BCC Minutes 01/26/2021 RJanuary 26, 2021
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 26, 2021
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Penny Taylor
William L. McDaniel, Jr.
Rick LoCastro
Burt L. Saunders
Andy Solis
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Daniel Rodriguez, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Derek Johnnsen, Clerk's Office
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
January 26, 2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples, FL 34112
January 26, 2021
9:00 AM
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 – Chair – CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr., District 5; - Vice Chair - CRAB Co-Chair
Commissioner Rick LoCastro, District 1
Commissioner Andy Solis, District 2
Commissioner Burt Saunders, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
REQUESTS TO PETITION THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER “PUBLIC PETITIONS.”
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
Page 2
January 26, 2021
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Rabbi Amos Chorny, Beth Tikvah Synagogue
Invocation Given
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (ex
parte disclosure provided by commission members for consent agenda.)
Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0
3. AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
A. EMPLOYEE
B. ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
Page 3
January 26, 2021
C. RETIREES
D. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to accept the COVID-19 Status Report. (All Districts)
Presented
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
A. Garrett Beyrent – COVID-19 vaccine distribution
B. Joseph Colfield – CARES Act assistance disbursement
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the January 12, 2021, BCC Meeting.
This item requires all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive
zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of an additional 102.49+ acres of land from the Rural
Agricultural (A), Rural Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST),
Residential Single Family (RSF-3), and Residential Single Family with
Special Treatment Overlay (RSF-3-ST) Districts to the Sabal Bay Mixed
Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) District; and to amend the PUD
Document and Master Plan to add 102.49+ acres designated as Tract R9 for
residential development; to add 230 dwelling units for a total of 2,229
dwelling units in the MPUD; to revise the master plan and conceptual water
management plan; and to add a master site plan for the R9 Tract. The subject
property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south and west of U.S. 41,
north and west of the Wentworth PUD, and east of the Naples Bay
Page 4
January 26, 2021
Intracoastal Waterway in Section 23, 24, 25, 26 and 36, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, and Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 2,518.98± acres; and providing an effective
date. [PL20190002305] (District 4)
Ordinance 2021-04 Adopted 4/1 (Commissioner Taylor opposed)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to appoint five regular members and two alternate
members to the Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Oversight Committee. (All
Districts)
Resolution 2021-22: Appointing Patricia Sherry (District 1);
Reappointing Stephen Osborne (District 2); Reappointing Ronald
Kezeske (District 3); Reappointing Justin Land (District 4); Appointing
Mike Petscher (District 5); Appointing Jenna Buzzacco-Foerster and
James Deloney as Alternates – Adopted 5/0
B. Reconsideration request by Commissioner Taylor regarding Item #11C from
the January 12, 2021 BCC Meeting titled: Recommendation to establish 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. (All Districts)
Motion to bring back for an evidentiary hearing at the February 9, 2021
BCC Meeting – Approved 5/0
C. Recommendation to approve amendments to the Collier County Arts &
Culture Strategic Plan and approve one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position
to manage the implementation of the plan. (Commissioner Taylor) (All
Districts)
Motion to continue to a future BCC Meeting for a full hearing –
Approved 5/0
D. Recommendation to provide additional staff direction regarding the County
Manager recruitment process. (Commissioner McDaniel) (All Districts)
Motion for each commissioner to compile a list of top 5 candidates and
give the list to Ms. Lyberg by February 1st, Ms. Lyberg to bring back
the compiled list for further discussion at the February 9th BCC
Meeting – Approved 5/0
Page 5
January 26, 2021
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award an Agreement pertaining to Invitation to Bid
(“ITB”) No. 20-7790, “Caxambas Pass Park Community Center,” to Fort
Construction Group of Naples, Inc., in the amount of $1,375,401, and
authorize the Chair to sign the attached Agreement, and approve any
necessary budget amendments. (Damon Grant, Facilities Management
Division Director) (All Districts)
Approved - 5/0
B. Recommendation to award an Agreement pertaining to Invitation to Bid
(“ITB”) No. 20-7809-ST, Naples Regional (Central) Library Refurbishment
Project, to Cosugas LLC, in the amount of $1,560,000 and authorize the
Chair to sign the attached agreement (Project No.50163) (This is a Surtax
Project) (John McCormick, P.E., Principal Facilities Engineer, Facilities
Management Division) (District 1)
Approved – 5/0
Continued to the February 9, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Continued to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Commissioner Solis during
Agenda Changes)
C. Recommendation to select a site to locate the Collier County Mental Health
Facility and authorize staff to move forward with a Request for Proposals to
design the facility. (Sean Callahan, Executive Director, Corporate Business
Operations) (All Districts)
D. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (“ITB”) No. 21-7834, “Freedom
Park Bypass Ditch Project,” to Thomas Marine Construction, Inc., for a total
contract amount of $1,450,960.39, authorize the necessary budget
amendments and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Agreement.
(Project No. 60102) (Gerry Kurtz, Principal Project Manager) (District 4)
Approved – 5/0
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Moved from Item #16K5 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
A. Recommendation to appoint four members to Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
Page 6
January 26, 2021
Continued to the February 9th BCC Meeting for further discussion –
Consensus
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. BCC Future Workshop Schedule (All Districts)
B. Mr. Ochs – One Naples meeting location on March 1st
C. Mr. Ochs – Information Technology Director – Sanjay Saggere
D. Commissioner LoCastro – Advisory Board applications
E. Commissioner LoCastro – Consent Agenda
F. Commissioner McDaniel – Technology enhancements
G. Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved and/or Adopted w/changes – 5/0
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
utility facilities for Milano Lakes - Phase II, PL20180001733, and
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total
amount of $11,194 to the Project Engineer or the Developer’s
designated agent. (District 1)
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water
Page 7
January 26, 2021
utility facilities for Milano Lakes Apartments Phase III,
PL20180002475, and authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of $15,946.80 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 1)
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and accept the
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes Phase 4A, PL20190000416 and
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of $4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer’s designated agent. (District 1)
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer facilities for ALDI Grocery Store at Tamiami Crossing,
PL20190000880, 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 $7,136.44 to the Project Engineer or the
Developer’s designated agent. (District 1)
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the potable water and
sewer utility facilities and accept the conveyance of a portion of the
sewer utility facilities for the Midgard Naples Boat & Self-Storage
Facility, PL20200000503. (District 1)
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Isles of Collier Preserve Phase
15 (Application Number PL20200001712) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security. (District 1)
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of National Golf and Country
Club at Ave Maria, Phase 2, (Application Number PL20200001505)
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Page 8
January 26, 2021
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
(District 5)
8) Recommendation to authorize 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 PL20180001468 for work
associated with Briarwood Apartments Multi-Family Development.
(District 4)
9) Recommendation to approve an agreement for the purchase of a road
right-of-way, drainage and utility easement (Parcel 113RDUE) and a
temporary construction easement (Parcel 113TCE) required for
construction of roadway and related improvements for the
Whippoorwill Lane and Marbella Lakes Drive Connection (Project
No. 60219). (District 4)
10) Recommendation to extend, and provide for automatic renewals
thereafter, an Interlocal Agreement with the North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District (“NCFD”) for Fire Plans Review and
Inspection Services, and to provide NCFD with office space for its
Fire Plans Review staff in the Growth Management Division
(“GMD”) building. (All Districts)
11) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of $10,230.13 for payment of $575.13 in the
Code Enforcement action titled, Board of County Commissioners v.
Antonio Ferreira and Theresa Ferreira, relating to property located at
5124 24th Ave SW, Naples, Florida. (District 3)
12) Recommendation to approve time extension contract amendments for
Agreement 4600004128 for the Griffin Road Stormwater
Improvement Project (No. 60196), Agreement 4600004125 Freedom
Park Stormwater Channel Improvement Project (No. 60102), and
Agreement 4600003762 for the West Goodlette-Frank Road Area
Joint Stormwater-Sewer Project (No. 60142) between the South
Florida Water Management District and Collier County. (District 2,
District 4)
13) Recommendation to approve Modification to Subgrant Agreement
No. H0393 with the Florida Division of Emergency Management to
Page 9
January 26, 2021
extend the agreement to July 31, 2022, for the Goodlette Frank Road
Drainage Ditch. (Project No. 60102) (District 4)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”),
approve an enlargement of the informal competition amount beyond
the $50,000 threshold as provided in Procurement Ordinance No.
2013-69, as amended, to a Purchase Order originally issued to Lykins
Signtek & Development Specialties, Inc., and approve the assignment
of the Purchase Order to the new entity, Project Combo, Inc., d/b/a
Lykins Signtek Development Specialties, LLC to allow the
completion of the ongoing Immokalee welcome signage project
located in the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Area. The total
Purchase Order amount for these services will be $54,814. (All
Districts)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award an Agreement for Request for Proposal
(“RFP”) No. 20-7792, “Financial Consulting Services,” to Raftelis
Financial Consultants, Inc. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 20-7810, North
County Water Reclamation Facility Return Mixed Liquor Pump
System Improvements, to Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., in the
amount of $885,393.91, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached agreement (Project No. 70148). (District 2, District 3,
District 5)
3) Recommendation to approve the final ranking of design-build firms
and authorize staff to commence negotiations with the top-ranked
team, which consists of Quality Enterprises USA, Inc., Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, P.A., and Pelican Engineering Associates, Inc.,
for Request for Professional Services (“RPS”) No. 20-7760, Design-
Build Pump Station Emergency Power Resiliency. (All Districts)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Continued to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 10
January 26, 2021
1) Recommendation to repeal and replace Resolution No. 87-200 to
update and modernize the Collections Management Policy for the
Museum Division. (All Districts)
2) Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to advertise and bring
back for adoption at a later meeting, an Ordinance creating the Palm
River Sidewalk Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) to install
sidewalks in the Palm River Estates community. (District 2)
3) Recommendation to approve the third extension of the Interim
Management Plan for the Conservation Collier Camp Keais Strand
Parcels. (District 5)
4) Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier McIlvane
Marsh Interim Management Plan 2-year extension under the
Conservation Collier Program. (District 1)
5) Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Red Maple
Swamp Preserve Interim Management Plan 2-year extension under the
Conservation Collier Program. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve the Conservation Collier Wet Woods
Preserve Management Plan 10-year update under the Conservation
Collier Program. (District 2)
7) Recommendation to accept a U.S. Department of Treasury Emergency
Rental Assistance Grant award (award amounts not yet announced)
and approve an after-the-fact execution of the award terms as a
condition of funding acceptance, authorize two temporary full-time
staff and allow the County Manager or his designee to sign any
additional documents upon arrival; and authorize the necessary
Budget Amendment. The funding will provide rental and utility
assistance to Collier County residents. (All Districts)
8) Recommendation to authorize the use of South Florida Water
Management District settlement funds to offset the annual $100 Off-
Road Vehicle riding permit fee assessed by the Big Cypress National
Preserve by fifty percent (50%) for Collier County residents to
provide riding opportunities at the Preserve and to sunset Resolution
No. 2012-110 as amended, which established the Collier County ATV
Page 11
January 26, 2021
Park Ad Hoc Committee, and approve any necessary budget
amendments. (District 1, District 5)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve modifications to the 2021 Fiscal Year
Pay & Classification Plan which consist of three reclassifications
made from October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. (All
Districts)
2) Recommendation to accept Staff’s report for the sale of 76 items and
disbursement of funds in the total amount of $475,250 associated with
the County surplus auction held on December 11 and 12, 2020. (All
Districts)
3) Recommendation to approve a Letter of Engagement with the law
firm of Mullin Coughlin for the purpose of providing legal advice,
assistance, and response to potential data security incidents as
required by the County’s Cyber Insurance carrier, AXA XL Catlin
Insurance Company. (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to award RFP No. 20-7814 Collection Agency
Services to RTR Financial Services, Inc., for Countywide collection
of unpaid accounts. (All Districts)
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
final Settlement Agreement between Collier County and Underwriters
at Lloyd’s of London, et. al. to close all remaining open claims arising
from Hurricane Irma in the amount of $1,477,306.38. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders and other
contractual modifications requiring Board approval. (All Districts)
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Steve Athey, Property Maintenance
Inspector, Growth Management Department, as the 2020 Employee of
the Year. (All Districts)
Presented; read into the record by County Manager Ochs
Page 12
January 26, 2021
2) Recommendation to recognize Brittney Mahon, Human Resources
Manager, Administrative Services Department, as the 2020
Supervisor of the Year. (All Districts)
Presented; read into the record by County Manager Ochs
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the FY20-21 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-14
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to authorize execution of the budget amendment for
$450,000 to recognize carryforward for Fund (602) Confiscated Trust
Fund into FY2021 budget. (All Districts)
2) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between December 31, 2020 and January 13, 2021 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06. (All Districts)
3) Request that the Board approve and determine valid public purpose
for invoices payable and purchasing card transactions as of January
20, 2021. (All Districts)
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to review and approve the Parks and Recreation
Division’s request to waive any potential ethics conflict for a member
of the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board based on
Ch. 112, Florida Statutes. (All Districts)
Page 13
January 26, 2021
2) Recommendation to set the balloting date for the recommendation of
members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board by record title
owners of property within Pelican Bay. (District 2)
Resolution 2021-15
3) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion for Stipulated Final
Judgment in the amount of $1,750 for the acquisition of Parcels
103RDUE and 103TCE2, plus $561.99 for all statutory attorney’s
fees, expert fees, and costs, plus $3,000 for all supplemental
attorney’s fees and costs not provided for, in the lawsuit styled Collier
County, Florida v. Golden Land Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-
CA-1291 and authorize required budget amendments. (Project No.
60123). (All Districts)
4) Recommendation to reappoint three members to the Collier County
Code Enforcement Board. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-16: Reappointing Robert Kaufman, Gerald
Lefebvre and Danny Blanco to three-year terms expiring on
February 14, 2024
Moved to Item #12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
5) Recommendation to appoint four members to Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (All Districts)
6) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee (District 4)
Resolution 2021-17: Reappointing Maria Schoenfelder and Harry
Wilson to four-year terms expiring on March 3, 2025
7) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Golden Gate City
Economic Development Zone Advisory Board. (District 3)
Resolution 2021-18: Reappointing Cecilia Zenti and Appointing
J.B. Holmes to two-year terms expiring on January 28, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Page 14
January 26, 2021
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adopted – 5/0
A. This item is being continued to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting.
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)
B. This item was continued from the January 12, 2021 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners proposing 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,
Page 15
January 26, 2021
Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Transmittal Hearing)
[PL20180002233/CP-2019-1] (District 5)
Resolution 2021-19
C. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance number 04-
41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, to allow Communication Towers as a Conditional
Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District, to clarify that Cluster Development
for Affordable Housing does not require a Conditional Use in the RMF-6
Zoning District and to create Alternative Design Standards for Housing that
is Affordable, to modify Setback Requirements for Public Utility Ancillary
Systems (PUAS) Enclosures, and to correct Citations and Update Text, 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 Four – Site Design And
Development Standards; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards; Chapter
Ten – Application, Review, And Decision-Making Procedures, and
Appendix A-Standard Performance Security Documents For Required
Improvements; Section Four, Conflict And Severability; Section Five,
Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six,
Effective Date. (All Districts)
First Reading – No Ordinance adopted (Per CAO)
D. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Board of
Zoning Appeals members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a
Resolution for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a Government
Safety Service Facility for fire and emergency medical services within the
Estates (E) zoning district with a Wellfield Risk Management Special
Treatment Overlay Zone W-4 (ST/W-4), pursuant to Sections
2.03.01.B.1.c.8 and 2.01.03.G.1.e. of the Collier County Land Development
Code for a 5.46+/- acre property located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard in Section 9,
Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
[PL20190002680] (District 5)
Resolution 2021-20
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
Page 16
January 26, 2021
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
FY20-21 Adopted Budget. (All Districts)
Resolution 2021-21
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD’S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
January 26, 2021
Page 2
MR. OCHS: You have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Good morning, everyone.
MR. OCHS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We are just going to wait just for one
second for Commissioner McDaniel to come back to the dais.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, he's here.
So thank you very much, sir.
So this morning -- and I should have this in front of me, and I
don't have it in front of me. Excuse me -- we have Rabbi Amos
Chorny from the Beth Tikvah Synagogue to give us our invocation,
and after that I'd like Commissioner McDaniel to lead us in the
pledge. Please all rise.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
RABBI CHORNY: Good morning and thank you.
We stand present intending, through our prayer, following
inauguration of a new federal government, seeking peace for this
country. As it is written in the book of Jeremiah, "Seek the peace of
the city where I cause you to roam and pray for her to God, for in her
place, you all will have peace."
May it be your will, our God, that you give a listening ear to
those whom we have elevated and protect them, and may you raise
for us a good government that will strive and begin to bring healing,
justice, and peace to all living in this great land and throughout the
world, a government that will honor the image of God in all humanity
January 26, 2021
Page 3
and in creation.
May you give all people in this country the strength and the will
to preserve righteousness and to seek peace as a unified force to
uproot racism and violence from our hearts, and to make healing,
good life, and peace flourish. May we merit to do good wor ks and
repair the world through all our efforts on behalf of all living
creatures.
Fulfill from us the verse and psalms, and let the brightness of the
Lord, our God, be upon us, and to thou direct for us the works of our
hands and the words of this gathering.
Amen.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: With me, ladies and
gentlemen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Rabbi, thank you so much.
RABBI CHORNY: My pleasure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It was beautiful. I agree.
MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA.) -
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: These are the proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners meeting for January 26th, 2021.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 11C to the
February 9th, 2021, board meeting. This is a recommendation to
January 26, 2021
Page 4
select a site to locate the Collier County Mental Health Facility.
This was brought for the change and the move by Commissioner
Solis, and I believe, Commissioner, you had another --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes.
If I can, Madam Chair, I'd like to continue that to the second
meeting in February. I think there's enough just loose issues that I
think need to be addressed before we actually get to the
decision-making situation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm fine with that. My board?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No problem, okay.
MR. OCHS: We'll continue that to the February 23rd board
meeting then.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Very good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So noted.
MR. OCHS: The next proposed change is to continue
Item 16D1 to the February 23rd board meeting. This is a
recommendation to amend policies related to the collection
management program at the Museum Division. That is made at
Commissioner Taylor's request with staff concurrence.
And the last change proposed is to move Item 16K5 from the
County Attorney consent agenda to become Item 12A. This is a
recommendation to appoint four members to your Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. That move is made
at Commissioner McDaniel's question.
Those are all the changes that I have this morning, Madam
Chair. I know that you and I discussed two special recognitions
today that we're going to make an exception to our COVID policy.
So when the time comes next on the agenda, we'll recognize t hose
two folks.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
January 26, 2021
Page 5
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. So now we just do
approval of the agenda; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: Yes, and ex parte disclosure as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ex parte. And I'm not sure we do it
now -- any other ex parte except for Item 9A.
So, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning. I have no
adjustments to the agenda nor any declarations.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And same here; no
disclosures and no changes to the agenda.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Same here; no disclosures, no
changes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: No changes, no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I'm the same, so thank you very
much.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair --
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have a registered speaker --
MR. OCHS: -- I think you have a speaker on your consent
agenda this morning.
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Charles Staadecker.
MR. STAADECKER: Would you like me here or here?
MR. MILLER: Yes, either podium, sir. Please state your
name and tell us what specific item on the consent agenda you're
addressing, sir.
MR. STAADECKER: Yes. My name is Charles Staadecker
for the Land Conservancy Advisory Committee. I submitted my
application to be part of this advisory --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Excuse me. I believe that's for the
January 26, 2021
Page 6
application to the board of the Conservation Collier. That has been
moved to the regular agenda. So you will not be able to speak to it.
You would have to wait until that is brought up, and chances are
that's going to be this afternoon.
MR. STAADECKER: I just wanted to say thank you. I was
not selected, but I appreciate --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh.
MR. STAADECKER: -- the time it took. A special shout out
to Michelle D'Andrea Hall, who answered all my questions. I hope
some day in the future I will be able to help serve Collier County.
It's probably the finest place in the world to live, and I hope that my
expertise in international hotel business and commercial real estate
will help the county in the future. I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we'll always make time for a
thank you up here, so thank you very much.
MR. STAADECKER: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There you go.
Item #3D (Items #16F1 and #16F2 – read into the record)
AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that does move us to Item 3 today
on your agenda. These are awards and recognitions, and specifically
to Item 3D. We have two distinguished awards to give out this
morning. If I may proceed, Madam Chair, the first is a
recommendation to recognize Steve Athey, Code Enforcement
Property Maintenance Inspector in our Growth Management
Department, as the 2020 Employee of the Year.
So, Steve, if you'd come forward.
(Applause.)
January 26, 2021
Page 7
MR. OCHS: Steve, stay right there while I tell the audience a
little bit about why you're so deserving of this award.
Commissioners, Steve's been with the county since 2005 serving
in our Code Enforcement Division, and he was selected as the
Employee of the Month in January of 2020. And in late November
of 2019, the Code Enforcement Division received a complaint
regarding a bug and rodent infested occupied dwelling with no water
or electricity in the Moon Lake community.
Steve contacted the homeowner, and the elderly man explained
that he had a water leak in his garage. The water leak ran up the
water bill, and the water was eventually shut off.
The gentleman invited Investigator Athey into the home where
Steve observed severe violations of our property maintenance code,
including unsanitary conditions, insect infestation, and other serious
life safety concerns.
Now, Steve could have easily taken the easy way out, issued a
citation or a notice of violation, but true to his character and sense of
commitment to the community, he chose a different path.
In a span of two days, with the assistance of other Code Enforcement
team members and the Collier County Solid and Hazardous Waste
Division, two 30-year [sic] dumpsters were filled with debris from
the home. And Steve didn't stop there. He took it upon himself to
collect donated supplies and receive donations of new mattresses, a
new hot water heater, toilets, appliances, and other household
necessities. He also coordinated to have the electric and water
restored.
The home was cleared and clean, and at the end of the second
day, the elderly man, with tear-filled eyes, made a comment that no
one involved will ever forget. He said, you all saved my life by
giving me a new start, and I'm grateful forever.
With his sense of commitment to the community, Steve
January 26, 2021
Page 8
profoundly changed this individual's quality of life and the quality of
life of the residents in the surrounding homes. This is just one of the
many reasons that he is so deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my great honor to present Steve Athey, your
2020 Employee of the Year.
Congratulations, Steve.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: And, of course, we have a nice plaque and reward
for Steve that we'll give him offline.
But thank you so much for being here and everything that you
do, Steve.
Okay. Our next recommendation is to recognize Brittney
Mahon, Human Resources Manager in our Administrative Services
Department, as the 2020 Supervisor of the Year.
Brittney, if you'll come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: All right. Let me tell you a little bit about
Brittney's work here with the county.
As part of the county's formal recognition program, each year
the Human Resources Division solicits nominations from staff to
highlight the accomplishments of a special supervisor who
exemplifies the characteristics of great leadership in either a special
project or continually throughout the year. This past year, 16
nominees were considered by the Employee of the Month Committee
and voted upon by a team of division directors.
Brittney, who's our manager of talent acquisition and total
rewards compensation, has been with the county since 2007 and is
richly deserving of this award. Her responsibilities include oversight
for recruitment, compensation, recognition, and retirement initiatives
for the entire agency, functions that during the COVID pandemic of
2020 resulted in significant process changes within the county.
January 26, 2021
Page 9
Brittney and her team work with each department and division
to support their individual hiring requirements while ensuring an
effective, cohesive countywide recruitment strategy. She's a
consummate professional who excels at thinking on her feet.
Brittney values open communication with her team. She's
straightforward and transparent, keeping them informed on
everything going on within their division. She leads by example
through her commitment to county and division policy, applying it in
an impartial and consistent manner. One of Brittney's best
leadership qualities is the support and encouragement of her team's
professional development.
Through Brittney's leadership, she has built a strong, successful
team that thrives on mutual respect, consistency, and accountability.
She embodies the county's motto of "exceeding expectations every
day."
And it's my great honor to present Brittney Mahon as your 2020
Supervisor of the Year.
Congratulations, Brittany.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, thank you for indulgence and that
exception. Those are two outstanding people that we wanted to
make sure that were recognized and the public could see the kind of
work and the kind of employees that we have here at the county
government, so thank you for that.
Madam Chair, I'm advised that we need to take a vote on
Item 2A, which was the approval of today's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So do I hear a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So move.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Second?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Second.
January 26, 2021
Page 10
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.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 26, 2021
Continue Item 11C to the February 9, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to select a site to
locate the Collier County Mental Health Facility and authorize staff to move forward with a
Request for Proposals to design the facility. (Commissioner Solis’ request)
Continue Item 16D1 to the February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to repeal and
replace Resolution No. 87-200 to update and modernize the Collections Management Policy for the
Museum Division. (Commissioner Taylor’s request)
Move Item 16K5 to Item 12A: Recommendation to appoint four members to Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. (Commissioner McDaniel’s request)
2/10/2021 11:01 AM
January 26, 2021
Page 11
Item #5A
COVID-19 STATUS REPORT – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5A this
morning. This is a presentation of the COVID-19 status report by
the Collier County Department of Health. Mr. John Drew from the
Department of Health in Collier County will make the presentation.
Good morning, John.
MR. DREW: Good morning.
Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Good morning.
MR. DREW: Happy New Year to you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good morning.
MR. OCHS: Get a little closer to that mic, will you?
MR. DREW: Yeah. All right. I'm John Drew representing
the Florida Department of Health in Collier County.
And we have some slides with the usual statistics that we've
been following for almost a year now. Hard to believe it's been
almost a year. So I'll go through those quickly, and then at the end, I
do have some information about our testing and vaccination efforts.
So beginning with our -- these are emergency department visits
for influenza-like illness, and our trend over the last two weeks has
been downward and, over time, since about the first of August, that
has been relatively flat.
On -- sorry. On the COVID-like illness, same trend for the last
two weeks has been downward, and the increase has been steady
since about the first of October.
On the positivity rate, again, the last two weeks, the trend is
downward, and that, over time, has -- since about October 1st has
January 26, 2021
Page 12
been steadily increasing till the end of the year, and then over the last
month it's been fluctuating between 8 percent and 12 percent, so lots
of variability in that.
Then these are the positivity rates by the different areas of the
county, and you can see here that there's not much difference
between the different regions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Could I make one comment?
MR. DREW: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I want to thank everybody
that has assisted in Immokalee. Back to that previous slide, if you
would, please.
MR. DREW: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been very intimate with
what's transpired in Immokalee. And clear back in March, April,
and early May, even when we stood up the mass testing event and the
National Guard came, we were running 22, 24 percent. And you can
see right there it's come all the way down to 10.
Now, there's a combination of circumstances that transpire to
allow for that, but I would like to attribute a large portion of that to
the efforts of our community: The coalition, the RCMA, the
educational processes that have been put in place to the promotoras,
both the Partners in Health, an enormous impact on that community,
along with an enormous amount of testing facilitated to be available
for our residents in Immokalee as well.
And thank you for the indulgent. I know we're accepting this
report, but I just wanted to acknowledge our community that, you
know, what is 10 percent was running steady 22, 24 percent for an
enormous period of time.
MR. DREW: Yep, it did take an incredible effort, yes. Thank
you, Commissioner McDaniel.
All right. Switching to hospital capacity. So we are up to
January 26, 2021
Page 13
about 150 COVID patients in the hospitals over the last couple
weeks. And that -- the rate of -- the average rate of admissions has
been increasing steadily and does continue to increase, but I did
check in with both the large hospital systems, and they both tell us
that they're experiencing normal seasonal volumes but they're both
very confident that they can handle COVID patients and non -COVID
patients.
So they are operating business as usual, and there should be no
concerns about going to the hospital.
The next slide is our review of COVID deaths compared to the
2019 leading causes of death. I know 2020 is over, but these
statistics are delayed. They're usually delayed about six to eight
months. So the 2020 numbers won't come out for a while yet.
But we ended 2020 with 379 COVID-19 deaths, which would
put us, compared to 2019 as -- put COVID as the fourth leading cause
of death, and for the state the third leading cause of death. And,
unfortunately, since the end of the year, we've had seven more
COVID-19 deaths for a total of 386.
Okay. Moving on to the new things. The COVID-19 testing.
So we've reduced our COVID-19 testing by quite a bit, and we've
shifted that focus to the vaccination efforts. So right now we have
testing only one day a week, limited testing, and it's by appointment
only, and that's at the Health Department office here at the
government center.
We're also always doing close contact and outbreak related
testing, and those are arranged by the Epidemiology Departme nt.
And we came to this decision because we realized that testing is
readily accessible throughout the community, urgent care centers,
hospitals, physicians' offices, pharmacies, and several other locations.
And just as an example, for the last two weeks we've had over 11,000
tests reported to us from those community providers.
January 26, 2021
Page 14
And then our vaccination effort, this is just a string of facts kind
of in no particular order. But I think most everyone knows that our
primary vaccination site is at the North Collier Regional Park. That
is supported by numerous partners, county agencies, including
Emergency Management, EMS, the fire districts, the Sheriff's Office,
Parks and Recreation, and Healthcare Network of Southwest Florida.
And we're offering those vaccinations several days a week. It varies
week to week. As of yesterday, we -- the Health Department has
administered over 7,900 doses of the vaccine, and the community as
a whole has administered over 27,000 doses.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Would you just be very specific for
those listening; what does that mean, community at whole? What
entities are we talking about?
MR. DREW: I may not get them all, but as far as I know right
now, we have the Health Department, Publix, NCH, Physicians -- no,
Physicians Regional, yes. I know Landmark Hospital has a few
doses and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Healthcare Network.
MR. DREW: Healthcare Network has some, and there's also
the CVS contract. CVS and --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Walgreens.
MR. DREW: CVS, Walgreens. The other -- there's another.
I can't remember the name of it. It's McGuire. CD McGuire, I
think. Those are state and federal contracts that are administering
doses to the long-term-care facilities.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so the 27,000 doses includes
both the hospital workers, frontline workers, first responders, nursing
homes, as well as the general public. But as far as the general public
is concerned, it's the Department of Health and Publix; is that
correct?
MR. DREW: Yes. NCH did a public vaccination --
January 26, 2021
Page 15
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, they did, that's right.
MR. DREW: -- but I don't think they have enough doses left to
do that anymore.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And Healthcare Network did
that as well.
MR. DREW: Oh, yeah. And Healthcare Network is doing
doses for the public.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Specifically, we -- may I?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, of course.
MR. DREW: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Because we have a federally
regulated program disseminated by the state, there are rules that the
departments have to abide by, and they were able to peel off 500
vaccines for Immokalee specific, and the Healthcare Network
reached out to 2,600 of their clients who they offer healthcare
services to, and we were able to distribute those first 500 there in
town a couple of weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. DREW: Yes. And Healthcare Network is also
working -- will continue to work in Immokalee to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, yes.
MR. DREW: -- administer those doses that they are getting.
And then we're -- so as we move along, we're partnering with EMS
and the fire districts to -- and Healthcare Network to bring specific
events to different areas. So far we have Marco Island, Everglades
City, and City of Naples have been able to organize events there.
And we're also working with the Naples Senior Center and some
faith-based organizations to identify other individuals that need the
vaccination that meet the criteria.
So -- and then backing up, we did provide a couple of days for
frontline healthcare workers at the Health Department so that they
January 26, 2021
Page 16
could come and get their vaccines.
And everyone knows that we're currently using the Eventbrite
system for appointments; however, the state is currently piloting in a
couple of counties, not here, but in a couple of other counties, they're
piloting a system called Sharecare, and we're hoping that that system
with be a better system than what we have, but we need to wait for
the state to pilot test that and work out any kinks that there might be.
And then if you -- people who have received the vaccine, the
first dose, from the Health Department, using the Eventbrite system,
will receive an email to let them know that their second-dose
appointment is ready. So they'll be able to register for the
second-dose appointment.
That's -- oh, I still have a couple other slides. I'm sorry.
So just a reminder that on the 21st, the Surgeon General issued this
public health advisory with a residency requirement, a Florida
residency requirement for receiving the vaccine in Florida. The key
is to have a valid Florida's driver's license, and if you don't, you need
two of -- a couple of different items that prove your residency. I'm
not going to go through those, but I will answer questions if you have
any.
And then this is a report that's being produced daily at the state
level, and it's accessible on the Florida Health COVID website. So
it's just going to show us the number of vaccine doses administered in
the county and the breakdown by age group and race, ethnicity, and
gender.
So, as you can see, the -- and the data on here is probably a day
or two, maybe three days behind, but this particular report was
Sunday's report, so it's reporting data from Saturday the 23rd. At
that time we had administered 28,000 doses in the county. And you
can see how that's broken down.
And then this is the second page of that report, and it just shows
January 26, 2021
Page 17
the number of doses that were administered each day over a
two-week period. So that's a rolling two-week period. So if you
were to go look at that report every day, you'd see that it would shift,
the days would shift.
And that is all I have for you, and I'll do my best to answer any
questions if you have any.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Just two quick questions. So
several hundred doses were peeled off for municipalities like
Everglades City and Marco. Do you see more of that happening? I
assume that wasn't a one-time good thing for them. What do you see
in the pipeline for the different municipalities?
MR. DREW: Well, I know that we're working with the
municipalities and other community organizations to try and fill that
gap. We realize there's a gap with the Eventbrite system, and we're
trying to fill that gap so that everybody has an opportunity to get
vaccinated, especially people who may not be able to access the
Eventbrite system.
So I do foresee that happening in the future different, but I can't
give you any numbers on --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. The second question
is: Several retirement communities in Naples specifically got their
own, basically, vaccine for that community, and in a meeting I took
when I asked that question to just educate me on how, you know,
they got vaccine for their specific residents, you know, I was
told -- and I think maybe we all got it in a different, you know, form
of meeting, that those were really Florida strike teams; that it wasn't
part of Collier County taking vaccine and running over to the
Arlington or whatnot. A lot of residents didn't know that.
So, you know, maybe as part of an after-action, a little bit more
advertisement. I know we all in our new newsletters in our own
January 26, 2021
Page 18
ways tried to separate rumor from fact and not make it sound like
somebody screamed really loud and the squeaky wheel got the oil.
But those large groups that all got vaccinated as a group, are they part
of your numbers here, or those are separate Florida strike teams?
And so, in essence, more people did get vaccinated in Collier. It was
just that was through a separate group.
MR. DREW: No. These -- the numbers that we're looking at
on this slide and those cumulative numbers I gave you include those.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: The strike teams?
MR. DREW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Do we see more of
that possibly coming, that, you know, these residential ar eas are
being identified by the state of Florida as high concentration places
where the state has decided, and probably in conjunction with
working with the Department of Health, that more of that might be
coming to very specific retirement communities her e in Collier
County? Is there any more light you can shed on that?
MR. DREW: Well, our understanding is that those
communities that received the vaccine are either nursing homes or
assisted living facilities, so they have care facilities there, and that
was part of that federal contract, CVS, Walgreens, and the state one
with CD McGuire.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. But the places -- in
the example of the Arlington, there's also a large percentage of
people there that are independent living. My unders tanding is, you
know, everybody waited in line, and, you know, the assisted living
people got the shots, the residents who are in independent living got
the shots, and even some employees there invited a few guests that
maybe weren't ID'ed very, you know, properly that came from other
areas.
So, you know, those are just things -- it's just feedback
January 26, 2021
Page 19
that -- you know, we want to do it right. We want to do it fair.
MR. DREW: Right.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And all of us are getting, you
know, hundreds if not thousands of emails from people that
didn't -- you know, maybe didn't understand the whole strike team
type thing or they heard that, you know, the mom or dad of an
employee there was also in line and got one, and some of this
might -- you know, I'm getting this third-person, but just feedback for
you. You're on the front lines. Anything you can do to make sure
that, you know, we're separating rumor from fact and -- you know,
and it's doing -- being done as properly as we would expect.
MR. DREW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you, sir.
MR. DREW: Thank you. I'll take that back to our public
information officer.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: A couple questions. Thanks for
the information.
Can you go back to, I think, three slides back? Maybe four,
five. One more. One more. One more. One more. Keep going.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: More than five.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The beginning.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That one, that one. The one on
the right. You know, any theories or anything just to share in terms
of why, after a certain point, it wasn't a smooth trajectory but this up
and down kind of thing? It just seems -- I'm just curious if there's
any --
MR. DREW: I don't have any --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right.
MR. DREW: -- insight into that, uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Fair enough.
January 26, 2021
Page 20
MR. DREW: You know, I mean, it could be any number of
things.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. It's just suddenly it was on
this -- whether a smooth downward trajectory or kind of a smooth
upward trajectory, and then all of a sudden it starts going like this
(indicating).
MR. DREW: Yeah. I mean, that's right around the holidays --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, holidays.
MR. DREW: -- so there's possibilities there. Like, you know,
it could be less testing that was done during those weeks, or it could
be more people were visiting people and having gatherings and so --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Maybe days of non-testing
and then more testing or something.
MR. DREW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right.
Next, the two things related to seniors, and one was
Commissioner LoCastro was asking about these strike teams.
Anything you can share on how those -- those things work? I mean,
what's the criteria for a strike team coming in? Because, as
Commissioner LoCastro said, you know, there's some in particular
that have received it, and the ones that are not, it is creating a level of
anxiety amongst the independent living folks th at is, I think,
unprecedented and really concerning. Any -- can you share anything
on how that -- do you know how that works, what -- how they make
those decisions?
MR. DREW: All we know is that that's coming out of the
Governor's Office.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DREW: And that is -- or the state Emergency
Management, and there's -- they are supposed to be targeting nursing
homes and assisted living facilities.
January 26, 2021
Page 21
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. DREW: So that's -- that's a federal and a state contract.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. DREW: And the Governor's goal there is to get all of
those facilities and the employees in those facilities vaccinated using
those strike teams.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, yeah. Well, it just -- you
know, there's -- for example, I think as of today Bentley Village still
has not received any, and it's, you know, the anxiety --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And quite a few others. So,
I mean, I think we're speaking for those independent citizens out
there that we want to separate rumor from fact. Anything we can do
to get maybe visibility into what might be coming so it's not just, oh,
guess what, a retirement community that actually is retirement
community, half independent living, half nursing home, it's not really
a nursing home, all of a sudden has already been vaccinated. You
know, we sort of hear about it after the fact and with no detail, and it
would be nice -- like you said, Bentley Village, Discovery Village.
There's several in all of our districts that, you know, it would be nice
to not hear about it after the fact if it was possible. I know, like you
say, I know it's coming from Tallahassee, but sort of understanding --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or at least just understanding how
the decision's made --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- where the strike team goes, and
then we can explain that to people and maybe kind of tamp down the
anxiety level a little bit.
MR. DREW: Yeah, we'll get into that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: If you can -- yeah.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What he said.
January 26, 2021
Page 22
MR. DREW: We'll let you know, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And then the last one is -- and I
know you referenced the Naples Senior Center. I think the biggest
challenge is that some of the folks that need it the most, the seniors of
the seniors category, you know, the 80-year-olds and upper
70-year-olds that are the least technologically savvy, say, as a
group -- and I hope that's not offensive to anyone, but I think, based
upon the email traffic that I'm getting, that seems to be the case.
Is there any -- anything going on how to assist these people? I
mean, you know, if you can at least say we're working on it, that
would be helpful, because at this point they feel like --
MR. DREW: That is exactly my answer.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DREW: We are very aware of that -- I'll call it that gap.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DREW: Like I said before, in the Eventbrite system, and
that is why we partnered with the Senior Center. That is why we're
partnering with the faith-based organizations and other community
organizations. You know, I know that we're communicating with
numerous organizations to see if we can help --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay, good.
MR. DREW: -- fill that gap.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the DOH is working on that. I
think just that message would be very helpful to be able to send,
so -- that's all I had. Thanks.
MR. DREW: Yep.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And like they said,
what they said.
But I have a thought, and I'd like -- because you folks
communicate directly with the Governor, and the administration and
January 26, 2021
Page 23
designation of these vaccinations comes from the Governor's Office.
But I'm reminded of the circumstances that prevailed last year when
we were all screaming for testing, testing, testing, testing. I mean,
you had to have -- you had to be symptomatic, you had to have a
permission slip from your doctor and, they managed the demand by
the supply. And as the supply increased, the reduction of requisites
to get tested, in fact, happen.
I would like to suggest, sooner than later, that we do have
control over the demand. We don't on the supply side with regard to
the vaccination. So if a criterium were established -- my last
estimate, there was approximately 110,000 people in Collier County
65 and above, plus the frontline workers, caregivers, first responders
to the tune of another 30-, 40,000 people that are actually requisite to
be able to receive the vaccination, with a total of 27 or so thousand
being administered.
If we could limit the amount of those that are allowed to or can,
in fact, receive the vaccine -- my thought was really quite simple was
80 and above age-wise until a threshold is met, and then once that
threshold is met, 70 and above, and that will keep the folks who
really want the vaccine but aren't yet -- we don't have the supply to
meet that demand; that would keep them from four and five -- I know
we all have received the stories of people that -- hours and hours of
their life.
So if a suggestion could be made to manage what we can
control, which is the demand side of that equation and lighten the
load -- because folks would literally take a breath, I think, if they -- if
you weren't of age or weren't qualified, you wouldn't spend the hours
on the time searching around trying to be able to get an appointment.
Until the -- and, again, until the supply change starts to come
around, and it will -- I mean, inevitably it will. I predict these
vaccinations will be as prevalent as the flu vaccination that
January 26, 2021
Page 24
everybody goes -- well, most -- a lot of people go and get. So that
was my point, and I'd like that to be passed on to the powers that be,
please.
MR. DREW: Definitely. We will definitely do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And one last question. Drinking
my coffee this morning and watching the news, and one of the news
anchors had a story or started to tell a story that -- I couldn't listen to
the whole thing so I wanted to ask you about it. That one of the
things that's happening is everyone is trying to game the system.
Meaning, you know, I'm going to get my two computers, my two
iPads, my cell phone, and I'm going to have my kids from New York
trying to get online as well to try to get an appointment. The
headline was that that maybe hurts your chances. Is that -- is there
any truth to that?
MR. DREW: Well, I mean, I don't know for sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DREW: It's really speculation. But, I mean, to me,
personally, logically that makes sense, that the more people who are
trying --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right, right.
MR. DREW: -- the easier it is to get in. So if you're trying on
three or four devices, then it may not be -- I mean, I can tell you that
I've been personally trying to get appointments for my family
members, and I decided to go with one device, but that didn't work
either. So I'm -- you know, we're all in the same boat.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We're all in the same boat.
MR. DREW: And, you know, all I can tell you is that, you
know, we're -- like, Commissioner McDaniel pointed out, we're
limited by the supply that we're given. We know that the Eventbrite
system isn't perfect. And we are looking to evolve the system, make
January 26, 2021
Page 25
it better as we go along. And, you know, we're confident that we'll
get vaccines to all those who want it. It just may take some time.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah, it's going to take some time.
And I think it's probably safe to say that if you're online at 9:00 and
the wheel is spinning, watching it spin for three hours is probably not
a productive use of your time. So just -- you know, don't sit there all
day watching the thing hoping that it's going to do something because
it means that you probably are not going to get an appointment that
go-round.
MR. DREW: Yeah. It's -- I mean, for those who are trying,
it's actually a better strategy to wait a few minutes on that screen and
then refresh it and try again.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right. Don't wait three hours to
refresh.
MR. DREW: Because the way the Eventbrite system works is
that, you know, the first -- there's 500 appointments per day. The
first 500 clicks get in line, and then each of those 500 people has
eight minutes to complete their registration process. If they don't
complete the registration process in the eight minutes, then that slot
gets opened up again.
So I know that last -- the last time we had several hundred
appointments reopen, so --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Oh, I see, because they couldn't get
it done in eight minutes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They timed out.
MR. DREW: Yeah, they timed out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Somebody having their kid
get an appointment.
MR. DREW: Yeah, or -- right, yeah, two or three people got
the same appointment and so then they gave them up. So, I mean,
that's -- it's just one strategy to use.
January 26, 2021
Page 26
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Thank you. That helps.
MR. DREW: Yeah. And, again, you know, hopefully we'll
get a much better system. We know that the system will evolve and
get better as we go.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And talk about evolution, the Naples
Senior Center has evolved into an extremely important partner in this
process. They are having hospitals refer to them. They've got
doctors' offices. They're getting calls all the time. So they're
keeping a list, and hopefully this will get better.
But will you please explain for the public how this vaccine
distribution works nationwide. Who -- who is in the
decision-making process of which state gets the vaccine?
MR. DREW: Well, I can tell you how it flows. I don't know
exactly the formula they're using, but I would assume it's population.
But it starts at the federal government. HHS distributes it to the
states, and then the states distribute it to the counties or the local
health departments, depending on the state. In Florida, the doses
come to Emergency Management, Division of Emergency
Management, and then they distribute them to the health departments
and the hospitals within the counties.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Based upon population?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Based --
MR. DREW: That's my assumption --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. DREW: -- but I don't know that for sure. That's the only
thing that makes sense to me.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Common sense in
government.
MR. DREW: Yes, I know.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
January 26, 2021
Page 27
MR. DREW: Uh-huh. You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Thank you for your
time.
MR. DREW: You're welcome.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 7 this
morning, public comments on general topics not on the current or
future agenda.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I have seven registered speakers
or, excuse me, six registered speakers for public comment. The first
two are here. The other four are online.
Your first speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He will be followed by
Joseph Cofield and then Mark Stevens.
MR. BEYRENT: Good morning, Commissioners. Can you
hear me okay?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
MR. BEYRENT: Okay. I got a little card in the mail from the
blood mobile people because I gave blood 62 days ago, and that's the
time you have to wait before you can give blood again. And I
thought it was interesting because I'm O positive. I've a universal
donor. I don't take any drugs or anything, so I'm on the high end of
their list.
The last time I gave blood, though, it was at the Veteran's fire
station, and it was people walking around with -- most of them were
January 26, 2021
Page 28
wearing their mask, but people couldn't hear stuff very well, and it
was a tedious process.
And when I left, after I gave my -- I gave plasma, I left and I
said, you know what, I don't think I'm going to come back here
because this is scary. It's like going into a room when you don't
know what people have. They're testing you with needles and
whatever.
And it dawned on me, too, that right now there's a tremendous
shortage in blood, particularly O positive. And if somehow you can
get people to come in and give blood, you might want to give them a
vaccine, and that might encourage them to come in and give blood.
It would just be logical.
So I thought I'd throw that out to you. It's like killing two birds
with one stone, but then the Humane Society might get mad about
that. So I'm just throwing it out there. Give blood, g et your
vaccine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Joseph Cofield. He
would be followed by Mark Stevens and then Ed Carr.
MR. COFIELD: Good morning, board members.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. COFIELD: My name is Joseph Cofield. I live in 790
107th Avenue North, Naples -- North Naples.
I thank you for the opportunity to address you today about a
very important topic for me, and that is the CARES package. I have
not been able to figure out how we distribute the funds for the
CARES package. And the reason why I say that is because we have
some of the smartest people on this board in the world, and I know
because I know most of you here, and that is the fact that those
middle people, like those house owners that run into difficulties
during this process, they're not getting looked at during this process.
January 26, 2021
Page 29
They have problems, too, and those -- like, the people on the fixed
income that now are making adjustments, just like the lower income,
and the deep-pocket people here in Collier, and I don't think that have
been addressed yet.
And will someone please take a look at that as we attribute those
$2 million that's coming down to our state? And I know that we can
do this because, as I said, I know each one of you on the board here,
and I know you are the smartest people in this county. It's just a fact
of how we're distributing that wealth that's designed to help
everybody in this process.
And I don't think these people are looking for handouts, because
they have been helping the economy since they've been to this
county. They're just looking for a situation to help themselves out as
well.
So will you please take a look at that when you're distributing
those $2 million that are coming back down here again, because it
seemed like Lee County has figured it out. And I know we're
smarter than those people in Lee County.
And the other ones -- I'm sorry. But all the other 66 counties
have figured this out. We are smart enough to figure out how to help
those people as well. If we can help the low income with the renters
and we can help those people that got their boats, and they can help
themselves, I'm sure we can help those people in the middle as well.
So thank you for this opportunity to address you to let you know
that there is a problem with the people that's in the middle in this
economy as well. Again --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Cofield, the key to this is they
have to apply.
MR. COFIELD: Madam Chair Lady?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. COFIELD: You know, that's -- the first two packets that
January 26, 2021
Page 30
came, the people was running around in circles. It's not that I'm
blaming any organization, but the County Commission -- or the
county housing did not know how to count it properly. They gave it
to the United Way and they gave it to other organizations. And there
was not a single function of where those people go. The renters
knew where to go, the people that was out on the street know where
to go, and the people that were homeless knew how to go, because
they had a representative. But those people that was caught in the
middle, I don't think they had a problem, [sic] -- and, again, I'm not
blaming any organization. I'm just saying that we did not have a
function of how the straight line goes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager, could you respond
to this?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, staff will be
presenting an update on the CARES program at your next board
meeting. We'll be able to tell you how much money we've been able
to distribute through the programs that you've previously approved.
You also, just today, on your consent agenda, authorized acceptance
of a new allocation from the U.S. Treasury Department of
$11.6 million to go specifically for rental assistance and utility bill
payment assistance to qualifying individuals, so we'll be rolling that
out as well. Thank you for that authorization this morning.
And I think you'll be pleased with the report you hear at the next
meeting. We'll also be bringing at that time some additional
recommendations for some expansion of some of your program areas
to perhaps get at some of the potential gaps or holes that Mr. Cofield
has pointed out. And thank you for that, sir.
MR. COFIELD: You're welcome.
MR. OCHS: So we look forward to that, and that will be at
your next meeting, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And is there going to be enough time,
January 26, 2021
Page 31
because --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: In terms of the distributions?
MR. OCHS: Oh, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so perhaps we can invite some
of the agencies to this meeting or have them tune in so they can
understand how it works also.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, we will.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. Mr. Cofield, I
think -- I appreciate your comments about our intelligence. I think
some people may disagree with you very strongly in that regard, but I
certainly appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You look at me.
MR. COFIELD: I can tell you, Commissioner Saunders, I've
known you for a long time, when you were a senator and all those.
And, Bill, you know, I know, and the rest of you over here. I know
each one of you, so I definitely speak the truth when I say you are
very bright.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you. But what I was
going to suggest -- and I think that may already be in motion
here -- would be for the Manager to get back with you between now
and the next meeting and get you up to speed on what we're doing,
because I know you're very active in the community, and your insight
would be very helpful.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So, Mr. Manager, if you
could make that contact.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. French, in the back of the room, is
January 26, 2021
Page 32
going to meet Mr. Cofield on the way out get his contact information
and make sure we're addressing his concerns specifically.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Great. Thank you.
MR. COFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, just one more thing,
Mr. Cofield, just to make sure that we understand what that gap is,
you know, how to define what that gap is. I think that's really the
issue is, what is the gap? How do we define it so that we could get
after it?
MR. OCHS: Yeah. That's what Mr. French is going to spend
some time right now with Mr. Cofield on.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah. So please define that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And one more commissioner,
Mr. Cofield. Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I was going to -- I
mean, they've already echoed my comments. First I wanted to thank
you for coming here and speaking up for a lot of people that can't
speak for themselves. And I'm glad we're linking you -- you know,
we have an office, and we have hard-working people here in the
county that are working to distribute the money. But much like
Commissioner Taylor said, to the people that have applied for it, but
if you can help us connect with the people who would also qualify
but haven't applied and help distribute that information. So it sounds
like all that's already in motion. I know Mr. French is going to
connect you with those folks and sooner than later, you know, not
waiting till the next meeting.
So thank you for being here, because you're about to help a lot
of people and help us to do the same. So thank you.
MR. COFIELD: You're welcome.
January 26, 2021
Page 33
Thank you, all.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your remaining speakers on
public comment are online. I want to remind those speakers, you
will need to unmute yourself when it's your time to speak.
We're going to start with Ed Carr, followed by Mia Eglinton, and
Dairdre McGlothlin. Mr. Carr, are you with us, sir?
MR. CARR: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am indeed.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Please begin, sir. You have three minutes.
MR. CARR: Thank you.
I wanted to -- and let me know if this is not the appropriate order
for your meeting today. I wanted to talk about the pending issue on
the rezoning of the Fleischmann property to make available the
construction of -- I believe the number is 370 homes on that property.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Carr, you're going to have to wait
until we open the hearing, and we haven't opened the hearing yet, so
your intuition was correct.
MR. CARR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: That will be later this morning.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Later this morning. It will be the
next item that we discuss, and there will be an opportunity for you to
speak to this.
MR. MILLER: Clarify, that's Item 9A?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 9A.
MR. MILLER: Okay. I'll have our Zoom guy put Mr. Carr
over to 9A then.
So next up, Mia Eglinton. Mia Eglinton, are you with us,
ma'am?
MS. EGLINTON: I am here. And I'd like to talk about the
same topic.
January 26, 2021
Page 34
MR. MILLER: Okay. We will move you over as well.
Apparently we had some registration issues. Let's check with
Dairdre McGlothlin. Ms. McGlothlin, are you with us, ma'am?
MS. McGLOTHLIN: Yes, I am, and I was -- I was in for the
same situation, the Minto rezoning.
MR. MILLER: We're going to have to work on our registration
process. My apologies to Ms. Chairman.
Let's move on. Donna Young. Ms. Young, are you with us
online, and are you -- what topic would you like to speak on?
Ma'am? Ms. Young?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Okay. I don't seem to have her there.
Let's -- she's still muted. Let's check Sandra Cranshaw, if we could
unmute yourself, Ms. Cranshaw. Are you with us?
MS. CRANSHAW: Yes, I am, and I was -- I was in for the
same situation.
MR. MILLER: We will move you --
MS. CRANSHAW: Minto.
MR. MILLER: -- over to 9A. I'm sorry. My apologies.
Okay. That's all we have right now. So we will move them over to
9A. My apologies, Ms. Chairman. We will get that resolved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Apology's not required. Thank you.
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2021-04: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
January 26, 2021
Page 35
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 102.49+ ACRES OF LAND FROM THE RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A), RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH
SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (A-ST), RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-3), AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY WITH SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (RSF-3-ST)
DISTRICTS TO THE SABAL BAY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) DISTRICT; AND TO AMEND THE
PUD DOCUMENT AND MASTER PLAN TO ADD 102.49+
ACRES DESIGNATED AS TRACT R9 FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT; TO ADD 230 DWELLING UNITS FOR A
TOTAL OF 2,229 DWELLING UNITS IN THE MPUD; TO
REVISE THE MASTER PLAN AND CONCEPTUAL WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND TO ADD A MASTER SITE PLAN
FOR THE R9 TRACT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
SOUTH OF THOMASSON DRIVE, SOUTH AND WEST OF U.S.
41, NORTH AND WEST OF THE WENTWORTH PUD, AND
EAST OF THE NAPLES BAY INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
IN SECTION 23, 24, 25, 26 AND 36, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, AND SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 2,518.98± ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
[PL20190002305] – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that does move us to Item 9 on this
morning's agenda, advertised public hearings. Item 9A is an item
that requires all participants to be sworn in and ex parte disclo sure to
be provided by commission members. It's a recommendation to
approve an ordinance changing the zoning classification to the Sabal
Bay Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development district and to amend the
PUD document and master plan to add 102.49-plus-or-minus acres
January 26, 2021
Page 36
designated as Tract 9 for residential development and to add 230
dwelling units for a total of 2,229 dwelling units in the MPUD, to
revise the master plan and the conceptual water management plan,
and to add a master site plan for the R9 tract.
The subject property is located south of Thomasson Drive, south
and west of U.S. 41, north and west of the Wentworth PUD, and east
of the Naples Bay Intracoastal Waterway.
Madam Chair, ex parte disclosure would be in order at this
point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Start with Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yes. I have had emails for and
against from residents and neighbors, and I've had a phone call with
Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Elgin.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've also had quite a few
emails, several phone calls, and actual meetings in person as well.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes. I've had telephone
conferences with the applicant and received emails and some
correspondence from both in favor of this and opposed to it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails, and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I, too, have had meetings. I
listened -- and this is -- part of this is in my district, so I listened to
the audio from a Zoom meeting. On July 16th, '20, I attended a
CRA meeting that discussed this item last year. I've had
correspondence, emails, and calls. I met with the developer and the
developer's agents last Friday on site to discuss this issue. Thank
you very much.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, it's appropriate to swear all of the
January 26, 2021
Page 37
participants at this time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And those at home, if you could
swear also. You are participating. If you are -- if you are going to
give public comment, you are participating.
THE COURT REPORTER: I can't swear them in, though.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know you can't.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
Before you today you will hear from Jennifer Sapen, who is
our -- I'm sorry. I got a little distracted -- our professional planner
for this project; Mike Elgin from Minto Communities is here to
answer any questions you may have; Wes Kayne, our professional
engineer, is here; Andy Woodruff is our environmental consultant
from Passarella Consultants; and Norm Trebilcock is our engineer
and planner for this project.
As Mr. Ochs mentioned, we are adding to the Sabal Bay PUD
the area on your screen and visualizer that is in blue and crosshatched
in yellow. It's approximately 102-and-a-half acres. We are
requesting the addition of 230 single-family units, and that will
basically take the current approved Sabal Bay PUD from 1,999 units
to 2,229.
The current acreage of the Sabal Bay PUD is approximately
2,400 acres. Of that, approximately 1,300 of those acres is already
preserve. The reason I bring that up is we're treating this 102 acres,
although we're bringing it into the Sabal Bay PUD, as if it's a
stand-alone PUD for purposes of meeting the native vegetation
requirements under your Comprehensive Plan. We're not taking
advantage of the excess native preservation that already exists in the
Sabal Bay PUD.
Also under your Comprehensive Plan, we are in the coastal high
January 26, 2021
Page 38
hazard area. So instead of your typical base unit of four units per
acre, we would qualify for three units per acre, which would total 307
units under your current Comprehensive Plan. We are asking for
230 units.
Also, through the public hearing process and the feedback we
received from the local community, not just Sabal Bay but those who
live in the Bayshore area, the request was modified previously. It
allowed for both single-family and multifamily. The request is now
for just single-family, and Ms. Sapen will take you through that in a
little bit greater detail.
I wanted to point out a couple of areas in the PUD. As most of
you are aware, there's some commercial already permitted in the
PUD basically at the intersection of Thomasson and U.S. 41. We are
adding this piece right here, which will have the ability to
interconnect with the already existing interconnection points for the
project on Bayshore. So there will be a slight reduction in traffic on
both Bayshore and Thomasson through this interconnection of these
two properties.
I will -- as we go through this in a little bit greater detail, I just
want to point out -- and Commissioner Taylor was actually out on the
site. We already have, through the PUD, two interconnection points
onto Bayshore for the major portion of Sabal Bay and then a smaller
portion of Sabal Bay.
So there's already interconnection for the project onto Bayshore.
What this project actually does is instead of having three connection
points onto Bayshore, it reduces it to the two that are currently
provided, and we'll go through in a little bit greater deta il.
Essentially, this property in yellow is one of two holes in the
doughnut, if you will, for the Sabal Bay PUD project. I can tell you
from past experience, the original developer of Sabal Bay did attempt
to acquire what is going to be the R9 piece. At that time it was not
January 26, 2021
Page 39
for sale. But it was always a piece of property that was
contemplated to be added to Sabal Bay at some point in the future
should it ever become available. And it has become available, and it
is under contract.
And I wanted to just highlight for you a couple of provisions in
the master association documents associated with the Sabal Bay
project of which all residents in Sabal Bay are a part of this
declaration and are aware of these provisions.
And these are related to that hole in the doughnut I was referring
to earlier. The documents clearly provide that the declarant, which
is Minto, shall have the right in the declarant's sole and absolute
discretion, but not the obligation, to bring within the scheme of the
master declaration as additional property all or any -- all or any
portion of the total lands or any additional lands within the vicinity of
the property, additional property. So the declaration clearly
identified the possibility of this language coming into the project
should it become available.
Same section of the documents, it says, upon the recording of a
supplemental declaration, the owner shall have the right and
nonexclusive easement to use and enjoy the use and enjoyment in the
common areas, if any, and any obligation to contribute to be the cost
of operating, maintaining, and ensuring the common areas. So there
was always the contemplation that lands would come in and be able
to use the common areas and pay their fair shares of those costs.
And, finally, the declarant has reserved the right to modify its plan of
development of Isles of Collier Preserve and to add or withdraw land
from Isles of Collier Preserve and, therefore, the number of units
within Isles of Collier Preserve may change.
I bring that up because at the Planning Commission hearing and
in our neighborhood information meetings, there were comments
from the public about bringing these lands in and the implications of
January 26, 2021
Page 40
bringing those lands in. And I just want to be clear that the
implications of bringing those lands have always been contemplated,
and the buyers who bought property within this project were aware of
those possibilities.
We'll go through in a little bit greater detail how we've
addressed, through the process, concerns raised by the local
community as well as residents within Isles of Collier Preserve in
addressing additional amenities in the future, namely more pickleball
courts and some additional indoor space that can be utilized to
expand the amenities. But it was always contemplate d that this land
could come in and that there would be additional units added to this
project.
I'm going to have our professional planner come in, take you
through how we meet all the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan as
well as your Land Development Code. Mr. Woodruff and
Mr. Trebilcock will address their concerns.
At the end I'm going to ask you to follow your Planning
Commission's recommendation and your staff's recommendation to
approve the amendment to the PUD to bring this property in, because
we do meet your Comprehensive Plan requirements as well as your
Land Development Code requirements.
And with that, that's my introductory comments. I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have at this point, or if you want to
allow all of our experts to present, we may answer some of your
questions; we may not. But we're at your -- we're at your discretion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think it's wise that we wait until the
applicant and your agents have presented and then save our
questions, write it down, and then ask at the end, if we may do that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, would you like to hear from staff at that
point?
January 26, 2021
Page 41
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Well, no, I think they're not
done.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not done.
MR. OCHS: Oh, you're not done. I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'll take that as a hint.
MS. SAPEN: Good morning. My name is Jennifer Sapen, and
I am an AICP Certified Land Planner with Barraco & Associates.
You saw these slides a little bit earlier. I just wanted to put them
next to one another so that you can clearly see the only change to the
master plan is adding the R9 parcel that's shown in yellow to the
right. It is 102 acres, 102.5, for 230 dwelling units, and I do agree
with staff's assessment that the request is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
So looking at the changes and what is not changing. There are
no changes to any of the access points, there are no changes to any of
the uses, and there's no change to the existing preserve. What is
being changed is the additional acreage, the additional units of 230
units and, as Rich spoke to earlier, we are committing that no
multifamily will be within this R9 parcel. That is within Note 11 in
the development standards, Pages 3.4 and 3.5 of the PUD ordinance.
Increasing this density will bring the overall Sabal Bay PUD up from
.85 units per acre to .91 units per acre. We are proposing 41
additional acres of open space; 30 of that will be as preserve. And as
Rich spoke to earlier, this R9 parcel meets the preserve requirements
as a stand-alone parcel, meaning that none of the existing preserve
within Sabal Bay is being used to meet the requirements for this
parcel.
This is the R9 site plan that is within the submittal package. It
establishes the preserve area, the open-space buffers. It's a little bit
closer look into the R9 parcel. You can see up above the black
arrow. That's the road connection. That always existed in the
January 26, 2021
Page 42
previous approval.
Next, I'm going to look up along Bayshore Drive. We're
looking for compatibility with the request with the existing
neighborhoods in the area. To do this, I've looked at five
communities. You can see they're listed here from the highest
density units per acre to the lowest units per acre. You can see the
proposed amendment is of the lowest. This demonstrates
compatibility with the surrounding density units per acre. It's also
good to keep in mind the two closest communities on Holly Drive
and on Woodside, those are the highest densities at 4.9 and 4.4 units
per acre. So our request is far less than the residents that are near us.
Next, I want to look at what would happen if this was developed
by a developer other than Minto, other than Isles of Coll ier Preserve.
The property is zoned RSF3 to the north, and the south of it is ag.
It's a very reasonable assumption that the southern portion of the
project could be rezoned to RSF3. This is what you see on this site
plan here. So this would meet the Land Development Code as far as
lot sizes and lot standards.
If it were developed as a separate developer than Minto, all of
this access would head north onto Bayshore into the communities we
just looked at. As being incorporated into Isles of Collier Preserve,
the access is allowed to head into 41 to Thomasson Drive and
distribute the traffic on other roadways other than only on Bayshore.
The traffic is not -- would not just be the residents, but this would
also be construction traffic. As developed as part of Isles of Collier
Preserve, they have the ability to use some of the materials that are
elsewhere on site with less construction traffic coming on Bayshore.
And also looking at this site, you can see that there -- this site
plan would not provide enough fill balance, meaning there would be
a lot more dump trucks coming down Bayshore Drive hauling dirt in
if this was developed by a different developer other than Minto.
January 26, 2021
Page 43
It also could be developed as a PUD and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan up to three units per acre, and rather than this
site plan you see here, if a developer came in with a PUD, there
would be up to 307 units all accessing only Bayshore.
I want to look a little bit at the access point. As I mentioned,
those are unchanged. The five yellow arrows you see here are the
main access points for Isles of Collier Preserve. Those are
unchanged with this request. It's onto U.S. 41 and Thomasson,
Bayshore, Hamilton, and there is a corridor connection across
Bayshore.
Zooming a little bit to that connection, you can see the
additional parcels shown in yellow here. Those two yellow arrows
heading either direction on Bayshore, those are the gated access
points that were approved in the previous approval. The new R9
parcel shown in yellow, that would assess the road to the north and
internal within Isles of Collier Preserve. So there is no change to
access points with this amendment.
And you can see here a closer view. You can see Holly Drive
to the south. That access will remain unchanged. Bayshore will
continue to be a free flow through with gates headed to the east and
the west.
Next up, unless you have any questions from me, is our traffic
engineer to explain a little bit more about these accesses.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. For the record, my
name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm a Certified Planner and also a
professional engineer with over 30 years of experience here in Collier
County.
My firm prepared the traffic study for the project. So I'll kind
of walk you through it. You all have the complete report, but I'll
kind of highlight the main issues.
So in the traffic analysis, it was prepared in accordance with
January 26, 2021
Page 44
Collier County guidelines. The TIS we prepared addressed the trip
generation, the distribution and assignment, background traffic,
existing and future road network conditions, and impacts to the
roadway network itself, an improvement analysis and mitigati on of
impact.
We used the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th edition, as required for the
analysis. Also, the Bayshore Drive segment south of Thomasson
Drive is not a Collier County monitored roadway, but it is a local
street. It has some narrower lanes, as such, and as such, it tends to
promote a lower operating speed as well.
So when we were doing our analysis, we took a step further, and
we did traffic counts on south Bayshore in January of 2020 before the
fun started, and so we were able to have a good assessment of peak
traffic there.
And we also analyzed the future Isles of Collier traffic on south
Bayshore. Since it hasn't been physically connected yet for our
analysis, we included that traffic on there as part of the background
traffic, and that was requested by the community and the staff. So
what we wanted to do was look into the future at the higher traffic
conditions that would be possible on the roadway, and that's a part of
our analysis that we did.
So we did prepare our trip generation and that, again, is for the
villas and single-family homes, 230 units with 172 p.m. peak-hour
trips. Some coming in and some leaving the development as well.
We did our distribution, approved through staff with our
methodology that we would do. And as Jennifer mentioned, a key
thing is the traffic gets distributed more so because we are
interconnected to the rest of Sabal Bay. So it does disperse the
traffic more, which is really a goal and objective of the county as
well.
January 26, 2021
Page 45
And as I mentioned, we added in the background traffic from
Sabal Bay itself to the counted traffic that we had counted in peak
season as well so that we looked truly at what the volumes are.
And so that is the background traffic without the project, and we
project forward. We put in growth rates as well that the county has
established as well. And so we looked at the traffic that's on
Bayshore and all the roadways in the area -- and the area is what we
call an area of significant influence for the project -- to make sure
that there's sufficient capacity.
And so we looked at using the 2019 AUIR, because this project
started quite a bit ago. We looked at the impacts, and there were no
level-of-service impacts with or without the project in the area. And
like the segment of Bayshore south there, we looked at its capacity
being 800 vehicles per hour as a peak-hour capacity consistent with
other two-lane roadways. The section of Shadowlawn, which is the
same very roadway that would be north of 41 and to Davis, very
similar characteristics as well, another two-lane roadway as well.
So we -- moving forward, though, looking at 2020 AUIR,
projecting that traffic forward, there was a link, Link 92, that has a
deficiency by background, not caused by the project but background
traffic. And so we did look at that, and there has been some
conditions that were placed upon us as a result of that. But it's not a
direct link, and it doesn't meet the significance test for the project,
and one of the recommendations of staff, too, is to make sure that it
also -- in the future as we develop, make sure that we have a de
minimus impact on that, which would be 1 percent or less on that
segment.
So as part of the area, there's a transportation concurrenc y
exception area that that particular link is within, and we would abide
by the TCEA -- Transportation Concurrency Exception Area, it's a
mouthful for me -- and we'd follow those strategies that are provided.
January 26, 2021
Page 46
In addition, as I mentioned, staff had recommendations as well.
Also on Bayshore itself, your Planning Commission did have the
recommendation, too, about the neighborhood traffic management
program with the increased volumes on south Bayshore to participate
in that, which we've agreed as well there, too.
So in conclusion, again, the 2019 AUIR, everything was
operating in a satisfactory level of service, the 2020. It would fail
under background. The project does not directly access this link and
does not meet significance, and we're agreeable to maint aining the
1 percent or less impact on that segment as well.
Existing PUD commitment, we will abide by the Transportation
Concurrency Exception Area strategies that are out there. We'll also
make sure that the site improvements will be made at the time of
development approval, and those are site related, so 100 percent
developer costs for those improvements, which would be where we
access there on Bayshore as well.
We would have a trip cap for this development parcel of 172
vehicles per hour, a two-way net new traffic. And, again, that cap
would allow less than what current zoning density would allow for
the property.
So based on our analysis, the proposed project is a significant
traffic generator on Bayshore and Thomasson, but there is adequate
and sufficient capacity on these roadway segments to accommodate
the proposed development. The project does not create any adverse
impacts.
And with that, I'll turn things over to Andy Woodruff from
Passarella to talk about environmental.
Oh, yeah, so in terms of -- good point. As I mentioned,
Bayshore is a local street, so it has narrower lanes, 10-foot lanes.
And, ironically, too, the section of Bayshore that's north of
Thomasson also, even though it's a four-lane road, those roads are
January 26, 2021
Page 47
10-foot-wide lanes as well. So there are narrower lanes. And, you
know, one of the ironies is having the narrow lanes will cause drivers
to drive at a slower speed. So that's why we have that when we have
local streets for that purpose as well, to encourage lower operatin g
speeds.
And, again, the big commitment with the neighborhood traffic
management program. So if we see that there's any speeding issues
or anything, we will participate in those improvements that Collier
County has established already, and that was agreed as a stipulation
with the Planning Commission. So thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before Andy -- as Andy's walking up, I
just wanted to add, this isn't the first time you've seen these
neighborhood traffic calming commitments in a PUD, similar to
when we did -- I call it Wind Park South. I can't remember the name
of the PUD -- when we were using local roads as access in that
project, again, those existing provisions were incorporated into that
PUD as well. So that's why you're seeing it in this as well, be cause
you have a local road serving as the project entrance. And so I just
wanted to bring that to you-all's attention.
MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. For the record, Andy
Woodruff with Passarella & Associates.
Passarella was responsible for doing the listed species surveys on the
property, wetland jurisdictional determinations, habitat mapping, and
the regulatory permitting.
The project site is dominated primarily by wetland habitats.
Those were identified with the South Florida Water Management
District. They occupy approximately 54 acres. They are primarily
hydric pine and cypress pine forested community types, which are
typical of our wetland communities here in Southwest Florida.
There's also some buttonwood shrub and mangrove community
which occurs towards the southern end of the property. The
January 26, 2021
Page 48
remainder of the property is composed of pine flatwood habitats that
occupy approximately 49 acres.
Both the uplands and wetlands on the property have been
invaded to a significant degree by exotic species within the upland
habitats. That's primarily downy rose-myrtle that has taken over as
habitats. The wetland communities also have downy but include
Melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, and climbing fern that's invaded.
The site has also been used historically by ATVs and has some
degree of trash dumping on it as well. Some of our better-quality
habitats include the wetlands including some mangrove habitat that
exist toward the south end of the property.
We conducted listed species surveys. We did identify gopher
tortoises. Those are located on the north half of the property in an
upland area. We identified less rare plants on the property. They
included both tillandsias, butterfly orchid, which are fairly common.
Those plants are located throughout the uplands and wetlands on the
property, which is typical.
There are no other agency records of listed species occurrences
that are noted for the property.
We did do some species-specific surveys, included bonneted bat
and crocodile, and both of those surveys are negative.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What about python? You don't have
to answer that.
MR. WOODRUFF: Yeah. I'll touch on that at the end a little
bit.
We did take into consideration gopher tortoises. A decision is
made to move those tortoises off site with a state permit.
And I'll give you some background a little bit on the Isles PUD.
The existing preserves that we have on Isles, which I worked on, on
the Isles original permit, the Sabal Bay permit back when it was the
Colliers and then WCI, that property was designed with preservation
January 26, 2021
Page 49
areas that provided some connectivity between both our uplands and
wetlands. We were able to preserve some of the higher-quality
uplands on site that contained some of our larger areas of gopher
tortoises in particular.
The preserves are shown here on this aerial overlay outlined in
orange. We have high-quality uplands on the east side of the Lely
main canal that contain a good portion of our gopher tortoises on site,
of which there are several hundred that exist on site currently, and
those preserves have some connectivity to lands to the south, which
ultimately is Rookery Bay, which also provides habitat for gopher
tortoises as well.
The existing population that we have on Fleischmann, it does
exist in an isolated position in the landscape now, and that's just a
result of the surrounding development taking place, including the
road networks. You have the Avalon Outfall Canal that was recently
constructed, which is a severance on our east side; you have
Bayshore road right-of-way that comes down our west side of the
property, and the outparcel to the west; and then you have our
connector road to the north, Bayshore community to the north as well
as the Holly Avenue residential community as well. So all of these
are isolating mechanisms to that population now.
The tortoises that we did have in close proximity to this group of
tortoises, they were relocated as part of the Sabal Bay PUD.
The habitat quality, as I indicated earlier, is very poor, and that would
require substantial restoration effort if there was an attempt made to
try to preserve some of that.
Also, the surrounding developments, once you do have that
condition surrounding these small isolated preserves, it makes it very
difficult to manage, especially for gopher tortoises. And one of the
management techniques that's very important for gopher tortoises is
prescribed fire, and that almost becomes precluded once you start
January 26, 2021
Page 50
putting homes up around those preservation areas.
Just a little bit of reference for you. The tortoises, the area that
they do occupy there, it is relatively small, as I indicated, about
20 acres worth of upland habitat there. The state considers that less
than half of what a minimum size area would be to sustain a
long-term protected recipient site for gopher tortoises.
So the preservation area that we have, it is located on our
southern end. It will abut the existing conservation lands, including
lands that are in the process of being deeded to Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve. And you can see here some of the
isolating mechanisms as well. The Avalon Outfall Canal, the
roadway connections, you have the Bayshore and Holly Avenue
residential communities toward our north and northwest corners, and
then the Bayshore Road right-of-way which runs down our west side.
So the selection for the preserve, it's primarily a determination
made for water quality and wildlife habitat, and it is going to be
restoring some of the better-quality wetland habitats that we do have
on site, including some of the mangrove communities toward our
southern end. Those communities are contiguous to the Rookery
Bay lands, which are being deeded, hopefully as we speak, and that
will abut our conservation lands.
The preserve will provide some protection for the mangrove and
buttonwood. Both of those communities types do provide some
excellent foraging habitat for wading birds during certain times of the
year. We are exceeding the native preserve requirements, over four
acres, four-and-a-half acres worth, of habitat that is in excess of the
requirement.
As I indicated, the tortoises will be relocated to a long-term
recipient site, and that will be done in accordance with a state permit
issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Our wetland impacts, those are under review by the state and federal
January 26, 2021
Page 51
agencies and will be obtained shortly for those.
One more slide here for you. This was in response to some
concerns by residents made during the Planning Commission hearing.
Eastern indigos are a threatened species, federally threatened species.
We have not observed the presence of eastern indigos on the property
or on the Sabal Bay Isles of Collier PUD property. I've been
working on the Isles property since the mid '90s when it was with the
Colliers, and we have excavated hundreds, hundreds of gopher
tortoise burrows across this PUD over the years. We've never
encountered indigos in those burrows. We have encountered other
snakes, particularly rattlesnakes, that were relocated to our
preservation areas.
And the lands to our south at Rookery Bay, they have
encountered some of the pythons that have been occupying some of
those gopher tortoise burrows as well. So we haven't observed that
yet, but we're expecting any day to also encounter pythons. But just
rattlesnakes for us.
We do still have to consult -- despite the fact that we don't have
an occurrence record for eastern indigo, they are a wide-ranging
species. They occupy a variety of upland and wetland habitat types.
We have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of
our federal permits, and they do require us to post the site prior to
clearing and to educate the contractors to the possible presence of
eastern indigos on site and what to do in case they encounter a snake.
At this time I'll turn it back over to Rich, and I'll make myself
available for any questions if you have them.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll bear with me just a couple
minutes. I know we usually take a break right around now, but I just
need a couple of minutes to --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. That's fine.
MR. YOVANOVICH: A couple more slides.
January 26, 2021
Page 52
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think, if there are no questions, we'll
break after Mr. Yovanovich's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I have one quick one, but
that's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So we'll break -- we'll finish
with you, and then we'll break and then come back with staff. So,
Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. Commissioner McDaniel,
did you have to ask a question?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, you wanted to finish
your presentation. Then I'll hit my light when I'm ready to talk, and
she can hopefully call on me.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's been well trained.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Relatively speaking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll be quiet.
There were -- there are a couple of staff recommendations that
were made to the Planning Commission, and we've agreed to,
basically, both of them, which we talked about, the neighborhood
traffic management program. I also wanted to point out that there
was a request from the CRA Advisory Board. Only a portion of this
property is in the MSTU dealing with Bayshore beautification.
We've agreed that should the county desire to expand the boundary of
the MSTU to include the entirety of this R9 tract, that we would have
no objection to doing so.
We also agreed to a couple of other commitments that are in
your PUD; that we would continue to have informational meetings
with the CRA Advisory Board until construction of the R9 tract is
complete. They asked us to include that as a commitment, which we
have, and then there was a request that the entry gates at Bayshore be
similar to the entry gates at Sabal Drive. That's in your PUD. It
was not part of our presentation.
January 26, 2021
Page 53
In summary, our request is to add the 102-and-a-half acres to the
Sabal Bay PUD at a requested density of 230 single-family units with
the transportation cap that Mr. Trebilcock addressed. There is not a
cap on the main PUD because it predated when we did those caps.
And since I don't control all of that land, I couldn't impose a cap on
those lands, so we are imposing the cap on the roughly
102-and-a-half acres.
And with that, that concludes our presentation, and we're
available, I guess, after the break to answer any questions, or we can
wait until after staff.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm okay. It's not an
emergency. If you want to take a break, I'll ask my questions when I
come back, or you want us to do questions?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Whatever the pleasure. Let's just
take a break right now; 10 minutes.
(A brief recess was had from 10:35 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There we go. Thank you very much.
So I think we're to the point where we can pose questions to
Mr. Yovanovich, and so let us begin. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. Thank you.
I just -- I looked at several aerials. I was in -- I drove down there
last night as well. And there's talk about these dual accesses north of
the property onto Bayshore. Are they there yet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The stub-outs are there. If you drove
south on Bayshore, you saw some gates or fences. That's where the
connection points would be.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Will be.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Will be, yeah. There's no formal gate
yet in place, because that part of the community has not yet been
developed. But, yeah, if you saw those, that's where the connection
points would be.
January 26, 2021
Page 54
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Timeline as to when that
access point's actually going to be opened up?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have Mr. Elgin come on up
and tell you.
MR. ELGIN: Good morning. Mike Elgin, for the record, with
Minto Communities.
What you observed last night, there's two cattle gates on either
side. That's our construction access, because we do have active
construction in the Parcel T parcel, which is on the opposite si de of
ICP proper. So we have cleared that parcel. Engineers are
currently working on the engineering plans for that parcel to bring it
to market. So we will submit that PPL application probably within
the next three to four months, and then as soon as we get through that
process, we probably would look at construction on that parcel
sometime this summer, tentatively.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that would then coincide
with the access points being completed?
MR. ELGIN: Correct. The access points, as you heard
through the presentation, that corridor road is already part of Sabal
Bay and those access points approved. So regardless of the
Fleischmann application, we are proceeding with construction of that
parcel on the opposite side of Bayshore Road and the construction of
those two access points, which will provide that additional egress for
existing Sabal Bay residents.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's kind of -- and
maybe I wasn't clear, Mike, so forgive me if I wasn't. But I wanted a
timeline as to when this crossroad was going to be built.
MR. ELGIN: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The timeline is --
MR. ELGIN: Yeah, tentatively, this summer we would be
under construction based on our acquiring the final PPL permits for
January 26, 2021
Page 55
that parcel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So, sir, if you would just
come back up. I have a question about that.
I, too, was on the property at those cattle gates, especially at the
entry and egress points. If those roads are 10 feet, somebody had a
bad tape measure, because it's a tight 10 feet, you know, and so that's
a concern of mine. I mean, I've been very vocal in saying, you
know, I don't like development. I like improvement. But then my
big concerns are the infrastructure that surround. You know, I have
no doubt you can -- you can build these, you know, beautiful homes
on the property.
But -- and maybe this is more of a question for you and our
county manager. If after everything was said and done, if this was
approved and we realized those entry and exit points are adequate but
tight, and not just for -- you know, maybe we guessed wrong on the
density, the volume of vehicles, or maybe first responder, you know,
giant fire trucks are having trouble getting down a
nine-and-a-half-foot -- you know, a nine-and-a-half-foot-wide road to
make the turn or anything like that. I mean, County Manager,
correct me if I'm wrong, that would be solely the county's
responsibility to improve that road outside of this project, correct, if
we guessed wrong or if density was higher than we thought or if we
were just having, you know, significant traffic issues along that very
narrow stretch of road which is going to act as a major entry and
egress point; would that be correct, you know, if we needed to put a
stoplight or widen the road or anything like that?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm going to ask Ms. Scott, our
Transportation Planning Manager, to address that specifically. I
could give a general answer, but I'd prefer her. I believe she's on the
January 26, 2021
Page 56
call remotely.
MS. SCOTT: I am. Thank you, County Manager.
MR. OCHS: Trinity, for the record, please.
MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation
Planning Manager. Can you guys hear me okay?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MS. SCOTT: Perfect. Thank you.
So improvements as far as roadway width in the future would be
on the county if we so desired to widen out the roadway. As far as
the operations of the roadway for emergency vehicles, et cetera, there
is existing residential who currently come off of this, and we have
not -- we communicate very regularly with our emergency services
personnel. We've not had any issues with regard to that.
With regard to speeding or excessive volumes based on this
particular project coming forward, there is a provision within the
Planned Unit Development, as Mr. Yovanovich and his team
discussed, that they would pay a proportionate share of any traffic
calming that might be necessary for the roadway.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Do we know what that
percentage or that proportion would be?
MS. SCOTT: We have not calculated that as of yet.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. But that's in writing
somewhere as one of their agreements?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, it's in the Planned Unit Development
ordinance that's presented in front of you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
My next -- my last question was for the environmental expert from
your group.
I appreciated the overview of separating rumor from fact about
indigo snakes and whatnot, but I actually had quite a few citizens
who sent me notes about environmental impact, and some of them
January 26, 2021
Page 57
mentioned eagles or birds of prey in that area, and I didn't see that
anywhere in your presentation. Can you elaborate on if any
of -- you know, eagles or any type of birds of prey or any type of
endangered species birds are of any type of issue?
MR. WOODRUFF: Sure. So bald eagles, we don't have any
eagles nesting within 660 feet of the property. That's the outer
buffer guideline that is provided as a protection zone for eagles.
We do have -- the closest territory to us is called the 9, No. 9,
CO9 territory. That we've been monitoring, oh, for the last couple of
decades. That 9 territory has had several nesting sites over the years.
They are currently nesting back toward Hamilton Harbor just west of
what we call Parcel T, which is on the west side of our PUD there.
So that is their current site. The previous year before that, they were
just underneath Hamilton Harbor located on one of their stormwater
management ponds. So they have moved around over the years.
But the current nesting site where they're at, it already has
protection zones built in to the existing PUD, part of our Bald Eagle
Management Plan for the Isles property, so -- but, no, we don't have
any known eagle nesting on this piece of property or within 660 feet
of the property, and that's been over decades.
There are a couple of other territories located on the Isles
property. One is just south of the sales center in our conservation
area. Unfortunately, that tree was blown out during Irma. It was a
large cypress tree that toppled. There is an alternate nesting site next
to that one in a pine that gray horned owls have utilized. They often
overtake some of our eagle nests as their own. They don't build their
own nests.
So -- and then there's one other territory, 28. It's at the bottom
of our property, and it abuts the Rookery Bay preserve, and that's
well within our conservation area.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
January 26, 2021
Page 58
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Any other questions?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, would you like to just hear briefly
from your staff?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, I would.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray
Bellows. I'm Zoning Manager for your Growth Management
Department.
I have been working with our consultant on the review of this
rezone petition of 102 acres allowing for 230 dwelling units. Our
Comprehensive Planning staff and our -- have reviewed this petition
and found it consistent with the Growth Management Plan. The
Collier County Planning Commission heard this petition on
November 19th, and they recommended approval by a vote of 6-1
subject to three conditions. Two of them have been incorporated
into the PUD document. The third one was the issue dealing with
the CRA recommendation that all of Tract 9 be incorporated into
the -- into the Bayshore beautification Municipal Service Taxing
District.
We have our staff here if you have questions, and we'd be glad
to answer any other questions you have.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yes, I was just going to ask
if all of the conditions had been incorporated into the do cument, and
you've indicated that the one dealing with the CRA had not been. I
think Mr. Yovanovich had indicated that you were in agreement with
that. So all of the recommendations from the Planning Commission
and staff are incorporated.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's correct?
Mr. Yovanovich, would you confirm that?
January 26, 2021
Page 59
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the condition regarding going
into the MSTU, the County Attorney's Office had advised it didn't
need to go into the PUD. It's an actio n that you-all, as the Board,
will take to expand that boundary. So it's not -- we have agreed to
be incorporated into the boundary, but it's an action that you-all need
to take.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So that's why that's not in the PUD, but
it is on the record that we've consented.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So all of the conditions have
been agreed upon?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Agreed to, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I do have a question for you,
Mr. Bellows.
The Fleischmann property, we are -- they are annexing it into
the PUD, purchasing to add to the PUD, and the number of homes on
that is 230. I don't see anything within the PUD that stipulates that
homes couldn't be moved from the Sabal Bay PUD int o the
Fleischmann PUD so that there would be a maximum of 307. Is
there anything within the PUD prohibiting that?
MR. BELLOWS: Based on my review of the document that's
submitted, I don't recall seeing any specific prohibition of having a
little bit more or less units on that Tract R9.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So --
MR. BELLOWS: So it may be possible.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It may be possible?
MR. BELLOWS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So given that, just from
understanding what the traffic -- and the traffic is the overriding issue
in this petition, the analysis by the traffic engineer based on 230 units
January 26, 2021
Page 60
in that area is a moving target. It could be 307. It could be 270. It
doesn't -- it doesn't hold water here.
MR. BELLOWS: It's my understanding, based on th e review
of the Traffic Impact Statement, that those units would still be within
the PUD and eligible to use that access link anyways.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yes, yes. But that's the issue,
isn't it? But the traffic -- the traffic analysis was based on the 230
units figure, I believe, and maybe that's what we need, to bring
Mr. Trebilcock up. But I believe his analysis and then your review
was based on the 230 figure, but that 230 figure is a moving target.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the 230 units are added.
MS. SCOTT: If I may.
MR. BELLOWS: I'll defer to Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Thanks.
There is a trip cap that is established with this PUD amendment
as it relates to the specific R9 tract. That has become a standard
practice that we've done which is based on our analysis. And the
scenario that the applicant provides, we will identify a trip cap for
that. That trip cap is then analyzed when the applicant comes in for
their Site Development Plan or their plats and plans. In this
particular instance, it will be a PPL, as they're going to be doing a
single-family product.
So when they come in, staff will reassess, look at the ITE trip
generation amounts per unit and, in fact, the applicant will not be able
to exceed that 172 units. So if the ITE trip generation increases for
single-family homes in the future, it is plausible that they could build
less units on that. But they are capped at the 172 two-way peak-hour
net trips, and that is a provision within the PUD document pre sented
before you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: How is that going to be monitored?
Are you going to have -- is there going to be trip counters out there?
January 26, 2021
Page 61
MS. SCOTT: No, ma'am. It is assessed. We look at that
when they come in for the PPL. So when they actually come in for
that document, they will do a new TIS that will look at the latest and
greatest ITE trip generation manuals at that time. ITE typically
updates usually every 12 to 18 months, and so we will look -- we will
reevaluate at that time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So how are you going to
determine -- how are you going to determine, except through -- at a
distance, at a distance, the number of trips on south Bayshore coming
from the Fleischmann property at that -- no, not coming from the
Fleischmann property, coming from the exit to the whole PUD?
How is that going to be determined by the county? Not from a
distance, not from a manual. How are you going to determine it, and
where's the agreement that says we are going to monitor this?
MS. SCOTT: So, ma'am, we do not do that. We do not do
that with any PUDs now. We would be in a position, then, that if
they exceeded that 172 p.m. peak-hour trips, are we going to go tell
someone that they can't go home? You know, we use nationally
accepted standards for when we're evaluating these, which is the ITE
Trip Generation Manual, and we reassess through our AUIR process
as far as the Bayshore/Thomasson/U.S. 41. We're constantly
evaluating those and seeing if there are improvements necessary
based on growth, et cetera.
But, no, it is done through the PPL process through -- in
coordination with the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If you would, Ms. Scott, help me
with the PPL. What is that? What is that?
MS. SCOTT: Oh, that's a plats and plans, sorry. That's when
they come in and they actually identify how many units they're going
to build on that specific R9 tract.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
January 26, 2021
Page 62
Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'm just -- I'm trying to understand
the issue that you're asking about. The application is for 230 units
on this new tract, not 307, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It's for --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer is, yes, we've asked for 230
units, and we -- I'll be honest with you, the trip cap, obviously, of 172
is 230 units, so that's consistent with our application. If you want to
belt and suspenders, we have no objection to adding a Footnote
No. 12 under the footnote that says the multifamily use is prohibited
on Tract R9. We have no problem saying the maximum residential
density on Tract 9 is 230 single-family units to belt and suspenders it,
because the trip cap is based upon the 230. And if you need belt s
and suspenders, we have no issues with making it clear we're not
bringing anything over that somehow could still meet the 172 trip
cap.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just to make sure I understand the
issue, we're asking for -- they're asking for 230 on this piece. The
existing PUD has whatever density it has. So there's only a -- there's
a certain max density that's allowed in the whole thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So if something was moved from
the existing PUD to this piece, it couldn't exceed the maximum
density for the whole project --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Or the trip cap. But I think the concern
was, for instance, the PUD's new max would be 2,229 units.
January 26, 2021
Page 63
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Taylor raised a the
question, well, what if they put -- they could put 240 units on R9
because there's nothing specifically saying R9 is capped at 230.
Well, it is through the trip cap.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Through the trip cap.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But I get -- I get the concern about also
a reference to the density, which we have no objection to including
R9 shall not exceed 230 units and a trip cap of 172.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Now I understand. You
were concerned with shifting the density from the existing PUD to
the new piece.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
I understood what the issue was.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Thank you.
And maybe I'm asking the same thing but in a different way.
But when I stood out there at those cattle gates at the entry and exit, I
understand the algorithm that's being run for the 230 houses. That
would create a certain amount of traffic. And it's -- like
Commissioner Taylor said, it's arguable how you're going to prove it,
you know; you never know. But we're trying to find parameters.
But the other thing that I notice is that that entry and exit point is
connected to the Isles of Collier Preserve that's already built, and a
large amount that still hasn't been built. And I know if I lived out
there, I would use that Bayshore little sneak-out point to maybe go to
Market 360 or some of the great things that are on there or to sneak
down to 5th Avenue.
So I'm just wondering -- and maybe, you know, we don't have a
January 26, 2021
Page 64
crystal ball, but you sit here and you go, wow, all those h ouses of
Isles of Collier Preserve that are already built and are being built, this
could be a really main thoroughfare for them to utilize that's not in
the algorithm and the equation. And then that's why I ask about the
road, because if we discovered that -- and I realize, you know, like I
said, we don't have a crystal ball, but then the taxpayer's stuck with,
wow, we really need a light at that intersection, oh, the road's too
narrow. Cars are turning. We need a third lane. We need a cut-in
turn lane, you know, those sort of things, and then all of a
sudden -- and, you know, like I said, we're not magicians here, you
know. We're trying to do something that's rationale.
But you wouldn't have to be an engineer to stand at that cattle
gate, look at the Isles of Collier Preserve that's already built, and
know that a lot of those people would figure out very quickly that
egress area to go, you know, left down into 5th Avenue or wherever.
And I just get concerned that we might be underestimating the traffic
density on a nine-and-a-half-foot-wide road that's just two lanes with
no turn lanes, no nothing like that. And, you know, I'm just trying to
look ahead and try to anticipate a possible expense that taxpayers
would have if we guessed wrong on this whole thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And if I can, when Sabal Bay was
originally approved, that Traffic Impact Statement -- and
Mr. Trebilcock will correct me if I'm wrong -- did, in fact, assign
trips to Bayshore based upon the fact that there would be those two
connection points, and we included those assigned trips in our
analysis for the impact of our 230 units. So we've taken that into
consideration in the traffic analysis.
So hopefully -- hopefully we're not going to find ourself in that
situation that you're concerned about because we didn't proactively
look at that; we did proactively look at that. And, Norm, I'm sure
you'll correct me where I'm wrong.
January 26, 2021
Page 65
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, you've hit it. The only other point
was your good point about any improvement for turn lanes. That
would be a site-related improvement that we're responsible for, and
so when they're doing the plat plans, they'll show the overall traffic
and provide appropriate turn lanes so that -- so that things do work
efficiently at that point in time. So that would be addressed.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Where I get frustrated is a lot
of times that's all figured out after the fact, after the homes are built
and everybody's moved in and then, you know, we fill Bayshore with
a thousand orange cones and it's under construction for the next year
because we guessed wrong, and now we've made -- and don't forget,
too, there's a lot of people that live along Bayshore there. So even
though we're saying the traffic is 172 or whatever, that's a big number
to somebody that lives on Bayshore now and hasn't seen that traffic
volume. I'm not saying it's illegal, immoral, or unethical. I'm just
saying it's a big number to somebody that lives on that Bayshore
stretch right now, and once that cattle gate gets open, things change
there significantly for people who already live on that stretch and that
road doesn't get wider. It will feel more narrow with a lot more
vehicles. But I appreciate your point.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Sorry. Commissioner
Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Two issues.
Mr. Yovanovich, I'm going to need you to help out here a little bit.
So you've agreed to a maximum of 230 units on Tract R9.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So that will be incorporated
into the document.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: There's been a lot of
January 26, 2021
Page 66
discussion from residents -- existing residents concerning the use of
amenities and overcrowding of those. Can you -- I understand that
the developer has made some accommodation there. I'm not sure if
you -- I don't think you've gone through that and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I briefly did, and I'm happy to elaborate
now.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: If you would, yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That would be fine.
There's a commitment to at least six more pickleball courts. T hat
seems to be a very popular activity in the community related to the
increase. And let me just briefly tell you that although I'm asking for
230 additional units, mathematically it's 145 more people using -- or
more units using the amenities based upon the original buildout plan.
So it's 145 additional units using the amenities.
So pickleball courts, the sales center, when you come into the
community, it's a permanent building. It's about 7,000 square feet
under air and another 5- or 600 square feet in patio area that will be
given to residents. Mike has had meetings with the residents to
show them how they can re-purpose that space however they decide
they want to re-purpose that space in the future. If they want -- they
want more fitness facilities, if they want more restaurant space, if
they want more -- whatever space they want, this will be their -- it
will be their space, and there's been meetings on site to address how
that be can be reconfigured. It's not -- a lot of times there's like these
modular buildings that become a sales center. This is a permanent
building, not something that --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I wanted to try to get a little
bit of a handle on what it means to have six pickleball courts added.
How many pickleball courts are there right now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's eight right now, so --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And those eight courts are
January 26, 2021
Page 67
serving how many residents now?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the total approval -- you want the
total approval, right? Not how many are out there today?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Correct. What has been
already approved. Is it 2,000 units? Just approximately.
MR. ELGIN: 1,649.
MR. YOVANOVICH: 1,649.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So you have eight
courts for 1,649 residences. You're going to add six courts to that
number for the additional 230 units.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: So it seems to me that that's
a real plus for the existing units to get those six additional.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think mathematically we're probably
going way above --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- what's there today.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. I just -- and I
appreciate you bringing up the discussion of traffic. It was one of
the reasons why I was asking about when those cattle gates were
going to be open.
This PUD's been approved for quite some time. That access
has been approved for all of Sabal Ba y, quite some time, and we
are -- and I was actually querying why, because we've eliminated the
individual access in and out of this extra 104, 110 acres, however
many it is. Everybody has to come in and out through Sabal Bay.
So where they -- where they -- where they utilize the additional
densities, should this request be approved, really is irrelevant only to
the extent that it's going to come in and out of Sabal Bay at those
January 26, 2021
Page 68
already approved access points.
There will be an increase in traffic on Bayshore. Once those
accesses are open, those accesses are already approved within this
PUD. Inevitably, as Commissioner LoCastro said, it won't take long
for people that want to sneak, as he says, to go someplace to figure
out how to use it, but it has been accounted for already within the
approved PUD of the Isles. So I just -- and that -- you went into a
much more elaborate discussion with regard to the potential of
increase in traffic. I was just going with it's coming, it's inevitable
that it's going to come, and it's already preapproved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: If you have any other questions, our team's
ready to respond to questions after the public.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we're fine. So I think we'll
now hear from the public.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have 10 registered speakers
online, another four in the room. Normally we do all of them in the
room first, but we have a special situation. A gentleman had
coordinated with a small group, couldn't be here at the last minute
due to a health concern, Gary Lubben. We're going to start with
Mr. Lubben online, and then Mr. Carnell, who is here, has ceded
three minutes to Mr. Lubben. After Mr. Lubben, we will hear from
Tim Owens and then Steve Young. Mr. Lubben, are you with us,
sir?
MR. LUBBEN: I am. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we can, sir, and you have six minutes.
MR. LUBBEN: Thank you. Appreciate -- thank you for your
tolerance. I am a cancer survivor and have gone through
January 26, 2021
Page 69
transplant -- stem cell transplant, so I have no immune system; hence,
I can't really be in public, so thank you for your indulgence.
I have two slides. Some of the things may be -- we got new
information as we listened to discussions today. But in simple
terms, Bayshore Drive to the south of Thomasson is a local road, as
was discussed, with narrow lane widths. If it's 10 feet, that's
probably including the apron because, actually, the lane width is nine
feet. It's not a monitored roadway and from -- I'm no traffic
engineer, but the options to increase capacity to be -- appear to be
either limited or very expensive. Lots of things are going to have to
be moved.
The TIS in 2020 does state that the effects are significant, not
notwithstanding the level-of-service threshold not having been
exceeded. That's not surprising in light of the fact that there's
probably in excess of a thousand incremental vehicles going out
Bayshore, so it's not trivial.
With regard to the traffic associated with the proposed rezoning,
it is a vital road for the MPUD, and the proposed rezoning will only
add an incremental 2,000 trips to internal and external roadways.
And, by the way, that does not include, as we learned today, the
developer's intentions to use internal roadways for construction
traffic. I don't think that was factored in.
Fifty percent of that parcel is projected to use Bayshore, and the
remaining 50 percent is projected to use internal roadways and the
Thomasson Drive exit. Westbound Highway 41 to go downtown to
the beaches or what have you is a less direct route. It has six traffic
lights on it and associated congestion. Common sense -- I've lived
here for five years. I've never gone that way. Common sense
suggests residents will always take the most direct path. They're not
sneaking; they're being smart. They're going to use Bayshore Drive
extensively.
January 26, 2021
Page 70
The commitment to limit peak hours to 172 two-way trips per
peak hour per day has no identified monitoring method or mitigation
plan. And let me reiterate, any future limitations on the use of the
Bayshore Drive upon which the MPUD residents rely would result in
significant adverse living conditions for the MPUD residents.
Regardless of the eventual traffic patterns -- and we could all debate
about whether or not whether it's 50/50 or a different ratio, Bayshore
and internal roadways are going to be subject to needless additional
traffic.
The MPUD traffic via Bayshore is based on a 10-year-old traffic
study from 2011. Significant East Naples development has occurred
since 2011. And there are several adjacent pre-zoning phases. So
these are developments that have not even gone through a rezoning
process or a zoning process, they maybe are not at the consistency
review, let alone concurrency review.
Any increase on the dwellings of the Fleischmann parcel, which
we learned today, they're prepared to limit but, technically, per
coastal high hazard, they could go up to 307, will only worsen the
traffic burden on the internal and adjacent external roadways. And it
is assumed, by the way, that the developer will seek to maximize the
number of MPUD dwellings up to 2,229.
For the record, if you take that 1999 and you subtract out the
Springs apartments, that gets you to a total maximum they could
build was 1,659 effectively within the ICP community.
Their statement is they were going to plan on building 1,649. So
99.4 percent. So I think we should all assume that Minto, especially
in a seller's market, will sell everything they can -- and build
everything they possibly can.
So the traffic effects study, by the way, is only assuming 1,990
or, excuse me, the 230 homes. It's not included.
The last point is, the proposed change will adversely influence living
January 26, 2021
Page 71
conditions of the neighborhood contrary to rezoning Criterion No. 14.
That's no question.
And I did have -- maybe my math was wrong, but it was
asserted earlier that the density was 1.9. If I take 230 into
102.43 acres, I end up with 2.245. Maybe my math is wrong, but it's
not the number that we heard earlier. And so I'm a little confused by
that.
The sales center, real quickly, was already a committed amenity
that we understood we would get at turnover, so there's nothing new.
So essentially what I'm hearing is the only commitment -- and it's not
in writing -- from Minto is they'll add six pickleball courts. That's a
little scant, in my view.
But I'm a sort of analytical guy, and I included this table for
everyone to better understand. I hope you can see it. We have two
columns: The current ICP buildout, the proposed inclusive of the
addition.
So they originally had stated 1,649, but then on their own
volition, they reduced that number by 87 units because coach homes
aren't selling. There's not as much of a market, so they converted
that to single-family dwellings. It brings down the ICP build to
1,562. They could actually build 10 more and still tuck within the
1,659. You subtract out this Springs parcel or you add it, that's how
you get to 1,999.
Conversely, if you look at the proposed addition, it's the same
number of 1,562. They're going to add 230, but they could also
build 97 more. So the total buildout that could be associated with
this development would be 1,889 plus the Springs to get you to
2,229. If you look at that versus what they are at today, which is
562, that is a 21 percent increase in dwellings. If you take
two-and-a-half people per dwelling unit, that's 818 additional people
using amenities, and if you use the calculation as submitted in the
January 26, 2021
Page 72
TIS of 8.53 excursions per dwelling unit, it's not 1,962. It's 2,789.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Mr. Lubben, I'm sorry.
Your time is up here. I do apologize.
MR. LUBBEN: Okay. No problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tim Owens. He'll be
followed by Stephen Young and then Mark Rosenberg.
MR. OWENS: Do you mind if I take my mask off? Thank
you.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Tim Owens.
And as a 40-year resident of East Naples, I'm here to speak to the
safety issues as relates to rezoning.
The part of Bayshore south -- Bayshore Drive south of
Thomasson Drive is a narrow, 18-foot-wide two-way local dead-end
road with many safety issues as relates to the large increase of daily
traffic volume based on the developer's TIS if this rezone is
approved.
Number 1, first responder vehicular traffic for both ambulances
and fire trucks is currently very limited due to the roadway's narrow
lanes with no sufficient area for turnaround.
There are no bike lanes, which limits traffic to vehicular or
pedestrian; whereas, the pedestrian traffic is further limited to a
sidewalk only on the east side of the street. The exception to this is
a short sidewalk on the west side near the Botanical Gardens.
Number 3, there are approximately 200 homes on the side
streets that flow out onto this section of Bayshore Drive. These
streets constitute a family neighborhood with many school-aged
children that attend the nearby Montessori school with a student
population of 50 two- to four-year-olds as well as Avalon Elementary
with a student population of nearly 500 small children.
We spoke to the owner of the Montessori school. She made a
January 26, 2021
Page 73
funny comment. She said, these little children are hard to corral, and
they wander out toward the street. Their Montessori school is built
right up to the sidewalk as it currently exists.
Number 4, there is no CAT bus service on this narrow roadway
which requires residents to walk to the nearest pickup and drop-off
section, or station, rather, on the northeast corner of Bayshore and
Thomasson. Likewise, there's no school bus pickup along the
section of Bayshore which, again, limits the children living on these
side streets to walk or be driven to school.
Already approved Minto housing in the current MPUD, Parcel
T, on the southwest portion of Bayshore along with additional land
zoned developed -- land zoned for development at the very end of
Bayshore brings yet more future homes to this area, all of which will
use this Bayshore corridor.
In summary, these safety concerns are real, and they directly and
adversely affect the living conditions of the neighborhood, as written
in the MPUD Sabal Bay rezoning submission executive summary
Page 5, Article 4. This alone, Commissioners, as stated, is reason
enough to vote no. We sincerely ask for your no vote today.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. OWENS: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Stephen Young.
Mr. Young has been ceded three additional minutes from Edward
Grace. Mr. Grace, who is here. Mr. Grace, could you raise your
hand. Oh, he's right over there. Thank you. Also, Mr. Young has
been ceded time from Donna Young online. Ms. Young, are you
online with us; can you confirm?
MS. YOUNG: Yes, I am; yes, I can confirm.
MR. MILLER: All right. So he will have nine minutes, and
then Mr. Young will be followed by Marc Rosenberg and then Jeff
Malar.
January 26, 2021
Page 74
Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG: All right. Thank you. Good morning,
everyone. Thank you for the gift of your time.
I appreciate the job, Tim and Gary; that was awesome. And,
Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner LoCastro, you took a lot of
wind out of some of our sails, because I think you get it.
I want to make very clear that -- even there is some people in
Isles that might be, in fact, in favor of this project, because what -- in
discussing it with them, I'm very clear -- 100 percent clear that they
don't understand the full ramifications.
And what was just discussed, by the way, when you talked about
whether it's 230 or not, let's go to the bottom line. I'm a business
guy, too. The bottom line is, that application in front of you, if you
approve it today, is for 2,229 units, I don't care how you break it out,
whether it's in the Fleischmann tract or the one right across the street
in the R7.
Minto -- I'm a business guy. I don't blame them at all. I'd
build, too, if I could. So if they get the approval today, they don't
have to come back and see you tomorrow at all to ever ask
permission to build those extra houses. As I understand it, across the
street in the RT section, they're talking about 63 to 73 units. It's
being plotted, you heard that, coming up, so we don't know it yet, and
yet if you give them the numbers, they have 97 units they can find
somewhere to build in that community.
Furthermore -- and, Commissioner LoCastro, you mentioned,
too, that you saw the property, and thank you for coming out there to
visit it. When you see the property -- I can give you the number.
It's 483 additional homes in the back that was not accounted for that
will seek that exit way out to Bayshore, because we all do follow the
path of resistance [sic]. Folks, that's a lot of cars. That's a lot of
traffic. And you also picked up on it, if you don't, I know the county
January 26, 2021
Page 75
will be in there widening that road five years from now on all the
county taxpayers' backs, because that's going to have to be done. It's
undeniable. It's just a common sense thing with the density. And
it's just too many people in a small are a.
Now, the safety concerns are great with the fire trucks. You
mentioned the EMT units. There's no way that they can move
around in there, and there's still more property in the back that if
some developer wants to come in and get the proper density, they can
build.
So when do we stop? When do we start making it -- and do it
smartly ahead of time and not be on the backs of our community?
In terms of the amenities that we talked about, right now the
amenities are maxed out. I mean, I know they offered at the
planning board meeting, at the end of the planning board meeting
when we were exposing all of this, that's when we got the offer for
six. It was only then. It wasn't ahead of time, knowing that, it's six,
and then they're talking about the sales center. I want to be real clear
about it. Right now the pickleball courts are used, but not
everybody's going to play pickleball, okay.
Everybody wants to use the community center. It's a
beautiful-looking one and, really, not a good one. Let me t ell you
why. The multipurpose room fits 142 people. When this thing is
built out, you're talking about a possible 4,800 people living there.
Nice-size room.
Now, I know they talked about a sale center, but they also talked
about it coming on the backs of the residents now paying for that.
You've got to be kidding me, okay. If they're using it all this time, I
think it's incumbent upon them to finish that to whatever we need for
extra space and give it to the residents, not charge us or go get us an
assessment, and that's the recommendation I heard.
The pool. It's one of the nicer pools in all the developments
January 26, 2021
Page 76
around the area. In fact, I met with Mike. Mike was great giving us
comparisons. I got a counter to everything he's got to say if he
wants to get into that. I'm not interested in any other communities.
I'm interested in the one that we bought for. And any comparison he
gives, quite frankly, the cost to get into Minto is far greater than all
the other communities combined.
And the pool is beautiful. It's great. It's probably one of the
biggest ones; however, the surface area that you can go to visit and
enjoy the pool is so small. Right now it's maxed out. You cannot
go there. In fact, the day we met, it was cold out, and 60 percent of
the chairs were full by the time we left. The weekend, no chairs left.
I know it's with COVID and stuff, but it's only sitting 72 people now.
They just ordered another 20 seating, so that would be 92. Folks,
just do the math again. There's no way that's going to work, because
if you do approve this and there's villas, 44 percent of the
development will now be villas, and people that live in villas
normally will use the amenities like that because they don't have the
pools and things to go to. So it's already maxed out now and only 50
percent built out. Terribly inappropriate.
So there might have been planning for all of us -- and we all
bought in on what they were going to do. What they're going to do
and what is are two different things. So it's very, very stressed out.
Gary gave you the numbers.
Now, also, there's one -- one lap pool with four lanes, just so
you know, to accommodate these future 4,800 people. There is the
pickleball. There's five kayaks. It's a beautiful thing. I go
kayaking all the time. I invite you over there. I'll take you out. It's
awesome. But there's only five. So if you-all five want to go, we
can't go.
So, you know, the amenities are there for the show, the
marketability. It's smart. They have a great product like that.
January 26, 2021
Page 77
That's why we moved there. We enjoy it. And by the way, all the
people I know about that live in Isles loves it. They don't like it.
They love it. They just want to preserve it. They want to have a
quality of life.
And it says, in your paper that Tim just referred to on Page 5,
No. 14, the question is about criteria. Will the proposed change
adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
Unequivocally, that answer is absolutely yes, and it negatively affects
it. And that's the reason you can say no to this, because of the
density.
You can't shoehorn it. I heard that term twice in the last week.
You're shoehorning a project into something, trying to squeeze it in
to make it work. It really doesn't, not for a quality of life, and you
have an opportunity to say no to that and enhance it.
And the 44 percent villas, by the way, that's based on -- when we first
came there, we were told 20 to 25 percent ratio -- that's why we
bought in there, too -- of the makeup between coach homes,
single-family, and now villas. So 44 percent is a real lot as far as
we're concerned.
And now, on your Page 30, No. 5 of your executive summary, is
written by Minto, and they say, the development of Sabal Palm
MPUD will result in efficient and economical extension of
community facilities and services as required by Policy 3.1 of the
FLU [sic]. I really don't get that. And I hear what they're saying,
but I'm watching what they're doing and, unfortunately, it's two
different things. And I know this. I was taught a long time [sic], it
was -- it's never wrong to do the right thing, even if nobody else is
doing it.
So you have the right to help set this straight, because the
community's asking for it. And it's not just restrictive, as you can
see, to Isles of Collier Preserve, Bayshore gets totally affected. And
January 26, 2021
Page 78
all the numbers you're hearing about, because that traffic study was
10 years old -- you heard that, too -- it's antiquated. They didn't
include all the numbers of all the new developments that are there.
That road area, you're choking the area. You can't get in and out.
It's going to be a parking lot.
Personal experience the other day was coming home. Three
o'clock in the afternoon tried to get in. Somebody without a fob
couldn't get in. A line came. Within two minutes there were 11
cars out on Thomasson waiting to get in. I'm coming in the opposite
way from Publix.
And all the people, if you do approve this, that would be in the
Fleischmann tract, they would be coming through the Isles like crazy
because, you know why? I'd go that way to get to Publix instead of
going all the way up Bayshore and all the way down Thomasson.
And you see what you're doing to Thomasson.
So, folks, I don't think you can look me in the face or any
residents and say that this makes sense and it's doable and reasonable .
It's really exacerbating the area both in the safety, like Tim said, both
in the fact -- the practicality, and both for enjoyment of our use,
because our use of all the amenities get completely diminished by the
volume of people coming into this development if you approve it.
So, please, you know, it's not Houdini, and it's not David
Copperfield with a slight of hand. The bottom -line number that
you're looking at is 2,229. They can find 97 other units. I don't
care where it goes, whether it's in Fleischmann or over on T or some
other place.
And they can -- and we can work with Minto on giving us better
amenities or working it out. We're not antidevelopment. This is
just too much in the wrong spot. That's how we feel. I think we've
given you enough credibility on all of it, and the rest is in your hands.
I really hope and pray that you vote no for the beautification of the
January 26, 2021
Page 79
area and keep it safe, because it's not with that development going in.
Thank you for the gift of your time.
MR. MILLER: Your remaining nine speakers are all online. I
want to remind our Zoom speakers you will need to unmute yourself
when we call on you.
Your next speaker is Marc Rosenberg. He will be followed by
Jeff Millar and Ron Cook.
Mr. Rosenberg, are you with us?
MR. ROSENBERG: I am. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes. Please
begin.
MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you. I'm a resident of ICP. I've
been here since almost the beginning.
I'm going to make an assumption that if Minto is not approved,
that this Fleischmann parcel can be sold to someone else and
someone else can develop it. So I'm going to work on the
assumption for a second that Minto gets approval. It's not what I
would probably want, but let's assume they get approval. I t hink the
amenities issue is far more serious than you might -- than you might
think.
This summer I did a study of the community and found that
97 -- 91 percent of respondents were concerned about this; 91 percent
said it would affect the quality of life, and 83 percent said it would
affect future sales of their homes.
Minto has made some amenity offers. Pickleball courts are
certainly needed. But, as Gary Lubben said, the sales center was on
the table to be given to the HOA from the beginning.
Furthermore, the addition of these homes with the increased
amount of villas does increase the total personal population of the
community by more than 50 percent of what exists now. That will
create an overcrowding situation that will become intolerable.
January 26, 2021
Page 80
My message, really, to Minto is this is an opportunity to offer and
work with the community now, not tomorrow, right now to offer a
more comprehensive plan to improve amenities and traffic so that we
can walk away from this, if the proposal is approved, with a win-win
situation.
I can tell you that many, many, many community members,
while happy for the pickleballers, are not necessarily thrilled that no
other problems are being addressed. I ask Minto to come up with a
more comprehensive plan. They get something, the residents get
something, and we can move forward from there.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jeff Millar. He'll be
followed by Ron Cook and Ed Carr.
Mr. Millar, are you with us, sir?
MR. MILLAR: Yes, can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. You have three minutes. Please
begin.
MR. MILLAR: It's Jeff Millar. Resident of the Isles since
July of '15. And first off, the views I'm sharing are those of at least
eight other residents that have expressed similar views to me.
And firstly, we are in support of this request and, therefore, ask that
you approve this PUD amendment. We think it 's a win-win.
A couple of points. There's been some discussion on conservation.
I think everybody is in support of that; however, I believe that the
Minto has met all of the requirements from a conservation
perspective per the Planning Commission report.
Our HOA fees will actually decrease as it relates to shared
common expenses with the addition of these 230 units. And it's
been laid out that the maximum units in here would be 1,792. The
other 10 units referenced have never been in the budget for planning,
in the 87 units dropped when coach homes were changed to
January 26, 2021
Page 81
single-family homes. So I think there is that commitment from
Minto.
I think it's a slippery slope as it relates to the amenities. It's my
understanding that the size and scope of amenities of a particular
community is not one of the criteria upon which a PUD amendment
is evaluated. The Board's expertise lies in compliance with the
lengthy criteria set forth in the findings by the Planning Commission,
not in determining whether we need more courts or the pool needs a
slide. When taken as a whole, the amenities at the Isles are
substantially the same or better than what comparable communities
have to offer. Some have more of this; others have less of that.
In order to address the concerns, Minto has offered the
additional six pickleball courts, and actually today I heard at least six
pickleball courts, and assistance with the sales office. The sales
office was always deemed to be turned over to us but turned over
as-is with no assistance, no modification, nothing as it relates to that.
Minto has already agreed to and has already met with residents and
had the diagram layouts and discussions about options of what to do
with that and using their expertise as to how that could best be used,
and they talked about going further with that to assist us in that area.
So, again, we think you should approve this PUD amendment.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ron Cook. He'll be
followed by Ed Carr and then Dairdre McGlothlin.
Mr. Cook, are you with us, sir?
MR. COOK: Yes, I am. I had intended --
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes.
MR. COOK: I had intended to yield my three minutes to Steve
Young. If he still needs those, as rebuttal, please take them. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: All right. We'll move on. Ed Carr and then
January 26, 2021
Page 82
Dairdre McGlothlin and then Sandra Cranshaw.
Mr. Carr, are you with us, sir?
MR. CARR: Good morning. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Mr. Carr. Please begin. You have three
minutes.
MR. CARR: Thank you very much.
I would like to speak to the greater area of Bayshore Drive and
the arts community, the Naples Botanical Gardens, Avalon School,
and the general characteristics of that area, that there has been a lot of
independent private investment made and, Collier County, thanks for
your improvements to Thomasson Drive, and all the commitments
we're trying to make to that area.
I'd like to speak to the livability and what the character of that
area is in the eyes and future of Collier County.
As we relate to what's happening in the area from a practical
standpoint, let's talk and remember that we are not talking about the
addition of just 200 or 300 units here, but we have not seen the full
impact of 1,654 units that are approved but are not built as of this
date.
So when you drive those areas and you look at it, please reflect
on the fact that we're not talking about 230 or 307, but we have the
impact coming of 1,600 to 1,700 units that will affect all of these
things.
When we look at traffic studies, we look at percentages, and we
get caught with TIS numbers. None of us can look at a chart and
say, gee whiz, what happens to the livability and the character of a
community when the traffic rate goes from 2.9 to 3.7 or whatever.
We have all driven in areas which meet those standards but are
certainly less than safe and what we would like to see for our
community when we strive to create a community that's exemplary in
all aspects.
January 26, 2021
Page 83
There's no question that, as it's been talked about, it will
greatly -- this will greatly impact Bayshore. Anyone who's driven
Bayshore will tell you that the narrowness of the lanes does nothing
to reduce the average speed of traffic on that road. And when we
think about the children walking from Avalon school, et cetera, et
cetera, I think this is a very, very serious consideration.
Narrowing the lanes -- or the narrow lanes is not going to, by its
own, bring these conditions into somewhat -- into a condition that we
feel is where we want to be.
I would propose that if this is going to happen, there has been no
discussion about traffic changes that need to be made, and I would
suggest that we need to consider, if you were to approve this, then
you need to consider the corollary actions required at the intersection
of Bayshore and Route 41 trying to turn left onto Route 41. That's a
very dangerous situation. That would have to be changed, okay, in
order to accommodate the additional traffic.
As we look at the overall area, I do not believe that this increase
in density, again, based on not 307 but, again, the 1,600 that we have
to impact this area, which none of us has seen, okay, is going to be in
any way, you know, positive. As a matter of fact, it will be negative.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.
MR. CARR: So without --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Sir, I'm sorry. Your
time is up. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dairdre McGlothlin
followed by Sandra Cranshaw and then Meredith Budd.
Ms. McGlothlin, are you with us?
MR. McGLOTHLIN: Yes, I am.
MR. MILLER: You have three minutes, ma'am. Please begin.
MS. McGLOTHLIN: Thank you. Yes, I am an Isles of
Collier Preserve resident since 2018.
January 26, 2021
Page 84
I don't believe Minto has demonstrated or in any way tried to
demonstrate how the present community amenities are able to
accommodate 230 more homes. To illustrate, this past Sunday,
2:00 p.m. at the community pool, my husband and I were not able to
find a seat at either the main pool or the lap pool. In the past, using
the multipurpose room, we were -- two tables of bridge, two tables of
mahjong. In addition to that, we had a basketball game going on.
A little bit crowded, a little bit noisy.
Additionally, I think it's reasonable to conclude that this strain
on the amenities and coupled with the adverse traffic effects many
have discussed will certainly result in financial consequences to the
current residents, meaning that our property values will be reduced.
I express my appreciation for consideration of my concerns, and I
request the Board of Collier County Commissioners to reject the
Minto rezoning application. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sandra Cranshaw. She'll
be followed by Meredith Budd and then Denny Quinn.
Ms. Cranshaw, are you with us, ma'am?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sandra Cranshaw, you may need to
unmute yourself. Are you with us?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Let's try Meredith Budd.
Meredith Budd. Are you with us, Ms. Budd?
MS. BUDD: I am. Are you able to hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Meredith. Please, you have three
minutes, Ms. Budd.
MS. BUDD: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: No, we're having a real problem with -- Ms.
Budd, we're having a problem with your reception. It sounds like
you're on a cell phone. You're fading in and out. I'll tell you what,
January 26, 2021
Page 85
we're going to go to our next speaker. We'll try to come back to you.
Maybe you can get in a better spot.
Denny Quinn. Mr. Quinn, are you online and unmuted? Can
you hear us, sir? Denny Quinn?
MR. QUINN: I am here, yes. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, Mr. Quinn, you have three minutes.
Please begin.
MR. QUINN: Thank you very much for the opportunity.
My concern for the most part has to do with the increased traffic
density. We've been residents in the Isles since 2015. In the last
two years we have seen three major developments going up on or
adjacent to Thomasson. One just opposite our Thomasson gate. I
don't know the number of doors in any of these, but I know that
they're very significant.
If we proceed further down Thomasson toward Bayshore on the
left-hand side, there is a complex of apartments going up, which has
not yet been completed, and then at the intersection of Bayshore and
Thomasson there is a new community going in.
None of these are yet showing any consequences. The traffic
analysis that -- or the traffic count that was referenced earlier in the
presentation, if I'm not mistaken, was conducted in January of 2020.
So I don't think that these three additional rounds of doors have any
bearing on the numbers.
I happen to agree with Commissioner LoCastro, No. 1, any of us
who will have access to Bayshore through the new gates that are
going to be created will take the path of least resistance. I would
also take contention with a statement that a narrower road will lead to
slower speeds.
I'd invite any of the commissioners to hop in my car. We'll
drive Bayshore. And if we try to observe the 35-mile-an-hour
posted limit, I can guarantee we'll be pushed off the road.
January 26, 2021
Page 86
So, again, my concern is the increased traffic density on the
area. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
We're going to try Ms. Cranshaw again. Sandra Cranshaw.
Ms. Cranshaw, can you unmute yourself and see if we can hear you
now?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Sandra Cranshaw? Ms. Cranshaw?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: All right. Well, Meredith Budd, I know,
rejoined us. Let's see if we've got her signal cleared up. Ms. Budd.
Are you with us, Meredith?
MS. BUDD: I am. Are you able to better hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we can, Meredith. Please begin.
MS. BUDD: Okay. I do apologize for that.
My name is Meredith Budd. I'm here on behalf of the Florida
Wildlife Federation.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I spoke at the
Planning Commission meeting on this item. I had a concern and
continue to have concerns about the gopher tortoise population and
was disappointed in the lack of engagement that I had with the
developer at the time. He had -- they have since reached out to me,
so I did want to make that known and, unfortunately, there was no
resolution in terms of addressing the gopher tortoise concern.
And what I wanted to speak to you about today is really the fact
that this project, I think, really elevates the idea that we don't have
enough protection for our uplands here in Collier County. Gopher
tortoises, unfortunately, like the same lands that we like to develop
on, and there are no federal or state protections for that land outside
of removing the gopher tortoises and locating them elsewhere.
January 26, 2021
Page 87
And while there's nothing really, you know, from a regulatory
standpoint that I would sit here and ask you to do or to act on in terms
of preventing them from relocating those tortoises -- they're doing it
by the book -- it's just so unfortunate, because we continue to
extricate these tortoises from their homes, and they're continually
moved to relocation sites that are really far away. I'm assuming
these tortoises will be moved somewhere in Glades County. We're
just continuing to push them away, and we lack the protection for
these uplands.
And so I just wanted to elevate that and highlight that for you.
And I would love the opportunity to work with staff to maybe see if
there's a way that the county could take an initiative to work on
protecting these uplands in a way, perhaps incentiviz ing landowners
in some way in order to protect these areas that really lack the federal
protections that we -- for example, are afforded to wetlands.
So I just wanted to highlight. I appreciate the time. I
appreciate that the applicant did end up reaching out to me despite the
lack of communication before any of the public hearings. So I
appreciate the time, and I would love that opportunity, if it is a
possibility, to discuss ways to better protect our precious uplands
here in Collier County.
Thank you so very much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, with your indulgence, I'd like to
try Ms. Cranshaw one last time. She is online, and she is our
last speaker. There just seems to be a muting issue.
Ms. Cranshaw, Sandra Cranshaw, please unmute yourself. It is
your time to speak. Are you with us, ma'am?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Sandra Cranshaw?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: We're not getting anything. I think we're
January 26, 2021
Page 88
going to have to call it. That was your final public speaker, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Yovanovich, I didn't know if you
wanted to speak to any of the speakers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Speak to them directly or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I don't want to cross-examine any
of them.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to address some of their
comments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So we'll close the public hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Miller, can you pull back up our
presentation so I don't somehow go to staff's presentation by mistake.
Thank you.
I guess I'll speak from this slide in addressing comments made
by the public. I started the presentation with this piece of property is
the hole in the doughnut. It was contemplated as part of the
covenants and restrictions that apply to everybody who spoke from
Isles of Collier Preserve that this land could be added to the property
and could utilize the amenities.
Every one of your speakers was very articulate and I'm certain
read the documents and understood that these parcels -- this parcel
could be added to the property, and they consented to that when they
bought units in Isles of Collier Preserve.
I don't think any of them introduced themselves as a
transportation consultant or with any expertise in traffic planning or
traffic engineering.
Mr. Trebilcock and your staff have reviewed this for consistency
with your transportation regulations, traffic safety, and the like and
have all, in their professional opinions, determined that our request is
not a safety hazard by utilizing traffic on Bayshore Road. In fac t,
January 26, 2021
Page 89
they testified and have recommended approval; your staff has
recommended approval.
The -- I'm sure -- well, you know what, I'm not going to say I'm
sure. One of your speakers somehow said that the people who were
in favor of this project somehow don't understand what we're really
asking. I don't think that he's -- that that's a fair statement. You had
a very -- you had a speaker get up here and say I'm in favor of the
project. To say that somehow those who are in favor don't
understand it but those who are opposed truly understand it, I don't
believe is a fair comment from that speaker.
I think -- and, Mr. Young, correct me if I'm wrong, I think you
said at the Planning Commission that you admit -- are you the one
that said you were a hypocrite at the Planning Commission?
Because what he really wanted at the Planning Commission was for
the county to buy the property and put it in a preserve. That's what
he said at the Planning Commission. Now, he's obviously changed
his testimony and has focused on the amenities and focused on
traffic.
But at the Planning Commission he wanted you guys, through
the Conservation Collier program, to buy the property, and his goal is
for this property to never be developed, and I think that most of the
speakers hope that this property will never be developed.
The reality is, this property is in the urban area. Under the
Comprehensive Plan, the current property owner has the right to ask
for three units per acre, and if they meet the criteria, which we have
proven we do at the 230-unit level -- our original analysis was done
at the 307-unit. If they meet that criteria, they, too, as property
owners, have rights to go forward with the project.
So this property is going to get developed. It's not going to
remain vacant as was originally the plan of attack at the Planning
Commission: Please don't let this get developed.
January 26, 2021
Page 90
So the reality is, this property's going to be developed. What's
the better option for the development at this property? Is it to be a
separate PUD with every one of the 307 units going onto Bayshore,
every one of the construction-related traffic to go onto Bayshore, or is
it better to limit the intensity to 230 units versus 307? And I take
exception to the first speaker who I think said bringing construction
trades and fill and other from Sabal Bay to this site was never
discussed. It has always been discussed. It was discussed at the
neighborhood information meeting. It was discussed at the Planning
Commission.
So there was discussion about how this project actually, for the
benefit of those people who live on Bayshore, will be a reduction in
traffic on Bayshore during the construction process, because you
already have -- trades are already out there working in Sabal Bay that
can easily transition and do the work into this next piece of property.
That was, in fact, discussed.
The professional expert testimony has been we are consistent
with your Comprehensive Plan, we meet your LDC requirements,
and we should be approved according to your staff and according to
the Planning Commission.
I understand the amenity question, but that has never been a
zoning criteria in Collier County, and it was addressed in the
covenants and restrictions that these residents bought under for this
project.
The one speaker has, I think, summed it up correctly with how
Mike has dealt with the residents. He has said, we will guarantee
you the pickleball courts and we will continue to work with you on
the sales center. He has lived up to every one of those commitments.
Those are not zoning-level commitments or conditions. He has
followed through.
And, finally, I will tell you that on the transportation standpoint,
January 26, 2021
Page 91
I don't know if the speakers are aware, but the existing density for
Sabal Bay is vested. It went through a Developer Contribution
Agreement. So all of those trips have been counted in your
transportation analysis that Norm Trebilcock does. When he figures
out what is the potential traffic on the road and how much capacity is
left, that was, in fact, considered.
So for the nonexperts to get up here and say Mr. Trebilcock
didn't do his job in how to analyze traffic and your staff didn't do
their job in how to analyze traffic is factually incorrect. An
appropriate analysis has been done. And we request that the Board
of County Commissioners approve our project at the 230 units with
the change to the footnoting on the development standards table to
make it clear that this parcel cannot exceed 230 single-family units or
172 peak-hour trips.
And with that, I or anybody on our team can answer any
questions that you may have, and we thank you for your time and
your consideration.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions for Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I do, yes, a couple. It was
represented that the expansion of the sales center or the bequeath of
the sales center over for an expansion of additional facilities has
always been on the table, but I thought I heard you say it was
represented that that was going to be bequeathed but now it's been
memorialized in writing with the PUD.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Mr. Elgin has agreed to
memorialize that and put it in writing that this sales center will, in
fact --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So it was discussed but not
ever memorialized?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It has never been a firm memorialized
condition that that sales center will become an asset to the residents.
January 26, 2021
Page 92
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
Number two, I heard some discussions about multifamily villas
coming forth at some stage, and I thought there was a commitment
with, if this project were approved, these were all going to be
single-family homes, not villas.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The way the county works is if it's a
two-family structure, that's considered single-family. Multifamily is
three or more. So there will be no three-or-more family structures
on this site.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. So it could be villas?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It could be some villas and some
detached.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But equates to a
single-family.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Single-family for transportation
analysis, which is the higher trip generator, by the way, than
multifamily.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Very good. I do have one
more question for our staff, but I'll wait till -- if anybody else has
questions for the applicant.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro, for the
applicant?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I do, I do, and I have a
question for the staff, too, so I'll table that.
You know, Mr. Yovanovich, I've got sort of a hypothetical
question for you. Has there ever been any consideration to build
these homes but not that side-entry egress off of Bayshore as a
requirement, or is it needed for emergency? I mean, there's plenty of
gated communities in this -- in this county, Hammock Bay, where
you live all the way in the back and you drive all the way out the
gated area. I mean, I know that that's a nice little sort of sneak -out
January 26, 2021
Page 93
point but, I mean, I'm just asking it hypothetically. Is there a
requirement? I mean, I know it would be convenient for the
residents that have houses there, but if the 230 homes were built and
everybody had an entry and egress out of the main entry and exit the
way that they do so many other gated communities, has that ever
been a point, or is it a requirement due to safety or something like
that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The reality is is -- and maybe I'm
missing your question, so correct me if I'm wrong. Let me go to the
site plan, if I can, real quick. And correct me if I'm wron g. If this
were developed as a stand-alone PUD, there would be a direct access
point for the R9 tract onto Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But what we're proposing is the
connection point would actually be -- the R9 tract would be internal.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, I understand that. So if
we approved it to be internal, instead of a gate, could a wall be there,
and then people won't be pouring out onto Bayshore if they live in
those houses there? They would -- you know, you have a pretty
large entry and exit, you know, point for the entire subdivision. And
I realize the pluses and minus with that. I was just curious.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the problem I have, one, you
generally prefer --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Oh, absolutely.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- multiple access points than just one
way in and one way out for projects when they can be feasibly done.
Also, I can't give up that access point that already exists on the PUD
because there are residents that already live in Sabal Bay, have
already anticipated that access point on both of -- both of those access
points.
So I don't have the legal right to somehow take away that
January 26, 2021
Page 94
connection point for the residents who have already been there.
And, frankly -- and I can bring Mr. Trebilcock back up here -- there
has already been contemplated that some of the residents will actually
come out that gate.
Now, we're -- all of us are creatures of habit and path of least
resistance. I would think if I put up -- go back to the aerial. Most
people are going to find their way to the already existing connection
to Thomasson or the connections to 41 unless you're really close to
this entrance. Most people are going to go to the existing
Thomasson connection because they live in that area; take
Thomasson to Bayshore and go north on Bayshore.
So I think we have accurately anticipated the residents that
will -- the current residents contemplated to be in Sabal Bay that will
connect and use Bayshore because of the creatures of habit that's
been anticipated. And we've -- and we're actually putting less traffic
on Bayshore because we're not asking for the maximum under the
Comprehensive Plan that the current property owner would be
allowed to request.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And my last question for you
was concerning that sales center. It's one thing if you're, you know,
giving them the keys to an empty building, but was there ever any
discussion to, you know, share the cost of, you know, re -- I say
refurbishing, but adjusting it to actually fit what they want it to b e
and have some sort of cost share or something?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There has -- that discussion has
occurred. It's ongoing. And I think one of the speakers has said
that discussion has occurred and is ongoing, and that was the speaker
who I believe said he spoke for at least eight other residents in there
and are recommending approval.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. So your client's
position would be that a cost share would be something that you
January 26, 2021
Page 95
would consider?
MR. YOVANOVICH: They are -- you know, they are
discussing those options with the residents. I can't commit to you a
dollar amount today, because I don't -- I don't know how that is going
to ultimately play out. But they have never said to me, we will not
discuss that issue with the residents.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: One clarification. So you showed
us some provisions of the covenants of the declarations, and there
was a reference to the lands and then the additional lands. Am I
correct that the definition of additional lands specifically included
this property that we're talking about?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was -- it was within the definition of
additional lands.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of additional lands.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So the declaration specifically
referenced this land as something that could be added in the future?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It referenced all nearby lands. It didn't
have a legal description attached to it, Commissioner, but it
referenced nearby lands could be added to the project.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But it -- but it didn't
specifically reference the Fleischmann property or property --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, there was not a specific legal
description attached to that document.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. But it was -- it referenced
the -- whatever. What was it? Was it adjoining lands? What was
the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll bear with me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Additional property.
January 26, 2021
Page 96
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. Let me just pull up the whole --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Of the additional property may be
desirable to reflect a different --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It says, or any additional lands within
the vicinity of the property, additional property. Section 2. Oh,
maybe -- I may have gone one slide too many. I'm sorry. I did.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Or any additional lands within the
vicinity --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The vicinity of the property.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. All right. And the -- is
Trinity still on the phone?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe we -- has this got to do
with -- we're going to finish with the applicant and then ask staff, if
we could follow that order. But if it's intertwined, I certainly will --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, and I'll ask the applicant, too.
The -- because I'm sure that the applicant wouldn't want to have
safety issues and be responsible for EMS and fire not being able to
get to their -- to residents in there. I mean, that analysis of whether
or not the roads are sufficient for a fire engine and EMS, that's part of
this whole process and is considered in all of the approval process,
correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Trebilcock analyzed the ability for
EMS and fire trucks to go down Bayshore to come in those back
gates --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to safely access those unit owners.
That is -- that is a normal review. Because, you're right, the last
thing we want to do is build houses knowing that people can't get
served by emergency services.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: All right. And I just have that
question for Trinity Scott as well.
January 26, 2021
Page 97
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any other questions for the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So let's open for questions
to staff.
Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich.
The public comment -- the public part of this is closed, so you
will not have an opportunity to speak again or to rebut.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We want to rebut what he said.
He brought some ideas up --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, you can't. The public -- it's
closed.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- that were not true.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, I'd like to call upon
Trinity Scott. She seems to be a popular staffer amongst us today.
MS. SCOTT: Good afternoon. Trinity Scott, for the record.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good afternoon, Trinity.
I want to know, are -- because I -- you know, it was represented that
there aren't any sidewalks, and I was looking at the aerial photo, and
there is a sidewalk all the way down past Woodside. Actually, it
looks like it goes to where the proposed new entrances are going to
be on Bayshore where those are, in fact, at. And I would assume
that someone's going to extend the sidewalk at least to that entrance
so that pedestrian traffic can get to and from -- from that proposed
access point.
What is -- the question is, what is the county -- because we all
know human beings are creatures of habit, path of least resistance,
and once there's a new access point, it depends on where the residents
within the Isles are, in fact, wanting to go. If they want to go to the
Garden, they're not going to drive out and on 41 and come back
January 26, 2021
Page 98
around. They're going to go out through that particular access.
What are the county's plans with regard to the expansion of
Bayshore south? Is it on the horizon at all, five-year CIP,
contemplated? I mean, there are other properties in this area maybe.
We're running out of theoretically developable land. But are th ere
any contemplated improvements of widening for safety purposes?
Because I, like, my colleagues, don't buy into the theory of thinner
means people are going to go slower. Do we have any of those
improvements planned at all?
MS. SCOTT: No, we do not, sir. The section of Bayshore
road is a local road from our functional class -- classification
standpoint. South of Thomasson Drive, it does change from a
collector, which is north, to a local road south.
The sidewalk, when the applicant comes in for that connection,
they will move forward with a right-of-way permit. During that
review, as well as the plat and plan review during that time, the
development review staff will require that sidewalk connection.
And I think that something else to look at with regard to this is, yes,
folks may be utilizing Bayshore. Bayshore is an up-and-coming area
that has changed significantly over the past few years where it has
really become a destination, and so folks -- and Bayshore has been
working very hard as far as encouraging -- the MSTU and CRA have
been working very hard to encourage individuals to bike and walk to,
say, the Celebration Food Truck Park or the 360 Market, and there's
other things that are -- that are going on in that area.
So to assume that only people would drive there, I don't believe
that that will necessarily be the case, but there is a sidewalk and that
sidewalk will be connected when that comes forward.
With regard to the capacity of the roadway, from a local
roadway standpoint, the existing traffic counts that Mr. Trebilcock
collected showed that there were 620 p.m. peak trips remaining on
January 26, 2021
Page 99
the roadway. There would have to be significant development in
that area. It's a dead-end road. Folks aren't going to be coming
down here just to, quote-unquote, cut through. So it's really the
localized traffic down there, and I don't foresee a need to widen the
roadway from two to four lanes in the future.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I really wasn't talking about
four-laning. I just was talking about enhancement for the safety
issue that's been expressed from -- a widening from -- I think
Mr. Trebilcock referenced it being 10-foot lanes. And I think
Commissioner LoCastro had his tape measure out, and it came in at
9.6. So I just was wondering if there was any plans for future
expansion or widening of those lanes.
MS. SCOTT: At this point there's not. If there's a safety issue,
certainly we take safety very seriously and would program those
dollars as necessary. You know we're doing that in your distri ct as
well when we have those narrow roadways and adding the shoulders
when possible.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. And that's
something maybe we can -- depending on whether or not this project
gets approved, there is a commitment to include in -- there will be
increased dollars in the CRA TIF Fund and their inclusion in the
MSTU, which MSTUs are specifically set up for those safety
conditions for a particular neighborhood.
That's all the questions I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Ms. Scott, it's been stated by
either one or two people that some of those traffic numbers may have
come from a dated traffic study from 2011. Can you confirm that?
MS. SCOTT: So what the applicant did is they utilized the
same traffic distribution from the prior traffic study as far as the
assumption that 17 percent of the internal traffic would utilize the
January 26, 2021
Page 100
section of Bayshore Drive south of Thomasson; however, in their
analysis they did update those numbers to be consistent with the
latest ITE Trip Generation Manual which is the tenth generation
manual. The original one was done some years ago, and I'm sure
that those trip generation rates have changed through the years.
In addition, the existing Sabal Bay PUD is vested so that
when -- the base numbers that Mr. Trebilcock is working from
includes the anticipated buildout of the Sabal Bay Planned Unit
Development. So those are accounted for when he is doing his
traffic analysis.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. And I apologize, I do
have a question for Mr. Yovanovich just to follow up, and it concerns
that gate.
Once the buildout is done of that gate, I assume it will be some
sort of, like, punch-coded gate or key fob, or will it be manned, or
what will it be? And the reason I ask that is if anybody's gone
through a gate like that, you know, there's usually a huge queue as
each car goes through one at a time or that sort of thing.
So I'm just -- you know, I'm trying to just jump to the end here
and say, you know, what's the queue line going to be all the way
down Bayshore for those people that live there, or is it just -- I can't
imagine it's just going to be a free open gate that people can come in
and out of, or is it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Two things. The gate has to be located
far enough back from the road to accommodate a queue and, two, I'll
let Mike tell you whether it's going to have a person there or it's
going to be --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ELGIN: Yeah. Again, Mike Elgin for the record. The
intention is that -- and I think we've committed to this -- that that
entrance would be designed consistent with the Thomasson entrance
January 26, 2021
Page 101
that was discussed. As Rich had alluded to, that would meet all
county criteria for stacking and items like that.
The other thing, and we've glossed over it a couple times today,
is that when we do come in for that plat and plan or the PPL for that
parcel and for that right-of-way permit for that, if through those
review processes with county staff it's determined that a decel lane or
a turning lane is necessary into either -- either parcel on the east or
west of Bayshore Drive, then we would be committed to doing those.
I think Norm mentioned those as off-site improvements that are
the responsibility of the developer. So that will only come when we
file for those permits in staff.
So back to your stacking question; absolutely we will build that
to county standards. That Thomasson entrance, when I reference it
will be the same, it does have a key fob access. It will not be a
manned guardhouse. It will be consistent with that. Both of those
gates are intended to be key fob access meeting all the county
standards and requirements for access at that location.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I'd like to beg a little of your
time here. And if you could upload, please, Troy, the presentation.
I'd like this for your consideration before we vote.
MR. MILLER: Just give me one second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What I'd like to do is address the
increase in traffic volume in the Isles of Collier and Bayshore Drive,
and the data that's in this presentation is from the traffic study that
was prepared for Minto. This is their numbers.
In Table 2A -- and this is kind of heavy-duty stuff, so bear with
me. On Table 2A the trip generation for Sabal Bay right now today
without -- with the buildout conditions is 24,586 trips for a 24-hour
two-way volume. That's for the complete MPUD, and that's an
average weekday volume.
January 26, 2021
Page 102
On Table 2B of the traffic study, they add what the Fleischmann
parcel traffic generation would be. And you're going to add 1,962
two-way trips, and that's a 24-hour volume.
So, in addition, on the next slide, it is -- it is recognized that
once the project access onto Bayshore is available, some traffic from
the approved Sabal Bay MPUD will utilize this connect ion -- we've
talked about this -- as an alternate access to the roadway network.
So based on the 2011 PUD zoning TIS trip distribution in the
traffic study that we have before us, 17 percent of the MPUD traffic
peak-hour peak-direction trips is anticipated to use this connection.
So 17 percent of that number. So let's take 17 percent of that
number; 17 percent of 24,586 is 4,179.62 trips over a 24-hour
two-way traffic volume.
Stay with me, now. This is directly from the traffic study.
And if you see where the project is -- you can see where the project
is. That's that little egg-shaped symbol at the bottom of the map, and
you can see Bayshore goes north, and that's going up to the top, and
then going back into the development is the one that says 50 percent
and 50 percent. So they're dividing that number by two, okay. So
50 percent goes north; 50 percent is going to go back into the
development.
So over the 24-hour two-way traffic volume, it's 1,962. Fifty percent
goes back to the development; 50 percent goes out on Bayshore, and
that number is 981. Now, just for the sake of doing this, I'm going
to -- you'll see I'm going to round this off to a thousand, but this is
their numbers.
So 50 percent of the traffic volume stays internal to the Isles of
Collier -- next slide, please -- and there's only one major spine road
that winds through this development, and it empties to a lighted
intersection at Thomasson. That's extremely important. If
anybody's driven this stretch of road, you know how important the
January 26, 2021
Page 103
lights are.
And so that is almost 1,000 additional vehicles per day driving
by your home if you live on the spine road of the Isles of Collier or
on south Bayshore Drive.
Next slide, please. So this is -- this is from the developer's
marketing material, and on it you're going to see what we did in pink
is trace the route that the traffic would take through their
neighborhood to exit onto Thomasson. You can see there
is -- there's homes there. This isn't going through, you know, driving
by water. There's homes that abut the road.
So next slide, please. Our criteria for a rezone gives us choices
we have to ask ourselves, questions, and the question that we've
heard today from residents are the questions that I'm going to pose to
you. Will the proposed change adversely influence the living
conditions in the neighborhood?
And may I have the next slide, please. So does it or does it not
have adverse impact on your property values? So in my opinion,
having an additional thousand trips over 24 hours running by your
front driveway would have adverse impact to your property values.
Thank you very much. We're debating now. We're debating.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you decided to bring some
evidence in the record. Do I not get to respond to the evidence you
decided to bring in the record?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The evidence is on the record, sir.
It's your own traffic study.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's your call. I mean, I would request
the ability to respond.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'll bow to our county attorney for his
advice, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd let him respond. Quickly, though,
Richard. Not -- I mean, if you've got a response, make a response,
January 26, 2021
Page 104
but I don't think it should be you. I think it should be your traffic
expert.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm going to have my traffic expert get
up here. Since this is the first time -- I do have a question for
Ms. Taylor if she's done any analysis as to the local road capacity
within the Sabal Bay roads in presenting your information and then
ask her what expertise she has to give appraisal advice as part of your
testimony, because you did provide testimony. You didn't provide
just a regurgitation of the information.
Would you respond to the transportation?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I mean, the information provided, that's
daily. The matrix we do use is peak-hour data.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know.
MR. TREBILCOCK: And there would be sufficient capacity
on those local streets as well. And the county does encourage
interconnection within communities as well.
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you put up the last slide, Troy,
because I think that's the crux of it.
MR. MILLER: Sure. From the presentation we just had?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Give me just one minute.
MR. KLATZKOW: The last slide.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The wrong -- it's the wrong
presentation.
MR. KLATZKOW: So the question is, would there be an
additional thousand vehicles per 24 hours running through
the -- running through the spine system? That's the factual issue that
Commissioner Taylor rose.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Nine hundred eighty-one to be
precise, according to your numbers.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. Based on the numbers, that
January 26, 2021
Page 105
would be your 24-hour. Again, the matrix we use is peak hour.
And in terms of the definition of adverse would be if there's a
level-of-service failure, which there would not be --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. The question is, is the number
right.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, there -- to the best of my
knowledge, what I received, I would say yes. Unfortunately, I
received it just a few minutes ago. But I was just -- I saw the
question here, too, in terms of adversity, so I would say that it does
not meet an adverse impact based on our definitions that we use for
traffic.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's objective and subjective. From
the subjective, you could argue whether it's adverse or not. The
objective is, is the number right? And you believe it's right?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. But if there is a failure.
There's no failure.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm lit up over there. I have
a question for you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If I may. I'll take my light
off. You brought forward the numbers that the -- on a project that's
already been approved.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then you're expressing
an opinion about -- your opinion about the value of real estate for an
increase in a thousand trips that's already approved. We're only
talking about an increase in those trips. As I said earlier, we were
talking about the entrance onto Bayshore. It's coming. It's part of
the approved ICP, Isles -- ICP subdivision. At buildout, those are
the trips that are going to be generated in a 24-hour period. Their
January 26, 2021
Page 106
estimate of 17 percent of that 25,000 equates to that thousand trips a
day. They're coming. Correct?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Not quite, but I know what you're
saying. The thousand would be added if this particular application is
approved. Right now there is a set amount of traffic going through
there, according to 24-hour, two-way volume, and that 24/two-way
volume today at buildout, I'm assuming, is 24,586. That's the total.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the estimate was
17 percent of that trip was going to come out onto Bayshore through
this new proposed, already approved access point onto Bayshore?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that -- then 17 percent of
that boiled down to that 981 or so trips.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So 17 percent goes out through the
Bayshore connection, and so that would mean 4,179 trips, because I
took 17 percent. It's their numbers. It's what they did. Seventeen
percent of the traffic.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We're adding -- they're adding 1,962
24-hour two-way trips to this --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: To the entire subdivision --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: If this is improved [sic].
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- add 17 percent.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Fifty percent goes north, 50 percent
goes internal, and that's where the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's an even split.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I don't know if we're going to
January 26, 2021
Page 107
table our discussion or our vote until, you know, after lunch.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, we're going to get this done.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Commissioner Saunders
always worries about the court reporter, so I worry about her as well
because I talk fast and she's been typing a lot.
You know, something we haven't mentioned, I mean, I'm -- it's
not lost on me these traffic numbers. We've been talking about it a
lot. And I have no doubt that the construction is going to be high
quality, and those are things that we want in the area, and I know
District 1 certainly could use, you know, much better housing and
whatnot, and not just million-dollar homes, a balance of things.
I've stood out there, just like you did and, you know,
Commissioner Taylor and I have some grave concerns. I think if we
build this, maybe on the flip side, after hearing from Ms. Scott, that
we will have an expediency and some upgrades on Bayshore that
might be long overdue. I have a feeling if we had all the business
owners and the Botanical Garden here and the owner of Market 360
and a few others, they would love this project. You know, having all
the citizens be able to get to their property. And, you know, we have
to also think about business owners.
You know, my overwhelming concern is traffic and safety. So
it's finding that balance. And, you know, looking at that road as it is
now, I mean, I can tell you it's going to have to be in short order that
there's going to have to be some things there. I mean, cars queuing
up and down as everybody tries to struggle with their key fob puts
cars in front of houses, could block out people who are trying to turn
into their Bayshore house and things like that.
So, you know, I guess it's just maybe more of a statement as we
all sort of consider things. But one of the things I wanted to just
highlight was there are a lot of businesses on that area that would
benefit from these residents coming out of that side gate and having
January 26, 2021
Page 108
the convenience to utilize them, and that's not a bad thing either. So
just working that in my decision. And I was just curious if we're
going to continue to debate or take a break and then come back. It's
your call, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No. If there's no more debate, we
need a motion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So on your -- on the last page, it
says, in my opinion, having an additional thousand vehicle trips.
Okay, that's the thousand vehicle trips that would result from the
addition of the property, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I guess my question for
Mr. Trebilcock would be, what's the number of trips that are going to
be going by there anyway? Isn't it 50 percent of the 24,000, or
what's the number -- I mean, what are we adding a thousand to? Is
that -- do you understand my question?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, I do understand. I didn't do an
internal analysis --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- of all the road network. But to your
point, the distribution of the traffic is that overall daily volume that
the community is going to have that will distribute throughout.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And that was 20 -- because I'm just
trying to follow the math that Commissioner Taylor's used.
Dividing the half -- you know, half of the additional volume would
be going out that way, so that's a thousand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think her number was well over 4,000
trips would go past those homes anyway using 17 percent of the --
January 26, 2021
Page 109
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So you've got 4,000 trips going by
those houses anyway.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Anyway, okay. Okay. That was
my question. But what is it -- what's it going to be anyway, and
what is -- what is the thousand trips added to? Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, again, I think it's important
when we talk about quality of life that we talk about 24-hour
numbers, not peak traffic. I understand the peak-traffic assessment,
but this is a discussion that I'd like to have not at this time, but this is
a discussion that I think it's important to have in terms of traffic, as
we build out as a community. As we understand, we cannot build
more roads in a lot of these areas. I think we need to re-examine
how we assess these increases in density. What can I say? The
developers have a right. They have a right. And I'm not negating
that, but we keep saying yes to density increases that we don't have
the infrastructure in order to support it. And I'm not talking about
water and sewer. I'm talking about roads. And if we've heard from
anyone or anytime, we talk about the traffic issues.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's all we hear about.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's all we hear about. That's why
we're spending how many millions on Vanderbilt.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: A hundred million 20 years
past due.
Mr. Trebilcock.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then I concur with
Commissioner Taylor with regard to the 24-hour trip generation. I
mean, we all get hung up in this peak-hour number and think it's only
172. And I was actually over here doing the math, and they were
January 26, 2021
Page 110
willing to cap their trips at 172, but there's nobody out there counting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And we all know it's too late
once the neighborhood's negatively impacted.
What is the aggregate 24-hour trip day for this density request, for
those 230 units?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. So that's the 1,962 vehicles per
day.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: For 230-unit --
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- for this particular piece?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And what would it be if the
property weren't included in the ICP and the density that's currently
bequeathed on the site at three units an acre? That's 307 units I think
I heard somebody say. Three hundred seven units, what would that
traffic be solely on Bayshore Drive? Because there would be
no -- there would be no division of traffic coming through the
neighborhood of ICP.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. This is my kind of hand grenade
math on the go here, but it would be 2,600 vehicles per day. And I
understand and respect the concept of per day. But it's like anything,
when we do a water treatment plant, we'll look at peak parameters,
and that's the same thing we do in traffic. We're looking at the peak
hour of the day for the peak traffic to size our facilities. When we
start throwing out other numbers -- traffic confuses people enough.
And, quite frankly, so when we're doing a -- when we're doing a
matrix that is inconsistent of how we measure the system, I don't
believe that's in the best interest of the community from that
standpoint.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I understand, but it also
January 26, 2021
Page 111
attributes to the confusion that's generated because, you know, we're
talking about a fairly innocuous amount of trips, 172. I applied the
same percentage of trips over that you were allowing for that other
unit, and that came up with an extra 50 trips at 227.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: But in actuality there is a
24-hour impact --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, there is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- for everybody that is there,
and we don't have anybody sitting down there counting doing that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So for me, again, in your
hand grenade math, as you referred to it, the project outside if the
Fleischmanns chose to sell it to anybody else, would generate how
many trips?
MR. TREBILCOCK: So it would be -- it would be 2,600 trips
per day versus a thousand trips per day on that section of Bayshore
Drive. So Bayshore, in fact, benefits from this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was my --
MR. TREBILCOCK: And then the other road is internally
absorbed on a facility that would have that capacity for that traffic.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If the maximum density were
allowed on the site independent of ICP, it would put an extra 2,600
trips solely onto Bayshore and not be divided up according to where
people want to go in the Isles of Collier Preserve?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir; yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just a quick question for the
County Attorney. This is a rezone. It would require four votes; is
January 26, 2021
Page 112
that --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Okay. I just want to make
sure that we understood what the process would be.
Madam Chair, I don't know if we're finished with our discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we are.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. I'm going to
make a motion to approve this. I'm not optimistic that it will pass,
but at least we'll get that issue on the floor. I think that the
development being part of the existing is far better than just not
having it connected and having another developer come in and build
the 307 units in that location. So I'm going to make a motion to
approve subject to all of the conditions that have been agreed upon.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'm going to second the
motion, but I would like to make a few comments. I spent a lot of
time talking to both sides, and I really respect both their opinions.
And I know regardless of what happens here, there's always one side
that's upset.
But I think that the developer has proven -- they've done the
environmental work, first of all, that I was concerned about. Quality
construction goes without saying. I would like to know that there's
more than just sort of a handshake or a wink-wink about partnering
on the sales center. It might not seem like it's a billion dollars, but I
think if amenities are an issue, giving them the keys to an empty
building and then telling them to turn it into a restaurant, I think we
can do better than that.
The entry and exit has me extremely concerned, but as I sit here
and wrestle with it, I have no doubt that the county is going to have to
make that entry and exit a priority if, in fact, this does pass, because
emergency vehicles, people being queued up, people on Bayshore
January 26, 2021
Page 113
possibly, you know, complaining. But then on the flip side, I also
put my business hat on, and I think that the Botanical Gardens, the
restaurants, and just like we've said here, Bayshore has really become
a destination, and allowing the people that live there to be able to
traverse it quickly without going onto U.S. 41 and some other roads
that are sometimes overpacked and dangerous as well, you know,
that's a plus.
So I'm not sitting here saying this is a slam dunk and it's
100 percent, but much like Commissioner Saunders said, if -- it's a
much better plan if it's tied to the current plan that's there now rather
than having somebody else come in, have a main gate and a separate
plan. And that doesn't necessarily mean we would approve it. But I
think legally and under the parameters of what we have to do here, it
would be difficult to just keep that as, you know, wilderness land that
will never be built on. So there's still a few homework assignments
here that I, as a new commissioner -- I'm not going anywhere -- will
be watching very closely. But I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So just for your consideration, as we
get ready to vote, if there was a new petition, if this failed and a
new -- a homeowner came in for that piece of property, we could
probably exact the traffic improvements that need to be done in order
to facilitate the traffic on Bayshore south because having the MSTU
pay for it means everybody in the MSTU has to pay for it instead of
the developer. And I think this is a definitely --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: The lawyer's down there
beating his button. He can go first if you want to, because I got a
comment there.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I think we'll -- he is kind of first
here, but I'll defer to you, Mr. -- Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, it says No. 2. I don't know
if --
January 26, 2021
Page 114
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's okay. I'll defer to you. I
heard it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I saw him going like this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think the County Attorney, if
he had a button over there, he would have been doing the same thing.
I think we have to be very, very careful when we talk about zoning
approvals and exactions.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Amen.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Because there's a lot of case law
that talks about exactions that don't end well for local governments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It has to have substantial evidence,
yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It has to meet the requirements of
the Land Development Code and things. So I just -- before we
started having a discussion about how we would exact things from
landowners, I just wanted to raise my hand and say, we need to -- we
need to probably talk about this in a different way.
I mean, if -- and I understand what you're saying. If we need to
look at how we're calculating traffic in relation to densities and
relation to size of roads and things, that's certainly something we
should talk about. But, you know, we have to look at these
applications in terms of the rules as they are today. And as far as
I've heard from staff, the applicant has met the traffic requirements,
the environmental requirements, and everything else that they have to
meet for this to be consistent with our Land Development Code.
And unless I hear otherwise from Trinity or somebody, I'm just going
to make that statement.
You know, again -- and I think Commissioner LoCastro and
Commissioner McDaniel have pointed out that the alternate scenario
of another landowner coming in and doing this as a stand -alone
project, it's one of these situations where you've got to be careful
January 26, 2021
Page 115
what you wish for, because it would be worse, I think, for the area,
right? More traffic onto Bayshore, because it would all be on
Bayshore.
And I'm not against having discussions about how we deal with
density and traffic issues and roads and things. We should probably
have those discussions on an ongoing basis because things change,
and technology's changing and automated cars and all that. But I
think we need to focus on what are the requirements that they need to
meet now, and we'd have to judge it based upon that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But the decision to approve this is
based on the 1 to, what, 2,025 -- the denial or to approve it is not
based on what may happen on this piece of property in the future, the
threat of the future, which is always a very effective technique by
applicants' attorneys when they try to get something passed. What
we have to do is look.
And if you can tell me that a thousand additional cars going by
someone's front driveway -- and you saw on that map there is a front
driveway. There's a front driveway. There's three areas where
there's front driveways, and probably more by the time this is built
out -- is not going to negatively affect their property values, I would
invite you to live on that street. Buy now and live there.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I lived at the intersection of
East Avenue and Ridge Drive in Pine Ridge. I would suspect that
there is more than that that went by my house every day. And I
understand what traffic is, because I've lived there, and the bus stop
was in my driveway. So I fully understand what a lot of traffic is
coming and going.
Again, I just -- I mean, we have to -- and, right, we shouldn't
approve something based upon a what if, but we have to look at the
alternative, because the decision is really what's the best thing we can
do for the community as well now. And, you know --
January 26, 2021
Page 116
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Which community?
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: The overall community. And it
seems to me that making sure that this property is part of the existing
PUD with those requirements and everything that the developer is
going to commit to do, I think the alternative is not in the best interest
of the community.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I was going to just add
that -- no, go ahead. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, just -- I acquiesced to
Commissioner Solis to go first on the -- because I saw him down
there beating his button with regard to the potential legal issue.
But -- and I agree with you, Commissioner Taylor, that there should
be a different path for us to travel to actually look at the aggregate
impacts with the available infrastructure. You know, we have other
projects that are coming at us on a regular basis, and we have to
have -- at some stage we need to review the criterion that's set forth
for the infrastructure to support the community that's here. That's
why we have a GMP. And the GMP relegates the community to do
these things. But I concur with my colleagues -- again, we're not
living in fear, but the vestiture of this site, the potential of the impacts
from what will come from this site to be developed outside of the
Isles is a greater concern to me than what's being proposed here, and
I'm in support of the motion and second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: No. I was just going to add
what was part of my decision, too, is something that Ms. Scott said,
that we will continue to monitor Bayshore, and I actually think, you
know, if certain things we are seriously concerned about, which all
have merit here, are warranted, then an acceleration of some
improvements to Bayshore that may be long overdue, especially with
January 26, 2021
Page 117
all that's been added to it, might be accelerated. So a bypro duct of
this might be that the priority into Bayshore gets prioritized even
higher. And so it's to all of our -- it's all of our responsibility to keep
an eye on Bayshore and make sure that whatever decision is made
here, if it's a positive one for this, that we don't just sort of then forget
about it.
And in the end the positive results could be much better traffic
flow on Bayshore, much better for the businesses. We want it to be
safe for the people that live there, but that's part of my rationale as
well.
So, I think there's going to be multi things that happen after this
if this is passed.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. I think we have a
motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed?
Aye. Passes 4-1.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And one thing, when we do -- I'd like
to see if we couldn't workshop this concept of the t raffic and quality
of life, but I also would like to see if -- in that time period if we
couldn't review the last 10 years of approvals of land use. Now, that
should be pretty darned easy. I know your eyes get big, but
remember what happened in 2008, and see how many times we as a
board -- and I'm not talk -- I'm talking about the pejorative "we" not
the personal "we" -- have approved increase of density. I'd like that
ratio, please.
Are we okay with that?
January 26, 2021
Page 118
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm ready for lunch.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you. Let's be nice to
ourselves, 2:00.
(A luncheon recess was had from 12:50 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, we have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2021-22: APPOINTING PATRICIA SHERRY
(DISTRICT 1); REAPPOINTING STEPHEN OSBORNE
(DISTRICT 2); REAPPOINTING RONALD KEZESKE (DISTRICT
3); REAPPOINTING JUSTIN LAND (DISTRICT 4); APPOINTING
MIKE PETSCHER (DISTRICT 5); APPOINTING JENNA
BUZZACCO-FOERSTER AND JAMES DELONEY AS
ALTERNATES TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX CITIZEN
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: We're moving on to Item 10A. This is a
recommendation to appoint five regular members and two alternate
members to the Infrastructure Surtax Citizen Oversight Committee.
Commissioners, you have the list of candidates in your executive
summary. As we've indicated by the asterisk in the applicant
column, we have four reapplying members, and they're
from -- representing various districts. So we need to get at least one
member from each district and then two at-large appointments.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah. Well, I'd start the ball
rolling. I'd like nominate Mr. Petscher from District 5 as one of the
members. I'm trying to get to the agenda item. That's the right one.
January 26, 2021
Page 119
MR. OCHS: 10A, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: 10A.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I think he's the only applicant
from District 5, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He is.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'm --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to reappoint, if it's in
agreement with everyone, two candidates from my district, but both
candidates, if you read their resumés, are just -- they're just exactly
the education and background we need on this committee. So it
would be Mr. DeLony and Mr. Land. That's three.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to just take the
nominations all in one, Madam Chair, and then vote if there isn't any
argument?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. You said
DeLony and Land?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And they're recommended
for reappointment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I'll add Ron Kezeske
just to get three.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Good.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I'd like to nominate Patricia
Sherry.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, very good. Yep.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. And there's one more,
Stephen Osborne from District 2.
January 26, 2021
Page 120
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I'll make a motion that
those nominations be the -- we need five, correct?
MR. OCHS: You need seven altogether. You have six right
now that I've circled based on your nominations.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'd like to nominate Carolyn
Ridgeway. She'll bring a perspective to this committee.
She's -- she is the daughter of Tony Ridgeway and Ridgeway's Bar
and Grill, the Third Street restaurant. But I think the City of Naples
has always been very concerned about this tax issue, the surtax, and I
think she would -- she would add a perspective that I think would be
helpful to this committee.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Do we have -- do we have
one from District 1?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: We have one, Patricia Sherry.
I was going to nominate Jenna Foerster if we still needed somebody.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: The only reason I ask is that
would be three from District 4.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah, that's a lot, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Candidly, I'm inclined to
go -- not with any disrespect to your third nomination --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- but, you know, Jenna is a
staffer with the Chamber of Commerce.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and quite versed in our
community as far as how we're doing and what we're doing. So with
no disrespect --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, not at all.
January 26, 2021
Page 121
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- I think Jenna would be a
fine choice. So I'll make a motion that those seven appointees be the
new members.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got five regular and two alternates.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which ones are the two alternates?
MR. OCHS: I believe Mr. DeLony is down for alternate, or at
least he is currently an alternate. One of those --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're all district or alternate, every
one of them, according to what I'm reading in my -- on my executive
summary, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: As I understood it, it's -- so Patricia
Sherry would be District 1; Stephen Osborne, District 2; Ron
Kezeske, 3; Justin Land for 4, and then the two alternates are --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Petscher for 5.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And Petscher for 5, sorry, and then
the alternates would be Jenna and DeLony; is that right?
MR. OCHS: That's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think that sounds right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Are we -- that's it? Okay.
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.
January 26, 2021
Page 122
Item #10B
REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR REGARDING ITEM
#11C FROM THE JANUARY 12, 2021 BCC MEETING TITLED:
RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH 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 TO BRING BACK FOR AN
EVIDENTIARY HEARING AT THE FEBRUARY 9, 2021 BCC
MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10B is a reconsideration request by
Commissioner Taylor in reference to Item 11C from the
January 12th, 2021, board agenda. This item was titled a
recommendation to establish a Board policy position regarding a
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.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you very much. Again, this is
just a request for a reconsideration.
In conversation, which I've had several over the past three weeks
with Senator Passidomo, who we all know was homebound because
of COVID, in these conversations with her, I just, as an aside, said,
you know, I understand that the Big Cypress Basin issue is going to
go forward and I -- you know, I'm sorry that we didn't get an
opportunity to talk.
And I know it's a fait accompli because there's a bill and there's
a sponsor. And her immediate response is, no, you need to take a
January 26, 2021
Page 123
position. You need to have a full hearing. You need to have the
presentation from South Florida Water Management about the
expansion of the boundaries. And then in talking to staff, I
realized -- you know, and that's not a criticism of staff or anyone.
Last year was a year that would go down in the history books. We
were -- we didn't have meetings for what, two months or something
like that, and then it was catch-up time, and that's not k-e-t-c-h-e-p.
What I realized is we were supposed to have meetings with the
municipalities. We were supposed to have workshops. We were
supposed to talk to the stakeholders in an informal fashion to
understand it to bring it out more into the light of day.
And then I realized that during this COVID time, this request by
Representative Rodriguez was put forward to the legislature. In fact,
they passed it in March of 2020 which was right at the beginning of
COVID, and now we've got a bill.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I just would appreciate your
indulgence. I think this deserves a hearing. I think we need to hear
from our staff, also from our people, our taxpayers in this county, and
to also hear from South Florida Water Management. That
presentation to the basin board was -- that was presented to one
person. And I suggested that perhaps the three appointees who have
not yet been confirmed by the legislature may want to see this also.
So that's what I'm requesting. And I think given the fact that a
lot of this material is available, I can't imagine this is not -- we
couldn't -- we could hear it at our next meeting. So that's where I'm
going with this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want to make that as
a motion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I second it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Commissioner McDaniel.
January 26, 2021
Page 124
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're not debating the plus
or minus of the change.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're just asking,
procedurally -- and do you want to explain it, or do you want me to?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is you want to have
another hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She wants to reconsider her
vote. And that's all we're doing right now is reconsidering her vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is a little bit different because
she's asking for a new hearing. If three of you want a new hearing --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, we're not asking for a
new hearing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. Well --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It inevitably --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to do this technical, and that's
your prerogative, we would have to come back at the next meeting
will a full agenda item as to whether or not --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That is correct, and that's
what we're --
MR. KLATZKOW: Whether or not we want -- yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And my understanding is is
we're voting on her to reconsider the item, and that would then allow
for a full public hearing at the next meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's it.
Okay. All right. Commissioner Solis, it's your district.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So I just want to -- well,
it's the whole county, but at the last meeting we voted on taking a
January 26, 2021
Page 125
position of we're not really -- I mean, we're okay in general with the
concept but we have concerns about the way it's drawn up right now.
And so we can't support it without some further clarifications.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So, I mean, I'm not going to
change my opinion on that. I think it's -- I think there's issues with
it, and there needs to be some clarification. And I had a
conversation with Senator Passidomo as well, and my understanding
was she just -- she wants a -- she wants a clear -- a clear position so
that she understands what the area that, you know, she represents
wants. So, I mean, having another hearing -- and I'm also concerned
about the timing, because I know the committee meetings are going
on, right, Mr. Mullen?
MR. MULLEN: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: What are we going to rehear? Are
we going to rehear the decision that we voted last time, or are we
going to -- to reconsider what our position's going to be, or what are
we doing?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I don't know. I think this needs to
have a full hearing. I think we need to look at the -- get a
presentation about the scientific expansion -- scientifically based
expansion of the boundaries, why, understanding what's going to
happen to Monroe, what's going to -- how much of Lee County is this
incorporating, all those things that go into understanding what exactly
the bill says and how far and what needs -- what our position needs to
be.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I know Commissioner
Saunders had something to say, but let me just say this, is that I think
the problem we have, it's sort of the chicken-and-the-egg problem,
because the bill says what it says, and it's ambiguous in what it's
ambiguous in, and I think the answers to those questions are why
January 26, 2021
Page 126
we're taking the position -- we need that to be fleshed out.
I don't think we're going to flesh out those answers in the basin,
because it's not really the basin making this -- presenting this bill.
You see what I mean? I think it's a chicken -and-the-egg problem.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I think that needs to be -- what
I'm understanding at least -- because I've gotten some feedback from
some of the public after that. They thought that we didn't do
anything. What exactly did you decide? And I think we need to be
maybe a little sharper in what we do. But I think -- I think we
deserve a full hearing on it.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor, I've
got my light lit.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I was --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's okay.
I don't think there's anything inconsistent with scheduling a hearing
on this basin issue. We took a position that we're not opposed to the
potential expansion, but we have a -- we had a concern with
governance and a couple other issues. So we weren't taking a
position that we support the bill. We took a position that we
don't -- we're not in opposition to the concept of expanding the
boundary, but we had problems. And you were directed to meet
with representative -- Senator Rodriguez to talk about those two or
three issues that we had. That's still on the table.
I suggest that we have a hearing, like you wanted, at our next
meeting, wherever you can schedule it. At that point in time, our
position may change. But until then, I think we're good to go in
terms of just having a hearing. I don't think we need to reconsider
anything. Just have a hearing at the next meeting. If we decide,
well, that position was wrong, we should be opposed to it, then we
can change our position at that point.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay, so this is -- this is a legal point
January 26, 2021
Page 127
of view. And I'm not arguing with you, but I thought that when we
discuss an item that we, in theory, have voted on and put aside that it
has to be considered a reconsideration; that that's why you --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: This is a little different. I
mean, this is -- we wrote a letter saying that we had discussed this
and we had no particular opposition to the expansion, but we had
problems with it in terms of the language, and you were directed to
kind of work on that.
Going forward with another meeting, the first meeting in
February, for example, to have the Big Cypress Basin people tell us
why this is a good idea or a bad idea, at that point in time, we can
then have another vote as to whether we want to change our position.
This is not like, you know, a rezone or something like that where you
have to go through some formal procedure to reconsider something.
This was just simply a letter expressing our position. We can change
our position right now if you want, or we can have that hearing.
I would suggest we just have the hearing, and then we can
decide whether we want to support the legislation or do a different
letter in opposition. But I don't think we have to go through a formal
reconsideration to change our mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Unless she's interest -- unless
she's learned something she wants to bring forward that's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- inducing her to change her
mind.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, if we bring in new information, it
doesn't matter. This is a full hearing. That's what was requested.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No more than that. All right.
So do you want to make the motion?
January 26, 2021
Page 128
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll make a motion that we
have an evidentiary type of a hearing just to hear what the pros and
cons are of expansion of the Big Cypress Basin at our next meeting,
if that's what you're looking for.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I'll
second it. Any more comments? Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries 4-1.
Item #10C
AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY ARTS &
CULTURE STRATEGIC PLAN AND APPROVE ONE FULL
TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) POSITION TO MANAGE THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN - MOTION TO CONTINUE
TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING FOR A FULL HEARING –
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10C is a recommendation to approve
amendments to the Collier County Arts and Cultural Strategic Plan
and approve one full-time equivalent position to manage the
implementation of the plan. This item was brought forward by
Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Someone mentioned that given all of
January 26, 2021
Page 129
this one after the other, you might get a little tired of me. So forgive
me. I don't mean to dominate this meeting.
When we made the decision in October, when we all made that
decision, to take a break and go back and look and examine what
we're doing in terms of implementation of a strategic arts plan in
Collier County, the next morning I called our County Manager and I
said, you know, I can call up whomever and interview whomever.
But I really would like a staff person at my side because I -- you
know, it's always good to have two folks listening and also, I thought,
staff is going to need to come to their conclusions, and so that's what
we did.
And it was Mr. Callahan, and we worked through the beginning
of December and then came together, and the recommendation is as
before you.
The recommendation would be to bring the management of t he
Strategic Arts Plan into the county, that it would be a staff person,
and that the implementation -- it would be an advantage because
understanding that the TDC, CVB, even zoning, you know, there's a
lot of things at your fingertips when you work within the system.
And it was clear given the size of our community that there
is -- there's probably -- we would be very, very hard-pressed to find a
neutral convener in our community, an arts entity that doesn't derive
its income from the people that they represent or would hope to
represent.
So that is my recommendation, and I believe it's the staff's
recommendation, and I look for your support.
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I have a question. First, I
really commend Commissioner Taylor for really being a champion of
the arts. I think everybody up here supports the arts. But before I
was a commissioner, I was invited by her to several different things
January 26, 2021
Page 130
where she was really taking the lead on a lot of things for, you know,
not just her district but the whole county, and, you know, I look
forward to working with you, you know, more closely on these great
initiatives, whether it's Bayshore, other parts of Collier County.
I think some of this discussion probably predates me, so the
question I have is: A constituent in my district, who also cares as
much about the arts as we do, sent me this question, and I really
didn't know how to answer it, because I don't think I have the depth
and the history. But they said that if this was passed, they felt it
would, and I'm just quoting, it cuts out the United Arts Council.
And, you know, I don't have the history on if that makes sense to you,
if that -- if it does that, and I just got that email recently, like today.
So I thought maybe you can enlighten me so I can --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: The United Arts Council initially,
with the creation of the Strategic Arts Plan, they were considered an
implementer of the plan, and it wasn't until the contract came before
us that several meetings, more than 10 meetings, were held with
myself and the United Arts Council and representatives of -- where it
was very clear that -- the concept of changing their business model so
they become the true umbrella organization, which the state
designation gives them as an umbrella organization. To do that, to
change their business model so that they didn't make money, derive
income from and compete with the people they're going to represent,
was just not on the table. I even had the consultants intercede in it,
and they were rebuffed. So there was no choice after that.
And afterwards I did speak with the board members of the
United Arts Council, and two board members interviewed me, and
then we talked about it at that time. So that's -- unfortunately or
fortunately, that's the way it is. And it's clear from the folks that we
talked to over these past couple of months that when you embark on
something like this, you don't change it midstream. You've got to
January 26, 2021
Page 131
figure out is it in-house or is it out of the house, and you stick to it.
The only exception is Tampa right now because they're going back
in-house, but that's after, what, 20 years?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So the United Arts Council, I
mean, they still have a role, but it's just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, yes. Oh, yes, they have a role.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They sort of were implying
that, you know, they were fully cut out. And maybe I was reading
too much into a short email I got. But, okay. Thank you for that
clarification.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome, Commissioner
Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Just -- and I've gotten a couple of
emails as well that -- just suggestions that maybe we would want
to -- if there's going to be an advisory board -- and I was looking at
the revisions, and thanks for doing that. If there's going to be some
kind of an advisory board, that maybe we should look to the advisory
board that worked on the strategic plan, since they were so intimately
involved with all that. I think taking it in-house and maybe
having -- and I thought that the idea was that this FTE would be kind
of stationed, or whatever we want to call it, with the TDC and CVB.
Because that makes a lot of sense since there's such a shift in the
marketing plan for the county --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- in terms of incorporating more
of the arts and cultural in terms of marketing.
But, yeah, maybe we could lean on the Arts Advisory Board
folks that were involved in the strategic plan for setting that up.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What I'm understanding and
what -- it's funny, staff and I talked about the advisory board, because
when I read the revisions within the actual strategic plan, where's the
January 26, 2021
Page 132
advisory board? You know, we went back and forth.
And it was suggested -- and I think -- and I'll give that to my
colleagues here -- that once we hire the art staff person, that they
become involved in deciding who's on that advisory board because,
ideally, we're going to be hiring somebody who's got experience or at
least has the sources by which they can go and learn from successful
art organizations, and in Florida.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So that's -- the composition of that
board, we'll handle that later?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: That makes sense.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, if that's -- okay.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've already spoke quite some
time ago about the arts and things. I think that maybe this is
premature. This is more of a budgetary issue with the hiring of a
full-time employee, what the ultimate ramifications and exposure for
our government are, and prioritization. I'm certainly not in favor of
going out and spending money and doing a study and having it sit on,
as I used to say, Mike Bosi's shelf like they used to do. Of course,
Mike's no longer with us.
But I think I could be in support of this, but I think this should
move through the budget initiatives and come in to the Board from
a -- from a financial standpoint as opposed to how it's currently being
proposed. And so I'm not in support of -- to me, it ultimately boils
right down to prioritization of the expenditure of our taxpayers'
money. And there's an enormous amount of benefit that comes to
our community by supporting the arts, but how do we get there from
here is the question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Saunders.
January 26, 2021
Page 133
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And I had a similar concern.
Would this be funded through the Tourist Development Council?
Would that be a legitimate TDC expense, and that's just a question
for -- I guess, for the County Attorney, because that's one way of
funding this that has less of an impact on our ad valorem budget.
MR. KLATZKOW: You could do it that way.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: All right. So it may be
worthwhile exploring how this would be funded, put more
information together as to what the role would be, what this person
would be doing. Then over the -- as we get into our budgeting,
which we're going to be doing probably in the next month or two --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Next month.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- this would be a good
discussion, but I would need to know what this person is going to do.
We -- through this pandemic and the downturn in the economy, we've
hired a few people, and we're probably one of the few governments
that have actually expanded in terms of employment. And I've
always been a little nervous about that, because we don't know what
the future really holds. Things look very good, but we're still at a bit
of a precarious position. And so I want to be careful. And having
more information about what this person will do, I think, would be
helpful during the budget process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And I say this with a great deal of
respect, the strategic plan outlines what they're going to do, but it also
outlines the steps what's at the beginning. But I find it fascinating.
I think it's a very good and wise decision to understand how we're
going to fund it to really weigh it and to become more familiar with
this position so we can justify where we take the money from, so I
would agree to that.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I think that's a good point,
because the way it was to be funded before, 25 percent of it was
January 26, 2021
Page 134
coming from, was it General Funds, and then the other portion was
coming from the CRA --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: -- funds?
MR. OCHS: The CRA has their own public arts plan that needs
implementation, and this position would do that as part of the
function of this job.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So maybe we could do a
memo accordingly, because when are we talking about budget
priorities? The second --
MR. OCHS: Well, the budget policy discussion will be in late
February or no later than the first meeting in March, but you
don't -- as a board you don't actually review budgets until June, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, we have a direct input
on the budget initiatives that you bring to us.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're part of that and --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We have to work that out.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- and be a portion of the
conversation.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's work that in.
MR. OCHS: That's fine. We'll make sure we do that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So do I hear a
motion -- oh, wait. We have public comment.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry for the lack of
specificity, but I have some people registered online, but I have also
have slips for them here. It's either five or six.
Your first speaker is Mike Rogan, and he will be followed by
Matt Riley. And Matt Riley has time ceded to him, but then after
Matt, well, will be Laura Burns.
January 26, 2021
Page 135
MR. RILEY: They were here earlier but had to leave because
of the time.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Is Michael Rogan here?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. MILLER: Matt Riley, is that you? Okay. Matt, you
were ceded time from Alison [sic] Haney. Is she here?
MR. RILEY: Laura Burns is supposed to be calling in. They
were here previously.
MR. MILLER: Okay. I think I have Laura Burns online. We
don't normally cede time from people online to people here, so I'm
just going to ask Ms. Burns to speak. Would you come up, sir,
please.
MR. RILEY: Yep.
MR. MILLER: Is Jennifer O'Dell here?
MR. RILEY: Not anymore.
MR. MILLER: Okay. So this is Matt Riley. He'll have three
minutes. And then I think we have Laura Burns online.
MR. RILEY: I should have also some time ceded from another
in-house. Karen? No. Okay. I guess I'll be quick. My name's
Matt Riley.
MR. OCHS: Microphone.
MR. RILEY: Thank you for your time today. My name is
Matt Riley. Since I only have three, I'm here --
MS. BEATTY: Mine, too.
MR. RILEY: That's what I'm trying to find out.
MR. MILLER: Is your name Karen Beatty?
MS. BEATTY: Uh-huh.
MR. MILLER: Okay. I'm sorry. Yes.
MR. RILEY: Okay, good. I'll go less than micro machine
man speed.
MR. MILLER: Six minutes, sir. I'm sorry.
January 26, 2021
Page 136
MR. RILEY: So thank you for your time today. To skip
through some of the things, I'm a Naples Neapolitan local business
owner, second generation business/family member, and I'm also a
board member and past president of the United Arts Council. So I'm
very familiar with the conversation we've been having. And I'd like
to clarify a few things and also just read a few comments and then
ask some questions.
UAC is our state-designated local arts agency for Collier
County. I'd like to begin by reading the definition of a local arts
agency to help everyone understand the purpose. Americans for the
Arts, the national non-profit organization whose primary focus is
advancing the arts in the U.S., defines an LAA as a community
organization or local government agency that supports cultural
organizations, provides services to artists and arts organizations,
and/or presents art programming to the public.
The Department of State and Division of Cultural Affairs
definition of an LAA is to provide services, support, and programs
for arts organizations, artists, and their local communities.
By any definition, the United Arts Council is acting as LAA as it
is designated by the State of Florida and Americans for the Arts, and
the UAC staff and board are extremely aware of its responsibilities to
the community and very sensitive and careful to always operate
within the requirements and restriction of an LAA.
Now, I'd like to quickly look back at a timeline to remind our
community members and commissioners how we got here. As
Commissioner Taylor stated, it's been a long time coming. In 2016
UAC presented the economic impact study, AEP5, which basically
said that we create -- the arts creates 3,000 jobs and $11 million a
year in state and local revenue.
Since then, UAC has -- we invested over 30,000 in staff time
and $18,000 in fees just for that study supported by the Community
January 26, 2021
Page 137
Foundation of Southwest Florida, Collier County, who granted us
$32,000 in general, none of which came from Collier County
Government, excuse me, and yet we're using that as the basis for our
strategic plan.
In early 2018, Commissioner Taylor met UAC's executive
director, Laura Burns, at her home to discuss the strategic plan.
After this discussion and subsequent discussions with other arts
organizations, Commissioner Taylor has championed that RFP
process for an arts and cultural plan.
Through this process and guidance from the UAC, in partnership
with the county, TDC dollars, and funding from Artis Naples and the
Community Foundation, the county hired an arts and cultural
strategic planning professionals to develop the countywide plan.
As a continued commitment to the process, acknowledging the
nearly $150,000 of invested staff time and resources that the United
Arts Council has made to assist, liaise, and guide the county through
this process and to the partnership going forward, the BCC
unanimously passed the strategic plan in March of 2020. That plan
clearly outlines the mandate for a contract for services to
develop -- to be developed with the United Arts Council. That
process alone cost UAC over 10,000 in consulting fees in addition to
the coordination with the County Manager's executive staff.
So we ask you today, why is the BCC being asked to change the
vision and investment of the long-term collaborative effort between
Collier County Government, the UAC, and the community now?
From June 2018 through March 2020, UAC made significant
financial contributions through staff time and resources at Collier
County Government's request to assist in developing the Arts and
Cultural Strategic Plan. Collier County's total contribution to UAC
for this effort since 2018 is a whopping $1,600.
Clearly, Collier County officials and United Arts Council were
January 26, 2021
Page 138
investing time and resources with vision and partnership and
long-term plan and excited expectation of moving forward.
In September, United Arts Council, all of a sudden a timeline in
public record will show that there was a significant departure from
the momentum we had in September of 2020. September 2020,
United Arts Council applied for a permit for the Uptown Art Fair
after overwhelming requests by local artists who have been
devastated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the desire from the
Naples design district to host such an event to bring traffic to the
area. The Uptown Art Fair was also a fundraising opportunity for
UAC who, like many businesses and non-profit organizations, has
been hindered by the inability to host public events and fundraising
gatherings for nearly a year due to COVID-19.
Please note that the show happened last weekend. It was an
extreme success. Over 140 artists, over 6,000 people visited over
the two-day period. I went there both days, talked to many of the
artists who are also going to be showing in the 5th Avenue art fair
that's hosted by Naples Art Association.
At the time of requesting our permit, substantial lobbying from
Naples Art Association began, whose mission and programs UAC
completely supports, began for Commissioner Taylor who is very
involved or, obviously, educated about Naples Art Association as a
past board member. Energy was put in for her to lobby with the
BCC and the City of Naples on behalf of them to -- for their benefit
and not for the well-being of the community.
Later that month, Commissioner Taylor contacted UAC's
executive director, Laura Burns, requesting a withdrawal of the
permit for the Uptown Art Fair stating that it could threaten the
UAC's participation in the strategic and cultural plan -- arts and
strategic plan.
So all of a sudden -- oh, and despite the resistance, in
January 26, 2021
Page 139
October 2020, the City of Naples council members chose to move
forward with the Uptown Art Fair with additional scrutiny of the
permit application. During this time, it was discussed with
Commissioner Taylor, and county officials continued. In addition,
October 6th, the Bayshore CRA unanimously approved the public art
plan and put forth their recommendation to the BCC to award the
contract to UAC. At the October 2020 BCC meeting, the vote was
hoped to be taken for UAC to be granted a contract and then,
unfortunately, all hopes were lost when it took a surprising turn, and
the vote was suspended.
In summary, after three years of significant effort and over
$150,000 in time to assist the arts and cultural survey and the plan,
UAC would like to open the conversation to discuss why all of a
sudden UAC seems to be completely cut out and state that as an LAA
we have operated well within the UAC's means of a local arts agency
by providing opportunities for local artists, including fundraising
opportunities that have been done for the past 40 years. Why all of a
sudden in September does it seem that it went off the rails?
So, micro machine mode, got it in six minutes. I think I'm done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. One of the issues
that Commissioner Taylor raised in the introduction of this was the
potential of a conflict with the United Arts Council because of the
ability of the council to derive revenue from arts events. I'm not sure
what that conflict would be or how much of that conflict there is, but
is that something you could elaborate on as to where you derive your
revenue and what types of presentations or programs may be in
conflict? If you could --
MR. RILEY: Well, our question would be, what's in conflict?
I completely understand the question, and it's a very valid and worthy
conversation. But for 40 years we've been existing with a multitude
January 26, 2021
Page 140
of means for fundraising including public gatherings, hosting poetry
readings, art affairs, galas, and anything -- anything related to art in
an -- which is an opportunity to support our mission as an LAA also
to provide arts education to at-risk youth and elderly in Collier
County for free.
This is not -- we are not -- we do not receive paid services for
the type of program that we're submitting for free. There's nothing
anywhere written, that we are privy to, that says as an LAA we can't
operate under both forms. So that's our question to the council is
what -- or to you-all is to -- what does actually represent a conflict of
interest? Because thus far we've done -- we've been really -- tried to
be a squeaky clean organization for well beyond since I was
involved, and we're having a hard time understanding that why all of
a sudden, if it's only a conflict of interest now, why did we get roped
into this plan, use our strengths to develop the plan, only for it to be
basically ripped out from underneath us? That's how we feel. And
I'm emotional because I'm passionate about it, and I've given a lot of
my time as a community member because I care, and then for it to be
non-explained and just yanked seems, at best, unfair and, at most,
punitive.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Riley?
MR. RILEY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You are not aware of a conversation
the cultural partners had with your executive director, and in that
conversation, way before September, they were told -- she was told
that they needed -- you needed to change your business model.
MR. RILEY: So you're saying the cultural planning group --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. RILEY: -- who was --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. RILEY: -- with us every step of the way was saying that
January 26, 2021
Page 141
you have to change your model?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes. And, in fact --
MR. RILEY: Is that a recommendation from them or just an
opinion?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And, in fact, when it was clear that
there was not a willingness on the part of the UAC to change their
business model in my several conversations with Laura Burns and her
consultant, who by the way, was the choice of the UAC to bring in,
not the county staff, I called Cultural Partners, because I knew they
had these conversations with Ms. Burns. And they offered to step in
and create a timeline by which you would change your business
model, and they were rebuffed. And I know that.
MR. RILEY: I would have to -- I think that -- that certainly
warrants further discussion, in my opinion as a board member,
whether I'm in the discussions or not. It doesn't matter to me, but I
don't think that's a matter of public record, the discussion. And I
would rely on -- my hope today, as one representative of the
community, is that the conversation can remain open. I also, as
Commissioner McDaniel speaks, I'm not a big fan of loading up
overhead for permanent -- for part-time projects for, you know,
permanent overhead, and I know that the UAC or whatever
organization can add a lot of the value to the strategic plan and seems
like it certainly is worthy of further conversation budgetarily before
we commit to a full-time staff member. Now, it may be warranted
that a full-time staff member makes a lot of sense, because,
Commissioner Taylor, this is a big plan for you, and you're wising
asking for a right hand in this, but I don't think it warrants cutting
out -- and maybe UAC is not going to be completely cut out, and
we're misinterpreting that. But I think we would request that the
conversation remain open.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Commissioner Taylor, I
January 26, 2021
Page 142
wasn't quite finished. I had asked that one question.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But I was going to turn to
you as well. There was an article in the paper this morning that we
probably all saw that -- certainly, I have not followed this issue as
closely as you have, but the article in the paper was a little bit
concerning, and that's why I wanted to raise the issue of what really
is a conflict.
What I'd like to see is what the United Arts Council is proposing
and how that might fit in with whether we hire someb ody or not. I
agree with Commissioner McDaniel that I think we just have to be
careful about expanding our staff, and so that was one of the reasons
why I suggested TDC funding and putting it off into the budget
process, but I think we need a hearing on t his as well as the Big
Cypress. I think we need more --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Touché.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- more information.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, what information do you want?
That -- I think it's unfortunate that the executive director didn't know
that I had a meeting in December with the Arts Council president,
Alyssa Haney, and the vice president, Dr. John Watson. It was
probably 40 minutes. It was a Zoom meeting.
MR. RILEY: She's aware.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But then why would she say what she
said in the paper, that she hasn't been called? I mean, that was --
MR. RILEY: Well, according to her, she hasn't been called.
Called -- the executive director has not been called. I haven't read an
article. I'm literally just hearing about this for the first time, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: My point is, I think I need to
have an opportunity for all the stakeholders to come in and forced to
have a discussion about how best to proceed. That will make it a
January 26, 2021
Page 143
whole lot easier for me to make a decision one way or the other.
That's my request.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Is that the --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, I would concur. I
mean, I like what I'm hearing there. And also, too, I would agree
with Commissioner McDaniel, that if we could have the -- if we did
move forward with the FTE, that it would be funded through the
TDC. It would be something I'd be more excited about than just
adding it, you know, to the county budget. So there's a couple of
unanswered things here that I think a hearing would be nefit from.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. We could talk about the
funding.
Commissioner Solis, you had your --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, and just for Mr. Riley's
information, I mean, I'll tell you what my concern was. And the
biggest concern was that when the contract came to us just a couple
of weeks before that, there was an apparent merger between CAPA
and the UAC, which none of us knew was happening, and that
combined with the structure of the agreement, which was the CRA
would be funding 75 percent of it, the office would be located in the
CRA, and all of this other focus on the CRA when this is a
countywide plan, to me, changed the deal as well, and I felt equally
like a rug had been pulled out from underneath me.
MR. RILEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So I just want you to understand
what my concern was.
MR. RILEY: I appreciate that position.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: So suddenly --
MR. RILEY: The office location. Because that really is
inconsequential to the execution of the plan, the office location.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, except that it's going to be
January 26, 2021
Page 144
funded by the area where the office was going to be --
MR. RILEY: Well, not for the --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: We can have a debate about this if
you'd like, but I'm just telling you what my concern was, because
that's what you wanted to know. That was my concern, and I still
have that concern.
MR. RILEY: To speak -- if I could speak to the CAPA
situation. I think it's a timing issue. I don't know if it's some thing
that needed to be broadcast to anybody, let alone -- what we're
doing -- CAPA dissolved, and through just board strategic
conversation, there were some board members that were passionate
about the arts, and they have a long history, but we're ready t o move
on. So they dissolved. And -- or whatever the legal term is. It
wasn't an official merger. We were able to bring on some board
members from CAPA who are very passionate. Now they're board
members of the United Arts Council. So it wasn't a lega l merger, so
to speak but --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I had no way of knowing --
MR. RILEY: It's a matter of semantics, right. And I think it
was -- if you said it was two weeks before that meeting, I could
understand why it would be surprising. Completely understand.
It's, like, something that would be open for the discussion, because I
envy all of you and your ability to have tough conversations -- I've
been sitting here all day listening to them, not for the first time -- and
actually make progress.
And candor is one of my -- all four companies' core values.
Curiosity goes along with it. And we ask, what am I missing, what
are you missing, and what are we all missing? And all we can ask
for is open communication from our part, your part. And some
things I'm not privy to, and I like to speak the truth, and our
January 26, 2021
Page 145
organization does as well.
So we're asking today that it stays open for communication, and
we would look forward to communicating with you, Commissioner
Taylor, further. If it doesn't go anywhere, at least we can say we
gave it our best shot. But I still think there's a possibility.
So I appreciate all of your time. Any further questions for me?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No.
MR. MILLER: All right.
MR. RILEY: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: I do believe we have Laura Burns online. Ms.
Burns, if you are there, you'll need to unmute yourself and then let
me know if you can hear me. Are you there, Ms. Burns? Let me
make sure -- I'm not getting any message from my Zoom people.
Ms. Burns, Laura Burns, are you with us online?
MR. RILEY: She won't be.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
MR. RILEY: She's at a Naples City Council -- or a public art
committee meeting. She was going to cede her time to me, but it
worked out, so --
MR. MILLER: Okay. Then I guess she's not there. Thank
you.
MR. RILEY: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is that it?
MR. MILLER: And that's all we have as far as registered
public comment.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And so when we have this hearing,
County Manager Ochs, I would like to know which staff members
urged the UAC to be involved in this, because the allegation is that
the county made the UAC do this. So I would like to --
MR. MILLER: Oh, excuse me, Ms. Taylor. I'm sorry. There
was a technical thing on my end. She is there. Hold on just a
January 26, 2021
Page 146
minute, if you don't mind, ma'am. I had a mute button that was not
unpressed. Ms. Burns, are you there?
MS. BURNS: I am here. Are you there?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. That was my
mistake. You have three minutes. Please begin.
MS. BURNS: Thank you very much for the time. And
originally my intention was to cede those minutes for Mr. Riley.
But I will clarify, we would be excited at the opportunity to
participate in a public hearing for this process and that in amongst the
conversations about the contract for services and any possible
changes, at no time was I asked or encouraged to make changes to the
business model of the United Arts Council through the consultants of
the cultural planning group. I just want to make sure that we all
understand the playing field here and the correct information.
So in the conversations with one commissioner, which was
Commissioner Taylor as the lead, there is clearly misunderstanding
or misinterpretation of the conversations independently. So it just
says to me that we should, in earnest moving forward, be able to have
it in a public forum with just making sure that we are all on the same
page and encourage the community involvement and engagement as
opposed to doing things that are behind closed doors.
And the whole point of negotiating a contract is actual
negotiation, not pulling it when we come up with a disagreement on
how the idiosyncrasies of it worked. We're always about
understanding and listening to what the issues are or could possibly
be, and of course we're here to be a partner with our community and
our county government as well as our city government.
And with that, I will say thank you very much for the time and
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Ms. Burns, just before you leave us,
the allegation by Mr. Riley is that the county made you -- get you
January 26, 2021
Page 147
involved with this Strategic Arts Plan. Who was the one that pushed
you into this?
MS. BURNS: We spoke with the executive leadership team in
both county management as well as the CRA. There is no one
individual. It is a -- it was a group approach in working together for
this plan, and then once the plan was approved in March of 2020,
there was a clear mandate to develop a contract for services --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's right.
MS. BURNS: -- which we embarked on in partnership -- well,
not in partnership. We hired a consultant to work directly with
senior leadership in the County Manager's Office to develop this
contract for services and to use the staff as the buffer so that no
ethical codes were broken in dealing with the commission in
negotiation with contracts.
My understanding is during that process we shouldn't be having
direct communications about negotiating contracts with
commissioners and, therefore, we went through staff as we were
instructed to do.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, ma'am. I'm talking about the
initial getting involved with this whole project. I know that --
MS. BURNS: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I know that -- but it -- Mr. Riley said
that a county staff member urged the UAC.
MS. BURNS: It was your -- yes, at the beginning of this
statement or answering your question, to be very clear, we were
approached by executive leadership out of county management's
office and also executive leadership of the CRA.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Because it's my
understanding from many of the people that were interviewed by
Cultural Planning Group, they felt very uncomfortable with you
being in the room with them when they were being interviewed.
January 26, 2021
Page 148
MS. BURNS: That would -- so there was the opportunity to
have interviews with me or without me, and many happened in both
situations, and I was elected to be the task force chair. And in
throughout all of these proposed amendments, my recollection is the
task force hasn't been given the opportunity to contribute collectively
for amendments and changes in moving forward when, in fact,
they've put so many hours into getting the plan where it is. But there
were absolute accommodations made so that the direct conversations
were not with me or the United Arts Council.
That would be highly inappropriate to say everyone said that we
are a neutral party and we are appropriate because they told us so.
We weren't asking that question in the United Arts Council of the
constituents.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think we'll end this conversation. I
think we've gone off to another area.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I just don't think that this is a
productive conversation. I mean, if we're going to -- if we're going
to revisit this, let's revisit this, but I'm beginning to be less inclined to
revisit it the longer this conversation goes on.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And please understand that I did have
a conversation with Ms. Burns on December the 16th regarding the
Strategic Arts Plan in a Zoom meeting. Thank you.
MS. BURNS: Oh, in the meeting with the Arts and
Recreational Leisure Group. That's true, we did have a conversation.
Thank you for that clarification, Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So I guess we can have a correction
in the Naples Daily News. Thank you.
So I guess we'll reschedule this for February? Oh, excuse me.
Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I've been down here quite
patiently waiting for you to look at your little screen.
January 26, 2021
Page 149
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We almost moved way from it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You almost skipped me.
You almost skipped me.
Two points. I'm going to make a motion that we continue this
until such time as you're prepared to bring it back for a full hearing
with regard to the budgetary constraints and the like, number one.
Number two, as a point of order, I would like for us to remember that
we were here today on your motion to hire an FTE, not go down a
rabbit hole of allegations of who said what when, where, and how.
When we start addressing the public in questioning wha t, in fact, is
said and done, we end -- I think we end up way off base. I mean,
Matt's welcome to his opinion's, whether they're right or wrong.
He's not here as a sworn witness, same as Ms. Laura. This isn't a
quasi-judicial hearing, and --
Now, all of these things, I think, near as I could tell, tremendous
lack of communication. Somewhere somebody's not talking to
somebody, and we're going to get to where we want to go. But I
just -- I would prefer if we could just stay on the items that we're
doing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yeah. I think, though, it's very
important when you start talking about the amount of money an
organization has spent in volunteer hours and you give that number in
public and say that the county made them do it, I think there's a
problem. But, anyway, we'll have a full hearing on this.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah, exactly. Right,
wrong, or indifferent, that's his prerogative. They can stand at that
podium and say the sky is purple.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm aware of that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So -- it doesn't mean it's true.
Bottom line is I'd make a motion for continuance.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'll second that.
January 26, 2021
Page 150
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously.
County Manager, we'll let you come back to us or schedule it
accordingly based on the information about where we get --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- this FTE paid from.
MR. OCHS: Happy to do it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #10D
PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING
THE COUNTY MANAGER RECRUITMENT PROCESS -
MOTION FOR EACH COMMISSIONER TO COMPILE A LIST
OF TOP 5 CANDIDATES AND GIVE THE LIST TO MS.
LYBERG BY FEBRUARY 1ST, MS. LYBERG TO BRING BACK
THE COMPILED LIST FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THE
FEBRUARY 9TH BCC MEETING – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10D is a recommendation to provide
additional staff direction regarding the County Manager recruitment
process. This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner
McDaniel. And I know that Ms. Leiberg, our Human Resources
January 26, 2021
Page 151
Director, is here to assist.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She's on her way to help me
muddle through this.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just answer a few
question -- well, I'll wait till you get to the podium. I'm sorry. How
you doing?
MS. LEIBERG: Good afternoon, Commissioner. I'm doing
well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Good, good, good.
And what date specifically was the application process ended?
MS. LEIBERG: We closed the application -- sorry. For the
record, Amy Leiberg, Human Resources Director.
We closed -- at the direction the Board gave at the last meeting,
we closed it at 4:30 p.m. on December 20th -- I'm sorry,
January 20th. December, I'm sorry. Losing track of months.
MR. OCHS: Last Wednesday.
MS. LEIBERG: Last Wednesday, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then coming through,
how many applicants/applications did we actually receive?
MS. LEIBERG: There were 35 resumés and backup
documentations that were submitted, 35 candidates, and those are
part of -- you got a summary of that information as a backup to the
agenda item for today.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I -- I'd
like -- and this is the first time we all get a chance to talk about t his,
but I'd like to have an open discussion about my colleagues' opinions
as to how we proceed. I have some thoughts that I can share if you
wish to hear them now or --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You first.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Me first? Okay.
January 26, 2021
Page 152
First off, I'd like to -- and I don't think we necessarily need to do
a motion, but there has been an entertainment of the hiring of a
recruiting firm for quite some time since our current County Manager
announced his departure in the end of May, and I don't think we need
to pursue that anymore. I am quite content with the list of -- I'm
going to call them applicants. That's people who have applied that
we can -- I can go through -- I've gone through these -- yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Maybe -- and just with due respect, I
would agree with you, and I saw Commissioner Saunders agreeing,
but we have two other commissioners up here to see if --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Do you want me to make a
motion on it, and just to start off the process, that we disengage or
discontinue the current conversation -- because we always want
to -- we always have the option. Somebody can actually come back
and -- you know, we may go through this list and decide that there
isn't anybody in there, and then we do --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- want go hire a recruiter.
But for now, from a motion standpoint, it's been motioned and voted
twice that we not hire a recruiter, and I would just -- and I saw
Commissioner Saunders shaking his head in a positive manner, so...
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. I don't think you
need to do a motion. We haven't hired anybody --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- a recruitment firm. Until
that changes, I don't think you need to --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And I think that -- I
just -- that's my statement. I just -- I don't think we need to belabor
that point any longer. And I'd like to have a discussion today about
the reduction of this -- of these 35 people to a smaller, more succinct
group. And my suggestion, if I were the only one hiring, and I'm
January 26, 2021
Page 153
not, but I would -- I would start off -- now, how many of the
applicants are current employees of Collier County?
MS. LEIBERG: We have five of the 35.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There are five applicants that
are currently employees of Collier County, and it would be my
suggestion that we start with that group and give direction to staff to
review applications and check references and make sure that what's
been represented, in fact, is correct and then come back on the first
meeting in February and have a discussion then with regard to how
we move through if we -- in all candor, we already know these
people. And that's why I've moved them to the top of the list.
They're Collier County residents. They're familia r with our
organization. They know the inner-workings and hidden
mechanisms and the like, and that's the reason that I'd suggest that we
prioritize the current applicants of the 35 to those five first.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: But I think references -- they work
here, so everything's checked out; is that correct?
MS. LEIBERG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, you have done those
already?
MS. LEIBERG: We would have done that at the time they
were hired, correct.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, okay. Well, but
this -- and I don't mean any disrespect and certainly nobody would
willingly not tell the truth, but the premise was that we limit the field
and then actually go through the resumés and things, so -- and I don't
care. I was just -- that's what I -- I had expected that we would give
direction to staff to review the applications and verify the references
and so ons and so forth, but if you've already got that done, then we
can --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: We can choose.
January 26, 2021
Page 154
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Go ahead of me.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: You sure?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, I mean, I think if we're going
to come up with a short list, we ought to come up with a short list. I
think -- what I think you're saying is that the short list should just be
the people that are working for the county now.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That's what I said.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. I'm not sure that that's -- I
think there are other people in the list. I mean, I think we should
come up with a short list based upon all that -- we spent the time
doing this (indicating), and I thought that staff was going to then rank
all of the applicants based upon some priorities that we gave, and
then we were going to come up with a short list. That was my
understanding of what the process was. But if we're not doing that
now, then I'd like to understand that. Is that not what we -- I thought
staff was going to come back and rank them in relation to these
priorities.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: That was a discussion that we
did, in fact, have, yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And thank you for filling it
out. I actually did mine as well, so -- and it was beneficial.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I do my homework every once in a
while. But, you know, I think it was a good exercise, and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, then, maybe that's a
path we travel. Have staff go through, compare those priorities that
we've all delineated, and give us a ranking, if you will, of the
applicants, and then we can review that at our first meeting in
January 26, 2021
Page 155
February and, necessarily, then go to the shorter list.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Short list, yeah. I mean, that's -- I
think that would be, from my perspective -- obviously, we're not
going to hire a recruiter to do a lot of this, but I'd feel comfortable
doing it that way.
I'll just say for me, in coming up with the criteria, I mean, I tried
to distinguish -- I mean, they're all -- all of these things were really
important, but I tried to distinguish between things that were really
important and then just important in terms of -- I think I was the only
one that had a low in the thing. So, I mean, I was just trying to kind
of give it some ranking.
But I think it was a good exercise; certainly it was for me. And
I think if we can then go through that process, we can come up with a
short list that would have taken into consideration all the applications
and what we worked on.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I think we do ourselves a
disservice if we just went to the five who were the -- who are the, you
know, current county employees and then just discount everyone, so I
agree with, you know, Commissioner Solis.
I was going to propose, but I also think it's a fine idea if you
think on the HR side you could, in some way -- you know, I hate to
say, like, rank order because then it makes it sound like you're vetting
the candidates, but if you use our criteria, I get that.
I was going to propose that the five that are on the list and that
maybe we look at the list and come up with our top 10 of the others
so we're sort of doing what we're asking you to do, and then you take
a look at our top 10 and see if there's five, sort of, that were on every
list. That might be more complicated than we need to do it. I think
we're going to get to the end result.
January 26, 2021
Page 156
So I concur that at least we give everybody a fair shot. The five
county employees, obviously, are people that we know, and you can
tell just by looking at them they're folks that we would highly value,
but I think bringing in at least five, or you know, however you rank
order, you know, your list -- well, we'll figure out where that cutoff
point is, and then, you know, we have a good mix, and we can't say
we just zeroed in on people that were in-house and we didn't give
anybody else a fair shake. We've got some superstar senior leaders
on our staff, right, that never worked a day in Collier County until
they got their top job, and some of them are some of our best leaders.
So I like what Commissioner Solis is proposing. I think it's a
good -- it's a good starting point. If you think, you know, you'd be
able to, you know, accomplish that and get us started on shortening
the list with a mixture of county employees and then the top five, six,
seven, three, whatever that number is, of others that are obvious
standouts based on what we rank ordered our priorities.
MS. LEIBERG: And I think, Commissioner, if I may, you have
a lot of similarities in the skills that you were looking for. There's a
lot of --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Agreement.
MS. LEIBERG: -- very -- there's not a lot of variation in the
skills. What I think that we would be challenged with is the
experience requirements. You had a lot of variation in the
experience. Some said -- have set number of years, five to 10, 15 to
20, 10 to 25, 20 to 25. So I think we would really need to have a
better understanding of what number you wish -- you know, what that
previous experience is so that we can appropriately apply that to the
information that we've been -- that we would need to be assessing.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I'm going to make another
suggestion just -- we're kind of thinking out loud, so this may sound a
January 26, 2021
Page 157
little stupid. But I don't think staff is really in a position to take a
look at our criteria and try to rank these in some form. We are,
though. And I can tell you, I've gone through all of these resumés,
and I can pick out four or five that I think are the tops. I think each
one of us could do the same thing.
So I would suggest that at our next meeting, the five of us come
up with our five names. Now, a lot of those are going to overlap,
and from that I think we can narrow this down to a smaller group.
But I think it would be more efficient for us to do this, because that's
where we're going to wind up anyway.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Well, that's what I was --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Now, I don't know if that
means we each pick one, we each pick five, but I think we can
narrow this list down much more efficiently than having staff ta ke a
look at the criteria, try to weight them in some way, and then come
back to us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There's diversity, and that's
exactly what I was going to say. That onus of putting that ranking
on our staff -- it's not onus. It was a procedural thing that we talked
about.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I've been saying that --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You reminded me of that,
and I had forgotten it.
But I like Commissioner Saunders' suggestion the best, actually.
I mean, because we all have -- there's diversity in our opinions as to
what qualifications ought to be there. And so I think we all should
pick five and then come back in our first meeting in February with
those five, and then just -- you kind of already know who mine are.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: But -- oh, so you're saying it
wouldn't be the five above and beyond the county folks? Because if
we say five and we all just come back with the five county people, I
January 26, 2021
Page 158
mean, that's a possibility. But I would hope that wouldn't be the
case.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Well, I would suggest that we
all pick five.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then we have that -- and
it's just -- again, we're -- you know, Commissioner Saunders, there's
no bad ideas here. I mean, we're all going through this, necessarily.
It's a very important job, and I think we ought to give due
consideration to everybody's opinions. Who knows better than
Commissioner Taylor what her priorities are? She's reviewed the
applications, and she can go through and pick five.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Let me make a suggestion,
though, then. I would like to say maybe more we stick with the
number of, like, eight, because I think all five of us are going to have
the five county people in here. Maybe not, but at least four, I would
say. But if we said eight, I think we'd be giving consideration to the
other people on the list and not, you know, dismissing them because
they're not county employees, and it would work a few other people
into the mix.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can I make a
suggestion -- forgive me. Do you want us to hit the light or -- I don't
mean to jump in --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I kind of wanted just to suggest
something.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, I just want to
make one comment with regard to what Commissioner LoCastro just
said. It's really important that everybody understand nobody's being
dismissed here. We're faced with an arduous task of picking a new
County Manager. And there's no dismissal, ever. We're going to
pick somebody, and from -- if we're picking winners and losers,
January 26, 2021
Page 159
there's going to be 34 people that lose. And so we have to be -- I
would like to not bring the dismissal process into our discussion at
all. I have an enormous amount of respect for everybody that went
through the time, energy, and effort to submit their applications ,
irrespective of where they're from. And so there is, in my opinion,
no dismissal absolutely whatsoever, so...
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So, Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Yeah. Just to
Mr. LoCastro's point. I'm certainly not going to put down on my list
five county employees. There may be one, there may be two, but
there are not going to be five. And so I think we probably all would
come to that same conclusion; that we can come up with five
names -- I think you start doing eight names, we're going to have an
unwieldy number of people that we're going to be choosing from.
Let's narrow it down to where we pick a discrete number, put it
on piece of paper, the five names, and then names that overlap
certainly would -- I mean, we may all come up with one name that
everybody picks out of the five, but -- so it's not a decision-making
process in terms of we're going to make a decision based on that, but
at least it gives us the ability to narrow this list down from 40 to
maybe it turns out to be 10 or 15, and then we can narrow it down
from there. So I would say let's stick with the five.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So if we stick with five and we bring
it in, and we may have seven, we may have eight, but we pick five,
and we've got our -- we've got it before us, and we would send it in to
Ms. Leiberg much before this meeting, the next meeting. So now
we've got a list of seven. What do we do? What do we do? Are
we going to decide on that meeting who the County Manager is?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: No, I think at that point we
may need to schedule those seven for interviews.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah.
January 26, 2021
Page 160
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But at least narrowed the list
down to an acceptable and reasonable number of people that we can
deal with.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So you've got -- are
these -- my experience with these interviews is that it is one -on-one
interviews.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Correct.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It is not before everyone. It is a very
intimate one-on-one with each commissioner where everyone
is -- feels relaxed enough to talk openly about what they want.
The only time that we ever did it where it was in front of
everyone was when maybe it was someone who wasn't known.
Now, this is something that I think we -- I think now's the time,
because we're getting down to the time where we're going to hire
someone, we need to be as clear as we possibly can about the process
from this point on.
So go ahead. Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Commissioner LoCastro -- or
maybe he dropped off. I like the idea of picking five. We all come
back -- and I don't know. The question, Commissioner Saunders, are
you thinking -- I thought I heard Commissioner Taylor say that she
wanted us to develop our list of five and get it to staff ahead of our
next meeting, is that correct --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- or do you want us to walk
in here, everybody hold up the sheet, and then go through it that way?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And that's fine. We -- you know,
when you put the five names on a piece of paper, you have to put
your name on it as well. These are not secret ballot or anything like
that.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: It's not a secret ballot, I
January 26, 2021
Page 161
understand.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: But, yeah, no problem. I
could --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You want to do it ahead of
our first meeting in February?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: So when we come in there,
then we can have a comparison, and staff can say, McDaniel picked
his five, and so on and so forth, and three of you picked --
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Right.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- this one.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That way we'll know who is
kind of leaning towards who and --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And then we could
have -- and then I'll be able to actually hear how we're feeling about
the candidates and so ons and so forth. If we end up with a
consensus of a -- and I agree with you and you, if we -- if we end up
a consensus of a candidate that we don't know and we actually need
to interview, that's a whole 'nother discussion --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's another discussion.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- point. But if we end up in
consensus with someone who we're all familiar with, maybe we don't
need to go through the interview process. We just start the ball.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: And, Madam Chair, I'll
make a motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I make a motion that each
commissioner put on a piece of paper five names, five candidates, not
necessarily -- I don't think we should rank them. Just five names.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
January 26, 2021
Page 162
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: -- on a piece of paper with
our name on it. Have it to the County Manager in advance of the
preparation of the final agenda for our next meeting so it's in the
published agenda, then have an agenda item, and then we can figure
out what to do with that information.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And then -- okay. So -- I'll second
that motion. And so we have a motion and a second. Can I -- any
more discussion? Only on this? Only on this process, part of it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So just for clarity, HR isn't
going to be then taking our five and then narrowing it down at all.
You're not going to say three of you all picked the same person, so
that's a finalist.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, no.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Four of you picked the same
person -- right? None of that, okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: And just for clarification, one
of the reasons why I came up with the eight is because when you
automatically said, oh, I already have my five, I was assuming you
meant that was automatically the five people who you knew from the
county, and I just thought that was sort of a premature answer. If
that's not what it meant, then I apologize.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You were premature.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I hope so. Okay. I would
concur with that motion.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: But you raised a good point. I
mean, if we each give the list of five, I think it would be helpful,
because otherwise we're going to do this on the fly, you know, what
name showed up on the most lists.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Some tabulation, but you just said
January 26, 2021
Page 163
that that's not what she was going to do.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're going to each have all
the lists, so it's not such a large number that we can't figure out who's
doing it.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. So we're going to
distribute the lists to each other. I thought we were giving it to staff.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: We're going to give it to the
Manager --
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And the only
correction -- maybe you misunderstood what he and I were talking
about. He incorrectly assumed that I meant my top five were the
county employees. Now, and I was -- all I was doing was making
that suggestion because there's familiarity there for all of us to go
through. But this process actually gets a little closer, Commissioner
Solis, to -- because, again, how we originally set up the process of
going through here and filling out what's priorities for you are
different from me and so on and so forth. So you're going to pick
your five and I'm going to pick my five, and so on, and then staff will
combine those --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Finalist list.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- with a list of here's who
got picked multiple times.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: So for simplicity, I mean, if
we all picked -- if there was one person we all picked, that person's
obviously going to be a finalist, right, automatically? And then if
there's a person that four of us picked and one of us didn't, maybe
there will be some discussion, and then we might say, you know
what, oh, yeah, I didn't pick that person, but they were my No. 6, but
you've added -- you know, that's -- right? It would be something like
January 26, 2021
Page 164
that?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, actually, no.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Because we're going to come
up with five names, and there may be multiple choices. We're not
going to be bound by any of that information. We may pick
somebody out of the 25 names that only got picked once. So it's not
like if you wind up on everybody's list four times that you're a finalist
or five times you're a finalist. We'll make that decision when we get
the list.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. Well, I would expect
they would be, but I hear your point, yeah. I got it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: So, gentlemen, so we've 15 names in
front of us --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thirty-five.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- then what? We've combined the
list. This is -- this is two weeks from now. We've got all these
names in front of us, then what do we do?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Then we decide how we're
going to pick out of those numbers that we've narrowed it down.
We're just taking it one step at a time.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll have a list of -- staff's
going to come back and say that one of the candidates was -- as
Commissioner LoCastro said, has been picked five times and so on
and so forth, and then we'll go through debate and discussion. I
would suspect, I think we should, at our next meeting have discussion
as to bringing a more concise list together, and then determining
whether or not we want to go into the interview process. I keep -- he
keeps leaning --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Can we agree that, perhaps, at the
next meeting we take that list, however long it is, combined and we
January 26, 2021
Page 165
reduce it to three?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Well, let's --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Three or five.
(Simultaneous crosstalk.)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I can almost guarantee you
out of the 35 names -- in the 25 names we're going to list, I bet there
aren't more than eight or 10 different names between all five of us.
We're going to have a fairly discrete list by the time we do this.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think at that next meeting, that
would be the most appropriate time to say, wow, looking at the list
that we have here, we really have six, four, five, you know, three that
it's obvious are, you know, zeroed in on. I don't think we -- we'll
know that, but I think we're going to get to what you just said at the
next meeting much easier.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And if the interview is
requisite, because of lack of familiarity with a particular candidate,
then we can move into that intimate interview process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That's part of it, yes.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Should we agree that that's
something that we want -- you know, a candidate comes through that
is shining, then we can move into that interview process.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is there agreement here that, perhaps,
we'll ask Ms. Leiberg -- you gave us the spreadsheet of our qualities
and all the questions you asked, you gave us the spreadsheet of our
answers, and you actually put it on one spreadsheet. Can you also
go one step further and just document what -- how many -- how
many commissioners agreed on education, how many agreed on
length of time, that kind of thing, rather than -- I mean, we can do it,
but it would be a lot easier if you could do it for me. You know
what I'm saying? So you just --
MS. LEIBERG: Yes, Commissioner.
January 26, 2021
Page 166
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Why are you wanting that?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Because I think it's important to
really -- to me, to see it capsulized of what this board is looking for.
I think that's important, not just what we're looking for, but what -- I
think we have -- I think Ms. Leiberg's right, there's a lot more
agreement than there's not.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I don't disagree that there's a
lot more agreement than there is not, but going through that step,
really, is almost determining a consensus of this board of what our
priorities are when they're all individually different --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: They're not.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: -- by going -- well, they
are -- intrinsically they're individually different. And so moving
through the process of actually selecting -- I mean, you can do it if
you want to. I just don't -- I don't understand the rationale.
My five picks are going to be my five picks, and yours are
yours, and we're going to end up at the same spot, and that just seems
like an extra step that we get to sit around and debate whether you
think education's more important and I think experience is more
important, and then we're really -- we're not in disagreement. It's
just different opinions.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It just gives us a snapshot of where
we stand as a board in terms of quality and what we're looking for.
That's all. A lot easier than reading column after column. It's just
more ease.
We have a motion --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you don't mind doing that.
We do have a motion.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: What's the motion that's on
the table?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I could just try to help our HR
January 26, 2021
Page 167
director here a little bit. If you want her to develop some kind of
a -- not a ranking, but if you want her to do what Commissioner
Taylor suggested, I would think you'd have to establish some
minimum level of experience, education, do you want only Florida
experience, because you've already, in your profiles, indicated -- let's
take experience, for example. One of you said five to 10, one of you
said 10 to 15, one said 20 or more.
So she's not going to be able to rank that for you unless you give
her at least a minimum and she can say, these applicants were above
the minimum, these were below; otherwise, just bring -- just list the
five names and you-all can figure out what you want to do from
there.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I've got enough information
right now to pick five. I mean, I have a lot of homework to do, but I
think we're making this too complicated. We've all hired people that
are executives. And I'm not saying that that suggestion wouldn't
make it slightly easier, give me more information. But I feel like
I've got enough at my fingertips. And I think, when we had our first
meeting, what we were looking for is how many people would apply.
We have over 30, so I think the reason we're moving forward without
the headhunter firm right now is because we have a large inventory.
We took a quick look. There's a lot of people on there that seems
like you could almost pick five, and with a deeper dive with what
you've given, I think, you know, if the motion on the floor is that we
push you our five people, I know I have -- I don't need you to do
anything else. In fact, I thank you for what you've done.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Solis.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let's just vote on the motion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: You promised to not talk
too --
January 26, 2021
Page 168
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I was just going to say, let's
vote on the motion and then, I agree with Commissioner LoCastro,
we don't really need a whole lot more information from our staff.
That's something that we can put together at our time, but let's go
ahead and call for the question on the motion, and then --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor and a
second. The motion is that we each develop the final five and we
give it to Ms. Leiberg before -- how about Monday?
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Just -- I think your agenda
goes to publishing --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Print on Wednesday.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. I'm going to need these, or Ms. Leiberg's
going to need these probably no later than noon on Wednesday,
February 3rd. That's the very latest, because we'll have to publish
the agenda that evening.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: By midnight that night. And
I don't mind that Monday. That gives them a few days to assimilate.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: That Monday, yeah.
MR. OCHS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Monday --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: February 1st.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: January the 30th?
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: February 1st.
MR. OCHS: February 1st is the Monday of that week. And it
will all be public record as soon as you produce it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And, again, just to reiterate,
it's not in any particular order. It's a list of five.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, no. Just the final five.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Alphabetical.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's a good idea.
January 26, 2021
Page 169
Let's -- that way we're not ranking them. Just do it alphabetically.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yep.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Listed alphabetically.
MR. OCHS: Last name, right?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: By the last name.
All right. So there's a motion on the floor and a second. Do
we all understand the motion?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. All those in favor, say
aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It carries unanimously. Thank you
very much, as we slog through this.
Item #11A
AWARD AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO INVITATION TO
BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7790, “CAXAMBAS PASS PARK
COMMUNITY CENTER,” TO FORT CONSTRUCTION GROUP
OF NAPLES, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,375,401, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND
APPROVE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS –
APPROVED
January 26, 2021
Page 170
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, we move to Item 11A. It was
a recommendation to award a contract for construction of the
Caxambas Pass Park community center to Fort Construction Group
of Naples, Incorporated, in the amount of $1,375,401 and authorize
the chair to sign the agreement and approve the necessary budget
amendments for the project. We had, I think, 13 or 14 responsive
bidders on this, and this company is the lowest responsive bidder.
We could --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want to -- yeah. I want to
make a motion for approval, and I want to thank --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, Commissioner McDaniel did.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: He can have it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. Do you want to second it?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. There's a motion on the
floor and a second.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, I have a registered public
speaker online.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. Mr. Greg Corning.
Mr. Corning, are you with us online, sir? You'll have to unmute.
MR. CORNING: Hello. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
MR. MILLER: Yes. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. CORNING: Yes. I was just -- we're the engineering
consultant. Just here to answer any questions if any were to come
up.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. CORNING: So thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Okay. So there's a motion on the
January 26, 2021
Page 171
floor for approval 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.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11B
AWARD AN AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO INVITATION TO
BID (“ITB”) NO. 20-7809-ST, NAPLES REGIONAL (CENTRAL)
LIBRARY REFURBISHMENT PROJECT, TO COSUGAS LLC, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,560,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR
TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: The next item is 11B. This is a recommendation
to award a contract for the library -- excuse me -- the Naples regional,
that's our Central library downtown in Naples, refurbishment project,
to Cosugas, LLC, in the amount of $1,560,000; authorize the
Chairman to sign the agreement. This is a surtax project that has
been vetted with your Surtax Project Committee. We're happy to
present or answer questions from the Board.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Come on. That's two in a
row.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Second. Oh, and
January 26, 2021
Page 172
Commissioner Solis beat me on the second. Dang it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. So there's a motion on the
floor and a second. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Those opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. McCORMICK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MR. OCHS: Thanks, John.
Item #11D
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (“ITB”) NO. 21-7834,
“FREEDOM PARK BYPASS DITCH PROJECT,” TO THOMAS
MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $1,450,960.39, AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO
SIGN THE AGREEMENT. (PROJECT NO. 60102) – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11D is a recommendation to award a contract for
the Freedom Park Bypass Ditch reconstruction to Thomas Marine
Construction for a total contract amount of $1,450,960.39 and
authorize the necessary budget amendments and for the Chair to sign
the agreement.
Ms. Patterson can present or respond to questions from the
Board.
January 26, 2021
Page 173
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Second.
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.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12A
APPOINT FOUR MEMBERS TO CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONTINUED
TO THE FEBRUARY 9TH BCC MEETING FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION – CONSENSUS
MR. OCHS: We move now to -- Item 12A under County
Attorney's report was previously Item 16K5 on your agenda moved
to the regular agenda at the request of Commissioner McDaniel.
And this is a recommendation to appoint four members to the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Yes. And it was I who
brought this forward. And I just -- you know, and I think yesterday,
January 26, 2021
Page 174
Jeffrey, when you and I were meeting, I forgot to ask about the
structure of this committee. Is there a requisite similar to most of
our advisory committees that one appointee come from each district,
and then I think there's seven total on this committee. Is there a
requisite that one from each commission district be appointed and
then two at large?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Okay. Well, in reading
through this, I -- you know, I would like to make a shift from what
the committee's recommended. And Ms. Sally Woliver, I know her,
an enormous amount of respect and knowledge of environmental
concerns and issues in property, and I'd like to suggest that she be
one of the appointees to this committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: What is the recommendation
here -- I'm just reading it -- of the --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: There was two --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: No, you go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: David Corban and Carl Kuehner
and Gary Bromley and Brittany Patterson-Weber.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
MR. OCHS: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I think David Corban would be a
great asset. He works all over the county. He's very familiar with
it. He's an accomplished architect and been here a long time. I'd
like to see his name stay here. Carl Kuehner, we all know who he is.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Right.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: He's been --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And there again, there's no
disrespect for these folks that are volunteering to serve on this
committee. It's just -- I like the structure that we have in a lot of our
January 26, 2021
Page 175
advisory committees with membership of seven of five appointees
and two at large. And I just was going through the district
representation, and there's no one from District 5, plus I like
Ms. Sally. I've got a very nice relationship with her all the way back
into the sea-level rise days.
So I'm -- I don't necessarily know how to -- how to pick
somebody else. I mean, there seems to be a lot of folks from District
4.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Gary Bromley's a reappointment,
right? Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: That's the only one in
District 3.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And there's only -- yeah, and
there is one in District 3, Bromley, and then there's --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: David Corban.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Three from District 1. And
I'm not familiar with these folks. I don't know if you are or n ot,
Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I mean, I'm very familiar
with one of them and not as familiar with the one that's highlighted.
So I was just -- I had looked at her application, and it's, you
know -- so I'm trying to -- I wish I had a little more detail as to why
these four -- you know, what -- what jumped out at the board.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's just a committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah. They didn't give any
summary as to -- they just --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: No, this is the committee --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, it's the committee
recommendation.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, it's just the committee
January 26, 2021
Page 176
recommendation. Once it gets pull ed to regular, it's your decision.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: They're asking us to confirm
their four recommendations. They've already vetted these
candidates, apparently, and all their applications are attached.
MR. KLATZKOW: In fairness, they have relationships with
each other, all your boards do. And typically your advisory boards
continually recommend each other themselves on these boards, and
it's fine. There's a history and there's -- there's camaraderie there.
But Commissioner McDaniel pulled the item for discussion and, you
know, all four seats are open.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: And that's the reason I pulled
it. Again, I have the utmost respect for everybody that's on the
committee and everybody that's applied. I just -- I see a vacancy
from District 5, and I have a very nice relationship with Ms. Sally,
so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Is there a timing issue that we have
to do this today?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll defer to County Manager. I don't
know when the CCLAC meets again.
MR. OCHS: It says here that there's four seats on the
committee that expire on February 11th. So you meet again on
February 9th. If you need more time, we can continue this to that
meeting, but I think we --
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'd be happy with that. If
you-all want to do a little more investigation, that's fine. My
oversimplified thought process was, you know, move one of the
applicants out and allow Sally in, but that means you've got to flip
your coin on who you're going to move out, so...
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I wouldn't mind giving it some
more thought.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I'll continue the item to our
January 26, 2021
Page 177
next meeting.
MR. OCHS: And we'll place it on regular agenda for the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Please. Please and thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Now, Madam Chair, I do have a registered
speaker. Would you like to hear him, or we're continuing the item,
or how do you want to proceed?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Let's hear our registered speaker.
MR. MILLER: Carl Kuehner. You have three minutes, sir.
MR. KUEHNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, Mr. Kuehner. Especially, sir, if
you sat with us.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, he's here in person, so
we'll decide not to let him go. How about that?
MR. KUEHNER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: I was making a joke, Carl.
MR. KUEHNER: Okay. Councilwoman Taylor,
Commissioners, I didn't know why -- the reason was it was taken off
the consent agenda. So while I'm here, let me give you a little bit of
background. I'm 80 years old. For the last 50 years I've been a real
estate developer and an investor. During that period of time, I've
developed subdivisions from two lots to 2,000 lots. For the last 30
years, I've been a resident of Collier County.
During that period of time, I've served on the Affordable
Housing Commission, the Homeless Advisory Committee, the Select
Committee on Community Character. In addition, I was vice
chairman of the City of Naples planning board, also helped initiate
and served on the Design Review Board.
I spent 22 years in Immokalee in that point developing three
projects there: Sanders Pines, Timber Ridge, and Esperanza,
January 26, 2021
Page 178
totaling 112 units for very low-income farm working families.
I also raised the money for and built what is today called the Carl J.
Kuehner Community Center which is in the area called El Rata, The
Rat; not exactly a high-income area, and that has done very, very
well. Been leased to RCMA, and they run their programs out of
there.
From a non-profit perspective, I've served as chair of Immokalee
Non-Profit Housing, Florida Non-Profit Services. And also in
Naples, the Greater Naples Leadership I chaired; Forum Club,
chaired; and also, not in the area, but the University of Scranton I
chaired as well.
So I guess my point is, briefly, I have a lot of experience, 50
years' worth of experience in this, and so I would very much like to
serve, and I think it's really a matter up to you.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I noticed that the committee did
pick -- their selections were from the real estate industry, which I
think is very smart because this is about land acquisition. So it's
probably a lot more than being ecologically sensitive. It has to do
with the price of land and what you're buying, which is a talent unto
itself, but we'll see.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll see next month.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yep.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We can belabor the point.
We don't need to belabor the point any more right now. We'll just
move forward and discuss it next month.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Well, I want you to know
Mr. Kuehner has been well trained, because in the city they interview
committee members and -- when the Commission makes a decision.
But on this case, because you were interviewed, there was no need to
January 26, 2021
Page 179
be here, but thank you, sir, for being here.
MR. KUEHNER: My pleasure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Can I just ask, is it out of the
protocol bounds to be asking these -- when the -- these different
committees recommend to us, that we get some sort of, you know,
just maybe a little short narrative, these four people because they
thought they were a good cohesive mix or they -- you know, we have
a relationship with them, or anything like that so we don't just get
four highlighted names, or that's not the norm or it's --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the current practice is just to give
you the recommendation. If you want something more, if that's the
will of the Board, certainly we can do that as well.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: You know, I just don't think
it's out of the norm to, you know, not ask them for 10 paragraphs or
anything, but say, you know, the reason w hy these four people were
selected were because or, you know, just any communicative, you
know, narrative they could give us that would just, you know, help us
feel better about how they were vetted, I guess.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Just as a point, I heavily rely
upon committee recommendations. I want people that are already
serving on our advisory committees to be vetting and going through
the process. All of the decisions ultimately come to us -- to us as the
Board to make the decision as to who's on there. Again, utmost
respect to everybody who's applied and the folks that are on there.
It's just, I was looking at the district disparity and --
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yeah, you're trusting them
implicitly, and they left you out, so...
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: They did. So there's a -- and
I think there may be even a matter of semantics with Sally's
submission of her application, when it was there. I'm not sure. I
January 26, 2021
Page 180
think I actually read something --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: It came in after.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: She was submitted after the
committee had reviewed the applications of the others, so...
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. There was the -- the committee
vetted, made their decisions, and between that time and the time the
agenda went hard, we received this application, so we included it.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Put it in as a process. And,
henceforth, I pulled it. We'll talk about it next month, and
then -- and maybe, just as an aside, as we're talking about policy
going forward, it would be -- it would be -- for these seven-member
committees, that we have an appointee from each district.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'd have to change all of your
ordinances. You only have a handful of ordinances that have
commission seats on them. Your Productivity Committee now has
it, and your Planning Commission has it. Everybody else is at large.
And I will tell you that it is very difficult filling these committees
with the commission seats. We don't get enough applicants.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We could do one ordinance
as policy for all of our advisory boards.
MR. KLATZKOW: You will have absolute, total vacancies on
half of your boards then. We get very few applications for the bulk
of your boards.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I think the point is well taken on
this one, especially I'm thinking of some of the things that have been
coming up in terms of Conservation Collier and where -- the
emphasis on the property. And, Commissioner McDaniel, you bring
this up frequently, I think, of where -- what's the emphasis, what
properties are we always looking at as opposed to are they rural
properties, Eastern Collier County, or are we looking at things in the
urban area. There may be a reason to do it otherwise for this
January 26, 2021
Page 181
particular one just to make sure we get all that considered.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Can we make that judgment?
Maybe I'll whip up a quick alternative to adjust the committee
structure so that we -- for this particular committee, and I don't mind
doing that by our next meeting. And I know you've got to --
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Well, we could talk about it.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: I'm not sure I want to go there, but I
think -- I think right now we just want to look at it again i n two
weeks.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We'll see where you -- I'm
good with that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: County Manager?
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: We did vote on it, didn't we?
I think 5-0 we voted to do that, continue it.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Very good.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications. I had just a couple items real
quickly. The first is to remind you that you have a workshop
scheduled with your CRA agency on April the 6th at 9:00.
Secondly, I had sent a memo to all of you yesterday regarding
the staff analysis so far on alternative locations that you had asked us
to look into for the One Naples hearing on March 1st. Again, just to
summarize, the organizations or the locations that were noncounty
locations were not available either because they had conflicts or they
had a policy of not hosting large groups due to the ongoing COVID
January 26, 2021
Page 182
pandemic concerns right now.
The other two county locations were both the Veterans Park and
the North Regional Park, neither of which, in our view, offered any
significant advantages to this location here on the campus, and, of
course, as you know, the North Regional Park is the state-designated
site for our COVID vaccination program through the Health
Department. So I think we want to try to avoid as many conflicts out
there as we can.
So that -- you got the report. That's essentially what it says.
So if you want to change the location from this location, we'll
probably have to look at some other alternatives. We actually went
beyond the three sites that you asked us to look to include the Naples
High School and also Covenant Presbyterian Church who has large
meeting space, but they were not available to us either. So unless I
hear differently, we're scheduled right now to hold that hearing in this
chambers.
And then, finally, for me, Commissioners, I'd like to ask
Ms. Price to step up and briefly introduce our new Information
Technology Director to you.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Apropos.
MR. OCHS: Len.
MS. PRICE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This sounds
really muffled. When I can't understand myself, I don't know how
you could possibly understand me.
Len Price, Administrator for Administrative Services, for the
record.
And if you indulge me for a moment, I'd like to introduce you to
Sanjay Saggere, who is our new county CIO and IT director. He is
educated in Mumbai, holds an engineering degree and an MBA. He
brings us a rich experience in delivering high-quality best-value
products from both -- with a customer centric orientation, and he has
January 26, 2021
Page 183
both public and private experience.
He's been a presenter at many a national conference on
cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. He holds certifications in
cybersecurity, in advance -- in application portfolio management, and
he's a certified government CIO from two different universities. We
are delighted to have Sanjay as part of our team, and w e look forward
to his ideas and his leadership in the future.
And let me please introduce Sanjay.
MR. SAGGERE: Thank you, Len.
Good afternoon. My name is Sanjay Saggere.
First, to add to what Len has just shared with you, I had the humble
honor of being introduced by CISecurity.org as the first, if not the
only, CIO yet to have acquired the holy trinity of IT leadership
certifications, which are certified government CIO, certified chief
information security officer, and the Project Management Institut e's
portfolio management professional.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It's the trifecta.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: Hey, quit bragging. No.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: If you keep it up, we're going
to be expecting things from you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: It ain't bragging if it's true, right?
MR. SAGGERE: Thus, I bring to Collier County a security
conscious yet business outcome centric, stakeholder engagement
focus, and a customer satisfaction oriented agile approach to IT
leadership.
Second, as we speak, I've hit the ground running, and I'm in the
process of setting up stakeholder meetings to better understand our
departments' business goals, their technology requirements, and how
we can collaborate to align our strategic roadmaps with the county's
master plan.
I'm actively looking for proof of concepts and proof of value
January 26, 2021
Page 184
efforts to demonstrate real world users for advanced technologies
such as Drones, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Smart
Cities, and Smart Communities, and other such projects that deliver
significant value while adhering to your guiding principles of driving
substantial collaboration, enhancing quality of customer service, and
stewardship of taxpayers' dollars.
I have a very good IT team, and we have already begun
unleashing simple, subtle yet significant digital transformations on
the cybersecurity, collaboration, and communications front, and these
in sync with not only local government -- local governments similar
to Collier County but also industry wide best practices and
world-class standards.
And, finally, I look forward to working closely together with my
peers as of -- as part of Collier County's senior leadership team and
also meeting with each of you individually to talk about any
particular areas of interest you'd like to share in leveraging IT
resources for setting community expectations, delivering business
outcomes, and enabling accomplishment of your strategic objectives.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Sanjay.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: Before you run, one of the
things that we've been very concerned about, obviously, is
cybersecurity and some of the problems that local governments have
had, and we've had some of our fair share of those problems as well.
I'm wondering if -- Mr. Ochs, if you could have as an agenda
item a discussion of what steps we're going to be taking. We'll give
you a couple months to really get into everything, but come back to
us as an agenda item, let us know what we're doing for cybersecurity,
what we need to do in terms of budgets and that sort of thing, because
we'll be in the budget process, and that's an area that we really, I
think, need to spend a lot of time and attention.
January 26, 2021
Page 185
MR. OCHS: We appreciate that opportunity. Look forward to
that, Commissioner. We'll get that scheduled on a future board
meeting. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Is -- County Manager, is now the
time -- do we need to discuss the vulnerability we have for streaming
from the public --
MR. OCHS: Well --
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: -- during the --
MR. OCHS: Well, I had a conversation with Commissioner
McDaniel yesterday. He was going to bring up some IT suggestions.
So it's timely that Sanjay is here. I think what I'll do is have him just
sit in the front row and wait for commissioner comments, and if
anything comes up in terms of IT, we'll be ready to have that
discussion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: All right. We'll start with
Commissioner Solis.
MR. SAGGERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Other than to say welcome aboard,
Sanjay, I've got nothing other than to say that I'd love to stay but you
must be going. The words of Groucho Marx.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner LoCastro.
COMMISSIONER LoCASTRO: I want to just piggyback on
something that our County Attorney said, his exact quote, we get
very few applications for these advisory boards. So I don't know if
anybody at home's watching, and we only have a small crowd here,
but I think it behooves all of us to shake the trees for people like
Sally who you think highly of, and I've got a few people on the list
that I've been sort of reaching out to, and rather than just sort of
leaving it to, you know, whoever sort of applies and m ake sure we
steer some of those folks, too, so we have a competition, and then we
also get the best people.
January 26, 2021
Page 186
And then, secondly, I just wanted to say, when I sat in the
audience as a candidate, one of the things I was always curious about
is, how do they vote so quickly on the consent agenda? There was a
million things in there. Now that sitting up here -- and Mr. Ochs and
I had this conversation -- I really want to thank the staff, how
responsive they are, because now I see that we have plenty of time t o
get the consent agenda. And I've been reaching out for different
things, but they've been just -- sense of urgency, you know, asking
things.
So if anybody watches at home and says, wow, you know, they
just say, all in favor, aye, and then we move forward, trust me, now
that I sit up here, we read everything, we have the entire county staff
at our fingerprints, and they respond within minutes. And so these
aren't things we haven't read, whether it was Caxambas that we voted
on quickly or some other things.
So I want to, you know, thank staff and assure everybody that
we all do a deep dive and we have the ability to pull anything out of
the consent agenda at any time if we want it to be a much deeper
discussion, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner Saunders.
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS: I don't have anything to add.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Commissioner McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: First off, I want our new IT
director's personal cell phone. When I hit the button on my
computer and it's not working, I want somebody to be fixing it.
MR. OCHS: It could be operator error, sir.
COMMISSIONER McDANIEL: Oh, no, I am capable of OE.
But I did have a discussion with the County Manager yesterday -- and
I'll be brief. I know you have to go, Commissioner Solis .
I want to -- we're in a new age. The Governor extended the
capacity for virtual attendance and quorums to be able to effectuate
January 26, 2021
Page 187
public meetings. I am not totally thrilled with virtual meetings, but
I'm not in opposition either. I'm actually seeing validity in that.
And I would like for an enhancement of our technology all the way
across the board. The County Manager looked at me pretty squarely
yesterday because he said, well, what are you talking about? And I
said, go to the school board's chambers and tell me what they have.
And I was like -- and, of course, you know, that was an interesting
look I got out of our County Manager.
But this dais, these speakers, people are coming to the
microphone, and without a policy that you remove your mask before
you start to talk, people -- my mother's been chirping today because
she can't understand some of the people that are actually coming to
the podium and speaking through the mask. We've got -- there are
microphone enhancements that can be done. There's video. I'd
really like to be able to see our public speakers when they're
speaking. And I'd like -- I just want -- I would just like to have an
overview and an increase of technology. The availability of
technology is off the chart, and I think it would be a fine investment
for better conducting government business.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Thank you. Nothing from me. So
seeing that, we're adjourned.
**** Commissioner LoCastro moved, seconded by Commissioner
Taylor and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MILANO LAKES - PHASE II, PL20180001733,
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
January 26, 2021
Page 188
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $11,194 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MILANO LAKES APARTMENTS PHASE III,
PL20180002475, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $15,946.80 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR ESPLANADE AT HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 4A,
PL20190000416 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER FACILITIES FOR ALDI GROCERY STORE AT
TAMIAMI CROSSING, PL20190000880, ACCEPT THE
January 26, 2021
Page 189
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 $7,136.44 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE POTABLE WATER AND
SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES AND ACCEPT THE
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF THE SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE MIDGARD NAPLES BOAT & SELF-
STORAGE FACILITY, PL20200000503
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ISLES OF COLLIER
PRESERVE PHASE 15 (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20200001712) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF NATIONAL GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB AT AVE MARIA, PHASE 2, (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20200001505) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
January 26, 2021
Page 190
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A8
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
PL20180001468 FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH BRIARWOOD
APARTMENTS MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A9
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-
OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL
113RDUE) AND A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
(PARCEL 113TCE) REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND MARBELLA LAKES DRIVE
CONNECTION (PROJECT NO. 60219) – W/GUSTO BELLA VITA
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
Item #16A10
EXTENDING, AND PROVIDING FOR AUTOMATIC
RENEWALS THEREAFTER, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT (“NCFD”) FOR FIRE PLANS REVIEW AND
INSPECTION SERVICES, AND TO PROVIDE NCFD WITH
OFFICE SPACE FOR ITS FIRE PLANS REVIEW STAFF IN THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION (“GMD”) BUILDING
January 26, 2021
Page 191
Item #16A11
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $10,230.13 FOR PAYMENT OF $575.13
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION TITLED, BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. ANTONIO FERREIRA AND
THERESA FERREIRA, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 5124 24TH AVE SW, NAPLES, FLORIDA – THE PROPERTY
WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON MARCH 29, 2016
Item #16A12
TIME EXTENSION TO CONTRACT AMENDMENTS FOR
AGREEMENT #4600004128 FOR THE GRIFFIN ROAD
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (#60196),
AGREEMENT #4600004125 FREEDOM PARK STORMWATER
CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (#60102), AND
AGREEMENT #4600003762 FOR THE WEST GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD AREA JOINT STORMWATER-SEWER PROJECT
(#60142) BETWEEN THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND COLLIER COUNTY - DUE TO
UNFORESEEN DELAYS IN THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
AND BIDDING OF PROJECTS
Item #16A13
MODIFICATION TO SUBGRANT AGREEMENT NO. H0393
WITH THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT TO JULY 31,
2022, FOR THE GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD DRAINAGE
DITCH. (PROJECT NO. 60102)
January 26, 2021
Page 192
Item #16B1
AN ENLARGEMENT OF THE INFORMAL COMPETITION
AMOUNT BEYOND THE $50,000 THRESHOLD AS PROVIDED
IN PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE NO. 2013-69, AS AMENDED,
TO A PURCHASE ORDER ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO LYKINS
SIGNTEK & DEVELOPMENT SPECIALTIES, INC., AND
APPROVE THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE PURCHASE ORDER TO
THE NEW ENTITY, PROJECT COMBO, INC., D/B/A LYKINS
SIGNTEK DEVELOPMENT SPECIALTIES, LLC TO ALLOW
THE COMPLETION OF THE ONGOING IMMOKALEE
WELCOME SIGNAGE PROJECT LOCATED IN THE
IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THE
TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER AMOUNT FOR THESE SERVICES
WILL BE $54,814 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C1
AN AGREEMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (“RFP”) NO.
20-7792, “FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES,” TO
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. – FOR USER
RATE STUDIES, IMPACT FEE RATE STUDIES AND OTHER
TYPES OF FINANCIAL ANALYSES
Item #16C2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID NO. 20-7810, NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY RETURN MIXED LIQUOR
PUMP SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $885,393.91,
January 26, 2021
Page 193
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT (PROJECT NO. 70148)
Item #16C3
THE FINAL RANKING OF DESIGN-BUILD FIRMS AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO COMMENCE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE TOP-RANKED TEAM, WHICH CONSISTS OF QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES,
P.A., AND PELICAN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR
REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“RPS”) NO. 20-
7760, DESIGN-BUILD PUMP STATION EMERGENCY POWER
RESILIENCY
Item #16D1 – Continued to February 23, 2021 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO REPEAL AND REPLACE
RESOLUTION NO. 87-200 TO UPDATE AND MODERNIZE THE
COLLECTIONS MANAGEMENT POLICY FOR THE MUSEUM
DIVISION
Item #16D2
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE AND
BRING BACK FOR ADOPTION AT A LATER MEETING, AN
ORDINANCE CREATING THE PALM RIVER SIDEWALK
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU) TO INSTALL
SIDEWALKS IN THE PALM RIVER ESTATES COMMUNITY
Item #16D3
January 26, 2021
Page 194
THE THIRD EXTENSION OF THE INTERIM MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER CAMP KEAIS
STRAND PARCELS
Item #16D4
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER MCILVANE MARSH
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-YEAR EXTENSION UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM
Item #16D5
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER RED MAPLE SWAMP
PRESERVE INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN 2-YEAR
EXTENSION UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
PROGRAM
Item #16D6
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER WET WOODS PRESERVE
MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-YEAR UPDATE UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM
Item #16D7
ACCEPTANCE OF A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARD
(AWARD AMOUNTS NOT YET ANNOUNCED) AND APPROVE
AN AFTER-THE-FACT EXECUTION OF THE AWARD TERMS
AS A CONDITION OF FUNDING ACCEPTANCE, AUTHORIZE
TWO TEMPORARY FULL-TIME STAFF AND ALLOW THE
January 26, 2021
Page 195
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN ANY
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UPON ARRIVAL; AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT. THE
FUNDING WILL PROVIDE RENTAL AND UTILITY
ASSISTANCE TO COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS
Item #16D8
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SETTLEMENT FUNDS TO OFFSET
THE ANNUAL $100 OFF- ROAD VEHICLE RIDING PERMIT
FEE ASSESSED BY THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE
BY FIFTY PERCENT (50%) FOR COLLIER COUNTY
RESIDENTS TO PROVIDE RIDING OPPORTUNITIES AT THE
PRESERVE AND TO SUNSET RESOLUTION NO. 2012-110 AS
AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COLLIER COUNTY
ATV PARK AD HOC COMMITTEE, AND APPROVE ANY
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16E1
MODIFICATIONS TO THE 2021 FISCAL YEAR PAY &
CLASSIFICATION PLAN WHICH CONSIST OF THREE
RECLASSIFICATIONS MADE FROM OCTOBER 1, 2020
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2020
Item #16E2
STAFF’S REPORT FOR THE SALE OF 76 ITEMS AND
DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$475,250 ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS
January 26, 2021
Page 196
AUCTION HELD ON DECEMBER 11 AND 12, 2020
Item #16E3
A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF
MULLIN COUGHLIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
LEGAL ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, AND RESPONSE TO
POTENTIAL DATA SECURITY INCIDENTS AS REQUIRED BY
THE COUNTY’S CYBER INSURANCE CARRIER, AXA XL
CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY
Item #16E4
AWARD RFP NO. 20-7814 COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICES
TO RTR FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., FOR COUNTYWIDE
COLLECTION OF UNPAID ACCOUNTS
Item #16E5
A FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON,
ET. AL. TO CLOSE ALL REMAINING OPEN CLAIMS ARISING
FROM HURRICANE IRMA IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,477,306.38
Item #16E6
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY THE
PROCUREMENT SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS
AND OTHER CONTRACTUAL MODIFICATIONS REQUIRING
BOARD APPROVAL
January 26, 2021
Page 197
Item #16F1
RECOGNIZING STEVE ATHEY, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
INSPECTOR, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS
THE 2020 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
Item #16F2
RECOGNIZING BRITTNEY MAHON, HUMAN RESOURCES
MANAGER, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AS
THE 2020 SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2021-14: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16J1
EXECUTION OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $450,000
RECOGNIZING CARRYFORWARD FOR FUND (602)
CONFISCATED TRUST FUND INTO FY2021 BUDGET
Item #16J2
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 31, 2020 AND
January 26, 2021
Page 198
JANUARY 13, 2021 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J3
BOARD APPROVED AND DETERMINE VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE FOR INVOICES PAYABLE AND PURCHASING
CARD TRANSACTIONS AS OF JANUARY 20, 2021
Item #16K1
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION’S REQUEST TO WAIVE
ANY POTENTIAL ETHICS CONFLICT FOR A MEMBER OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD BASED ON CH. 112, FLORIDA STATUTES
– REGARDING JOSH FRUTH WHO IS THE VICE-PRESIDENT
OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, WHO HAS AN ENGINEERING
CONTRACT WITH COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2021-15: SETTING THE BALLOTING DATE FOR
THE RECOMMENDATION OF MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN
BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD BY RECORD TITLE
OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN PELICAN BAY – DATE SET
FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2021
Item #16K3
A JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,750 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
PARCELS 103RDUE AND 103TCE2, PLUS $561.99 FOR ALL
January 26, 2021
Page 199
STATUTORY ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT FEES, AND
COSTS, PLUS $3,000 FOR ALL SUPPLEMENTAL
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS NOT PROVIDED FOR, IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
V. GOLDEN LAND PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL., CASE NO. 14 -CA-
1291 AND AUTHORIZE REQUIRED BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
(PROJECT NO. 60123)
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2021-16: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT
KAUFFMAN, GERALD LEFEBVRE AND DANNY BLANCO TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Item #16K5 – Moved to Item #12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K6
RESOLUTION 2021-17: RE-APPOINTING MARIA
SCHOENFELDER AND HARRY WILSON TO THE RADIO
ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16K7
RESOLUTION 2021-18: APPOINTING CECILIA ZENTI AND J.B.
HOLMES TO THE GOLDEN GATE CITY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ZONE ADVISORY BOARD
Item #17A
THIS ITEM IS BEING CONTINUED TO THE FEBRUARY 23,
January 26, 2021
Page 200
2021 BCC MEETING. 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
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2021-19: PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY
January 26, 2021
Page 201
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]
Item #17C
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW
COMMUNICATION TOWERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN
THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT, TO CLARIFY THAT
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RMF-6
ZONING DISTRICT AND TO CREATE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR HOUSING THAT IS AFFORDABLE, TO
MODIFY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY
January 26, 2021
Page 202
ANCILLARY SYSTEMS (PUAS) ENCLOSURES, AND TO
CORRECT CITATIONS AND UPDATE TEXT, 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 FOUR – SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS; CHAPTER FIVE – SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS; CHAPTER TEN – APPLICATION, REVIEW, AND
DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES, AND APPENDIX A-
STANDARD PERFORMANCE SECURITY DOCUMENTS FOR
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT
AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE – FIRST READING
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2021-20: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A GOVERNMENT SAFETY
SERVICE FACILITY FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES WITHIN THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT
WITH A WELLFIELD RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONE W-4 (ST/W-4), PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 2.03.01.B.1.C.8 AND 2.01.03.G.1.E. OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A
5.46+/- ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD AND DESOTO BOULEVARD IN SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
January 26, 2021
Page 203
FLORIDA. [PL20190002680]
Item 17E
RESOLUTION 2021-21: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FY20-21 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:50 p.m.
January 26, 2021
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
PE Y TA OR, C AIRMAN
ATTEST
CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK
- hes as' irtri's
',11gn `urn only.
These minutes approv d by the Board on 02 a3/�( , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF FORT MYERS
COURT REPORTING BY TERRI LEWIS, FPR, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 204