we ever got there when we went around this the first time. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. I think it would be a good exercise to let us know. And you've done a little bit of that in terms of what it would cost to actually turn this into a passive park. Obviously, it would require some infrastructure. I think the irrigation system, from what I understand, would have to be replaced. But a passive park, an irrigation system would be cheaper than the irrigation system in a nice golf course. So there -- whatever way we go, there's going to be expense, and it would be nice to see what those expenses would be. Commissioner Taylor, I think you were next. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nope. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. You've already gone. Then, Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, I just had -- and I wanted to follow -- I think we're all singing the same tune. A cost-benefit analysis with regard to these choices for us to -- by next month when we come back, to be able to look at and see so we can do some comparison as to the expenses associated with all these alternatives. I'm not opposed to a park, by the way. Green space is important. I mean, our original goal in this acquisition was November 10, 2020 Page 131 to help our residents that own the homes along the golf course and then the folks in Par 1 along that way. So a park of some magnitude would be fine as well. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I don't disagree with that. I would disagree with a strip being commercial and that sort of thing. But passive park and then some recreational opportunity on a part of it, the restaurant operations. Something that would help brin g people to that area. We've got the nursing home potentially going there. We have the workforce housing that will go there; that's our next item. All of that's going to make that area much more attractive for improvement. So then with that, we'll move on to the next item. Is that -- Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One more thing, and that is -- and I hear what you're saying about the possibility of any of that being commercial and kind of offsetting the costs that we've got into it, but could staff at least -- I'm not completely clear on all the commercial that's right around this property, as to whether it would make sense. Whether the area could benefit from some specific type of commercial. Could we just get an explanation of what is in the immediate area. I know there's some, but I'm just not clear on that. And, yeah, I'm hesitant to say commercial would be okay, but I don't want to just preclude that because maybe there is some innovative thing that might be of benefit to that area. I don't know. It's your area. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. And keep in mind, one of the goals of all of this has been to begin the long -term process of improving the quality of the commercial area all along Golden Gate Parkway. And so we don't want to be in a position where we're going to create an opportunity for commercial to be competitive with that, because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get that area November 10, 2020 Page 132 improved from a commercial standpoint. But it is something that I would agree we should take a look at, but, again, there are issues that are associated with it, and that's one of them. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we need any other conversation in reference to that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then we'll put that onto our next agenda. I will work with Mr. Casalanguida in the interim to see what some alternatives are. All right. Let's move on to the housing project. MR. OCHS: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, the Board did agree to move Item 16C4 to be heard in conjunction with this item -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Right. MR. OCHS: -- from the consent agenda. That was a recommendation to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with Mr. Steven Bohnert for .27 acres of unimproved property located at 4061 32nd Avenue Southwest and adjacent to the future essential services housing development for public access. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We'll take two separate votes, and we have a -- already have an explanation as to what that parcel is for. So let's move on to the housing project, and then we'll take up the vote on the acquisition. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that. Item #11C A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS, INC., FOR INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE NO. 20-7698, TO DEVELOP HOUSING AT THE FORMER GOLDEN GATE GOLF COURSE – APPROVED November 10, 2020 Page 133 MR. OCHS: Okay. So that moves us to 11C. This is a recommendation to approve a developer agreement with Rural Neighborhoods, Incorporated, for an Invitation to Negotiate No. 20-7698 to develop housing at the former Golden Gate golf course. Mr. Willig will present. MR. WILLIG: Yes, sir. So I'll start this presentation off, and then I'm going to turn it over to Cormac Giblin, since this is his bailiwick. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let me ask the Commission. We're all very familiar with this. The issue in front of us is the developer agreement. Why don't we focus on that. I think we already know what the project is. MR. WILLIG: Yes. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do we have any registered speakers? MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not have any registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: So let's -- MR. OCHS: He's pretty self-contained on this. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's move into -- let's move into the developer agreement and the actual -- unless you really need to have a -- MR. OCHS: No. No, sir. MR. WILLIG: So with that, I'll turn it over to Cormac. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And Cormac, again, we're looking at the developer agreement. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Cormac Giblin, your Housing Grant and Development Operations Manager. The developer agreement will allow the development of 100 senior affordable units on this property and an additional 250 November 10, 2020 Page 134 essential service personnel workforce housing units. There's an additional 5 percent of those dedicated to serve veterans. Some of the time frames are that the Rural Neighborhoods will be given 12 months from the effective date of the PUD to secure funding, and then construction must commence within 12 months of that. For the essential service personnel criteria for the occupants, there are two tiers. Tier 1 will be those involved in healthcare, education, and emergency services, and Tier 2 will be government employees to occupy those essential service personnel units. Exhibit B in the agreement really has the meat of the details of which units are going to be provided, how many, at what income levels, and what rents will be charged. The top of the chart shows the senior component where 10 percent of the units -- 10 percent of the 100 units will be set aside to extremely low-income seniors earning 30 percent or less of the county median income with corresponding rent at that level, and then the balance of them will be 90 units at very low income level, 60 percent of median or less. On the essential services piece, there's a stratification of units that range from the 60 percent of the median income up to and including the gap income of 140 percent of median income. However, in our work with the developer, and the other interested parties in this agreement, which are the Community Foundation and with the Schulze Foundation, we have worked with them to keep the rent limits at a more reasonable rate than would otherwise be available if you were talking rentals at the gap or moderate income levels. So you can see the target rent levels there. Even though the unit may be made available to someone at the 120 percent or 140 percent level, we're keeping those target rent levels at 100 percent of median or less. This will keep the property more November 10, 2020 Page 135 affordable than similar market-rate communities in the area and ensure that the county and our non-profit partners are really getting our bang for the buck in doing this development. We're not selling this land to Rural Neighborhoods. This will be a long-term grant -- ground lease. The funding will come from the Workforce Housing Land Trust that was approved by the voters in the surtax. The revenue generated will cover the Rural Neighborhood's capital construction operating fees and reserves, and then any excess funds, that if the property does tend -- does happen to turn a profit, will be split up between the cou nty and the Community Foundation based on our level of investment in the property, and those funds would be segregated into a workforce housing trust fund to only be used for those uses in the future. And in brief, that is the details of the development ag reement. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. WILLIG: No, sir, we do not have any registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: This -- Commissioner McDaniel, did you just push your button? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Because this hasn't been cleared off. Commissioner McDaniel, you're recognized there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just -- would you go back to the previous slide. And I think the Community Foundation, they're coming in -- I thought they were -- they were investing -- this says 10-. I thought they were coming in with 15-. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ten. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And then our contribution is 5- that's coming out of the sales tax initiative. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. November 10, 2020 Page 136 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And are we -- and just so I clarify it in my mind, we paid how much for the property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Twenty-nine million. MR. OCHS: Twenty-nine. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Twenty-nine million. And so the -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, the 29 million was for the 167 acres. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For the whole piece of property. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah, yeah. Not -- okay. I just wanted to make sure that -- I was afraid the public might hear that we just paid 29 million for that parcel that -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, my goodness. No, no, no, no. If I -- if that wasn't clear, then -- we paid 29 million for the whole piece of property. Are we reimbursing back 15 or five-and-a-half? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Five. MR. OCHS: 5.5. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: 5.5. And then the 10 million from the Community Foundation is doing what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Capital for the vertical construction. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's going to actually help Rural -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- Rural Neighborhoods. MR. OCHS: Neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me, Dottie. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Moorings Park is involved in November 10, 2020 Page 137 this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So the 10 million, five from the Schulze, five from Moorings through the Community Foundation. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's all coming through the Community Foundation. I'm sorry, Dottie. I skipped on the name. So I just wanted to clarify that just to -- so we've got a start off at 29 million for the whole piece, and five-and-a-half coming back to us. MR. GIBLIN: The initial development performance will lead to about a 70, $72 million total project. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's TPC for construction and everything? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Fiala. Or -- okay. I just had your name on here, so -- we're up to date now. There's no -- there are no names on here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I had one question. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just want to make sure I haven't confused myself. So on this slide itself funding for the acquisition of land will come from the workforce -- we're going to do a long-term land lease with Rural Neighborhoods. MR. GIBLIN: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Then the funding for the acquisition. We've already purchased the property. I'm -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You purchased it with General Funds, sir, and we're -- a loan on short-term commercial paper. So now that you've determined -- we didn't want to use this money until the Board approved this agreement. Now you're going to reimburse November 10, 2020 Page 138 yourself. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So it's not an acquisition. We're just reimbursing -- MR. WILLIG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- one fund to another. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that right. Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then we need a motion to approve the developer agreement. Do you need anything else in terms of approvals to move forward with this? MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And a second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. I want to thank you for getting this moving so quickly. This is a very important project, and I think, Commissioner Taylor, you've championed workforce and affordable housing, and I know we all November 10, 2020 Page 139 have. Commissioner McDaniel certainly has. We've all talked about it. Commissioner Taylor has kind of championed this for years, and I think this is a great step in solving part of the problem that we have. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Public/private partnership with the awareness of the community that this is a great investment. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. And if there are other community-oriented charitable organizations that want to follow suit and do something similarly, we're open for business in that. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, Community Foundation, thank you, Moorings Park, for recognizing the plight of seniors. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And the Schulze Foundation. Item #11H AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MR. STEVEN L. BOHNERT FOR 0.27 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4061 32ND AVE. SW AND ADJACENT TO THE FUTURE ESSENTIAL SERVICES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THE TOTAL COST FOR THIS TRANSACTION WILL NOT EXCEED $90,000 – APPROVED CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That takes us to a vote on the quarter acre. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel, I think you had asked that to be pulled. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I did. And it was more November 10, 2020 Page 140 along the lines of just ensuring that the residents of that area were -- are aware of what we're doing. Have we talked to the folks in there? And I wasn't quite sure when I was looking at the aerial photo -- I didn't dig into the actual deed -- or, you know, the deed of ownership, but is this a part of somebody else -- somebody -- one of those houses there, or is this a vacant lot? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Vacant lot. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's a vacant lot. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. And is the community aware that we're about to put a -- because I also read there's something about public transit coming down there. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're not aware yet, sir, because we don't plan on putting anything on that lot other than running utilities through it. And if -- as part of the advertising of the project, if we wanted to do a pathway through that, they would get to weight in. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it is strictly right now we've got water/sewer punching through there. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll move for approval. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) November 10, 2020 Page 141 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. Why don't we take a short -- I know we don't have a whole lot of work to do, but this is Commissioner Fiala's last meeting, so when we get to commission comments, I'm sure there are going to be a few. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I don't know. I don't have much of anything to say. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We may have something -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's me, and I don't have anything to say. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No, I'm talking about the rest of us may have something to say about you. That may make a while. So why don't we break until, what, about quarter of? Would that be sufficient? That's 13 minutes. So we'll come back at 2:45. (A brief recess was had from 2:31 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: The meeting of the County Commission will please come back to order. Mr. Ochs, I think that takes us down to 11D, is that where we're – Item #11D FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 17-7198 FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK (“CMAR”) CONTRACT PHASE 2.0 TAB 5 - GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (“GMP”) NO. 4 CLEARING AND GRUBBING WORK PACKAGE TO MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION (FLORIDA), INC., FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX AND EVENTS CENTER (“SCEC”) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,758,600 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. November 10, 2020 Page 142 This is a recommendation to approve the fifth amendment to the guaranteed maximum price for the construction management at-risk contract to proceed with clearing and grubbing work for the next phase of the sports complex and events center in the amount of $1,758,600. Mr. Casalanguida will make the presentation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Mr. Manager. Commissioners, the graphic on the screen is 110 acres. It encompasses all of the remaining parts of the sport complex as well as the extension of City Gate Boulevard north in the footprint of Wilson Benfield. We're just getting started earlier on -- as soon as dry season hits just to meet our schedule, and it's setting up the construction fence, the new construction trailer, and they will start to take down the trees with this project. Margaret and I will be back in December with a detailed breakout of all those colors and how we've been working on, you know, slicing up the project to get back within some sort of cost containment. But right now we're just moving forward with clearing and grubbing. Pretty straightforward. And with your blessing, we'll start within three weeks. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any registered speakers? MR. WILLIG: No, sir. There are no registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is this part of the Collier 305 and the second phase? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And are those remnants of ball fields I see there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. I'll make a November 10, 2020 Page 143 motion for approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Almost. Item #11F APPROVAL OF FUTURE FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) POSITIONS IN THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AT TIME OF ASSET CONVEYANCE BASED ON CUMULATIVE ASSET ACQUISITIONS, ADD 8 FTES, CONVERT 25 EXISTING CONTRACTUAL LABOR RESOURCES TO FTES, AND AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11F is a recommendation to approve future full-time equivalent positions in the Public Utilities Department at the time of asset conveyance based on cumulative asset acquisitions, also to add eight FTEs and convert 25 existing contractual labor resources November 10, 2020 Page 144 to full-time equivalents, and authorize associated budget amendments. Ms. Amia Curry, your finance operations manager in the Public Utilities Department, will present or respond to questions from the Board, at the pleasure of the Board. This has been through your Productivity Committee. I know Mr. -- excuse me -- Commissioner Solis sat in on that presentation. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. And I'll just jump in and just say that I did sit through the Productivity Committee's review of this. And the presentation was really outstanding, and the amount o f detail that staff did in terms of the breaking down the cost to the person to whatever exactly it is they would be working on, I mean, the detail was -- I really commend you because it was a great presentation, and I don't know how it could have been any more thorough, frankly. MS. CURRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's attached. So unless -- I mean, if anybody has any questions -- I would move for approval. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would second that. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and second. Commissioner Taylor, we're on Item 11F. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know. I do apologize. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, that's okay. Do you have questions or any comments in reference to that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. I read it thoroughly, and I'm supportive of it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We have a motion and second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. November 10, 2020 Page 145 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. MS. CURRY: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. OCHS: Good job, Amia. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Great presentation. Item #11G WAIVING COMPETITION AND APPROVE THE PROCUREMENT OF THE ATTACHED SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH N. HARRIS COMPUTER CORPORATION TO SUPPORT THE CITYVIEW SOFTWARE APPLICATION FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,556,157.54 OVER FIVE YEARS AND TO AUTHORIZE FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS TO THE SOFTWARE – APPROVED MR. OCHS: 11G is a recommendation to waive competition and approve the procurement of a software maintenance agreement with N. Harris Computer Corporation to support the CityView software applications for a total five-year cost of $1,556,157.54, and to authorize future enhancements to the software as required. Mr. French is available to make the presentation or respond to questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we have a choice? MR. OCHS: Not a good choice. We'd have to start over with our building permit software, which we really wouldn't want to do. But, Jamie. MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Jamie French, your Deputy Department Head. November 10, 2020 Page 146 Just to let you know, Commissioners, this was discussed at a developer roundtable that we meet every quarter with the land-use developers as well as with your Development Services Advisory Committee. Both groups voted unanimously to keep the software. They really did not want to go through the pa in of this type of transition. I do have a presentation if you'd like; otherwise, I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just did. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Any other questions or comments? Does anyone need a presentation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I don't see a show of hands for that. So we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So move. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Approval. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second for approval. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. That will take us down to 14A. November 10, 2020 Page 147 Item #14A APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - TAXIWAY C EXTENSION PROJECT (INVITATION TO BID NO. 20-7756) TO AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, LLC, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,613,638.25, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is Item 14A1 under your Airport Authority. It's a recommendation to approve the construction contract award for the Immokalee Regional Airport Taxiway C extension project to Ajax Paving Industries of Florida in the amount of $1,613,638.25, and authorize the Chairman to sign the construction agreement. Mr. Lobb is here to make the presentation or respond to questions from the Board. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just sure I know the answer to this, but we're not going to use that same construction company that's been working years -- MR. LOBB: We are not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- longer than -- MR. LOBB: This is -- this contract -- for the record, Commissioners, Justin Lobb, Executive Manager, Airport Authority. This is the low-bid contractor, responsive contractors, Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, and they do have a pretty good reputation of performance with the county. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did the other one finish yet over November 10, 2020 Page 148 there? MR. LOBB: We're at about 95 percent completion on that project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry you had to suffer through all of that. MR. LOBB: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sometimes that's what happens when you have to go for the lowest price, and -- you get the -- you don't get the quality that you hoped for. I hope we learn from that a little bit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. We need a motion. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve, please. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala. Second by Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Or the other way; either way. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS November 10, 2020 Page 149 MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we move on to staff and commission general communications. Just a reminder of your currently scheduled November 17th BCC mental health workshop. I believe Commissioner Solis wants to have a discussion with the Board during his communication about that particular meeting date. But other than that, I'll wait till the end of the comments. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Then, Commissioner Solis, you had something for the good of the order. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I would. It's scheduled for November, however, as I understand it, we had retained, who was it, Jacobs, I think, Engineering, to do an analysis of all of the options for building this central receiving facility. As I understand it, that report has just been completed. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We just received it this past Friday. We have not yet had a chance to complete our review. I think there's still some final amendments that need to be made, and then we would also need to get it out to the stakeholders for some level of -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. MR. OCHS: -- review and comment before the workshop. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I recall, Commissioner McDaniel, were you not going to be in town on when it's scheduled now? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You recall correctly, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. My only concern is that after all the work and all the time and energy that's been spent, I really want to make sure that we do this methodically. So what I was going to request was that we continue the workshop until the first workshop available in December just to give us, one, more time to review and finalize the report, speak with the stakeholders, also, Commissioner McDaniel's been so supportive of it, will be there, and November 10, 2020 Page 150 also, I hate to say it, but we'll have a new commissioner, and he can be there as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. He'll enjoy that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. So if you could make arrangements to delay that. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. My thought would be December 15th, which is, you know, your second Tuesday -- I'm sorry -- your third Tuesday, actually, in the month. So December 15th is the date that we'll target and try to work with your staff to see if that works for everyone. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And if it was pushed to January, is there a problem, given the fact that it's 10 days before Christmas? MR. OCHS: Not for us. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean, I wouldn't have any -- I don't think it would make any difference if it was pushed to January, but we've been on such a roll. I mean, is there a reason to do that? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's just 10 days before Christmas. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Huh? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're all ready for the big dude in the red suit. I'm good with the 15th. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's because you don't shop like I do. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. So are we going to do this on December 15th? Is that okay, or do you want to -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, no. That's fine. I'm going to be here. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. I know we're all going to have a few things to say about Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you don't have to do that. November 10, 2020 Page 151 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We have to do that, but let's get through all of the other comments. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good. I want to start. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or at least one. I just -- this week, or this past week, I went on a recycling tour with some East Naples people, and Kari took me. And I don't know if you've ever been into the new recycling thing or seen this foam -- this foam recycler. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Recycling machine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What fun this was. If you each get a chance to do this, take some people out to see it. We went out there -- first of all, these places, if you've ever been to a recycling center that is owned by Collier County, it is as clean as a whistle. You could eat off the floor. Everybody is so happy to see you. They treat you like their brother, don't they? They're just wonderful. And I wanted to see the new things. They have this thing for fluorescent tubes. They put this in this long tu be, it goes (indicating), and it's gone. And another one (indicating), and it's gone. It's the funniest thing. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Is it going out to Naples Bay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. It stays right in there, yeah. And then they have this thing -- and there's a huge bin of all of that Styrofoam that you can't ever get rid of, you can't put in your recycle bin or anything. They took this stuff and they shoved it all in this oven, I'm going to call it, but it's much bigger than that. They put that in there, and in minutes out it comes, this massive amount of Styrofoam, out it comes in this lump thing. It looks like -- well, anyway, it's just like circular, like this, and it's still hot, and it's so heavy. It's hard to hold, you know. It's really heavy. And they did that just in November 10, 2020 Page 152 minutes. That's something that would be filling our landfill and never deteriorate, and now we've got this there. And I'm just so proud of it, and I wanted to tell you all that we've got some great new machinery. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And where is the recycling facility that you visited? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually, I went to two, but the one that has the foam and the tubes, that's over on Goodlette Road. Nice. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that's a one of a -- that's a pilot test program that we got a grant for right, Leo? MR. OCHS: Yeah, sir. First in the state. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, first in the state to recycle Styrofoam. Fantastic. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So thank you for letting me say that. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis, do you have any closing -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's hold off on that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We'll hold off on those? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Just for a minute. Just anything else other than -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner McDaniel? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nothing for me, sir. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's really for you because I got this letter. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, yes. I was going to read this letter. November 10, 2020 Page 153 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, that's the letter. Oh, you got it. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. Do you have -- COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And you may want to hand out the mask designs. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. These are nice. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Maybe we can get one on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll hand it down there. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Do you have anything else? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it, no. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I do want to read a letter that we received from Reinhold Schmieding, and I'm just going to go ahead and read it. It's a short letter. Dear Chairman Saunders, thank you for extending the mask mandate order on October 22, 2020. Arthrex strongly supports the CollierCARES campaign and is pleased to advise that we will donate 10,000 custom masks with the CollierCARES logo for local business and restaurants participating in the CollierCARES program. We are hopeful that members of the CollierCARES campaign will organize the distribution of the masks to these local businesses. The masks we are proposing, the quantity of, again, 10,000, has the following features: Four layers of cotton cloth, interior pocket for a filter, adjustable ear straps, sewn in metal nose crimp, washable fabric to prevent microbial growth. The image we are proposing is the iconic Naples Pier at sunset. Not only is it one of the most recognizable landmarks in Collier County, but the scene is beautiful and it allows for tasteful, uninterrupted placement of the CollierCARES logo. Production and delivery may take at least four weeks once final artwork is approved with the vendor and the order placed. We look November 10, 2020 Page 154 forward to working with you on this project and are proud to do our part in helping the community stay safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Best regards, Reinhold Schmieding, president and founder of Arthrex. If you could also make sure that we each get one. Only three of them will probably be used, but if you could make sure that each of us get one of these as well, that would be appreciated. MR. OCHS: Very good, sir. All right. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Mr. Ochs, do you have anything else before we get to the -- MR. OCHS: No other business. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Ms. Kinzel, I forgot to ask you this morning if you had any issues to bring up. I know you would have jumped if you did. But anything at this point? MS. KINZEL: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Well, let's spend a few minutes talking about -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a few. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: It will be just a few, because it's getting late. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, good. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: While the other commissioners are talking, I want to ask you to think about something for the next few minutes. When I was on the County Commission a long, long, long time ago, then County Manager Neil Dorrill asked me if there was anything that I would like to see happen in the future that I expressed an interest in, and I said, yes, I'd like to see the county acquire Lake Avalon and turn that into a county park. That actually resulted in kind of a nasty editorial in the Naples Daily News naming the lake November 10, 2020 Page 155 Lake Burt and accusing me of having some financial interest in i t, so it was really an interesting thing from the newspaper. I still have the clipping. But, ultimately, the county did acquire the lake and did turn it into a very nice park. And so if there's something, while we're discussing your service here, that you can think of that perhaps we can work on. No guarantees, but give that a little bit of thought. So I'll start. See if anybody on the Board has any comments, and I know Mr. Ochs has a few. Mr. McDaniel, anything that you'd like to say to our departing commissioner? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're welcome. It's been a pleasure. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You and I have been friends a long time, and I'm -- it's -- I'm honored to call you my friend. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm going to say what I said the other day. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. But what the world needs now is Donna Fiala. And she's lea ving our commission, and she's taking her work into the world, the world of our community. And I know you won't be forgotten, and I know you will be present. And you speak to this community in so many ways, and it's such a natural transition for you. And so all the best. And I'm going to miss you sitting up there. I can tell you that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Really? Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll say what I said last time as well and that is, you know, you've been a wonderful public servant for November 10, 2020 Page 156 Collier County, and I think the legacy that you leave of public service here is remarkable. I mean, you've done so much for your community and your district but the county as a whole that you really should feel proud because, I mean, it's been an honor for me to have served on the Commission with you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And I'll say the same thing. You've done this for 20 years, I believe, which is an incredible length of time to serve on the County Commission. Your constituents obviously love you and, quite frankly, if you had run again, you would have gotten elected again. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: But everybody's time comes, and I know you've got family and travel and other things that you really want to pursue. But Collier County is still home, and East Naples is still home for you. So as things come up, don't hesitate to give Commissioner McDaniel a call, and let him know what you need. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we'll try to react to that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Then you know it will get done. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Mr. Ochs. MR. OCHS: Yes. Commissioner Fiala and fellow commissioners, if you could indulge me and come on down in front of the dais, we could get a couple pictures, and we have a little brief presentation also to make. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm afraid I can't do that. My hair looks terrible today. MR. OCHS: Oh, that's okay, ma'am. We'll Photoshop it. November 10, 2020 Page 157 COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's going to need plenty. I look like I'm standing next to a tree. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, real briefly. On behalf of the staff, we want to congratulate you on 20 years of exemplary service to the community. (Applause.) MR. OCHS: It's been a total honor and a privilege to serve with you, and on behalf of the staff, we want to thank you for all of the kindness that you've extended to the staff over the years, all the respect that you've shown us, and it's hopefully been reciprocated, and we look forward to seeing you on your next adventure. And in that regard, the senior staff has taken up a little bit of a collection to give you something that we think will help you visit one of your favorite places in the world, a little spot up in Ohio that I think you like to move up to every chance you get. So here's a small token of our appreciation, help you get up there to Amish country every once in a while, and a few flowers there, so... (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. MR. OCHS: Get a picture, if we can also jump in here with you guys. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, it's -- can I say it's -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You can say whatever you want. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been a hell of a ride. I loved it. And it's been so much fun because I've served with the best people in the whole world. You couldn't pick any better people than these to work in this county. So I want to thank everybody for everything you've done because, yes, we've made a lot of changes, especially in my area, that desperately needed them, but I couldn't have done it without November 10, 2020 Page 158 everybody here doing it for me. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. Let's all look at the camera and get a picture. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He said, look at the camera and get a good picture, but I'm still in it. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you don't mind, I know all the staff that are in the room would like a chance to get a picture with you, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'd like that. Come on down. MR. OCHS: Come on, everybody. Come on, Jeff. Do you want to jump in? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, everybody. MR. OCHS: I think the commissioner had a last wish. You gave her an opening, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm going to get to Ohio real quickly as soon as the weather is warmer. So Burt Saunders said, anything I want. Well, maybe he could help me, and along with everybody else's help. We have -- the three parks that we have in East Naples, we don't really have a place for the kids to play in them. The one did have kind of a place, but it's been torn down, and the other two don't even have a place for the kids to play inside or anything. And I've been begging and begging and begging. Would you please mastermind that and get that through so that I can have a place for the kids to play inside, especially to get out of the heat in the summer and to get inside warmth in the winterti me where they can actually sit down and have crafts and everything just like everybody's park? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have you thought about a November 10, 2020 Page 159 size? You've mentioned this for quite some time. If you don't mind me asking, Mr. Chair. Just -- you've talked about -- actually, when we dedicated the park there, you mentioned it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Have you thought about a size component room-wise or shape or anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just -- I've just thought about being inside so the kids can get out of inclement weather. And whatever they can do. I've been told that there was no place, but I think that they can find places there. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, there was a place in between the two buildings at the Donna Fiala Eagle Lakes Park that was originally planned for the site of the aquatics center. But when we moved the aquatics to a different location on the property, there is a future opportunity to kind of fill in that space with some kind of a gymnasium or community center, something that would provide some more indoor space. So we can certainly begin that planning process if that's something, as we move into next budget year, if the Board has an interest in that. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Let's do that, and I'll work with staff on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's great. I want to tell you how important -- our kids don't have a place to go that's safe to play inside, and so they're on the street corners, and it's not safe for them. And I've been begging for this for years and years and years and years, and I would love to see it happen, and we could call it the Burt Saunders Community Center. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: No. We definitely -- we won't do that, but we will take a look into it. And keep an eye on us. And I know you'll remind us as we get into the budget cycle for that. MR. OCHS: Yep. November 10, 2020 Page 160 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Anything else for the good of the order? (No response.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Then we are adjourned. ***** **** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner McDaniel and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF OYSTER HARBOR AT FIDDLER’S CREEK PHASE 2C, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200000012) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 2020-199: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF PARKLANDS – PLAT ONE, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001253, AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A3 November 10, 2020 Page 161 RESOLUTION 2020-200: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF STONECREEK – PLAT TWO, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000810, AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES FOR SEYCHELLES - OFFSITE PHASE 1 WATER MAIN, [PL20190001644] AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,469.29 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – SITE LOCATED OFF OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD., JUST SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 2020-201: SUPPORTING THE COUNTY’S APPLICATIONS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR LONG RANGE BUDGET PLAN REQUESTS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022. THIS ACTION MAINTAINS THE COUNTY'S ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE COST SHARE FUNDING FOR FUTURE RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS Item #16A6 November 10, 2020 Page 162 RESOLUTION 2020-202: AMENDING EXHIBIT “A” TO RESOLUTION NO. 2013-239, THE LIST OF SPEED LIMITS ON COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS, TO REFLECT THE TEMPORARY REDUCTION OF THE SPEED LIMIT ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BEGINNING APPROXIMATELY 2.25 MILES EAST OF OIL WELL GRADE ROAD AND EXTENDING EAST APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET, FROM FIFTY-FIVE (55) MILES PER HOUR TO FORTY (40) MILES PER HOUR, DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES RELATING TO THE GATOR CANAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT [PROJECT #66066] Item #16A7 A WORK ORDER WITH APTIM ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., FOR A NOT TO EXCEED COST OF $38,733.10 UNDER CONTRACT #18-7432-CZ TO SUPPORT PHASE III OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION (HSDR) FEASIBILITY STUDY PERFORMED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM [PROJECT #80366] Item #16A8 A WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON & MOORE ENGINEERS FOR STATE REQUIRED ANNUAL MONITORING OF COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES AND INLETS FOR 2021 UNDER CONTRACT NO. 18-7432-CZ, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER FOR A NOT TO EXCEED November 10, 2020 Page 163 AMOUNT OF $167,223 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16A9 AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 20-7678 TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE “SOLANA ROAD STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT” IN THE AMOUNT OF $505,761.55, AND TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16A10 A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH PULTE HOME COMPANY LLC (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY (COUNTY) TO RESERVE CAPACITY WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY SYSTEM IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEVELOPER PREPAYING A PORTION OF THE ROAD IMPACT FEES, DONATING LAND AND EASEMENTS TO THE COUNTY AND RECEIVING STORMWATER FOR A FUTURE IMPROVEMENT TO RANDALL BOULEVARD AND WORK COOPERATIVELY TO CONSTRUCT A WATER MAIN AND SEWER FORCE MAIN CONNECTION BETWEEN OIL WELL ROAD AND RANDALL BOULEVARD Item #16A11 A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES, LLC TO PROVIDE A FLOW-WAY EASEMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR ONE (1) TDR CREDIT PER FIVE (5) ACRES OF ELIGIBLE PROPERTY ON 18 PARCELS OF PROPERTY November 10, 2020 Page 164 WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CWIP) PROJECT BOUNDARY, CONTINGENT UPON FINAL BOARD APPROVAL OF THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE RE-STUDY AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THE IMPLEMENTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS Item #16A12 RESOLUTION 2020-203: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004- 66, AS AMENDED, THAT CREATED AN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING CHAPTER THREE, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES WITH A PUBLIC HEARING, MORE SPECIFICALLY TO AMEND SECTION G.6., ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER – PUD COMPARABLE USE DETERMINATION, TO REMOVE THE COMPARABLE USE DETERMINATION PROCESS FROM THE ZONING VERIFICATION LETTER PROCESS AND TO CREATE THE COMPARABLE USE DETERMINATION PROCESS, INCLUDING EVALUATION CRITERIA, AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING IF A NEW USE IS COMPARABLE, COMPATIBLE, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LIST OF IDENTIFIED PERMITTED USES IN A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT, OVERLAY, OR PUD ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17E) Item #16B1 November 10, 2020 Page 165 ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-52, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SEATS FROM FIVE TO SEVEN MEMBERS AND FURTHER DEFINE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS Item #16B2 AWARD SOLICITATION NO. 20-7787, BAYSHORE FIRE SUPPRESSION PHASE 3 - GRANT FUNDED, TO ANDREW SITEWORK, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $658,560, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16C1 THE CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY FACILITIES WARRANTY DEED AND BILL OF SALE FOR POTABLE WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE PROPOSED BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK SITE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER- SEWER DISTRICT, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $100 – FOLIO #00209961005 Item #16C2 AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 19-7653RR, “CRANE RENTAL SERVICES,” TO MAXIM CRANE WORKS, November 10, 2020 Page 166 L.P., AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT - FOR MAINTAINING ITS EQUIPMENT AT VARIOUS COUNTY OWNED AND LEASED BUILDINGS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: HVAC UNITS, WELL PUMPS, ETC. Item #16C3 A WORK ORDER TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,718.00, UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 14- 6213, BID NO. 2008-011, RFQ FOR AIR RELEASE VALVE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM-RADIO ROAD AIR RELEASE VALVES [PROJECT #70240] - UPDATING THE ARVS TO MEET CURRENT COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY STANDARDS IN A COORDINATED MANNER THAT WILL NOT INTERRUPT SEWER SERVICE, IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE AND RELIABILITY OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IN THE COMMUNITY AND PROVIDING A SAFER WORKING ENVIRONMENT BY REMOVING THE ARVS FROM UNDERGROUND CONFINED SPACES Item #16C4 – Moved to Item #11H (Per Commissioner McDaniel during Agenda Changes and to be heard with Item #11B) AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MR. STEVEN L. BOHNERT FOR 0.27 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4061 32ND AVE. SW AND ADJACENT TO THE FUTURE ESSENTIAL SERVICES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THE November 10, 2020 Page 167 TOTAL COST FOR THIS TRANSACTION WILL NOT EXCEED $90,000 – FOLIO #36512280007 Item #16D1 AUTHORIZING PURCHASES FROM ONLINE COMPUTER LIBRARY CENTER, INC., ("OCLC") AS AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS, TO OBTAIN AN ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION USING A COUNTY ISSUED PURCHASE ORDER FOR LIBRARY CATALOGING AND INTERLIBRARY LOAN SERVICES FOR LIBRARY PATRON USE, IN A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $120,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, AS BUDGETED, THROUGH FY2025 Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 2020-204: THE REMOVAL OF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $123,465.57 FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE LIBRARY DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006- 252 AND AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE RESOLUTION Item #16D3 AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. 20-9102, “SNF SLIDE POOL & IWF LEAK REPAIRS & RESURFACING,” UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525, ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES, TO CAPITAL CONTRACTORS, LLC., AND AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $330,730 TO REPAIR November 10, 2020 Page 168 THE LEAKS IN THE INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE RESERVOIR TANKS AND SLIDE POOL AND RESURFACE THE SLIDE POOL AT SUN-N-FUN LAGOON WATER PARK Item #16D4 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COLLIER COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND CONSULTATION SERVICES TO CHILDREN WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN COLLIER COUNTY, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000 Item #16D5 AN EXTENSION TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION'S NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ALLOWING THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUMS AND THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO BORROW THE KEY MARCO CAT FOR DISPLAY AT THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM UNTIL 2026 Item #16D6 FEE WAIVERS GRANTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 2018-106 IN THE AMOUNT OF $975 Item #16D7 November 10, 2020 Page 169 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK OF COLLIER COUNTY INC., TO PROVIDE MEDICAL REFERRAL SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS IN COLLIER COUNTY Item #16D8 RESOLUTION 2020-205: (1) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY'S U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FY2019- 2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO COVID-19 THAT PROVIDES $2,476,642 FOR ESG-CV ROUND 2 AND $2,671,095 CDBG-CV ROUND 3 ACTIVITIES FOR THOSE IMPACTED BY THE CORONAVIRUS; (2) ASSOCIATED ESG AND CDBG BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AND (3) AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED SF424S, SF424DS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND GRANT FUNDING AGREEMENTS UPON ARRIVAL – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D9 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,327,889 AND NAMI COLLIER COUNTY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,704 PURSUANT TO THE STATE-MANDATED LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES November 10, 2020 Page 170 Item #16D10 AWARD AN AGREEMENT TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (RPS) #20-7691RR, TO EVALUATE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT'S (“CAT”) FIXED-ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS FOR SYSTEM EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,041 Item #16D11 (Added Per Agenda Change Sheet)) AWARD OF INVITATION FOR QUALIFICATION (“IFQ”) #20- 7801 TO A2 GROUP, INC. (“A2”), FOR PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE SUN-N-FUN WATERPARK RESTORATION AND RENOVATION PROJECT, TO BE MEMORIALIZED UNDER A SUBSEQUENTLY PREPARED CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (“CMAR”) AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, TO ENTER INTO THE CMAR AGREEMENT FOR THOSE PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES WITH A2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,617, SUBJECT TO FORMAL RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD AT ITS DECEMBER 8, 2020 MEETING Item #16E1 AN AWARD OF $63,731 IN GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR EXPANDED November 10, 2020 Page 171 TRAINING AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, AND TO APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16E2 RATIFYING PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM FILES SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 15 FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF FY20 Item #16E3 RECOGNIZING ACCRUED INTEREST FROM THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2020 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 EARNED BY EMS COUNTY GRANT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $356.05 Item #16E4 AUTHORIZING A $46,000 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE 800 MHZ INTERGOVERNMENTAL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM, FUND 188 TO ADDRESS UNEXPECTED REPAIRS INCURRED AT A RADIO EQUIPMENT SHELTER Item #16E5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF November 10, 2020 Page 172 PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT Item #16E6 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL Item #16F1 RECOGNIZING JENNIFER SMITH, PUBLIC UTILITIES, TECHNICAL SUPPORT OPERATIONS AS THE OCTOBER 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH Item #16F2 THE EARLY RETIREMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LIMITED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT), SERIES 2007, AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS Item #16F3 A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., TO November 10, 2020 Page 173 PROVIDE LOCAL MATCH FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2021 Item #16F4 THE USE OF TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX PROMOTION FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE UPCOMING DECEMBER 2020 SPORTS TOURISM EVENT UP TO $6,375 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTE TOURISM Item #16F5 AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) #20-7785, “TOURISM VISITOR GUIDE” TO MILES PARTNERSHIP, LLLP; AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16F6 AWARD AN AGREEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) #20-7776, “LATIN AMERICAN TOURISM REPRESENTATION” TO AVIAREPS AIRLINE MANAGEMENT, INC., AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES TOURISM Item #16F7 ISSUANCE OF COUNTY-OWNED LAPTOPS AND/OR CELL PHONES TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR USE DURING THEIR SERVICE November 10, 2020 Page 174 Item #16F8 MAKE A FINDING THAT CONCERN OVER SPREADING OR CONTRACTING COVID-19 CONSTITUTES AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE FOR PURPOSES OF REMOTE PARTICIPATION IN A PUBLIC MEETING BY A MEMBER OF A BOARD OR ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item #16F9 RESOLUTION 2020-206: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #16H1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2020 AS NATIONAL HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO MARK BELAND, COMMUNITY LIAISON OF AVOW HOSPICE, NAPLES, FLORIDA – ADOPTED Item #16H2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1 - 7, 2020 AS CROHN'S AND COLITIS AWARENESS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO YVETTE STAFFORD JONES OF THE CROHN'S CHARITY SERVICE FOUNDATION – ADOPTED Item #16H3 November 10, 2020 Page 175 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 18 - 25, 2020 BE DESIGNATED AS FARM-CITY WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO CYNDEE WOOLLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE FARM CITY BBQ OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. – ADOPTED Item #16H4 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 2020, AS NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO MARIANN BILLIE, 30290 JOSIE BILLIE HWY. #639, CLEWISTON, FLORIDA 33440 – ADOPTED Item #16J1 EXECUTION OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $117,300 FOR FY20 SHERIFF'S OFFICE 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT - NEEDED TO PAY FINAL CLAIM Item #16J2 BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINED A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF NOVEMBER 4, 2020 Item #16J3 RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER November 10, 2020 Page 176 PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN OCTOBER 15, 2020 AND OCTOBER 28, 2020 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2020-207: RE-APPOINTING WILLIAM SJOSTROM AND WILLIAM HARRIS TO THE VANDERBILT BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item #16K2 RESOLUTION 2020-208: APPOINTING CHRIS BYRNE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS Item #16K3 WAIVING ANY POTENTIAL ETHICS CONFLICT FOR A MEMBER OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD BASED ON CH. 112, FLORIDA STATUTES Item #16K4 (Note per Agenda Change Sheet) DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTINUE ITS EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE AND RESOLVE OUTSTANDING CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ISSUES WITH WEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., CONCERNING WEST’S PERFORMANCE CONSTRUCTING THE NEW TERMINAL FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT UNDER November 10, 2020 Page 177 COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 18-7240 – AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #17A ORDINANCE 2020-40: AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND MAP SERIES TO ADD THE TEMPLE SHALOM COMMUNITY FACILITY SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A CHURCH OF UP TO 302 SEATS, A CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO 200 CHILDREN, AND ON TRACT 64 OF THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 26 SUBDIVISION UP TO 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMUNITY FACILITY USES, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTION AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 13.5± ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (ADOPTION HEARING) [PL20180003708] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17B) Item #17B ORDINANCE 2020-41: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND November 10, 2020 Page 178 DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS TEMPLE SHALOM COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO ALLOW UP 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC, SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION (NON- SANCTUARY USES) ON TRACT 64 AND A 302 SEAT SANCTUARY, A CHILD CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO 200 CHILDREN AND RELATED USES ON TRACTS 65 AND 68, UP TO AN AGGREGATE MAXIMUM OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET ON TRACTS 65 AND 68. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4630 PINE RIDGE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 4000 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 13.5± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF RESOLUTION NOS. 89-213, 90- 418, AND 93-290, RELATING TO A TEMPLE/CHURCH AND CHILD CARE USES, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180003710] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17A) Item #17C ORDINANCE 2020-42: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH November 10, 2020 Page 179 MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES TO CREATE THE MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED- USE SUBDISTRICT BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE URBAN DESIGNATION, URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN DESIGNATION, URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED- USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF LUXURY AUTO DEALERSHIP USES IN ADDITION TO COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING YOUTH CENTERS, CHURCHES, GROUP CARE, FAMILY CARE, ADULT DAYCARE, AND SENIOR HOUSING. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND ESTEY AVENUE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 3.29± ACRES; FURTHERMORE, DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20190002496] (ADOPTION HEARING) (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17D) Item #17D ORDINANCE 2020-43: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 10- 28, AS AMENDED, THE MERIDIAN VILLAGE MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM TRACT A, COMMUNITY FACILITY, TO November 10, 2020 Page 180 TRACT C, COMMERCIAL; TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF LUXURY AUTO DEALERSHIP USES IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING YOUTH CENTERS, CHURCHES, GROUP CARE, FAMILY CARE, ADULT DAY CARE, AND SENIOR HOUSING ON TRACT C. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND ESTEY AVENUE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11.68± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20190002494] (THIS IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #17C) Item #17E ORDINANCE 2020-44: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- 41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXTEND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS EARLY ENTRY BONUS CREDIT FOR SENDING LANDS IN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY, TO REVISE THE PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COMPARABLE USE DETERMINATIONS, TO MODIFY THE TIMEFRAMES AND PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS IN THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA, TO ESTABLISH AN APPROVAL PROCESS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EVENTS WHICH TAKE November 10, 2020 Page 181 PLACE IN COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.00 ZONING DISTRICTS; PERMITTED USES, ACCESSORY USES, AND CONDITIONAL USES, SECTION 2.03.03 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.05 CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.03.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS; CHAPTER FOUR - SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.08.07 SRA DESIGNATION; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.04.05 TEMPORARY EVENTS, SECTION 5.04.06 TEMPORARY SIGNS; CHAPTER TEN - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES, INCLUDING SECTION 10.02.06 REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS, SECTION 10.03.06 PUBLIC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND USE PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM #16A12) Item #17F RESOLUTION 2020-209: DESIGNATING THE CLOSE-OUT OF THE ADOPTED BUCKLEY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) WHICH HAS FULLY COMPLETED November 10, 2020 Page 182 DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT ORDERS CONSTRUCTING UP TO THE AUTHORIZED DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THEIR SPECIFIC DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS AND TO APPROVE THE CLOSE OUT AGREEMENT FOR THE LAST REMAINING TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENT Item #17G ORDINANCE 2020-45: AMENDING ORDINANCE 2006-57 EXPANDING THE USE OF GOLF CARTS TO ALL COUNTY ROADS AND STREETS THROUGHOUT GOODLAND, FLORIDA Item #17H RESOLUTION 2020-210: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:12 p.m. November 10, 2020 Page 183 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ___________________________________ BURT SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: __________________________ CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.