Loading...
Agenda 02/09/2021 Item # 2B (BCC Minutes - 01-12-21)02/09/2021 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 2.B Item Summary: January 12, 2021 BCC Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 02/09/2021 Prepared by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 01/26/2021 11:54 AM Submitted by: Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager – County Manager's Office Name: MaryJo Brock 01/26/2021 11:54 AM Approved By: Review: County Manager's Office MaryJo Brock County Manager Review Completed 01/26/2021 12:05 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 02/09/2021 9:00 AM 2.B Packet Pg. 11 January 12, 2021 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 12, 2021 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Penny Taylor William L. McDaniel, Jr. Andy Solis Rick LoCastro Burt L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Crystal K. Kinzel, Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations January 12, 2021 Page 2 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Good morning. The meeting of the County Commission will please come to order. We have with us this morning the Reverend Craig Goodrich, First Presbyterian Church of Naples, to get us off to a good start, and at the conclusion of that, Commissioner LoCastro, if you would lead us in the Pledge. Item #1A INVOCATION GIVEN BY REVEREND CRAIG GOODRICH FROM THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NAPLES – INVOCATION GIVEN REVEREND GOODRICH: Let us bow our heads and pray. Gracious God, at the beginning of this day and new year, we thank you for the gift of another day, and we thank you for the good gift of government in this, our board of county commissioners. We thank you for these dedicated public servants who gather freely today to seek the common good. We thank you for staff, for all who serve, and for all who will present and speak this day. As images of the violent rioting in Washington, D.C., on Capitol Hill remain with us, we pray for protection for our leaders in government at every level, and we thank you for faithful law enforcement. As the pandemic rages, we pray for all who are suffering, for those who are grieving, and for those anxiously awaiting vaccination. We pray the distribution and vaccination will proceed expeditiously and fairly. We thank you for the gift and our dedication to the truth and the rule of law. We remember the psalmist who said, who shall dwell on thy holy hill, the one who walks blamelessly and does what is January 12, 2021 Page 3 right and speaks truth from his heart. In these hours ahead in this room, we ask for listening grace, for humility, for collaboration, and due diligence and attention to every matter, and we ask that at the end of this day, despite all our flaws, shortcomings that what is done here and what each of us does, wherever we may go, will be pleasing to you, oh God of mercy, grace, and love. This we pray in your holy name. Amen. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Face the flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Before we go through the peaceful transfer of chairmanship, we have a couple items to go through. I want to first thank Arthrex for providing masks to the business community. Mr. Ochs, I believe they provided 10,000 of these; is that correct? MR. OCHS: That is correct, sir. There's 8,000 going out to businesses, and Arthrex also requested masks for all the county employees, so we're doing that distribution as well. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. If you would, without the objection of -- any objection from the Board, if you would thank the folks of Arthrex for their consideration for this, that would be appreciated. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We also had one speaker registered on our minutes before we get to that. MR. MILLER: I think there was some confusion on the online registration. We have several people -- three people that signed up to speak on Item 2. We're going to sort them over to Item 7, sir. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay, good. Item #2A APPROVAL OF TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND January 12, 2021 Page 4 SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES All right. Then we need, on Item 2A, a motion for the approval of the today's regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to be amending the agenda, so let's go through that, and then we'll do the minutes. I'm sorry. We'll do the -- MR. OCHS: Changes -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: -- changes. MR. OCHS: -- first. Thank you, sir. The Arthrex mask does such a good job, I don't think you can hear me, so I'm going to switch to the -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Yeah. I kind of came to the same conclusion. It's a great mask to wear, but it's a difficult one to talk through. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep, it's true. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Let's go ahead with the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of January 21st, 2021. The first proposed change is to continue Item 9A to your next board meeting on January 26th, 2021. This is the rezone petition for the Sabal Bay Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development District. That -- excuse me. That item is moved at Commissioner Taylor's request. The next proposed change is to add Item 10A to this morning's agenda. This is an item added to the agenda by Commissioner McDaniel reporting on the BCC subcommittee work for the County January 12, 2021 Page 5 Manager hiring. The next proposed change is to move Item 16F4 from your consent agenda. It will now become Item 11D. This is a recommendation from staff for the Board to adopt alternative impact fee rates for the new Uline facility being constructed out in City Gate. That move is made at Commissioner Taylor's request. The next proposed change is to move Item 17G from your summary agenda to move to Item 9B under your advertised public hearings. This is an item, the second reading of an ordinance re-establishing the County Government Productivity Committee. That is being moved at Commissioner Taylor's request. The next proposed change is to continue Item 17D from your summary agenda to the February 23rd, 2021, County Commission meeting. This is an ordinance establishing the new Golden Gate Parkway Overlay District. That change is requested by Commissioner Saunders. And those are all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: All right. Let's see if there are any other changes from the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel, do you have any other changes? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, as a matter of fact. I had -- I had the same. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Any ex parte on the -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nor any ex parte. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Same; no ex parte, no changes. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes. I do have an ex parte on 16 -- no, sorry, 17E. I have a couple of emails from a resident. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than that, no changes and January 12, 2021 Page 6 nothing else to disclose. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Commissioner LoCastro? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No ex parte and no changes. If you would indulge me, though, I did want to make just one comment. It's mostly to the staff who was listening who might be out in the audience. We approve a lot of things quickly on the consent and summary agenda, and for good reason, because a lot of in-depth work's been done, and it comes to us and, you know, we take it on face value. But I would just say put as much detail as you can in there, and it would definitely -- you know, I'll give you just one example here. We're about to approve a quarter of a million dollars for the transit company to beef up some bus stops and put them in -- make them accessible to people with disabilities. I mean, that's a nice one-liner, and a quarter of a million dollars is a lot of money. And granted, we all can meet with the County Manager, and we do. We can get the information and whatnot. But a one line in there saying where are we doing it; how many are we buying? And, you know, when I dug into it, there's 290 -- 296 bus stops that don't meet the disability requirements or need additional type things. Okay. How far does the quarter of a million dollars go? Well, it only fixes 15 of them. So, the takeaway for all of us here would be great, approved, but maybe it plants a seed in all of our minds that, wow, we still have 260-plus that need attention. And so rather -- you know, sometimes we do a very quick blessing of all the things in the -- in the summary and the consent agenda, but there could be a few little things buried in there that, if we don't ask the question or whatnot, or maybe we don't have to, where one little line could have said, here's what it buys. Also, where are they? You know, are all these bus stops in Port Royal, or they're spread out in areas where it's most needed. So just January 12, 2021 Page 7 a point of comment. And, secondly, Atkins North America gets a lot of business from us. We write a lot of big checks to them and do a lot of great work. But there's been a couple of projects where maybe, you know, that's been lacking a little bit. So when I see their name in the consent agenda and the summary agenda, and we're continuing to give them a lot of business, you know, I'm not throwing them under the bus by any means because I know they've done some great work but, you know, it begs the question, you know, are we just defaulting to them every single time? They're the only ones that have bid or, you know, are they truly kicking it in gear, tightening up, you know, their process? Did we have some lessons learned? So, you know, maybe just some more general comments. But, you know, I have no objections. I don't want to bring anything forward. It was just more of a general statement. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well said. I have no changes to the agenda and no ex parte. So, we need a motion to approve the consent agenda and summary agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: May I -- CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's quite all right. May I amend my ex parte with 17D, which is the Bembridge property. I did have a discussion with a staff member. 17E, excuse me. I did have a discussion. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Okay. That will be noted. All right. We need a motion on the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So moved. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We need a second. January 12, 2021 Page 8 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We have a motion and second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: That passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: We're going to switch the chairmanship and, Commissioner Taylor, we can switch chairs during the first break so you can over here to the middle. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh. Where is this, now? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not sitting in the middle? CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: You will be after the first break, unless you want to switch now, which is fine by me. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Roll while we're all on TV. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But before we do -- before we go anywhere with that, it is the custom of the County Commission and the county staff to award the outgoing Chair a plaque. And I can clearly agree not all the time in terms of what was said, but here we have an outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Board. And, clearly, this year has been a challenging year. There's been no rulebook. And you have guided us and been at the helm of very stressful times. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I feel that you -- and I think we would agree as a board that your leadership has made a difference. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I agree with that. January 12, 2021 Page 9 (Applause.) COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He doesn't want us. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then we better do it again, because I was -- this is the photographer. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we can let the record reflect that I was smiling. MR. OCHS: Oh, very nice. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: I want to thank the Commission. We passed an ordinance back in, I think, in October to deal with the chairmanship to take all of the political intrigue out of that. So, we have a rotation system. So, Commissioner Taylor will be taking over as chair pursuant to that ordinance, and then subsequent to that, Commissioner McDaniel will be the chair. So, we'll have that rotation based on numbers of districts. And that, I think, makes for a much easier and much more graceful change in the chairmanship. I want to just take one second. I want to thank staff. It's been a pleasure working with you as the Chair. We are blessed in this community to have a really good professional staff, as well as the staff that's in the field. So, you guys make our lives much, much, much easier. And I want to thank the Commission. It's been a difficult year on some issues. We've disagreed, but we've never become disagreeable in that, except for Commissioner McDaniel on one occasion, and that will be forever remembered, but -- forgiven but remembered. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's just my nature. That's my nature. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: But anyway, I appreciate the opportunity that I've had to serve as your chair, and I will hand the gavel over to Commissioner Taylor. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, thank you. January 12, 2021 Page 10 CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS: And we'll switch seats during the break. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And you're going to have to pay attention to who wants to talk. Oh, it just moves? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's Bluetooth. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I thought it was wired. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would also like to thank Commissioner Saunders for an incredible job. This has been the most trying of times. I've told people that, you know, the hurricane was easy compared to this. And to guide us through some very contentious meetings full of emotion. You really did an outstanding job, and I will say that I've learned a lot watching you do that, so thank you for all your hard work and patience. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. I appreciate that. Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, it's me. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You're on. I'm going to relax here. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager? January 12, 2021 Page 11 Item #2B BOARD APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL, AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, AND AUTHORIZE THE NEW CHAIRS FOR BOTH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT BOTH THIS MEETING AND THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE PROVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ARE PENDING SIGNATURE –  APPOINTING COMMISSIONER TAYLOR AND COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL TO CO-CHAIR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY – APPROVED  APPOINTING COMMISSIONER SOLIS TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL – APPROVED  APPOINTING COMMISSIONER TAYLOR TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD – APPROVED  APPOINTING COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COODINATING COUNCIL – APPROVED  APPOINTING COMMISSIONER MCDANIEL AND COMMISSIONER LOCASTRO TO CO-CHAIR THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we're moving now to Item 2B on January 12, 2021 Page 12 this morning's agenda. This is the appointment of board members to certain boards and commissions that the Board has established. Beginning -- Madam Chair, what I'll do, with your permission, is just read through all of these and then you can go back through them individually and have your discussion about which board members might have an interest in going where. But you will be acting on the following items here with appointments from board members. You have appointments to your Community Redevelopment Agency, your Tourist Development Board, the Community and Economic Development Board, your Public Safety Coordinating Council, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, all of -- and also, through this action, you will be authorizing the new chair for both the County Commission and the Community Redevelopment Agency to execute all documents approved at these meetings or those that were previously approved but are pending signature by the incoming chairman. So, with that, ma'am. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So -- MR. OCHS: Do you want to open the floor for nominations or discussions? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Now, it is our custom that the commissioner of the district of where the CRA sits in -- and there are two CRAs in Collier County -- automatically become the chair of that CRA board, but -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's only a chair and a vice chair, and Commissioner Taylor was the chair before, and I was the vice chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Excuse me, Taylor, yes. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it might help the Board, let me just go through the current roster, okay? January 12, 2021 Page 13 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, if you would. MR. OCHS: Commissioner McDaniel is correct that Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner McDaniel served as co-chairs to the Community Redevelopment Area, Commissioner Solis is currently the appointment to the Tourist Development Council, Commissioner Taylor is the current appointment to the Community and Economic Development Board, Commissioner Saunders is the current appointment to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner Taylor are serving on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, I think the first -- what we'll take initially is the Community Redevelopment Agency, the chair and the vice chair and -- MR. OCHS: Very good. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Frankly, I'd like to nominate my colleague, Commissioner McDaniel, to be the chair. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yep. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm wondering, is it so untoward to perhaps have someone who isn't the chair of the individual CRA being the vice chair, or is it better to have that continuity? MR. OCHS: I think it's -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: My thought would be to have the two commissioners that reign -- that are elected from the districts where the CRAs actually exist. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'd be happy to -- if you'll amend your motion, that we co-chair those -- that position. That way there -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. I'm comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I mean, that's what we did with Commissioner Fiala. January 12, 2021 Page 14 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, so the motion, then, is for Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner LoCastro to be co-chairs. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner Taylor. MR. OCHS: Taylor. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because the CRA Bayshore is in District 4 now. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Oh, I didn't know that. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We ceremoniously kept Commissioner Fiala in there because it was -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: It was, right? It used to be. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It was. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It passes, okay. So now we have the Community and Economic Development Board. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, TDC. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, excuse me. The Tourist Development board. January 12, 2021 Page 15 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll help you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, could I ask a question? I think Commissioner Solis is the representative of that, and I would assume that you would still want to continue serving on that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would. I'd like to continue with the TDC. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think I've gotten a feel for it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. There's nothing like continuity. Yeah, that's good. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Is that a board where there's just one commissioner, unlike the board that you both chair? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. The board that we both chair is this board, believe it or not. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The tourist board is just represented by one commissioner? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yeah. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll make that motion for Commissioner Solis to continue to serve in his capacity on that board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. January 12, 2021 Page 16 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That passes unanimously. Okay. The Community and Economic Development Board, which I'm chair. With your indulgence, I would like to remain chair of that board. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd make that motion. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Public Safety Coordinating Council. Perhaps we can talk about what that is just briefly. We do have a new commissioner. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, I'm going to turn to the manager to -- MR. OCHS: Sure. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- kind of give a little bit of an explanation of that. He'll have a little bit more detail than I most likely would provide. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. This is a state statutorily required committee in each county, and their job is primarily to try to develop strategies to limit the populations in the jails and try to make for a January 12, 2021 Page 17 more efficient criminal justice system in the county. We've got a very active board led by Commissioner Saunders and several members, including the Sheriff and members of the judiciary. So, they meet probably quarterly to, again, look at those types of strategies, review facility plans, and other programmatic initiatives that will reduce recidivism and reduce our jail population, look to diversion strategies to keep our jail population manageable. Commissioner McDaniel, did I get that close? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Spot on. MR. OCHS: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And since he called on me, if I may -- MR. OCHS: Yeah, because he's been very active in the past. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I enjoyed it. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Before you make that motion, I have no problem in continuing to serve on that. I know -- Commissioner LoCastro, I don't know with your experience if that would be something you'd want to serve on. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, what I wanted to ask Mr. Ochs, the last commission, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, I mean, it's sort of a little bit self-explanatory, but maybe not. Can you -- can you indulge a little bit and give a little bit of a synopsis of that? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Those are councils established, again, by the governor and state statute. They were developed several years ago when we still had the State Department of Community Affairs. Their primary role is to, as the name implies, coordinate planning activities at a regional level, particularly things like transportation and water-quality issues where they cross political boundaries. So, this group has been involved -- or this council has been involved in a myriad of issues, including economic development January 12, 2021 Page 18 initiatives in the rural portions of the county and transportation and other planning initiatives at the regional level. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And that one typically has two commissioners? MR. OCHS: Yes. That's required to have two commissioners. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner. Yes, I'd like to -- let's go back to the one -- before we jump to the next one, I'd like to nominate Commissioner LoCastro to serve on the Public Safety Coordinating Council. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And then my question to Commissioner LoCastro, is that something that you'd want to serve on? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then I'll second that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Congratulations -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- Mr. LoCastro. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. I have been part of that for quite a long time. I will stay in touch, but I think it is time January 12, 2021 Page 19 to pass the gavel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may, I lit up. I don't -- are you going to stick on the buttons or -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I'm going to stick on the buttons. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'd like to stay on the RPC. I have plans in place to reinstitute, reorganize, rename, rebrand. I've got all that. We had all that set up for the November meeting, and when the governor didn't extend the capacity to attend virtually, our ED didn't rent a space. Didn't -- because we closed the RPC offices in Fort Myers. We had no conference room. We'd been doing it virtually. And so, consequently, we didn't even have a meeting in November. And they've moved us off to, I believe, every 60 days or once a quarter, actually. The RPC's only meeting once a quarter right now. So I would -- if it is the preference here, I would really like to see through that process to see if we can help that organization come back to assist our communities in the regional aspect of what's going on. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, I would support that. Commissioner LoCastro, you expressed interest. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I do. I mean, obviously, you know, Commissioner Taylor's now the chair. She's got, you know, two boards already, so I don't think I'm stepping on any toes or anything. But I really would like to partner with Commissioner McDaniel on this particular council, you know. I think I have a depth as well in water and the utilities and the things that it sounds like it obviously includes and, you know, we work very well together. So, I think we would be a really good team to that council if everybody agrees. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? January 12, 2021 Page 20 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I'll make that motion, then, for Commissioner McDaniel and Commissioner LoCastro to represent the Commission on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. And, finally -- okay. We've got those. Okay. And so now I have a little bit of a kerfuffle, if I may use that word. That's going to be my word of the year. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A what? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: A kerfuffle. Isn't that a wonderful word? Meaning a little bit of a conflict. I was graciously put on the AHAC board by my colleagues here, but I do have a conflict of getting two middle school kids to school on time. And we did talk about it at the first meeting but, unfortunately, they really like at 8:30 on a Monday morning to meet once a month and, unfortunately, that puts me coming into that meeting at 9:00. So I don't think it's fair, and I have expressed my concern, and I also expressed that we do have a new commissioner, and maybe it would be a good idea to have him immersed into affordable housing. And this committee does, because it's mandated by the state, and January 12, 2021 Page 21 there's seminars and webinars and all things that you have to partake in. So, Commissioner LoCastro, if you think you have an interest in that, would you agree? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Absolutely, yeah. I would -- I would, you know, volunteer enthusiastically, you know, to be on that commission and be up bright and early and go to all the meetings and report back to the team here as to what's going on and -- absolutely, if nobody has any objection, I volunteer wholeheartedly. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm supportive. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, you're supportive, okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to make the motion to appoint Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second the motion to formalize it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion and a second. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I assume that's for a one-year term. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, yeah. And if you really like it, it might be two. We're kind of easy up here. It's really -- but it's really important to these committees to have some kind of continuity. You start doing things and getting involved in issues, and sometimes when it changes too quickly, everybody starts at the beginning again. So -- okay. So, there's -- did we vote? I'm sorry. Did we vote on -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: On Commissioner LoCastro? January 12, 2021 Page 22 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Not yet. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's vote? Okay. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, let's vote, and then -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just had a question. One of the other boards that I serve on is the value -- I think Commissioner Saunders is still on the Value Adjustment Board. Is that something we do now, or do we do that later? MR. OCHS: I think you do that later in the year, sir. It's a separate item that we bring to you later in the summer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we didn't bring it up today specifically because you get to stay. Item #2C, #2D and #2E BCC MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 8, 2020, BCC/MENTAL HEALTH WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 15, 2020 AND BCC/SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 15, 2020 – APPROVED AS PRESENTED January 12, 2021 Page 23 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to Items 2C, D, and E. These are approval of the December 8th, 2020, Board of County Commissioner meeting minutes, the December 15th, 2020, BCC Mental Health Workshop meeting minutes, and the December 15th, 2020, BCC Special Meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Just before we jump, there was one housekeeping item, and I don't want to -- I'm not being that particular. But the last portion of B was to authorize the Chair of the Board and these committees to conduct business accordingly, and I don't know that -- do we need to have a specific motion on that, or just appointing them does that? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Then I'll make a motion for approval of C, D, and E. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion to approve the minutes. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That carries unanimously. Thank you. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that -- excuse me. As is the January 12, 2021 Page 24 Board's custom during the COVID pandemic, we have not been inviting employees in for receipt of their Employee of the Month award as well as citizens receiving proclamations, but we have historically allowed me to read the Employee of the Month recognition, and the -- at least the title of the proclamation recipient. So, if you don't object, I'll do that right now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think that's fine. Thank you. Item #3A (Item #16F1 – Read into the record by County Manager Ochs) RECOGNIZING IVONNE GARCIA PUBLIS SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES AS THE NOVEMBER 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH MR. OCHS: So, this is Item 16F1 on this morning's consent agenda. It's a recommendation to recognize Ivonne Garcia, Public Services Department, Community and Human Services, as the November 2020 Employee of the Month. Ivonne is a case manager with our Services for Seniors Department and has been with the county since 2016. She recently assisted one of her senior clients, a 63-year-old single woman who lived alone and suffered from numerous medical conditions including COPD. The client's air conditioning system was inoperable and could not be repaired and, because of her financial situation, she had to stay in her bedroom with a small window air conditioner to breathe because she could not afford to replace the A/C unit. Ivonne was able to work with a local vendor, Air Innovations of Florida, Incorporated, who donated their labor and parts, and she also worked to secure additional funding from the Golden Gate Senior January 12, 2021 Page 25 Center, the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers, and from the Emergency Home Energy Assistance for the Elderly Program to have a brand-new air conditioning system installed for her senior client. This was not an easy task and took a great deal of time, effort, and coordination of services. This shows that Ivonne is deeply committed to her customers and truly went above and beyond for this client, which is why she is so deserving of this recognition. And for those reasons and many others, Commissioners, it's my honor to recognize Ivonne Garcia, Public Services Department, as your November 2020 Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Yvonne. (Applause.) Item #4 (Items #16H1, #16H2 and #16H3 – Read into the record by County Manager Ochs) PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 15, 2021 AS DR. LMARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PRAYER BREAKFAST DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. THIS PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO TRINITY LIFE FOUNDATION, INC. - ADOPTED PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 18, 2021 AS A DAY TO REMEMBER AND CELEBRATE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.’S DREAM. THIS PROCLAMATION WILL BE HAND DELIVERED TO VINCENT KEEYS, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP - ADOPTED PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 2021 AS HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. January 12, 2021 Page 26 THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO LINDA OBERHAUS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMAN & CHILDREN - ADOPTED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, now we move to proclamations. We have a series of proclamations that were approved on your consent agenda this morning. I'd like to read the titles of those. Item #16H1 - The first is Item 16H1. This is a proclamation designating January 15th, 2020 [sic] as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Prayer Breakfast Day in Collier County. This proclamation will be mailed to the Trinity Life Foundation, Incorporated. Item #16H2 - Item 16H2 is a proclamation designating January 18, 2021, as a day to remember and celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior's dream. The proclamation will be hand-delivered to Mr. Vincent Keeys, who's in our audience today, the President of the Collier County branch of the NAACP. Mr. Keeys, it's an honor to see you here this morning. Thank you for being here. Item #16H3 - And, finally, Item 16H3 is a proclamation designating January 2021 as Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Collier County. This proclamation will be mailed to Linda Oberhaus, the chief executive officer of the Shelter for Abused Women and Children. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Keeys, would you like to speak to us regarding this proclamation? It's entirely up to you. We did not talk about this in advance. Okay. MR. KEEYS: For the sake of time, Madam Chair, we'd like to actually say to the public, really, that we're so sorry that we could not hold the parade this year. And, unfortunately, because of the numbers rising so high, we have postponed until 2022. And so for that reason alone, we apologize for not holding the parade. But we January 12, 2021 Page 27 thank you tremendously for this proclamation. We appreciate it tremendously. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. Yeah, it's one of my favorite parades to walk in. So we'll hold that day in our hearts. MR. KEEYS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. County Manager. Item #7 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We move to Item 7 this morning, public comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have five people registered for this item; four of them online, one in person. Let's start with the in-person speaker. That is Garrett F.X. Beyrent, and Mr. Beyrent will be followed by Mark English and Nora Alvarez, both online. Mr. Beyrent. MR. BEYRENT: Can you hear me through this? My name is Garrett F.X. Beyrent. I'm doing a presentation award which has to be lit up, so I'll give it to Leo. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It has to be lit up. MR. BEYRENT: See, I did -- this is an award I'm giving every -- let me see, 12 years I give out this award. This is an award to Janeice and Christine. These are the judges of -- judge and former judge of Collier County. And I've been in Janeice's program, her drug court program, for 10 years. I graduated, and I got my driver's license back, like a regular one where you can actually drive a car January 12, 2021 Page 28 after 8:00 at night and go anywhere you like. It's really great. It's years in the program, which is interesting, because when I look back at the people who created the program, I employed them 50 years ago when they were kids, a long time ago. And I wrote this letter -- I actually wrote it in cursive because it's a dying art form, and it's almost impossible to write. Did you -- you don't know where the paper ends anymore, and everybody is so high tech. But, basically, I'm thanking both Christine and Janeice for their work in this wonderful program. It really is. And it's given me a better life. And oddly enough, that's actually my 12-year AA gold medal thing that they give when you have 12 years of sobriety, which I have. And yesterday I put my son in the David Lawrence Center. He's 27 years old. He was in a rehab in Fort Lauderdale when he was 17. Now he's 27. And he's back in much worse off than he was before. And I couldn't say -- it would take more than three minutes to tell you what a great program the David Lawrence Center has provided this county. And if you can read my handwriting, I pretty much summarized that. And that's pretty much it. And I appreciate all your efforts. And this is a -- this is really a trying time for everybody. And I'm sure we'll make it through, but we definitely have to have you guys running the show. Oh, and one other brief note. I did already inventory all of the people that would qualify to be the County Manager. So I went back to everybody I've known for 30 years, and the long and short is that everybody said they didn't want the job, and the only guy qualified was Dan Rodriguez. So, I said, well, then I'll recommend him. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Before you leave the January 12, 2021 Page 29 microphone -- MR. BEYRENT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- two quick comments. Sorry to hear about your son, and hopefully he'll do well, and congratulations on your success with that program. MR. BEYRENT: Thank you very much, Bert. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And if I may, just for clarification, for those who do not know who Janeice and Christine are, it's Judge Janeice Martin and Judge Christine -- why have I forgotten her name? MR. BEYRENT: Greider. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. MR. BEYRENT: It used to be Hissam. When I knew her, she was eight years old. So, her mom and dad worked for me. That's how long I've known her. Great people. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. You know, it takes a lot of courage to come up here and tell us what you just did, deeply personal issues, and thank you for doing that. MR. BEYRENT: Thank you. I appreciate all your work, too, by the way. You've done a great job. I thank you for that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. BEYRENT: I also thank that guy over there, right there. He's a great guy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your remaining four speakers for Item 7 are all online. We will start with Mark English, followed by Nora Alvarez, and then Mark Hammerschick. Mr. English, are you with us, sir? MR. ENGLISH: I am. MR. MILLER: You have three minutes, sir. Please begin. MR. ENGLISH: Thank you. Good morning, lady and January 12, 2021 Page 30 gentlemen, and thank you for the opportunity to share with you some thoughts. First of all, thanks to all of you for your efforts on behalf of all the Collier County residents in a year that's just been challenging beyond description and, Chairman Saunders, especially you for your leadership. We've been through hurricanes. We got our way through that, we've had experience with it, but not a pandemic. So, again, thanks for all your efforts. It's got to be -- it's got to be awfully hard to be in your position, and we thank you for those efforts. I'm Mark English. I'm president of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, and I'm here to talk about the March 1st and 2nd meetings and particularly the proposed location for those events. The sole purpose of the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association is to protect the quality of life and the property values in Pelican Bay. And the One Naples project, as proposed, threatens both of those. And the meeting that is proposed to bring the final hearing for this project on March 1st and, if necessary, on March 2nd, is expected to draw a pretty good crowd, and it's our hope that you'll -- and we respectfully request that you consider moving it to a location where all of the people that are there -- and there will be a lot of people; it will be a big crowd -- can share the same room. To divide this group up among three or four rooms, to have people in their car, we're talking about a constituency here that is not young. There are mobility issues. They certainly need access to restrooms. And it would be especially important if they were together where they could communicate with each other. The Philharmonic, or Artis Naples now, has a capacity socially distanced of about 400 people and, of course, they have every technological bit of equipment that we could possibly use or need to do what we need to do technologically. And so, I would ask you to January 12, 2021 Page 31 take a look at that, if you would, please. Also, the church, St. John's up on 111th, has a very large social room, and with social distancing it can accommodate our crowd, and with doors on all sides open, it gives them good ventilation with restroom access as well. So, these are two of the things -- somebody mentioned the Veterans Park, and that's fine, too. We just would like to have a facility where we could all be in one place and accommodate the needs of the demographic that we serve, which is not a young demographic. But we respect what you do. We're hat in hand in asking for this because we know it's not the standard. And whatever you do, please know that we certainly appreciate your efforts on our behalf. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. English. MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nora Alvarez. She'll be followed by Mark Hammerschick and then Buzz Victor. Ms. Alvarez, are you with us? MS. ALVAREZ: I'm here. MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Please begin. You have three minutes. MS. ALVAREZ: Okay. I would like to talk with you about many things. My concern is about the security in the new project for overlay, Golden Gate, that have many people sleeping and living there. I walk every day. And I see all the grasses [sic] and people living at night, sleeping. So, I would like to know about the security in this place, what happen, what it's doing for that. I didn't see anybody else. We can talk. I was talking with Eric about the situation. And I am honoring Fairways. And I have two property more in Golden -- in Greys Oak Naples, so I rent my apartment over there. So, I'm very interested to know about the January 12, 2021 Page 32 security for this place. Thank you. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Maybe this is a little unprecedented, but I wonder if, Commissioner Solis, you could get some clarification in Spanish. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Sure. What was the speaker's name? MR. MILLER: Nora Alvarez. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, I'll just ask her if she can explain to me in Spanish exactly what the issue is. Would that be helpful? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Where the issue is. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's in Golden Gate related to the overlay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, if you would. (Conversation in Spanish.) COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So, the issue is she's concerned with the security because there are apparently homeless people sleeping in kiosks or maybe bus stop structures on the property that we purchased, which I assume is the golf course? MS. ALVAREZ: Si. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. So, she's concerned about the security at the golf course. That's the issue. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I'd be happy to -- our staff will reach out and make sure we make contact and know specifically where the concern is and get that addressed and follow up directly with this speaker. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. MILLER: All right, Madam Chair, two speakers left. Your next speaker is Mark Hammerschick, and he will be followed January 12, 2021 Page 33 by Buzz Victor. Mr. Hammerschick, are you with us online, sir? You may have to unmute your mic at your end, sir. Mr. Hammerschick, are you with us? MS. HAMMERSCHICK: I am speaking in behalf for Mark Hammerschick. MR. MILLER: Could you please state your name? MS. HAMMERSCHICK: My name is Teryl Hammerschick. I'm Mark Hammerschick's spouse. MR. MILLER: Go ahead, ma'am. You have three minutes. MS. HAMMERSCHICK: I currently live in Isles of Collier Preserve, and I'm concerned for the traffic on Bayshore and the entrance, from what I hear, getting into the new entranceway to get into ICP. So, I'm hoping that I can get some insight here from the Board. I'm worried about traffic. I listened to the meeting with my husband yesterday. I do not want four lanes of traffic in high speeds going down Bayshore, since it will be right by my subdivision. I don't know if you can shed any light on that. I know you're still probably thinking about that, but I just wanted to voice our concern. We would like the speeds to remain lower with roundabouts. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The -- this was a CRA meeting, advisory board meeting yesterday. They are just at the beginning of looking at how to improve the safety for all on Bayshore, and my suggestion would be, because it's going to stay with them for quite a long time because of the need to look at it and look at it again and again, that you direct your comments to them and know that your comments have been noted. I'm chair of that CRA, and I've noted your comments in this, and I share your concern. MS. HAMMERSCHICK: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. January 12, 2021 Page 34 MS. HAMMERSCHICK: Thanks. MR. MILLER: Your final registered speaker for public comment is Buzz Victor. Mr. Victor, are you with us, sir? MR. VICTOR: I am here. Do you hear me? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes. Please begin. MR. VICTOR: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this morning. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. MR. VICTOR: Mark English, who spoke a few moments ago, has done a fine job of saying almost everything I wanted to allude to with regard to the March 1st and potentially March 2nd meeting of the commissioners regarding the One Naples project. I underscore what Mark said in terms of both the concern for COVID and the concern for the individuals who are going to want to speak. Back in March when Stock held its neighborhood information meeting at St. John's, some 450 people showed up at that time. Save Vanderbilt Beach was six or seven weeks old. We had about 500 people who had registered on our website. Today that number approaches 1,200. I have no doubt that there are going to be a lot and -- hundreds, literally hundreds of people who want to be heard at that meeting. And this really is no longer just a -- just a district issue and just a Vanderbilt Beach issue. One Naples and its current design has really become a bellwether about how growth is handled in Collier County. In advance of that meeting in March, we're going to be taking our message to, really, all the districts of the county and intending to see this as a referendum for all future developments throughout Collier County. So, there will be a lot of people there. January 12, 2021 Page 35 Anything that you guys could do to make this a more fair both visual and audio opportunity for those people who want to make their desires known would be very much appreciated. Thank you so much for your consideration. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. MILLER: And that's all the speakers we have for Item 7, ma'am. Item #9B – Moved from Item #17G (Per Agenda Change Sheet) AN ORDINANCE RE-ESTABLISHING THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE – DISCUSSED AND BROUGT BACK LATER DURING THE MEETING MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that now moves us to Item 9B, which was previously Item 17G on the summary agenda today. This is a -- excuse me -- a recommendation to adopt an ordinance establishing the county government Productivity Committee. Commissioner Taylor has asked that this be moved to the regular agenda for discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And the reason -- I know this was on our consent agenda in December and, frankly, I missed it. I am -- I would like to retain the ability for each commissioner to appoint someone to that committee, Commissioner Saunders, and that's why. And I know you authored it. So that's the only thing. I like the idea of continuing it, and I think this group has done a pretty good job. So I just would like to retain that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Could I suggest, then, that we -- this is on for final approval? MR. OCHS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We can amend this this January 12, 2021 Page 36 morning and still pass this. So, I would suggest an amendment, then, that we have five members that are appointed from each district, one from each district, and four at large. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Four at large. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That are all appointed, obviously, by the Commission. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second for discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was looking at the draft ordinance, and it doesn't have anything in it one way or the other, but it does refer back to the prior ordinances, you know, and amendments to the original Productivity Committee ordinance. So, I don't know -- maybe that's a question for the County Attorney. Do we need to amend what's before us, or does it continue what was already in the prior ones? I'm just trying to make it easier. MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance -- pardon me. The ordinance repeals and replaces the prior ordinances. So, this is -- this is a brand new slate. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: There's a section that -- well, I mean, as I read it, there was a section that referenced the prior ordinances as amended, the 2001 ordinance and their amendments. And I thought it was just reinstating. Let me see where -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you look at Section 9, sir, which is on Page 4 of the proposed ordinance. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well, that's fine with me. I was just trying to make it easier. MR. KLATZKOW: If we're going to amend it without coming back, just for clarity, so you'll have four members at large, and five members to be appointed by the commissioners. We'll stagger those terms with the appointments by the commissioners two-year terms, and the initial appointment for the at-large one-year term. January 12, 2021 Page 37 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I think the Commission wanted to have the appointments from each individual commissioner's district. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes. The ordinance will be amended, and we could either table it, or I could bring it back and you could take one final reading of it before we leave, or we can just amend it now. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So today? You'd bring it back today? MR. KLATZKOW: I will -- as we're speaking, I can have this amended, and I can just bring it back and give you copies. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Let's do that. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I had a -- I seconded the motion for discussion. I wanted to ask, what was the rationale of expansion of the committee from seven to nine? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- if I could answer that. We're expanding the role of the committee to begin to evaluate -- this is what the original Productivity Committee did back in the 1990s, believe it or not. That was something that I had put together. And the purpose then and what I'm trying to do today, is expand the role of the committee. You brought the committee back and recreated it with a fairly narrow role which was to react to things that we send to them. That's still part of their role. But the new role is for them to periodically review each department of county government. In order to do that, I think they need more people. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, they could have subcommittees and -- January 12, 2021 Page 38 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Gotcha. And that was all my question. You know, sometimes -- sometimes more gets a little cumbersome, so -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. It's hard sometimes for a committee of nine to come to conclusions, but I think this is a little different, and I think they do need the extra manpower. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I like the rationale all the way across. And with that clarification of one appointed by each of us, I'm totally fine with it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to make sure I understand it, so there will be one appointed from each district, and then the four remaining would be at large? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: At large. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Appointees. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And so, this will come back later this morning for just a final vote? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: This morning. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Or before we adjourn today. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm having it amended as we speak. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Shortly. All right. Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Commissioner Solis, just before we move on in this, I think your reference to a prior ordinance was in Section 2 where it referred to Ordinance 01-55. That's the county advisory board ordinance. I think the intention there was just any appointments are made consistent with that general county advisory board ordinance. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, that's fine. And I do see January 12, 2021 Page 39 Section 9. MR. OCHS: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MR. OCHS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager? Item #10A – Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet) REPORT OF THE BCC SUBCOMMITTEE FOR COUNTY MANAGER HIRING – MOTION SETTING THE DEADLINE TO ACCEPT RESUMES AS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2021 – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to Item 10A, which was an add-on item, and that is to hear the report of the BCC subcommittee for County Manager hiring. This was brought forward by Commissioner McDaniel. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, good morning, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I just -- I wanted to give a brief report. And this is all a matter of public record, so I'm not afraid of showing it on TV. If anybody is interested, you can have this document -- these documents emailed to you. I wanted to give a report on our findings on Friday last week. At that particular time, the county had received 24 applications for the available County Manager's seat. And subsequent to that, I think we've gotten three more. Yes? Five more. You want to come on up, Ms. Amy, and share a little bit while I try to muddle through what we actually did, and then whatever you don't touch on, I'll wrap up as January 12, 2021 Page 40 well. She's all kinds of prepared. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Slides, wow. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Look at this. MS. LEIBERG: All right. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Amy Leiberg, Human Resources. At your December meeting, we actually talked about a subcommittee for hiring for the County Manager position, and the first subcommittee meeting was held last Friday, January the 8th. At that meeting, we had both Commissioner LoCastro and McDaniel present. We distributed resumés and supplemental documents for 24 candidates, and that's what we had received as Thursday evening the 7th. Since that point, we've actually gotten five more resumés and supplemental documents for consideration. Three of those you received yesterday. So as of noon yesterday, we had 27. By the end of the day, we had 29. And so you have all those documents. We emailed them to you on Friday afternoon, and then we gave you hard copies yesterday at the midday. As we're getting new documents every day, what we're going to do is compile those, because this is such an important process, the end of every week, and make sure you get the updates that are delivered to your aides for inclusion in your document. If we run out of space in the binder that you've got, we'll actually start a Volume 2 so that you've got everything together. And then we also talked a little bit at the subcommittee meeting about what the next steps would be. So, on the January 26th meeting, two weeks from today, as recommended by the subcommittee, we're going to be compiling a document that will include a summary of each candidate's qualifications for you to review. We'll also determine -- we'll talk about whether or not you want to continue under the current process January 12, 2021 Page 41 that you've outlined, continuing with the posting and working with the subcommittee or the board as a whole, or engage a recruitment firm, decide when you're going to close the position, date and time. We've left that -- we've left the position open until you make some decisions about that, and we'll also have a discussion on the interview and selection process and the timeline that would be required looking towards Mr. Ochs' departure at the end of May and making sure that we have, hopefully, somebody here for that transition. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very good. If you'd leave that slide up. That actually summarizes pretty much what we talked about. And I'd like to speak with you-all a little bit about the processes. We had talked to staff to go through and summarize, if you will, the applications, verifying references and credentials that were represented and the like, and to kind of go through on the requested -- has anybody else filled out that questionnaire besides Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner LoCastro? MS. LEIBERG: Those are the two that we've received, yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. I'm going to ask -- because I didn't do it either. I would ask that my colleagues fill out that questionnaire that HR sent to us; that, I found -- I found very valuable to know what priorities my colleagues were having with regard to this selection process. I haven't done it myself as of yet, but I promise that I will by the end of the week. Write that down. So, I would ask that we do indulge and make sure that that gets done. I think what I would like to do is just discuss a little bit today about the January 26th meeting. I would like to bring forward an agenda item specifically for this and then have a discussion with regard to the suggested items that we have up there, determine whether or not we're going to continue on with engaging a recruiting January 12, 2021 Page 42 firm or not. We have to pick a close date at some particular point in time. I mean, as it stands right now, we're pushing 30 applicants, and at some stage we have to close the door. And then if -- and then a further discussion just -- as much as anything it's informational -- a discussion from our staff with regard to the processes that we're going to go through or potentially go through. I want to be very, very clear that the subcommittee that the Board appointed has no more authority to pick or choose a potential County Manager than any of us, and this needs to be a group effort by this board, and that our -- our efforts to date on the subcommittee have just, in fact, been receiving the information, maybe giving a little bit of a summation of all of that information so that there's more continuity for those who want to review the applications and such. But this is going to be a very open public process, and a decision by this board, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I guess a question of staff and a comment at the end of that. The request was for us to -- or for staff to review the credentials and the references of these 30-plus candidates, whatever number we ultimately have. Do we have the ability to do that, number one? And how are you going to proceed to check on references and credentials of these candidates? MS. LEIBERG: Commissioner, what we can do at this point -- because I'm not sure that we actually have the same information for every single submission. Some have provided references. Others have simply provided a cover letter and a resumé that does not include references. I think -- typically, in a process like this, references would be checked when you've got some finalist candidates that perhaps you're ready to talk to rather than reaching January 12, 2021 Page 43 out earlier. I think our intent after the meeting was to gather as much as we could that was similar across every single resumé that we've received. So we would get the name of the candidate, we would provide the highest level of education, their current position that they're holding, and then any public-sector-related experience and then any nonpublic-sector-related experience and other types of things. If they have certifications, licensures that would be relevant for this, so that you have it in one place to look at the document and can quickly reference all the candidate information that we have. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. So then there would be a -- kind of a summary of the book that we have. And once we -- again, this is a question. Once we get to some list of candidates -- and I'm not sure how we get to that list of candidates -- then you would check the references and statements that are contained in those resumés. MS. LEIBERG: If that is the direction, then, yes, that's what we would do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. That will happen after January 26th? MS. LEIBERG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Just a quick comment. I've gone through some of these resumés, not all of them. There seems to be some fairly decent ones in here. I'm not trying to disparage anybody. When I say "decent," I'm talking in terms of from my perspective we need someone that's got experience as a county manager, preferably in Florida, to have that Florida experience, but not necessarily limited to Florida. I don't see a whole lot of that so far in these -- in this book. My view -- and I expressed this at the meeting -- I think December 15th is when we discussed this -- was that the process of January 12, 2021 Page 44 having a recruitment firm, they have resumés already on file, and those resumés are not public records. They can contact those people, determine who's interested, and really provide us with a list of people. At that point in time, once that list is provided and that information is provided, it become public record. But you get more candidates. And so, I understand where we're going through, and we're going to start to run out of time if we're not careful. And so, again, I want to express my belief that we should use a firm. We're going to be discussing that again on January 26th. That will give us -- if we do go that route, that will give us four months. But each week that goes by gives us less opportunity to bring on a new manager while we have our existing manager here. So, I just want to express that concern. I don't believe that we're going to get substantially better information on the 26th than what we have in this book, because you're going to summarize what we have. And I appreciate that. That's important. But I don't think that gives us anything that we don't already have. So, I just wanted to express that concern. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you. First, I want to thank the HR director and her staff. You know, the guidance that we gave you was can you aggressively advertise this position to ensure or to see if we could get enough viable candidates and a large inventory of people who are interested in the job, and I think that's been done. I think to see that we've gotten 30 -- whether they're qualified or not, we'll get to that. But, you know, we definitely have gotten a large inventory of people to consider. I also think -- and I know Commissioner McDaniel will agree, you know, when we're in the subcommittee. You've done an January 12, 2021 Page 45 excellent job consolidating. Like you said, you've got more from some and less from others but, I mean, you know, you've made it very easy for us to -- as Commissioner Saunders says, we -- you know, time is of the essence and you've made it easy, you know, or easier for us to jump in here quickly. The subcommittee, obviously, wasn't formed, Commissioner McDaniel, myself, and others, to pick finalists, but to just take a look and see if we have candidates of interest. I mean, if this book would have had two applicants who had very thin resumés, zero experience working at the county level, I think we'd be accelerating the next steps, which would be possibly a -- you know, a headhunter type firm or something like that. But I think, you know, me, personally, I think we do have some time, and I don't say this to be sarcastic or anything, but if time is of the essence -- you sent out a questionnaire to all five county commissioners asking for them to fill out a questionnaire to help you do your job, and you only got two replies. So, I don't say that to throw any spears here, but we all have to accelerate our ability to dive into this book, come to a solution. Yeah, I'm talking to you, McDaniel, over there. You were on the subcommittee for crying out loud. But we have due diligence to do as well, and I know we will all -- we will all do it. May will be here very quickly, but I think we also have time to figure out if what we have here in front of us is a good start or if, indeed, we're spinning our wheels with, you know, folks that maybe aren't as qualified or aren't the folks that we want. I have no doubt if we go to a recruitment firm, you'll get more people. But, you know, at some point we have to figure out if that's a requirement or that would just be a nice to-do. I think, you know, looking at this book -- and I have read every single page in here -- there's definitely some people that I would want to dive deeper into and have a conversation with, and that's -- you January 12, 2021 Page 46 know, that's -- it could have been just the opposite, that you only got a handful and none of them sparked any of our interest. So, I think we are proceeding in the way that we had decided in December. I do agree with Commissioner Saunders, every day is important. So, whether it's getting in that questionnaire that's going to help you do your job, getting us the other extra two candidates. I had to say that, Commissioner Taylor, to throw that in there, because we -- but, most importantly, getting us the extra -- the additional candidates, figuring out the cutoff date and then making some command decisions. But I think our timeline is, you know, as long as we're all doing our due diligence, we should be able to figure that out very quickly. And I'm not opposed to a recruitment firm. I just don't think its step one. And so, I think our step one is going, you know, very well, and I really commend you and your staff for -- obviously, we wouldn't have gotten 30 candidates. And there's quite a few people in here that bear a closer look, that's for sure. In-house candidates and then also people from all over the country. So, some people didn't care about being secretive. And there's some pretty heavy hitters in here. So I think they think enough about the job and the quality of this area, and they want to be part of making it better, so -- but thank you for your work and, you know, we'll make sure we do our due diligence, and we'll move out quickly and make some command decisions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, just as a thought -- and I wanted to share this with Commissioner Saunders. If you're watching, we haven't eliminated the opportunity of engaging a recruiting firm. All we do, in my brain, which is a unique place, the thought -- who laughed at that? -- the thought process was we would January 12, 2021 Page 47 have an actual written discussion on the 26th, pick an end date, if not, then, and decide formally whether or not to engage the firm by our first meeting in February. Give them 60 days; that would allow us to move through that process and then engage, interview, and potentially hire somebody by the end of April allowing for that 30-day transition of -- peaceful transition of power, as you alluded earlier. So, we're still on task with regard to the timeline. It can get a little bit cumbersome as we go but, you know, we'll be making some decisions, I hope, on the 26th to move through -- physically through this list of candidates and by consensus maybe, you know, decide whether or not engage and then, in turn, you know, close the application process, and then -- and then shorten the list a little bit based upon the priorities that we fill out in our survey. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Providing you do. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was in favor of retaining a professional firm as well. I think that the biggest issue I see is not having a closing date, because every day that goes by, the list is going to change, and I think we're going to continue to get more and more and more. So, we'll never -- I don't know that we'll ever get to the finish line to get to a position to actually, you know, come up with a short list. I think we need to address that first. If we got -- we got three yesterday, was that -- MS. LEIBERG: We received two yesterday. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Two yesterday. I mean, we'll never get to the finish line, I think, if we don't have an end date, even if it's, you know, a month away. But I think I agree with Commissioner Saunders. I mean, we need -- we need -- I think we need some help with this mainly because for the five of us to weed this out, I think it will never end. I just -- I feel that way. It's going January 12, 2021 Page 48 to be -- if we have 30 by the end of this month, I just don't think we're going to be able to get to the finish line and the end date in May with the process that we have. So I would be in favor of retaining a firm to help us narrow the list and get some specific resumés with the specific things that we want as opposed to -- I mean, I'm not disparaging anybody that's applied. They're great resumés, but some of them have more relevant experience than others, to say the least, right? So... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Leiberg, it's my understanding -- because I did sit in on that meeting -- that you intend to take the questionnaire and make some kind of matrix from it to understand what this commission wants in a County Manager and then apply it to these resumés and rank these resumés accordingly. Am I mistaken in that? MS. LEIBERG: I think what we wanted to do was compile that document so that all of you could see what your desires were for the person that's going to be sitting in that seat the next time and make some decisions about what's most important to the Commission and be prepared for. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It wasn't a ranking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: "Ranking" is probably too broad a word, but just to say, okay, so that we -- we have a clear understanding, because there may be some similarities that we're not aware of, because we don't talk to each other. It's in writing, and then you will bring that back. MS. LEIBERG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I do think it's probably very wise to set a closing date now, because we're going to make a decision in the second meeting in January. So, January the 20th, January the -- you know, what do you want that closing date to be? Make the closing date for the advertising on Indeed? Where else are we January 12, 2021 Page 49 linked? MS. LEIBERG: We're advertising at LinkedIn, Indeed, governmentjobs.com, and Zip Recruiter. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, I think it's probably a wise decision to make that determination today when we say, okay, that's it, enough it enough. Let's look at what we have. We've given it -- when did we advertise this? MS. LEIBERG: We advertised starting December the 9th. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, it will be a full -- it is a month now. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forty-five days. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, I bring that to you for consideration. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I was just going to add, I don't disagree with the recruitment firm, but I just think it's premature. I think we do have time to do our due diligence. We have a lot of people in front of us that deserve the respect to vet them and take a look at their applications. All of us here, I believe, have hired folks at the highest levels. And I have had 30 candidates in a binder before, so I don't think this is an overwhelming exercise. I think, when you take the time to dive into it, I don't want to say people quickly fall out, but we're looking for very specific skill sets. So, it's not a matter of interviewing 30 people and taking the next six months to vet folks. I think when you take a look at this binder, you quickly zero in on definitely an acceptable amount of people of interest, you know, I will say. You've already done your due diligence and found recruiting companies that you basically have rank ordered or are recommending. So, I think we're already doing the prep work. I strongly agree with Commissioner Taylor that I think we January 12, 2021 Page 50 shouldn't leave this meeting without a date where we close the door. I think if January 26th is when we're going to have the next substantial meeting, just looking at the calendar, the week prior is January 19th. I'm not saying that's the day, but I think the sliding scale is somewhere close to that day to then close the door, have you do your -- the work you need to do, put together the spreadsheet, get the questionnaires from the three other commissioners. Not to Commissioner Taylor and myself, because we've already done that homework. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You said that three times now. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But I think -- you know, tongue and cheek. I think the goal would be pick that date, then give us the time to then really dive into this book, and then I think we'll all come back to this table on the 26th having done an awful lot, and then possibly it might be a much easier command decision that, hey, we're still in January. We know the recruiting companies that you have vetted and that we've sort of rank ordered. So I think, actually, we could move out very quick and say, you know what, I think there's eight or nine people in here we definitely want to talk to before we delegate the responsibility to a recruiting firm that might know less about Collier County than we do, or we don't have the candidates here, and let's go to the people who do this for a living. But I can tell you, just take a look at Marco. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a recruiting company. The person that was their top, you know, candidate was in jail a short time later, and -- you know, so it doesn't guarantee anything. And so -- and I can give you other examples as well of recruiting companies that found unbelievable, you know, sharp CEOs and then others that didn't. So -- but it's not a fail-safe. So -- but I think, you know, we're January 12, 2021 Page 51 doing our due diligence, and I think there's enough time to do all the things that we want to do. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Leiberg -- and before I go to Commissioner Solis -- do we -- is it important, in your opinion, as the expert, to indicate in our advertising that there is a closing date? MS. LEIBERG: If we are -- yes, I think that at this point if you are ready to close that out, it will -- it will signal to those who are interested that we do have -- there is some finality to this, and you'll be making some decisions after that point. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Good. Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I was just going to add that I think one of the things that we need to be the most careful with is putting our staff in the position of providing rankings of any kind. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I misspoke. I misspoke. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Okay. I mean, I just -- yeah, I want to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's not what I -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it puts them in a -- it's not like an RFP where, you know, they're outside vendors or anything. These are going to be maybe their supervisor and things. So, I just want to stay away from that, because I think that would be bad for morale. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: In the subcommittee, we were emphatic about saying alphabetical. We want everything alphabetical, so -- regardless if they were the last person to apply or first -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: -- so I think we'll just add that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. January 12, 2021 Page 52 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And thank you for clarifying that, Commissioner Solis. There was a -- we were very careful to not get past anything other than our personal viewpoints and make sure that this is a decision of the Board. Staff's job was basically to assimilate information, summarize it to a certain extent based upon the surveys that are yet to be determined, but no ranking whatsoever, ever. My thoughts -- I concur with picking an end date. My thoughts are to not preclude -- it would be rather counterintuitive to me to pick an end date in advance of our January 26th date where we are then going to flip the coin on a recruiter or not. Why wouldn't we -- because in my mind, the timeline was we would have a discussion on the 26th, decide then about the recruiting firm or not, and then on the first meeting in February we would go through -- if we engaged a recruiter, great. If we didn't, great. We would go on to the next process of going through the applications and bringing them to a head. So, my thoughts are, why don't we set the application end date for January 30th, which is four days after our 26th date. We will then decide -- we won't -- if we stopped the application process and then chose to engage a recruiter, that's just counterintuitive to me. So I was thinking the end date of January 30th, and then we will have then decided whether or not we're going to engage a recruiter, and then we'll set the item up for the first meeting in February to have a discussion about how we go through the process of -- necessarily a process of elimination of bringing in the applications to a more manageable number. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner LoCastro, I know you know this, but I'm going to say it. Words matter, and you just said that -- you were referring to January 12, 2021 Page 53 Marco. And you basically said they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and what did they wind up with? That sends a message to the public that this type of recruitment firm cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that's just not accurate. And I want staff to, if you would, answer the question of what kind of pricing were we looking at for a recruiting firm? MS. LEIBERG: The pricing that we got ranged from, I believe, 20- to $30,000. So, the low end was 20-, and I believe the top end was 30-. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I just want the public to understand we're not looking at spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a recruitment firm. We're looking at a fairly modest amount of money, and they have the ability to check references, check resumés, and determine whether or not an applicant is being truthful in their material that they provide. So, I just want the record to reflect we're not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, Marco wasn't talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars either, but words do matter, but so do details and so do facts. And they weren't looking to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars either, but once you go down that road of a recruiter, if they bring you a population of people and those people either get hired and don't work out or you don't think there's enough experienced people in there, they don't continue to work for free. So, I'm just using Marco as an example. I've -- I've hired recruitment companies from, you know, the different jobs that I've had in the past, and we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars because we're hiring for a very high-level position and it took longer than we thought. So, I think words matter. I'm not saying -- I know what the dollar figure is, but I'm just saying there's that possibility. It January 12, 2021 Page 54 certainly worked in their case, and in the end the person that they hired, that turned out to be a very capable city manager, is somebody that was here local that everybody knew and that I don't think they needed an out-of-state recruiting company to find. That's just one example. So I'm not putting it forward as, you know, the approved solution, but I think once we go down that road, it's like anything else, you know, if you have a little piece of skin cancer removed and then you find out it's a much bigger thing than that, you could spend more and it could be more. So that was my only point. I appreciate the specific point that you're making, but I also think that it can be a pricey venture. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Leiberg, does the second -- the first meeting in February, if we decide at that point to go out and hire a firm, does that give the firm enough time, in your opinion? MS. LEIBERG: All the three firms that had previously submitted for consideration have been notified that there will be some future actions by the Board, and I think they're all on standby -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. LEIBERG: -- understanding that there could be some decisions made at the end of this month or early February. I think, yeah, the -- yeah, the -- we can certainly reach back out if you direct and let them know that that would be the timeline and confirm that they are prepared to assist us at that time if it's so -- if it's chosen at that point to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, I think the decision we have before us is a closing date. I would -- I would agree to an earlier closing date than yours, sir, only because I don't see -- if we've started December 9th and we close, let's say, the 25th of -- 25th of January, which we could probably do or even a few days before that, January 12, 2021 Page 55 say the 20th, that's almost a month and a half. If we don't have folks that are interested during that time period, I don't know what two or three more weeks would make, and I just think there's a -- there's an -- there is a sense of urgency to try to keep some kind of -- have this move forward and not languish too much. So, I guess, I'm questioning why we would extend it for another three -- three weeks when we really don't need to -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Are you looking at me, or do you -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, because that was your -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I just picked that date on the premise that the decision about the recruiter is not going to be done until the 26th, and leaving the application process open through that time allows for that decision to actually be made while the application processes are still open. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then the -- if we choose to engage a recruiter, we offer them 60 days to do what it is and present to us, and then we make our decisions in the latter part of April, and move through that transition of power. That was the timeline that I had in my head. But it's really -- you know, it's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The time -- we just -- we do -- I agree, we need to pick an end date at some time. I actually have that in my notes here as for when we close the application process. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. These will be my two final comments. One is: I understand what -- Commissioner McDaniel, what you're saying about having the closeout date after our 26th -- it's on the 26th, the meeting of the 26th, but I think that the problem with January 12, 2021 Page 56 that is that -- so when we make the decision whether or not to go forward with the recruiter, it's still a moving target. That's -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That's my only concern is that, you know, if we have a date where we're going to say, okay, this is what we've been able to get, is that enough, you know, then we can say we've got everything. Secondly -- and I brought this up when we started this discussion -- the vetting in terms of checking of references of, you know, calling -- whatever the usual process is for checking credentials, I think that putting -- and I'm assuming that the recommendation is -- or at least the discussion has been is that our staff would do that. And if we put our -- our staff in the position of doing that, they have to do is for all the applicants including the people they work for, and I just think that's -- nothing good can come from that. Having some independent people checking the references, my gut feeling is is that that's the right thing to do because it takes the conflict of interest, in a way, out of the staff's hands. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But may I pose this question to you: Does that -- so you're saying that if hired a firm, they would -- they would check the references of everyone who has applied to this point or a short list that we make? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I mean, that's part of their function, is it not -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- to check the references? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But it wouldn't be their applicants. They're not going to get paid for that. Say we don't choose a firm's candidate, but they've gone and done the work -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We would pay them the fee, I think. January 12, 2021 Page 57 COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, we would pay them the fee for vetting all of them, I'm assuming. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm going to put aside protocol right now, and let's just talk about this, because this is -- this is something that's critical. It's my understanding with a firm that they only check -- they do the work for their candidates. They don't do the work for candidates that have come outside of them, is that correct, or incorrect? Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What a firm will do is they'll go through the resumés that they have to see what expression of interest they have from people that they've already vetted, but they will also advertise to get other applications. They charge us a fee to do the groundwork. They don't charge us a fee based on whether we hire a candidate from them. That's not the way these firms that we're looking at would work. So we would get resumés that -- from the firm where all the references have already been checked, all the information contained in the application is verified to make sure it's accurate, and we would have a list of qualified candidates based on what we're looking for, but not based on -- they don't get paid based on our hiring someone. That $26,000 fee, $30,000 fee plus expenses will get us qualified candidates that have been vetted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So that would mean at this point if we decided to go with a firm that everybody has applied, we throw out their resumés because we don't want staff to do the backwork on it, and we would expect those same people to contact the firm in order to be put in the queue, and I don't think that's -- I think we've opened up Pandora's box here. I think we have to continue. And I do think staff has to check the references based on a short list that we January 12, 2021 Page 58 would make, hopefully at the end of January or the first meeting in February. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But, again, that is my thoughts. Let's leave this open. Let's talk this thing through. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I will just say the firms that I've worked with -- so I'm not opposed to the firms. I've had great success -- they tend to say, if you have a binder of 30 candidates but now you're hiring us, these candidates then are welcome to apply through our process because their application process is totally different. They have a very set format. They won't take this binder and say, okay, we have 30 applicants. What they'll say is, were running -- the firms that I've worked with will say, encourage these people to apply through us. They're going to have a website, something that's -- like you said, you have sort of different applications in here. Some gave a letter. Some didn't. They'll put together a very structured approach, and they will say, if these people want to reapply through our firm -- so I'm not saying we start from square one, but that's -- the firms I've worked with, that's the direction that they have given so that they give us very complete identical type of applications. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Leiberg, do we know the answer to that question? MS. LEIBERG: My guess would be, as Commissioner LoCastro stated, that they are -- we could certainly pass on that information to the firm that we select, and they're going to have to do some additional work. There is going to be some information that was not provided that they will need to collect on those candidates who are still interested in being considered out of the ones that have applied so that we have a uniform application of their skills, because they do have some questions they ask that we, when we gather January 12, 2021 Page 59 resumés, we just aren't getting. So they're going to ask them additional questions and take the questionnaires that you have set forward to kind of understand what it is that you're looking for and apply that to the pool so they can come back with recommendations of a short list of candidates for you to consider. It does not mean that we can't take what we've already received and ask them to please do the next step with any of those candidates. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. It's already been decided by this board that we not engage a recruiter at this time. I'm still not in favor of engaging a recruiter at this time. I'm more than capable of reviewing these applications. I have read every page in the binder. Well, not every page, but most of it. Because words do matter, Commissioner Saunders. So, I don't think we need to engage a recruiter. I can look at this list that we currently have right now, and there are people that I would be happy with moving into an interview process on the list that we already currently have. I think we should stay the course. I think we should -- I don't agree with Commissioner Solis in that it puts our staff in a compromising position to be reviewing -- it's a straight process of reviewing applications, verifying that the information was submitted accurately, and checking of references. It's not a compromising position. It's a -- here's my references and call them. So I don't concur with that as a potential conflict for our HR staff who necessarily does that on a regular basis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Just for clarity, what is staff going to do between now and January 26th? My understanding is -- and this is not a criticism at all. Don't -- I mean, please don't January 12, 2021 Page 60 take it that way. I think you guys have done a great job in responding to what the Commission has asked you to do. I said at the beginning of this meeting, we have a great staff from the top all the way down. So, this is not a criticism. But I think what you said is -- and I'll let you respond to that question -- what precisely are you going to do between now and January 26th? I do not believe you said you were going to check references. I believe you said -- and I'll let you answer that question -- that you're going to go through what you've got here and order -- put it in some order for us. But we're not going to have that benefit of a check on both references as well as the veracity of what's contained in these applications. I'm not saying anything in here is not accurate, but that's something that you have to do when you're hiring top management. So, the question is, what exactly are you going to do between now and January 26th? MS. LEIBERG: We were going to take every single resumé that was put through and summarize those for some very -- for some items that are of importance to the Commission; the candidates' information: Their current employer, their highest level of education, and some other key points so that you have a quick reference that you can look at. I don't believe we're in the position at this point to do any reference checking. It would be outside of a standard process to do that until you have short listed and really identified who it is that you feel are the top candidates that you'd want to consider in this process. And just so that you know, the HR staff does not actually make those phone calls to -- we actually have a firm that we work with to do our reference checks for any candidates for employment. We could use the same process for this. January 12, 2021 Page 61 COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, if I could ask just one more question, and then -- in terms of the firm that you use, they are on a retainer, or they've been selected, they do this routinely for your other hires? MS. LEIBERG: They do. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, we have a firm. S,o they would contract with you to do some additional work in reference to this? MS. LEIBERG: We could actually choose the services that we want them to provide. They can check -- they can check prior employment, they can check -- they can verify education, and those types of -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: What kind of expense is there associated with reference checks for a proposed potential employee? What does it generally cost us for that? MS. LEIBERG: On average anywhere between $35 and $100 per person. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Per person. MS. LEIBERG: But, again, it's not going to be the scope of the -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Understood. I know you're not going to get much -- you're not going to get much for $35 on a reference check. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point, and I concur -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Then we're going to make some decisions. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to clarify. Ms. Leiberg has brought forward what I thought was a good idea and a deviation from the discussion that we had on Friday, January 12, 2021 Page 62 because we had kind of suggested that they go through them all. And I like the idea of us continuing to accept, summarize, and then go to more of a short list before they actually go through that. That's a far -- that's a far more expeditious process than going through them all just because. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, given that, we're still on course. What is the date that we want to close this? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You-all pick a date. He's said the 19th or 20th, I said the 30th. It's 10 days one way or the other. I mean, how does the Board -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to do it the 20th. I don't know if that's a Sunday. I don't know, whatever in and around there. I'd like to do it before our meeting so we can say that -- that gives us -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: That's a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's a Wednesday. MR. OCHS: That's a Wednesday. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That will give us six days for most -- I know this is a very mundane question, but probably most of these resumés come in through email anyway; is that correct? MS. LEIBERG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, we don't have to worry about snail mail. Let's do it the 20th. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion that we notice everyone and that we notice ourselves that we are closing this process on the 20th of January. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second, again. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. January 12, 2021 Page 63 COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Nice. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I think we have our hardworking court reporter break. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And you need a new chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. And we'll be back -- let's see, 45, 10:45. Thank you. (A brief recess was had from 10:37 a.m. to 10:48 a.m.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager, I appreciate your indulgence with me. I promise it will get better. Item #9B – Continued from earlier in the meeting ORDINANCE 2021-02; AN ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE – ADOPTED CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, we're going to 9B, I think you said. MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair. We had previously tabled Item 9B. That was the revision to the Productivity Committee ordinance that the Board discussed earlier. I'll turn this over to Mr. Klatzkow and put the changes up on the visualizer for you. MR. KLATZKOW: The changes to the ordinance are confined to Section 2 and Section 3. I believe that it reflects the will of the January 12, 2021 Page 64 Board of County Commissioners. I utilized the Planning Commission ordinance as a methodology so that you'll have five County Commission districts, four at-large. The County Commission districts, the Commissioner of that district will nominate a candidate. The nomination would be by three votes to put onto the Board, and for the at-large, it would be any commissioner can make the nomination, but it must receive four-fifths of the vote. Section 3, simply the terms of office. The five district members will have an initial term of two years, the four at-large members an initial term of one year. Thereafter they'll be staggered so that you'll always have experienced people on the board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is this the will of our board? Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have any questions concerning this. I'll just make a motion to get it on the floor. A motion to approve, on second reading, this ordinance. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second to approve the ordinance as modified by our County Attorney. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. January 12, 2021 Page 65 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we move to Item 11, County Manager's report. Item #11A AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 20-7728, CEI SERVICES FOR BETERANS MEMEORIAL BOULEVARD EXTENSION – PHASE I AND PHASE II (VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD FROM OLD 41 TO THE INTERSECTION WITHLIVINGSTON ROAD); TO HARDEST & HANOVER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC FOR PHASE I ($1,177,236), AND PHASE II ($937,213.35) FOR AN OVERAL TOTAL COST OF $2,131,949.35 AND APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11E is a recommendation to award a contract for construction, engineering, and inspection services for the Veterans Memorial Boulevard Extension Phases 1 and Phase 2 to Hardesty & Hanover Construction Services for an overall total cost of $2,131,949.35 and to authorize the necessary budget amendments. Mr. Jay Ahmad, your Director of Transportation Engineering, is available to present to the Board or respond to questions at the pleasure of the Board. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I would move for approval. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I would second it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion to approve and a second. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. January 12, 2021 Page 66 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Jay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well done. MR. OCHS: Well done. Item #11B AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7804, “JANITORIAL SERVICES: TO ZONE 1: CLEAN SPACE, INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND UNITED STATES SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a USSI AS SECONDARY VENDOR; ZONE 2: CLEAN SPACE, INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR, AND AMERICAN FACILITY SERVICES, INC., AS SECONDARY VENDOR; AND FOR ZONES 3, 4, 5 AND 6: CLEAN SPACE, INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR, AND HIGH SOURCES, INC., AS SECONDARY VENDOR., FOR COUNTYWIDE JANITORIAL CLEANING AND SERVICES. THE PROPOSED TOTAL ANNUAL BASE CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR FY21 IS $1,077,810. – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11B is a recommendation to award a contract for janitorial services to various vendors in six different geographical zones where we have county facilities. The proposed total annual base contract amount for Fiscal Year 2021 is $1,077,810. January 12, 2021 Page 67 Mr. Damon Grant, your Facilities Management Director, is available to present or respond to questions from the Board at the pleasure of the Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Are there any questions? Any discussion? Yes. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'd just make a quick comment. This is one example of where I asked during a pre-briefing. This is a lot of money. And I was just curious, you know, how many people had submitted contracts, you know, how competitive was this? Did we get 100 or we got two? What are the references? What other places do they have businesses? And that's why we do the pre-meetings. I got the answers back lickety-split, so I was very impressed with that; that it wasn't a scramble. But, you know, just one little sentence in here to just sort of educate the Board members and say, they were one of 15, you know, they have an impeccable record or something. I mean, not being directive. It was just more of a curiosity, but it saves us all time. But most importantly, I just want to thank you for your sense of urgency and quick response, you know, coming back to me, because, you know, we're spending a lot of taxpayer money here, and I want to make sure everything just doesn't go to the lowest bidder. If we think the lowest bidder has issues, then, you know, we talk about it. And in this case, it sounds like you found a very reputable company. Thank you. MR. GRANT: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So, is there a motion on the floor, or there has been? Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. January 12, 2021 Page 68 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. Item #11C ESTABLISHING A BOARD POLICY POSITION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN (BCB) BOUNDARY WITHIN THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) BASED UPON THE RECENT FILING OF SENATE BILL 406 FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE - MOTION DIRECTING LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TO TAKE FORMAL POSITION ADDRESSING THE THREE CONCERNS OF THE BOARD; CHAIRMAN AND JOHN MULLINS TO CONVEY CONCERNS AT MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Item 11C is a recommendation to establish a Board policy position regarding the potential expansion of the Big Cypress Basin boundary within the South Florida Water Management District based upon the recent filing of Senate Bill 406 for consideration by the Florida legislature. Mr. Mullins, your Government Affairs Manager, will make the presentation. John. January 12, 2021 Page 69 MR. MULLINS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, John Mullins, Government Affairs Manager. And at your last board meeting on December 8th, a motion was adopted directing staff to return with a presentation on a future agenda on the potential impacts of an expanded Big Cypress Basin boundary on Collier County so that you can discuss a potential policy position on the same. Now, some of the impacts you discussed included operational effects, governance, financial impacts, and the future Big Cypress Basin Board representation. Now, over the holidays on December 30th, Senator Ray Rodriguez from Lee County filed Senate Bill 406 which directly addresses several of these items. Now, that bill was sent to you the day it was filed, and it's also included in your agenda materials. Now, yesterday legislative interim committee weeks commenced and are scheduled over four of the next five weeks leading up the start of the regular session on March 2nd. Also, yesterday the identical house companion bill, House Bill 209, was filed by Rep. Adam Botana of Bonita Springs. Now, based on these filings and the potential for committee consideration and bill advancement of one or both of these bills in the coming days, staff is recommending that you consider establishing a policy position in regard to the provisions of Senate Bill 406 and House Bill 209 in order for your lobbying team to expeditiously and accurately proselytize your position. Now, yesterday you received a memo outlining the impacts and technical issues with the proposed language, and I'm happy to briefly review each of those. Board representation is the first area of recommended change. Subsection 9 proposes to amend to require the governor to appoint five persons from Collier and Lee County that reside within the Big Cypress Basin as members of the basin governing board. The January 12, 2021 Page 70 proposed language does not apportion the five appointments between the two counties. Now, currently, the Governor's required to appoint not fewer than five members, and also a member of the Water Management District governing board residing in the basin is designated the chair of the basin. Now, should none of the district board live in the basin, a member of district governing board is selected by the Chair to serve as the chair of the basin board. Now, currently, as a member of the Water Management District governing board, Charlette Roman of Collier County, serves as the Chair of the basin. Her board appointment is set to expire this March. She serves as a large at-large member -- as an at-large member of an area that includes Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, Highlands, Glades, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, and Polk Counties. If not reappointed, her replacement on the district governing board could be from any of those aforementioned counties. Now, the only other district governing board member currently representing Collier County is the district governing board chair, Chauncey Goss of Lee County, and his area includes Lee, Collier, Hendry, and Charlotte Counties. The second area of change is the actual boundary line, and the proposed language expands the administrative boundary to cover the scientific boundary that was recommended in the hydrologic study that was just conducted and is being submitted to the legislature. The only exception is that the new boundary may only include counties that have at least 50 percent of their jurisdiction within the scientific boundary. And it's been estimated that under 40 percent of Lee County is included in that scientific boundary and, as proposed, only -- Collier County would be the only included county in the new basin administrative boundary. January 12, 2021 Page 71 The third section of change deals with ad valorem. A new Subparagraph 2 is proposed. It specifies that ad valorem taxes levied within the counties that comprise the Big Cypress Basin are used for projects within the counties in which they were collected. Now, currently, as part of the Okeechobee Basin, there are three millage rates that are applied to Lee County: District wide, Okeechobee Basin, and Everglades construction. So as proposed, money collected from Lee County would all have to be used for projects in Lee County. In addition, funding for operational and maintenance costs from ad valorem would not be allowed, as they are not considered projects. Similarly, as part of the Big Cypress Basin, there are two millage rates applied to Collier County: District wide and Big Cypress Basin. As proposed, ad valorem is directed to all projects, and all monies collected would have to be used for projects in Collier County and would not allow for monies to be used to operate and maintain our existing primary flood control system for our community. Now, that's the outline of the basic changes proposed in the bill, and the incomparable Amy Patterson and myself are available for any questions you may have on the bill contents or other impacts. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Madam Chair, I know this was put on the agenda by Commissioner Solis, but I needed to jump in initially on a procedural issue. The question for Mr. Klatzkow: I sit as the city attorney for the Village of Estero that supports this. My law firm sits as the city attorney for the City of Bonita Springs, and I have occasion to participate in issues dealing with Bonita Springs. They support this. My question is, am I in a conflict -- I understand I can -- even if I'm in a conflict I can participate in the discussion. But my question January 12, 2021 Page 72 is, do I have a legal conflict? My belief is that I do not, but that's a question I think needs to be answered by the County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you have any financial gain to be gathered by this decision? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Then you have no conflict. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. And then I know this is Commissioner Solis' issue. I do have some comments in reference to this after he's completed whatever introduction he has. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, this is actually put on here -- this one is by the County Manager's Office. But I think it goes to the agenda item that I brought up last time. You know, given the language that's in the -- in the bill, I don't know how else to say it other than there is -- there's too much gray area, I think, in there, and some of it sounds inconsistent, and I think that we need to take a position that we don't support this as written, certainly, and ask our legislative delegation, you know, to further that cause. I just don't see that anything good comes to Collier County from changing the boundaries of the basin without having a lot more clarity in terms of the governance, the way that the funds are going to be used, and all of the issues that Mr. Mullins brought up. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I -- in a brief review of the proposed bill, I think with a little bit of clarity, we can move through some of these -- some of these perceptions of lack of clarity, necessarily. I mean, with a little -- with a little bit of direction from this board, we can actually make our recommendations to suggest the adjustments to this bill so that we can have some uniformity. It's -- I mean, it's a little bit cumbersome when they start talking about 50 percent of a jurisdiction within a particular bound of a hydrologic January 12, 2021 Page 73 survey that none of us have actually seen. But once -- once -- I think, generally, I'm in support of the inclusion of this -- of this area into our basin. And, again, it's just an accounting process. They start off by segregating -- it's similar to when we merged the Big Corkscrew Regional Fire Department in North Collier -- into North Collier. They kept the millage rates independent for the two original jurisdictions and then over a period of time, things became melded and blended together. So I think segregating that now is a good -- is a good idea, and then as we move through the process, you know, it's just a simple accounting methodology in order to take care of the projects that are brought forward, and Collier continues to take care of its projects, and Lee, Estero, and such, who are included in this, take care of their projects, and -- but they have more say-so over what's, in fact, transpiring, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. A couple things. The staff recommendation, it sort of indicated taking a position in opposition to this, and I think that would be a mistake. The -- you've got Senator Ray Rodriguez that's filed the bill. Senator Passidomo isn't going to want to be in a conflict with Senator Rodriguez over something of this nature. That puts -- that will put our senator in a rather difficult position, plus she represents large parts of Lee County. So I think our position should be that we are supportive of the expansion of the boundary, and I'm going to give you a reason -- a couple reasons why -- and that we direct our staff or a member of the Board, however you want to do it, to make sure that a couple issues are covered appropriately for Collier County. The main issue is governance, as was indicated, a minimum of five members up to, I think, nine. January 12, 2021 Page 74 MR. MULLINS: It just specifies that the Governor has to point five members, but then you will have a sixth member that is a board chair that comes from the district governing board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right. And right now those members can come from Collier or Lee Counties. The key point in the bill that money raised in Collier County stays in Collier County. Money raised in Lee County stays in Lee County. So, we need to address the governance issue. I don't think it's addressed as effectively in this bill, as Commissioner McDaniel pointed out, as it could be. I think that's the primary concern that we would have. A reason for supporting this, this came up a couple years ago. I met with Nick Casalanguida at that time, and I said, what would be the county's position, in your mind, on expanding the boundary? And his initial response was -- again, assuming governance was taken care of, assuming the appropriation of funds was taken care of. His response was, Collier County needs more water for certain areas -- the Corkscrew Swamp Preserve was one of those areas that he was talking about -- and would be supportive of an expansion of the boundary to get more water management projects in Lee County, not only would benefit Lee County but would benefit Collier County. So, I think there's a lot of good reason for supporting the expansion, but we need to come up with a mechanism to deal with the governance issue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have some real concerns about doing something extremely aggressive to change the Big Cypress Basin boundary. I, too, have some unanswered questions. Governance, as Commissioner Saunders said, is top on the list. It's great to say five members, but then it becomes a land grab or a seat grab. January 12, 2021 Page 75 I wouldn't vote for this for or against because I'm worried about the relationship between Senator Passidomo and somebody else. I mean, I understand the positives and negatives there, and I'm not disparaging that comment in any way. But we're here to look at how this benefits or doesn't benefit Collier County. We want to be good stewards of water, and we want to have partnerships with other counties, but it sounds like the staff has some reservations and -- correct? MR. MULLINS: If I can just clarify. Staff is just trying to point out the technical deficiencies in the bill -- COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Right. MR. MULLINS: -- as filed. This bill, in all likelihood, will never see the light of day. It will be replaced by a committee substitute or a delete-all amendment in its first stop because, clearly, this can't be what the sponsor or Lee County intended. It's just technical deficiencies, and that's all that I am pointing out. I am not -- staff is not taking a position. In fact, staff lives in southern Lee County, so I'm being very careful not to take a position. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, so you're very biased? No. No, and that's a great point. But I think those technical deficiencies, we can't assume it's going to be dead on arrival. We have to assume that it could pass as-is. So, we can't sort of not do our due diligence because it -- you know, because history shows this probably won't float. But having said that, the technical questions that you brought up are very valid. The governance question that Commissioner Saunders brought up, extremely valid because in the end we better be careful what we wish for. This has been a real positive for Collier County, so before we sort of, you know, share the love and share the wealth and the water and all that, which can be a great thing -- I'm not shooting it down -- I January 12, 2021 Page 76 just want to make sure we really do our due diligence. And you-all have, so I don't -- I want to just make sure we don't speed here, you know, and get out ahead of our headlights and then have somebody from a different county do an end-around on us to have this be a great deal for them and either a push or not as good of a deal for us. MR. MULLINS: And I could clarify further: Staff, typically, on a legislative matter, won't hit the panic button until we see the companion bill filed, and that's what was just filed yesterday. And usually if those two items, if those two bills, the House and Senate bill, are different in nature, well, then there's some wiggle room and you know somebody's going to have to come to an agreement somewhere down the pike and get those two language documents lined up. In this case, both are filed identically, so that tells me that this is -- this is a bill that's going to move, this is a bill that will probably be moved shortly, and that's why we came to you looking for a position, whatever that position may be. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, and maybe I need to rephrase what I was saying. I think there are probably revisions to the bill that would solve these issues, right, that we could all be okay with. My reservation is taking a position that says we're not opposed to this but we would like some changes as opposed to saying, this is not acceptable without some changes, right? I think it sends a different message, and it's less likely that, as Commissioner LoCastro just pointed out, that if the identical bills have been introduced, I mean, we might end up with this. I mean, it seems like a distinct possibility. So I think it's just what's the strategy for ensuring that these ambiguities are addressed in the best way, and I think if we send that January 12, 2021 Page 77 message -- not that we're just against it, because that's not what I meant to say, but that we're very concerned that it needs to be, you know, wordsmithed a little bit and make that clear to our legislators, then they can do the work of -- that's their job, to work it out. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And, you know, it's all in the words in how you say what you say. I don't -- and I'm glad to hear that you say -- I think I heard you say that you're generally in support of the pretense of the inclusion of the additional lands into the basin. I think it meets a lot of the goals of what our community, in fact, is looking for with regard to water quantity. I'm not sure that it actually addresses the water-quality issues at this particular stage, which need to be addressed at some stage. But I would like to suggest that maybe -- and I don't know. As opposed to us shooting in the dark -- I mean, you've heard all of us basically make comments with regard to this. That we come back with some -- staff come back with some formal recommendations, wordsmithing, as has been suggested, with regard to the concerns of the governance, terms, locations, and such, so that we can more solidify the Board's position on the actual bill. We all know that these proposed bills move through committees and debate and adjustments. So, we're looking at something that isn't -- we're not -- this isn't going to be what they actually submit through. So I think a global position with the representation of the Board's concerns, a global position of support with the representations of the -- of the blush of the Board's concerns regarding this would help give direction to our legislators to bring -- make some adjustments and bring back something that we can all look at and be kind of happy with. MR. MULLINS: And to your point, the House bill was just filed yesterday, so it hasn't received its committee routing yet. The January 12, 2021 Page 78 Senate bill just had its routing posted last night, and it's assigned to three committees on the Senate side before it goes to the House floor. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Okay. So, I agree with Commissioner McDaniel. I think the assumption that we have to make, quite frankly, is that this legislation will likely pass. You've got a House member that's filed it, a senator's filed it. It's rather local in nature. It only affects Southwest Florida. Obviously, it affects the Water Management District in the sense that those dollars that are now being raised in Lee County that are being spent over on the East Coast, those dollars are going to be redirected to Lee County. So, there is an impact on the Water Management District, but so I can tell you the legislature's not going to be particularly concerned about that. This legislation, if I had to bet one way or the other, I would bet that this will pass in one form or another. We're in a better position if we let our lobbyists know, let Senator Passidomo know, and Senator Ray Rodriguez know that we have some issues with it. We're not opposed to the concept, but we want to make sure that there's no negative impact on Collier County. The way we do that is we deal with the governance issue. The bill already deals with how the money's going to be spent and which county it's going to be spent, but we just need to make sure that governance is appropriate so that we're protected. So, for example -- I'll just throw out an example. Let's say that there's $3 million raised in Collier County. Well, we should say that members of the governing board that are from Collier County determine how that money is spent, not members from Lee County. We could set that up so that there are three members from Collier, three members from Lee. Collier makes the decisions on everything January 12, 2021 Page 79 spent in Collier. Those three make the decision on everything that's spent in Lee. If there's a project that benefits both counties, then the six of them can work that out. But there's a way to deal with governance that protects us. But I think we're in a better position being supportive of this than trying to say, well, we're not supportive of this unless. Because, quite frankly, we would be the tail trying to wag the dog here. And, you know, Lee County has been pushing this for a long time. They've got a House bill and a Senate bill, and I think it's likely it's going to pass. So, I think we need to work with it and not try to work against it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I am meeting with the Senator Rodriguez this coming Wednesday, so I think we need to be very clear what we want up here because I'd like to convey it to him. And I really appreciate your three points, and I think I would ask you, sir, to go through those again, the concerns the staff has, just briefly if you could. MR. MULLINS: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's more than governance. MR. MULLINS: Board representation, which is the first one, because the allocation of the seats has not been made between the five seats that are delegated to Lee and Collier Counties in the district. The basin boundary, which looks like it may have just been a calculation error on their part because, as it's currently structured, Lee County would not be a member of the basin administrative boundary. And ad valorem, which is not taking into consideration operations and maintenance costs; it's saying that all funds raised via ad valorem in the county have to be used for projects. And that those are the three main sticking points. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So with the agreement of this January 12, 2021 Page 80 board, I'd like to be able to work with Mr. Mullins and deliver that message to Senator Rodriguez, but I'd like to be very careful about what we say, so I will turn to Commissioner Solis to see if we can make a motion about this whole understanding, if there is consensus, that we will ask for these three areas to be addressed as this bill goes through the process. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And maybe I can rephrase it again. And so, I would make a motion that we direct our Chair to -- and our legislative delegation to -- let me back up. Let me start over. I think first we should take -- staff needs some direction. So the motion -- the first motion would be that we take a formal position that while not against an expansion necessarily of the district boundary, that we have some significant concerns about these three issues that need to be addressed, and we direct our staff to convey that through the right channels. So that's one motion. And then the second motion would be that we -- that our chairman be directed or allowed, or whatever the proper phrase would be, to discuss these issues and provide that position to Senator Rodriguez. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you'll consolidate that into one motion, I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'd leave the motion. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had my light on. I just wanted to add something, and maybe simplify what -- I mean, Commissioner Solis said something earlier that I thought was spot on. And I know he's trying to summarize it and try to get to some sort of, you know, a motion here. But I think there's basically two ways to approach this. We approve but. We disapprove unless. I'm more of the we disapprove unless, because I think when you say we approve but, it's too soft, and these are big things that you've brought out here. I think the January 12, 2021 Page 81 approach is similar, but it's not the same. It's not the same. So, I like the stance of we -- on face value we understand the advantages, but we disapprove because. We disapprove unless. I think you get much more air speed from the folks that are willing to make the changes than saying, yeah, we approve, there's a couple of things in there, if you guys would work on it. We basically have come online saying we approve and, you know, earlier Commissioner Solis said something -- that's what made me sort of think of it. Maybe you weren't really packaging it like that, or maybe you were. But I just think there's -- you know, it's a similar approach but a more forceful way of saying, we disapprove because. We disapprove unless, and then we make those motions when it comes to governance and those -- those adjustments, and then it comes back to us and we say, great, you did exactly what we wanted. Now we approve how it sits. So, it might be semantics but, in my opinion, it's not. I think it sends a totally different message to get what would be advantageous to Collier County and the taxpayer. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just, procedurally, we do have a motion and a second, so we need to dispose of that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's -- well, we do, but I do think the approach is critical, so I would -- I would ask -- we have two ways of doing -- COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll withdraw the second to the motion, if you want to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So I think -- what I think we're looking at, and for the public whose eyes are crossed right, now this is critical, because we're trying to move forward to an area that is intercounty -- intra county, and it obviously is going to go before our legislators, and clearly -- the fact that there are two bills already January 12, 2021 Page 82 drafted on wording that we're not happy with, clearly the power is there. So, we need to be -- proceed very cautiously and carefully as we go forward. So, do we come and say -- do we approve unless, or we don't approve until you do something, or how do we approach this? Can we word this so that -- the message that I deliver. Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I was trying to word it -- because I understand Commissioner Saunders' understanding of the legislative process. Obviously, there is some writing on the wall if the same bill has been introduced on both sides. So -- and I fully appreciate that we need to be careful, you know, creating some conflict between, you know, our legislators locally. So I'm trying to craft something that both addresses the commissioner -- Commissioner Saunders' concerns and Commissioner LoCastro's by saying that while we're not -- while we're supportive of an expansion of the district boundary, we can only support it -- we can't support -- well, however I said it before. I don't want to change the motion again. Why don't you -- you know what I'm saying? While we're not against necessarily the expansion of the basin board, of the basin boundary, we have some concerns and can't support this -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: As written. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- as written because of these three issues. MR. MULLINS: If staff could -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can we work that out? That's all -- I'm trying to send the message -- MR. MULLINS: Yeah. If staff could make a recommendation that perhaps you encapsulate it as the Board does not support the bill January 12, 2021 Page 83 as written unless and until these three -- and we would delineate those three -- circumstances are met to address your objections. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, yes, yes. Thank you. I don't -- I don't concur with the ultimatum that Commissioner LoCastro put forth. I think, in precept, in concept, we are generally in favor of the thought process. I think, in concept and precept, we can make these adjustments quite peacefully. I think, in concept and precept, we can support the bill -- the premise of the bill, and then accept or reject once we actually see the final language. We always have that right to come back. But, again, when Commissioner Solis brought up and staff brought up these concerns, these things are almost ministerial, almost administrative. This isn't that difficult of a process, and I would rather we, in precept, accept or pass along our approval in concept, and then with these delineated issues, please address these issues, bring that back to us, let us have a look at it. We can have another talk. Session's not until? MR. MULLINS: Well, you have interim committee weeks in which bills can advance four of the next five weeks, and that leads up to the start of the legislative session. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We need to move -- moving on here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand. But you didn't answer my question. We have until? MR. MULLINS: You have until the bill makes an agenda, which could be as early as the next interim committee week. Agendas have to be posted seven days in advance at this point, so we will start to hear about bills for the next committee week shortly. This week's committee weeks have already been posted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Mr. Mullins, repeat again -- MR. OCHS: Hold on. Hold on. Excuse me, ma'am. I don't January 12, 2021 Page 84 think we totally answered Commissioner McDaniel's question. I think he's asking when is it over -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: When's the timeline gone past for us to have any kind of an opportunity to have submission adjustments -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Wednesday. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- on the proposal? MR. MULLINS: If you don't weigh in at the outset of the bill traversing through the process, the session goes from March 2nd through mid May. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct. And we're weighing in right now, so I think that concept isn't really up for discussion. So the bottom line here is the motion that was made and seconded and then withdrew gets us to a point where we're, in concept, accepting or in approval of the premise with expression of concern about these particular areas, and we're weighing in today, correct? MR. MULLINS: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, Mr. -- Commissioner Saunders, Commissioner LoCastro, and then back to Mr. Mullins. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I don't know if Commissioner Solis' original motion is still active. I'm assuming that he is, because he didn't withdraw it yet. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No, that's still the motion on the table. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I seconded it because I think that's the appropriate way for us to go. I withdrew the second so we could have the discussion. I didn't want it to be just, okay, a procedural matter, I've made the second. I'm now going to second the motion. And I don't know if it needs to be restated. I think we all understand what the motion is. It's consistent with what January 12, 2021 Page 85 Commissioner McDaniel had indicated. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: It puts us in a more positive way of in terms of we're not opposing this process, but we have concerns, and commissioner -- our chairman is going to meet with our representatives, probably as well as our lobbying firm, to express those so we can start working on those issues. The real issue is -- really, the governance issue is really the concern. Whether it's 40 percent or 50 percent, that's a Lee County problem. That's not our problem. So, it's really -- there's really two issues. The ad valorem issue as well as the governance. I don't think we have any control over the ad valorem tax issue. I really do think it's governance. But we've got those three issues listed, and I'm seconding the motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: As we all tried to wordsmith a motion up here, I actually think the most eloquent words in the room concerning this particular topic is what you said before where you were trying to summarize -- and I don't know if you can remember, but I'd really like you to restate -- it wasn't necessarily your recommendation, but you were summarizing what we were all saying, and I really think the way you said it was the most eloquent. And so I don't know if you can repeat those words, Mr. Mullins, as far as, you know, we're agreeing, we're disagreeing, but it was -- I thought it was perfectly put, and I would hope it actually met all of our expectations here, but, for the sake of us hearing your eloquence, could you restate that. MR. MULLINS: I'm not 100 percent sure that it encapsulates everyone's view up here, but I will try to repeat it as I put it out the first time. That the Board opposes the bill as currently written unless and until objections are met dealing with the three major topics that January 12, 2021 Page 86 were outlined to you previously. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. That's short but sweet. So, we have an alternative. But right now we have a motion on the floor. Commissioner Solis, do you agree with Mr. Mullins' wording or would you -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm going to stand with my motion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can that be re-summarized just for the sake of the record and all of our memory? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'd have to have the court reporter read it back. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was going to say, somebody roll the tape. We have a whole bunch of memory going on here. We don't have to roll the tape. We all know what you said. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think it -- Commissioner Saunders summarized it well again. I mean, we're conveying the message that there are issues with this that need to be addressed. We're not necessarily against the concept of expanding the basin board. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And the Chairman's going to carry that message. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct. And you agree to the three significant concerns as -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- outlined by Mr. Mullins. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor, and there's a second to it. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's been seconded. January 12, 2021 Page 87 CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Are there any other concerns from staff that we need to hear about now? MR. OCHS: No, no. We're good. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mullins. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you'd allow, our office, including John and either Dan or I or both, would like to accompany you to that meeting with -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I would very much like that. MR. OCHS: -- Representative Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. And, by the way, he is coming here. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Hold us down, Penny. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, he's coming here, which I was quite impressed. I made an offer to go to his office, and he is coming here. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, good. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Great. Item #11D – Moved from Item #16F4 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) January 12, 2021 Page 88 THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL IMPACT FEE RATES, CALCULATED FOR THE PROPOSED ULINE FACILITY AT CITY GATE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 74-202 (k) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES – APPROVED MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 9D -- no, excuse me, 11D which was previously Item 16F4 on your consent agenda. This is a recommendation to approve the use of individual impact fee rates calculated for the proposed Uline facility at City Gate in accordance with the provisions of the Collier County impact fee ordinance. Ms. Patterson will make a brief presentation. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the Director of Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees, and Program Management, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you a little bit about this item. I'm just going to walk you through the process quickly, and then I can answer any questions that you have. So just as an overview, we all know impact fees provide funding for growth-related capital infrastructure, things like roads, schools, parks, EMS. We have 12 individual impact fees in Collier County. Development is required to contribute its fair share of the costs of providing needed public facilities related to that growth; however, impact fees may not be collected in excess of the amount that's reasonably anticipated to fund those improvements and the amount that's attributable to the new development. So that's that maximum legal limit that we talk about in the impact fees to ensure that we're not double charging or overcharging new development and impact fees are not used for operations and maintenance. January 12, 2021 Page 89 So when we're looking at our impact fee schedules -- like I said, we have 12 individual impact fees here in Collier County but, typically, we look at the Institute of Transportation Engineers. You'll hear it referred to as ITE. Their trip generation manual contains data on more than 176 land uses. Our road impact fee schedule contains 57-ish of the most common land uses. So you'll see things on our rate schedules like retail, office, fast food, fine dining, residential; we have several categories. There are more obscure categories that appear in ITE that can be used but, obviously, having a schedule of impact fee rates with 176 uses is unwieldy. So correctional facilities, EMS, government buildings, and law enforcement impact fee rate schedules mirror the road rate schedules using the same land uses, and they also utilize some data that comes from ITE in their individual methodologies. For most of -- uses that are not contemplated under the adopted rate schedules, we're talking things outside of the normal. There are options within the code of laws, which is where our impact fees ordinance resides, to assist with the proper assessment of impact fees. The first is called an individual calculation. I've referenced the code provisions there, if you're interested in that. This option is often utilized for land uses that are included in ITE but do not appear on the adopted impact fee schedules. So, it might be a special kind of retail. It may be a different type of manufacturing facility. You can imagine, there's lots and lots of uses in ITE, but there's data there to support these. The second is called an alternative fee calculation. And, typically -- again, the code provisions are cited there. This is different than the individual calculation because it's often utilized for land uses that are not included in ITE, that don't appear on our adopted impact fee schedules, or make -- or have characteristics that make them substantially different and, thereby, the applicants often January 12, 2021 Page 90 feel that they are -- that a lower impact fee rate is warranted. We've done many of these in Collier County dating back years and years, things that are unique. We have a category that is fast food without breakfast. That doesn't appear in ITE. Taco Bell used to be that category, so that's just an example. We have a luxury auto sales. Here in Collier we have a lot of fancy car and car dealerships, but ITE doesn't delineate out the different types of car dealerships. So, we've actually had consultants go and go through a pretty exhaustive process under the methodology prescribed by our ordinance to study these land uses and develop those alternative rates, and they have to be approved by the Board. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me for one second just on that question. MS. PATTERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Just that. Why would you look at a different rate schedule for luxury cars versus the cars that I drive? MS. PATTERSON: So when the study was conducted -- and it actually has been -- has been revised and looked at multiple times before it ended up on our fee schedule -- the idea was luxury auto sales generate a lower trip generation than, say, a Ford dealership. There's not as many people that visit -- even though this is Naples -- and we actually sent the consultant out that did this work to go and study these sites, other places besides Naples, just to be sure that it wasn't some kind of anomaly and to make sure that that dataset was complete. But they actually generate less demand than a regular car dealership. And no offense to the regular car dealership, but there's a difference between a Ferrari dealership and a Ford dealership and the amount of traffic they generate. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A lot more people are looking at the Grand Marquis than the Ferraris. January 12, 2021 Page 91 MR. OCHS: With the landau roof. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: With the landau roof. I can personally attest to that. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: He drives a Grand Marquis. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know he does. MS. PATTERSON: So, these are just some examples of where we've used these different types of calculations. So, for the individual calculations, we used food cart pod, actually, recently for the Celebration Food Truck Park over on Bayshore. Coincidentally -- we were really struggling with that calculation, and lucky for us in a new manual, a new version of ITE, they actually had a land use come into the manual that addressed these food truck parks. It's becoming really popular, apparently, all over the country. In the past we looked at cemeteries. It's not a land use that we have. You know, there's not a lot of cemeteries being built, but we did have a new cemetery come into Collier County years ago. It is an ITE category. We don't have it on our rate schedule, so that was another one. We're currently talking about, this is a mouthful, but the high cube transload and short-term storage warehouse. And also, currently, we're working on a miniature golf course, which is not on our rate schedule, but it is in ITE. Now, when we talked about those alternative calculations, I mentioned a few of these already. Fast food without breakfast, luxury auto sales, dance studio/gymnastics was a pretty big deal years ago trying to fit people someplace between some of the industrial categories and retail looking for that place where you put people that have these little studios or small parks. Self-serve car wash now appears on our rate schedule, but it actually arose out of an alternative fee calculation. And then the Naples Daily News, when they relocated their headquarters, actually conducted an alternative January 12, 2021 Page 92 fee calculation for their site up at Creekside. So the proposed Uline facility that we're talking about today is a 940,000-square-foot-ish -- we don't have the exact square footage at this time, but it's going to be there at that million-square-foot threshold -- located in close proximity to I-75. When Uline started having a conversation with us about their impact fee calculations, they also provided us data from another Uline regional facility where they analyzed specifically some components to do with truck traffic and the interstate, and there's a separate ITE study supporting adjustments for interstate truck travel which relieves demand on county roads. So Uline requested a review of the land use and the impact fee calculations based on their experience in other jurisdictions, and due to our provisions of the ordinance, obviously, that was something that we were interested in as well. So due to the size and the characteristics of this proposed development, our land uses on our rate schedules likely would result in an overcharge, and that's why we felt that this was something that needed to happen. So, I'll tell you how it happened from there. So, what we're doing is we're utilizing data from ITE for land use and for truck travel analysis. This was calculated and is recommended by our impact fee consultant who has developed our entire rate schedule, so it's consistent with our adopted impact fee methodology as well as our code provisions that allow applicants to move through these types of processes. It provides rates that are equitable, and they're reasonably attributable to the demand that will be created by the new facility. And another important fact is we have to treat people -- other applicants the same way. So should we be so lucky as to attract another facility of this type in proximity to the interstate, this is a use January 12, 2021 Page 93 that we would -- this is a land use and rate schedule -- or rate that we would contemplate using for something like that. With that, if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Prior to the review or the request by the applicant to review the impact fee structure, what was -- what were the impact fees going to be? MS. PATTERSON: I have a comparison chart we can put on the visualizer, but we originally looked at the warehouse rate as being the closest similar land use on our adopted rate schedules. Under that scenario, the total impact fees were calculated at just over a million eight. Under the new high cube transload rates, it's just over -- slightly over a million. So, it's a difference of about $800,000. I'll put this on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. MR. OCHS: Go ahead. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Here's the bottom line, right? MS. PATTERSON: Yeah, the very bottom square. And there's a note. This doesn't include, which is highlighted in your executive summary -- this does not include water, sewer, or fire, because those demand -- those impact fees, their demand is driven differently than by a land-use type of function. They are tied to meter sizes and then just simply square footage for fire. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's how -- and we calculate -- forgive me. We calculate those irrespective of the use. It's all on the demand side. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. It splits by residential and commercial and simply just tied to meter sizing or square footage. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I'm satisfied. Any January 12, 2021 Page 94 other questions? Any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Well done. MR. OCHS: Thank you, Amy. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to Item 14B1 under the Community Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Klatzkow, should we convene the CRA board at this point? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MR. OCHS: You happen to be the co-chair of the CRA board, you and Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You've got the gavel. Just go ahead. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You want me to? COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Unless you want me to. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let it be known that the CRA board is now -- the CRA meeting is now in process. MR. OCHS: Thank you. January 12, 2021 Page 95 Item #14A1 AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO P6NE, LLC FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF TWO PARCELS LOCATED IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA – MOTION TO APPROVED OPTION #2 – FAILED MR. OCHS: Item 14B1 is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, consider providing an economic incentive to P6NT, LLC, for the redevelopment of two parcels located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area. Your CRA director, Deborah Forester, will make the presentation. MS. FORESTER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Deborah Forester, CRA Director. At the December 8th meeting, the Board reviewed the request from P6NT to consider a tax increment incentive for the development of the property located at the apex of the mini-triangle in the Bayshore/Gateway Community Redevelopment Area. At the meeting, the Board directed staff to draft an incentive for consideration based on the increment generated from the hotel component for a 10-year period. Today we are back to you with two recommendations to consider. The first one is to deny the request which staff still supports because the project has not demonstrated a financial need, and there is no public benefit associated with this project except for the development of the vacant property. The second is to award a maximum incentive of approximately $714,000 with conditions associated with that incentive. This would be to reimburse the developer for impact fees and building permit fees based on the hotel. And the $714,000 is the amount we've January 12, 2021 Page 96 estimated based on that investment for the hotel component over a 10-year period. We are also requesting that there be some performance standards associated with this incentive; that the incentive would be paid after the CO is received for this development at July 31st of 2023, which is what the developer has proposed that that will be when it will be completed. If there is a delay in that completion, there would be a penalty associated with the amount paid. Also, that the approved Site Development Plan is what is being implemented for that incentive. If there's any changes, we would come back to the Board and let you know so there would be an opportunity to decide that that incentive was no longer valid; and that the developer would agree that there would be no annexation into the City of Naples. And with that, staff's available to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't see any questions. Well, I would like to probably start off by saying that I do not agree to this. There is a -- I really have a problem with a developer that comes forward and says in September that in order for the project to succeed financially they're asking for a 50 percent tax increment rebate and then not -- and refusing to supply the financial records that says it needs this rebate to succeed financially. I think it's corporate welfare at its worst, and I really can't support it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Madam Chair, I thought, since we were the petitioner, we would be given a moment just to speak. Is that acceptable, or should I just sit down? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we've heard from you, but if you'd like to speak again, yes, absolutely. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind. Okay. Thank you. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of -- I guess I was January 12, 2021 Page 97 the petitioner or applicant. A couple of things: One, in reviewing your executive summary, it's clear to me that Ordinance 2000-42 specifically provides for an opportunity for a land developer within the CRA to come in and request a financial investment from the county for the project to move forward, and that's basically on the very first page of your executive summary. And some of the incentives, and I think Ms. Forester will agree, were specifically mentioned in her executive summary as being authorized by the ordinance which adopted the community redevelopment plan. So, one of the questions was, was there a program for a property owner to come in and ask for an investment by the county and the project? I disagree that we did not provide the information that was requested. We provided what was asked of us, which was what was the taxes that are going to be generated, what were the jobs that were going to be generated, what were the final benefits to the county investing in this project along with the developer. So I don't think it's fair to say we didn't give the information that was requested. We never said that this project could not go forward without this investment of -- now it turns out to be 714,000. We agree with the methodology used by your staff. We've never asked to be given anything above and beyond that was previously given to the neighbor, which was given a 50 percent incentive based upon all of the development. We also agreed to the further limitation that it be only on the commercial part of the project. So, what we're asking you to do is to invest in the project. We think that the $700,000 -- $714,000 investment will be more than paid back by this project moving forward. We do request that the Commission go with the second recommendation, which is the reimbursement with the time frames that we had already agreed to January 12, 2021 Page 98 and self proposed. I'll kind of give you an update, the Site Development Plan -- one of the things was amending the Site Development Plan. That's already been reviewed and approved. So, we're close to getting ready to close on the property, which was one of the other milestones. This is basically the last step in that process for closing and moving forward and breaking ground, and hopefully you will agree to invest in this project. And we're available to answer any specific questions that you have regarding the project, and I appreciate your giving me a few minutes to re-summarize where we were to correct that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I apologize that I jumped ahead of you. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, you're stating that you never said that you needed this money to have the project succeed financially? MR. YOVANOVICH: We never said that this project will not -- we're betting -- trust me, there's a chance this project won't succeed. We're asking you to invest with us. We're going to spend between 80 and 100 million dollars to build this project. We're only asking you, after we deliver the CO, to reimburse, as your staff is recommending, $714,000. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You didn't answer my question. You're saying you never said that in order for this project to succeed financially you needed a 50 percent tax increment rebate? MR. YOVANOVICH: We never said it was a make or break. We had asked you to invest with us in this project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Could you please put this on the visualizer. MR. YOVANOVICH: I stand by that statement. There are internal returns that the investors are expecting, and they are asking January 12, 2021 Page 99 for that treatment. I think there's a distinction between whether or not it will be profitable, but there is a risk that we will not be successful, and we're just asking you to invest with us. And I said that at the last meeting when I presented this petition, and I said that to your staff when we talked about their follow-up questions, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But that's -- this is what you wrote, not what you just said, and you have not provided us the financial documents to determine whether it is true that you have to have this money in order to succeed financially. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Commissioner, I met -- since this letter, I have met with your staff to address their concerns, and I presented to you what the issues were and what the request was. This is -- this is -- we're asking you to invest with us, and that's all we're simply asking you to do. And if the phraseology came across that this was make or break, I certainly clarified that with staff when I met with them and I certainly clarified that at the last presentation. And if you took it as make or break, that is not what was intended by those words. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Forester, were you able to verify the statement here in this letter that this project needed to succeed financially with the contribution of the taxpayers' money? MS. FORESTER: I'm going to ask Mr. Callahan to come up and speak. I did not have a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. MR. CALLAHAN: For the record, Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations. After reviewing the initial economic impact summary that was provided by the petitioner, we did have further meetings, to which we asked to see a pro forma of the commercial property. So in the economic impact summary -- and I can get the exact January 12, 2021 Page 100 numbers -- it does show revenues that were generated by the hotel and never had the expenses that were associated, and that's really necessary to demonstrate whether or not there's a financial gap in the project to be able to succeed. So we did structure the incentive as we were directed to at the last meeting by the Board to bring it back for your consideration, but I think as we said with our December 8th item, staff wasn't recommending an incentive for this project. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. I'd like to clarify a couple of things, if I may. You can take that off the visualizer and go back to the previous screen, please, and that is Options 1 or 2. I'd like to make a motion for approval of Option No. 2 with a clarification. Who developed A under C, No. 2CA, CO by July 23 or penalty applied? MS. FORESTER: At the last meeting the petitioner did state that they would be the first in the ground to be completed, and they have that date in their proposal. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Forgive me. Forgive me for interrupting. Let me go ahead and finish. You might -- MS. FORESTER: So, we felt that to hold the project to a time frame, it was important to put a penalty on if they did not meet that. Of course, this would not apply if there was a national disaster or a hurricane or anything. So, this would only -- if they do not meet the date that they've stated both writtenly [sic] and on the record, that they would have this finished by July of 2023. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm okay with a penalty. I would like clarification of that language with regard to that so that it is not discretionary after we -- assuming this board continues on approving what we suggested the last time, I would like clarification January 12, 2021 Page 101 about that penalty applied. MS. FORESTER: Okay. We're proposing the 20 percent for every month delayed. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that what was proposed before? MR. YOVANOVICH: We had actually -- ours were set by specific milestones. If we didn't deliver by that date, subject to force majeure, we were not entitled to any. So, this -- we obviously would -- this is actually better language than we had originally proposed. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With that clarification, I'll make approval for -- I'd like to make a motion for approval of the second recommendation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor. If we don't have a second, the motion fails. We will continue with our discussion. Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I had a question, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's not a second to the motion. The motion fails. Yes, Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, I had a question for Ms. Forester first before we took a motion. But I'll leave the protocol to you. But my question was, in one of my pre-briefs I thought there was an issue with the 10-year period; that it actually goes past. It would go to 2031. Did I miss something, that actually that 10-year period would actually have to go to 2030 and it would be nine years? Was there something I misread somewhere where that wasn't an issue, that that 10-year period can actually hold and take them out to 2031? Did I miss something? January 12, 2021 Page 102 MS. FORESTER: Well, what we're proposing right now, actually, would pay the -- this reimbursement at the time the CO was issued and we received repayment. The CRA would actually be up-fronting the money prior to the total $714,000 being put into the account. So, the -- probably -- I'm not sure if the 9- to 10-year period -- we're estimating that that is done in 2023 -- 2033. So it starts in 2023 and goes for the 10-year period after that. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I could help there; the CRA dissolves in 2030. MS. FORESTER: Thirty, yes. MR. OCHS: So that was -- the original staff recommendation was if you were going to award this incentive, that we limit it to the duration of the CRA. The Board said, no, we want to keep the 10-year incentive limited to the 50 percent of the commercial portion of the project. So that -- the 10-year will go beyond, right now, the end date of the CRA, but it won't affect the deal. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And the second question was, the performance standards that they're held to if we went to No. 2. So, if we went to No. 1, then what are our guarantees of them performing and on time? And, you know -- there's no penalties from the incentive, so what would be our recourse, if we voted for No. 1, to still hold them to, you know, the timeline and all the things that No. 2 gives us more leverage over? MS. FORESTER: Well, if we went with No. 1 and just denied the incentive, I would assume that the developer will go forward, if it's not required to have this incentive to make the deal go forward. They've invested, I'm sure, a lot of money in getting the SDP approved. The seller of this property also has invested money and will be making a profit when he sells this property. So, I think there is an incentive for them to proceed with their project, regardless of January 12, 2021 Page 103 the timeline. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. I think this is just, for want of a better phrase, skinning the cat a different way, and I was against it last time. So, I can't support the motion. You know, these incentives are for creating activity. The incentives -- the other piece was to start something, which apparently it has, so I just -- I can't support it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to withhold my comments until there's a second. If there's a second, then I'll have some comments. But if there's no second, then there won't be any point. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just add one point, if I can. We had many more time frames or milestones that we had proposed that, for some reason, staff is not including it in the time frames, and I do want to kind of go over those again, because I think those are important to, I think, Mr. LoCastro's questions regarding holding our feet to the fire. And we had originally proposed that we had to get a Site Development Plan amendment for the program by -- I think we changed it to March of 2021 because we'd had the one-month delay. That's gone. We're still willing to meet those time frames. We've agreed to get a building permit by June. I think it switched to July 2021. We're still willing to meet those time frames. We're willing to mobilize as we had originally said. We had many, many more assurances in our proposal to stay on track, or we got nothing from this. And we would be fine with putting those back in, because I think one of the concerns, and what January 12, 2021 Page 104 we wanted to assure, was this project would go forward, or we would get zero dollars if we missed any of those time frames. And with no disrespect to staff, there's no -- until there's a closing on the property, there's no guarantee that this project is moving forward. We're just asking you to help us after we've delivered with this incentive, and we're hopeful that a majority of the county commission could go with that and include back in all of the time frames that we had so those incentives are there and our feet are to the fire, to quote a phrase. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I'm going to come back around to the previous discussion, and I -- you know, one of the things, Commissioner Solis, you said at the last meeting that I concurred with was the lack of a policy by this board with these types of investments. And I'm sure, serving on the TDC, that you're well aware of the necessity for our community to attain long-term economic sustainability. Investments are not inappropriate. And I concurred with the thought process of a lack of a policy by this board. It's almost on a discretionary basis. Somebody comes and asks, and we say yes or no based upon -- based upon whichever way we're feeling that day. I would like to see us move forward with a policy so that we can review these requests on a more consistent basis with less discretion involved, knowing and understanding that these are, in fact, investments back into our community. The jobs that are created, the ancillary dollars that are created. And I cited an example when I was speaking with a friend of mine about this yesterday about the most recent FBU event that took place out at Paradise Coast. We documented 2,000 room nights from that -- from that venue alone. Our food truck was packed, our bar was packed, the hamburger stand was packed. My daughter was January 12, 2021 Page 105 my date that night when I went and visited the event, and so I went up to another restaurant up on 951, Cracklin Jack's, and I was sitting there, and three families -- three different families came in after my daughter and I came to that restaurant. The second family -- the third family was a mom and dad and a wad of kids. And I asked the waitress when she came to wait on Kelley and I. I said, are those folks from the FBU event? And she goes, oh, my God, yes, they've been streaming in here all weekend long. And so there, to me, was ratification of a very controversial circumstance that we did for the benefit of our community, year-round tourism, year-round jobs, year-round revenue streams, TDC sales tax, sales tax, da, da, da, da, da. And so, I don't find this request that objectionable knowing the jobs that are created, knowing the additional revenue sources, ancillary dollars that are coming to our community. And I would like to -- I would like to move this forward, approve it, because we basically did at a significantly higher level at our last meeting, and our staff went through and really said, you know, we can't -- we can't appropriate dollars that we're not entitled to, but I'd like to move this forward and then work on -- at a future date, soon, a more consistent policy for us to review these requests and look at it from -- from an investment perspective. It's called a rebate, but it's -- I perceive it more of an investment of our taxpayers' money back into our community for long-term economic sustainability that we direly need. This is a nonconstruction-related industry that's bringing jobs. And they're not all real high-paying salary jobs, but there is a portion of them that are and, necessarily, all jobs are important, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We have those incentives. We have innovation zones. There are incentives, I believe, a whole structure set out in the CRA which someone could apply. I think that's in our January 12, 2021 Page 106 executive summary; isn't that correct, Ms. Forester? MS. FORESTER: Well, currently, right now we have our commercial improvement grants. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. MS. FORESTER: And as identified in the executive summary, we would look at some potential new incentives further down the road since our redevelopment plan was adopted in 2019. So there may be an opportunity to come up with some new incentives based on specific criteria. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then I would remind everyone, if you drive east on U.S. 41, that just past the Triangle in the two vacant pieces of property, there is a white building, a two-story white building on your left-hand side which a single person, Matthew Kragh, is investing an inordinate amount of money not only to improve the inside of that building but also to improve the out. He is not here before us asking for money. Investment is going on in this area. We do not need to give taxpayers' money to a developer because he came and asked for it. So, do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: You have a motion. You just don't have a second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, the motion failed. So do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I make a motion for Recommendation No. 2. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed? January 12, 2021 Page 107 COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Motion fails. MR. YOVANOVICH: What was the number? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I voted no. MR. YOVANOVICH: You voted no? Thank you. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Item #15 STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to Item 15, staff and commission general communications. I have nothing new in terms of communications for the Board this afternoon. County Attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Nothing other than to say Happy New Year, Roll Tide, and also -- Roll Tide just to -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You said that twice. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Roll Tide. Three's a charm. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Who won last night? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No. And to -- you know, I think we're in an unusual time in a lot of different ways, and I think it's even more important that, you know -- and I'm going to commit to what we started out with in 2016 and civility, you know, and to -- you know, I hope we can all pledge to continue making decisions the way we've done it. Disagreed, you know, vehemently at times, but do it in a way that makes sure that we get to the best decisions we can, not January 12, 2021 Page 108 that the best decision is always just my -- you know, my side, although it usually is, but, you know, that we recommit to this when we start this new year, because I think there's so much emotion and so many things these days that I think if we keep that in mind, we'll continue to do the job that the community requires in the way that we've been doing it, which I'm very proud of, by the way, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner LoCastro. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I was just going to say at this meeting today we nominated or renominated different commissioners to different, you know, committees and boards that are doing great work and are extremely important. But to any citizens that might be out there watching or, just for the record, recently we put out a press release from the county of just a plethora of different committees and organizations that are citizen led. And so we have a lot of smart people in this community and people who probably, you know, watch this -- these committee meetings and, you know, give us their two cents and critique. And sometimes it looks easy from the cheap seats if you're at home. And I only say that to encourage citizens to get involved. There's some of these committees that have had empty seats for a while, have had the same people for a while, don't have a good cross-session of people from different districts, so they might be heavy with one district and not another. So please do some due diligence and get on the website. I think several of the commissioners up here, I know I have, shot out that list, and on that list it's very detailed what the committee is and how to apply, and several people shot notes back to me and said they applied. So just encouraging citizens to get involved in local government. It makes a difference. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. January 12, 2021 Page 109 Commissioner Saunders? COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just -- I agree with Commissioner Solis. We've been able to work together for the last four years and look forward to that working relationship where we disagree from time to time, and that's what's expected. We just had a 3-2 vote -- or 2-3 vote on a motion that was one that we had discussed quite a bit. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay to be confrontational and argumentative, but it is okay, I think, to disagree, and we've done that, I think, very effectively in terms of just making sure we're doing the public's work without it becoming a screaming match, and I congratulate the Board for that. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I certainly agree as well. I would like to discuss briefly -- and I wanted to ask our County Manager -- I mean, I know we're all getting barraged with regard to requests for information on the vaccinations and that entire process. Are we going to actually have an agenda item? I'm kind of surprised that we don't today, because this isn't a new subject, and it's an extremely frustrating process for the population that's seeking to get vaccinated. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Actually, I was -- that kind of queues up the Chairman. We had had a discussion about that earlier in the week, and she had indicated she wanted to have some dialogue with her colleagues on this subject. So, if you don't mind, I'll just turn it over to her. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, just as a point, and maybe you're going to say this. You know, it's -- I sense our population's frustration. And there's certainly an enormous demand with an extremely limited supply. One of the datasets that I looked January 12, 2021 Page 110 at showed our -- we have folks north of 105,000 people that are 65 and above that are eligible for the vaccination. And the way that they're -- the way that they're being distributed, you know, we have a lot of limitations from a government perspective. You've got a federally managed distribution system through the state agency, and discretion as to who gets them is on a first-come, first-served basis if you're in the residence of the state of Florida. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There is -- yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You can come from Montana. You can come from New York. You can come from Canada. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They're actually allowing it for out-of-state residents as well? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. But that's not -- that's not -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That makes it even more frustrating. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But we have no power here. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand that. And that was one of the -- one of the things I wanted to have a discussion about, because our folks are looking for some discretion with regard to how the vaccinations are actually being distributed and utilized. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, the -- it's a Catch 22. We've heard from our constituents. They're very upset, very frustrated. We try to help them, and then they think we can do more than we can do, but we can't. So this is -- this is a rough rollout, and it's something that we just have to be consistent and give it to the people that are responsible, which is the state. The Governor makes the decision about who is getting it, the age group, and also when the vaccines come. The local health department doesn't know when they're going to get their next -- and how much. So, you have 105- over 65. I think, if I'm correct, we've had just a little over 5,000 January 12, 2021 Page 111 doses. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Twenty-one hundred -- 2,600 being administered this week. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, I mean, it's tough. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I know there was a move by -- or there was an opportunity to move some of the vaccinations over to the Healthcare Network out of the Health Department that allowed for applications specifically to patients that are clients of the Healthcare Network to allow for a little bit of priority over there for our residents of need in Immokalee proper. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But it's -- there, again, if we don't have it scheduled, I'd certainly like to have it visited. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What we thought we might do is have a briefing about this pandemic we're in, whatever -- whatever form it takes in terms of we're going to talk about vaccinations, if we're going to talk about the rate of the infection, just a briefing and as a presentation once a month. And so that would make it the end of the month, but -- that public could count on that information. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second meeting in the month and do it under presentations. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we wouldn't be taking public comment on that stage. We can discuss it -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- but it's -- unless somebody brings forward an actual agenda item where we engage the public, we're going to do it under presentations and then make our comments appropriately then. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Is that the thought? January 12, 2021 Page 112 Outstanding. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, I'm looking to my board here. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: One of the things -- I was going to say, one of the -- I've been answering a lot of emails, just like you all, and one of the misconceptions is people are frustrated that they can't get an appointment. But just as you articulated, but I wanted to restate it again, the Department of Health won't give you the appointment unless they have the doses. So you might feel good saying you have an appointment next Thursday, but if the doses don't come in, then that appointment's worthless. Also, the Governor is working really hard in making statements that cover the whole state of Florida, but his statements sort of work better in certain counties that have large amounts of doses than they do in a county that's only getting several thousand. So when he says everybody over 65 is -- you know, has a priority and whatnot, well, it still comes down to the doses, and we're not making the dosages here. The other thing I will say is there is a lot of frustration about residency. Hey, if I'm from Collier County and somebody in front of me is from the state of Wisconsin, why are they in front of me? The reality is, if you were a Florida resident and you were in another state, you would have just as much. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And so, the reality is trying to vaccinate people that are on this footprint. And so if we vaccinated all the Collier County residents but there was a ton of people here that were tourists that were not vaccinated -- I mean, people that believe in the vaccination and the masks and all that, you know, would be the first to say, then, we really haven't accomplished anything because we have spreaders everywhere except for the residents. And so, you know, that's part of their frustration. January 12, 2021 Page 113 But I concur, you know, once a month or more often if something changes, the ability to call an emergency meeting, because this is a hot topic. Separating rumor from fact is critical. I mean, all of us have sent out information. You know, Commissioner Taylor has sent out quite a bit in her newsletter, same with Commissioner Solis. I launch my first newsletter immediately right after this meeting, so I think we're doing everything we can. But there are a lot of people that think the commissioners are dictating location, are dictating vaccination sites. Something I actually looked into -- I got a question, why did the Arlington get vaccine and everybody at the Arlington was vaccinated? The answer was -- and I got it from the State. That was a State strike team that came in with vaccines. They've been doing their due diligence in trying to find large concentrations of elderly people that meet all these specific parameters, and that had nothing to do with our Department of Health. In fact, that answer came -- was seconded by our Department of Health, Christine, saying that was a strike team. They came self-contained and, boom, you know, they knocked out -- and they decided the locations. So, it's nobody up here that's steering the vaccine to a favored location. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. And it also happened at the Moorings Park. It happened at the Glenview, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. So that will be decided. So, anything -- COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Perfect. No, that was -- I'm glad to hear that you -- you have that on the radar for our -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Our next meeting. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Each month. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So the second discussion, which is a little thornier, is we've heard today from the leadership of the opposition to the One Naples asking to be able to move this meeting to another venue besides this commission chambers, and I believe it January 12, 2021 Page 114 was decided by this board to do that. Is there any willingness or openness to consider, maybe at our next meeting, moving that meeting based on maybe having staff research those two areas to see? And I believe the Philharmonic was one question, and the other one was the St. John's Catholic Church. Not the church itself, but the hall, which is a pretty big hall. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I actually think the larger venue, it supports both sides of the argument, because I think when this is all said and done, you always say you have, sort of, one loser, you know, so to speak, or one group happy and one group not. I think we run the risk of -- if we -- and, you know, one of the things that was said is, well, we don't want to set the precedent. Well, right now we're in unprecedented times. If there was no COVID, we wouldn't even have this conversation. But I think we do ourselves harm that the group that feels like they weren't -- they didn't win will immediately say they weren't heard. They -- you know, they had a chance to come to a bigger venue with bigger numbers. So I think we allow both sides -- this is a large project in unprecedented times. I don't think that we lose anything by at least exploring two locations. Maybe in the end we come back and we go, you know what, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. But I'm more concerned that we're going to have one side say that they were constrained by not being able to speak or not. That's just my thought. That's why I voted for the -- you know, to at least explore a bigger venue, if not pick one. I think Commissioner Taylor did as well. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll support an effort to move it to a larger venue. I had voted to keep it here, but I've gotten a lot of correspondence as well on that, so I don't have any problem January 12, 2021 Page 115 moving it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner McDaniel -- oh, County Commissioner -- no, McDaniel, pardon me. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think we're going to say the same thing. I, again, voted originally to keep it here just because of staff's recommendation and semantics and precedent and all of those things. I think there's zero harm in exploration of another facility. I think we already talked about St. John Newman as -- or St. John's church as an alternative, and it's not set up for that type of a venue with communications and such, but the Artis -- or Philharmonic, as they referred to it. That's Mark showing how old he is. But that facility, I think, would -- would certainly be a fine thing, and I don't want to exclude anybody. I mean, if staff can review and determine that the church works, I'm fine with that. I don't have an issue in at least exploring it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis, your district. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's my district. So, Mr. County Attorney, it was my understanding that whatever public hearing we have has to be in a public facility, not a facility -- privately owned facility that's open to the public, but a publicly owned facility. Is that -- am I incorrect on that? MR. KLATZKOW: No. You just need public access. So, you could do it in a church, but they would have to allow public access to everybody. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. That's not what I understood from last time. But here is my concern, and it goes to what Commissioner LoCastro just said, is that whoever loses is going to have the argument that we changed the rules. I mean, we have done every single zoning public hearing, to my knowledge, at least since I've been here since '93, in the chambers. If I'm wrong about January 12, 2021 Page 116 that, let me know. But if we change the rules and we change the location, that's an issue for whoever loses. Number two, we have had challenges with the technology to make sure that the people that don't feel comfortable coming and speaking in person get heard. I can see it already, that we're going to have technology issues. We have them here. We're going to be using some other system. It's going to be the same issue but worse because we're not in a place where we're used to doing it. It will be inconvenient, I understand that, but trying to change something, you know, right before we're supposed to have one of the largest rezoning hearings, I think, is a very, very bad idea. And we're going to -- there's going to be all sorts of unforeseen circumstances. And, you know, we have a process. We've used that process for decades. I don't feel comfortable changing that process because, again, whoever -- whoever loses is going to say, wait a minute, you changed the process. We weren't heard. Let's file a lawsuit. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I appreciate your comments, but I'm not sure we're changing a process. We're just changing the venue. I think that's -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, but that's changing the process, because this is the way -- this is the place that we've always had zoning hearings. It's the way we've always done it and, you know, if we had an ordinance that we had set this up in advance -- you know, this will be the only rezoning that will be heard in somewhere other than the chambers. It just opens up too many issues, I think, in the long run. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want to just say that the rules have been changed when COVID hit, number one. Number two, I would not want to make a decision based on we're not smart enough to do the technology piece. You know, the meeting's not tomorrow. We put a man on the moon. We've launched space January 12, 2021 Page 117 shuttles. We've done some amazing things. I think we have smart county people here that can set up microphones and speakers, and our court reporter should be able to work this. I actually think both parties -- I might be wrong here. But I think we're -- if we're changing the venue, we're -- it's changing it for both. And if one side feels like it tips the scales better for them, then I would tell the other side, the venue's bigger, so come prepared. And the meeting's not tomorrow. So I would hope we would have, you know -- and I know we have smart enough people here in the county that can figure out the venue, dry run things, test technology, and I don't think the church or Artis is going to explode improperly. I actually think, though, the motion that's on the floor is to explore a location, and I think if the -- those that are exploring it came back to us and said, you know, the venue isn't conducive, it has some challenges technology-wise or whatnot, but I think just making the venue better levels the playing field for both sides, and if both sides think they have a strong case, they should come prepared. And I think in the end, we don't -- we don't take a vote and just say, well, one side came with a thousand people, the other side came with 800, so we'll vote with the side with a thousand. I think we're going to -- you know, I think citizen voice outweighs technology challenges or the size of venue, in my opinion, and I think it's about hearing the citizens on both sides, and they have plenty of time to be prepared for a larger venue. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Commissioner Saunders. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: From my perspective, it's simply a legal question. Commissioner Solis has raised it. The County Attorney can advise us. My sort of gut feeling is that having it in a different venue does January 12, 2021 Page 118 not create a problem. Public comment, you know, it's not like one side versus another. It's not the developer is one side, and the public is another side. That's not the way these types of hearings are set up, and it's not the way it works. As a matter of fact, public comment is not even considered as evidence in these types of hearings. It's something we listen to. But we have rules as to how much weight that public testimony actually has. So, Mr. Klatzkow, the question is, can we move it? Does that create a problem? If we do run into some technological glitches, which we may, and some people are not able to participate for whatever reason but we make every effort to keep that from happening, do we have a problem? MR. KLATZKOW: You can -- it's a policy decision where you want to hold this as long as it's within the boundaries of Collier County. As far as your technical issues go, it depends how bad they are. I mean, if you have a complete meltdown in your technology and people just can't get in, at that point in time I advise you continue the hearing. COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. All right. But if we're going to have a -- we would theoretically have a bigger venue, have more people in the room, we'll have a phone-in system. We'll certainly try to do Zoom for everybody, and do the best we can. I think that's the same thing we do here. So, if we do that, it sounds like there's not a problem. MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, let me ask this question: So, for the future, what's the criteria going to be for deciding whether or not we hold a zoning hearing here or out in the RLSA say, or, in Immokalee? If the people there want to have their hearing, because January 12, 2021 Page 119 it affects their neighborhood, in their neighborhood, then what's the criteria for agreeing to that? CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm not sure -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're just opening a can of worms here, procedurally, I think, and for our staff. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm not sure it's the neighborhood as much as it's the ability of folks to be within six feet of each other but together to discuss or to be part of a -- of an endeavor that has probably, in the history of Collier County, never been this large. I think this is maybe once in every 10 years. Maybe the RLSA issues early last century or this century, maybe they might meet the stature of One Naples. One Naples is unprecedented. And I doubt that there will be -- there may be, but if there is and if COVID is still there, then we're going to have to address it. But we're in -- we are in extraordinary times, and I think it behooves us as servants of the people to make it as -- to facilitate their involvement on a level that they feel comfortable in. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think if we didn't have COVID and every seat here could be filled and every seat upstairs, I don't know that we'd be having this conversation. But I think we're trying to get as many people that would normally be here pre-COVID at the discussion. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I apologize for -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I think the decision doesn't have to be made today. I don't think any of us don't care about the population or the community. I think we all do. I think we all care and give due consideration to our communities. I think that if the community -- this isn't unprecedented, by the way. I mean, we had one of the largest hearings I've ever seen when the January 12, 2021 Page 120 stormwater utility fee came through. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I knew you'd mention that. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of course. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, bring it up. You want precedent, there's one. We sat here for four hours, and they were lined up out through the parking lot in order to get here. Pre-COVID, pre-COVID. So I think exploration is a fine way for us to go. I think if a large enough issue comes up in Immokalee or in the RLSA and we decide to move the venue for whatever circumstance, fine. I think one of the things that we really need to be considerate of, and this board has expressed concerns about gatherings of people -- everything okay? You guys all looked at me and -- gatherings of people in large mass. Here we have a say-so, how many people are in the room, how many people are in the overflow. We can manage that right here. Moving to a larger venue, there is a concern of aggregating people in one particular room where we don't have as much say-so about proper social distancing and the things that we all know are important to assist with the health of our community. So, exploring is great. We can listen to staff's report when we come back at our next meeting -- CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and then make the decision. I agree with both Commissioner LoCastro and Solis with regard to these are unprecedented times, but yet they're not, so... CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So, I think it's a consensus of the Board that we would like you to explore the alternate locations that were presented by the speakers this morning under public comment, and on that -- COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I would suggest that we look January 12, 2021 Page 121 also at the North Collier Regional Park. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep. Let's bring that up. Okay. So, on that, meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. **** Commissioner Solis moved, seconded by Commissioner LoCastro and carried that the following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted **** Item #16A1 RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF 3500 CORPORATE PLAZA - 2, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20200001616. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO AGENDA ITEM #16C1. BOTH ITEMS MUST BE EITHER APPROVED OR DENIED TOGETHER ON TODAY’S AGENDA.) (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A2 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR ARTHREX HOTEL AND WELLNESS CENTER, PL20190002113, ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $20,956.11 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A3 January 12, 2021 Page 122 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR THE SPRINGS AT HAMMOCK COVE APARTMENTS - PHASE 1, PL20190000742, ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $106,783.57 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A4 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR FERRARI OF NAPLES – ONSITE UTILITIES, PL20200001701. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A5 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR OLYMPIA PARK – LOTUS GUN WORKS, PL20150000482, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,443.50 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A6 January 12, 2021 Page 123 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR GREY OAKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY, PL20160000617, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,885.81 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR OLDE NAPLES SELF STORAGE PHASE TWO, AR- 6466/PL20110002059, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $8,934 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A8 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE SEWER FACILITIES FOR ALLEN STORAGE, PL20200001855. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A9 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 11B, PL20190001827 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, January 12, 2021 Page 124 OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) Item #16A10 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR LAMORADA, CALUSA PINES FORCE MAIN, PL20160000575, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A11 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR BAY HOUSE RESTAURANT FORCE MAIN, PL20130000134, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,223.86 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES January 12, 2021 Page 125 FOR KEISER UNIVERSITY – NAPLES CAMPUS, PL20200002069. (DISTRICT 1) Item #16A13 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR PLAYERS CLUB AND SPA EXPANSION, PL20130000623 AND PL20140000153, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $10,583.88 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) Item #16A14 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR PINEAPPLE HOUSE AT SAPPHIRE LAKES ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, PL20190002281, ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE POTABLE WATER FACILITIES, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $24,333.15 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 3) Item #16A15 FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES January 12, 2021 Page 126 FOR ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 12C, PL20190001933 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A16 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR PRICE STREET PLAZA - PHASE 2 (WAWA), PL20190002184, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT. (DISTRICT 1) Item #16A17 RESOLUTION 2021-01: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BUCKLEY PARCEL, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150002371, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY. (DISTRICT 2) Item #16A18 RESOLUTION 2021-02: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF LAMORADA, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001720, AND AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF THE January 12, 2021 Page 127 MAINTENANCE SECURITY. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A19 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,545.24 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR SITE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICES AT HAMMOCK COVE, AR- 9354/PL20120001826. (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A20 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER PL20190001641 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CAREER PATHWAY LEARNING LAB. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A21 AUTHORIZING THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,368 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER PL20190000553 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH EDGE 75 BY WATERMARK. (DISTRICT 3) Item #16A22 RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A VALUE OF $301,600 FOR PAYMENT OF $450 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY January 12, 2021 Page 128 COMMISSIONERS V. JAMES A. AND JULIA M. ASKEY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20100008859 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7920 FRIENDSHIP LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A23 AWARDING INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 19-7607S, "TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SIGNAL COMPONENTS & HARDWARE," TO THE FOLLOWING VENDORS: FLORIDA ALL BATTERY SYSTEMS LLC, MULTICOM, INC., TEMPLE INC., TRAFFIC SIGNAL INC., TRANSPORTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS INC., TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS & LIGHTING, INC., AND WAVETRONIX UTAH LLC. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16A24 RESOLUTION 2021-03: A TRANSPORTATION POST PROJECT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (F.D.O.T.) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PREVIOUSLY REALIGNED CANAL (B-2) AT THE PINE RIDGE ROAD INTERCHANGE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE RESOLUTION AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. (DISTRICT 3) Item #16A25 CHANGE ORDER #2 TO CONTRACT #14-6213-135, WORK ORDER/PURCHASE ORDER 4500203996, GOODLETTE ROAD January 12, 2021 Page 129 WEST BANK PILOT PROJECT, TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $159,743.70, FOR THE GOODLETTE ROAD WEST BANK STABILIZATION - PILOT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (PROJECT NO. 50186). (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A26 AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 20-7768 TO EARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, PERTAINING TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7768, “COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CWIP) MONITORING SERVICES,” IN THE AMOUNT OF $722,230. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16A27 REINSTATING SUBGRANT AGREEMENT NO. H0309 AND APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO SUBGRANT AGREEMENT NO. H0309 WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO EXTEND SUBGRANT AGREEMENT NO. H0309 TO OCTOBER 31, 2021, AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT REVISING THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 20-7678 WITH AGNOLI BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC., APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 10, 2020 FOR THE SOLANA ROAD DRAINAGE PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 60102). (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A28 AWARDING AGREEMENT NO. 20-7677 TO ATKINS NORTH January 12, 2021 Page 130 AMERICA, INC., PERTAINING TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7677, “UPPER GORDON RIVER STORM WATER WEIR REPLACEMENT DESIGN” IN THE AMOUNT OF $489,827.92, APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AND APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT NO. H0379 WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE AND EXTEND THE AGREEMENT TO NOVEMBER 30, 2021. (PROJECT NO. 60102) (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A29 AWARDING A $645,540 WORK ORDER UNDER A REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ”) UNDER CONTRACT NO. 14-6213 TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC., FOR THE GRIFFIN ROAD AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (GRASIP) PHASE 1 STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS. (PROJECT NO. 60196.2) (DISTRICT 1) Item #16A30 THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 2020 BCC MEETING. AWARDING AGREEMENT NO. 20-7710 TO ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., PERTAINING TO REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-7710, “SURVEYING AND MAPPING, ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION, AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGN FOR RESTORATION OF PLANTATION ISLAND WATERWAYS,” IN THE AMOUNT OF $423,404. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16A31 January 12, 2021 Page 131 A UNILATERAL CHANGE ORDER 3R.3 TO AGREEMENT NO. 18-7322, “WEST GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD AREA JOINT STORMWATER-SEWER PROJECT” WITH WPM-SOUTHERN, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $374,149.77 UTILIZING THE PROJECT’S AVAILABLE CONTINGENCIES FUNDING. (PROJECT #60142.3) (DISTRICT 4) Item #16A32 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO AGREEMENTS NO. 19C02, 19CO3 AND 20CO1 WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR COLLIER COUNTY STATE-APPROVED WORK AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM. THESE CHANGE ORDERS WILL MOVE ALREADY ALLOCATED FUNDING BETWEEN EXISTING TASKS AND THE TOTAL FUNDING AMOUNT FOR THESE AGREEMENTS WILL REMAIN THE SAME. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16A33 RESOLUTION 2021-04: REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 2020-219 BY ADOPTING A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING GULF SHORE COURT, THE 20-FOOT ALLEY IN BLOCK “D” AND A PORTION OF CENTER STREET, ALL PART OF THE PLAT OF VANDERBILT BEACH CENTER, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 16 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS January 12, 2021 Page 132 PART OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ONE NAPLES PROJECT. THE VACATION WILL BE HEARD AS A COMPANION ITEM TO THE ONE NAPLES APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT RIGHT-OF-WAYS ARE LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20200000368) (DISTRICT 2) Item #16C1 A DONATION AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS MARCO A. ESPINAR TO DONATE A 2.50-ACRE PARCEL ALONG WITH A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $11,840, TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC SEC 3.05.07H.1.F.VI. (B), AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO CLOSE. (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM TO AGENDA ITEM #16A1. BOTH ITEMS MUST BE EITHER APPROVED OR DENIED TOGETHER ON TODAY’S AGENDA.) (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C2 AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) NO. 20-7765, “ROOFING PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND REMEDIAL REPAIRS,” TO ADVANCED ROOFING, INC., AS THE PRIMARY VENDOR AND CROWTHER ROOFING AND January 12, 2021 Page 133 SHEET METAL OF FLORIDA, INC., AS THE SECONDARY VENDOR. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C3 RESOLUTION 2021-05: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR THE 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE LIENS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C4 A TEMPORARY REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH BIG JOE BBQ, LLC, TO UTILIZE THE SNACK BAR AT THE MAIN GOVERNMENT CENTER CAMPUS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C5 SELLING CERTAIN COUNTY OWNED REAL PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 125.379, FLORIDA STATUTES. SUCH PROPERTIES WERE APPROVED AS SURPLUS BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2020, UNDER AGENDA ITEM #16C7 (DISTRICT 1, DISTRICT 4, DISTRICT 5) Item#16C6 AUTHORIZING A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 6,500,000 TO FUND TWO (2) INFRASTRUCTURE SALES SURTAX January 12, 2021 Page 134 PROJECTS UNDER THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: HVAC, ROOFING, AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AT SHERIFF’S AND COUNTY FACILITIES. (PROJECT NOS. 50221 AND 50184). (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16C7 AWARDING REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (“RFQ”) NO. 2010- 027, “COLLIER COUNTY DIW LEACHATE STORAGE TANKS PROJECT,” UNDER AGREEMENT NO. 19-7525, ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES, TO EBL PARTNERS, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $569,835.20 (PROJECT NO. 70219.4). (DISTRICT 1) Item #16C8 AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE FOR 10 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT INTERIOR TO THE COUNTY OWNED HHH RANCH PROPERTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $113,000. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16D1 APPOINTING JAMES C. FRENCH, PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT HEAD, TO EXECUTE THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION’S (FTA) ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR BOARD APPROVED GRANTS AND GRANT APPLICATIONS THROUGH THE FTA’S TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TRAMS) SYSTEM. (ALL DISTRICTS January 12, 2021 Page 135 Item #16D2 AGREEMENT NO. 21-008-NS FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN EXTENDED ONE-YEAR WARRANTY FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT’S EXISTING INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS) WITH AVAIL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $71,694.18 UTILIZING FEDERAL TRANSIT GRANT FUNDING TO PROVIDE CONTINUOUS VENDOR SUPPORT WHILE COMPLETING THE SOLICITATION FOR A REPLACEMENT ITS SYSTEM. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 2021-06: AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO: 1) COMPLETE AND SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS AND 2) TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT A $350,000 DISTRIBUTION AND ANY FUTURE DISTRIBUTIONS TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR USE BY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FROM THE SHAROL A. MURPHY REVOCABLE TRUST AND TO APPROVE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D4 EXTENDING AN EXEMPTION TO SECTION 5.05.05 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE “COVER-UP, COLLIER!” SIGNAGE TO CONTINUE TO BE POSTED THROUGH THE END OF ANY MASK MANDATE AT PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY BY THE FLORIDA January 12, 2021 Page 136 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D5 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) MORTGAGE SATISFACTION FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D6 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ONE (1) SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LOAN PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,560.17 FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLING UNIT THAT HAS SATISFIED THE TERMS OF THE AFFORDABILITY PERIOD. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16D7 AN “AFTER-THE-FACT” FOURTH AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., CARES ACT FUNDING UNDER THE OLDER AMERICAN ACT GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO ADD SERVICES TO CA3E AND REVISE ATTACHMENT VII CARES BUDGET AND RATE SUMMARY. (ALL DISTRICTS) January 12, 2021 Page 137 Item #16D8 RATIFYING THE EXECUTION BY THE COUNTY MANAGER AND AWARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 20-7801, “CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK (CMAR)” TO A2 GROUP, INC., (A2), FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR SUN-N-FUN WATERPARK RESTORATION AND RENOVATION PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,617.42. (DISTRICT 1) Item #16D9 ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF THE 2019/2020 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT AWARD (SECTION 5307) IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 IN THE TRANSIT AWARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING BUS STOPS THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item#16D10 RESOLUTION 2021-07: THE FY21-22 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANT AGREEMENT (PTGA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,600,164 PROVIDING FOR STATE FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE COLLIER COUNTY FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,082, APPROVE A LOCAL MATCH IN THE AMOUNT OF $800,082, January 12, 2021 Page 138 AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16E1 A SINGLE SOURCE WAIVER TO VIC'S BOOT AND SHOE (D/B/A-RED WING SHOE STORE) FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16E2 AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY AND NOTIFICATION OF REVENUE DISBURSEMENT. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16E3 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16E4 RENEWING THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (COPCN) FOR NON- EMERGENCY CLASS 2 – BASIC LIFE SUPPORT (BLS) TO CARE MED TRANSPORTATION, L.L.C., FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING POST-HOSPITAL AND INTER-FACILITY January 12, 2021 Page 139 MEDICAL AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICES. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16F1 RECOGNIZING IVONNE GARCIA, PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT, COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES AS THE NOVEMBER 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16F2 A REPORT COVERING TWO BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16F3 RESOLUTION 2021-08: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16F4 – Moved to Item #11D (Per Agenda Change Sheet) Item #16G1 A COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY STANDARD FORM LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RTH ENTERPRISE, INC., (IMMOKALEE REGIONAL RACEWAY) FOR INTERNATIONAL January 12, 2021 Page 140 HOT ROD ASSOCIATION (IHRA) SANCTIONED DRAG RACING AND RELATED AUTOMOTIVE EVENTS AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT. (DISTRICT 5) Item #16H1 A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 15, 2021 AS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. PRAYER BREAKFAST DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO TRINITY LIFE FOUNDATION, INC. Item #16H2 A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 18, 2021 AS A DAY TO REMEMBER AND CELEBRATE DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'S DREAM. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE HAND DELIVERED TO VINCENT KEEYS, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BRANCH OF THE NAACP Item #16H3 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 2021 AS HUMAN TRAFFICKING AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. THE PROCLAMATION WILL BE MAILED TO LINDA OBERHAUS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN & CHILDREN Item #16I1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE January 12, 2021 Page 141 Item #16J1 BOARD RATIFICATION AND RECORDING IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 26, 2020 AND DECEMBER 9, 2020 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE BOARD’S SCHEDULED RECESS. (IN ABSENTIA MEETING DATED DECEMBER 22, 2020) (ALL DISTRICTS) (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J2 BOARD RATIFICATION OF THE PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AND INVOICES PAYABLE APPROVED AND DETERMINED TO HAVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE BOARD’S SCHEDULED RECESS. (IN ABSENTIA MEETING DATED DECEMBER 22, 2020) (ALL DISTRICTS) (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J3 RECORD IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN DECEMBER 10, 2020 AND DECEMBER 30, 2020 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE January 12, 2021 Page 142 136.06. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16J4 DETERMINING VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JANUARY 6, 2021. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K1 RESOLUTION 2021-09: APPOINTING BRIDGET BANNON, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS. TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM EXPIRING ON NOVEMBER 5, 2022, (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K2 A JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $364,978, FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 00289600001FEE, INCLUDING ALL STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT FEES, AND COSTS, IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V. KIRK N. SANDERS, ET AL., CASE NO. 20-CA- 3450 (RESOURCE RECOVERY BUSINESS PARK, PROJECT NO. 59007). (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K3 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT IN COLLIER COUNTY January 12, 2021 Page 143 TO RECOVER DAMAGES AGAINST MAMMOTH CONSTRUCTORS, LLC AND ANY OTHER PARTIES DETERMINED TO BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO A COUNTY 24” WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND COUNTY BARN ROAD WHILE DRILLING A SIGNAL MAST FOUNDATION SHAFT FOR AN FDOT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #16K4 RESOLUTION 2021-10: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT CRAIG AND APPOINTING TIM MOSHIER TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DISTRICT 5) Item #17A RESOLUTION 2021-11: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET. (ALL DISTRICTS) Item #17B RESOLUTION 2021-12: PETITION PL20200001556, TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 50-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED IN TRACT B OF MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGE 33 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, January 12, 2021 Page 144 RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND TO ACCEPT PETITIONER’S GRANT OF AN ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO REPLACE THE VACATED DRAINAGE EASEMENT. (DISTRICT 1) Item #17C THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 26, 2021 BCC MEETING. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO CREATE THE NC SQUARE MIXED-USE OVERLAY ON LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION AND RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT-RECEIVING LANDS OVERLAY TO ALLOW UP TO 44,400 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES, A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT DAYCARE LIMITED TO 250 STUDENTS, AND A MAXIMUM OF 129 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 24.4± ACRES AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND CATAWBA STREET APPROXIMATELY 1.6 MILES WEST OF WILSON BOULEVARD IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) (PL20180002233/CP-2019-1) (DISTRICT 5) Item #17D – Continued to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting January 12, 2021 Page 145 (Per Agenda Change Sheet) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ZONING ATLAS, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO CREATE THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT (GGPOD) AND ELIMINATE THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMMERCIAL OVERLAY (GGPPOCO) AND THE GOLDEN GATE DOWNTOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT (GGDCCO), AND ESTABLISH USES, BOUNDARIES AND DESIGN STANDARDS, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER ONE - GENERAL PROVISIONS; CHAPTER TWO - ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES; CHAPTER 4 - SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER FIVE - SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS; AND CHAPTER 10 - APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. (DISTRICT 3) Item #17E ORDINANCE 2021-01: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER January 12, 2021 Page 146 05-46, THE BEMBRIDGE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMPLEX COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) AND RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD), TO REDESIGNATE 5.11± ACRES OF LAND FROM TRACT A TO TRACT A-1; TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM 6 TO 16 UNITS/ACRE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 82 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON TRACT A-1, USING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND TO APPROVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 39.82± ACRES AND IS LOCATED EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR 84) IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20200000564] (DISTRICT 3) Item #17F RESOLUTION 2021-13: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-332, WHICH ESTABLISHED A CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTHMINING, TO EXPAND THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTHMINING PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.01.A.1.C.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADDING 231.73± ACRES AND REVISING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (MHO) AND THE RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA OVERLAY (RLSAO), FOR A TOTAL OF 450.7± ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SR 29 NORTH, SOUTH OF SR 82 IN THE January 12, 2021 Page 147 IMMOKALEE PLANNING AREA IN SECTIONS 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20190000808] (DISTRICT 5) Item #17G – Moved to Item #9B (Per Agenda Change Sheet) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ________________________________________ PENNY TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK ___________________________ These minutes approved by the Board on _____________________, as presented ______________ or as corrected _____________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.